The sets and locations in this film look like shit. You just know it's digital. By contrast you really feel immersed in a real city in the original film. There is truly nothing like the real thing, something solid that actually has weight.
shareWhiny Trolls truly ruined IMDB. Then they came to MovieChat!
shareDude are you crazy? I thought the trailers looked unbelievably good. What scenes specifically are you referring to?
share"Who wants to hear actors speak?"
- words uttered back when the talkies became a thing.
My younger-self used to be just like you. I couldn't have cared less about most "digital effects" in a movie, for me it was either practical or gtfo. But then I grew out of this "phase" and realized that CGI has been a wonderful and, natural, thing for cinema (when not abused that is). Practical is still my preference but when digital is done right, it works wonders. A number of films these days wouldn't work without this medium.
In regards to 2049, it's missing the darker and "organic" vibe from the original, but so far the sets and effects look extremely impressive for a bigger and more modern take on the world of Blade Runner.
Now since you and a few others have expressed your anti-CGI sentiments quite clearly, let me play y'all the world's smallest violin....
Literally nobody reacted to talkies like that. Nobody. So keep on being ignorant.
shareLol that first sentence is complete horse crap
shareCGI is inevitable. The new Star Wars movies use sets and CGI but there's a balance between content and characterization whereas, ironically, pioneers of Sci-Fi SFX like George Lucas belched out the SW prequels with a CGI-vengeance that made Who Framed Roger Rabbit look like a Fellini film.
As for BR 2049: I didn't get a negative reaction to the sets or CGI. The only thing that did intrigue me was the use of hologram technology. It actually looked kinda dated in this movie, but since this is an alternative reality, not a prophetic time-line dependent movie like say 2001: A Space Oddity I'm not too worried about that.
I strongly agree with the sentiment, OP. I can barely get myself to ever watch anything made after ~1995 because it all sincerely looks like shit to me. The rampant abuse of CGI brings a barren and soulless quality to movies imo. It's not sexy, at all. It's lacks humanity. It's really depressing. I've never encountered it one time in which I thought it looked 'good' in any sense. It's not the only issue I have with contemporary filmmaking but it's something that, if altered course, would make a tremendous difference to me. If something is really special in other ways I can somewhat look past it, enough to appreciate for whatever it is, but there is still always in my mind a hard division between the pre- and post-CG/digital eras. I feel like I could not ever possibly see a CG reliant newer movie as 'a classic'. It's all on a sub-tier from here on, where movies at their best can only be 'good' to me on this relative level of disappointment. Sometimes I wonder if this is just it then, forever? Until one day all movies will all be completely computer generated? Directed, acted, edited, everything else by AI? I cry.
shareI agree wholeheartedly. And let's not even talk about the disappearance of color in films. There is no color anymore but gradient variations of blue and orange all over the image. That's a huge loss. No great film has been made since 2006 and there probably will never be again.
shareYeah, everything has been "streamlined" to the point of sterilization. It all looks and feels like a got damn iPad, doesn't it? Even grisly subject matter has to be pristinely digitally photographed and edited, and have a slick hi-fi electronic soundtrack. Something like the new Spielberg movie gets a 100% pass because obviously CGI is a pretty good choice for depicting CGI - what the medium is ideal for is making depictions of virtuality.
Obviously it's all inevitable and of course just an accurate reflection of the zeitgeist. Essentially my frustrations with newer flicks can be found across media and in any given aspect of the current culture. It just makes sense why it is the way it is, and the underlying issue is rooted in the current economic reality, which is impenetrable to creative filmmakers with heartfelt ideas that may not coincide with the rules. There is definitely tons of super fascinating cinematic art being created right now but it's not anything you'll see in theaters or hear about on TV.
This movie looks like it could be good on the relative level of movie disappointment, but when I look back at what had been achieved in the original Blade Runner—aesthetically that movie is a premium slice out of the zenith of feelsy and deep practical/optical production techniques—so rich, so immersive, so impassioned—it's hard not to feel depressed with what we're faced with here. You often hear people dismiss the CGI sadness rant as superficial, but film is a visual medium and the materiality of every visual decision becomes such a significant part of the soul of a movie. From a deep level you can never trick human perceptual intuition.
Yeah, the CGI is horrible. I remember way back in the 70's/80's we were all excited about SFX, but that was mainly practical effects by professionals like Rob Bottin, Ray Harryhousen, Stan Winston, etc. Somewhere around the late 90's/early 00's it all went to CGI crap. I can barely watch the new Blade Runner 2049 trailers without rolling my eyes at the spinners chasing each other around..looks like a cartoon race!
shareJesus Christ you guys are a bunch of cry babies. CGI is here to stay. Ever since T2. It's not going anywhere and it gets better each year. You idiots are missing out on some great films because you are sitting around like old men bitching about days gone by. CGI when done right is fantastic. I can name several tv shows and movies if you all are that out of touch...
shareIt's not that CGI is "bad", it's what it replaced: GOOD stories. More reliance on long sweeping panning fake helicopter shots over large CGI landscapes instead of a quality narrative.
Yes, it's here to stay, and gone is the MAGIC of "Whoa! How'd they do that???" in movies. Just gone. But if you are not old enough to ever have experienced that, you can never know that feeling you are missing. It WAS amazing. Now, stuff is more, "...meh...."
No I remember that. But with each new film with "practical" effects we pretty much knew How they did that....so i stopped whoa'ing right around the late 80s'. Same with CGI....there is only so many ways to do effects...if they were still using "practical" I can ASSURE you that at your age you would NOT be asking yourself HOW THEY DID THAT...
As for stories you need to get out more...because there are tons of great effects movies that have just as much soul as your precious "practical" effects...you just are not looking hard enough...
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2017&p=.htm
8 of 10 are CGI
MAYBE 4 decent stories in there. See the imbalance?
4 out of 10 is good....it was a lackluster year overall for movies anyhow...still there are tons of great, thoughtful CGI movies...and when someone starts out reviewing a movie with too much CGI or it has CGI I stop listening...
shareHa, good point. i assume there is non-stop CGI in BladeRunner... no other way to show most scenes by the look of it. I do hope the story has at least the depth of the first one.
interesting part is, from the BEHIND THE SCENES I have already viewed, a lot of the large sets were real, just maybe CGI backdrop added.
These days, when I watch huge action scenes, like say in THE ISLAND, I scoff and assume CGI. But it is a wonderful surprise to watch behind the scenes and see they really did a lot of the action fully live!! I guess that is the new movie magic.
Mad Max fury road had little CGI...my favorite film of 2015..
shareboy, ya know... that one... I enjoyed it, but pretty mad about the CGI thing. They pretty much sort of lied about how LITTLE cgi was used. yes, tons of real driving and jumps and explosions, but so much set dressing was CGI. still amazing they did all that live driving and stunts. Was worth the ticket!
sharehttps://imgur.com/a/zsRVc an eye opener. Don't look if you don't want the illusion spoiled :D
shareThis is a waste of material, even original wasn't that good comparing to the book. This, looks bland and sterile, many scenes are forced to look like the original which many people will find agreeable out of nostalgia.
share