Blade Runner 2049

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by ponkine, Dec 19, 2016.

  1. I actually liked seeing her face and Ford's comment about her having green eyes would not have worked with that. The face was incredibly realistic much more so than Peter Cushing to me.
     
    SuntoryTime likes this.
  2. It was the same with the original movie as well so I'm not sure exactly what you expected.
     
    SuntoryTime likes this.
  3. I don't think that Scott ever read the book. He read Fancher's script so whatever he came away with from there is what influenced him.
     
  4. peteham

    peteham Forum Resident

    Location:
    Simcoe County
    Having just watched the first movie a week before going to this one, I can't agree with that. It helped that the original was at least forty minutes shorter, but it had far more of an ensemble feels to it. But I didn't find the original emotionally impenetrable.
     
    Pipi3 likes this.
  5. SinnerSaint

    SinnerSaint Forum Resident

    Location:
    SF CA US
    Boring.
    So boring.
    Really boring.

    Take one of the greatest SciFi stories, art direction, action, acted, films* of "All-Time" & turn it into a dull psychological drama w/ little, if any, payoff.
    [even the sets were far less imaginative]
    #Brilliant

    * literally "filmS"; i prefer the work-cut for many reasons + color-palette [lack of blue-tint].
     
    Pipi3 likes this.
  6. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Gonna try to grab another view at a big screen of the awesome film.
     
  7. geoffr

    geoffr Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I saw it last night. Thought that it was excellent in every way.
     
    SuntoryTime likes this.
  8. Jim B.

    Jim B. Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    Have to disagree quite strongly - this took the basic concept of BR and made a far better, MUCH better acted and far more interesting film. One of those rare sequels that are better than the original.

    I guess modern audiences, from the comments I see on just this page, have a real problem with any film that takes its time and doesn't have a big fight or explosion every 5 minutes.

    For the record, and I love the original, but some of the acting is awful by Ford, there is no chemistry between Ford and Young, and they somehow fall madly in love after about 3 hours interaction. Plus Ridley's dreadful revisionism ruins the whole meaning of the plot. It is visually stunning, a great world, and the replicants are great and steal the show.
     
  9. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    I agree, even though I try to NOT say anything that people can twist into an elitist perspective toward film or music-I know you aren't meaning that BUT people will react to the observation about the discernible change in consumers of media and make that the issue and not the material. It is a beautiful and mesmerizing film-one must dedicate themselves to immersion, it ain't mind candy.

    Regarding the Ford/Young interaction, noted the same and it actually makes sense in my mind given Rachel's immaturity (in some ways the character is so young (no pun) and naïve that it is almost creepy they become intimate-and of course that lends fodder to the "is he or ain't he" status of Deckard as a replicant-it would be like two fumbling kids who get wrapped up in emotions and attraction so quickly-how many teens have you known to fall in love in a a date or two to an extent never experienced by the human race (in their opinions).
     
    Jim B. likes this.
  10. The Panda

    The Panda Forum Mutant

    Location:
    Marple, PA, USA
    did anyone else think that the music cue that brought up the virtual girlfriend sounded like Peter and the Wolf?
     
    bloode likes this.
  11. Aggie87

    Aggie87 Gig 'Em!

    It was Peter and the Wolf.
     
    robertawillisjr likes this.
  12. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    I agree with a lot of your criticism of the original, however I wouldn't quite say that the new one is better. Definitely on the same level, but I need more time with it. I can say, I thought it was definitely a masterpiece. Upon my first veiwing, hell even before the credits came on, all I was thinking was that I wanted to see it again.

    Regarding Scott's revisionism, I think it made the film much better. I could live without the unicorn scene(but I like the layers it adds to the film), but the removal of the spotty narration, and ending the film at the elevator, worked wonders for it imo. Ambiguity works for the film.
     
    SuntoryTime and Jim B. like this.
  13. PNeski@aol.com

    PNeski@aol.com Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    The problem is the director,no eye
     
  14. Jim B.

    Jim B. Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    Yeah, point taken, but I think it's pretty well accepted these days that things are cut much faster etc as younger people lack concentration and patience, they have to be doing five things at once all the time.

    It makes me wonder what some people would say if they saw Stalker or Solaris, which are recognised now as two of the best films ever made.
     
  15. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
  16. Popmartijn

    Popmartijn Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I think the pacing is one of the reasons I really liked this movie. I mean, my favourite movie ever is Once Upon A Time In The West, also a movie that takes its time. :) I saw Blade Runner 2049 last week and really needed some time to digest it all. The themes, the plot twists, etc. While I think the movie is very good, there is one moment in the movie that is still bothering me.

    When K is in Las Vegas, with Deckard, and Luv (with her troops) comes to take in Deckard and take him to their HQ, why is K left there lying? Why didn't they kill him? Or take him with them (should he be 'the child')? Yes, of course, the movie needs to have him come back and rescue Deckard, but there are ways to get that done realistically. Now, he was just left there in plain view when it was just as easy for Luv to kill/take him.
    It's a flaw in the movie that was quite jarring to me. Unless someone has a convincing explanation.
     
  17. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    When K is in Las Vegas, with Deckard, and Luv (with her troops) comes to take in Deckard and take him to their HQ, why is K left there lying? Why didn't they kill him? Or take him with them (should he be 'the child')? Yes, of course, the movie needs to have him come back and rescue Deckard, but there are ways to get that done realistically. Now, he was just left there in plain view when it was just as easy for Luv to kill/take him.
    It's a flaw in the movie that was quite jarring to me. Unless someone has a convincing explanation.

    Who knows? Although in terms of straight-up logic it makes sense to kill him, neither we nor characters are computers. Why did Luv "kill" Joi? Did she leave him alive, and I presume absent explicit orders from Wallace that Luv was leading the team, with his "companion" ripped from him, out of cruelty combined with a belief that he is trapped there and is no longer on the board so to speak? She's pissed at him for rejecting her overture and that is better punishment than immediate oblivion? Not sure. All kinds of possibilities. If every narrative followed some binary logic approach, then a lot of movies would be a lot shorter. Seriously, anybody with half a brain couldn't figure out Bruce Wayne is Batman? Clark Kent looks so different from Superman? If Heathcliff wanted Cathy, he couldn't hire some people to kill her husband and then move in? I see your point, and humans including replicants, are complicated.
     
  18. Django

    Django Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    Finally went to see blade runner 2049 today.
    I was impressed overall. Enjoyed it. The first blade runner is in my top 10 so I approached with trepidation.
    I was hoping it wouldn't be "too modern" I find the way most modern Hollywood films are made incredibly annoying.
    I think they got the right balance. The CGI was tastefully used. The editing was at a watchable pace and the acting subtle & nuanced.
    The didn't try to force in bad comedy elements either. (One of the trailers before hand was for a remake of jumanji. Everything I hate about modern films right there)
    It is a bit too long thought & I missed the noir feel of the 1982 film.
    I would watch it again but I probably wouldn't be watching it as many times as I've watched the original flick.
    But, my days of obsessively rewatching films is probably behind me.
     
  19. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Forum Resident

    Ouch!!! Losses could hit $80 Million for Producer Alcon.

    'Blade Runner 2049' Losses Could Hit $80 Million for Producer Alcon


    The sequel to the 1982 cult classic will earn far less than its $400 million goal.

    Alcon Entertainment and Sony's Blade Runner 2049 had everything going for it — an acclaimed director (Denis Villeneuve), A-list stars (Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford) and a fresh 88 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. But the 164-minute sequel, opening 35 years after Ridley Scott's cult classic hit theaters, didn't deliver at the box office.

    Alcon and its investors are facing about $80 million in losses, insiders close to the project tell The Hollywood Reporter. As it winds down its run, the movie movie's global gross through Nov. 5 was $240.6 million.

    That's a poor showing for a film that cost $155 million to produce after rebates and tax incentives and before marketing. But Sony is ultimately expected to recoup its $110 million investment in the Alcon production because of the agreement brokered by Sony Motion Picture Group chairman Tom Rothman.

    The studio is the first to get back any revenue in exchange for giving up a bigger slice of back-end profits. The deal is proving to be fortuitous for Sony, which in addition to co-financing Blade Runner 2049 is releasing it overseas. (The film is being handled in North America by Warner Bros. via its long-standing distribution deal with Alcon. Warners is not a co-financier.)
     
  20. Mark_TB

    Mark_TB Active Member

    I love the movie, so I'm disappointed it hasn't made more at the box office. However, I think the producers had unrealistic expectations, and overestimated the potential audience for what was ultimately an expensive art house film, much like the original.
     
    SuntoryTime, Mr. Grieves and bloode like this.
  21. Aggie87

    Aggie87 Gig 'Em!

    I think the teenage and young audience also probably haven't seen the original in most cases since it was 35 years ago, so there wasn't a huge awareness of this one, or anticipation for the sequel.

    My teenage son had never heard of the first one, but he watched it with me this summer in anticipation of the sequel, and enjoyed both. I just think most people in the target audience range weren't interested in a sequel of a movie they'd never seen.
     
  22. bloode

    bloode Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Metro Chicago, IL
    2010 (film) by contrast, was made in 1984 for 28 mil and boxed 40. It was the 17th highest grossing film that year despite box office competition from Dune and Starman. 15 years is still a long time to wait for a sequel to an arthouse film. Those were different days. I agree that the Execs behind 2049 grossly miscalculated the interest. And the reaction is obviously mixed. At least, the people with whom I was most eager to discuss it loved it as much as I did.
     
  23. ssmith3046

    ssmith3046 Forum Resident

    Since it did so poorly at the box office I hope it's released on Blu-ray soon.
     
    robertawillisjr likes this.
  24. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I'm guessing the average participant in this thread is in his 40s or 50s, and I also suspect we like lots of movies that "take their time" and aren't all about fights/explosions.

    Most of us love the original - it's a movie that progresses at a deliberate pace and isn't action-packed.

    Movies that move at a slower pace and lack explosions/action can be great - when they're well-done.

    "2049" is just too slow, and it doesn't use that cinematic real estate well. It's 90 minutes of story/character development spread across almost three hours...
     
  25. My take is that the movie is just too bleak in it's portrayal of the future to connect with a wide audience. Let's not forget that a whole lot of people go to the movies to have a good time. 'Blade Runner 2049' is not what I call a feel-good movie. As great as I thought the movie is, in reality it's nearly a 3-hour bummer. Bummer + 3 hours = tough sell. My 2 cents...
     

Share This Page