Quoted from Hazoff:Wow that Valerian film took a beating, 177mil budget and 40mil return, something didn't work.
Effects were great....BUT the script was pure torture! Theatre was actually laughing at all the dopey dialogue. That's what killed the film.
The Blade Runner Universe does not explain itself in detail. You get thrown into it and you have to figure it out. Might help if you read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
I remember when the first one came out...I was a freshman in high school. Went with a small group of friends. We walked out of the theater and on of the guys says "what the fuck did we just watch?" "What a waste of time that was". My only thought was "I LOVED IT".
Quoted from BoJo:I would be angry too if I got the boot for no apparent reason.
Enough to warrant this behavior? I didn't even report him. Is this the attitude that's okay around here?
Quoted from bladerunner:alerian is like Blade Runner. Masses will NOT like it. It is not Ironman, Spider-Man or Wonderwoman, you need a brain to enjoy it (OK that was sarcastic, but I made my point).
I'm not sure that you need a large brain for it but I don't give a frogs fat ass if the masses like anything, in fact its usually a sign to me that something is great because they hate it, I was talking films with a group of people a couple weeks back and my age group mind you (40s) and only a few had seen Lawrence of Arabia and none of those were captivated by it (in the top 3 films of all time for me), only one other person had seen Dr.Zhivago and its when they were a child and don't remember so the masses are really really stupid. Valerian looks interesting, if the acting is brutal I won't last long but until I see it I won't know. Its amazing to me people would value what critics think let alone the masses.
I like slow, cerebral, contemplative films. Huge fan of the original. I also like fast shiny action thrillers.
I didn't like 2049... sorry. In fact I didn't even finish it. Took a bathroom break at 2:10 and decided to remain in the lobby and browse Facebook instead. Not to make a statement or whatever, just because it was really that boring. Wasn't angry, wasn't upset... just plain bored.
Visually, the film is elegant and the soundtrack reminiscent of the groundbreaking original. But 2049 is not groundbreaking. It won't be discussed in film school over the following decades like 2001, Blade Runner, Koyaanisqatsi, etc, because it does not belong among them. Rather, once the luster wears off, we will collectively realize several things at once:
1) Just because 2049 was the kind of slow, cerebral(-ish, but not very) sci-fi film that hasn't been made in a while doesn't mean it deserves to be the flag-bearer for all others of this type. Yes, we need more. No, not like this one.
2) The scriptwriting is weak. We are supposed to buy into the idea that replicant babies have some sort of enormous gravity that will supposedly "end everything"... period. That's it. It assumes a ridiculous amount of interest from a sophisticated audience without further exposition... which we never get... and are thus rarely invested in the outcome unless we are...
3) ...fanboys of the original. Fanboys who also happen to prefer the theatrical release where Rachel lives beyond her four-year lifespan with the "fake happy ending" because 2049 explores "what is love?" rather than "what is human?"... and to a far weaker extent.
4) Numerous opportunities for engaging our curiosity (the buried box, the sock, whatever, who cares), character building, and pushing our boundaries are either wasted on extended moments of silence which (albeit beautiful) do little for the narrative OR conversely throws opportunity for nuance under the bus of spectacle (uterus stabbing, flying rocks, gratuitous comic-book moments and dialogue). Pseudo-profundity at its best.
5) The irony of defensive reviewers telling us "you must like Thor 2 and have no attention span if you hated 2049" haven't noticed that, ironically, their own frame of reference has been hijacked by visual stimulation. A sophisticated, thought-provoking plot isn't here. Half a movie at best.
6) 2049 apes everything good from the original (a bit too closely) and adds almost nothing substantial to it. Nothing I cared about for the last 30 years, anyway.
7) At times it's really kind of "Bro Runner" with K and Deckard being boys, fightin' with Elvis, drankin' the whiskeys, doin' the sexbot/hot girl thing. Sexism seems so 80's here... I guess some things never change in post-apocalyptic-land?
8.) 2049 is stuck in the uncanny valley between art flick, cerebral thriller, and action film... and doesn't accomplish any at the fullest potential. Nor does it bother explaining itself... which of course we will be told is intentional because "it's supposed to be mysterious and thought-provoking for intelligent people like me!"
Fine... but I'm calling bulls**t. I shouldn't have to do the work of the director to fill in the blanks of a weak script... that's fanboy work. It's like firing a shotgun stuffed with pretty confetti and scraps of an incomplete story into the screen, crossing your fingers, and hoping the resulting mess is just so fascinating and complicated and "stuff" that it'll be material for film snobs for decades! BTW, sure hope we financially break even!
Just you watch. We've talked about Blade Runner for decades, and will continue to. What are people talking about after 2049? Generally only one thing, "stupid people don't like this masterpiece". Well then... time will tell what incredible spirited discussions and inspired artwork will come of it! I can't wait! The topics! The possibilities!
Of course, far more likely, we'll get something like: "oh yeah that was one of those slick post-2000 movie reboots they did a bunch of those back then... Gosling was in it and Harrison Ford and that hot VR chick and it got all weird and was awesome... can't remember much but need to see it again!"
Hmmm. Well, I guess the standard for "masterpiece" is... a little bit different today. A trifle.
But hey, what do I know? I liked the sci-fi flick Passengers and Tomato rated it 30%. Was bored with The Force Awakens and Tomato rated it 93%.
Let's end on a positive alternative: The Mill and the Cross. It's got Rutger Hauer in it! I'll just imagine a Replicant went back in time to impersonate Bruegel. Maybe that's where I'm stuck anyway. *shrug* carry on, nothing to see here, just one person's opinion...
Quoted from NicoVolta:I like slow, cerebral, contemplative films. Huge fan of the original. I also like fast shiny action thrillers.
I didn't like 2049... sorry. In fact I didn't even finish it. Took a bathroom break at 2:10 and decided to remain in the lobby and browse Facebook instead. Not to make a statement or whatever, just because it was really that boring. Wasn't angry, wasn't upset... just plain bored.
Visually, the film is elegant and the soundtrack reminiscent of the groundbreaking original. But 2049 is not groundbreaking. It won't be discussed in film school over the following decades like 2001, Blade Runner, Koyaanisqatsi, etc, because it does not belong among them. Rather, once the luster wears off, we will collectively realize several things at once:
1) Just because 2049 was the kind of slow, cerebral(-ish, but not very) sci-fi film that hasn't been made in a while doesn't mean it deserves to be the flag-bearer for all others of this type. Yes, we need more. No, not like this one.
2) The scriptwriting is weak. We are supposed to buy into the idea that replicant babies have some sort of enormous gravity that will supposedly "end everything"... period. That's it. It assumes a ridiculous amount of interest from a sophisticated audience without further exposition... which we never get... and are thus rarely invested in the outcome unless we are...
3) ...fanboys of the original. Fanboys who also happen to prefer the theatrical release where Rachel lives beyond her four-year lifespan with the "fake happy ending" because 2049 explores "what is love?" rather than "what is human?"... and to a far weaker extent.
4) Numerous opportunities for engaging our curiosity (the buried box, the sock, whatever, who cares), character building, and pushing our boundaries are either wasted on extended moments of silence which (albeit beautiful) do little for the narrative OR conversely throws opportunity for nuance under the bus of spectacle (uterus stabbing, flying rocks, gratuitous comic-book moments and dialogue). Pseudo-profundity at its best.
5) The irony of defensive reviewers telling us "you must like Thor 2 and have no attention span if you hated 2049" haven't noticed that, ironically, their own frame of reference has been hijacked by visual stimulation. A sophisticated, thought-provoking plot isn't here. Half a movie at best.
6) 2049 apes everything good from the original (a bit too closely) and adds almost nothing substantial to it. Nothing I cared about for the last 30 years, anyway.
7) At times it's really kind of "Bro Runner" with K and Deckard being boys, fightin' with Elvis, drankin' the whiskeys, doin' the sexbot/hot girl thing. Sexism seems so 80's here... I guess some things never change in post-apocalyptic-land?
2049 is stuck in the uncanny valley between art flick, cerebral thriller, and action film... and doesn't accomplish any at the fullest potential. Nor does it bother explaining itself... which of course we will be told is intentional because "it's supposed to be mysterious and thought-provoking for intelligent people like me!"
Fine... but I'm calling bulls**t. I shouldn't have to do the work of the director to fill in the blanks of a weak script... that's fanboy work. It's like firing a shotgun stuffed with pretty confetti and scraps of an incomplete story into the screen, crossing your fingers, and hoping the resulting mess is just so fascinating and complicated and "stuff" that it'll be material for film snobs for decades! BTW, sure hope we financially break even!
Just you watch. We've talked about Blade Runner for decades, and will continue to. What are people talking about after 2049? Generally only one thing, "stupid people don't like this masterpiece". Well then... time will tell what incredible spirited discussions and inspired artwork will come of it! I can't wait! The topics! The possibilities!
Of course, far more likely, we'll get something like: "oh yeah that was one of those slick post-2000 movie reboots they did a bunch of those back then... Gosling was in it and Harrison Ford and that hot VR chick and it got all weird and was awesome... can't remember much but need to see it again!"
Hmmm. Well, I guess the standard for "masterpiece" is... a little bit different today. A trifle.
But hey, what do I know? I liked the sci-fi flick Passengers and Tomato rated it 30%. Was bored with The Force Awakens and Tomato rated it 93%.
Let's end on a positive alternative: The Mill and the Cross. It's got Rutger Hauer in it! I'll just imagine a Replicant went back in time to impersonate Bruegel. Maybe that's where I'm stuck anyway. *shrug* carry on, nothing to see here, just one person's opinion...
Everyone is going to have different opinions, nothing wrong with that at all. For myself I didn't like Passengers or Force Awakens. But if you like Ruger Hauer I've got four words for you: Hobo with a Shotgun!
saw it saturday night in IMAX (not 3d imax)..I thought it was excellent. It is definitely for the Blade Runner fan. It is a slow burn and if you not familiar with the first movie then you will be kinda lost on this one and doubt you will like it. Its good as a stand alone but knowing the back story (the first movie) makes it more enjoyable. They refer to the first one a lot. It is definitely more cerebral than action packed (i.e. you don't have flying car chases and explosions every 5 minutes, THANK GOD!) Visually, it was awesome. It has that same artsy feel as the first one and i thought the story, acting, lighting, set design and music were great..I'm not even a ryan fan on any level but he fit the part good. It's slow and long (2 hrs and 40 min) but I was not bored for one minute.
It was money well spent and i'll own the blu ray when it comes out.
(and if this helps in appreciating my take on it and giving me some sci-fi cred: I think the star wars prequels sucked and are unwatchable...TLOTR were fantastic but the Hobbit sucked...the best SW movie is Empire....Rouge One was better than The Force Awakens..The Predator and The Terminator are maybe two of the greatest action movies ever and I will watch the 80's Flash Gordon movie anytime it comes on tv and im 47.)
Quoted from NicoVolta:I like slow, cerebral, contemplative films. Huge fan of the original. I also like fast shiny action thrillers.
I didn't like 2049... sorry. In fact I didn't even finish it. Took a bathroom break at 2:10 and decided to remain in the lobby and browse Facebook instead. Not to make a statement or whatever, just because it was really that boring. Wasn't angry, wasn't upset... just plain bored.
Visually, the film is elegant and the soundtrack reminiscent of the groundbreaking original. But 2049 is not groundbreaking. It won't be discussed in film school over the following decades like 2001, Blade Runner, Koyaanisqatsi, etc, because it does not belong among them. Rather, once the luster wears off, we will collectively realize several things at once:
1) Just because 2049 was the kind of slow, cerebral(-ish, but not very) sci-fi film that hasn't been made in a while doesn't mean it deserves to be the flag-bearer for all others of this type. Yes, we need more. No, not like this one.
2) The scriptwriting is weak. We are supposed to buy into the idea that replicant babies have some sort of enormous gravity that will supposedly "end everything"... period. That's it. It assumes a ridiculous amount of interest from a sophisticated audience without further exposition... which we never get... and are thus rarely invested in the outcome unless we are...
3) ...fanboys of the original. Fanboys who also happen to prefer the theatrical release where Rachel lives beyond her four-year lifespan with the "fake happy ending" because 2049 explores "what is love?" rather than "what is human?"... and to a far weaker extent.
4) Numerous opportunities for engaging our curiosity (the buried box, the sock, whatever, who cares), character building, and pushing our boundaries are either wasted on extended moments of silence which (albeit beautiful) do little for the narrative OR conversely throws opportunity for nuance under the bus of spectacle (uterus stabbing, flying rocks, gratuitous comic-book moments and dialogue). Pseudo-profundity at its best.
5) The irony of defensive reviewers telling us "you must like Thor 2 and have no attention span if you hated 2049" haven't noticed that, ironically, their own frame of reference has been hijacked by visual stimulation. A sophisticated, thought-provoking plot isn't here. Half a movie at best.
6) 2049 apes everything good from the original (a bit too closely) and adds almost nothing substantial to it. Nothing I cared about for the last 30 years, anyway.
7) At times it's really kind of "Bro Runner" with K and Deckard being boys, fightin' with Elvis, drankin' the whiskeys, doin' the sexbot/hot girl thing. Sexism seems so 80's here... I guess some things never change in post-apocalyptic-land?
8.) 2049 is stuck in the uncanny valley between art flick, cerebral thriller, and action film... and doesn't accomplish any at the fullest potential. Nor does it bother explaining itself... which of course we will be told is intentional because "it's supposed to be mysterious and thought-provoking for intelligent people like me!"
Fine... but I'm calling bulls**t. I shouldn't have to do the work of the director to fill in the blanks of a weak script... that's fanboy work. It's like firing a shotgun stuffed with pretty confetti and scraps of an incomplete story into the screen, crossing your fingers, and hoping the resulting mess is just so fascinating and complicated and "stuff" that it'll be material for film snobs for decades! BTW, sure hope we financially break even!
Just you watch. We've talked about Blade Runner for decades, and will continue to. What are people talking about after 2049? Generally only one thing, "stupid people don't like this masterpiece". Well then... time will tell what incredible spirited discussions and inspired artwork will come of it! I can't wait! The topics! The possibilities!
Of course, far more likely, we'll get something like: "oh yeah that was one of those slick post-2000 movie reboots they did a bunch of those back then... Gosling was in it and Harrison Ford and that hot VR chick and it got all weird and was awesome... can't remember much but need to see it again!"
Hmmm. Well, I guess the standard for "masterpiece" is... a little bit different today. A trifle.
But hey, what do I know? I liked the sci-fi flick Passengers and Tomato rated it 30%. Was bored with The Force Awakens and Tomato rated it 93%.
Let's end on a positive alternative: The Mill and the Cross. It's got Rutger Hauer in it! I'll just imagine a Replicant went back in time to impersonate Bruegel. Maybe that's where I'm stuck anyway. *shrug* carry on, nothing to see here, just one person's opinion...
Love The Mill and the Cross. Ironically, your review here (and by others) is very similar to the reviews written for the first movie. It took until 2007 for BR to be labelled a masterpiece, and indeed for the actual best version to be released. It isn't like the original was Alien (Scott's real masterpiece, IMO), or The Matrix or Goodfellas - it was just a cool idea in an imperfect movie. I haven't seen 2049 yet but I bet it will take some time to sink in. But man... 160 minutes?! That is LONG!
Things I didn't like about this movie: SPOILERS!
1) Much ado is made about Deckard & Rachel's romance, like it was "one for the ages" but in original movie they had zero chemistry.
2) No memorable lines or interesting characters. Boring Terminator woman < Rutger Haur and his tears in the rain.
3) They spent way too much money on things that didn't advance the plot like: giant cement woman, Elvis Marilyn and Sinatra rights, and a CGI 22-year old Sean Young to tempt a 75-year old man. Couldn't they just, I dunno, HIRE Sean Young?
4) It was too long for no reason, other than "let the audience soak in the sets we spent so much money on".
5) Spends more time flying above the city (yawn) than letting us see it.
I did really like the concept of his dream turning out to be real, and kind of wished they had just concentrated on Notebook Man's storyline but no, have to drag out Harrison Ford and make the story revolve around him. It was also pretty stupid how the baddies attack and leave Ryan Gosling alive... WHY?
Quoted from NicoVolta:I like slow, cerebral, contemplative films. Huge fan of the original. I also like fast shiny action thrillers.
I didn't like 2049... sorry. In fact I didn't even finish it. Took a bathroom break at 2:10 and decided to remain in the lobby and browse Facebook instead. Not to make a statement or whatever, just because it was really that boring. Wasn't angry, wasn't upset... just plain bored.
Visually, the film is elegant and the soundtrack reminiscent of the groundbreaking original. But 2049 is not groundbreaking. It won't be discussed in film school over the following decades like 2001, Blade Runner, Koyaanisqatsi, etc, because it does not belong among them. Rather, once the luster wears off, we will collectively realize several things at once:
1) Just because 2049 was the kind of slow, cerebral(-ish, but not very) sci-fi film that hasn't been made in a while doesn't mean it deserves to be the flag-bearer for all others of this type. Yes, we need more. No, not like this one.
2) The scriptwriting is weak. We are supposed to buy into the idea that replicant babies have some sort of enormous gravity that will supposedly "end everything"... period. That's it. It assumes a ridiculous amount of interest from a sophisticated audience without further exposition... which we never get... and are thus rarely invested in the outcome unless we are...
3) ...fanboys of the original. Fanboys who also happen to prefer the theatrical release where Rachel lives beyond her four-year lifespan with the "fake happy ending" because 2049 explores "what is love?" rather than "what is human?"... and to a far weaker extent.
4) Numerous opportunities for engaging our curiosity (the buried box, the sock, whatever, who cares), character building, and pushing our boundaries are either wasted on extended moments of silence which (albeit beautiful) do little for the narrative OR conversely throws opportunity for nuance under the bus of spectacle (uterus stabbing, flying rocks, gratuitous comic-book moments and dialogue). Pseudo-profundity at its best.
5) The irony of defensive reviewers telling us "you must like Thor 2 and have no attention span if you hated 2049" haven't noticed that, ironically, their own frame of reference has been hijacked by visual stimulation. A sophisticated, thought-provoking plot isn't here. Half a movie at best.
6) 2049 apes everything good from the original (a bit too closely) and adds almost nothing substantial to it. Nothing I cared about for the last 30 years, anyway.
7) At times it's really kind of "Bro Runner" with K and Deckard being boys, fightin' with Elvis, drankin' the whiskeys, doin' the sexbot/hot girl thing. Sexism seems so 80's here... I guess some things never change in post-apocalyptic-land?
8.) 2049 is stuck in the uncanny valley between art flick, cerebral thriller, and action film... and doesn't accomplish any at the fullest potential. Nor does it bother explaining itself... which of course we will be told is intentional because "it's supposed to be mysterious and thought-provoking for intelligent people like me!"
Fine... but I'm calling bulls**t. I shouldn't have to do the work of the director to fill in the blanks of a weak script... that's fanboy work. It's like firing a shotgun stuffed with pretty confetti and scraps of an incomplete story into the screen, crossing your fingers, and hoping the resulting mess is just so fascinating and complicated and "stuff" that it'll be material for film snobs for decades! BTW, sure hope we financially break even!
Just you watch. We've talked about Blade Runner for decades, and will continue to. What are people talking about after 2049? Generally only one thing, "stupid people don't like this masterpiece". Well then... time will tell what incredible spirited discussions and inspired artwork will come of it! I can't wait! The topics! The possibilities!
Of course, far more likely, we'll get something like: "oh yeah that was one of those slick post-2000 movie reboots they did a bunch of those back then... Gosling was in it and Harrison Ford and that hot VR chick and it got all weird and was awesome... can't remember much but need to see it again!"
Hmmm. Well, I guess the standard for "masterpiece" is... a little bit different today. A trifle.
But hey, what do I know? I liked the sci-fi flick Passengers and Tomato rated it 30%. Was bored with The Force Awakens and Tomato rated it 93%.
Let's end on a positive alternative: The Mill and the Cross. It's got Rutger Hauer in it! I'll just imagine a Replicant went back in time to impersonate Bruegel. Maybe that's where I'm stuck anyway. *shrug* carry on, nothing to see here, just one person's opinion...
Only one correction: the opinion of at least two people. Excellent summary of the issues with this bore-fest. The movie wasn’t cerebral, it was poorly written.
As much as I wanted to like this movie... I didn’t, at all. It was awful. I finally succumbed to the monotonous dialougue and slipped into coma. It was only the groans and yawns as the credits rolled that brought me back to reality.
Don’t see this movie. You will never get the 2 hours and 45 minutes back. They are gone forever.
Blade Runner 2049 gave us such memorable moments as "creepy guy who whispers into naked Replicant's ear before stabbing her in the uterus"... followed by floating camera rocks which are supposed to be profound because, like, they float and are made of onyx and controlled by the iPad in his neck and s**t.
This isn't poetry. It's nothing more than crude spectacle. Total screenwriting hack job. As "profound" as that gravelly-voiced villain who occupies every comic book movie ever made... because "bad guy is bad".
We are not provided with adequate character development to resolve the story for ourselves, other than trite stereotypes. The film simply expects us to take everything at face value like caring about Replicant babies. Then demands we assemble something meaningful from it under the guise of sophistication.
Well... which is it? Are we being told a story, or are we being told to tell ourselves one?
Perhaps by accident, it is appropriate that Leto's eyes have no pupils. 2049 is a film for the eyes, not the mind.
The original Blade Runner, like all works of true cinematic art, transcends the medium itself and speaks to the subconscious directly via dream language. That's what bums me out the most about 2049... we are losing sight of what this is, and why it has such power to guide our consciousness though the art of storytelling.
Time will tell what actually comes of 2049 other than inflated Rotten Tomato percentages...
The only thing I really remember about this movie was the fact that someone’s car alarm was going off outside the theater the entire time.
Yes, really.
(Spoilers follow)
It starts out good enough, dropping the “bomb” about the hybrid kid being born, but then it’s like they didn’t know where to go from there with the story. They just took off in all sorts of directions. They would have easily cut at least an hour out of the film and still told the same story
Quoted from NicoVolta:I like slow, cerebral, contemplative films. Huge fan of the original. I also like fast shiny action thrillers.
I didn't like 2049... sorry. In fact I didn't even finish it. Took a bathroom break at 2:10 and decided to remain in the lobby and browse Facebook instead. Not to make a statement or whatever, just because it was really that boring. Wasn't angry, wasn't upset... just plain bored.
Visually, the film is elegant and the soundtrack reminiscent of the groundbreaking original. But 2049 is not groundbreaking. It won't be discussed in film school over the following decades like 2001, Blade Runner, Koyaanisqatsi, etc, because it does not belong among them. Rather, once the luster wears off, we will collectively realize several things at once:
1) Just because 2049 was the kind of slow, cerebral(-ish, but not very) sci-fi film that hasn't been made in a while doesn't mean it deserves to be the flag-bearer for all others of this type. Yes, we need more. No, not like this one.
2) The scriptwriting is weak. We are supposed to buy into the idea that replicant babies have some sort of enormous gravity that will supposedly "end everything"... period. That's it. It assumes a ridiculous amount of interest from a sophisticated audience without further exposition... which we never get... and are thus rarely invested in the outcome unless we are...
3) ...fanboys of the original. Fanboys who also happen to prefer the theatrical release where Rachel lives beyond her four-year lifespan with the "fake happy ending" because 2049 explores "what is love?" rather than "what is human?"... and to a far weaker extent.
4) Numerous opportunities for engaging our curiosity (the buried box, the sock, whatever, who cares), character building, and pushing our boundaries are either wasted on extended moments of silence which (albeit beautiful) do little for the narrative OR conversely throws opportunity for nuance under the bus of spectacle (uterus stabbing, flying rocks, gratuitous comic-book moments and dialogue). Pseudo-profundity at its best.
5) The irony of defensive reviewers telling us "you must like Thor 2 and have no attention span if you hated 2049" haven't noticed that, ironically, their own frame of reference has been hijacked by visual stimulation. A sophisticated, thought-provoking plot isn't here. Half a movie at best.
6) 2049 apes everything good from the original (a bit too closely) and adds almost nothing substantial to it. Nothing I cared about for the last 30 years, anyway.
7) At times it's really kind of "Bro Runner" with K and Deckard being boys, fightin' with Elvis, drankin' the whiskeys, doin' the sexbot/hot girl thing. Sexism seems so 80's here... I guess some things never change in post-apocalyptic-land?
8.) 2049 is stuck in the uncanny valley between art flick, cerebral thriller, and action film... and doesn't accomplish any at the fullest potential. Nor does it bother explaining itself... which of course we will be told is intentional because "it's supposed to be mysterious and thought-provoking for intelligent people like me!"
Fine... but I'm calling bulls**t. I shouldn't have to do the work of the director to fill in the blanks of a weak script... that's fanboy work. It's like firing a shotgun stuffed with pretty confetti and scraps of an incomplete story into the screen, crossing your fingers, and hoping the resulting mess is just so fascinating and complicated and "stuff" that it'll be material for film snobs for decades! BTW, sure hope we financially break even!
Just you watch. We've talked about Blade Runner for decades, and will continue to. What are people talking about after 2049? Generally only one thing, "stupid people don't like this masterpiece". Well then... time will tell what incredible spirited discussions and inspired artwork will come of it! I can't wait! The topics! The possibilities!
Of course, far more likely, we'll get something like: "oh yeah that was one of those slick post-2000 movie reboots they did a bunch of those back then... Gosling was in it and Harrison Ford and that hot VR chick and it got all weird and was awesome... can't remember much but need to see it again!"
Hmmm. Well, I guess the standard for "masterpiece" is... a little bit different today. A trifle.
But hey, what do I know? I liked the sci-fi flick Passengers and Tomato rated it 30%. Was bored with The Force Awakens and Tomato rated it 93%.
Let's end on a positive alternative: The Mill and the Cross. It's got Rutger Hauer in it! I'll just imagine a Replicant went back in time to impersonate Bruegel. Maybe that's where I'm stuck anyway. *shrug* carry on, nothing to see here, just one person's opinion...
This^^
I agree 100%. I'd like add my own analogy. When the movie Alien came out years ago, it was touted as "a one of a kind"
original, scary, a great science fiction movie. I liked it - didn't love it. When the sequel Aliens came years later, That, to me, was a spectacle - and I loved it.
That was what I was expecting from the new blade runner movie.
They would have been better off just re-making the original instead of selling us this as a "sequel".
I felt ,rather,my intelligence was insulted by this version.
I can see why people may like this one.
Imho, had this been the "first" Bladerunner,it may garner accolades such
as "new" "cerebral" and "thought provoking" (as the original one).
I'm going to try to locate the group that I went to the original blade runner with, back in the 80s. Ask them some questions and fill in some blanks. Not in the movie, in my life.
This should be fun. I don't even remember exactly who they were. But all of them are around. should be able to find them to ask the question.
Did we go to the original blade runner?
Quoted from benheck:Things I didn't like about this movie: SPOILERS!
1) Much ado is made about Deckard & Rachel's romance, like it was "one for the ages" but in original movie they had zero chemistry.
2) No memorable lines or interesting characters. Boring Terminator woman < Rutger Haur and his tears in the rain.
3) They spent way too much money on things that didn't advance the plot like: giant cement woman, Elvis Marilyn and Sinatra rights, and a CGI 22-year old Sean Young to tempt a 75-year old man. Couldn't they just, I dunno, HIRE Sean Young?
4) It was too long for no reason, other than "let the audience soak in the sets we spent so much money on".
5) Spends more time flying above the city (yawn) than letting us see it.
I did really like the concept of his dream turning out to be real, and kind of wished they had just concentrated on Notebook Man's storyline but no, have to drag out Harrison Ford and make the story revolve around him. It was also pretty stupid how the baddies attack and leave Ryan Gosling alive... WHY?
Haters gonna hate, eh? 
Things I LIKED about this movie! (SPOILERS!)
1) It is 2017 and someone had the gumption to spend $150m making a new Blade Runner movie. And what a feast for the eyes, ears, and mind it is. On a real IMAX theatre (the kind they used to show documentaries on) it was an amazing experience to be completely absorbed in the Blade Runner world for almost 3 hours.
2) Loved the juxtaposition of the replicant's love interest relationship with an AI, where in the first movie the apparently "human" Deckard's is with a replicant.
3) Loved the open-ended way they hinted at certain possibilities, like Wallace's line postulating that Deckard and Rachael's relationship could have been pre-programmed behavior, or how the public Joi ad seemed to be talking to K, or the fish camera thing that "likes to jump". What's programming vs. emergent behavior?
4) There were a lot of cool lines dropped during the movie, but really will need multiple viewings to remember them all. It's not like people left the theater after seeing the original quoting the lines. It was after many repeated viewings on VHS, laserdisc, and DVD that it became the beloved classic that it is.
5) Loved the er, luxurious pacing. This is perhaps the most difficult thing for them to pull off, making a 2017 movie with the same slow, measured pacing of the original. Audience tastes and attention spans have definately changed in 35 years, and it challenges the audience for sure. I loved it, but can see how many would be put off by it.
6) The music! Amazing. Was ear-blistering loud at parts, like when K is in the market eating. So good.
7) The gadgets. Very cool the way they updated the originals in a way that still fit in with the universe but were interesting in their own way.
8) It is dark, so dark. The first 2/3 of the movie hit me as being very dark, very depressing. Not many big budget movies would dare take the audience so far down a hole without much sight of a light at the end of it. "Feel good movie of the year" it is not. Loved it!
Sure, every movie has plot issues and other bits you can nitpick to death if that's your jam, but they really did a solid job on this one. Very thankful it was made. 
I loved the movie.... saw it twice already.... I liked that the mystery in the story had more depth and layers than the original and it tied together well. I enjoyed the slower pacing but realize that it may not be for most current audiences. I thought it was a worthy sequel imho.
I saw the original in the theater (1982) and I was the only person who liked it in my group.
"That sucked!"
"WTF did I just sit through?"
"So he rapes the chick and now she is in love with him?"
"That was the slowest movie I've ever seen"
"OMG that was so dark, I was expecting Bogart to come around the corner at any moment"
"I went to the lobby to smoke, and I just stayed out there watching the little girls wash the windows"
"That was NOT Starwars, I'll tell you that right now!"
So I'm glad that Hollywood actually allowed them to make a thinking man's movie, and not just another formulaic action movie to spoonfeed the unwashed masses.
-
-
Quoted from vid1900:I saw the original in the theater...
My science you're old! 
I didn't see it until it came out on VHS.
Philip k dicks book requires a reading. I'm going to do that.
I thought I would read some thing by p k, but why not just the original. Timely.
If I enjoy reading that I am going to read a few more by him. I think I should reread the three stigmata of Palmer Eldritch.
This is the cover of my paperback the one I have.
Saw blade runner 2049 yesterday I did not like it I kind of got bored and I kept waiting for something to happen but I did love the soundtrack and most of the scenes where beautiful looking.
Quoted from vid1900:The book is good, but the movie is honestly better (yep, I said it).
Oh I most certainly agree, but it was really interesting to have read the book before seeing it. I'm quite curious to take in the new one but I might as well see it by myself. Maybe with some help from my friends...
Quoted from Azmodeus:Philip k dicks book requires a reading. I'm going to do that.
I thought I would read some thing by p k, but why not just the original. Timely.
If I enjoy reading that I am going to read a few more by him. I think I should reread the three stigmata of Palmer Eldritch.
This is the cover of my paperback the one I have.
Try "we can build you" by PKD. And thanks for turning me on to schizmatrix, that was f'ing awesome!
I forget the details, but there was some weird thing that happened with the copyright for Philip Dick, and quite a bit of his stuff is in the public domain. You can download the books and stories for free from Project Gutenberg, www.gutenberg.org. Its all great stuff.
Quoted from Fytr:My science you're old!
I didn't see it until it came out on VHS.
Well, OK that was 1982, I guess those of us who saw it in the theaters when it first came out are "old". Same for Star Wars (77) or Jaws (75)
By the way, way back then in '82, we drug our butts to the theaters to see not only Blade Runner but also TRON The Thing ET Fast Times at Ridgemont High Poltergeist First Blood Conan the Barbarian Star Trek II Wrath of Khan Airplane II Death Wish II to name a few. NOT BAD!!
Quoted from vid1900:So I'm glad that Hollywood actually allowed them to make a thinking man's movie, and not just another formulaic action movie to spoonfeed the unwashed masses.
Yep, they like losing 100 million to deliver a "thinking man's movie" to the elitist cerebral washed masses to prove a point.
Too bad it wasn't Weinstein's money lost.
"More coincidentally, Weinstein’s toppling occurred the same weekend that Hollywood faced one of its biggest recent shocks — the disappointing show of the much-anticipated, well-reviewed Blade Runner 2049. Hollywood insiders were shocked to see the $155-200 million movie perform so badly, bringing in just $31.5 million during its opening weekend, thanks to the fact that women stayed away in droves (71% of ticket buyers were male)."
I think all the people looking for chopy-socky action are missing the point.
The point is that by 2049 the line between humans and their creations has blurred to the point that it doesn't exist anymore except in their minds. The AI with empathy, the replicant with human memories but aware they're a replicant - the story told is how the humans are now the lessors.
Quoted from iceman44:Hollywood insiders were shocked to see the $155-200 million movie perform so badly, bringing in just $31.5 million during its opening weekend, thanks to the fact that women stayed away in droves (71% of ticket buyers were male)."
That makes total sense.
Women (and men with lady-brains) are never going to be able to understand that movie.
It's like Lost In Translation all over again. "Gosh dang it, I sat through a 3 hour Bill Murray movie and nothing happened! That was NOT Ghostbusters, I'll tell you that right now!"
Went to see it with my 28 yr old son we both loved it and as far as the box office returns...go see fast and the furious 12 I'm sure it will make piles of money so it must be good. “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"
I would have enjoyed it more as Fogdust, The Musical. 
Ok seriously... on the positive side I am glad "cerebral sci-fi" is not completely dead in the world of modern cinema.
Quoted from iceman44:Yep, they like losing 100 million to deliver a "thinking man's movie" to the elitist cerebral washed masses to prove a point.
Too bad it wasn't Weinstein's money lost.
"More coincidentally, Weinstein’s toppling occurred the same weekend that Hollywood faced one of its biggest recent shocks — the disappointing show of the much-anticipated, well-reviewed Blade Runner 2049. Hollywood insiders were shocked to see the $155-200 million movie perform so badly, bringing in just $31.5 million during its opening weekend, thanks to the fact that women stayed away in droves (71% of ticket buyers were male)."
Oh darn, it wasn't the runaway success people had hoped!
These studios aren't dumb. Just like the original it will more than make up for it in home sales over the decades. It's a long term investment and a sound one at that.
Quoted from akm:Oh darn, it wasn't the runaway success people had hoped!
These studios aren't dumb. Just like the original it will more than make up for it in home sales over the decades. It's a long term investment and a sound one at that.
I heard that the Blu Ray sales are being co-sponsored by Sominex
Any movie that allows me to sleep in a comfortable chair in an air conditioned room for near 3 hours is alright by me.
Quoted from BobLangelius:Try "we can build you" by PKD. And thanks for turning me on to schizmatrix, that was f'ing awesome!
I'm very glad you read that one. I need to reread that now. I will throw up a thread on it after I'm done. I remember some memorable things. I will post after I read it again!
I do remember that shizmatrix was like Star Trek on heavy metal magazine and an acid trip.
Only better than that even. I'm excited to read that again.
I enjoyed it FWIW. And look forward to seeing it again (hopefully in IMAX again, if not I will buy the Blu-Ray. I have listened to the soundtrack here and there over the last week and have had a hard time getting the movie out of my head
I can't say I don't have some questions still (e.g. the possible pre-programmed Rachel and Deckard romance doesn't make sense to me... if you want to breed replicants that seems like the most convoluted way possible to do it ).
But it was a gutsy original, thinking sci-fi movie in a time where those are super scarce. I appreciated that it told its story, and didn't feel obligated to also work in a replicant revolution and whatever else. That could be a different story, but not the one it felt needed telling in this film.
Quoted from msj2222:I saw this last night and enjoyed it. I am a big fan of the original and honestly was not expecting much. I am looking forward to watching it again when its released on Blue Ray.
I approached it with caution, worried about the long running time feeling slow. I thought the sound and music especially fantastic. When it was over, I couldn't believe that it didn't feel like it was too long. It was like being in a hypnotic trance.
Quoted from BC_Gambit:I appreciated that it told its story, and didn't feel obligated to also work in a replicant revolution and whatever else. That could be a different story, but not the one it felt needed telling in this film.
Good point! I've come to this realization as well. At first I thought the "Replicant Underground" was underutilized, but after thinking about it (because I can't get the movie out of my head...) I really appreciate they didn't go full-on robot revolution. We've got Westworld for that, anyway
Quoted from RyThom:Good point! I've come to this realization as well. At first I thought the "Replicant Underground" was underutilized, but after thinking about it (because I can't get the movie out of my head...) I really appreciate they didn't go full-on robot revolution. We've got Westworld for that, anyway
They saved that for the next film: "Blade Runner: Civil War"!
Blade Runner 2049 is up to 82 million box office this morning.
If everyone goes to see it one more time, they just might break even....lol
https://www.google.com/search?q=blade+runner+box+office&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Quoted from RyThom:I really appreciate they didn't go full-on robot revolution.
They're not robots. 
Quoted from vid1900:Blade Runner 2049 is up to 82 million box office this morning.
If everyone goes to see it one more time, they just might break even....lol
https://www.google.com/search?q=blade+runner+box+office&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I'm totally going to see it again, probably in 3D this time. Maybe not for another week or so. 
Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.
Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!
This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/blade-runner-2049/page/4 and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.
Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.
Saddle River, NJ
Düsseldorf
Sana'a
Toronto, ON