Roger Deakins framing is based on street photography which used wides but framed the subject. His genius is calculated and based on historic framing. There is a reason why he shows up in so many high budget artistic films.
The symbolism is so well done. The parallel between eyes and solar panels is really unique. The eyes absorb light like solar panels or in a metaphorical sense absorb knowledge. It makes some scenes really blow my mind like when Deckard meets Mr. Wallace and drops the line "her eyes were green." , when Luv kills Lt. Joshi and has to scan her eye to access where K is, and how K has to use an eye scanner to verify Sapper Morton. The eye absorbs light and stores them as images we call memories. Gaining knowledge from someone is like accessing that light absorbed by their eyes or gaining knowledge from what they've seen. What a concept to weave into a film.
Great breakdown, especially the remarks on color codes and caustics, sun! But I have one critique about the horizon line comments. The line you overlayed is mostly incorrect and not showing the actual horizon in perspective. You were often putting it over lines in the composition itself indicated by elements of set pieces etc. Maybe you simply weren't referring to the horizon line (as in perspective theory) but visual lines which were indeed off balance.
Thank you! You are right, technically the sets are what I referred to. The exterior shots are not too clear, though in a few that I tried it did seem off too. The drone shots are a good example.
+wolfcrow I think most of the gritty details of the beautiful models are lost on screen because the fogging and misting was overdone as it almost completely overpowered the miniatures and models ... They completely lost all the exquisite artistic painting and retrofitting works that the artists paintstakingly applied onto the buildings ... the dystopian world could have been so much more tangible if they had controlled the smog more like how it was beautifully done in the first movie, the fogging is just too thick and flat looking in 2049 . Also, the camera movement is too smooth and too even in 2049, it keeps reminding that I'm watching a machine operated cam or a bad cgi ... in the first movie the camera movement somehow just looks a lot more naturalistic as it resembles how a person or a flying car would move against the wind, against atmospheric resistance, against gravity ... it makes you feel like you're really there in that world ... But in 2049, the camera and the flying cars just zoom through too evenly like as if the laws of physics of air resistance, gravity does not apply, even in 2049's junkyard crashing scene, K's flying car simply bulldozes through the junks without any resistance, they simply failed to take into accounts the laws of physics to make it look real ... it just feel like bad cgi to many people like me ...
Hi, I never understood the first blade runner and I saw vids from the channel everything wrong with.. the channel did a vid on the flaws of blade runner and I think Blade Runner 2049 and these vids put me off watching the sequel but here you have shown the level of skill that was used, could you do a vid about acting tricks in the same way, I haven`t watched all of this vid and I don`t know if you mentioned the acting because that`s not what your focus was on, but it would be great and have you seen the Blade runner vids on the channel everything wrong with.. Thanks.
Hi, i think is better not to rely on "everything wrong with..." (especially if that descourage you to see some awesome film masterpieces as Blade Runner) in fact it criticized everything, in my opinion totally ignoring the "poetic license" that directors deserve and need.
They do point out flaws that are there though but they also say a lot of these movies are still great also, I think it`s all done for humour and entertainment anyway.
I almost cried in cinema when i watched it... And i dont even cry at funerals. This is, in my opinion, the highest point, filmic art can reach. Its fulfillment.
Im so happy you talked so much about the lighting and sets in this video! Often when people discuss "cinematography" they really only refer to how the camera is used, im glad you pointed out how the other aspects of the production also play into what makes the shots look so good
And I think one of the greatest parts about this movie is the cinematography and visual effects are just the cherry on top, because it’s supported by a great story and fantastic characters
just talkin out my ass here, but do you think some directors, painters, or artists in general just put random stuff together and then some people over analyze it thinking the creator was trying to tell you something when they really weren't?
Zach, it's not all black and white. I don't think there is over-analysis at play here - over-analysis to me would not being able to concentrate on a movie whatsoever because you analyze everything in real-time, which can happen when it's your job (I feel it). Here we have an essay. The goal of an essay is to go as deep as possible into trying to understand why something works. Does that mean the creators though of everything he mentions that way? Nah. Does that means creators just "put random stuff together"?! ...hmmm... HELL nah. No offense, but as a visual artist, I'm tired of both the BS over-analyzer who talks 30 minutes of the philosophical meaning of a white canvas at an art show... and the people coming "but don't you think that artist just put random shit together?" Bro, listen up : if we were just "putting random stuff together", then anyone would be able to do this, right? The thing is, it feels natural. We just flow. And to most people that might seem random; heck it's even hard to tell what it is. But trust me, you don't get to this level without years and years of practice and analysis yourself. There are TONS of scientific reasons why certain scenes are composed in a certain way, and why some work and some others don't. That doesn't mean that you think this way when you create. Of course you don't. But all those informations help shaping your vision until it flows. It is absolutely not random, even if the artist can't explain it. It is everything but random. That seriously is a lack of understanding and respect for art to say it's random. Just a head up.
Yeah I don't think there is always a deliberate reason for each color, shot, etc. But I'm sure there's something subconscious going on. The lighting setups for this film though were incredible. Each shot was meticulously designed
For light art, it's classic cinematography. For example, when there's a scene showing off negative emotions red light is present in the shot. Meanwhile blue is used for calmer scenes. This is just one example of light art. Your subconscious gets triggered by these repeating patterns/human-centric symbolism.
People have to understand, the kind of detail put into movies isn't just there to boast, it has actual impact. Things like colours affects the audience's subconcious, it conveys emotions, messages etc... And not only colour, framing, editing, length of cuts, horizon lines, etc. That's called cinematography, and it's the unique ways a film can tell a story.
Now I can fully appreciate this movie, thanks to you sharing your knowledge and wonderful descriptions. There is so much more to appreciate now, you're amazing and l love your channel, thanks for all your hard work, I for one appreciate that very much!
Oh man, once you pointed out that the horizontal lines are not level, it's really easy to see it in the shots that follow. Now I need to watch the Rick and Morty scene about True Level again.
Awesome! Very insightful and great information! Well I'm a total fan of great, convincing world building and symbolism in a movie, combined with great cinematography. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
- "Horizon line": Most of what you're showing isn't actually the horizon, it's just random lines in the frame. Second of all, there is absolutely no way Deakins/Villeneuve intended them to be so slightly off. It's just a result of the natural imperfections resulting from filmmaking, you're reading way too much into it. - "Deakins used wide lenses": Thank you, literally every single film ever has shots filmed with wide lenses. Maybe he did think "yeah it will show the nice sets" but I can assure you that the first thought was "We need an establishing shot to show the audience where our characters are, so we're gonna use a wide lens". - The point about long corridors and depth, sure. But once again, filmmakers will very often look to create depth in the images. - "PUNCH IN" What the fuck? That's not a term used in filmmaking. Did you mean "Push in"? - "Sideways tracking shot" Other than not being a technical term, amongst all the examples you show, the first isn't a tracking shot (It's not following a moving subject), the second is just a pan (the camera is clearly on a tripod), the third is just a dolly shot. - The part about color, fair enough. Seriously mate though, do your research before talking about stuff like this, this video is almost spreading misinformation.
Blade Runner 2049 is truly a masterpiece, it stands with 2001: A Space Odyssey and Interstellar for me. Those are the only movies that I feel can come close to completing with 2049’s cinematography.
This Movie was an absolute Masterpiece. If, by some crazy chance, they ever decide to make a follow up... they MUST bring back the same crew. Anything less would most probably be disappointing.
"sounds like a wasp crawling on your hand" - "I'd kill it". And then you realize there was a moment where a wasp did just that on K's hand and he didn't kill it. Holy shit those subtle connections
The colors are very simple: Nigredo, Albedo, Citrinitas, Rubedo. Nigredo - blackness, chaos, ignorance, etc. prima materia is burned in the alchemist's crucible, Albedo - purification, separation of opposing principles - eg Luv (Antichrist, white, power over heavens) vs Joshi (Christ, black, power over earth) Citrinitas - golden dawn, announcing the chemical wedding, reunion of the principles Rubedo - baptism in blood, the initiate has completed the magnum opus, and became God the magnum opus is initiated by the Green Lion, vitriol. everytime we see yellow, it pertains to the realm of the third stage in the Magnum Opus, where the opposing principles reunite - eg. Niander (God of this word) and Han Solo (God of the higher realms, aka the mind, spirit). or The Son (agent K) and The Father (han solo). everytime we see albedo, it pertains to the stage where stuff is being purged, purified Niander ni+ander = not human, is the blind (stupid) creator of this imperfect world - Elohim Han Solo is the I donno, just read some book about alchemy, it was pretty boring for me..
Plotwise, Storywise, Narrativewise, Dialoguewise, Characterwise, Structurewise, Blade Runner is a really bad film. Great practical and graphical effects, good acting and serious production, but clearly the pioneer of the Hollywoodian action blockbuster. I expected so much of it, and after less than an hour, I started despising every minute. I'm talking about the first one...
Wow, putting cameras at angles, and panning cameras in certain ways, and zooming.... who knew? They must have went to cinema school for 10 years to learn this kind of stuff.... Because you don't learn this stuff by messing around with a video camera for 30 minutes....
Don't really think the special effects were that good in this movie. There's no wowness - like when people saw *2001: A Space Odyssey* in 1968 it was different - fab visions - this is all old hat.
IDK, I think a lot is whatever you want it to mean. In the first BR, there were caustics during the first VK test at the Tyrell Corp. According to the BTS, the lighting director asked Scott what the source of the caustics were because there is no water in the scene. And basically he said just do it because it was his vision. So in that sense, it was unmotivated lighting, strictly based on Scott's vision, and really had nothing to do with anything but still looked cool. It seems 2049 just took that and put it all on steroids. Looks great, but what does it all mean? Perhaps nothing.
I kind of hate this video. I am a film maker, and understanding/noticing these amazing works of cinematography and acting; while inspiring, only questions my own creativity. Will I ever be able to make something so gorgeous?
No shaky cam! So much love for this movie. Would just remove jared leto... Why is he trying so much to be Johny deep? Anyway, you just got one New sub!
I really don't get where the "sunlight is always moving because the sun has given up on humanity" comes from. Other than that though, an excellent analysis and breakdown. The aesthetics of this movie are fascinating.
It's not my cup of tea. Too contained without realizing the containment. It wants to analyze an ant colony and then is shocked that it's looking at ants... if it realizes it at all. The light of the bee hive is not for ant colonies, yet that is what is given. The first BR is slow but comprehensible. This is a giving up on the story to give one man's style as the message. The takeaway from the movie is a weak attempt at BR and looking down a rabbit hole/ant colony for some style.
Still, when the rebels showed up for the exposition, there was piss poor acoustics and I had difficulty listening to the conversation. Yeah yeah good techniques, but they should always support, not interfere with, the main plot of the movie.
great video except for the comment about the tilted horizon i think that was something they didn't notice when filming....there's no way I can believe it was conceptual....there is no way a cinema audience will notice or be affected by the horizon shift that small.....just an opinion
Distopian movies work better with tight claustrophobic shots, in my opinion. Too much wide space makes the eye wander and releases tension and creates...boredom.
I'm a little confused or missed something, I understand the relation of the colours to certain trends like yellow for when he learned something new, but how does this work for the viewer/audience, do they have a sub conscious connection?
Ridley Scott, from an art background wanted shimmering lights, no one knew why but he thought it'll look good, and boy is that not an important feature of the first film!
Anybody noticed that the scene where the replicants rebels gathered symbolizes the same wallace scene. In a dark space, with water and dim lights. Two sides of the movie.
Sorry, this all seems like nonsense to me. What I find most disturbing however is that you're probably entirely right, the filmmaker is lying on his back staring up at the same sky you are seeing the same bunnies and kittens.
Original blade runner was way better than this film. It was all about color as well but it had texture to it along with distortion. Distortion like the rain, smoke and texture like the wetness. Unfortunatly none of the sets except for the wasteland compared to the original.
I'm not entirely certain that the off kilter horizon is intentional. Looking at your overlay makes me think that what we're seeing is just rectilinear/barrel distortion from the lens.
I hated watching this movie due its plot, but I never appreciated how the movie was made. Since I had never seen the original, I barely understood most of the scenes in this movie. That was thanks to it being too loyal to its source material. But this video makes me want to see it again.
Hi Nice review. Wide lenses always increases the perspective. That definitely changes the concept of the scene, thought it stays un noticed in several occasions. Sometimes it adds to the mood or the character of the scene. It depends on the story and the creativity. Make some more videos of this kind.
the film cinematography is fantastic for the most part. But i felt some city shots were over edited with the cloud pollution to really be able to apreaciate the designers miniture work. you lose alot of the detail of buildings when its so fogged up.
I saw a Jackie Chan scene here, it would of been great if Bruce Lee was alive and at young enough age for this guy to have worked on some of his scenes!
the best thing you can say about this movie is that everything was thought out and intentional. It seems obvious but almost no filmmakers bother with that level of consideration to things.
After so many nominations Roger Deakins deserves this Oscar more then ever. His work on Blade Runner is pure light art.
He made it
Roger Deakins framing is based on street photography which used wides but framed the subject. His genius is calculated and based on historic framing. There is a reason why he shows up in so many high budget artistic films.
Yep
And yes, he won the Oscar, he deserved it since long time.
watch the assassination of billy the kid by the coward robert ford or true grit he was robbed for those films
"SPOLIERS AHEAD" that's gotta kill you inside. Great video though.
Thanks!
pheewww... i tought there would be spoilers .. ^^
No viewers were hurt in the making of a movie review with a spoiler alert. The oposite instead will almost certainly kill the reviewer.
Hahaha i didnt even realised he spelt it wrong
Already a few seconds into the video and I just had to crack up for a sec.
One of the most visually stunning films ever made.
Blaise Telfer the *
La la land
I think it's the most visually stunning film. Dream for a cinematographer to make something like this. Only one that comes closer is apocalypse now.
Ever ever
I agree with that statement. I almost find it comical, though; it wasn't very well made film. It's sad how ridiculously they dropped the ball.
The symbolism is so well done. The parallel between eyes and solar panels is really unique. The eyes absorb light like solar panels or in a metaphorical sense absorb knowledge. It makes some scenes really blow my mind like when Deckard meets Mr. Wallace and drops the line "her eyes were green." , when Luv kills Lt. Joshi and has to scan her eye to access where K is, and how K has to use an eye scanner to verify Sapper Morton. The eye absorbs light and stores them as images we call memories. Gaining knowledge from someone is like accessing that light absorbed by their eyes or gaining knowledge from what they've seen. What a concept to weave into a film.
Brilliant analysis of camera work. I think Roger Deakins should win the Oscar this year, as he lost 13 times.
Thanks!
And he did win!
Your comment about the color green indicating a Wallace product is especially interesting considering the fact that K is wearing a green jacket.
In my opinion, this film is one of the best looking films of the past 20 years. The cinematography is astounding.
Leonardo Datore correction : this film is simply the best film ever made
Bladerunner 2049 was a masterpiece
Great breakdown, especially the remarks on color codes and caustics, sun! But I have one critique about the horizon line comments. The line you overlayed is mostly incorrect and not showing the actual horizon in perspective. You were often putting it over lines in the composition itself indicated by elements of set pieces etc. Maybe you simply weren't referring to the horizon line (as in perspective theory) but visual lines which were indeed off balance.
Thank you! You are right, technically the sets are what I referred to. The exterior shots are not too clear, though in a few that I tried it did seem off too. The drone shots are a good example.
+wolfcrow
I think most of the gritty details of the beautiful models are lost on screen because the fogging and misting was overdone as it almost completely overpowered the miniatures and models ...
They completely lost all the exquisite artistic painting and retrofitting works that the artists paintstakingly applied onto the buildings ... the dystopian world could have been so much more tangible if they had controlled the smog more like how it was beautifully done in the first movie, the fogging is just too thick and flat looking in 2049 .
Also, the camera movement is too smooth and too even in 2049, it keeps reminding that I'm watching a machine operated cam or a bad cgi ... in the first movie the camera movement somehow just looks a lot more naturalistic as it resembles how a person or a flying car would move against the wind, against atmospheric resistance, against gravity ... it makes you feel like you're really there in that world ...
But in 2049, the camera and the flying cars just zoom through too evenly like as if the laws of physics of air resistance, gravity does not apply, even in 2049's junkyard crashing scene, K's flying car simply bulldozes through the junks without any resistance, they simply failed to take into accounts the laws of physics to make it look real ... it just feel like bad cgi to many people like me ...
Hi, I never understood the first blade runner and I saw vids from the channel everything wrong with.. the channel did a vid on the flaws of blade runner and I think Blade Runner 2049 and these vids put me off watching the sequel but here you have shown the level of skill that was used, could you do a vid about acting tricks in the same way, I haven`t watched all of this vid and I don`t know if you mentioned the acting because that`s not what your focus was on, but it would be great and have you seen the Blade runner vids on the channel everything wrong with.. Thanks.
Hi, i think is better not to rely on "everything wrong with..." (especially if that descourage you to see some awesome film masterpieces as Blade Runner) in fact it criticized everything, in my opinion totally ignoring the "poetic license" that directors deserve and need.
They do point out flaws that are there though but they also say a lot of these movies are still great also, I think it`s all done for humour and entertainment anyway.
"You wanna go for a ride?"
**nightcall starts playing**
Appreciating your effort in making these videos. Kudos from a Malayali.
I think this movie is a masterpiece.
I hated the way Ridley Scott behaved when asked what he thought of this movie.
My favorite movie ever. Thank you Villeneuve and all the other not-known person that worked hard for that magnificient "chef-d'oeuvre"
Awesome breakdown man, the colour symbolism in this film was done so well
Thank you!
I just realized Roger Deakins is actually gonna win this year!
You remind me of someone I knew a long time ago! What is ARRC?
And he did!
These are the kind of contents i wanna see on UA-cam, well done.
This year belongs to Roger Deakins
I love his work, but How?!
Oh yes. Totally!
I almost cried in cinema when i watched it... And i dont even cry at funerals. This is, in my opinion, the highest point, filmic art can reach. Its fulfillment.
I thought this movie was amazing with its details. But amazing videos like yours continue to blow my mind! Thanks
As always, fantastic content! Well done!
Thank you!
Im so happy you talked so much about the lighting and sets in this video! Often when people discuss "cinematography" they really only refer to how the camera is used, im glad you pointed out how the other aspects of the production also play into what makes the shots look so good
And I think one of the greatest parts about this movie is the cinematography and visual effects are just the cherry on top, because it’s supported by a great story and fantastic characters
just talkin out my ass here, but do you think some directors, painters, or artists in general just put random stuff together and then some people over analyze it thinking the creator was trying to tell you something when they really weren't?
yeah exactly.......sometimes the "cigar" is just a cigar.
Zach, it's not all black and white. I don't think there is over-analysis at play here - over-analysis to me would not being able to concentrate on a movie whatsoever because you analyze everything in real-time, which can happen when it's your job (I feel it). Here we have an essay. The goal of an essay is to go as deep as possible into trying to understand why something works.
Does that mean the creators though of everything he mentions that way? Nah.
Does that means creators just "put random stuff together"?! ...hmmm... HELL nah.
No offense, but as a visual artist, I'm tired of both the BS over-analyzer who talks 30 minutes of the philosophical meaning of a white canvas at an art show... and the people coming "but don't you think that artist just put random shit together?"
Bro, listen up : if we were just "putting random stuff together", then anyone would be able to do this, right? The thing is, it feels natural. We just flow. And to most people that might seem random; heck it's even hard to tell what it is.
But trust me, you don't get to this level without years and years of practice and analysis yourself. There are TONS of scientific reasons why certain scenes are composed in a certain way, and why some work and some others don't.
That doesn't mean that you think this way when you create. Of course you don't.
But all those informations help shaping your vision until it flows. It is absolutely not random, even if the artist can't explain it. It is everything but random. That seriously is a lack of understanding and respect for art to say it's random. Just a head up.
Yeah I don't think there is always a deliberate reason for each color, shot, etc. But I'm sure there's something subconscious going on. The lighting setups for this film though were incredible. Each shot was meticulously designed
For light art, it's classic cinematography. For example, when there's a scene showing off negative emotions red light is present in the shot. Meanwhile blue is used for calmer scenes. This is just one example of light art. Your subconscious gets triggered by these repeating patterns/human-centric symbolism.
People have to understand, the kind of detail put into movies isn't just there to boast, it has actual impact. Things like colours affects the audience's subconcious, it conveys emotions, messages etc... And not only colour, framing, editing, length of cuts, horizon lines, etc. That's called cinematography, and it's the unique ways a film can tell a story.
Now I can fully appreciate this movie, thanks to you sharing your knowledge and wonderful descriptions. There is so much more to appreciate now, you're amazing and l love your channel, thanks for all your hard work, I for one appreciate that very much!
You're welcome!
The photography was beautiful. The fact there isn't any shaky cam is a huge plus too.
Oh man, once you pointed out that the horizontal lines are not level, it's really easy to see it in the shots that follow.
Now I need to watch the Rick and Morty scene about True Level again.
Watching your videos is time well spent.
Thank you!
Awesome! Very insightful and great information! Well I'm a total fan of great, convincing world building and symbolism in a movie, combined with great cinematography. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
You're welcome!
Watch this: ua-cam.com/video/AmibnmqfHf8/v-deo.html 16mm
This is one of my favorite movies.
- "Horizon line": Most of what you're showing isn't actually the horizon, it's just random lines in the frame. Second of all, there is absolutely no way Deakins/Villeneuve intended them to be so slightly off. It's just a result of the natural imperfections resulting from filmmaking, you're reading way too much into it.
- "Deakins used wide lenses": Thank you, literally every single film ever has shots filmed with wide lenses. Maybe he did think "yeah it will show the nice sets" but I can assure you that the first thought was "We need an establishing shot to show the audience where our characters are, so we're gonna use a wide lens".
- The point about long corridors and depth, sure. But once again, filmmakers will very often look to create depth in the images.
- "PUNCH IN" What the fuck? That's not a term used in filmmaking. Did you mean "Push in"?
- "Sideways tracking shot" Other than not being a technical term, amongst all the examples you show, the first isn't a tracking shot (It's not following a moving subject), the second is just a pan (the camera is clearly on a tripod), the third is just a dolly shot.
- The part about color, fair enough.
Seriously mate though, do your research before talking about stuff like this, this video is almost spreading misinformation.
This film inspired me to go into filmmaking
What an amazing break down it was almost as good as watching this movie and yes I think hr deserve Oscar, one of best movies 2017
Thank you!
Ah shite, spoilers, gotta go get the blu-ray so i can watch this, standby
Blade Runner 2049 is truly a masterpiece, it stands with 2001: A Space Odyssey and Interstellar for me. Those are the only movies that I feel can come close to completing with 2049’s cinematography.
This Movie was an absolute Masterpiece. If, by some crazy chance, they ever decide to make a follow up... they MUST bring back the same crew. Anything less would most probably be disappointing.
its going so deep diss movie, i can give you 1 hint, QUANT overledger network, DLT/BLOCKCHAIN OS operating system WEB3 foundasion
Roger Deakins really made his masterpiece (so far) in Blade Runner 2049. Such a mesmerising work.
"sounds like a wasp crawling on your hand" - "I'd kill it". And then you realize there was a moment where a wasp did just that on K's hand and he didn't kill it. Holy shit those subtle connections
The colors are very simple: Nigredo, Albedo, Citrinitas, Rubedo.
Nigredo - blackness, chaos, ignorance, etc. prima materia is burned in the alchemist's crucible,
Albedo - purification, separation of opposing principles - eg Luv (Antichrist, white, power over heavens) vs Joshi (Christ, black, power over earth)
Citrinitas - golden dawn, announcing the chemical wedding, reunion of the principles
Rubedo - baptism in blood, the initiate has completed the magnum opus, and became God
the magnum opus is initiated by the Green Lion, vitriol.
everytime we see yellow, it pertains to the realm of the third stage in the Magnum Opus, where the opposing principles reunite - eg. Niander (God of this word) and Han Solo (God of the higher realms, aka the mind, spirit). or The Son (agent K) and The Father (han solo).
everytime we see albedo, it pertains to the stage where stuff is being purged, purified
Niander ni+ander = not human, is the blind (stupid) creator of this imperfect world - Elohim
Han Solo is the I donno, just read some book about alchemy, it was pretty boring for me..
Plotwise, Storywise, Narrativewise, Dialoguewise, Characterwise, Structurewise, Blade Runner is a really bad film. Great practical and graphical effects, good acting and serious production, but clearly the pioneer of the Hollywoodian action blockbuster. I expected so much of it, and after less than an hour, I started despising every minute. I'm talking about the first one...
You can almost say that Mr. Deakins co-directed the movie
Great analysis man... now I have to go watch it again... for the 100th time lol
Wow, putting cameras at angles, and panning cameras in certain ways, and zooming.... who knew? They must have went to cinema school for 10 years to learn this kind of stuff.... Because you don't learn this stuff by messing around with a video camera for 30 minutes....
Don't really think the special effects were that good in this movie. There's no wowness - like when people saw *2001: A Space Odyssey* in 1968 it was different - fab visions - this is all old hat.
How can someone come up with such almost orgasmic levels of visual beauty in modern cinema? All praises to Deakins and Villeneuve!
IDK, I think a lot is whatever you want it to mean. In the first BR, there were caustics during the first VK test at the Tyrell Corp. According to the BTS, the lighting director asked Scott what the source of the caustics were because there is no water in the scene. And basically he said just do it because it was his vision. So in that sense, it was unmotivated lighting, strictly based on Scott's vision, and really had nothing to do with anything but still looked cool. It seems 2049 just took that and put it all on steroids. Looks great, but what does it all mean? Perhaps nothing.
I kind of hate this video. I am a film maker, and understanding/noticing these amazing works of cinematography and acting; while inspiring, only questions my own creativity. Will I ever be able to make something so gorgeous?
Great video! I found this video intriguing. This was my favorite film of 2017 and will always be a masterpiece.
Both of the "Blade Runner" movies are AMAZING and VERY underrated...
The only bad thing about this video was the SPOLIERS. But honestly man, great video.
What no spOIler warning? Damn this video!
In all seriousness though, great video! Just my autism acting up again xD
No shaky cam! So much love for this movie. Would just remove jared leto... Why is he trying so much to be Johny deep?
Anyway, you just got one New sub!
i don't love these shots.. Am I missing something?
Yes, definitely! The uses of color and blocking in these scenes is phenomenal
I really don't get where the "sunlight is always moving because the sun has given up on humanity" comes from. Other than that though, an excellent analysis and breakdown. The aesthetics of this movie are fascinating.
Yes, the lighting in BR2049 is amazing, I was obsessed with it for a few months after I saw the film.
Isn't it a pity that with all this care for the visuals we got yet another uninspired soundtrack by Zimmer?
Congratulations Roger Deakins on the win!
Good break down. But i didnt think it was oscar worthy cinematography. The first blade runners cinematography is way better
It's not my cup of tea. Too contained without realizing the containment. It wants to analyze an ant colony and then is shocked that it's looking at ants... if it realizes it at all. The light of the bee hive is not for ant colonies, yet that is what is given. The first BR is slow but comprehensible. This is a giving up on the story to give one man's style as the message. The takeaway from the movie is a weak attempt at BR and looking down a rabbit hole/ant colony for some style.
Still, when the rebels showed up for the exposition, there was piss poor acoustics and I had difficulty listening to the conversation. Yeah yeah good techniques, but they should always support, not interfere with, the main plot of the movie.
great video except for the comment about the tilted horizon i think that was something they didn't notice when filming....there's no way I can believe it was conceptual....there is no way a cinema audience will notice or be affected by the horizon shift that small.....just an opinion
What a god damn delight this movie was visually. Sucks this movie bombed financially at the box office.
If u can breakdown scenes in movies and Tell About technical aspects of filmmaking...
Appreciate this, but you misspelled SPOILERS.
Distopian movies work better with tight claustrophobic shots, in my opinion. Too much wide space makes the eye wander and releases tension and creates...boredom.
I'm a little confused or missed something, I understand the relation of the colours to certain trends like yellow for when he learned something new, but how does this work for the viewer/audience, do they have a sub conscious connection?
I didn't find that special video link in the description..Please share that once again. TIA (Thanks In Advance).
Ridley Scott, from an art background wanted shimmering lights, no one knew why but he thought it'll look good, and boy is that not an important feature of the first film!
That is an amazing look at this film, I wouldn't have even figured!
Anybody noticed that the scene where the replicants rebels gathered symbolizes the same wallace scene. In a dark space, with water and dim lights. Two sides of the movie.
Notification squad here!
Sorry, this all seems like nonsense to me. What I find most disturbing however is that you're probably entirely right, the filmmaker is lying on his back staring up at the same sky you are seeing the same bunnies and kittens.
Yellow = The yellow brick road. Also, the names K and Joe are likely a reference to Josef K from Kafka's The Trial.
Next video for Adrian Biddle please!
Original blade runner was way better than this film. It was all about color as well but it had texture to it along with distortion.
Distortion like the rain, smoke and texture like the wetness. Unfortunatly none of the sets except for the wasteland compared to the original.
I Loved this movie😭😭a lot of my friends said it was boring but I loved it..I wished it was even longer
I'm not entirely certain that the off kilter horizon is intentional. Looking at your overlay makes me think that what we're seeing is just rectilinear/barrel distortion from the lens.
I hated watching this movie due its plot, but I never appreciated how the movie was made. Since I had never seen the original, I barely understood most of the scenes in this movie. That was thanks to it being too loyal to its source material. But this video makes me want to see it again.
2049 is the worst film I have ever seen. Looks nothing like the original, looks fake as fuck.
Now I want to watch this film again, again!
agree with you!
Hi
Nice review. Wide lenses always increases the perspective. That definitely changes the concept of the scene, thought it stays un noticed in several occasions. Sometimes it adds to the mood or the character of the scene. It depends on the story and the creativity. Make some more videos of this kind.
the film cinematography is fantastic for the most part. But i felt some city shots were over edited with the cloud pollution to really be able to apreaciate the designers miniture work. you lose alot of the detail of buildings when its so fogged up.
And it finally won Roger Deakins his long over due Academy Award!
Awesome video. Gotta watch this movie again - it was breathtaking. I wish I could see it in IMAX
Very informative, thank you. Your English is not too bad.
Don't tell "be subscribtion or something" man. Don't be like any others..
I saw a Jackie Chan scene here, it would of been great if Bruce Lee was alive and at young enough age for this guy to have worked on some of his scenes!
You are confusing a lot of movie information. Shot movement for example is done by the Director.
How about the very orange scenes like 8:03 Practically shot or vfx?
Villeneuve is as important as Deakin here.
Seee this is why after 20 years Roger won his oscar and Deni should of been nominated for best director for this film.
superb demonstration, bravo
oh. yes!
Brilliant stuff. Been waiting for a good BR 2049 analysis!
just Fantastic. Its like - whatever you watch first the "movie" or "this video" the second to watch is the other.
B- analysis. I celebrate your attempt, however.
Unfortunately the oscar goes to the last jedi!! Disney just bought it!!!
Those are mirrors not solar panels, they focus light onto the center tower which houses a large solar energy collector. Great video though :P
Great video👌You just earned a sub:)))
the best thing you can say about this movie is that everything was thought out and intentional. It seems obvious but almost no filmmakers bother with that level of consideration to things.