Blade Runner 2049 | October 6, 2017 | Villeneuve directs | Full Trailer on Page 40

[Valonqar]

48 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

Hollywood Ending: Big Studios Cutting Losses This Weekend, Pulling Flops From Theaters Earlier Than Usual

OMG, who is this incompetence?

 

Quote

Also just about dead is the much praised “Battle of the Sexes,” Fox Searchlight couldn’t get anyone to go see it despite great reviews and excellent marketing.

 

How's marketing excellent when it couldn't put butts in seats? You either interest people in the product/service/movie/etc or you fail. BotS marketing is an epic fail. There's no way around it. It may have looked as pretty as a picture but it didn't connect. It's how Fincher's Salander movie had overly artistic marketing that felt like an Arctic wind. And people didn't flock to the movie though it managed to leg its way to 100M which is bad for 90M budget. But the studio expected R rated Twilight. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Valonqar

[EmmaPeel]

3 hours ago, Valonqar said:

OMG, who is this incompetence?

 

 

How's marketing excellent when it couldn't put butts in seats? You either interest people in the product/service/movie/etc or you fail. BotS marketing is an epic fail. There's no way around it. It may have looked as pretty as a picture but it didn't connect. It's how Fincher's Salander movie had overly artistic marketing that felt like an Arctic wind. And people didn't flock to the movie though it managed to leg its way to 100M which is bad for 90M budget. But the studio expected R rated Twilight. 

There weren't butts in the seats for BOTS because nobody cared about it. The marketing was fine. I wouldn't call it excellent but it was perfectly fine IMO. Not all movies are going to sell tickets. A movie about a minor historical footnote in a no longer particularly popular sport (certainly nowhere near as popular as it was when the exhibition match the movie was based on took place) was never going to sell a ton of tickets no matter how good it was or looked. Biographical films are a tough enough sell when they're about a major compelling event.

Edited October 22, 2017 by EmmaPeel

[The Futurist]

So this is gonna sell less tickets than the first one some 35 years ago.

 

[John Marston]

9 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

So this is gonna sell less tickets than the first one some 35 years ago.

 

 

 

yeppers

[EmpireCity]

5 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

Hollywood Ending: Big Studios Cutting Losses This Weekend, Pulling Flops From Theaters Earlier Than Usual

 

The fucking idiot who wrote this has absolutely no idea how theatrical exhibition works.  I fucking hate people sometimes.  

[Barnack]

5 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

Hollywood Ending: Big Studios Cutting Losses This Weekend, Pulling Flops From Theaters Earlier Than Usual

Warner’s, meantime, is facing more trouble than the other studios. Their “Geostorm” is going to be a disaster this weekend. And their “Lego Ninja” movie is leaving 951 theaters after $52 million and five weeks. Better to get out while they can.

 

I have no idea what does that even mean, why would a studio want to have theater not play their movie, what does he mean what is the advantage of removing from screen your movie ?

[EmpireCity]

52 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Warner’s, meantime, is facing more trouble than the other studios. Their “Geostorm” is going to be a disaster this weekend. And their “Lego Ninja” movie is leaving 951 theaters after $52 million and five weeks. Better to get out while they can.

 

I have no idea what does that even mean, why would a studio want to have theater not play their movie, what does he mean what is the advantage of removing from screen your movie ?

He is a fucking idiot.  Warner Bros. isn't pulling the movie early, it isn't performing to certain levels so theaters can drop it for other content.  The guy doesn't understand how theater exhibition works.  

[grim22]

7 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

Hollywood Ending: Big Studios Cutting Losses This Weekend, Pulling Flops From Theaters Earlier Than Usual

This is like the most misinformed article I have read, not even sure what the point is supposed to be. 

[DAJK]

Not sure if I've complained about this yet but this movie, while I didn't love it when I first saw it, hasn't sat with me well at all. Honestly, bleh, I couldn't care less that it's flopping.

 

Happy Death Day and Geostorm were both better watches IMO

[That One Girl]

2 minutes ago, DAJK said:

Not sure if I've complained about this yet but this movie, while I didn't love it when I first saw it, hasn't sat with me well at all. Honestly, bleh, I couldn't care less that it's flopping.

 

Happy Death Day and Geostorm were both better watches IMO

 

you had a good geostorm take and then you come along with this.  it's a shame really.

[DAJK]

2 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

you had a good geostorm take and then you come along with this.  it's a shame really.

Well, I didn't say better films, because Blade Runner is straight up art. It's beautiful. It's a magnificent piece of cinema really. 

 

But I was bored as hell watching it. HDD and Geostorm weren't great movies, but at least their runtimes are each pretty much half of 2049's, and their pacing isn't bad.

[a2k]

12 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

Hollywood Ending: Big Studios Cutting Losses This Weekend, Pulling Flops From Theaters Earlier Than Usual

 

[The Futurist]

The fact that nobody is talking about the monumental achievement of MPC in that movie gives you an idea of the scope of the magic trick they have pulled off.

That Carl Sagan quote I always forget about science and magic.

It s also for me Year One of a new era.

Anything is possible now. 

Rogue One was fine and all but ILM can go back to their studies.

I asked around and people have really no clue about the magic trick I am talking about.

 

The most important VFX movie since, Two Towers ?

I think so.

 

MPC is the Captain Now !

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by The Futurist

[MrGlass2]

Finally saw it. As someone who loves Blade Runner, I always thought a sequel was unnecessary; and in some respect it was.

 

But what a great movie.

[shayhiri]

5 hours ago, The Futurist said:

The fact that nobody is talking about the monumental achievement of MPC in that movie gives you an idea of the scope of the magic trick they have pulled off.

That Carl Sagan quote I always forget about science and magic.

It s also for me Year One of a new era.

Anything is possible now. 

Rogue One was fine and all but ILM can go back to their studies.

I asked around and people have really no clue about the magic trick I am talking about.

 

The most important VFX movie since, Two Towers ?

I think so.

 

MPC is the Captain Now !

 

 

Yeah, but Rogue1 had Leia and Tarkin.

 

It was better done here though - and for a whole full scene.

 

But the uncanny valley is still there - it's always the eyes that give them away.

 

Still - best artificial human ever done, till now.

Edited October 24, 2017 by shayhiri

[The Futurist]

No uncanny valley for me.

I shrieked Holy Fucking Shit in my theater because I was not sure what I was seeing.

 

The fact this is not being discussed is the proof nobody felt the valley at all (or barely).

 

This is absolutely incredible & the dawn of a new era : Cameron prediction came true and neither ILM or Weta did it.

 

[RandomCat]

13 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

No uncanny valley for me.

I shrieked Holy Fucking Shit in my theater because I was not sure what I was seeing.

 

The fact this is not being discussed is the proof nobody felt the valley at all (or barely).

 

This is absolutely incredible & the dawn of a new era : Cameron prediction came true and neither ILM or Weta did it.

 

I mean, maybe? Everyone was talking about it for Rogue One because ILM wanted it out there.

 

Of course, Ant-Man did it just as good years ago.

 

Edit: Plus, considering it was all of a handful of shots, and didn't even have to do anything like portray emotion, it isn't THAT exciting.

Edited October 24, 2017 by RandomJC

[Goffe]

18 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

No uncanny valley for me.

I shrieked Holy Fucking Shit in my theater because I was not sure what I was seeing.

 

The fact this is not being discussed is the proof nobody felt the valley at all (or barely).

 

This is absolutely incredible & the dawn of a new era : Cameron prediction came true and neither ILM or Weta did it.

 

Are you referring to 

Spoiler

deaged Rachel?

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Goffe

[The Futurist]

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

I mean, maybe? Everyone was talking about it for Rogue One because ILM wanted it out there.

 

Of course, Ant-Man did it just as good years ago.

Ant-Man is a different technology and process.

Ant-Man is the continuous work, started way back for Bejamin Button, of a VFX company called Lola VFX.

They have become THE company for aging/de-aging actors.

http://lolavfx.com

 

 

Here, MPC is creating a digital face from the ground up, without the original actor on set, like in Rogue One.

There s a double actor on set with a perf/cap rig.

They used the technologies they developped for 1984 Arnold in Terminator Genysis to achieve you know what in BR 2049.

 

But yeah, in retrospect, this is kinda doing the same thing : de-againg an actor, but the process to get there is very different, & the result I would argue, and it opens the door to a new James Dean franchise.

 

Ant Man & dozens of others films, this year we had Pirates 5, Guardians 2 etc : Digital make Up.

 

Terminator Genysis (2015), Rogue One (2016), BR 2049 (2017) : Digital Photo-Real Character

 

Since Weta Digital has the best eye technology/eye animation/digital eye acting in the business since Gollum, at least, I am very intrigued to see them doing a photo real, digital human actor, it would be absolutely stupendous IMO.

 

Oh yeah sorry cinephiles who have a hard on on Serkis, I wanted to post this since this summer but Andy Serkis has actually very litte (I know, it s a bit harsh to say) to do with the quality of acting of his characters, which is actually done by Weta Digital animators.

That's actually the current biggest misconception people have of what performance capture is/can do.

I blame Cameron for this, he made people believed that you actually recorded the actor's performance with the rig they have on their skull/face, which is kinda false.

He used to say you recorded 85% of the actor s performance with the rig but its kinda bullshit since it s the remaining 15% that makes the performance believable.

I mean you do record something, data, the camera captures the face, the movements of the dots on the face, but it only serves as reference, a very detailed and precise one for animators. (It s probably more complicated but hey, that s how I understand it).

An interview from the War of the Planet of the Apes VFX supervisor explained in detail what I suspected all along since the Avatar days : performance capture is in fact mostly ANIMATION, especially when you do Gollum, monkeys and non-human creatures.

Skull, jaw, mouth motions, proportions, facial features, muscles, everything is different from Serkis' head, so you basically have to reconstruct everything from the ground up to do Gollum/Kong/Ceasar/A Na'vi.

 

And finally, the most important thing : the eyes, the final detail from GOD.

Zemeckis movies of the 2000's were terrible because the company who did them was unable to do the eyes. Nobody was able to do it properly in those days.

The Zombie eye effect it was called.

Weta had Gollum (2002) but he had big, manga type eyes, like the Na'vis which made it way more easy.

Yoda (2002,2005) & Davy Jones (2006,2007) by ILM were good tho but a bit cartoony still.

The game changer as far as "digital eye acting" was Apes 2011 with human type eyes that felt genuine and believable in intense, complex & nuanced drama scenes.

The work Weta Digital animators have been doing has no parallel regarding the "eye acting" in the Apes trilogy.

And somehow, it is Andy Serkis that is getting all the praise for these movies which couldn't be a more inacurate thing to say.

Even tho some scenes in Warcraft last year from ILM were quite fantastic IMO, Weta still has the upper hand in "eye animation."

 

Without the eyes being done absolutely close to perfection , you have nothing in animation/perf cap.

It s the hardest thing to do by far.

It is the final microscopic detail (angle of the eyes, flicker, eye lid movements, pupil dilation, colors, rendering & textures etc) that makes it all come together.

 

The premise of all I just said is that your camera/captor on your performance capture rig cannot really record in a series of 010011010010  what the eyes are doing on a human/actor s face.

 

So, yeah, performance capture is a bit of a Myth.

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by The Futurist

[dashrendar44]

2 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Ant-Man is a different technology and process.

Ant-Man is the continuous work, started way back for Bejamin Button, of a VFX company called Lola VFX.

Thye have become THE company for aging/de-aging actors.

 

Here, MPC is creating a digital face from the ground up, without the original actor on set, like in Rogue One.

They used the technologies they developped for 1984 Arnold in Terminator Genysis to achieve you know what in BR 20149.

 

But yeah, in retrospect, this is kinda doing the same thing : de-againg an actor, but the process to get there is very different, & result I would argue, and opens the door to a new James Deen franchise.

 

 

I jsut read a VFX breakdown delving into it...

 

 

 

 

Is Sean Young that nut nowadays that they didn't ask her to perform on set facing Harrison Ford for reference?

 

Must be kind of a waste of resources to have to get another actress providing a performance on set then create a CG Sean Young head identical to her 1982 likeness using BR 4K footage for reference instead of using Sean Young 2017 on set and de-age her like Michael Douglas in Ant-Man. It's been a long way since Tron Legacy but still.

 

The robotic aspect of the character really helps sell the illusion and fool general audience but good luck trying with an actor/actress who portraying a more expressive, jittery and not stiff in general. The dead eyes and the dearth of micro-deviations, lips movement and muscles often betray the artificiality of the CG human double as for now.

 

And Harrison Ford's reaction to the Rachael clone VFX is to dimiss her as a simulacrum that would never compare to their individual and special experience which is like "tears in the rain". (Let alone the creepy idea of a decrepit old man rekinkling his old flame by having a customized sex doll clone being engineered to his liking for nostalgic purpose) I couldn't help to chuckle at the director's not so thinly veiled meta-commentary at this fuckery applied to cinema, it seems to mirror people's troubling concern regarding this technology meddling with actors image defying laws of time, life and death, for entertainment business purpose, technically, morally and philosophically.
 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by dashrendar44