Blade Runner 2049 - Part 4

[I Am The Knight]

Somehow I don't think that Teelie cares much about the movie experience, unfortunately. Oh well.

 

[Hurm...]

Totally agree with Doctor Jones. If they had cut 20-30 minutes, it just would not have been Blade Runner. The editing, the choice in cuts and allowing the compelling on-screen images to speak for themselves -- immersing the audience in its world for extended periods of time -- is the best directorial decision Denis could have made. The editing is uncompromising and full of self-belief - unlike the large majoroty of sci-fi pictures released today.

It is a brilliant, stand-out feature of this amazing film imo..

 

[Mysteryman]

I think the biggest drawback for this film is the 2.6 hour runtime. I will see it but I'm not going to be held hostage in a theater for that long without the ability to pause it if I have to go to the bathroom or get something to eat.

The other reason it probably doesn't draw an audience in is because people aren't looking for hours long cerebral movies to sit through like that. It's why something mindless like Transformers can get away with it but not this.

A hostage is somebody taken against their will who can't leave.
In the the case of a moviegoing experience, you pay for the ticket, clearly indicating that you want to go inside and you can leave any time that you want.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Totally agree with Doctor Jones. If they had cut 20-30 minutes, it just would not have been Blade Runner. The editing, the choice in cuts and allowing the compelling on-screen images to speak for themselves -- immersing the audience in its world for extended periods of time -- is the best directorial decision Denis could have made. The editing is uncompromising and full of self-belief - unlike the large majoroty of sci-fi pictures released today.

It is a brilliant, stand-out feature of this amazing film imo..

I guarantee you if they cut 20 or 30 minutes, it would have been something nobody would have liked and this would have been a disaster.

 

[DeadPresident]

I tend to agree, if they edited it down and made it too slick the critics would've likely torn into it, too. "They clearly tried to make the unique, artistic, cult experience of Blade Runner packaged and appropriate for a large scale audience, which takes away most of its identity, etc, etc". At least now it's got the critics on its side. and is legitimately a well-crafted movie.

 

[OutOfBoose]

There was no reason whatsoever for this film to be as long as it was. I have nothing against lengthy film if it's justified. But watching Gosling walking through a "location" for 10 ****ing minutes was too much.

 

[DeadPresident]

But then again, if you're going to make a sequel to a cult classic and choose to die on that hill then you don't half-ass it, you incorporate every element that made it a cult classic.

 

[Hurm...]

Exactly, and besides, it is still much more concise with its edits than the original.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

But then again, if you're going to make a sequel to a cult classic and choose to die on that hill then you don't half-ass it, you incorporate every element that made it a cult classic.

True, but while the original was slow, the sequel was even slower, and a good 30-40 mins longer. I think plenty of little cuts could have been made here and there to trim at least 10-15 mins from the movie and it still would have been as effective.

And as you can see in my Sig, I liked this movie a lot.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Exactly, and besides, it is still much more concise with its edits than the original.

49 is much more concise with it's edits than the original?

BR82 is slow, but it's a tight edit. Not a single awkward pause or overly long exposition/transition. Unlike 49. At the very least it needed to be 20 minutes shorter.

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm fine with the length of the movie, but I think it could've helped if it was 15-20 minutes shorter. The original film was under two hours long.

Just for example, know how we can find that deleted scene with Deckard and Holden from the original? That's a very cool scene. However, that scene might give away a little too much in terms of reveals. Maybe there's some material like that here that could've gone.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Just for example, know how we can find that deleted scene with Deckard and Holden from the original? That's a very cool scene. However, that scene might give away a little too much in terms of reveals. Maybe there's some material like that here that could've gone.

This too.

 

[OfficerK]

All I know is i'm glad we got the movie we did, I hope it stays that way un tampered with at the very least. Though i'd like to see that vegas aerial shot re inserted...but that'll probably never happen. Best I can hope for is probably a deleted scene on the blu ray.

 

[DeadPresident]

True, but while the original was slow, the sequel was even slower, and a good 30-40 mins longer. I think plenty of little cuts could have been made here and there to trim at least 10-15 mins from the movie and it still would have been as effective.

And as you can see in my Sig, I liked this movie a lot.

One part of me agrees with you emphatically, since I really struggle with lengthy movies on repeat viewings even if I loved them the first time.

That said, since this is potentially the second and last entry we're ever going to see in this universe, which has a lot of relevance in this genre as a whole, I was okay with the lingering shots and extensive running time, mostly just because I wanted to see as much of this universe as I possibly could.

I saw it again recently and still enjoyed it immensely despite being far more aware of the methodical and drawn pacing, but it didn't sufficiently bother me for me to hold it against the movie.

My biggest gripe was actually the score, I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't any of the innocent and reflective melodies that the first had, I'm not sure I like that they traded it for the excruciatingly harsh score they decided to go with.

 

[flickchick85]

in my country ticket prices get more expensive after 140 minutes and again after 160 minutes. i pay more t:

Oh damn that sucks.

 

[Teelie]

This is why people dislike fanboys. You all are so dismissive and condescending you can't see why people won't agree with you.

I post an explanation why this movie failed to find an audience, you blame me. You blame the audience. You refuse to accept maybe it is you who is wrong. Anyone who does not experience the movie or theatrical experience as you dictate it must not be a fan of going to the theater or immersive movies or ones that require thinking.

No. You want to dismiss people who disagree as hopelessly beneath your higher opinion of how you should experience a movie.

This attitude is also what drives others away. This forum has steadily been getting more and more insular and pushing out anyone who disagrees even in the slightest.

I wanted to see this movie but not in these conditions but in your response you make it clear this is unacceptable and completely ignore that it isn't the movie necessarily that is the problem but the conditions.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

True, but while the original was slow, the sequel was even slower, and a good 30-40 mins longer. I think plenty of little cuts could have been made here and there to trim at least 10-15 mins from the movie and it still would have been as effective.

And as you can see in my Sig, I liked this movie a lot.

Would it have been as good? I doubt it. Every second of this film felt vital to me.

 

[Doctor Jones]

True, but while the original was slow, the sequel was even slower, and a good 30-40 mins longer. I think plenty of little cuts could have been made here and there to trim at least 10-15 mins from the movie and it still would have been as effective.

And as you can see in my Sig, I liked this movie a lot.

I don't think little cuts here and there would have equated to 10 or 15 minutes. Whole scenes would have been cut. Unless you mean trimming just shots, I can get on that level. For example, you could say you could trim the shots of K walking into the Vegas casino leading up to meeting Rick, but it's so apart of the direction of this film and the world, it feels necessary to the direction and feeling of the scene. I not only like seeing K walk through a casino, letting us absorb the feeling of it, but more importantly, there is a whole point that K is in a place and not knowing what he's going to find. I'm okay with them stretching that out. They could have trimmed those shots, but it took its time and wasn't afraid to dwell not just because it wanted to, but because it feels within that realm to and doesn't feel unjust. My point is, it fits for this type of movie and I won't fault it for something that it could do when the alternative would have just have been what we're used to.

 

[Frankeh]

There was no reason whatsoever for this film to be as long as it was.

It was great being as long as it was and that's reason enough for me.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah. That too. It was executed extremely well. If people are criticizing the length I want something better than, "There's too many shots therefore it feels too long and boring" by principle.

 

[TheVileOne]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many whole scenes that could've been just chopped off. Not like Judd Apatow films which are way too long and way too padded.

At the same time, I think Niander Wallace is way too marginalized in the film, so I felt like he either needed to be in the movie more, or even less. The Wallace stuff, other than Luv, was my least favorite part of the film. But if you put more Wallace in there, then the movie gets longer...so...

 

[Faora]

Concept.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many whole scenes that could've been just chopped off. Not like Judd Apatow films which are way too long and way too padded.

At the same time, I think Niander Wallace is way too marginalized in the film, so I felt like he either needed to be in the movie more, or even less. The Wallace stuff, other than Luv, was my least favorite part of the film. But if you put more Wallace in there, then the movie gets longer...so...

That's because none of them can be. In the hands of different directors, both Blade Runner movies would have been much shorter (the first probably would have been 90 minutes, it's a VERY simple and straightforwardly told story) But these films really do bring out the best in directors.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think people are mistaking my intentions when I say the movie should have been cut down. I love the movie as is, but to make it more accessible to the GA and by extension possibly more successful, I think they should have cut it down at least a little.

There were several scenes where the lingering shots could have been trimmed. Also some scenes could have been re-arranged. Like at the start when K notices the flower next to the tree, have him notice it on his way back to the car instead of him getting to the car, climbing in, having a conversation with his boss, registering the dead replication, etc.

I think this could have been done with a few scenes throughout and it would have trimmed the run time.

I do like the movie as is though.

 

[Faora]

Concept.

__