Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Thread Manager, Oct 26, 2017.
If you adjust the original film's budget for inflation, it would have been made today for around 75 million dollars.
If this second film had been made for something around that price point, it'd be consdidered a moderate sucess rather than a bomb.
There was an audience for this kind of film, it just wasn't a Marvel sized crowd.
Nice to see doing well on DVD/Blu-Ray sales
This is a disappointing sequel, disappointing cause I expected more from a movie directed by Denis Villeneuve.
I'm not a fan of the original movie, but at least that one doesn't have useless fill in characters and money wasting shots like this one does.
A movie that is 2 hours 43 minutes long including credits could have been cut 20 minutes shorter and it would have been better.
Why is forgettable villainess even a villain?
Rick Deckard is promised in the trailers, and he's in the movie for less than an hour. Other characters that are shown in trailers are either brief appearances or forgettable.
This movie is significantly more disappointing than Prison Break season 3 (unresolved plot points, poor twists, deaths that are retconned in season 4, etc...).
One saving grace I can give it is being a bit more memorable than Ghost in the Shell of the same year.
So this is what no fap does to someone. It drives them to spit on a modern classic. Oh the humanity. I hope God (Villeneuve) has mercy on your bald soul.
I rewatched this again this week. This movie is remains brilliant perfection and never gets old.
Did you watch a different movie or something?
I think we all did. We watched the one that was good.
Does the good movie involve Joe wanting to talk for Deckard to shoot him, and punch him in the face repeatedly until he tires and finally acts like talking was the idea he wanted to go with? Yes?
That question did not make sense to me, but I watched the version where Deckard didn't want to talk, so "Joe" let him tire himself out trying to beat him up until he realized it was fruitless and therefore relented to talking for lack of better options.
And yep, the version I watched was a great movie. You should check it out sometime.
The movie made no sense to me.
I was bored stiff when I did not shake my head in confusion. And given the nature of BN's reply to my first post I'm less willing to give it a try.
I really liked Blade Runner 2049. However, I don't think it was a masterpiece and far from one of the best movies of the year IMO. It think it was really good and well done, but I'm not insecure that feeling everyone has to like it.
The original movie was not well liked on its release. And this one is a polarizing movie in a lot of ways. The running time is a big part of it. I mean we as film fans can often enjoy and appreciate longer movies and getting more of the director's vision. But some audiences see a runtime like that and want to run away.
I like the movie a lot but it's not perfect.
One of the things I find less appealing about 2049 compared to the original is that the viewer (at least for me) never becomes one with the film. It always felt voyeuristic, like watching animals in a cage. It's like the inverse of the IMAX slogan, I was watching a movie, I didn't become part of one.
But that's just a stylistic trait of Villeneuve's, all of his films are cold and detached like that. There might be characters onscreen going through extreme emotions, but you're never more than an observer.
I don't think a movie need be perfect to be great. And I am one who thinks 2049 is not only great, but greater then the original. But if you don't agree, that is totally cool.
LOL I'm just joshin' ya Aziz. No movie's gonna be everyone's cup of tea, and Blade Runner in general has always had a rather niche appeal. Nothing wrong with hating it.
Blade Runner is one of my like, 10 favorite films. But, of all the people closest to me, only maybe 5 other people I regularly talk to also love Blade Runner. It is def not a movie for everyone.
I guess while I don't agree with all of what Aziz says, I can sort of understand his points.
Nothing in the history of ever is perfect. This is why the notion of a movie needing to have no flaws in order to get a 5/5 or a 10/10 escapes me. I use a 5 point scale, and to me, a 5 score doesn't mean top 20 favorite movie. To me, it means Great movie. I score them:
1 - Terrible
2 - Very Bad
3 - Mediocre
4 - Very Good
5 - Great
Take out the "Very" part of my scoring for the fractions, lol
I really liked the movie. Not gonna lie, I expected it to love it more because I watched Arrival a few months ago and it's now one of my favorite movie.
The visuals are stunning and for once, I was glad that I wasn't distracted by the green screen or CGI. Usually, I can always notice that stuff.
I loved the plot and I legit thought "Joe" was Deckard kid. I guess I was disappointed because despite the movie being long, only "Joe" got to have a proper arc.
The female characters were one dimensional. You got the villain with little backstory or pupose, the boss, the 2 innocent girls Ana and Joi who were quite and had no real arcs.
To quote a critic I agreed with: "here are a lot of female characters in Blade Runner 2049, but none of them have anything that resembles individuality; there's no want or need outside of K and Deckard's storylines, no story arcs to start them in one place and take them to another by the film's end. For me, that's the film's real problem: women are present in the narrative, while simultaneously absent. Blade Runner 2049 has the illusion of women, with nothing solid for them to do. It makes its female characters feel as hollow as holograms."
The opposite of Agent K. I loved his arc and I loved Gosling performance. Heck, I was quite suprised by Ford performance as well. He was so much better than he was in TFA.
I think that kind of ignores the fact that the movie is literally about the illusion of women in a lot of ways. Joi is literally an illusion of woman, and the story and the performance constantly pull at you to take her seriously as a character with full dimensions...but then there's still that constant question of if she is just a product that is very good at giving K what he needs to the absolute end.
The movie certainly could have had more roles for women, and Leto's treatment of the new born female replicant is pointedly gendered violence, but that still largely remains an actual thematic point.
Now the overall approach the writers took in crafting this story with their older characters may be reflective of some particular attitudes. Rachel doesn't get to be an active part of this story. She is rendered the remains of dead body. A womb that a more important character could be born from.
Harrison Ford gets to be on screen in his 70s. He gets to show up and not even wear a costume. Sean Young was also brought on set but only for input for a digital recreation. In this case, the central woman of this franchise doesn't get to age, she just gets replaced with a perpetually 20 year old doppleganger.
Watched this for the 2nd time in UHD. Loved it even more the second time around.
It is a truly stunning film. Each and every frame is so beautifully and carefully constructed.
Just watched this film yesterday for the very first time.
Such a gorgeous and compelling movie, very intense. Neither better nor inferior to the first Blade Runner movie, just 100% different and standalone.
You can't truly compare them. They are two different movies and I don't think it's fair to compare them. I would say BR 2019 is a timeless, groundbreaking masterpiece wherever BR 2049 is a modern masterwork --- not "revolutionary" in any way but surely an awesome and fantastic cinematic achievement.
I would like to think that BR 2049 is a spin-off and not a sequel.
By the way, some plot issues I "spotted":
1- How many memories of Ana did K store in his mind? He told Deckard that her memories were the "best memories" he got...
2- Does Ana know to be the daughter of two replicants? (or the daughter of one female replicant?). She doesn't recognize Deckard at all, but I guess she clearly remembered when the replicants brought her to the San Diego Orphanage... or so I guess.
3- Once people would have scanned Ana... would they be eventually able to create "reproductive replicants"? I guess so. Because Ana is supposed to be a "revolution", despite her genetic anomaly.
4- How did Ana acquire the wood-made horse toy coming from Las Vegas? When Deckard left her (and she was a baby), he hadn't established in Las Vegas yet... right? So weird.
5- Is K's DNA similar to Ana's? I guess not. When K searchs into the DNA database, he just discovers the two DNA files of the "twins", but one of them is 100% fake --- as we later find out.
6- Was the snow falling on K (at the very end) generated by Ana? Holograms?
Thank you so much.