There's no question that Blade Runner 2049 revolves around computer-generated effects, whether it's the retro-futuristic technology or its holographic AI personas. However, the CG is more pervasive than you might think. Rodeo FX has released a visual effects reel for Denis Villeneuve's bleak sci-fi movie, and it's evident that even the seemingly mundane shots were draped in digital artwork. Caution: there are mild spoilers ahead.
It's not shocking that some scenes are entirely CG (such as flights over the future Los Angeles), or have to use it to fill in landscapes that don't exist. However, it's the extent to which it's used. When K exits his vehicle in Las Vegas, for example, very little of the scene is real -- he's walking toward a green screen held up by a crane. Even moments that don't look like they need CG, such as visiting a collection of genetic records or a sweatshop, use it to add depth and atmosphere.
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/25/blade-runner-2049-vfx-reel/
Also: The VFX reel for Blade Runner 2049 shows how Denis Villeneuve brought his dystopian world to life
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:20AM (2 children)
What shocked me the most was that you saw a total of like six people in that huge Wallace corporation building, and not even any robots or automated motion. Maybe they were shut down for the holidays?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:35AM
They were off for Arbor Day. The robot tree union has many non-tree robot members.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:08PM
Anyone worth a damn probably migrated to a less shit planet. The world did seem to have a lack of automation though. Almost intentional like an architectural style. Brutalist architecture is the unfinished poured concrete look. This is like a finished building with consciously absent human assistance/convenience factors. Future-modern-retro is absurdly long and dimly lit hallways and making everyone touch surfaces and physically interact with the building as much as possible? Reminding you about how much of life is a struggle.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:43AM (1 child)
I am shocked that the eds are not posting any of the fine submissions by aristarchus. Most of these ones are getting like one, or two, comments.
Aristarchus submissions are good for far more comments that that, even at
ChristmasHolidays time. Just saying.(Score: 4, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:34AM
Having a lot of comments -- when they're in cyber they're called tweets -- uses up a lot of cyber resources. Cyber currency, which is made from Gigawatts, and cyber space, they call it Terabytes. My Library of Congress was trying to "archive" (steal) the tweets from Twitter, but they don't have the cyber resources to keep trying.
Let me tell you, it isn't easy to get cyber resources. In my first month in office, I sent my special forces to Yemen. To capture cyber space from al-Qaeda. And William Owens, one of my brave soldiers, was killed. Very badly killed. He knew what he was signing up for, it's very dangerous work. But his father was angry at me anyway. So unfair! But it was worth it, because we captured a lot, a lot of cyber space. One Terabyte. Which added to our cyber intelligence, our cyber I.Q.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 27 2017, @07:42AM
I'm Making America Great Again. Including NASA. With my Space Policy Directive 1. Very soon, NASA is going to be showing a lot of new Moon landings. The best Moon landings this world has ever seen, great production values. They're going to look beautiful, folks. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, washpost and nytimes will tell you about our wonderful Moon landings. And show the amazing photos & videos. TREMENDOUS! #TrumpTV [twitter.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @12:10PM (1 child)
The original was 'real', and did just fine. Doing it in CG is just laziness.
(Score: 3, Funny) by snufu on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:47AM
It's a shame this CG technology was not available in 1982, the original might have been visually interesting.