Blade Runner 2049 3D Blu-ray (2017) [Region Free]

[levcore]

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/roge...rted-to-3d-182

Cinematographer says it will probably be converted to 3D. Here's hoping!

[film11]

Roo bad Ridley isn't directing. It would have been shot using 3D cameras. Doesn't sound like the DP is thinking of composing to take advantage of the 3D format.

[Hardkore]

I was curious and decided to check on something. Lo and behold...3D.

http:// https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2049

Blade Runner 2049 is an upcoming American science fiction film directed by Denis Villeneuve and produced by Ridley Scott, written by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green. It is the sequel to Blade Runner and sees Harrison Ford reprise his role as Rick Deckard. It is set for release on October 6, 2017 in 2D, 3D and IMAX 3D. Alongside Ford, it will also star an ensemble cast such as Ryan Gosling, Robin Wright, Dave Bautista, Sylvia Hoeks, Ana de Armas, Carla Juri, David Dastmalchian, Barkhad Abdi, Lennie James and Jared Leto.

[levcore]

Dayum that is good news! What a pleasant surprise. Let's put it down to Ridley Scott's involvement.

[Zivouhr]

YouTube

Cool news, thanks Hardkore for the info. Here's a video I found, though it only mentions the title.

[AllOuttaBubbleGum]

Any indication of this being a native 3D shoot?

[BleedOrange11]

I read an interview with Roger Deakins a while back where he said it'd most likely be a conversion.

BRIDGES: It's the future of our business. What we do is pretty primitive in a way. You know, 24 frames—that's about as slow as you can get now.

DEAKINS: Yeah. [laughs] I don't do that virtual reality stuff. I'm not even into 3-D actually.

BRIDGES: Have you shot in 3-D?

DEAKINS: No, I won't. I've been offered it. I just don't want to. I think I'm gonna do this film with Denis [Villeneuve] that'll be made into 3-D eventually, but it won't be shot in 3-D. I don't really like watching 3-D. I mean, I've worked on a lot of animated movies that were 3-D ...

BRIDGES: Those animated films are interesting. It's so expensive to do it that they rewrite that script over and over, and it takes years to do!

DEAKINS: Yeah, it's a crazy process. It takes, like, four years. I've been working on animated films, not at the moment, but for the last few years, and I do it remotely. So when I was in Australia with Angelina Jolie shooting Unbroken, I was working on this film How to Train Your Dragon 2 at the same time. [laughs] You know, because it's so slow.

http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/roger-deakins#_


I don't expect him to shoot much different than he does for 2D, but who knows? That's an all-star cast and crew though. I'm looking forward to it very much as a 2D film.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I read an interview with Roger Deakins a while back where he said it'd most likely be a conversion.


http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/roger-deakins#_


I don't expect him to shoot much different than he does for 2D, but who knows? That's an all-star cast and crew though. I'm looking forward to it very much as a 2D film.

What a damn shame. This had huge potential for 3D.

[TM2-Megatron]

With Ridley Scott at least involved, I was hoping for native 3-D. If it's a conversion, this will likely be hugely disappointing.

Ridley Scott should've directed and just mandated that it be shot native, as he did with Prometheus and The Martian. I'm sure we also would've gotten a more impressive movie from him, visually.

[BleedOrange11]

Sicario and Prisoners were lovely 2D and brilliant thrillers. Ridley Scott is going to be busy making an assumedly native 3D western, so to be honest, I'm completely fine with Villeneuve and Deakins running this project. There aren't enough quality 3D filmmakers in Hollywood to go around, and they shouldn't have to shoot 3D if they aren't interested. Whether such movies actually need to be converted or not is another matter...

[mseeley]

Even if it's not shot in 3D, I'm optimistic that the 3d conversion will still be stellar, since Deakins is very graceful with his shots (I don't recall ever seeing him do quick cuts or shaky cam in his films ) so the chances that the shots will be long and still enough for 3d are high I would think. Either way I can't wait to see this movie since the wait has been long enough as it is lol

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Sicario and Prisoners were lovely 2D and brilliant thrillers. Ridley Scott is going to be busy making an assumedly native 3D western, so to be honest, I'm completely fine with Villeneuve and Deakins running this project. There aren't enough quality 3D filmmakers in Hollywood to go around, and they shouldn't have to shoot 3D if they aren't interested. Whether such movies actually need to be converted or not is another matter...

Yes, but those films wouldn't have benefitted from 3D anyway. They were excellent films, I agree though.

[levcore]

Every film would benefit from 3D.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by levcore

Every film would benefit from 3D.

Ummm, not sure mate.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yes, but those films wouldn't have benefitted from 3D anyway. They were excellent films, I agree though.

If they can't find someone who can do both, I'd rather have a good movie made for 2D than a bad movie with good 3D, especially for a follow-up to Blade Runner.

[BleedOrange11]

It's too bad they can't just find a talented director who's open to shooting native and willing to let a stereographer determine the look of the 3D and help integrate a few 3D sequences into the story. That's how 3D movies were made in the 1950s, and every single one of them looks incredible. Not so anymore. Directors and cinematographers get to toggle the depth knob themselves or punt it to VFX teams.

[TM2-Megatron]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Sicario and Prisoners were lovely 2D and brilliant thrillers. Ridley Scott is going to be busy making an assumedly native 3D western, so to be honest, I'm completely fine with Villeneuve and Deakins running this project. There aren't enough quality 3D filmmakers in Hollywood to go around, and they shouldn't have to shoot 3D if they aren't interested. Whether such movies actually need to be converted or not is another matter...

I'm sure he's a fine 2-D cinematographer, but my main issue is that Deakins said in that interview is that he isn't interested in 3-D, nor does he even like watching it. So it's not likely to be shot with 3-D in mind, and a conversion is a complete waste of everybody's time. They should've gone with someone who wasn't so indifferent; as a 3-D fan his attitude is extremely off-putting. We don't need yet another mediocre conversion made by someone who couldn't care less to shovel some more dirt onto the format's coffin. We need quality, natively-shot 3-D films that will show audiences 3-D at its best. A Blade Runner film could've been such a title, but in the hands of someone who doesn't care I suspect it'll be a disappointment.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

If they can't find someone who can do both, I'd rather have a good movie made for 2D than a bad movie with good 3D, especially for a follow-up to Blade Runner.

Oh yes, of course.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by levcore

Every film would benefit from 3D.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Ummm, not sure mate.

I can't think of a film that wouldn't benefit from 3D. If Blade Runner could get the kind of conversion Titanic (or even Star Trek Into Darkness) got then I would be a very happy man.

Sadly, it sounds like Blade Runner 2049 isn't even going to look as good as either of those, what with neither the cinematographer or director really caring about 3D. I'm expecting a 3D conversion along the lines of Jupiter Ascending...

[Creed]

Blade Runner 2049 Announcement - YouTube