Blade runner 2049
Discussion
DamienB said:
Precisely - and the full text of the baseline test is here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bladerunner/comments/76he...
Worth a read - the whole thread.
Whole thread.https://www.reddit.com/r/bladerunner/comments/76he...
Worth a read - the whole thread.
andy_s said:
DamienB said:
Precisely - and the full text of the baseline test is here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bladerunner/comments/76he...
Worth a read - the whole thread.
Whole thread.https://www.reddit.com/r/bladerunner/comments/76he...
Worth a read - the whole thread.
HorneyMX5 said:
I was worried about the running time and some of the early comments on this thread. There was no need. I was transfixed from beginning to end, still thinking about it 3 days on and have the soundtrack on repeat.
I can barely think of anything to criticise. It just ticked all the boxes. I love how it lead you gently to figure out what had happened in the years that had passed without telegraphing everything early on. It felt like a film made with real love and attention. It was also so nice to watch a film without scatter gun cuts and edits that lingered on the subject.
agree 100%I can barely think of anything to criticise. It just ticked all the boxes. I love how it lead you gently to figure out what had happened in the years that had passed without telegraphing everything early on. It felt like a film made with real love and attention. It was also so nice to watch a film without scatter gun cuts and edits that lingered on the subject.
people often criticise the instant gratification culture, wham-bang guns and effects over content, zero character development - when we finally get a film which takes its time to craft a mood and characters, doesn't feel the need for constant guns and pyrotechnics every 5 minutes and lingers over wonderful atmospheric CGI - and some moan its too long
Adam B said:
agree 100%
people often criticise the instant gratification culture, wham-bang guns and effects over content, zero character development - when we finally get a film which takes its time to craft a mood and characters, doesn't feel the need for constant guns and pyrotechnics every 5 minutes and lingers over wonderful atmospheric CGI - and some moan its too long
I think it was over long by about 20 minutes. That isn't the same as dismissing the over all approach of the film. I liked it a lot but I reckon you could shave 20 minutes off it and loose nothing of the mood or character development; such was the extent of pondering shots. people often criticise the instant gratification culture, wham-bang guns and effects over content, zero character development - when we finally get a film which takes its time to craft a mood and characters, doesn't feel the need for constant guns and pyrotechnics every 5 minutes and lingers over wonderful atmospheric CGI - and some moan its too long
It's a tight story with a flabby edit to my mind.
If you really want more of this style of film to be made then you should be thinking about why it is a commercial disaster and what could have been done differently to make it a success. Marketing and run time surely play big parts in that.
gregs656 said:
Adam B said:
agree 100%
people often criticise the instant gratification culture, wham-bang guns and effects over content, zero character development - when we finally get a film which takes its time to craft a mood and characters, doesn't feel the need for constant guns and pyrotechnics every 5 minutes and lingers over wonderful atmospheric CGI - and some moan its too long
If you really want more of this style of film to be made then you should be thinking about why it is a commercial disaster and what could have been done differently to make it a success. Marketing and run time surely play big parts in that.people often criticise the instant gratification culture, wham-bang guns and effects over content, zero character development - when we finally get a film which takes its time to craft a mood and characters, doesn't feel the need for constant guns and pyrotechnics every 5 minutes and lingers over wonderful atmospheric CGI - and some moan its too long
I went to watch it with 2 other mates, none of them are what I'd call thick, one of them fell asleep about 2/3rds of the way through the film
Me and the other mate are full on sc-fi nerds and even we found it hard going. We didn't quite fall asleep but there were times when I was glancing at my watch. In fact it's now become our standard joke on our Whatsapp group as a cure for insomnia. Somewhat tongue in cheek obviously as I wouldn't say it's a particularly bad film, it's just hard work, unnecessarily so in some places which unfortunately means it just won't have widespread appeal.
There is a fine line between making an intelligent, thought provoking movie and one which can do that but still find something for the masses to enjoy, this film doesn't quite get that balance right IMO.
Me and the other mate are full on sc-fi nerds and even we found it hard going. We didn't quite fall asleep but there were times when I was glancing at my watch. In fact it's now become our standard joke on our Whatsapp group as a cure for insomnia. Somewhat tongue in cheek obviously as I wouldn't say it's a particularly bad film, it's just hard work, unnecessarily so in some places which unfortunately means it just won't have widespread appeal.
There is a fine line between making an intelligent, thought provoking movie and one which can do that but still find something for the masses to enjoy, this film doesn't quite get that balance right IMO.
tannhauser said:
It's a commercial flop (so far) as the majority of the populace are thick and have no appreciation of what constitutes a good film.
It's going to be a commercial flop for a long time. China aren't interested.That doesn't really address the problem though - unless you think the marketing was absolutely perfect and nothing more could have been done to generate interest and ultimately get more people through the door.
It is not good enough to make a good film, you have to tell people about it.
The Revenant for example has taken over $550 million to date. How was that level of interest generated?
gregs656 said:
It's going to be a commercial flop for a long time. China aren't interested.
That doesn't really address the problem though - unless you think the marketing was absolutely perfect and nothing more could have been done to generate interest and ultimately get more people through the door.
It is not good enough to make a good film, you have to tell people about it.
The Revenant for example has taken over $550 million to date. How was that level of interest generated?
Oscars & publicity about Leo eating raw meat...That doesn't really address the problem though - unless you think the marketing was absolutely perfect and nothing more could have been done to generate interest and ultimately get more people through the door.
It is not good enough to make a good film, you have to tell people about it.
The Revenant for example has taken over $550 million to date. How was that level of interest generated?
Guvernator said:
I went to watch it with 2 other mates, none of them are what I'd call thick, one of them fell asleep about 2/3rds of the way through the film
Me and the other mate are full on sc-fi nerds and even we found it hard going. We didn't quite fall asleep but there were times when I was glancing at my watch. In fact it's now become our standard joke on our Whatsapp group as a cure for insomnia. Somewhat tongue in cheek obviously as I wouldn't say it's a particularly bad film, it's just hard work, unnecessarily so in some places which unfortunately means it just won't have widespread appeal.
There is a fine line between making an intelligent, thought provoking movie and one which can do that but still find something for the masses to enjoy, this film doesn't quite get that balance right IMO.
What I said myself was slightly tongue in cheek, but I do think what the braindead masses are after in a film is cheap thrills and continuous stupendous bangs and explosions, together with crappy "suspend your disbelief" CGI. Personally I found BR2049 riveting. For me, it did not drag at all. There were a couple flaws in my opinion, I think there was potential to cover more and I do think that the ending was rushed - obviously due to the slow preceding pace and having to wrap up. Perhaps the film should have been three hours long?! Me and the other mate are full on sc-fi nerds and even we found it hard going. We didn't quite fall asleep but there were times when I was glancing at my watch. In fact it's now become our standard joke on our Whatsapp group as a cure for insomnia. Somewhat tongue in cheek obviously as I wouldn't say it's a particularly bad film, it's just hard work, unnecessarily so in some places which unfortunately means it just won't have widespread appeal.
There is a fine line between making an intelligent, thought provoking movie and one which can do that but still find something for the masses to enjoy, this film doesn't quite get that balance right IMO.
gregs656 said:
tannhauser said:
It's a commercial flop (so far) as the majority of the populace are thick and have no appreciation of what constitutes a good film.
It's going to be a commercial flop for a long time. China aren't interested.[b]That doesn't really address the problem though - unless you think the marketing was absolutely perfect and nothing more could have been done to generate interest and ultimately get more people through the door.
It is not good enough to make a good film, you have to tell people about it.[/b]
The Revenant for example has taken over $550 million to date. How was that level of interest generated?
I think this review and the first comment at the bottom probably say it better than I could.
https://pacifictribune.com/2017/10/07/blade-runner...
"The best boring movie ever made"
https://pacifictribune.com/2017/10/07/blade-runner...
"The best boring movie ever made"
Catatafish said:
Oscars & publicity about Leo eating raw meat...
Right the Oscars hype helped a lot and it could have done with BR2049 if they chose to release it in January and not October. I wouldn't be surprised if it does get rereleased at some point in January for this reason.RE the advertising - very little information about the film was marketed, and the reviews were all locked down in terms of what they could talk about. They even choose not to play it at any of the Autumn film festivals. Villeneuve has spoken about all this recently and WB admit that it failed to generate interest outside of the demographic you and I and probably most of this thread fit in to (Male over 25).
Lots could have been done differently and I hope will be done differently in the future to keep movies like this getting made.
I didnt realise this was still not performing very well, although I'm not surprised. I agree it could have had a few bits trimmed, but that would only be me nitpicking, and I think it's one of the most enjoyable films I've seen in a while.
I'd agree with some of the comments regarding people wanting instant explosions and action. It's not a surprise that the transformers films, for example, do so well, despite being criticised for being rather lacking in depth. BR2049 and BR both require you to take the atmosphere and the moods in, which apart from the mumbo jumbo that the character Wallace came out with, I was more than happy to do.
I'd agree with some of the comments regarding people wanting instant explosions and action. It's not a surprise that the transformers films, for example, do so well, despite being criticised for being rather lacking in depth. BR2049 and BR both require you to take the atmosphere and the moods in, which apart from the mumbo jumbo that the character Wallace came out with, I was more than happy to do.
I went to see it last night.
I'll come clean, I'm not a huge fan of the original. I've seen it, but I'm not one of these people who have felt it necessary to see every re-edit or consider it the best sci-fi movie of all time.
The original is a good and original film (if it does owe a lot to other genres), but I thought I'd go and see the sequel.
Without a huge burden of expectation, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say it matches up to the original.
They have moved the story on in a convincing way and managed to retain a lot of the audio and visual feel of the original, whilst thankfully setting a lot more of the film in daylight (of sorts!)
7/10 - A decent Sci-Fi movie in its own right, although it does depend on you knowing the original film.
M
I'll come clean, I'm not a huge fan of the original. I've seen it, but I'm not one of these people who have felt it necessary to see every re-edit or consider it the best sci-fi movie of all time.
The original is a good and original film (if it does owe a lot to other genres), but I thought I'd go and see the sequel.
Without a huge burden of expectation, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say it matches up to the original.
They have moved the story on in a convincing way and managed to retain a lot of the audio and visual feel of the original, whilst thankfully setting a lot more of the film in daylight (of sorts!)
7/10 - A decent Sci-Fi movie in its own right, although it does depend on you knowing the original film.
M
Also watched it last night.
I thought it was wonderful, yeah it's self-indulgent, but it just looks wonderful and I think the feel you get from long periods of no speech gives it a very inhuman, robotic feel, which is perfect for it.
There was a couple of times it felt like some kind of art lecture and I should have been taking notes, but considering the amount of story it has would have been covered in the first 30 mins of most films the time flew by.
I thought it was wonderful, yeah it's self-indulgent, but it just looks wonderful and I think the feel you get from long periods of no speech gives it a very inhuman, robotic feel, which is perfect for it.
There was a couple of times it felt like some kind of art lecture and I should have been taking notes, but considering the amount of story it has would have been covered in the first 30 mins of most films the time flew by.
I finally got around to watching it last night.
Thought it was a very decent follow-up to the original. Good story-line, the sets and soundtrack were brilliant and I liked the relatively slow pace and how it allowed you to fully appreciate the quality and scale of the CGI landscapes. No complaints with the duration from me.
The only down-sides from my perspective, were a slightly rushed ending and I just don't think Ryan Gosling was a good choise for the lead. Wooden acting (as usual) made 'K' very one-dimensional and hard to warm to - which really should have been easy given the complex nature of his character and how his story evolves during the film.
Thought it was a very decent follow-up to the original. Good story-line, the sets and soundtrack were brilliant and I liked the relatively slow pace and how it allowed you to fully appreciate the quality and scale of the CGI landscapes. No complaints with the duration from me.
The only down-sides from my perspective, were a slightly rushed ending and I just don't think Ryan Gosling was a good choise for the lead. Wooden acting (as usual) made 'K' very one-dimensional and hard to warm to - which really should have been easy given the complex nature of his character and how his story evolves during the film.
blade runner said:
I finally got around to watching it last night.
Thought it was a very decent follow-up to the original. Good story-line, the sets and soundtrack were brilliant and I liked the relatively slow pace and how it allowed you to fully appreciate the quality and scale of the CGI landscapes. No complaints with the duration from me.
The only down-sides from my perspective, were a slightly rushed ending and I just don't think Ryan Gosling was a good choise for the lead. Wooden acting (as usual) made 'K' very one-dimensional and hard to warm to - which really should have been easy given the complex nature of his character and how his story evolves during the film.
Funny how we all see things differently but I thought he was perfect for the part. That slightly detached demeanour that seems natural to him in all his roles fitted the early section where he is pure replicant, but his nuanced "wobbles" as some level of humanity filtered through in the second half was spot on - the one outburst after the meeting with the Dr was as surprising as it was excellent. Thought it was a very decent follow-up to the original. Good story-line, the sets and soundtrack were brilliant and I liked the relatively slow pace and how it allowed you to fully appreciate the quality and scale of the CGI landscapes. No complaints with the duration from me.
The only down-sides from my perspective, were a slightly rushed ending and I just don't think Ryan Gosling was a good choise for the lead. Wooden acting (as usual) made 'K' very one-dimensional and hard to warm to - which really should have been easy given the complex nature of his character and how his story evolves during the film.
All IMO obviously.
Legend83 said:
Funny how we all see things differently but I thought he was perfect for the part. That slightly detached demeanour that seems natural to him in all his roles fitted the early section where he is pure replicant, but his nuanced "wobbles" as some level of humanity filtered through in the second half was spot on - the one outburst after the meeting with the Dr was as surprising as it was excellent.
All IMO obviously.
Agreed, I thought Gosling was made for the role, he's near Keanu levels of robotic in most things, but towards the end of the film he humanised in line with the character.All IMO obviously.
I'm really hoping for a 3rd, the Replicant uprising.
P-Jay said:
Legend83 said:
Funny how we all see things differently but I thought he was perfect for the part. That slightly detached demeanour that seems natural to him in all his roles fitted the early section where he is pure replicant, but his nuanced "wobbles" as some level of humanity filtered through in the second half was spot on - the one outburst after the meeting with the Dr was as surprising as it was excellent.
All IMO obviously.
Agreed, I thought Gosling was made for the role, he's near Keanu levels of robotic in most things, but towards the end of the film he humanised in line with the character.All IMO obviously.
I'm really hoping for a 3rd, the Replicant uprising.
It's all there...Denis Villeneuve has touched on the possible of a 3rd movie depending on the success of 2049... It's a great movie with limited appeal, beyond die hard Bladerunner fans, sci-fi geeks and the curious it's not doing great business. Hopefully it will make enough profit for the 3rd to be made. I'd imagine that would be the movie to bring the whole thing together.
HighwayStar said:
I mentioned earlier that there is scope for a 3rd... from plot lines touched on, Wallace's undeveloped back story, K's in the clearly bigger ultimate end.
It's all there...Denis Villeneuve has touched on the possible of a 3rd movie depending on the success of 2049... It's a great movie with limited appeal, beyond die hard Bladerunner fans, sci-fi geeks and the curious it's not doing great business. Hopefully it will make enough profit for the 3rd to be made. I'd imagine that would be the movie to bring the whole thing together.
I was reading somewhere (NYT?) that it was a very poor month for the box office across the board, with about 13% drop from the norm. I hope it's that rather than people not liking a long film without there being multiple phantasmagorical gunfights and cars with 16 gears.It's all there...Denis Villeneuve has touched on the possible of a 3rd movie depending on the success of 2049... It's a great movie with limited appeal, beyond die hard Bladerunner fans, sci-fi geeks and the curious it's not doing great business. Hopefully it will make enough profit for the 3rd to be made. I'd imagine that would be the movie to bring the whole thing together.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff