Blade Runner 2049
- Thread starter roxics
- Start date
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Agreed.
Although on another forum I am on, people either love it or hate it.
Intensely.
Thought it was well done in every respect myself.
The original is why I got into the business, so I am not an unbiased source.
Although on another forum I am on, people either love it or hate it.
Intensely.
Thought it was well done in every respect myself.
The original is why I got into the business, so I am not an unbiased source.
Last edited:
dmitrizigany
Veteran
Hmmm, probably have to see it again before I can really say what I think of it... but first impression is a bit of disappointment...
And I will never forgive whoever decided a grey t-shirt was appropriate attire for a main character in a Blade Runner movie
And I will never forgive whoever decided a grey t-shirt was appropriate attire for a main character in a Blade Runner movie
JPNola
Veteran
Hmmm, probably have to see it again before I can really say what I think of it... but first impression is a bit of disappointment...
And I will never forgive whoever decided a grey t-shirt was appropriate attire for a main character in a Blade Runner movie
I haven't seen it, but I suspect for many it falls under "you can never go back". Some things should be left in their moment in time. Like when a band that you loved in your youth gets back together and you go to see them on tour but it just doesn't work for you like it used to. You've changed. The world has changed. The band members have changed. And it was better off left as a thing in the past. Pure in the greatness of the moment and not suffering the indignity of attempted revival.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I don't think it's that with this film. As a sequel story I thought it was very good, building on the world and questions of the first film while bringing its own ideas to the table. I never felt like it was trying to recycle old ideas. I think it's mostly the pace, which is slow and contemplative and testing of modern viewers patience. The original wasn't action packed either but I think the pace was better modulated. This film is all one slow pace almost all the way through. I can appreciate a movie that takes its time so that wasn't an issue for me. I did like it a lot but I'll probably have to watch it again to see where I'd rate it though.
The original was slow paced too. Each scene was brilliant but there were too many of them.
PS. Insofar as the reviews go, I suspect that most of this forum members cast a more professional eye toward any production in the "I happen to know how the sausages are really made" manner. "Dunkirk" got a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes (vs. 89% on "Blade Runner II) and I disliked almost everything about it.
PS. Insofar as the reviews go, I suspect that most of this forum members cast a more professional eye toward any production in the "I happen to know how the sausages are really made" manner. "Dunkirk" got a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes (vs. 89% on "Blade Runner II) and I disliked almost everything about it.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I enjoyed it on the whole, but it was simply too long, too slow. And the grand themes present in the first are not really represented in kind here. The themes of the new film (I guess it can be rightfully called "Son of Blade Runner") have a single interesting thought that doesn't particularly go any further. And why did Ryan Gosling choose to take his acting inspiration from Ford's universally-hated first theatrical release voiceover? The original was contemplative but this one was needlessly slow, like an hour's worth.
Of course it is absolutely beautiful in cinematography and production design, both of which I felt dutifully respected the original while extending naturally onto their own path. The story was fine but could have been done with deeper thematic meaning than I think the film believes it actually has. Just because you say something in a couple ways doesn't mean you're saying much about it. In other words, we got the Hampton Fancher from the original, but too bad we didn't get the David Peoples as well. If you want to know great screenwriting for taking a theme and bringing it into contextualization, metaphor and straight up dialog, look at what Peoples did in The Unforgiven ("Helluva thing killing a man, you take away everything he's got and everything he's gonna have."). Rutger Hauer may or may not have written Roy Batty's death speech, but I bet Peoples was responsible for Leon's lines when he confronts Deccard ("Nothing is worse than having an itch you can't scratch.").
I liked the new film. I admired it. But it could have been much shorter and much deeper.
Of course it is absolutely beautiful in cinematography and production design, both of which I felt dutifully respected the original while extending naturally onto their own path. The story was fine but could have been done with deeper thematic meaning than I think the film believes it actually has. Just because you say something in a couple ways doesn't mean you're saying much about it. In other words, we got the Hampton Fancher from the original, but too bad we didn't get the David Peoples as well. If you want to know great screenwriting for taking a theme and bringing it into contextualization, metaphor and straight up dialog, look at what Peoples did in The Unforgiven ("Helluva thing killing a man, you take away everything he's got and everything he's gonna have."). Rutger Hauer may or may not have written Roy Batty's death speech, but I bet Peoples was responsible for Leon's lines when he confronts Deccard ("Nothing is worse than having an itch you can't scratch.").
I liked the new film. I admired it. But it could have been much shorter and much deeper.
I Like it, but I agree it was too slow. I watched it in 3d, pretty subtle. I for the life of me have no idea why the junk yard scene even happened? Maybe I missed some connector. I wish they would have introduced Harrison Ford earlier.
Shane
roxics
Veteran
I do agree the pace was slow. I remember thinking "it seems like the movie should end soon but we haven't seen Harrison Ford yet so I know we'll be sitting here a while longer."
I really enjoyed what I refer to as living lights in the film. The constantly moving light and patterns. It could be a bit annoying at times, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in an environment like that, but it was different and interesting. Not something I would consider doing myself if it wasn't called for by something on screen like a light bulb swinging or headlights passing by. But at the same time I completely expected Deckard to call it out when he was sitting with Wallace. "Don't you think you should do something about your lighting, it's a little inconsistent"
I also loved the sort of faux analog computer interfaces and how they didn't try to modernize that stuff to fit with that we have today, but instead took it into an alternate future based on the original Blade Runner.
I mean they really had to, our 2019 is just over a year away and unless something magical and horrific happens it's not going to look like the original Blade Runner. So neither will our 2049 by extension.
I really enjoyed what I refer to as living lights in the film. The constantly moving light and patterns. It could be a bit annoying at times, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in an environment like that, but it was different and interesting. Not something I would consider doing myself if it wasn't called for by something on screen like a light bulb swinging or headlights passing by. But at the same time I completely expected Deckard to call it out when he was sitting with Wallace. "Don't you think you should do something about your lighting, it's a little inconsistent"
I also loved the sort of faux analog computer interfaces and how they didn't try to modernize that stuff to fit with that we have today, but instead took it into an alternate future based on the original Blade Runner.
I mean they really had to, our 2019 is just over a year away and unless something magical and horrific happens it's not going to look like the original Blade Runner. So neither will our 2049 by extension.
^ Absolutely 100% agree with this. A masterpiece really. Also - that script is brilliant on so many levels - not least of which is the impetus behind everything that happens starts because of a certain lack of size - or maybe inflated ego.
Carry on w/ BR 2049...
David_Manning
Active member
I’m not a sound guy, but come on...the sound was incredible.
It is a great story, but I think a cop/detective story was turned into a deep Arrival-esque think-fest by the pacing. To have more empathy with the protagonist, K should’ve been a human, with more obvious human emotional weakness. In other words, it was slow and Ryan Gosling’s character was too cold.
Don’t misunderstand me...I’ll never be a fan of cutting every two seconds to keep an audience’s attention span.
It is a great story, but I think a cop/detective story was turned into a deep Arrival-esque think-fest by the pacing. To have more empathy with the protagonist, K should’ve been a human, with more obvious human emotional weakness. In other words, it was slow and Ryan Gosling’s character was too cold.
Don’t misunderstand me...I’ll never be a fan of cutting every two seconds to keep an audience’s attention span.
I hated the original Blade Runner when I first saw it because I was expecting to see PKD's book on the big screen, and was a bit pissed that Ridley Scott had used only about 5 percent of the original material to make the movie. Over several years and many screenings later, I grew to love Blade Runner for what it is and consider it to be a SF masterpiece.
I saw BR 2049 last Thursday at one of the first screenings in Toronto. While I don't hate the film, I don't think the world building is anywhere near as good as the original film. To me it really felt that they were trying way too hard to make every scene a big deal, like I was trapped in a crazy future version of Disneyland. The camera spends very little time in each new environment and nothing feels connected or lived-in the way the original film did.
I will definitely see it a few more times to see if I can warm up to it, but for now it's a competent film that does not live up to the imagination of Ridley Scott's original.
I saw BR 2049 last Thursday at one of the first screenings in Toronto. While I don't hate the film, I don't think the world building is anywhere near as good as the original film. To me it really felt that they were trying way too hard to make every scene a big deal, like I was trapped in a crazy future version of Disneyland. The camera spends very little time in each new environment and nothing feels connected or lived-in the way the original film did.
I will definitely see it a few more times to see if I can warm up to it, but for now it's a competent film that does not live up to the imagination of Ridley Scott's original.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
This.
My wife and I streamed the 2007 "final cut" version of Blade Runner last weekend and went to see BR 2047 today. It's just spectacular. The attention to detail is amazing. Roger Deakins hits another home run with lighting that's so good it's hard to actually see it; you'll think it's all available lighting but this crowd knows it's not, and knows how hard it is to light so that it's unnoticeable. His framing is, well, it's Deakins. And the sets... dang. Those people should be picking up some serious awards. The music is awesome, the use of Tibetan horns was perfect. And the rest of the sound was amazing. Anyone who's interested in sound should make a trek to the theater for this movie.
Contrary to most, I thought the pacing was perfect. As was the length. I can't think of anything I'd be willing to cut, or anything I'd be willing to shorten.
I loved the original Blade Runner; this sequel actually builds on and exceeds the original. I wound not have thought that possible.
After Arrival and now BR 2047, Denis Villeneuve is my new favorite director.
Beautiful looking movie, but I found it to be very style-over-substance, at least when it come to the central story / mystery. I was hooked for the first half of the movie, but then I started to feel that there really wasn't a whole lot going on beneath the seams beyond the obvious.
I don't mind long movies, as long as there is plenty of story to justify it, but with BR2049 I felt like there was a lot of subtext & side-dressings, but not a whole lot of meat to the story. Ultimately, I felt like it took 2 hours 45 minutes to tell half of a story.
Also, was nobody else bothered by the fact that virtually every scene with Niander Wallace was a essentially just constant stream of exposition via a monologue to himself and anybody within ears distance. And considering that everybody within ears distance were replicants, or "slaves" in his own words, he is basically just explaining his "dastardly" plans out loud to himself and the audience.
I don't mind long movies, as long as there is plenty of story to justify it, but with BR2049 I felt like there was a lot of subtext & side-dressings, but not a whole lot of meat to the story. Ultimately, I felt like it took 2 hours 45 minutes to tell half of a story.
Also, was nobody else bothered by the fact that virtually every scene with Niander Wallace was a essentially just constant stream of exposition via a monologue to himself and anybody within ears distance. And considering that everybody within ears distance were replicants, or "slaves" in his own words, he is basically just explaining his "dastardly" plans out loud to himself and the audience.
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
"Warner Bros.' marketing for the film has been one of the key reasons people think the film missed the mark at the box office. Trailers and clips for the movie kept all plot specifics hidden, out of fear of spoilers" --- http://www.indiewire.com/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-denis-villeneuve-box-office-1201886155/
Do you guys believe this, that the previews needed to reveal more of the plot? I have a hard time believing that the reason more people didn't go is because they needed to know more of the surprises ahead of time. That doesn't make any sense.
I'll tell you three reasons I think the movie might have a hard time making back its money:
1. $150 million production cost + $150 marketing cost = $300 million cost, for a movie that was always just a cult hit. The original Blade Runner was a disappointment at the Box Office too. It rose in popularity on home video. The new Blade Runner made as much on its opening weekend as the original made over its entire run (unadjusted for inflation though).
2. Denis Villeneuve. What do these three directors all have in common: Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, and Denis Villeneuve? Answer: Visually beautiful films that are paced slowly. If you are a film student you might say they are masters of mise-en-scene but not of montage. Us photographers can appreciate their beautiful compositions but general audiences like directors who better know how to build emotion through cutting and forward motion (e.g., Robert Zemeckis, Steven Spielberg, John McTiernan --- at least in their heyday)
3. Netflix. People are staying home in droves.
I say, give it more time. It hasn't hit China or home video.
Do you guys believe this, that the previews needed to reveal more of the plot? I have a hard time believing that the reason more people didn't go is because they needed to know more of the surprises ahead of time. That doesn't make any sense.
I'll tell you three reasons I think the movie might have a hard time making back its money:
1. $150 million production cost + $150 marketing cost = $300 million cost, for a movie that was always just a cult hit. The original Blade Runner was a disappointment at the Box Office too. It rose in popularity on home video. The new Blade Runner made as much on its opening weekend as the original made over its entire run (unadjusted for inflation though).
2. Denis Villeneuve. What do these three directors all have in common: Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, and Denis Villeneuve? Answer: Visually beautiful films that are paced slowly. If you are a film student you might say they are masters of mise-en-scene but not of montage. Us photographers can appreciate their beautiful compositions but general audiences like directors who better know how to build emotion through cutting and forward motion (e.g., Robert Zemeckis, Steven Spielberg, John McTiernan --- at least in their heyday)
3. Netflix. People are staying home in droves.
I say, give it more time. It hasn't hit China or home video.
Anyone heard of the "Blade Runner curse"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/31664223/the-curse-of-blade-runners-adverts
PS. For a film to break even on its theatrical run, it has to gross about 250% of its budget. Currently, it's at ~ $160M global, so it's unlikely to reach even $300M whereas it needs ~ $700M (that said, I doubt the marketing costs were in the $150M range)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/31664223/the-curse-of-blade-runners-adverts
PS. For a film to break even on its theatrical run, it has to gross about 250% of its budget. Currently, it's at ~ $160M global, so it's unlikely to reach even $300M whereas it needs ~ $700M (that said, I doubt the marketing costs were in the $150M range)
Last edited:
roxics
Veteran
Right now after its second weekend it's at $158,578,387 according to boxofficemojo.
Maybe when all is said and done it will at least break even. I know from a business standpoint that's bad. You of course want to turn a profit.
But if it at least breaks even, that means no one lost anything, people had jobs they got paid for and the world has a piece of art they can forever enjoy.
Maybe when all is said and done it will at least break even. I know from a business standpoint that's bad. You of course want to turn a profit.
But if it at least breaks even, that means no one lost anything, people had jobs they got paid for and the world has a piece of art they can forever enjoy.
How it does also depends on where the grosses come from. For example, a film could be popular in China but the Chinese keep 75% (and good luck fighting that) from the top. In Europe, the distributor may keep around 55%, with the studio getting 45%. In the US, it's generally a 50/50 split over the theatrical run.
The ancillaries depend on the film's marketing partners. Film may not do well but the "Blade Runner" burgers may be smashingly awesome - it's the secret "Blade Runner" sauce, you know - and then the studio can get a sizeable cut off that.
The ancillaries depend on the film's marketing partners. Film may not do well but the "Blade Runner" burgers may be smashingly awesome - it's the secret "Blade Runner" sauce, you know - and then the studio can get a sizeable cut off that.