Blade runner 2049
Discussion
JagLover said:
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.
I wouldn’t have wanted to see 2049 as a James Cameron style assault on the senses but I’m not surprised it bombed at the cinema... the hardcore aside a lot won’t have seen the first one and others wouldn’t have had the patience to immersive themselves in it and think as the watch. They’d simply want to be entertained.
If 2049 was more Aliens or T2 paced how many would say that was not a Bladerunner movie?
Veeayt said:
HighwayStar said:
Movies like Aliens or Terminator are Sci-fi action fests, I enjoyed them both immensely and the originals too but... neither Bladerunner movie are that type of movie
Don't you know they are interlinked. Ahem, within cells
And from 2049... is that and Engineer from Prometheus?
The links are there if you look for them.
You know what I meant re different types of movie though
HighwayStar said:
Movies like Aliens or Terminator are Sci-fi action fests, I enjoyed them both immensely and the originals too but... neither Bladerunner movie are that type of movie. They just aren’t. I like all sorts of movie and I loved 2049... how various questions left at the end of the first movie were answered in the second.
I wouldn’t have wanted to see 2049 as a James Cameron style assault on the senses but I’m not surprised it bombed at the cinema... the hardcore aside a lot won’t have seen the first one and others wouldn’t have had the patience to immersive themselves in it and think as the watch. They’d simply want to be entertained.
If 2049 was more Aliens or T2 paced how many would say that was not a Bladerunner movie?
Aliens pacing is interesting too, you don't see any real action until around an hour into the film, granted from that point on its non-stop pulse rifles blazing but the first act is all scene setting. I wouldn’t have wanted to see 2049 as a James Cameron style assault on the senses but I’m not surprised it bombed at the cinema... the hardcore aside a lot won’t have seen the first one and others wouldn’t have had the patience to immersive themselves in it and think as the watch. They’d simply want to be entertained.
If 2049 was more Aliens or T2 paced how many would say that was not a Bladerunner movie?
HighwayStar said:
Movies like Aliens or Terminator are Sci-fi action fests, I enjoyed them both immensely and the originals too but... neither Bladerunner movie are that type of movie. They just aren’t. I like all sorts of movie and I loved 2049... how various questions left at the end of the first movie were answered in the second.
I wouldn’t have wanted to see 2049 as a James Cameron style assault on the senses but I’m not surprised it bombed at the cinema... the hardcore aside a lot won’t have seen the first one and others wouldn’t have had the patience to immersive themselves in it and think as the watch. They’d simply want to be entertained.
If 2049 was more Aliens or T2 paced how many would say that was not a Bladerunner movie?
I didn't say Bladerunner 2049 needed to have the same pacing as those, though both have long periods where there isn't any action. I believe Cameron likened Aliens to a rollercoaster ride and any such ride needs a long period of anticipation before you drop. Just that there is no lost Halycon age where movies had the same pacing as Blade runner 2049, which has been lost due to demand for more explosions from modern audiences. I wouldn’t have wanted to see 2049 as a James Cameron style assault on the senses but I’m not surprised it bombed at the cinema... the hardcore aside a lot won’t have seen the first one and others wouldn’t have had the patience to immersive themselves in it and think as the watch. They’d simply want to be entertained.
If 2049 was more Aliens or T2 paced how many would say that was not a Bladerunner movie?
I (think) we are both on the same side in that we want studios to be making big blockbusters with intelligence and heart.
A 2 hour Blade Runner movie would have still had all the great visuals and plot beats, but Joe Public in the seat beside you might have stayed awake to appreciate them. I think as well you are underestimating just how much could be trimmed from this movie with literally no impact whatesover on the overall experience. Two less rooms explored in the Hotel scene, a few less scenes of staring into space, you could go through the whole thing trimming ten seconds here, twenty seconds there.
As an estimate BladeRunner 2049 was still $125M in the red after its theatrical release. So the next time someone wants to make an intelligent Sci-fi film the studio might go for exploding robots instead
Matt_N said:
HighwayStar said:
Movies like Aliens or Terminator are Sci-fi action fests, I enjoyed them both immensely and the originals too but... neither Bladerunner movie are that type of movie. They just aren’t. I like all sorts of movie and I loved 2049... how various questions left at the end of the first movie were answered in the second.
I wouldn’t have wanted to see 2049 as a James Cameron style assault on the senses but I’m not surprised it bombed at the cinema... the hardcore aside a lot won’t have seen the first one and others wouldn’t have had the patience to immersive themselves in it and think as the watch. They’d simply want to be entertained.
If 2049 was more Aliens or T2 paced how many would say that was not a Bladerunner movie?
Aliens pacing is interesting too, you don't see any real action until around an hour into the film, granted from that point on its non-stop pulse rifles blazing but the first act is all scene setting. I wouldn’t have wanted to see 2049 as a James Cameron style assault on the senses but I’m not surprised it bombed at the cinema... the hardcore aside a lot won’t have seen the first one and others wouldn’t have had the patience to immersive themselves in it and think as the watch. They’d simply want to be entertained.
If 2049 was more Aliens or T2 paced how many would say that was not a Bladerunner movie?
The Terminator movies are actually slight closer in spirit when you think about it. Cold, emotionless robot, going about it task.
Replicant's going about their business is not going to make a warm movie... Hicks, Hudson, Gorman, Ripley, Vasquez etc. bring the warmth, emotion and tension to Aliens, the human side. Bishop, the cold logic.
Bladerunner, at the end you see the beginings of a Replicant's struggle to come to terms with emotions, hence their 4yr life span. They weren't supposed to develop emotions.
In 2049 K's emotions are way more developed, though not even close to the human level. He wants to be more. In the film you're still dealing with what is basically industrial machinery, even one as gorgeous as Luv, so the movie is the way it had to be IMO... even if it was shorter I think those who didn't like it would still say it was boring, nothing happened blah blah. They would want a cut and dried story with the very definition of an ending, not to think, discuss or revisit the cinema just to enjoy it again. The mainstream movie goer doesn't have the patience to sit through a film like 2049.
Didn't think much of BR2049. I'm a fan of the original film(s) and admittedly it took a few viewings to really appreciate the film as a whole.
As has been said it feels too long. Didn't rate the cinematography at all. Can't say I was desperate to want to watch it on the cinema - which is what top cinematography should do IMO.
It felt like reboot. They tried to keep some of the aesthetics like lots of shimmering light, expanded on the dystopian world and yet the metropolis doesn't quite seem like the claustrophobic dystopia where the dregs of society couldn't move away from.
The acting seemed flat and odd; an indie movie portrayal seemingly at odds of wanting to be a thriller... Ryan Gosling was basically acting the same character as in Drive but showing different side to his emotions, Ford you could tell wanted to get this movie quickly over and done with, Jared Leto's right hand woman was basically a Bond villian, Leto spouting cryptic mumbo-jumbo did nothing for me.
The original was basically a film noir. Captain Bryant was your stereotypical ball-breaking superior, Rutger Hauer gave an egnimatic, charismatic performance to the extent he's the anti-hero
As has been said it feels too long. Didn't rate the cinematography at all. Can't say I was desperate to want to watch it on the cinema - which is what top cinematography should do IMO.
It felt like reboot. They tried to keep some of the aesthetics like lots of shimmering light, expanded on the dystopian world and yet the metropolis doesn't quite seem like the claustrophobic dystopia where the dregs of society couldn't move away from.
The acting seemed flat and odd; an indie movie portrayal seemingly at odds of wanting to be a thriller... Ryan Gosling was basically acting the same character as in Drive but showing different side to his emotions, Ford you could tell wanted to get this movie quickly over and done with, Jared Leto's right hand woman was basically a Bond villian, Leto spouting cryptic mumbo-jumbo did nothing for me.
The original was basically a film noir. Captain Bryant was your stereotypical ball-breaking superior, Rutger Hauer gave an egnimatic, charismatic performance to the extent he's the anti-hero
entropy said:
Didn't think much of BR2049. I'm a fan of the original film(s) and admittedly it took a few viewings to really appreciate the film as a whole.
As has been said it feels too long. Didn't rate the cinematography at all. Can't say I was desperate to want to watch it on the cinema - which is what top cinematography should do IMO.
It felt like reboot. They tried to keep some of the aesthetics like lots of shimmering light, expanded on the dystopian world and yet the metropolis doesn't quite seem like the claustrophobic dystopia where the dregs of society couldn't move away from.
The acting seemed flat and odd; an indie movie portrayal seemingly at odds of wanting to be a thriller... Ryan Gosling was basically acting the same character as in Drive but showing different side to his emotions, Ford you could tell wanted to get this movie quickly over and done with, Jared Leto's right hand woman was basically a Bond villian, Leto spouting cryptic mumbo-jumbo did nothing for me.
The original was basically a film noir. Captain Bryant was your stereotypical ball-breaking superior, Rutger Hauer gave an egnimatic, charismatic performance to the extent he's the anti-hero
No No, admit it now. You didn't like it because it didn't have enough pew pew explosions in it. As has been said it feels too long. Didn't rate the cinematography at all. Can't say I was desperate to want to watch it on the cinema - which is what top cinematography should do IMO.
It felt like reboot. They tried to keep some of the aesthetics like lots of shimmering light, expanded on the dystopian world and yet the metropolis doesn't quite seem like the claustrophobic dystopia where the dregs of society couldn't move away from.
The acting seemed flat and odd; an indie movie portrayal seemingly at odds of wanting to be a thriller... Ryan Gosling was basically acting the same character as in Drive but showing different side to his emotions, Ford you could tell wanted to get this movie quickly over and done with, Jared Leto's right hand woman was basically a Bond villian, Leto spouting cryptic mumbo-jumbo did nothing for me.
The original was basically a film noir. Captain Bryant was your stereotypical ball-breaking superior, Rutger Hauer gave an egnimatic, charismatic performance to the extent he's the anti-hero
Clockwork Cupcake said:
entropy said:
It felt like reboot.
Really? 
My overwhelming feeling, which I expressed here upon watching it, was how refreshing it was to see a proper sequel and not a soft reboot.
Still, you're entitled to your opinion. Even if it does fly in the face of reality.
Call it brilliant, deep, immersive, thought provoking, boring, s
te even... I’d get that... but a reboot? No way. In the whole thread not one post has said that but we all see things through different eyes so as you say, he’s entitled to his opinion. Okay, okay, reboot wasn't the right word. 2049 has an original plot that neatly follows from the original (though I'm still can't fathom how a replicant can... )
Certainly sequels tend to recycle plots in a different setting whereas with 2049 it was aesthetics: Frank Lloyd Wright interior of K's apartment, prostitutes resemble Pris, shimmering light, interior lighting of Wallace's building resembling Tyrell's. These things should be subtle nods but seemed all too much as Ridley's hand was too involved.
Oh and K's plot twist mimics Do Androids'...
Certainly sequels tend to recycle plots in a different setting whereas with 2049 it was aesthetics: Frank Lloyd Wright interior of K's apartment, prostitutes resemble Pris, shimmering light, interior lighting of Wallace's building resembling Tyrell's. These things should be subtle nods but seemed all too much as Ridley's hand was too involved.
Oh and K's plot twist mimics Do Androids'...
I've just watched an interesting little 8 min piece on YouTube that may also be of interest to some of the contributors of this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dNnvKhUAgA
Caution: Some spoilers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dNnvKhUAgA
Caution: Some spoilers.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
I've just watched an interesting little 8 min piece on YouTube that may also be of interest to some of the contributors of this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dNnvKhUAgA
Caution: Some spoilers.
Nice find. Have to say I agree with most of what he has to say.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dNnvKhUAgA
Caution: Some spoilers.
entropy said:
Okay, okay, reboot wasn't the right word. 2049 has an original plot that neatly follows from the original (though I'm still can't fathom how a replicant can... )
Certainly sequels tend to recycle plots in a different setting whereas with 2049 it was aesthetics: Frank Lloyd Wright interior of K's apartment, prostitutes resemble Pris, shimmering light, interior lighting of Wallace's building resembling Tyrell's.
It is the same world ferchrissake! A world that was supposed to have been suspended in time for a decade due to what was effectively a terrorist attack taking out power/data/finance, so things won't necessarily have moved on apace.Certainly sequels tend to recycle plots in a different setting whereas with 2049 it was aesthetics: Frank Lloyd Wright interior of K's apartment, prostitutes resemble Pris, shimmering light, interior lighting of Wallace's building resembling Tyrell's.
The apartments look the same because they are the same (a replicant isn't supposed to give a s
t about decor and won't be calling Gok Wan or Karyn Franklin in for advice about scatter cushions). The prozzies look the same because they are mass manufactured. Wallace's building IS Tyrell's building.entrop said:
Oh and K's plot twist mimics Do Androids'...
A stroke of genius IMO.RobDickinson said:
I think some people just fail to understand the movie and the subtle handing of it.
This... I have a few friends who’ve written off good movies because ‘nothing’ happened... they want action every 10mins... we all take our movie entertainment in different ways. One of my friends watched 2049 and hated it. His view was totally predictable.
RobDickinson said:
I think some people just fail to understand the movie and the subtle handing of it.
To criticise a sequel for having locations, sets and characters that look similar to the original movie when those similarities are important plot points is just plain wrong-headedness.Guvernator said:
Ah yes the old "you don't like it because you didn't understand it" spiel, always makes me chuckle that one. 
If someone misses the significance of 'basic pleasure model replicants' and the stated fact in the opening credit that Wallace had taken over the Tyrrel Corporation, renamed it and was operating out of the same building then criticises the movie because these aspects were 'too similar' to the original, then IMO the criticism that they are lacking understanding of what they saw is wholly valid.Edited by r11co on Friday 11th May 12:11
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff