Deakins is a legend, but Villememe obviously demanded big, dull, and lifeless, like he does in every movie he's ever made
reminder that Deakins did Big Lebowski, Hudsucker Proxy, NCFOM, Kundun, and several others
Hudsucker Proxy in particular, while not a great movie, has some of the best photography you will ever see
it takes a long time to set up a shot like what is on the left
fiddling around with lights, smoke emiters, flame bars, tape measures, light meters, etc and all the while the rest of the crew is standing around doing nothing and being paid by the hour
(especially when the cinematographer is already moving quite slowly due to undiagnosed parkinsons as Jordan Cronenworth was, he was fired from Buckaroo Banzai because of this but the scene in the nightclub was shot by him and looks great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF_Ed1pt_WA)
and they just dont seem to want to go in for that anymore, a lot of film these days look like it was shot for television
There is a series of films that came out in the 1980s that I like to call 'neonwave': Thief, Blade Runner, Terminator, Streets of Fire, and the series Miami Vice
Any others that could qualify?
The entire craft of mainstream filmmaking just died. Cheap, sterile, low-effort, flat, lifeless, unoriginal. The situation is worse than you can imagine.
I don't get this comparison at all, the left has a bunch of different scenes showing LA's nightlife, the right is 3 shots inside an apartment, and one in an abandoned casino. BR2049 has some great shots of LA's nightlife why didn't you use those?
For what it's worth, Blade Runner 2049 is still one of the best-looking films of the 21st century. But the difference in art direction shows how much the philosophy of filmmaking changed from when the first one was made. It's intentionally liminal. The original is very complex, textured, cluttered with environmental details and smoke, etc. Nowadays movies don't bother with that. You can just film quickly and do everything with digital effects. BR2049 does an exceptional job with what it set out to do but the visual style and craftsmanship is still inferior to the original film.
My problem, and that's one of the reasons why people call it pretentious, is that the visuals feel completely inorganic and overcomposed. It hints at meaning where there's little. It misdirects your eye. Unearned grandeur.
The original certainly has 2049 beat on every department but 2049 is not bad. Heck, considering it´s a totally unneeded sequel it´s quite thoughtful and respectful.
The original takes after noir movies and build it´s light design around heavy contrast in values all the while the art design is meant to convey an exotic yet oppressive feeling. This is a visual style designed to convey the ideas of exploration and contemplation. The movie has a parsimonious rhythm too full of slow scenes and serene music which certainly conveys introspection.
For his part Villeneuve decides against making 2049 just another nostalgia cashgrab and instead of making a poor attempt at imitating Scott´s masterpiece he chooses to build on it. So, instead of focusing on value (light and shadow) he focuses on the element that naturally follows, color.
Instead of focusing on if androids have souls, which was the original film´s point, he accepts they do and pose a new question. But are they unique? Are they individuals. To that effect instead of making a mystery he makes his film a journey of self discovery. It was absolutely the right decision.
I think what bothered me about 2049 is that it still has the same themes as the original film. The story is different yes, but the point of it is largely the same
It´s certainly built over the same idea but i would say it´s more like the continuation of a thought process. If the original questions what makes us human, 2049 questions what makes us who we are individually. I believe the idea was probably to consider and respect Scott´s intent that´s why even though the film is not quite at the level of the original i see it as a worthwhile movie that should not be belittled.
It's the same fricking scene in a room 3 times you fricking moron.
No it's not
lack of effort
Hackins
and Villememe
That's like drowning a movie in disinfectants.
Deakins is a legend, but Villememe obviously demanded big, dull, and lifeless, like he does in every movie he's ever made
reminder that Deakins did Big Lebowski, Hudsucker Proxy, NCFOM, Kundun, and several others
Hudsucker Proxy in particular, while not a great movie, has some of the best photography you will ever see
I don't like his work.
>Hudsucker Proxy
Awesome visual style with this movie, like a 1940s cartoon set in New York. Movie would be more famous if the title wasn't shit
i dont think so i think what people idealize has changed you can clearly see people have become more comfy based in their fantasies
Soulless vs. Soul
(You) ruined it
2049 still looks good in it's own right.
Digital vs Film
CGI vs Practical effects
Streaming "content" mindset slowly pervading the industry from financing through all aspects of production
it takes a long time to set up a shot like what is on the left
fiddling around with lights, smoke emiters, flame bars, tape measures, light meters, etc and all the while the rest of the crew is standing around doing nothing and being paid by the hour
(especially when the cinematographer is already moving quite slowly due to undiagnosed parkinsons as Jordan Cronenworth was, he was fired from Buckaroo Banzai because of this but the scene in the nightclub was shot by him and looks great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF_Ed1pt_WA)
and they just dont seem to want to go in for that anymore, a lot of film these days look like it was shot for television
People watermarking images they've stolen belong in labor camps.
There is a series of films that came out in the 1980s that I like to call 'neonwave': Thief, Blade Runner, Terminator, Streets of Fire, and the series Miami Vice
Any others that could qualify?
To live and die in LA?
black rain
Yep, another Ridley Scott film with incredible photography. Every frame feels lived-in.
definitely Manhunter
Chopping Mall
villenueve is awful outside sicario
what happened to refraining from obvious cherrypicking
The entire craft of mainstream filmmaking just died. Cheap, sterile, low-effort, flat, lifeless, unoriginal. The situation is worse than you can imagine.
the last movie i can remember that used shadows well was the lighthouse
NO THIS IS JUST CHERRYPICKING
Then show us something new that looks beautiful.
Pacific Rim
The Tree of Life
The Great Beauty
The Young Pope
Avatar
>new
All of that is over a decade old, except The Young Pope, which looks bland, but nice try anyway.
I don't get this comparison at all, the left has a bunch of different scenes showing LA's nightlife, the right is 3 shots inside an apartment, and one in an abandoned casino. BR2049 has some great shots of LA's nightlife why didn't you use those?
Villememe loves these gapingly empty images somehow.
Scott isn't always great but usually delivers without it feeling obnoxiously tryhard.
Napoleon had too much blue tint
forced aesthetic
forced meme
For what it's worth, Blade Runner 2049 is still one of the best-looking films of the 21st century. But the difference in art direction shows how much the philosophy of filmmaking changed from when the first one was made. It's intentionally liminal. The original is very complex, textured, cluttered with environmental details and smoke, etc. Nowadays movies don't bother with that. You can just film quickly and do everything with digital effects. BR2049 does an exceptional job with what it set out to do but the visual style and craftsmanship is still inferior to the original film.
My problem, and that's one of the reasons why people call it pretentious, is that the visuals feel completely inorganic and overcomposed. It hints at meaning where there's little. It misdirects your eye. Unearned grandeur.
This movie is live action GITS tier. It's not even close to the original Blade Runner
plebs think this passes as artistic, so there's no reason for him to do anything creative.
>drowning the Dutch hottie
Booooo!
This turns me off his work so hard. Biggest thing i hate about it is it serves no purpose other than too look pretty.
They got too expensive to make, your pic very much related. Think about the budgeting that went into each one of those shots.
The original certainly has 2049 beat on every department but 2049 is not bad. Heck, considering it´s a totally unneeded sequel it´s quite thoughtful and respectful.
The original takes after noir movies and build it´s light design around heavy contrast in values all the while the art design is meant to convey an exotic yet oppressive feeling. This is a visual style designed to convey the ideas of exploration and contemplation. The movie has a parsimonious rhythm too full of slow scenes and serene music which certainly conveys introspection.
For his part Villeneuve decides against making 2049 just another nostalgia cashgrab and instead of making a poor attempt at imitating Scott´s masterpiece he chooses to build on it. So, instead of focusing on value (light and shadow) he focuses on the element that naturally follows, color.
Instead of focusing on if androids have souls, which was the original film´s point, he accepts they do and pose a new question. But are they unique? Are they individuals. To that effect instead of making a mystery he makes his film a journey of self discovery. It was absolutely the right decision.
I think what bothered me about 2049 is that it still has the same themes as the original film. The story is different yes, but the point of it is largely the same
It´s certainly built over the same idea but i would say it´s more like the continuation of a thought process. If the original questions what makes us human, 2049 questions what makes us who we are individually. I believe the idea was probably to consider and respect Scott´s intent that´s why even though the film is not quite at the level of the original i see it as a worthwhile movie that should not be belittled.
2049 looks great though
Villeneuve's style is too cold and clinical, like going to a doctors office. It certainly doesn't feel like a real lived in world.