• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Blade Runner 2049 - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was another good shot. Such are the perils of trailer editing. Sometimes the coolest stuff never makes it in. IE that badass shot of Kylo Ren igniting his lightsaber in the forest from the first Force Awakens teaser trailer.
 
Finally saw this. Glorious, just glorious. :up:
 
There were several lines and shots that did not make it
this one
CpV12h7.jpg


and it was a set :wow:
y0aD8qD.jpg
 
So, does it look like this guy will have any sort of legs whatsoever? I knew it was gonna underperform, but this is even lower than I had expected. I'd like to see it make a few more dollars.
 
The reviews have been pretty blah. Most complain it was too long. :(
 
So, does it look like this guy will have any sort of legs whatsoever? I knew it was gonna underperform, but this is even lower than I had expected. I'd like to see it make a few more dollars.

The numbers are pretty shocking. I thought there were more hardcore sci-fi fans and film buffs out there.
 
Maybe its a blessing in disguise. Now, we know for sure Hollywood's not going to ****e this thing out and try to franchise it. I think BR and BR 2049 are one of those rare dualities that, put side by side, tell an epic story a la Terminator 1/2 and Alien/Aliens. Now, we know, at least, they won't tamper with this.
 
Interesting how the disappointing box office of Blade Runner 2049 has been similar to that of Ghost in the Shell....but also unsurprising. The original Blade Runner is adored by sci-fi and film fans (me included), but it was a flop on release and it's no way near as widely seen as something like Aliens or ET (to name two other sci-fi movies from the 80s).

Equally, Ghost in the Shell is a beloved anime classic, but in the west it's not widely know - and without knowing the anime, the live-action movie just looks like a collection of sci-fi cliches we're all used to from The Matrix, RoboCop et al.

I enjoy both GitS 2017 and Blade Runner 2049, but I can absolutely see why they haven't been mainstream successes.
 
Funny enough, I feel like BR2049 is the movie I wanted Gits to be. Gits, to me, felt so souless and without any bite or edge to it. It was just...blah. It was just there with nothing meaningful to say or anything unique to show.
 
Interesting how the disappointing box office of Blade Runner 2049 has been similar to that of Ghost in the Shell....but also unsurprising. The original Blade Runner is adored by sci-fi and film fans (me included), but it was a flop on release and it's no way near as widely seen as something like Aliens or ET (to name two other sci-fi movies from the 80s).

Equally, Ghost in the Shell is a beloved anime classic, but in the west it's not widely know - and without knowing the anime, the live-action movie just looks like a collection of sci-fi cliches we're all used to from The Matrix, RoboCop et al.

I enjoy both GitS 2017 and Blade Runner 2049, but I can absolutely see why they haven't been mainstream successes.

They're not the same kind of deal. Blade Runner 2049 was much better received critically anyway.
 
They're not the same kind of deal. Blade Runner 2049 was much better received critically anyway.

They're very much the same kind of deal. You'll rarely find two stories/franchises as similar as Ghost in the Shell and Blade Runner.
 
The numbers are pretty shocking. I thought there were more hardcore sci-fi fans and film buffs out there.

There are many, millions even, but that isnt enough to support a movie with a Marvel level budget.
 
That 2 hour 43 minute length probably scared a lot of people away too.
 
Is this film likely to get any awards?
 
It had better get Roger Deakins some awards love. All the technical categories, really.
 
Yeah nods for cinematography, visual effects are probably a good bet.
 
It had better get Roger Deakins some awards love. All the technical categories, really.

Yeah nods for cinematography, visual effects are probably a good bet.

Cool. I love the film and think it deserves recognition, but then I haven't seen enough of the competition to make an informed comment.
 
I really liked it. Gosling and the supporting cast really brought it (Ford too, even though his role wasn't the biggest), but the real star of the film was Zimmer's score. My only criticism was it was a little long in the tooth at times. It's hard for me to say whether this was better than the first, especially since I've only seen the theatrical cut of Blade Runner.
 
I prefer it to the BR theatrical cut for sure.
 
Saw Blade Runner 2049 a few days ago, and had a slow experience to realize that I kind of am in love with this movie... so like the first one, again?

It is a very somber and lyrical film that takes its time and rewards attention and minimalist storytelling despite being a plot-driven 2.5 hour epic. This is a bit at odds with itself, but it is also glorious. A giant immersive experience unbeholden by the desire to just slavishly offer fan service like other recent legacy sequels (turns a side-eye to Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and others), nor is it exactly a purely standalone experience. It builds off what came before for a dense, rich experience that days later I am mulling over there aspects I didn't notice while leaving the theater.

I do not think it is a masterpiece. I do agree it could have been trimmed some (but not the Joi subplot that some detractors point to, those scenes were magic), and I was a bit disappointed with the score. When it was just mimicking Vangelis, it was beautiful, when it was Zimmer's recent obsession with tonal sound walls, it was mostly there.

But overall, it is a great film that I think like the original will develop a devoted audience for decades to come. That ending, where the stakes were both so small and intimate yet so profound with the water coming in, and the way Deakins lit the brightness from the downed spinner vs. the blackness of encroaching death/night? Wow.

The fact that it underperformed is just another reminder that this is why we can't have nice things, at least not this nice on this big a budget. Unless it is made by Christopher Nolan nowadays, audiences expect expensive movies to be unchallenging. Unfortunately that also means you will not get something as rewarding again for a while like Blade Runner 2049 from an intended blockbuster.
 
It had better get Roger Deakins some awards love. All the technical categories, really.

I expect it to be a frontrunner for Best Cinematography (really it should be Deakins' seventh Oscar or so by now, so...) as well as Best Visual Effects. I also wouldn't be surprised if it's a contender for Best Production Design and maybe even Best Costumes.

For the Academy to deem a "genre" film worthy of their attention for a token Best Picture nom though, it needs to be a box office darling. A hit with mainstream moviegoers who might tune in if a film they actually love is nominated. This underperformed, so I think its chances for a Best Picture or Best Director nod are gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,568
Messages
21,992,184
Members
45,788
Latest member
drperret
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"