Blade runner 2049
Discussion
Clockwork Cupcake said:
I have to agree with earlier comments that the action is the film's greatest flaw. I love the pacing of the early part of the film (I know many people criticise it as being too slow - it's probably indicative of the modern generation of instant gratification - but I like it) but once it moves into action film territory it is a little diminished.
I think the only negative of the action aspects is that Deckard sits there like a chump throughout the struggle in the sinking spinner. We know he's old; we know he's cuffed; but gawd he makes literally zero effort. It's been suggested that he wants to die at that point but I don't see any real indication of that - he just looks a bit bored. An odd thing to mar what otherwise I think is a proper masterpiece of movie making.DamienB said:
I think the only negative of the action aspects is that Deckard sits there like a chump throughout the struggle in the sinking spinner. We know he's old; we know he's cuffed; but gawd he makes literally zero effort. It's been suggested that he wants to die at that point but I don't see any real indication of that - he just looks a bit bored. An odd thing to mar what otherwise I think is a proper masterpiece of movie making.
I thought the action on the whole was the worst aspect of the movie. Decent build up if a little bit too drawn out in some parts for my liking but would have been forgiven if it had a good pay-off but for me it didn't because the climatic set pieces felt very flat.Saw this last night. Enjoyed it a lot.
Easier to follow and work out than Blade Runner, a little more "mainstream" maybe. But thought it was a great sequel.
It's been left with a lot of open avenues for a 3rd (Wallace; what will happen to the girl; where will K go; etc)...but I suspect it will end up going more mainstream and be worse for it.
Still, good film.
Easier to follow and work out than Blade Runner, a little more "mainstream" maybe. But thought it was a great sequel.
It's been left with a lot of open avenues for a 3rd (Wallace; what will happen to the girl; where will K go; etc)...but I suspect it will end up going more mainstream and be worse for it.
Still, good film.
Slightly off topic but just thought I'd mention a series on Netflix called Altered Carbon. Based on the books by Richard Morgan of the same name, it has very much the same vibe as Blade Runner set in a dystopian future full of AI, holograms etc. In fact, some of the scenes in it could have been lifted straight from BR or vice versa so for those who enjoyed this movie, I'd recommend giving it a go.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Dog Star said:
Nowhere. He's dead.
It's quite likely that he succumbed to his injuries, but we don't know for sure. It would not be beyond the bounds of credibility that he didn't die at the end. It was ambiguous enough that they could go either way in a sequel.Watched it last night for the first time. Not bad but not a patch on the original.
Blade Runner 2049 is a very frustrating film in some ways as it is like modern film makers have forgotten many of the basic tools of their craft.
Liked the original, didn't think it was the greatest sci-fi film ever, but liked it. This is a worthy sequel in terms of the cinematography and world building.
The basic problem with it, and why it no doubt failed at the box office, is that it is a very good 2 hour movie in a 2 hour 40 min run time.
This is nothing to do with "modern audiences having shorter attention spans" . If you go back a generation the sci-fi movies in the box office were taunt affairs. Every single second of footage had been carefully scrutinised to see if it merited inclusion. The overall pacing of the movie was one of the most important concerns for every great film maker.
Now they often hardly seem to bother with editing and put whatever bloated mess they end up with on the screen.
Liked the original, didn't think it was the greatest sci-fi film ever, but liked it. This is a worthy sequel in terms of the cinematography and world building.
The basic problem with it, and why it no doubt failed at the box office, is that it is a very good 2 hour movie in a 2 hour 40 min run time.
This is nothing to do with "modern audiences having shorter attention spans" . If you go back a generation the sci-fi movies in the box office were taunt affairs. Every single second of footage had been carefully scrutinised to see if it merited inclusion. The overall pacing of the movie was one of the most important concerns for every great film maker.
Now they often hardly seem to bother with editing and put whatever bloated mess they end up with on the screen.
gregs656 said:
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.
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.
yepIt'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.
If you want good sci-fi films to be made you cannot excuse basic problems with movie structure.
A shorter movie would very likely have been more commercially successful and they could have saved the five minute establishing shots for an extended version on Blu Ray.
It did rubbish at the box office because it was boring. Sorry it looked absolutely gorgeous and had oodles of atmosphere but as others have said the pacing was way way off.
Fine for a sit down session at home, not great at a movie theatre. Two of the people I went with fell asleep. That's 50% of the people I went with, inexcusable really.
Fine for a sit down session at home, not great at a movie theatre. Two of the people I went with fell asleep. That's 50% of the people I went with, inexcusable really.
Guvernator said:
It did rubbish at the box office because it was boring. Sorry it looked absolutely gorgeous and had oodles of atmosphere but as others have said the pacing was way way off.
Fine for a sit down session at home, not great at a movie theatre. Two of the people I went with fell asleep. That's 50% of the people I went with, inexcusable really.
If there were such things like internet forums back in 1982, there would be even more people like you stating the same thing over and over. But it's a classic, and the new one will also be. That's the thing with some films that aren't bound to Hollywood's traditional lack of imagination, but are made by visionaires Fine for a sit down session at home, not great at a movie theatre. Two of the people I went with fell asleep. That's 50% of the people I went with, inexcusable really.
Veeayt said:
If there were such things like internet forums back in 1982, there would be even more people like you stating the same thing over and over. But it's a classic, and the new one will also be. That's the thing with some films that aren't bound to Hollywood's traditional lack of imagination, but are made by visionaires
I actually like the first one, yes it also has pacing issues but it's saved by the charisma of the two leads and despite also being a relatively slow burn, stuff actually happens. For the new one. baring 3 or 4 admittedly very well done scenes, the rest of the 2 hour 40 running time is mostly filled with beautiful looking filler. I can certainly appreciate why some people like it but I can also see why it wouldn't make much money and be a difficult watch for the majority of movie goers.
Guvernator said:
I actually like the first one, yes it also has pacing issues but it's saved by the charisma of the two leads and despite also being a relatively slow burn, stuff actually happens. For the new one. baring 3 or 4 admittedly very well done scenes, the rest of the 2 hour 40 running time is mostly filled with beautiful looking filler.
I can certainly appreciate why some people like it but I can also see why it wouldn't make much money and be a difficult watch for the majority of movie goers.
This is what is wrong with the modern film-going masses. I'm actually glad you didn't like it - it makes it more special for those who appreciate such fine things. Stick to your CGI explosion-fest films!I can certainly appreciate why some people like it but I can also see why it wouldn't make much money and be a difficult watch for the majority of movie goers.
There were one or two flaws and things I didn't like with 2049, but the pacing by and large helped develop the film into the work of art that it is.
Veeayt said:
Guvernator said:
It did rubbish at the box office because it was boring. Sorry it looked absolutely gorgeous and had oodles of atmosphere but as others have said the pacing was way way off.
Fine for a sit down session at home, not great at a movie theatre. Two of the people I went with fell asleep. That's 50% of the people I went with, inexcusable really.
If there were such things like internet forums back in 1982, there would be even more people like you stating the same thing over and over. But it's a classic, and the new one will also be. That's the thing with some films that aren't bound to Hollywood's traditional lack of imagination, but are made by visionaires Fine for a sit down session at home, not great at a movie theatre. Two of the people I went with fell asleep. That's 50% of the people I went with, inexcusable really.
k that's on offer nowadays.tannhauser said:
This is what is wrong with the modern film-going masses. I'm actually glad you didn't like it - it makes it more special for those who appreciate such fine things. Stick to your CGI explosion-fest films!
There were one or two flaws and things I didn't like with 2049, but the pacing by and large helped develop the film into the work of art that it is.
It is not either or.There were one or two flaws and things I didn't like with 2049, but the pacing by and large helped develop the film into the work of art that it is.
Filmmakers don't have to choose between proper pacing and action on the one hand and "serious" sci-fi and world building on the other.
Pacing and editing and everything else associated with making a good movie a great one is not some modern invention for ADD audiences. Go back and watch movies like Aliens or Terminator 2 if you want to see proper pacing.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff