Really?

I've avoided the trailers so far... Deakins is usually amazing (check out his work)... I'm holding out judgement until I see it on the big screen.

The trailer does look nice but I'm wondering if it's shot on film or digital because imo that does make a difference.

Also I wonder if the expectations for the cinematography will be so high that it might actually have a negative impact. the predecessor invented its own look and anything less awe inspiring could just feel wrong.

I read it'll be shot digitally... on the Alexa... I'm not going to pre-judge... Deakins is usually very good at matching the cinematography to the story...

thats good because even though I love great imagery as much as anybody the truly great cinematographers match their work to the story. I did like La La Land overall but I started to expect 'chocolate box' shots every scene and it actually got a little distracting. I'm a big fan of Vilmos Zsigmund but the story for Heaven's Gate was so badly told (in my opinion) that his work far surpassed everything else and it felt like a series of postcards.

ok... so now that we've seen the movie what do you guys think?

I think that while the oroginal is still supperior, the sequel is pretty amazing... Deakins got it right in my opinion.. It's consistent with the original, but takes it's own interpretation...

I loved that they didn't go crazy with the overdone colour grading thst most big films use these days... it looked real, like they were photographing the future.. didn't look cartoony unlike most big movies these days

I hope he finally gets his Oscar for this.

but as a reminder of how amazing the original looked, here's a short clip where some cinematographers break down some shots...

https://youtu.be/HMHj3nUS3F0

thanks Reno for that helpful link. I'm getting ready to shoot a video and listening to the tech aspects of lighting is really illuminating.

just my opinion on BR 2049:

yes, the visuals are quite impressive at times, but strangely there were entire scenes that looked like Deakins was sick the day of the shoot. Not to say they were badly lit, but just very flat. I counted at least a couple scenes where it looked like it was lit only with florescent lighting. Bland looking to me.

Then there seemed to be a couple looks/effects that were too reminiscent of BR82: the water ripples on the wall comes to mind.

Overall it was visually interesting to see it in IMAX no doubt.

glad you found it useful...

i actually liked the water light reflections on the wall... a reminder that this is still partly the Tyrell corp... but yes, it does run the risk that you start comparing it with that part of the older movie and are reminded by just how good that was...

@illnagas said:

Then there seemed to be a couple looks/effects that were too reminiscent of BR82

Shouldn't that be BR 2019 ;)

@topic: I really liked the cinematography and didn't have any problems with it. However I was disappointed by the soundtrack. The only times I remember any of it was when they inserted cues from the first movie or when it was too loud and annoying, eg those loud bwaaaa-sound you normally only hear in trailers.

Nominated for an Oscar for it's cinematography... Might finally be Roger Deakins' year after a record 14 nominations and no wins!

I still think that Hoyte Van Hoytema might give him a run for his money with his work om Dunkirk...

Should be interesting...

Deakins wins the Oscar 🏆