Movies BLADE RUNNER 2049 Thread v.2

[JonesBones]

And even though the original has been getting more appreciation over the years, I believe it's the same small group praising it. Cinephiles.

If you show Blade Runner to an uninitiated general audience today, I'd imagine the reaction would be very similar to the lukewarm reception it initially got.

It's simply not for everyone. It's a very slow, cerebral film, that will only appeal to a certain demographic. It's like "2001" in that regard.

Exactly. First was a bomb and the movie has an acquired taste. It isn't for most people. They were expecting more tho. Harrison Ford in another remake and Gosling. Thought they could have expanded their audience more. Guess not. Or maybe people are just sick of an old Harrison Ford.

 

[Guestx]

I really tried to give the original movie another go and my previous thoughts about the movie still hold strong, the movie just isn't for me. Literally nothing happens and its just style for the sake of style. Not sure what anyone sees in BR because I just don't get it.

The original film is first and foremost about the themes it explores. It's an IDEA movie.

What is life? What does it mean to be human? If a machine can think and feel, then is it truly alive? Does it have rights (or should it)?

These are the kinds of questions Blade Runner intends to provoke.

It's also a visual feast. You say you can't get through it, but anyone can get through any movie if they really want to. Just sit down and say to yourself, "This is what I'm doing for the next two hours, no matter what." I think that once it's over you'll be pleased that you did, especially if you really think about what the movie is trying to say.

 

[Guestx]

Philip K. Dick, the author of the source material for the original, hated the movie ,even he finally had money for the first time in his life, because it was a dumbed down version his book.

PKD died before he could see the completed film.

Also, this:

 

[Guestx]

The UberShill

@TheRuthlessOne said something along these lines as well. I did went looking for some information but didn't find anything.

So what's the story here?

 

[BisexualMMA]

I really like Dick. lol. know that sounds bad. But other than Stephen King, no other author has had as many quality movies based on their books. I liked Minority Report. Even The Adjustmen Bureau. Not a classic but worth watching. Original Total Recall. I liked that.

King and Dick are competing right now. Looks like IT will win the war. Which was a shit movie. lol.

“The distinction between sanity and insanity is narrower than a razor’s edge, sharper than a hound’s tooth, more agile than a mule deer. It is more elusive than the merest phantom. Perhaps it does not even exist; perhaps it is a phantom. ”

―Philip K. Dick,VALIS

 

[Squall10]

Exactly. First was a bomb and the movie has an acquired taste. It isn't for most people. They were expecting more tho. Harrison Ford in another remake and Gosling. Thought they could have expanded their audience more. Guess not. Or maybe people are just sick of an old Harrison Ford.

The women in the movie are gorgeous and Jared Leto is out of his mind as always.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Its not a tumor "remake"

 

[JonesBones]

PKD died before he could see the completed film.

Also, this:

Interesting. I have the same philosophy as Dick. That a novel could be "escalated to such stunning dimensions" as a movie. I used to think that movies were a lesser art than novels/writing. That they could never capture what novels do. But Blade Runner made me realize they can and made me take movies more seriously.

 

[Guestx]

I thought this was a really enjoyable film. Loved the atmosphere of the movie, definitely don't regret spending the extra few dollars to see it in imax.

According to boxofficemojo this film isn't going to make that much money. It was originally expected to earn 45-50 million but now its predicted to earn south of 35 million. I wonder what happened? Maybe this generation really can't sit long enough without explosions every 5 minutes. Kinda why we get the movies we do. I've always said that people really don't waat these types of films, people continue to pay for the countless superhero movies and thats why we get so many. This wasn't a masterpiece to me but I was thrilled to get a big budget film that felt more artistic and not as dumb downed as the majority of blockbusters.

Yeah, I was just looking at an article about this weekend's box office. Even though I didn't love the movie, I still want it to do well financially. Its success means that Hollywood would invest in other ambitious projects.

Frankly, I do not understand why it is performing disappointingly. The original is now regarded as a classic, Villeneuve is on fire right now, Ryan Gosling is one of the most popular young(ish) stars in Hollywood, Ford is considered one of the GOATs, the trailer is visually stunning, the RT score is 89%. . . What else is it gonna take?

The reported budget is $150 million. There are rumors going around that they actually spent more like $200 million, and then you have the marketing costs on top of that. This was a massive gamble.

Hopefully the film will have legs and continue to make money weekend after weekend, and hopefully it will do huge numbers overseas.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

@TheRuthlessOne said something along these lines as well. I did went looking for some information but didn't find anything.

So what's the story here?

He may or may not get compisation for giving good scores

I think most of it is just gossip tho. Nothing to prove it

 

[Substance Abuse]

Spoiler

I'm fine with that development.

One of the things that makes the original so great is the moral ambiguity of the characters. The Replicants clearly do bad things, yet in the end of the film, there is no doubt of their humanity. They clearly are a part of the human experience. With that vantage point establish, you can't really redo that discovery. You sort of have to build-off the fact that Replicants are enslaved humans who are genuinely oppressed, which leads you towards a more traditional good vs evil narrative.

Spoiler

Yeah I thought that was a bit flat. Especially with the recuring character (Deckard, Racheal). It felt like they told you to be awed from remembering them rather than their effect in-and-of the film narrative itself. Someone like Luv is might better introduced just drinking tea, for instance.

Spoiler

I think there was enough new-material and nuance for the themes to resonate. An organic development off the first films themes, if you will.

Both films feature a soul-searching protagonist. Deckard's being if he's a replicant or not -- and if he really is the "good guy" for retiring the replicants. And with K you have his reactions to the born/not-born switcharoo that he is involved it. But with K you also have the "chosen one" persona being deconstructed, something not present in the original. K things himself the first born replicant. As the woman says, "so many of us did". He develops a self-image of himself as the chosen one -- only to have that ripped away from him, and the film explores how those twists-and-turns affects his burgoning humanity.

Taking that route, 2049 also explores much deeper where emotions come from. Do emotions come from experiences or do they come from biological perogatives? The original had that very subtly with Rutger Hauer's speach as the end -- but 2049 makes that it's focal point. K things that he's designed to not be able to develop a sense of humanity. He thinks himself the first-born (thus beliving that he does indeed possess a soul, which prompts him to develop emotions, yet finds that he's not the first-born yet has developed emotions anyway, contrary to his biological perogatives). Here, the film re-affirms the thesis of the original, that it's experiances that formulate our humanity, not or birth or manufacturing, but it does so in a rather different manner.

And the stuff with Ana de Armas character is brand new. Can an aritifical projection develop humanity? Interestingly, the film comes down pretty thoroughly on the no side on that questions, Ana's interactions was just part of her basic coding. But that doesn't make the feelings K felt for her any less real.

And that scene where Ana's projection blends with the prostitutes body was just amazing. A superb display of visuals illustrating just how surreal the disconnect from the bodily and the projected is to a persons emotions. I really love when movies use their visuals to highlight and explore its themes like that.

This was a spectacular post.

 

[Guestx]

He may or may not get compisation for giving good scores

I think most of it is just gossip tho. Nothing to prove it

It seems like before people talk shit they would have something to base it on other than mere speculation.

 

[PaleMoonlight]

Yeah, I was just looking at an article about this weekend's box office. Even though I didn't love the movie, I still want it to do well financially. Its success means that Hollywood would invest in other ambitious projects.

Frankly, I do not understand why is performing disappointingly. The original is now regarded as a classic, Villeneuve is on fire right now, Ryan Gosling is one of the most popular young(ish) stars in Hollywood, Ford is considered one of the GOATs, the trailer is visually stunning, the RT score is 89%. . . What else is it gonna take?

The reported budget is $150 million. There are rumors going around that they actually spent more like $200 million, and then you have the marketing costs on top of that. This was a massive gamble.

Hopefully the film will have legs and continue to make money weekend after weekend, and hopefully it will do huge numbers overseas.

The first movie bombed as well. It was later on that the movie got a cult following.

Not surprised this bombed because hardcore fans can only do so much. They have to reach out to mainstream for a movie to be a hit.

 

[Substance Abuse]

The first movie bombed as well. It was later on that the movie got a cult following.

Not surprised this bombed because hardcore fans can only do so much. They have to reach out to mainstream for a movie to be a hit.

I was shocked how empty the theater was. The people I went with were as disappointed as I was with the turnout. Its kind of depressing really.

 

[HereticBD]

Frankly, I do not understand why is performing disappointingly. The original is now regarded as a classic,

I said this in another thread.

It's regarded as a classic, and immensely enjoyed by a relatively small pool of people. Cinephiles. You show Blade Runner to a general audience today, and it would have the same lukewarm reception it had in it's original run. The fact of the matter is, it's a very slow and cerebral film, that just doesn't appeal to everyone.

I'm really not too surprised at this flick not lighting the world on fire.

 

[Guestx]

The first movie bombed as well. It was later on that the movie got a cult following.

Not surprised this bombed because hardcore fans can only do so much. They have to reach out to mainstream for a movie to be a hit.

Well the first movie has had 35 years to gain not just a cult following, but to be regarded as a legitimate sci-fi classic.

It seems that all energy and momentum would've flowed into making this film a success.

I was shocked how empty the theater was. The people I went with were as disappointed as I was with the turnout. Its kind of depressing really.

I went on Thursday night and the theater was . . . maybe half-full?

I was actually worried I would get there and it would be sold out.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

It seems like before people talk shit they would have something to base it on other than mere speculation.

If you care.. this is a video from RLM talking about RT and how Annabelle had a 100% score for a couple weeks before it came out

Stuckmann is among the group of critics who had reviewed the movie at that point

I timestamped the video

 

[Substance Abuse]

I said this in another thread.

It's regarded as a classic, and immensely enjoyed by a relatively small pool of people. Cinephiles. You show Blade Runner to a general audience today, and it would have the same lukewarm reception it had in it's original run. The fact of the matter is, it's a very slow and cerebral film, that just doesn't appeal to everyone.

I'm really not too surprised at this flick not lighting the world on fire.

Based off of the trailers, they were selling the action because they knew who was going to see the film already. It still didn't work.

Personally, I enjoyed the slow burn and impression of world. It worked well. I didn't have issues with the acting or the pacing either. Still, the ending lacked the ambiguity of the the first film and I didn't get the impeccable finality I wanted in a "boss battle", I suppose. Instead, Ryan's fight at the end fell a bit flat.

I rate it an 8. I will need to watch it again. I was so focused on the periphery and trying to take everything in that I'm sure, nearly certain I missed things.

As far as homage and respect is concerned, I don't think they could've done any better.

 

[Guestx]

If you care.. this is a video from RLM talking about RT and how Annabelle had a 100% score for a couple weeks before it came out

Stuckmann is among the group of critics who had reviewed the movie at that point

I timestamped the video

Interesting, I'll give it a look. Thanks.

 

[BisexualMMA]

As far as homage and respect is concerned, I don't think they could've done any better.

I don't know. Terminator 3 really sets the standard when it comes to respect for its predecessors.