I've no interest in revisiting the sequel after seeing it in the cinema ... but with the original, it gets better even with a hundred viewings, still seeing new meaningful details in the original after so many decades because the visuals are so rich and gritty compared to the hollow looking sequel ...
@@88fejiI respect your opinion but I disagree. To me, both movies are masterpieces and get better each time I watch them. I’m constantly finding new things that I never noticed in both of them. I’ve found 2049 to even improve the experience of watching the original since it’s just that good. As for the visual styles, they are different, but I love them both. 2049’s sterile look really helps give it such a long and desolate vibe that fits well for the dystopian world that it is.
It's so interesting and makes a lot of sense that Officer K shares visual cues with both Deckard and Batty, and on top of that I didn't even realize how many of the shots in 2049 are so similar to shots from the original but still retains it's own independent feeling that it is still something new, rather than trying to copy a visual of the past. Despite it's short length, this is probably one of the most important video essays done on Blade Runner yet, it's so simple but really shows a lot about the series. Fantastic job with this video, the music was a perfect choice, along with the comparing shots.
That was one of my favorite things to discover in the process of making this video. Not many of these shots stood out to me when I was watching 2049 on its own, but once I got them both together in the timeline I started to see all the connections. Glad you enjoyed the video!
Doesn't matter if 2049 failed at the box office. This film WILL be a cult classic, it WILL be talked about for the years to come. It's our generation's sci-fi masterpiece.
Yeah. They did the impossible. They made a worthy sequel to a movie that didnt need a sequel. And they replicated the effect so well that it basically repeated history at the box office. I think it adds even more credibility to what they acheived. The perfect sequel.
Very interesting to see them side by side. I am a huge fan of Deakens, but I find the original one much more stricking visually. At least, for what I've seen in this essay, (including art department and locations)...
Sequels generally have become a let down over the years and I love Villeneuve's approach in respecting and building upon the original material. Great video, you edited the shots beautifully. Looking forward to your next video!
Blade Runner 2049 is a visual masterpiece, perhaps the most beautifully shot movie of all time, with a great story, strong characters, and powerful themes, and it will almost certainly be completely and utterly ignored by the Academy.
I think 2049 really looks pale and washed out compared to the richness of the grittiness and intricacies of Ridley Scott's original Blade Runner ... somehow 2049 just looks "TV" like when you compare it to how beautifully cinematic the original BR looks ...
@@88feji Well, the original was recorded analogically, with a WAY higher resolution than that of todays' digital cameras. And in-camera effects, when done flawlessly as in this case, almost unavoidably look better than CG. The original commentator must be visually impaired. The original trainwrecks the sequel so much it's not even a contest.
Now, side by side, image by image, composition, lights, framing, I can clearly see and appreciate the grand work of Jordan Cronenweth, next to legendary Roger Deakins. There is something mystical, magical, otherworldly about the way the original Bladerunner feels, and is unreproducible - achieving the status of a legend ... like ... the tears in the rain.
Just like Tarantino said - Film owns Digital. A very talented cinematographer can create a beautiful movie with a digital camera, but he will never beat a very talented guy with a film camera.
I'm actually working on a video about this exact subject. I'm not hating on 2049 style, it was probably my favorite film that came out last year, however I find it's aesthetic to be technically inferior to the original. My video uses BR vs BR:2049 as a meditation on modern overly lit low contrast lighting of modern films compared to the more dramatic and more precise thought out style that seems to be even less common in modern high budget film making.
Marcus V Warner if you watch interviews, you'll know that the visual style of blade runner 2049 was a creative decision that Roger Deakins and Denis Villenueve made in contrast to the original.
James Lewis I did see that, I picked up the 4k bluray on Tuesday... it doesn't really change my stance. Opting for flat light intentionally isn't any more impressive or less lazy.
I generally disagree with that flat digital look. in this film, however, I don't think that's the case. I think the subtlety of lighting was highly infused in the process of telling the story with far less dialogue than we've come to expect, where every detail of what we're watching also gets explained to us. light and it's use were almost another character in this film. the original film also did this but in a different way, harder and sharper, less like peeling layers and revealing truths. the only thing I will say that I was left wanting for was just a tad less haze in the city scape scenes. I wanted to see the buildings better, I wanted to see further.
Problem is, the original was shot analogically at a MUCH higher resolution than that of todays' digital cameras, and used only in-camera effects. OF COURSE it looks better. The artistic choices on the sequel were probably for the better. Had they tried to mimick the original faithfully, the gap in visual quality would have been even more painfully obvious. Shooting a movie nowadays like they did with the original would probably be helluva expensive.
The original is crisp and brutal, the new one is smooth like sand stone and cold, more digital but feels less believable. I think the original had a greater lighting and atmosphere, it was real.
Vileneuve did some horrible stuff in 2049, the worst is making Rachael in 3d ugh.. uncanny valley abomination Second, Elvis Presley. man wtf.. Third, the fight scenes like.. rofl.. Four, the microscope zoom to find the birth marks..
Wow, I noticed a lot of comparisons during my viewings, but watching it like this it seems so striking. I guess it succeeded in being subtle. You are definitely spot on with how it feels grounded in the orignal's world but is still original. I've seen both many times and I didn't realize that Tyrell and Wallace both had shimmering gold in their residences.
Cinematically, Photographically, speaking, Blade 1 is more artful, advanced, then Blade 2. Blade 1 has more Depth of Field, more layers, more Bokeh. It also has a better understanding of the juxtaposition of warm and cool lighting in one shot, whilst Blade 2 is solely one or the other. Blade 2 relies purely on silhouetted figures while Blade 1’s figures are halo lit from multiple, more defined, light sources.
the new one could never top the original's writing. "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion... I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die" This has got to be one of the greatest monologues in movie history.
This is excellent! This is far and away the Blade Runner 2049 mini- expose I've yet seen. I didnt know about. I appreciate and am thoroughly impressed by this. And you added some excellent ambient flare with the music. Hats off. "You've done a man's job sir."
2049 is just as good as the first blade runner never thought I'd love a sequel so much especially to a movie that I never thought needed one but it far surpassed my expectations
I LOVED this movie but the thing I didn’t like about it was the costume design- with the exception of K’s iconic coat, they felt like something you’d see scrapped together in a B-level movie. We’ve seen this same “cheap cyber aesthetic” a hundred times before, and it came across as pretty lifeless and didn’t really give any distinct, unique feel to the world. I do worldbuilding as a hobby and I design costumes and sets and this just felt.... lazy. Hollow. Don’t get me wrong-this movie is AMAZING with layer upon layer of visuals, music, themes, literary references, various character arcs, etc, but I felt that the costuming wasn’t up to par with the rest of the film. Jared Leto’s Wallace also seemed like he belonged in something like Æon Flux (the Charlize Theron version). Those are my two main gripes.
I feel the sequel looks like what happen when you take the original, muffle the sound and rub a gluestick all over the visuals .. utterly unimpressed with 2049, I felt like I was going crazy when I saw so many praise for 2049, its speaks volumes about long the world has been starved of great main stream sci fi that it has lost perspective on what a great sci fi is ..
@@88feji What people fail to realize is that, as odd as it may sound, since it's an older movie, the first one was TECHNICALLY better. Shot in higher resolution (expensive analogue cinema cameras allowed for incredibly high res), no cheap CGI but rather expensive in camera effects and costumes...
100% and I'd call that sterile. The original is not trying to be perfect - it shows a living and breathing world and it's beautiful. The Sequel is trying to be perfect and clean and it shows, it's also beautiful but less engaging - more game-like.
@@GiorgiNemsitsveridze i think the clean look of new one was there not because of production design but because of cinematography of roger deakins, he is a legendary cinematographer but i think he is so good that even garbage looks beautiful and clean when he shoots it ,it is the only problem of deakins cinematography that he can't create a gritty look , but he is best in what he can do.i suggests you to watch the refugee camp scene from children of men , it have the similar look to blade runner but it looks gritty and grainy. It is shot by emanual lubazki...th-cam.com/video/imT3wQIy6p4/w-d-xo.html
I’ve seen both the original a couple of times and 2049 in the cinema, and I genuinely found it hard to establish which was which when they’re both playing alongside. I guess it’s a testament to RS’s original vision and DV’s homage to it.
Decent movie, but doesn't hold a candle to the original. Visually speaking, people should be aware that the original was shot analogically at a way higher resolution than todays' 4K. Thinking that digital cameras and CG are an advancement in quality is misleading. They are just less expensive and more versatile, not necessarily better. Had they shoot this movie with the same equipment and in-camera effects of the original, today, to then convert it into digital, the cost would have been prohibitive. I have my suspicions that the artistic choices weren't just made for storytelling purposes, but also to avoid a direct comparison with the original, that would have been less than flattering for the sequel.
+lokbatan But you don't have to be a fanatic to see how the original is way better in every aspect .... and its childish to call people as fanatics like its some sort of argument or validation of your own preference...you're the one who sounds like a childish fanatic with your superficial rhetorics ...
Very few fans of 2049 go out of their way to bash the original, yet it seems all too many of the original fans trip over themselves bashing the sequel. Typically while screaming that the original never needed a sequel in the 1st place. So calling me a fanatic is quite silly. I find the sequel to be better than the original in every way; many people share my view. But hey, you are welcome to your opinion.
Kinda weary to comment on a film so many of us have seen and watched over and over, but I thought I'd throw this out for other opinions. I love Blade Runner and have since the 80s. I love the claustrophobia, the stark lighting and the whole gothic majesty of the film. The score is so empathetic to the film's themes. At its heart, the film is very much about death. Its central theme is death, memories and warped nostalgia. Ridley took on the film after his bother Frank had passed and that very much influenced his direction. It's all dark corners, spooky mist (steam?), eternal night and rain with costumes that tread gumshoe '30s flicks with stylings of old-fashioned photos of long-deceased people - that's all the way through the film; from pictures in frames on the piano to Deckard's photo machine and the lampshades in Bryant's office. Memories of people who are long-gone. I should add that I think Ridley lucked out. Art direction and set design along with Trumbull's work and Vangelis' score do all the heavy lifting, plus that improvised monologue at the end that cements all of these qualities. I really can't connect with, or enjoy Blade Runner 2049 (I really want to like it!). It doesn't carry any of the visual motifs with conviction and drops a lot of the old film's patchwork micro detail. It's open, bright, almost flat-looking, not enough mist and stamped with muted mid-tone palettes and this constant Villeneuve-favoured brutalism with buildings and interiors - I could say the same about Dune. I also LOVE the flaws in Blade Runner. Deckard's bad choice to put on an accent, dialogue that resonates in the head but doesn't exactly hold your hand to spell everything out. I liked the theatrical version as a kid (filling on those gaps at that age helped!) but I much preferred the directors cut and giving space to let scenes breathe. The film had decades to breathe and for fans interpolate, mind you. 2049 just tip-toes around these things and sets up a different world which I can't get my head around for a sequel. It comes off feeling like a flat, muted, 70mm IMAX miro board for Dune's production and art direction.
I loved Blade Runner 2049. My favorite film of 2017. I thoroughly enjoyed the set pieces, photography and visuals of this film, but I couldn't help but mentally compare them to its predecessor while watching. And to that, I was disappointed. While I appreciate the choice to establish the current creators' own stamp, the choices they made only made me long for the original masterpiece visual style, that much more. My biggest disappointment (that's really too strong a word) was the photography. I know it's sacrilege to criticize the mastery of the top film photographer of this decade, but Roger Deakins's somewhat muted, diffuse lighting didn't hold up to the breathtaking appeal of the original. With that said, the visuals of this modern film simply served to tell a better story. Blade Runner 2049 is a great film. In fact, it had a better story. But, visually, it's not the tour de force that was the original.
At the very beginning of the film after the fight and baseline test, he returns to his apartment and is told by Joi to 'go scrub' while she is in the 'kitchen cooking' his meal.
Interstellar really is a very shallow film. And people say that it's the 2001: A Space Odyssey of this decade... what the hell do they have in common?? They are both set in space???
I love how most people that watched Interstellar completely missed the point of the movie by a hundred light years. It has so much hidden meaning it's ridiculous. It's a movie about generational conflict with a lot of subtext and unspoken meaning. Read the titles of the books on the shelf, focal point of the whole story. They give you keys to several hidden concepts. As soon as I saw the "infinite library" visual cue in the black hole scene, for example, I IMMEDIATELY thought of Borges' "The Library of Babel" story. Guess what? Found out one of the books on the shelf is Borges' anthology where the story comes from. The guy who sabotages the mission is called "MANN". It's an obvious reference to the fact that mankind's enemy is man itself. Notice how the connection between dad and daughter in the movie is inversely proportional to their age gap. The moment in which they are closer to each other is the one in which they are farther apart physically, but they have the same age. It's not casual. The "future humans" helping the protagonist in an intricate way, is actually a pretty interesting and deep analysis of transhumanism. The movie goes deep into complex themes like communication (the generational conflict, the Babel references, the complex communication with a human race that has developed so much it's unrecognizable), the challenges in development of human race (the evil Dr.Mann, transhumanism, the false informations spread by future's "culture"), philosophy and religion (the human race seeks for external salvation from beyond, and who answers and helps is the human race itself, despite MANN being the enemy as well), etc... It's very symbolic and introspective, with several layers of meaning beyond the superficial plot. Sci-fi has always been about deep phylosophical concepts like the nature of man, the nature of reality, religion, the true meaning of life, death, feelings...the big questions. And Interstellar definetely does that. I guess the fact that is pretty complex and not really easy to digest and immediately meaningful is something that todays' audiences are not used to, anymore. I think it's very telling of todays' viewers that the general public consider Inception, of all Nolan's movies, a crowning achievement, while the movie itself is, beyond a faux layer of complexity, actually pretty simple and shallow, in my opinion the director's worst effort.
Watching 2049 at the cinema I was pretty annoyed by the sucking up to the 1982 fans. It was like the director was trying to lure me or nudge me into thinking that this really is Blade Runner. In a way it is Blade Runner but 2049 was trying too hard to lean on the original.
Thanks for watching everyone! I got three links for you. 1. Listen to the whole interview with Denis about 2049, it's good: soundcloud.com/thedirectorscut/episode-96-blade-runner-2049-with-denis-villeneuve-and-rian-johnson 2. Check out my Patreon if you're inclined: www.patreon.com/thomasflight 3. Or if you're looking for good, affordable music for you videos: artlist.io/?Thomas_Flight&Affiliate_120&January
Hi dude, wholeheartedly disagree with most points you're making in this video, but thanks a bunch for this comparison all the same! To me it perfectly illustrates how ever single shot is lesser in the sequel, but that's an eye of the beholder kinda discussion. Great job, cheers.
Just imagine if Blade Runner 2049 had been shot by Jeff Cronenweth, David Fincher's cinematographer who also happens to be the son of Blade Runner's cinematographer: Jordan Cronenweth. I mean, we all know Roger Deakins did a superb job at it, but it would've also been interesting to see the son carry on with his father's work. Who knows, maybe he'll be the one chosen for Ridley Scott's sequel.
I'm sure Deakins and Villeneuve failed to capture the true potential of the beauty of the Blade Runner's cyberpunk world .... there are a lot of artist's artworks prepared for the movie which feels a lot more atmospheric and beautifully dystopian/cyberpunk than the actual thing we see on screen ... you may want to check them out ... here are a few examples I found : c1.staticflickr.com/2/1855/30268668428_50e2bfd948_b.jpg conceptartworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Blade-Runner-2049-Concept-Art-Jon-McCoy-est-v001-015-jmc_orig.jpg cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/007/984/134/20171103101848/smaller_square/peter-popken-blade-runner-popken-2043.jpg?1509722329 i.pinimg.com/originals/18/71/a3/1871a33231df38a320975ea5977f757a.jpg i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/c6/55/3ec65594d81143a201d18feaadcfd445.jpg static1.squarespace.com/static/54aaff70e4b00bf98ffdc7e8/59f3c432084665ff54292eb8/59f3c52627ef2ddff5c8e37a/1510879435103/br23.jpg?format=2500w encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR97ns6RweWF8qRRwIRGyzhZ74cCxEcekjYagWv8AVc7tTMPqtS conceptartworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Blade-Runner-2049-Concept-Art-Jon-McCoy-seawall-v002-009_orig.jpg For some reason, the color palette looks and feels a lot richer in these pre-production artworks than Deakin's final visuals ... for example the orange really shines like a real evening haze in these artworks, but in the final movie the orange feels muted and flat in comparison ... also, if we look at the orange in the first Blade Runner, it feels very rich but not in 2049 ...
I've just watch these videos again, and I can confirm he does not say "vilnuv". However, after watching a few videos in English about Denis Villeneuve, it does seem that English-speaking people pronounce it that way, (I guess the sound for "eu" does not exists in English). Furthermore, the French Canadian accent his not the easiest to understand for foreigner; even French people have some trouble with it at times. The closest thing to "eu" I can think of is the " ö " in German, if you know some German.
2049 wasn't necessary. The original could be the best shot movie of all time. With all it's ups and downs during production, you can pretty much print any single frame from that film and hang it in an art museum. The original immerses the viewer in ways 2049 can only hope to imitate with superficial nods here and there. Lately many films, instead of telling a compelling story, are trying to impress the viewer with what a great film they've made: "See, look, the future has holograms - aren't you impressed with the holograms?"
It is beautiful looking, but I think even Ridley Scott would say that Barry Lyndon (paying attention to Blade Runner will tell you what a huge fan Ridley is of Kubrick) is more beautiful looking. He even pays homage to it in Blade Runner. The way Tyrell has his apartment lit by candles is straight out of Barry Lyndon.
I donno why directors don't create sequels with the exact same technology as the originals so they visually fit? What's wrong with going back to using models, film and oil paintings on glass?? Why not?
Miguel Pereira yea but there's still a heck of a lot of CGI... I think it's when you see impossible effects your subconscious knows they're CGI and simply isn't impressed. You can do anything with CGI so it has no wow factor. That scene in BR where deckard looks out from his balcony - that was an oil painting on glass and it looks amazing. Now they'd use CGI and it'd be so clear and sharp you'd just know it was CGI.
Andy Web I don't see why a matte painting is more impressive than CGI tbh. I understand the appeal that practical effects have but to not use CGI in the 2010's is ridiculous. Tho there are a few shots that could have been practical, like the close up on Wallace's/Luv's spinners in Vegas. Those could have been models.
It's just so it merges aesthetically with the original. It's a sequel after all. My point is if you're making a sequel film to fit onto another film why have an aesthetic disjoint? Another example is Alien: Prometheus. CGI was used extensively in that to the point where it visually no longer fitted with the original Alien or Aliens. Yet when they released the game Alien: Isolation they maintained the original 1980's aesthetic and people loved it. Star Wars prequels are another example, at least in these new films they've tried to rough it up with practical effects, eg, Star Destroyers in Rogue One that were actual models. At the end of the day you're telling a story, but with film it's mostly visual story telling. If the aesthetic doesn't fit what the audience knows then most of that story telling looses its weight and if the dialogue doesn't fit either then you've missed the mark completely and that film will be a failure. People watch these films and the first things they think are, "this doesn't look like what I know..."
...and the best way to merge with the original aesthetic is to use the original technique. What's wrong with practical? People love it. Now all we get is a CGI simulation of a crappy attempt at the original. You know how it goes too... "Oh but we had this idea.. then this idea... then this other one and that other idea..." and before you know it you've lost the aesthetic and you're back to generic, over the top CGI that no one buys.
The new film is a stunning looking film, and it has immense sense of scale and vastness which Villineuve does so well in his films. But the original is still the prettier film for me, it has such as amazing attention to detail in every frame, and the lighting seems more complex.
The lighting in the original seems to be a lot more alive (moving, shimmering, sweeping, dimming and glowing alternately, richer, more dazzling) than the sequels' ... there is a very emotionally hollow feel to the sequel's visuals and lightings , kind of boring frankly...
Interesting to see the side-by-side comparison, and confirms what I already knew: that shot for shot, the original remains far more compelling than the sequel. Not dissing BR 2049 - it's great in its own right. But I found it felt very cold and clinical where the original was always warm and intimate. One thing I specifically disliked was how much Villeneuve used the color white in the sequel: all the LAPD offices were white, K's apartment was white - for me that really didn't fit the BR aesthetic. My other main disappointment was the soundtrack: again, not bad on its own, but so so far from the greatness of the original. Plus, large tracts of the film were just silent. Really surprised that he didn't do more with the music, given how crucial it was to the original.
on your point about the score i feel similar but i think you have to take into account that Johann Johannson who was originally going to be composing BR 2049 and who composed Villeneuve's other recent films died early this year, the cause of his death isnt public but i think its fair to assume he may have had other plans before Hans Zimmer took over
+Dallyn Schlosser Oh my god, I had no idea Johann Johannson died recently until I see your comment .. this is so sad .. I really hope he did not kill himself over his recent career setbacks ... I'm aware that director Denis Vill sacked him as his music did not fit the director's expectations and also he was sacked from at least another big movie for the same sort of reason... its really a big blow especially considerig that he has been Denis Vill's go-to collaborator for many of Denis's movies ... to have a long time collaborator turn his back on you is a really big blow to anyone ... I'm not a big fan of any of Denis Villenueve's movies or Johannson but I really feel sorry for his recent string of setbacks .. it would be really tragic for him to end his life due to these setbacks...
Is there a video that just shows the two films and doesn't talk? This channel seems well supported and personally I am tired of visual essays and would like to support a channel that is unique.
I don’t get how Many people just think the new version Is so great. The original was original . And music was better. People just want another jam donut
Well for the most part Blade Runner is original, except for many of it's ideas, characters, and general plotline which are taken from the Phillip K. Dick novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".
Are you calling Blade Runner 2049 a “jam donut?” It might be “cleaner” and not have a score to rival Vangelis’, but it’s HARDLY some easily-consumable candy-flick. Also, sequels, by their very nature, aren’t original.
+dixreative I think the problem is there are very little sci fi masterpieces in the last decade or two, that most people have lost perspective on what a true sci fi masterpiece is supposed to be ..
1:11 "Denis and Director of Photography Roger Deakins develop a unique visual style..." What are talking about? Did you proofread your script before saying it? Did you not notice what you are actually saying out loud as you edited this video? You are showing side by side re-creations as you describe their style as "unique". Very well done yes; visually flawless, but compared to the last 30 years of scifi and cinematography there is nothing unique about it. And don't get me started on the gaping plot holes, dumb character decisions and Marvel villain cliches in the script. I have seen the movie three times in cinemas now, twice in IMAX, and I like but also feel fairly indifferent to it. I don't love it like Arrival, Drive, Dredd (2012), District 9, Baby Driver, Snowpiercer, Akira, Princess Mononoke or the Dark Knight.
As for Star Wars, it's obvious : Blade runner 80's is a master piece, new BR is a huge failure. cheers. ( Vangelis soundtrack is epic !! BR 2049 ..there is NO soundtrack, just long flat ugly noise)
It's always strange when people mislabel or mistake plagiarism with homage. It's one thing to continue or adapt thematic elements for the sake of the visual story and continuity in the established world, but literally recreating exacting cinematography is lazy and uninspired. The irony here is that in this video presentation we see countless scenes lifted and re-shot, but with the emphasis on how amazing and successful they are-it's really not. Anyone who adores this kind of creative theft should really think hard about celebrating such sloppy film-making; and calling them "references" or "allusions" is really misguided and negligent, regardless of how impactful the scenes are or not. One or two, or even three shots taken from the first could have been acceptable, as a nod or a wink to fans. But shot after shot... it becomes apparent that the drafting of this film depended too much on recreating these shots as a means to an end, and the director was trapped by the success and legacy of the first. Any feeling of enjoyment can easily be chalked up to its familiar visual elements, which have clearly stood the test of time. I think too many viewers are drunk with the first film, relying heavily on nostalgia to blindly guide them through this blatant fraud.
whereas the force awakens pries on our nostalgia and produces nothing original, the whole of 2049 was original and simply used 'blade runner' as a stepping stone to create its own great story. Does the force awakens even have a story?
To be honest, this isn't even fair. Blade Runner 2049 creators had to work with what they had. Of course clean digital shots of 2017 cameras can not replicate the gritty and atmospheric look of 80's film stock. Ryan Gosling ain't young Harrison Ford either. With 2049 you have this feeling that you are looking at a movie set, some limited decorated space, not a real Cyberpunk world. Original movie is timeless. Everything for that movie was created to "be" and not to "replicate". It's wholesome, 2049, on the other hand, is just a bland attempt at imitation. Visually it looks more like "John Wick" than "Bladerunner". There are movies, that are better than originals or at least comparable, for example "IT" 2017, cause it did not try to imitate, it had it's distinct original style and it worked. Bladerunner, on the other hand, is 90 percent it's armosphere and visual style. If you fail to create that atmosphere, it won't feel like Bladerunner. Similar decorations and sets won't help either. Even aging Harrison Ford cameo won't do much. Some frachises just should be left alone !
Yo next time don't talk over the director while introducing him...just put a graphic or something if we're here watching a blade runner comparison most likely the viewer already knows who the director is. thinking guy gif.
Whole movie is about referencing with fictional and real world while making it visually impressive for the sake of visual experience. Storytelling is totally sacrificed.
Darjan not it wasn't. the story is upfront the whole time. you are just used to loud noises and characters shouting. you should watch Transformers instead
You are knocking on a wrong doors. I'm not an average US blockbuster fan. I live in Europe, I've seen a lot of great slow burning movies filmed in Europe and Asia through decades and enjoyed vast majority of them. I love original Blade Runner and I was eagerly anticipated new one. The problem is I felt nothing while watching it. My eyes enjoyed but I couldn't care less about lead or any other character, there was no any kind of emotional attachment to them or story itself. That opening scene was best part of the movie, slow but filled with mystery, drama, suspense, tension, anticipation, great atmosphere, you name it, it had it all. After that, flat as pancake. And at the end it comes B production action cliche final confrontation. They lost me with forced long scenes not serving the story pace and dramatic effect, my mind starts to wonder away. And that about pace is not my opinion, it's a fact. I wasn't emotionally engaged into story and it's not my responsibility, filmmakers should evoke that in audience and they failed. Only intriguing stuff in this movie to me were references with world we live in, I felt it goes well beyond level arguably Kubrick might did in his movies with moon landing.
You can't say the storytelling was bad just because YOU weren't emotionally engaged. Many people were very emotionally engaged, so the filmmakers did not fail at that. Why you personally did not connect with it is a separate issue.
sorry if I think you an Transformers idiot when are saying stupid things on first and second post you clearly didn't get the movie I don't carr if liked or not but to criticize the story on Blade Runner 2049 it's just stupid because the story great and clear as water
I never said story is bad, but I didn't like it either. I am talking about pacing and timing. Except that first perfectly timed scene, most after that are longer then should be and that effects final general impression. Ridley Scott and Denis Villeneuve confessed it's too slow. That's what bothers me and other people who didn't like it as much as original. They extended almost every scene and that kills dramatic effect as a whole.
Just like the original, this film will be with us forever.
I've no interest in revisiting the sequel after seeing it in the cinema ... but with the original, it gets better even with a hundred viewings, still seeing new meaningful details in the original after so many decades because the visuals are so rich and gritty compared to the hollow looking sequel ...
@@88fejiI respect your opinion but I disagree. To me, both movies are masterpieces and get better each time I watch them. I’m constantly finding new things that I never noticed in both of them. I’ve found 2049 to even improve the experience of watching the original since it’s just that good.
As for the visual styles, they are different, but I love them both. 2049’s sterile look really helps give it such a long and desolate vibe that fits well for the dystopian world that it is.
It's so interesting and makes a lot of sense that Officer K shares visual cues with both Deckard and Batty, and on top of that I didn't even realize how many of the shots in 2049 are so similar to shots from the original but still retains it's own independent feeling that it is still something new, rather than trying to copy a visual of the past.
Despite it's short length, this is probably one of the most important video essays done on Blade Runner yet, it's so simple but really shows a lot about the series. Fantastic job with this video, the music was a perfect choice, along with the comparing shots.
That was one of my favorite things to discover in the process of making this video. Not many of these shots stood out to me when I was watching 2049 on its own, but once I got them both together in the timeline I started to see all the connections.
Glad you enjoyed the video!
Doesn't matter if 2049 failed at the box office. This film WILL be a cult classic, it WILL be talked about for the years to come. It's our generation's sci-fi masterpiece.
Cult classic? It received worldwide critical acclaim, and was somewhat popular with audiences, despite the box office failure.
like the old one
Yeah. They did the impossible. They made a worthy sequel to a movie that didnt need a sequel. And they replicated the effect so well that it basically repeated history at the box office. I think it adds even more credibility to what they acheived. The perfect sequel.
i agree.amazing film!
werdle92, I couldn't agree more, sometimes and I mean maybe every so many years, Hollywood does something truly breath taking.
Love both films. They perfectly complete each other.
Very interesting to see them side by side. I am a huge fan of Deakens, but I find the original one much more stricking visually. At least, for what I've seen in this essay, (including art department and locations)...
Sequels generally have become a let down over the years and I love Villeneuve's approach in respecting and building upon the original material. Great video, you edited the shots beautifully. Looking forward to your next video!
Thank you! Totally agree, 2049 was definitely the most satisfying sequel I've seen recently.
Blade Runner 2049 is a visual masterpiece, perhaps the most beautifully shot movie of all time, with a great story, strong characters, and powerful themes, and it will almost certainly be completely and utterly ignored by the Academy.
Mark Hogan it deserves at the very least a win for Best Visual Effects, but it’ll probably only be nominated and lose to The Shape of Water.
no nomination for: best film, best director, best script.
"the most beautifully shot movie of all time" hyperbolic much?
I think 2049 really looks pale and washed out compared to the richness of the grittiness and intricacies of Ridley Scott's original Blade Runner ... somehow 2049 just looks "TV" like when you compare it to how beautifully cinematic the original BR looks ...
@@88feji Well, the original was recorded analogically, with a WAY higher resolution than that of todays' digital cameras.
And in-camera effects, when done flawlessly as in this case, almost unavoidably look better than CG.
The original commentator must be visually impaired. The original trainwrecks the sequel so much it's not even a contest.
2:01 - 2:38
Seriously! Villeneuve was the man for this one! It was his destiny.
Now, side by side, image by image, composition, lights, framing, I can clearly see and appreciate the grand work of Jordan Cronenweth, next to legendary Roger Deakins. There is something mystical, magical, otherworldly about the way the original Bladerunner feels, and is unreproducible - achieving the status of a legend ... like ... the tears in the rain.
Just like Tarantino said - Film owns Digital. A very talented cinematographer can create a beautiful movie with a digital camera, but he will never beat a very talented guy with a film camera.
I'm actually working on a video about this exact subject.
I'm not hating on 2049 style, it was probably my favorite film that came out last year, however I find it's aesthetic to be technically inferior to the original.
My video uses BR vs BR:2049 as a meditation on modern overly lit low contrast lighting of modern films compared to the more dramatic and more precise thought out style that seems to be even less common in modern high budget film making.
Marcus V Warner if you watch interviews, you'll know that the visual style of blade runner 2049 was a creative decision that Roger Deakins and Denis Villenueve made in contrast to the original.
James Lewis I did see that, I picked up the 4k bluray on Tuesday... it doesn't really change my stance. Opting for flat light intentionally isn't any more impressive or less lazy.
I generally disagree with that flat digital look. in this film, however, I don't think that's the case. I think the subtlety of lighting was highly infused in the process of telling the story with far less dialogue than we've come to expect, where every detail of what we're watching also gets explained to us. light and it's use were almost another character in this film. the original film also did this but in a different way, harder and sharper, less like peeling layers and revealing truths. the only thing I will say that I was left wanting for was just a tad less haze in the city scape scenes. I wanted to see the buildings better, I wanted to see further.
Problem is, the original was shot analogically at a MUCH higher resolution than that of todays' digital cameras, and used only in-camera effects.
OF COURSE it looks better. The artistic choices on the sequel were probably for the better. Had they tried to mimick the original faithfully, the gap in visual quality would have been even more painfully obvious.
Shooting a movie nowadays like they did with the original would probably be helluva expensive.
The original is crisp and brutal, the new one is smooth like sand stone and cold, more digital but feels less believable. I think the original had a greater lighting and atmosphere, it was real.
agree.
Vileneuve did some horrible stuff in 2049, the worst is making Rachael in 3d ugh.. uncanny valley abomination
Second, Elvis Presley. man wtf.. Third, the fight scenes like.. rofl.. Four, the microscope zoom to find the birth marks..
Wow, I noticed a lot of comparisons during my viewings, but watching it like this it seems so striking. I guess it succeeded in being subtle. You are definitely spot on with how it feels grounded in the orignal's world but is still original. I've seen both many times and I didn't realize that Tyrell and Wallace both had shimmering gold in their residences.
Love watching the side by side comparison- Great video!
Cinematically, Photographically, speaking, Blade 1 is more artful, advanced, then Blade 2. Blade 1 has more Depth of Field, more layers, more Bokeh. It also has a better understanding of the juxtaposition of warm and cool lighting in one shot, whilst Blade 2 is solely one or the other.
Blade 2 relies purely on silhouetted figures while Blade 1’s figures are halo lit from multiple, more defined, light sources.
1's cinematography and music are way more sophisticated, atmospheric and emotional than 2 ... its a thing of pure beauty to experience 1...
I was looking for a video like this, thank you! Both movies are beautiful.
the new one could never top the original's writing. "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion... I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die" This has got to be one of the greatest monologues in movie history.
This is excellent! This is far and away the Blade Runner 2049 mini- expose I've yet seen. I didnt know about. I appreciate and am thoroughly impressed by this. And you added some excellent ambient flare with the music. Hats off. "You've done a man's job sir."
2049 is just as good as the first blade runner never thought I'd love a sequel so much especially to a movie that I never thought needed one but it far surpassed my expectations
i love the new blade runner, but to be honest the original looks better. the new one looks a bit too "clean"
I LOVED this movie but the thing I didn’t like about it was the costume design- with the exception of K’s iconic coat, they felt like something you’d see scrapped together in a B-level movie. We’ve seen this same “cheap cyber aesthetic” a hundred times before, and it came across as pretty lifeless and didn’t really give any distinct, unique feel to the world. I do worldbuilding as a hobby and I design costumes and sets and this just felt.... lazy. Hollow. Don’t get me wrong-this movie is AMAZING with layer upon layer of visuals, music, themes, literary references, various character arcs, etc, but I felt that the costuming wasn’t up to par with the rest of the film. Jared Leto’s Wallace also seemed like he belonged in something like Æon Flux (the Charlize Theron version). Those are my two main gripes.
I feel the sequel looks like what happen when you take the original, muffle the sound and rub a gluestick all over the visuals .. utterly unimpressed with 2049, I felt like I was going crazy when I saw so many praise for 2049, its speaks volumes about long the world has been starved of great main stream sci fi that it has lost perspective on what a great sci fi is ..
@@88feji What people fail to realize is that, as odd as it may sound, since it's an older movie, the first one was TECHNICALLY better.
Shot in higher resolution (expensive analogue cinema cameras allowed for incredibly high res), no cheap CGI but rather expensive in camera effects and costumes...
100% and I'd call that sterile.
The original is not trying to be perfect - it shows a living and breathing world and it's beautiful.
The Sequel is trying to be perfect and clean and it shows, it's also beautiful but less engaging - more game-like.
@@GiorgiNemsitsveridze i think the clean look of new one was there not because of production design but because of cinematography of roger deakins, he is a legendary cinematographer but i think he is so good that even garbage looks beautiful and clean when he shoots it ,it is the only problem of deakins cinematography that he can't create a gritty look , but he is best in what he can do.i suggests you to watch the refugee camp scene from children of men , it have the similar look to blade runner but it looks gritty and grainy. It is shot by emanual lubazki...th-cam.com/video/imT3wQIy6p4/w-d-xo.html
Great video, beautifully made. Many thanks!
Very nice analysis and video Thomas Flight!
What a beautiful masterpiece. I feel bad for those who can’t see it as one.
I’ve seen both the original a couple of times and 2049 in the cinema, and I genuinely found it hard to establish which was which when they’re both playing alongside. I guess it’s a testament to RS’s original vision and DV’s homage to it.
Decent movie, but doesn't hold a candle to the original.
Visually speaking, people should be aware that the original was shot analogically at a way higher resolution than todays' 4K.
Thinking that digital cameras and CG are an advancement in quality is misleading. They are just less expensive and more versatile, not necessarily better.
Had they shoot this movie with the same equipment and in-camera effects of the original, today, to then convert it into digital, the cost would have been prohibitive.
I have my suspicions that the artistic choices weren't just made for storytelling purposes, but also to avoid a direct comparison with the original, that would have been less than flattering for the sequel.
Doesn't hold a candle to the original...spoken like a true blade runner fanatic.
+lokbatan
But you don't have to be a fanatic to see how the original is way better in every aspect .... and its childish to call people as fanatics like its some sort of argument or validation of your own preference...you're the one who sounds like a childish fanatic with your superficial rhetorics ...
Very few fans of 2049 go out of their way to bash the original, yet it seems all too many of the original fans trip over themselves bashing the sequel. Typically while screaming that the original never needed a sequel in the 1st place. So calling me a fanatic is quite silly.
I find the sequel to be better than the original in every way; many people share my view. But hey, you are welcome to your opinion.
Incredible compilation. Thanks. Love both movies, but missed at least half of these visual references.
For a moment I thought Dennis was being interviewed by you and you had just interrupted him. :(
Its mind blowing to me how similar a lot of the shots in 2049 are to the original, but still keeping it different and modern
hearing tears in rain at the end of 2049. as k watches the snow fall was brilliant
Kinda weary to comment on a film so many of us have seen and watched over and over, but I thought I'd throw this out for other opinions. I love Blade Runner and have since the 80s. I love the claustrophobia, the stark lighting and the whole gothic majesty of the film. The score is so empathetic to the film's themes. At its heart, the film is very much about death. Its central theme is death, memories and warped nostalgia. Ridley took on the film after his bother Frank had passed and that very much influenced his direction. It's all dark corners, spooky mist (steam?), eternal night and rain with costumes that tread gumshoe '30s flicks with stylings of old-fashioned photos of long-deceased people - that's all the way through the film; from pictures in frames on the piano to Deckard's photo machine and the lampshades in Bryant's office. Memories of people who are long-gone.
I should add that I think Ridley lucked out. Art direction and set design along with Trumbull's work and Vangelis' score do all the heavy lifting, plus that improvised monologue at the end that cements all of these qualities.
I really can't connect with, or enjoy Blade Runner 2049 (I really want to like it!). It doesn't carry any of the visual motifs with conviction and drops a lot of the old film's patchwork micro detail. It's open, bright, almost flat-looking, not enough mist and stamped with muted mid-tone palettes and this constant Villeneuve-favoured brutalism with buildings and interiors - I could say the same about Dune.
I also LOVE the flaws in Blade Runner. Deckard's bad choice to put on an accent, dialogue that resonates in the head but doesn't exactly hold your hand to spell everything out. I liked the theatrical version as a kid (filling on those gaps at that age helped!) but I much preferred the directors cut and giving space to let scenes breathe. The film had decades to breathe and for fans interpolate, mind you. 2049 just tip-toes around these things and sets up a different world which I can't get my head around for a sequel. It comes off feeling like a flat, muted, 70mm IMAX miro board for Dune's production and art direction.
I loved Blade Runner 2049. My favorite film of 2017.
I thoroughly enjoyed the set pieces, photography and visuals of this film, but I couldn't help but mentally compare them to its predecessor while watching. And to that, I was disappointed. While I appreciate the choice to establish the current creators' own stamp, the choices they made only made me long for the original masterpiece visual style, that much more. My biggest disappointment (that's really too strong a word) was the photography. I know it's sacrilege to criticize the mastery of the top film photographer of this decade, but Roger Deakins's somewhat muted, diffuse lighting didn't hold up to the breathtaking appeal of the original. With that said, the visuals of this modern film simply served to tell a better story. Blade Runner 2049 is a great film. In fact, it had a better story. But, visually, it's not the tour de force that was the original.
What is the music in this video? I love it!
another fantastic video, thank you.
at 0:42 for 2049, when did that shot take place? I saw it multiple times and don't remember him checking a wound in the mirror like that.
At the very beginning of the film after the fight and baseline test, he returns to his apartment and is told by Joi to 'go scrub' while she is in the 'kitchen cooking' his meal.
ah, thanks! This just means I need to watch it again :3
Blade Runner 2049 is the intelligent, thoughtful, introspective type of sci that movies like Interstellar fell short of being.
Orlando Alessandrini exactly, I am so sad that mess of a film like interstellar was a box office success while a masterful film like BR2049 failed.
Interstellar really is a very shallow film. And people say that it's the 2001: A Space Odyssey of this decade... what the hell do they have in common?? They are both set in space???
I love how most people that watched Interstellar completely missed the point of the movie by a hundred light years.
It has so much hidden meaning it's ridiculous.
It's a movie about generational conflict with a lot of subtext and unspoken meaning.
Read the titles of the books on the shelf, focal point of the whole story.
They give you keys to several hidden concepts.
As soon as I saw the "infinite library" visual cue in the black hole scene, for example, I IMMEDIATELY thought of Borges' "The Library of Babel" story. Guess what? Found out one of the books on the shelf is Borges' anthology where the story comes from.
The guy who sabotages the mission is called "MANN". It's an obvious reference to the fact that mankind's enemy is man itself.
Notice how the connection between dad and daughter in the movie is inversely proportional to their age gap. The moment in which they are closer to each other is the one in which they are farther apart physically, but they have the same age. It's not casual.
The "future humans" helping the protagonist in an intricate way, is actually a pretty interesting and deep analysis of transhumanism.
The movie goes deep into complex themes like communication (the generational conflict, the Babel references, the complex communication with a human race that has developed so much it's unrecognizable), the challenges in development of human race (the evil Dr.Mann, transhumanism, the false informations spread by future's "culture"), philosophy and religion (the human race seeks for external salvation from beyond, and who answers and helps is the human race itself, despite MANN being the enemy as well), etc...
It's very symbolic and introspective, with several layers of meaning beyond the superficial plot. Sci-fi has always been about deep phylosophical concepts like the nature of man, the nature of reality, religion, the true meaning of life, death, feelings...the big questions. And Interstellar definetely does that.
I guess the fact that is pretty complex and not really easy to digest and immediately meaningful is something that todays' audiences are not used to, anymore.
I think it's very telling of todays' viewers that the general public consider Inception, of all Nolan's movies, a crowning achievement, while the movie itself is, beyond a faux layer of complexity, actually pretty simple and shallow, in my opinion the director's worst effort.
@@miguelpereira9859 2001: A Space Odyssey was pretty shallow...it was just uniquely directed and interesting for its time.
Really hope this movie can continue the next series. I really wanna se what happened next the story.
Nice work I enjoyed.
Watching 2049 at the cinema I was pretty annoyed by the sucking up to the 1982 fans. It was like the director was trying to lure me or nudge me into thinking that this really is Blade Runner.
In a way it is Blade Runner but 2049 was trying too hard to lean on the original.
Oh my God, Thank You very much.
Thanks for watching everyone! I got three links for you.
1. Listen to the whole interview with Denis about 2049, it's good: soundcloud.com/thedirectorscut/episode-96-blade-runner-2049-with-denis-villeneuve-and-rian-johnson
2. Check out my Patreon if you're inclined: www.patreon.com/thomasflight
3. Or if you're looking for good, affordable music for you videos: artlist.io/?Thomas_Flight&Affiliate_120&January
Hi dude, wholeheartedly disagree with most points you're making in this video, but thanks a bunch for this comparison all the same! To me it perfectly illustrates how ever single shot is lesser in the sequel, but that's an eye of the beholder kinda discussion. Great job, cheers.
Fantastic.
Denis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins made them feel as organic and magical as in the first movie
GREAT JOB!
Exceptional video
Just imagine if Blade Runner 2049 had been shot by Jeff Cronenweth, David Fincher's cinematographer who also happens to be the son of Blade Runner's cinematographer: Jordan Cronenweth. I mean, we all know Roger Deakins did a superb job at it, but it would've also been interesting to see the son carry on with his father's work. Who knows, maybe he'll be the one chosen for Ridley Scott's sequel.
I'm sure Deakins and Villeneuve failed to capture the true potential of the beauty of the Blade Runner's cyberpunk world .... there are a lot of artist's artworks prepared for the movie which feels a lot more atmospheric and beautifully dystopian/cyberpunk than the actual thing we see on screen ... you may want to check them out ... here are a few examples I found :
c1.staticflickr.com/2/1855/30268668428_50e2bfd948_b.jpg
conceptartworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Blade-Runner-2049-Concept-Art-Jon-McCoy-est-v001-015-jmc_orig.jpg
cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/007/984/134/20171103101848/smaller_square/peter-popken-blade-runner-popken-2043.jpg?1509722329
i.pinimg.com/originals/18/71/a3/1871a33231df38a320975ea5977f757a.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/c6/55/3ec65594d81143a201d18feaadcfd445.jpg
static1.squarespace.com/static/54aaff70e4b00bf98ffdc7e8/59f3c432084665ff54292eb8/59f3c52627ef2ddff5c8e37a/1510879435103/br23.jpg?format=2500w
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR97ns6RweWF8qRRwIRGyzhZ74cCxEcekjYagWv8AVc7tTMPqtS
conceptartworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Blade-Runner-2049-Concept-Art-Jon-McCoy-seawall-v002-009_orig.jpg
For some reason, the color palette looks and feels a lot richer in these pre-production artworks than Deakin's final visuals ... for example the orange really shines like a real evening haze in these artworks, but in the final movie the orange feels muted and flat in comparison ... also, if we look at the orange in the first Blade Runner, it feels very rich but not in 2049 ...
Great video! ... but just to be clear, 0:30 this is NOT how you pronounce Villeneuve (it's more like Vil-Noev)
jp15151 Villeneuve pronounces it "vilnuv" in his intros to the three short films.
I've just watch these videos again, and I can confirm he does not say "vilnuv". However, after watching a few videos in English about Denis Villeneuve, it does seem that English-speaking people pronounce it that way, (I guess the sound for "eu" does not exists in English). Furthermore, the French Canadian accent his not the easiest to understand for foreigner; even French people have some trouble with it at times. The closest thing to "eu" I can think of is the " ö " in German, if you know some German.
That's how you prounce his name...th-cam.com/video/U14yAM0lLKM/w-d-xo.html
awesome comparison... i love both movies with a preference for the original... sorry, but did you just pronounced: "director Villa-noov?"
2049 wasn't necessary. The original could be the best shot movie of all time. With all it's ups and downs during production, you can pretty much print any single frame from that film and hang it in an art museum. The original immerses the viewer in ways 2049 can only hope to imitate with superficial nods here and there. Lately many films, instead of telling a compelling story, are trying to impress the viewer with what a great film they've made: "See, look, the future has holograms - aren't you impressed with the holograms?"
It is beautiful looking, but I think even Ridley Scott would say that Barry Lyndon (paying attention to Blade Runner will tell you what a huge fan Ridley is of Kubrick) is more beautiful looking. He even pays homage to it in Blade Runner. The way Tyrell has his apartment lit by candles is straight out of Barry Lyndon.
I donno why directors don't create sequels with the exact same technology as the originals so they visually fit? What's wrong with going back to using models, film and oil paintings on glass?? Why not?
Andy Web They did use miniatures for this film
Miguel Pereira yea but there's still a heck of a lot of CGI... I think it's when you see impossible effects your subconscious knows they're CGI and simply isn't impressed. You can do anything with CGI so it has no wow factor. That scene in BR where deckard looks out from his balcony - that was an oil painting on glass and it looks amazing. Now they'd use CGI and it'd be so clear and sharp you'd just know it was CGI.
Andy Web I don't see why a matte painting is more impressive than CGI tbh. I understand the appeal that practical effects have but to not use CGI in the 2010's is ridiculous. Tho there are a few shots that could have been practical, like the close up on Wallace's/Luv's spinners in Vegas. Those could have been models.
It's just so it merges aesthetically with the original. It's a sequel after all. My point is if you're making a sequel film to fit onto another film why have an aesthetic disjoint? Another example is Alien: Prometheus. CGI was used extensively in that to the point where it visually no longer fitted with the original Alien or Aliens. Yet when they released the game Alien: Isolation they maintained the original 1980's aesthetic and people loved it. Star Wars prequels are another example, at least in these new films they've tried to rough it up with practical effects, eg, Star Destroyers in Rogue One that were actual models. At the end of the day you're telling a story, but with film it's mostly visual story telling. If the aesthetic doesn't fit what the audience knows then most of that story telling looses its weight and if the dialogue doesn't fit either then you've missed the mark completely and that film will be a failure. People watch these films and the first things they think are, "this doesn't look like what I know..."
...and the best way to merge with the original aesthetic is to use the original technique. What's wrong with practical? People love it. Now all we get is a CGI simulation of a crappy attempt at the original. You know how it goes too... "Oh but we had this idea.. then this idea... then this other one and that other idea..." and before you know it you've lost the aesthetic and you're back to generic, over the top CGI that no one buys.
Great video... it's "Duh-Knee Vill-Nuv"
Amazing
The new film is a stunning looking film, and it has immense sense of scale and vastness which Villineuve does so well in his films. But the original is still the prettier film for me, it has such as amazing attention to detail in every frame, and the lighting seems more complex.
The lighting in the original seems to be a lot more alive (moving, shimmering, sweeping, dimming and glowing alternately, richer, more dazzling) than the sequels' ... there is a very emotionally hollow feel to the sequel's visuals and lightings , kind of boring frankly...
nice I like it
Blade Runner is one of my favorite films. 2049 however is like a long and painful trip to the dentist.
hahaha .. yup.
Interesting to see the side-by-side comparison, and confirms what I already knew: that shot for shot, the original remains far more compelling than the sequel. Not dissing BR 2049 - it's great in its own right. But I found it felt very cold and clinical where the original was always warm and intimate. One thing I specifically disliked was how much Villeneuve used the color white in the sequel: all the LAPD offices were white, K's apartment was white - for me that really didn't fit the BR aesthetic. My other main disappointment was the soundtrack: again, not bad on its own, but so so far from the greatness of the original. Plus, large tracts of the film were just silent. Really surprised that he didn't do more with the music, given how crucial it was to the original.
on your point about the score i feel similar but i think you have to take into account that Johann Johannson who was originally going to be composing BR 2049 and who composed Villeneuve's other recent films died early this year, the cause of his death isnt public but i think its fair to assume he may have had other plans before Hans Zimmer took over
+Dallyn Schlosser
Oh my god, I had no idea Johann Johannson died recently until I see your comment .. this is so sad ..
I really hope he did not kill himself over his recent career setbacks ... I'm aware that director Denis Vill sacked him as his music did not fit the director's expectations and also he was sacked from at least another big movie for the same sort of reason... its really a big blow especially considerig that he has been Denis Vill's go-to collaborator for many of Denis's movies ... to have a long time collaborator turn his back on you is a really big blow to anyone ...
I'm not a big fan of any of Denis Villenueve's movies or Johannson but I really feel sorry for his recent string of setbacks .. it would be really tragic for him to end his life due to these setbacks...
The original looks better, by far, and the acting + story + pace are way better. All the money in the world cant translate to a better film.
It can't be a "unique" visual style if you're adapting and copying and updating someone else's style.
I love You!
very perceptive!
Is there a video that just shows the two films and doesn't talk? This channel seems well supported and personally I am tired of visual essays and would like to support a channel that is unique.
Best film ever made.
Deakins is so flat, I'm glad Greig Fraser shot the Dune
I don’t get how
Many people just think the new version Is so great. The original was original . And music was better. People just want another jam donut
Well for the most part Blade Runner is original, except for many of it's ideas, characters, and general plotline which are taken from the Phillip K. Dick novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".
Are you calling Blade Runner 2049 a “jam donut?” It might be “cleaner” and not have a score to rival Vangelis’, but it’s HARDLY some easily-consumable candy-flick. Also, sequels, by their very nature, aren’t original.
+dixreative
I think the problem is there are very little sci fi masterpieces in the last decade or two, that most people have lost perspective on what a true sci fi masterpiece is supposed to be ..
@@em791 Did you even read the book? The movie has little to do with it.
It's good in its own merits, but very different.
Shendue Nope, not yet. And it seems that the synopsis I read of the book at the time was very inaccurate.
1:11 "Denis and Director of Photography Roger Deakins develop a unique visual style..."
What are talking about? Did you proofread your script before saying it? Did you not notice what you are actually saying out loud as you edited this video?
You are showing side by side re-creations as you describe their style as "unique". Very well done yes; visually flawless, but compared to the last 30 years of scifi and cinematography there is nothing unique about it.
And don't get me started on the gaping plot holes, dumb character decisions and Marvel villain cliches in the script.
I have seen the movie three times in cinemas now, twice in IMAX, and I like but also feel fairly indifferent to it.
I don't love it like Arrival, Drive, Dredd (2012), District 9, Baby Driver, Snowpiercer, Akira, Princess Mononoke or the Dark Knight.
James Bell really don't see the plotholes or dumb character decisions, much less Marvel movie villain cliches.
There also isn't a weird sexual assault scene in blade runner 2049💀
Aaaand the one that **is** there isn't portrayed as romantic.
Blade Runner 2049 is dull and uneventful. Ryan Gosling looked bored from beginning to end. The lighting was great. Nothing else was.
As for Star Wars, it's obvious : Blade runner 80's is a master piece, new BR is a huge failure. cheers. ( Vangelis soundtrack is epic !! BR 2049 ..there is NO soundtrack, just long flat ugly noise)
Lets face it... most of us are here coming from the video about Dune's special effects.
It's always strange when people mislabel or mistake plagiarism with homage. It's one thing to continue or adapt thematic elements for the sake of the visual story and continuity in the established world, but literally recreating exacting cinematography is lazy and uninspired. The irony here is that in this video presentation we see countless scenes lifted and re-shot, but with the emphasis on how amazing and successful they are-it's really not.
Anyone who adores this kind of creative theft should really think hard about celebrating such sloppy film-making; and calling them "references" or "allusions" is really misguided and negligent, regardless of how impactful the scenes are or not. One or two, or even three shots taken from the first could have been acceptable, as a nod or a wink to fans. But shot after shot... it becomes apparent that the drafting of this film depended too much on recreating these shots as a means to an end, and the director was trapped by the success and legacy of the first.
Any feeling of enjoyment can easily be chalked up to its familiar visual elements, which have clearly stood the test of time. I think too many viewers are drunk with the first film, relying heavily on nostalgia to blindly guide them through this blatant fraud.
Hello brudda
Welcome back!
So basically, 2049 did what the new Star Wars movie tried to do but only a thousand times better?
whereas the force awakens pries on our nostalgia and produces nothing original, the whole of 2049 was original and simply used 'blade runner' as a stepping stone to create its own great story. Does the force awakens even have a story?
Of course The Force Awakens has a story! If you want to know what it is, just watch Star Wars from 1977. XD
To be honest, this isn't even fair. Blade Runner 2049 creators had to work with what they had. Of course clean digital shots of 2017 cameras can not replicate the gritty and atmospheric look of 80's film stock. Ryan Gosling ain't young Harrison Ford either. With 2049 you have this feeling that you are looking at a movie set, some limited decorated space, not a real Cyberpunk world.
Original movie is timeless. Everything for that movie was created to "be" and not to "replicate". It's wholesome, 2049, on the other hand, is just a bland attempt at imitation. Visually it looks more like "John Wick" than "Bladerunner". There are movies, that are better than originals or at least comparable, for example "IT" 2017, cause it did not try to imitate, it had it's distinct original style and it worked.
Bladerunner, on the other hand, is 90 percent it's armosphere and visual style. If you fail to create that atmosphere, it won't feel like Bladerunner. Similar decorations and sets won't help either. Even aging Harrison Ford cameo won't do much. Some frachises just should be left alone !
why didnt you call rutger hauer mutafukerssss
Yo next time don't talk over the director while introducing him...just put a graphic or something if we're here watching a blade runner comparison most likely the viewer already knows who the director is. thinking guy gif.
Whole movie is about referencing with fictional and real world while making it visually impressive for the sake of visual experience. Storytelling is totally sacrificed.
Darjan not it wasn't. the story is upfront the whole time. you are just used to loud noises and characters shouting. you should watch Transformers instead
You are knocking on a wrong doors. I'm not an average US blockbuster fan. I live in Europe, I've seen a lot of great slow burning movies filmed in Europe and Asia through decades and enjoyed vast majority of them. I love original Blade Runner and I was eagerly anticipated new one. The problem is I felt nothing while watching it. My eyes enjoyed but I couldn't care less about lead or any other character, there was no any kind of emotional attachment to them or story itself. That opening scene was best part of the movie, slow but filled with mystery, drama, suspense, tension, anticipation, great atmosphere, you name it, it had it all. After that, flat as pancake. And at the end it comes B production action cliche final confrontation. They lost me with forced long scenes not serving the story pace and dramatic effect, my mind starts to wonder away.
And that about pace is not my opinion, it's a fact.
I wasn't emotionally engaged into story and it's not my responsibility, filmmakers should evoke that in audience and they failed.
Only intriguing stuff in this movie to me were references with world we live in, I felt it goes well beyond level arguably Kubrick might did in his movies with moon landing.
You can't say the storytelling was bad just because YOU weren't emotionally engaged. Many people were very emotionally engaged, so the filmmakers did not fail at that. Why you personally did not connect with it is a separate issue.
sorry if I think you an Transformers idiot when are saying stupid things on first and second post
you clearly didn't get the movie
I don't carr if liked or not but to criticize the story on Blade Runner 2049 it's just stupid because the story great and clear as water
I never said story is bad, but I didn't like it either. I am talking about pacing and timing. Except that first perfectly timed scene, most after that are longer then should be and that effects final general impression. Ridley Scott and Denis Villeneuve confessed it's too slow. That's what bothers me and other people who didn't like it as much as original. They extended almost every scene and that kills dramatic effect as a whole.
BR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR 2049
Wrong
Both are great
@Thomas Flight What is the background music?
It's a song called Equator by Fog, licensed from Artlist: artlist.io/?Thomas_Flight&Affiliate_120&January