Blade Runner 2049

[neorichieb1971]

Was a good movie. Some of the Tv/monitor tech is worth another gander on another run through it. Some screens were flat like today, but others were reminiscent of the originals CRT's.

If I had to knock the movie for something it would be the incredible coincidences around the main storyline. I know the movie went in another direction after a while but the idea that Gosling is the one seems a little far fetched to me. Like 1 in 20 billion.

Another observation that made me laugh a few times was how a flying car lands. Its like a dog that walks 3 times in a circle before it lays down. Instead of the car just lowering to the ground it does this swirly 3 loop landing on every single occurrence. Its obvious the car has the tech to land straight down so done for effect more than anything.

8.5/10.

[dan76]

Maybe Vanegelis' original score goes under my head, but I generally dismiss people that say the 2049 score is "a mere derivative of the original" as not really knowing much about music. Vangelis' score doesn't have a single saw wave in the whole fucking thing. There's my 1 liner response.

I don't understand the saw wave comment - please explain for the guy who doesn't know much about music. The original composer for 2049 was "let go" because the director wanted a more Vangelis type score. A lot of the sounds are trying to capture that feel of the original.

[supergrafx77]

Some of the Tv/monitor tech is worth another gander on another run through it. Some screens were flat like today, but others were reminiscent of the originals CRT's.

I noticed that too. I need to go see the movie again while it's still in theaters to have another gander myself.

I thought I noticed the Crts being used in the professional equipment, whereas the flats were used in the what would be considered, "consumer goods," throughout the movie. Reminiscent to how hospitals kept using crts for high end applications when the public had already moved on to the flats produced for the masses.

Edit: Another thought is that the professionally used crts could have been analogue in nature, not connected to the web and not liable for outside hacking by nefarious forces.
Same way the Pentagon and military use copper telephone lan lines to this day, in case satellites were to go down and they could establish connectivity in a given disaster/compromise.

[GaijinPunch]

I don't understand the saw wave comment - please explain for the guy who doesn't know much about music. The original composer for 2049 was "let go" because the director wanted a more Vangelis type score. A lot of the sounds are trying to capture that feel of the original.

When synthesizing a sound, you use waves as frequencies to sculpt the sound. Generally you usually start with a regular sin wave, which gives a very smooth sound. Saw waves (or sawtooth waves) on the other hand, will give it a more rough texture. Plenty of smoothness in 2049, but not so much in the tracks for the bad guys.

[dan76]

I don't understand the saw wave comment - please explain for the guy who doesn't know much about music. The original composer for 2049 was "let go" because the director wanted a more Vangelis type score. A lot of the sounds are trying to capture that feel of the original.

When synthesizing a sound, you use waves as frequencies to sculpt the sound. Generally you usually start with a regular sin wave, which gives a very smooth sound. Saw waves (or sawtooth waves) on the other hand, will give it a more rough texture. Plenty of smoothness in 2049, but not so much in the tracks for the bad guys.

I always thought a saw wave was the basis for a lot of the old analogue string synths in the 70's. I know that I've been trying to capture that sound myself and mucking about (somewhat aimlessly) has kind of worked. Its harsh but with a chorus it gives a very smooth sound.

The original score has quite a few different synths on it, I'm not sure what Vangelis used but there's certainly string synths in there.

Anyhow, I thought the soundtrack for 2049 worked really well in the film, but it certainly leaned heavily on Vangelis' original score.

I went to a second screening and enjoyed it more than the first. I want it to make money.

[GaijinPunch]

I always thought a saw wave was the basis for a lot of the old analogue string synths in the 70's. I know that I've been trying to capture that sound myself and mucking about (somewhat aimlessly) has kind of worked. Its harsh but with a chorus it gives a very smooth sound.

It does depend on the synthesizer and if what the waveform is being used for. Look for a Youtube video on the Ableton Live plugin Operator. Any 101 tutorial should have an example.

Anyhow, I thought the soundtrack for 2049 worked really well in the film, but it certainly leaned heavily on Vangelis' original score.

Agreed, but there are parts of the 2049 that stand on it's own. Very little, if any agression in the original soundtrack, and there's plenty this time around. When I hear people dismissing the newer soundtrack as "the same as the original" I imagine people that think Dubstep, EDM, and Techno are all the same. You can find such a comment earlier in this thread, actually.

I went to a second screening and enjoyed it more than the first. I want it to make money.

Same.

[emphatic]

The new OST has a lot of typical Zimmer cues, but it works. He really was a good fit for it, well, at least I think so. The slow movement of the notes is very compelling and beautiful.

[Leandro]

I got free tickets this tuesday for Blade Runner 2049, but only for 2D sessions.

So I'm glad I finally used my free tickets today... Wonderful movie...

The soundtrack in some parts actually reminded me a lot of Akira's, with the loud noises on those strong moments... Also loved the magnificent cyberpunk landscape with the immense city buildings that swallow everything around... What a great time

[MintyTheCat]

I got free tickets this tuesday for Blade Runner 2049, but only for 2D sessions.

So I'm glad I finally used my free tickets today... Wonderful movie...

The soundtrack in some parts actually reminded me a lot of Akira's, with the loud noises on those strong moments... Also loved the magnificent cyberpunk landscape with the immense city buildings that swallow everything around... What a great time

It has the right emotions injected I feel too but I am not sure it is on the same level at akira's soundtrack. The 'winds over neo tokyo' song alone is mind blowing.
I agree, the cityscape and scale are impressive. I like the way that it feels bigger than the last BR film too but ends up feeling like a major capital city of today on steroids.

On the subject of waveforms: Sinusoid contains energy at a single harmonic - the fundamental. Square, Notch, Sawtooth all contain energy at different harmonics - some are at odd numbered of even multiples of the fundamental frequency but ONLY a Sinusoid contains all its energy at the fundamental. If you look up the frequency-domain for each signal's time-domain you will see this graphically or just hook up a scope or analysis program to the output of a synthesiser to see it in action.

Edit: found a diagram:

[Skykid]

I saw it.


SPOILERS: DON'T READ THIS POST IF YOU DON'T WANT NONE


Echoing Dan76 it was very good and I enjoyed it. It wasn't great.

Trivialities firstly: It looked nice enough, although having watched the original literally the night before I've never been so aware of how CGI is an empty shell compared to practical effects work. No matter how beautiful some of the imagery, the fact it only exists on a computer hard drive wasn't lost on me. You simply can't recreate Blade Runner's tangibility - that world you feel you can reach out and touch - without actually building it. Additionally, I didn't like that the world didn't exist outside of pockets. It seems to be some kind of modern movie sickness whereby they seemingly have the tools to dole you out universes, but end up giving you so much less than. Compared to 1982's Blade Runner world, where you felt as though Ford traversed an actual city, through markets and bars, back alleys and streets, corporate buildings and penthouses, apartments and rooftops, everything in 2049 felt massively constricted.

If we discount the special effects shots which involved aerial tours of the cityscape, the amount of actual outdoor environmental locales was seriously limited. There's a part where the prostitutes come over to K to pick him up, and he's standing in a small set under a roof with a few tables, and the camera doesn't get to roam anywhere outside of that. He walks once or twice down his own street, and spends a moment on an extremely dark rooftop. The junkyard is almost all CGI, the fight at the end is pitch black, and most of everything else is within police offices, apartment rooms, libraries of some kind, and various other buildings. I find CGI limits vision to the point where they believe the world will become tangible simply because you have special effects sequences to expand the area - but it never works because - as a practice - it's a fundamental error right off the bat.

Gosling was fine, his casting was fine. Most of the casting, in fact, was fine - but Robin Wright was a boo boo. She was tonally incorrect for the Blade Runner world and I didn't like her being in this at all. Her presence jarred.

Down to business then, I really respect the director for doing his own thing. Fuck, even though the product placement was a bit poorly realised (Sony, Coca Cola ok, Peugeot not ok) I respect Sony for allowing a movie to be released that's absolutely nothing like typical Hollywood fare. 2049 was, if nothing else, it's own beast, and I think it's fine for a director to move in a slightly different direction tonally and interpret the material as they wish.

Hampton Fancher's storyline was actually decent. It was a fairly good idea, bar a few elements that reached a bit, to have K make a journey into becoming an emotional being that was based on false beliefs. I actually thought that was a very nice touch. The only thing his script really lacked was strong dialogue. It was about as clinical as the movie itself. Never did we hear a line like "Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for" - and it needed these things. Jared Leto wasn't badly cast, but this apparent creative force of the largest Replicant corporation spent every scene mumbling nonsense like a madman, which is a far cry from the obvious intellect demonstrated by Tyrell. It was a bit unbelievable that someone so clearly unhinged could accomplish so much, and it didn't work for me at all.

I didn't think the music was Vangelis good, but I appreciated it for what it was. A touch more 'musicality' wouldn't have gone amiss. Creating feels in Blade Runner was very much about the depth of the score and what it achieved tonally for the visuals. The dark ripping synth and caustic bassline was less inspiring overall.

I couldn't help myself from thinking, around the time Deckard arrived, whether all this was absolutely necessary. Couldn't we just have another noir movie in a dystopian future, rather than attempt to extend characters who have been and gone. But that said it wasn't handled badly, probably because Fancher knows what he's doing.

And I thought the movie was pretty good overall. Certainly better than expected. I think the director has some grasp on the art of filmmaking, and despite some flaws around his actors and certain aspects of performance, he handled himself fairly well.

But the film wasn't a 'great movie'. Once again, the "best film I've ever seen" thing people like to bat about monthly, is nonsense.

So I'll end with my biggest criticism and the aspect I believe hurt the product most of all: editing.

Now I don't mind a slow film. I don't even mind a slow film that's 2 hours 20 minutes. But I don't like a slow film that's slow for the sake of it. 2049 is just too slow and too long for the relative simplicity of the storyline. The director's interpretation of Fancher's script appears to have included too much of its original content. Many directors will lose scenes in abundance - and I heard that 2049 originally had a 4 hour edit. But Villneuve appears to have a problem losing any single beautiful shot he's established. He just wouldn't let any of it go.

There were sequences and interactions between characters that either didn't need to be there at all, or needed to be cut differently to get the audience to the crux and meaning of the sequence. He just seemed to want everything to be in there. It was indulgent to a fault in places.

I could complain that the sterility of certain environments and lighting didn't actually fit Blade Runner well enough (it didn't) or that the rain was used in the wrong places (mainly CGI sequences and nowhere else at all) but these things are purely... aesthetic. What a director needs to do is engage the audience. I'm not saying original 1982 Blade Runner isn't slow, but compared to this is goes at breakneck speed.

Because the editing was lacking, the narrative didn't have enough flow. Sometimes we waited too long for a plot development to take root, and the brain starts meandering as to why we're waiting. And that's not quite right in my opinion. It certainly doesn't need to be a Michael Bay edit - you can hang on your pretty shots where you like - but some things MUST hit the cutting room floor for the greater good.

I would have easily lost 30 minutes from the movie. Maybe more. And feminists will hate me, but I thought his hologram girlfriend was poorly conceived and hurt the movie. She was pointless ultimately and occupied far too much screen time. I'd cut her from the movie wholesale like Jar Jar fucking Binks, and allow the personal journey of K and his realisation of some internal humanity to be the salient narrative thread. She was completely irrelevant and didn't need to be there at all.

The scene where he has sex with the prostitute, for example: can you imagine that scene minus the hologram? Just at the point where he had started to realise who he was, she followed him back to place the bug, and he allowed himself to be seduced. That would have been perfectly fine. The rest needed to go.

Anyway, that's about it from me. I'll go and watch it again because I think it deserves once more. It was after all, an actual film, at least; although a flawed one sadly enough.

It's certainly not on par with the original, but being nice I'd say it's a much more worthy follow up than almost every movie follow up that's been in the last three decades. Most certainly superior to the Alien and Terminator franchise, and for that I give it one thumb up. Just perhaps not two.

It's also MUCH more accomplished piece of film making than anything by Christopher Nolan, to answer an earlier query.

[GaijinPunch]

so aware of how CGI is an empty shell compared to practical effects work. No matter how beautiful some of the imagery, the fact it only exists on a computer hard drive wasn't lost on me. You simply can't recreate Blade Runner's tangibility - that world you feel you can reach out and touch - without actually building it.

actual city, through markets and bars, back alleys and streets, corporate buildings and penthouses, apartments and rooftops, everything in 2049 felt massively constricted.

Literally all of those, plus a junkyard, a casino, and two other "cities". You probably feel that way though, since the original made your mind fill in a gaps in almost every shot. It felt more encompassing (to you, anyway) b/c of a type of misdirection. There's not one well-lit scene in the original film, whereas this time we are shown everything... every corner of every room sometimes.

My reasoning for continuing reading this post is starting to sound like why i'd read my crazy ex girlfriends Facebook rants.

but Robin Wright was a boo boo. She was tonally incorrect for the Blade Runner world and I didn't like her being in this at all. Her presence jarred.

Okay, some sanity. Some have praised her, but other than the scene where she quite subtly showed K her balls (figuratively, of course!) I wasn't that impressed with her.

[Skykid]

Eh?

Where was that in the movie? I couldn't distinguish any practical effects from the CGI for the more obvious effects sequences. Were the aerial shots composites of practical and digital, because I could have sworn most of it was achieved by CGI?

The Casino is an indoor location. The Junkyard is mostly CGI (surely?!). The film had elements outside and I understand where you're coming from in terms of how it was lit, but I felt as though the majority of plot movement occurred within rooms or other confined spaces. It was a lot of offices, apartments, stations, houses and sterile rooms with girls inside that the film spent its time in motion. Very little plot wise occurred externally, it was mostly sequence shots. I liked that BR, dark though it was, staged a lot of its event sequences outdoors in 'the world' as it were. Noodle bars, whores hiding in trash bags, rooftop fights, alleyway stake outs, street shootouts and investigative work, and some bar lounging, amongst others. This one was sterile in comparison; less a tapestry and more a nice clean piece of graphic design.

[GaijinPunch]

Eh?

Where was that in the movie? I couldn't distinguish any practical effects from the CGI for the more obvious effects sequences. Were the aerial shots composites of practical and digital, because I could have sworn most of it was achieved by CGI?

All over the place -- google around. They said from early on they were using a ton of miniatures... obviously there was some CGI glue to hold it together (there always are now) but there were a lot of practical effects. This isn't a big revelation.

This one was sterile in comparison; less a tapestry and more a nice clean piece of graphic design.

This I give you half points on - it's not the same. For sure. It's definitely a more nice clean piece of graphic design... but that's what it was aiming to do, and I'd hardly call it sterile. Well, maybe I would, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The real world now compared to 30 years ago is similarly a lot cleaner... at least in most major US cities.

[Skykid]

I don't begrudge it for going it's own way aesthetically, you can already see that I said I respected the director for going his own way with it. For me it only occasionally fell out of what could be a Blade Runner world, but those instances were rare enough not to have a big impact.

I'll definitely look up the practical effects work because I'm really confused about where they were and how they were applied, but I'm standing firm on my criticism of uses of outdoor space and their relative linearity compared to the original.

All this aside, do you have any comments regarding my actual critique of the film where aesthetic isn't concerned?

[GaijinPunch]

I don't begrudge it for going it's own way aesthetically, you can already see that I said I respected the director for going his own way with it. For me it only occasionally fell out of what could be a Blade Runner world, but those instances were rare enough not to have a big impact.

Fair enough

All this aside, do you have any comments regarding my actual critique of the film where aesthetic isn't concerned?

I won't fault anyone for arguing about the pacing. Honestly, the first time I saw it, I was still fighting jetlag (and losing) and zoned out a few times. Saw it again (admittedly on a bigger screen) and was on the edge of my seat. I was also sure it was going to have a ton of action in it, a la a $185 million Hollywood movie) and it didn't, so maybe I was better prepared the second time, but definitely better rested. Honestly, either time, I didn't fell like it was too long (the second time when I had far more energy, definitely not).

Definitely don't jive w/ the Joi assessment... but arguing against it is not a battle that I'd go to the front lines and fight.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

You could tell with the miniature model EFX shots when K's drone flies above the old abandoned graveyard section of L.A. (leading into Deckard's residence/shindigs) -- definitely spot-on (like how it was portrayed in the original BR flick).

I like the stylized Wallace Corp. animated logo -- something different for a change of pace compared to the old-school Tyrell Corp. (of course, we never do get to see Tyrell's own in-house graphic design aesthetics if it was used/presented in the original '82 BR film -- something best left to the imagination as how that would be conceptualized/executed in it's final form). The proposed very elaborate and extravagant Zhora's hologram dance sequence with a boa constrictor snake (if it was properly filmed, albeit, with a bigger production budget but ultimately axed in the end due the lack of it) would've gave BR a run for it's lavish special EFX shots back in the day.

Of course with a bigger production budget, BR 2049 seems more like a fully-realized world unto itself with the marriage of practical EFX along with CG EFX shots to seal the deal. The real-time shadowing EFX during some scenes was quite something to behold -- I was blown away with the subtle usage of the shadowing EFX -- I've never seen a major modern-day sci-fi film employ this type of EFX within a scene to set the "visual ambience/tone" (which is simply a evolution/advancement of the environmental EFX shots shown in the first BR film: i.e. projected water EFX scene, etc).

Plus the fact that the outdoor holograms are 100% fully interactive with the people/replicants lends a sense of some serious AI going on the background, indeed (especially with the huge Joi hologram scene comes to mind). Talk about a fully customized/personalized advertisement "all dressed up to the nines" hologram style if you will.

Sure it was custom car wizard, Gene Winfield, whom did custom fabricate all the actual physical vehicle props used in the '82 BR film. I'm not even sure if Mr. Winfield had a hand in designing the futuristic vehicles shown/portrayed in this newfangled BR 2049 movie though.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[Skykid]

Definitely don't jive w/ the Joi assessment... but arguing against it is not a battle that I'd go to the front lines and fight.

Joi isn't just an irrelevancy, she's a mistake in context. K already mentions right at the opening of the movie that he's a newer Nexus model and doesn't fail. So why would a Replicant of that efficiency require a virtual companion of any kind. For us to see K developing human emotional responses we only needed the central plot to take us there little by little. Joi confused it from the outset because he's already relating to her as a human would from the earliest scenes. A Replicant who knows what it is doesn't need companionship to fill time, doesn't need to pretend someone is serving it dinner, and doesn't need to be pandered to to feel good. He's a machine with a sole purpose, and illustrating that with more definition initially would have helped the changes he undergoes appear more pronounced later.

Joi muddied and confused all that. He was exhibiting what appeared to be human emotional responses from the beginning by spending time with a virtual female he by rights should have zero interest in owning.

Again, if I fan edited this I'd completely erase her from the movie outside of her billboard ads.


EDIT:

Just watched the shorts for BR2049. Watanabe's is excellent but the voice acting is craaaaap. No idea why anyone would go to the effort of making an animated short and then accept such subpar performances. Bit of a shame.

[GaijinPunch]

Without Joi, the love interest would have been Mariette (a real girl). She is what fueled K to actually participate in the climax. That fact that she's killed without ever being alive adds to the existential questions the film asks. She's far from irrelevant, if not your cup of tea.

[Skykid]

Without Joi, the love interest would have been Mariette (a real girl). She is what fueled K to actually participate in the climax. That fact that she's killed without ever being alive adds to the existential questions the film asks. She's far from irrelevant, if not your cup of tea.

In my opinion, she created unnecessary questions regarding K's emotional state from too early a stage. As the movie was frankly too long and needed some pace making edits, I see nothing lost by sacrificing her wholesale.

K's journey from unthinking Replicant to Replicant with emotions would have been far less confused and a lot cleaner without her around to fill screen space on the left and right. For me she was pointless and her story arc was entirely rendered null by the advertisement slogan "see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear" - removing any existential questions about her motives and actions as an artificial being.

And to get right in your point above: why do we need a "love interest"? That's something I would LOVE to see relegated from movies that really don't need one. I'm very much at the point where the unnecessary shoehorning of love interests can fuck off and die.

If K had banged the hooker to experience the emotion of connecting with someone, that would have been more than enough to illustrate where he was and where we were heading in terms of the plot.

[GaijinPunch]

In my opinion, she created unnecessary questions regarding K's emotional state from too early a stage. As the movie was frankly too long and needed some pace making edits, I see nothing lost by sacrificing her wholesale.

I would agree -- if you are going to trim the film down, that arc is probably not too tricky to axe, although I still think it adds a dimension (a somewhat pathetic one) to the character.

And to get right in your point above: why do we need a "love interest"? That's something I would LOVE to see relegated from movies that really don't need one. I'm very much at the point where the unnecessary shoehorning of love interests can fuck off and die.

Also agreed... but I don't think it's very realistic today, and to be quite honest, the love interest is a huge part of the first film... arguably it could/should be in the second, although I'd argue it's been toned down for the sequel. I'd like to see more takes like Jack Burton saying goodbye to Gracie Law.

If K had banged the hooker to experience the emotion of connecting with someone, that would have been more than enough to illustrate where he was and where we were heading in terms of the plot.

Let's be honest... it's in there b/c he can say he fucked them both at the same time. Not a threeway... he penetrated them both at the same time! A film first? Not sure... but I'd totally settle for eating Anna de Amas' ass in the corner.

[dan76]

I'd like to see more takes like Jack Burton saying goodbye to Gracie Law.

One of the greatest moments in cinema!

[MintyTheCat]

Not sure... but I'd totally settle for eating Anna de Amas' ass in the corner.

Hehehe.

[bcass]

I loved this film. Went to see it three times at one of the biggest IMAX screens in the UK. I can't remember the last film I saw where I could just sit back and completely lose myself in the world it presents. The audio design (sound and music) is some of the best I've ever heard in a film. Subtractive synthesis is an interest of mine, and this film is full of it. I just wish it had the balls not to reuse some of the original Vangelis score.

[MintyTheCat]

I loved this film. Went to see it three times at one of the biggest IMAX screens in the UK. I can't remember the last film I saw where I could just sit back and completely lose myself in the world it presents. The audio design (sound and music) is some of the best I've ever heard in a film. Subtractive synthesis is an interest of mine, and this film is full of it. I just wish it had the balls not to reuse some of the original Vangelis score.

I saw it twice myself but preferred it in 2D as the glasses are a bit of a nuisance for me
I agree, the sound design is well done. I dare say that they struggled to find a 'sound' for the film that would not upset the fans and still be fitting so kind of using similar sound motifs to the original was a safer bet I dare say. I bet any money that those yamaha synths - CS80 are they? Have gone up a bit in price since

I will definitely buy a copy when it comes out on DVD/BR. To be honest, I quite fancy the dutch lady in the film

[bcass]

All three of my IMAX screenings were in 2D. 3D is of absolutely no interest to me.

[MintyTheCat]

All three of my IMAX screenings were in 2D. 3D is of absolutely no interest to me.

Same here - it's a bit of a gimick really.

[schnuth]

Anyone try the Johnnie Walker tie in scotch? I stumbled upon a bottle and couldn't resist.

[GaijinPunch]

While I imagine Deckard is not a fancy whiskey drinker, I wish they had reached out to Lagavulin instead.

[dunpeal2064]

While I imagine Deckard is not a fancy whiskey drinker, I wish they had reached out to Lagavulin instead.

Fuck yes.

[Limbrooke]

I might like to comment I felt the film was a bit depressing, although I didn't have anyone to discuss with immediately following the film so I just stewed on the topics covered.

Spoiler

Its obvious the world of the future 2049 is supposed to be cold and worthless and yet you must trudge forward through the barren salt flats, the rusted junk scapes, and the forever Se7en esque rainy crowded megacities. This isn't much of a departure from 2019 albeit with more of a geographical mosaic.

Apart from that the relationship dynamic is one that sets the more dour attitude, namely with the sad life living with Joi. This is not the world I want to live in, and perhaps this is more telling of the present evolution the current world is moving towards, but not having meaningful relationships with other people is as depressing a state as any and I can safely say is not the world I want to live in.

Having said that, I think her inclusion to the oppressive/sad atmosphere is a welcome one in that it enhances the shit people need to wade through to get some semblance of their reality.

Other than the bottle, any difference to 2049 Black Label?