Blade Runner 2049

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

  1. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Perhaps Warner didn't expect $1B worldwide, but I believe they thought "2049" would do better than it did.

    The original has become regarded as a true classic, so it wasn't illogical to think that "2049" would perform much better at the box office than it did.

    Warner spent $150 million on it, so they clearly thought it had big box office potential. They wouldn't have allowed such a huge budget for another "cult" film...
     
    Deuce66 likes this.
  2. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Or maybe it's just uninspired. I agree that many of us expected a lot from the film, but that doesn't mean it's great and we just expected too much.

    Generally, if something is good and I don't like it due to expectations, I appreciate it the 2nd time I see it. Not the case with "2049" - if anything, it was a tougher ride the 2nd time. It's slow and sluggish and an extra viewing didn't open up any insights/nuances I missed the 1st time... :shrug:
     
    Deuce66 and bherbert like this.
  3. Django

    Django Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    I've only seen once & liked it. I was meaning to go see it again, but didn't. It's been out on DVD & Blu-ray for months now & I've yet to but it.
    I've re-watched the first film countless times. Maybe my days of obsessively re-watching films is over.
     
    Kubricker likes this.
  4. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I think we were more likely to watch one movie over and over and over 20 years ago because we didn't have nearly as many options.

    Sure, we could rent, but it wasn't like now, where streaming makes so many films available.

    Also, most of us had much smaller collections of movies we owned until DVDs made 'em so cheap!
     
  5. Jerry

    Jerry Grateful Gort Staff

    Location:
    New England
    Debuts on HBO in 5 minutes on the east coast!
     
    audiomixer and rufus t firefly like this.
  6. Kubricker

    Kubricker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atlanta
    Was HF’s performance as cringe inducing as that in The Force Awakens? Where you half expect him to wink at the camera every few scenes?
     
  7. Runicen

    Runicen Forum Resident

    Not remotely. Granted, there are still a lot of problems with the movie IMO, but Ford isn't one of them. And yes, that surprised me as much as anyone else after TFA.

    The real shame is that they didn't hide his involvement. He should have been a surprise reveal rather than advertised from day one.
     
    Spitfire likes this.
  8. TheVU

    TheVU Forum Resident

    The second viewing of 2049 softened my hard paradigm of what I thought a Blade Runner sequel should be.

    However, after reading a few of these posts, I realized what the film was lacking. A smokiness.

    It was a little too clean, even for a dirty future.
     
    Karnak and Runicen like this.
  9. Hardy Melville

    Hardy Melville Forum Resident

    I am both a great fan of the original, and mostly loved the sequel. But... I am also not surprised it did not do better. The question is why it did not do better.

    I guess one possible answer, and I say possible because I have not reached that conclusion, has to do with the main casting choice of Ryan Gosling.

    First of all about that it was not merely a casting choice. Villeneuve in fact said Gosling was the only person he thought about in the role and that the script was written with him intended to be it. This means to me that the concept itself was one that the director thought of in terms of it being a Ryan Gosling vehicle. He has also called Gosling his muse. In the original, Ford was not the first choice, nor the second, apparently. The part was not written with him in mind.

    Something happens, or more accurately can happen, when a film is constructed in that way. It can be subconscious. But the film can end up being more an exploration of the main actor's performance.

    Did this in fact affect what the resulting film turned out to be?

    Maybe I would not think this if as a general matter I was more of a Gosling fan, and to be clear I do not dislike him in other parts. I don't even dislike him here. But I also do not think he's a consistently great actor, or even a great actor overall.

    I wonder for example what would have been the result if someone like Tom Hardy was chosen to play K.

    Anyway, putting aside Gosling himself for a moment, maybe in writing a part for a specific actor, having that actor in mind, does that risk making the character as written less universal? Less something about the character that speaks in some existential way to what is common to us, and more to the specific character of the actor?

    In the original Deckard was somewhat more of a mystery, I think. We wondered how he felt, what he was thinking, I think more than in 2049.

    Just a possibility...
     
    Kubricker, Runicen and TheVU like this.
  10. Takehaniyasubiko

    Takehaniyasubiko Forum Resident

    Location:
    Poland
    This film has a terrible plot and it doesn't really go anywhere interesting. Also, Ford never should have returned for a role written like that. He was a sad joke of a Deckard and I felt it diminished the original movie in a way.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
    Rhapsody In Red and Runicen like this.
  11. dead of night

    dead of night Forum Resident

    Location:
    Northern Va, usa
    Harrison Ford's arms were pretty muscular. Does he work out?
     
  12. Runicen

    Runicen Forum Resident

    No disagreement on any of this. I just wonder if it's less of a question of who was cast in the role and more what I see as a general cultural failing of the early 21st century manifesting itself. While I love big, bold, direct, and brash - subtlety is a lost art. A lot of what made older material work is that the audience wasn't treated as too stupid to breathe and think at the same time, so you got some stuff that took risks in terms of not filling in every single blank. Granted, that led to some messy and murky stuff that gave far too little to work with, but on balance it made for better cinema (and art in general, but that's beyond what we're talking about here).

    I lean towards the idea that the problem is more down to general trends in what I'll lazily bunch under the heading of "storytelling" and that any actor in this movie would have been handled a character for whom everything was spelled out, a plot which mostly asked questions nobody cared to see answered and in which the jeopardy is kind of a yawn.

    Granted, I sound like I'm savaging the movie here. At the end of the day, it's a competent popcorn flick. Problem is, it's following up a movie that was a little more than that. If the aim was to create an "Aliens" to follow up "Alien," they ended up creating an "Alien: Resurrection" instead.
     
    TheVU and Hardy Melville like this.
  13. marblesmike

    marblesmike Forum Resident

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    2049 was too slow and long to be a popcorn flick. 3/4 for me. Not as good as the original, but way better than I thought it would be.
     
    Runicen likes this.
  14. Hardy Melville

    Hardy Melville Forum Resident

    First of all I assume you meant "handed" instead of handled in saying handed a character for whom everything was spelled out. I understand your point, too, but I am not sure without getting into a digression here whether "any actor" would have responded as Gosling did here. Having recently seen him in The Nice Guys, playing a very different part, I was impressed how well he did with comedy and showed his range. I've really liked him in roles as far back as Blue Valentine. But at the same time I think Gosling slips almost too easily into a character like in Drive, imo not much different from K. Underplaying a low affect character can work, an approach to begin with that goes back to people like Steve McQueen, but I have a hard time seeing him as another Steve McQueen. Not to make too much of this, but I really would have been interested seeing Tom Hardy in this role.

    But of course that is not your main point, which I agree with, and I don't think mine is in disagreement with yours. I don't hate the story, but the way it was presented was arguably too obvious. But that is where a more complex performance might have made a difference. Gosling was certainly competent, even believable. But he failed to carry it into something else. What we were left with is also competent and, for me, mostly enjoyable. But it could have engaged the audience more, and in that regard failed.
     
    Runicen likes this.
  15. will_b_free

    will_b_free Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    Gosling was great in BR2049 and I can't picture anyone else in the role. Helps that I hadn't seen him in anything else. But he was perfect.

    If you had Tom Hardly in there, trying to cash in on his Mad Max audience, that would be too obviously trying to recreate Deckard. Officer K's similarity to Deckard was limited - he was quiet like Deckard was, but outwardly less tough. He could take far more abuse than Deckard could, but was not macho. The difference in eras was perfectly played. And I don't think that would have existed if they'd cast Tom Hardy. It would have been Harrison Ford meets younger Harrison Ford - boring in its sameness.
     
  16. Runicen

    Runicen Forum Resident

    Yep, sorry about the typo in the original post. That wasn't even good as a Freudian slip... Just butterfingers.

    I see your point. For me, the question is if the writing would have given another actor the latitude to really make something out of the part or not. My suspicion is that the answer is "no," but I certainly wouldn't have complained if we got the same script but with a cast that made something special of it, so while I have my suspicions to the contrary, I'd like it if you were right - you know, for all it's worth with us playing Monday quarterback. :winkgrin:
     
    Hardy Melville likes this.
  17. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    A perfect movie to watch at home on a big screen!
     
    agentalbert and ssmith3046 like this.
  18. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    No. He doesn't have the time. He needs to work as a Walmart greeter to make ends meet. :evil:
     
  19. The Panda

    The Panda Forum Mutant

    Location:
    Marple, PA, USA
    I heard he was taking courses in cooking so he can make high calorie meals to keep Calista alive.
     
  20. Hardy Melville

    Hardy Melville Forum Resident

    I don't follow you with seeing Tom Hardy as a younger Harrison Ford. I certainly did not suggest him with that in mind. I merely think Hardy is a better actor at conveying depth with simple expressions than Gosling. I wasn't thinking so much of Mad Max as of Lawless or even his performance in Dunkirk.

    Again I do not mean to come across as generally critical of Gosling. I usually like his work. But in terms of the general discussion of why 2049 was not a better film, it is not out of the question that, between the story and writing being tailored for him and his own performance, whether their use of him had something to do with that discussion.
     
    Runicen likes this.
  21. Wingman

    Wingman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Europe
    Ryan Gosling just didn't cut it for me. There a fare more believable male actors who would have nailed that role. But I can imagine the producers giving the director a list of current A-list movie stars with the caveat that if he really wanted to make a big budget Bladerunner 2049, he'd have to cast one of them in the lead role. There are no real gamblers in Hollywood anymore.
     
    Runicen likes this.
  22. Yes. It was at the moment they introduced him the movie took a nose dive for me. I respect that he was a great actor in his day with BR, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, etc... But Im not feeling it in these reboots.

    The original had the subplot with him being a type of Nexxus. With Gaff leading him on having known about his implanted memories (by use of his origami). This movie threw that out to give us a cheesy Matrix narrative with his off spring being the "One".
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2018
  23. unclefred

    unclefred Member

    Location:
    Oregon Coast
    Although I like the film very much I agree with your thoughts here.
     
    Rhapsody In Red likes this.
  24. will_b_free

    will_b_free Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    2049 doesn't throw that out at all. If you haven't seen the film yet you really shouldn't be reading this thread, but...
    Fancher (who as we all know did not subscribe to the "Deckard is a replicant" theory that Scott subscribed to) took care not to answer that question in 2049 one way or the other, so it remains an open question. The question itself is used by Wallace in an effort to manipulate Deckard - but Wallace hasn't any idea due to the blackout.
     
  25. will_b_free

    will_b_free Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boulder, CO

Share This Page