Blade Runner 2049 - Part 2

[Consona]

Is "Old Replicants" a spoiler??

The Unicorn was a spoiler.

 

[harlequinade]

Ford's performance was very much in line with the film noir genre detective stereotype. The disillusioned and cynical detective.

I love Ford and in general I don't think he gets enough respect for his skills as an actor but I thought his work in the original was one of his worst performances, there was just no charisma there which is weird since it's him

 

[OutOfBoose]

I though Ford was perfectly fine in the role, given the character. And his voice is a significant part of BR's soundscape.

 

[The Endless]

Deckard wasn't supposed to be charismatic. He was supposed to be burnt out, jaded, coasting along on autopilot. Roy Batty was more charismatic and alive. That was the whole point

 

[kguillou]

Yeah, I mean, I understand the intent (especially if he's not even supposed to be human), its just that when your lead character is droning about the entire film, it can make the film a chore to get through.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I know what you mean. Look at bvs

 

[kguillou]

Lol I wont go there. But I dont mind dark, brooding characters, I've seen plenty of film noir with the grisled, brooding burnt out lead but the performance was still engaging, I literally felt like Ford slept walked through Blade Runner, is all.

 

[STARMAN]

I found Deckard more interesting in the book.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Deckard wasn't supposed to be charismatic. He was supposed to be burnt out, jaded, coasting along on autopilot. Roy Batty was more charismatic and alive. That was the whole point

Precisely. Besides, supposedly Ford had a miserable time playing Deckard so that certainly would reflect on his performance

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

http://mashable.com/2017/09/28/blade-runner-reviews-rotten-tomatoes-score-embargo

There's something uncanny about the way Warner Bros. is handling critics and press for Blade Runner: 2049. I've seen this weirdness before — and reading the tea leaves, I'd say we may very well have a modern classic on our hands here.

But there are also reasons to believe the sequel to the sci-fi touchstone is a replicant of the 1982 original: A cult hit that's a huge with fanboys and film geeks, but severely bores moviegoers and flops at the box office.

Blade Runner 2049 media screenings are rolling in relatively late, and guests weren't allowed at last week's press junket screenings — never a good sign. Stirring up more suspicion, Warner Bros. made some journalists sign NDAs, which I've only seen once before (also with Warner Bros., for Batman v Superman).

But then a very carefully selected group of bloggers and press were told they could tweet their reactions Tuesday morning at noon ET, and the response wasn't just positive — it was through the roof. Words like "masterpiece," "Best of 2017" and "Oscar" got thrown around; no one was in the least bit critical.

Yet these days, this could all be very much by the studio's design.

In the age of Rotten Tomatoes hysteria, movie marketing teams have become increasingly savvy and strategic about how to roll out critics' reactions. Publicists build detailed spreadsheets of bloggers' tastes that help them guide who gets to see what, and when. Tricky titles are first shown to franchise fans and serial cheerleaders, often at "special" early screenings with plenty of filmmakers, food and drink on hand. Travel and accommodations are sometimes involved — as was the case with It, for which Warner Bros. flew a handpicked group of writers to Maine to see the film and meet with Stephen King.

Then, with little warning, an email comes in telling them they're allowed to tweet their reactions.

Many of these writers are loath to trash a film after receiving that kind of treatment, so naysayers hold back while superfans let 'er rip. And the resulting ripples of positivity can be extraordinarily influential — nay, manipulative — engineered to splatter the internet with good vibes just as the biggest chunk of critics is shuffling in to their screenings.

And then there's the matter of that review embargo time.

We figured out the correlation between when reviews are allowed to post and the quality of the Rotten Tomatoes score. Longer lead times generally mean higher scores, though there are exceptions (I totally missed on my prediction for It, but I learned a few things from that whiff — including that an early, positive social media reaction foretells a higher score).

In the case of Blade Runner 2049, the embargo had been set for Monday, Oct. 2 — a fairly tight 3 days, 10 hours from the first public screenings. That portended something like a 65% or better RT score, which, given the stakes, Warner Bros. would've been OK with.

But on Wednesday, after it was clear that bloggers were loving Blade Runner 2049, Warner Bros. shifted up its embargo time to Friday at 9 a.m. ET. That gives it a whopping lead time of 6 days, 10 hours — that puts it in line with Spider Man: Homecoming, Girls Trip and The Lego Batman Movie. All were around or above 90%.

Add in those unanimous, over-the-top social-media reactions and I'm predicting a 95% fresh Rotten Tomatoes score for Blade Runner: 2049. Even established critics, who are starting to get a little salty about being leapfrogged by easier-to-please junket and fanboy press, are hinting that the reviews for this thing will be next-level.

Now, does that mean anything for the box office? Ask the original Blade Runner (90% on Rotten Tomatoes), which opened to $6.1 million domestic — a flop even in 1982 dollars.

Which would be a pity — all this praise gone to waste ...

 

[Blitzkrieg]

BR2049 is selling pretty well. The pre-sales are looking very good against some notable comparisons (R rated genre movies). Plus WB has moved the review embargo date to generate more pre-release hype with Kong Skull Island earlier this year. WB are definitely gunning for a very good OW with this marketing ploy which can soften the blow to some extent if WoM/legs are not good.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Cant wait for this!

 

[I Am The Knight]

http://mashable.com/2017/09/28/blade-runner-reviews-rotten-tomatoes-score-embargo

 

[Brother Jack]

I care a lot more about the quality of the film than its financial prospects. This was always going to be a bit of a hard sell anyway.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Not interested in it's BO either.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Not interested in it's BO either.

Well here's some info

'Blade Runner' Sequel a Make-Or-Break Moment for Producer Alcon

Blade Runner 2049 cost a net $150?million to make, and was co-financed by Alcon and Sony (each committed to spend $90 million before rebates and tax incentives brought down the budget). Alcon owns the film; Sony will release it overseas and get a slice of the profits. Warners is handling the film domestically and will get a fee per its deal with Alcon. "We're confident Alcon has delivered another hit," Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara says in a statement. Insiders say the movie will need to clear $400 million at the worldwide box office to be considered a win.

 

[The Endless]

What did Mad Max make at the BO? I think there are compsrisons to be made. Although Fury Road is obviously a bit more of a crowd pleaser.

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

What did Mad Max make at the BO? I think there are compsrisons to be made. Although Fury Road is obviously a bit more of a crowd pleaser.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max:_Fury_Road

Mad Max: Fury Road became a moderate box office success theatrically.[110] When comparing the final theatrical gross to its $200 million budget (including production, marketing and distribution costs), it was an average hit, with Forbes comparing the box office figures of the film to Edge of Tomorrow, calling it "too expensive, but not really a flop."[111][112] The Hollywood Reporter calculated that the loss incurred by the film was around $20–40 million.[113] According to Forbes, one of the reasons the film emerged less successful than hoped was its cancelled release in China; success there could have aided the film in at least passing $400 million.[114] It grossed $153.6 million in North America and $224.8 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $378.4 million.

 

[OutOfBoose]

 

[I Am The Knight]

 

[Closerframe]

I think this will do well in international markets and probably moderately in the US. The main selling point behind this is Gosling, a weak summer, and good word of mouth early on while sustaining over the month. My concern is Americans don't seem very receptive to thought-provoking slow-burn films. If this was The Matrix in-terms of almost nonstop action and violence, it would be a different story. But as others have said, I don't really care about its box-office success because, despite Scott's desire to make this into a franchise like Alien, I would much prefer DV create a masterpiece that can influence future films like the original BR did.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Mad Max Fury Road (80's classic, cult status) is a very good comparison. MMPR didn't actually make much relative to it's production budget but it was definitely a success. The Mad Max movies were never big BO draws in the 80's. I don't really like using the 'Adjusted for Inflation' argument but MMPR beats all the previous Mad Max movies even when they're accounted for inflation. Mad Max had a good OW but the best part of it's run was it's fantastic legs (OW X 3.38). For a movie that has fanbase front-loading due to previous iterations, that was very impressive.

But MMPR was more of an action-blockbuster releasing in summer, so comparing it to BR2049 which will be more of a contempletive, sci-fi noir movie coming out in Fall is a bit unfair. In any case, I think BR2049 will do well. Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian and Arrival, all did very well at the DBO and I think BR2049 can follow suit as a good performer.

 

[Closerframe]

I agree. Interstellar was roughly the same length, higher budget, and was a slow film. The only thing going for it was Nolan and its PG-13 rating.

 

[TheVileOne]

Just remember, the original Blade Runner bombed at the box office, and I don't think it got good reviews either.

Even the original Fifth Element didn't really pull in big money domestically.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I think this will do well in international markets and probably moderately in the US. The main selling point behind this is Gosling, a weak summer, and good word of mouth early on while sustaining over the month. My concern is Americans don't seem very receptive to thought-provoking slow-burn films. If this was The Matrix in-terms of almost nonstop action and violence, it would be a different story. But as others have said, I don't really care about its box-office success because, despite Scott's desire to make this into a franchise like Alien, I would much prefer DV create a masterpiece that can influence future films like the original BR did.

Dumb blockbusters make more internationally too. Putting doubts on the crux of your point.