Movies BLADE RUNNER 2049 Thread v.2

[V-2]

It really is insane that a movie as good looking as Blade Runner was released in 1982.

I think 2049 looks great, but in a lot of respects--most notably the cityscape-- it doesn't look as good as the first film.

Loved this side-by-side comparison and ultimately prefer the original's aesthetic which is due to various reasons, from shooting on 35mm film and the grainy look it gives off, the on-location filming around various actual landmarks and physical places in Los Angeles, the in-camera practical effects work and stronger contrasts with a more consistent emphasis on Noir.



There are a couple films that preceded it which I put on near the same level - if very different stylistically - in The Conformist ('70) and Apocalypse Now ('79), both of them were shot by the legendary Italian DP Vittorio Storaro. Not to start spamming this thread, but a lot of people have never heard of the former although screenshots simply don't do the overall camera work justice.

 

[Guestx]

I'm going to see it. Hope it's good.

Don't you see the scores in the poll? Worst movie ever.

 

[Tankeray]

I hope it's still in theatres when I get around to seeing it this weekend

 

[japman40]

Update: October 8, 2017

BLADE RUNNER 2049 Careens Off Course with Disappointing $31.5 Million Opening

Despite strong reviews and an A- CinemaScore, Denis Villeneuve's big-budget sequel Blade Runner 2049 careened off course in its North American debut even while placing No. 1.

The long-awaited sequel to Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic grossed $31.5 million from 4,058 theaters, a dismal start for a movie that cost $150 million to make after tax rebates and incentives. Heading into the weekend, all signs pointed to Blade Runner taking in $45 million or more. One issue — the sci-fi epic runs 163 minutes. To boot, it skewed heavily male (71 percent) and older, with 86 percent of the audience over the age of 25, including 63 percent over 35.

Blade Runner 2049 is a huge bet for Alcon Entertainment, which owns the film and co-financed it with Sony. Warner Bros. is handling domestic distribution duties per its deal with Alcon — backed by FedEx mogul Fred Smith — while Sony has international. The event film rolled out in most major markets this weekend, grossing a solid, but not spectacular, $50.2 million for a global bow of $81.5 million. Unless it overperforms in China, Japan and South Korea, where it has yet to open, Blade Runner isn't likely to meet its goal of earning at least $400 million worldwide.

Villeneuve's sequel, made with Scott’s input, stars Ryan Gosling opposite Harrison Ford, who reprises his role as Rick Deckard. Jared Leto, Dave Bautista, Robin Wright and Ana de Armas also star. Blade Runner 2049 debuted notably behind October releases Gravity and The Martian, which each launched to $54 million-plus, as well as behind another long-awaited sequel, Mad Max: Fury Road, which bowed to $45 million domestically in May 2015.

"We're disappointed it didn't have a stronger result in North America. It's a tough one, because Denis made a beautiful movie," says Warners domestic distribution chief Jeff Goldstein. "We definitely played to a more narrow audience than we had hoped for. Where we did do business was in the major markets."

Goldstein is hopeful that Blade Runner 2049 will have strong staying power, predicting that the film will garner major awards attention.

Weekend Box Office: 'Blade Runner 2049' Careens Off Course With $31.5M Opening

So young people didn't go see it? That's fine fuck them. They probably never heard of the original one, and probably couldn't sit still for 3 hours

 

[japman40]

I just checked my IMAX...It's only 2d...Is there 3d Imax?


Also, I wanted to see this next weekend but I didn't see it playing next weekend on IMAX....Does IMAX films really come off that easily? or do they simply not have the schedule yet? Is IMAX worth it?

Watch it on Dolby digital.

 

[One MMA Fan]

Fuck the casual audience. I'm glad this wasn't made for them.

Well you won't see another one without that casual audience.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Don't you see the scores in the poll? Worst movie ever.

Did you see it moulie? I'm taking my about to be 14 year old daughter. Is it a hump fest?

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

Wouldn't you want the SHITTY movies to bomb though, not the ones that are actually good?

Yeah I would prefer that of course

But this is also fine

 

[Guestx]

Did you see it moulie? I'm taking my about to be 14 year old daughter. Is it a hump fest?

You'll have to translate this for me.

 

[Guestx]

Yeah I would prefer that of course

But this is also fine

So you want ALL movies to fail basically?

 

[Amerikuracana]

You'll have to translate this for me.

You're a moulie.

 

[ssBaldy]

I watched it today and liked it immensely. One of the best movies of this year for me easily, and maybe more. Liked both visuals and the plot.

 

[One MMA Fan]

*sigh*

All the failure of Blade Runner does is signal to Hollywood that taking risks doesn't pay off and that the safest course is always the best.

I'm not convinced yet that it will actually fail though. It could be another Mummy situation where very strong international performance saves it or where the film proves to have legs and just keeps making making money weekend after weekend as positive word of mouth spreads. Or both.

We'll see. If the goal is $400 million worldwide, as the article says, I still think it might be able to get there.

Maybe China comes to the rescue and saves it. I think it can do 400 mill worldwide at the end of it.

I did hear that the 155 mill budget after tax brakes and all that is in reality 200+ then you factor in 50-75 mill on promotion and theaters splits/cuts and the fact the movie will make it's money stretched out not front heavy (so more splits with the cinemas) then I think they need 600 mill to say success.

 

[brokenjaw]

I really liked the movie. It was very VERY slow for the first hour or so, but it picks up the tempo after that. The plot twist wasn't as clever as I'm sure the writers thought it was, but it was interesting. My main problem with the movie was it's pacing but again the audience would have ripped the movie to shreds if it was anything less. The movie really had to be that long and dry at parts. I would even be down for a third movie. See what Leto's character does after the events of the sequel , will he manage to solve the birth issue. Also what's the faith of Ford's daughter and the android uprising. Also a side note, if WB decides to pick up the third prometheus movies,
Villeneuve should be involved. This would very much be up his alley.

 

[MMouse]

gonna see it tonight, can someone give me the synopsis/plot without any spoilers?

are they still trying to find replicants?

 

[Guestx]

gonna see it tonight, can someone give me the synopsis/plot without any spoilers?

are they still trying to find replicants?

Blade runners are still replicant hunters but the main thrust of the movie is that of identity. Gosling's character is trying to figure out who he is and what his place is in the world.

 

[MMouse]

Blade runners are still replicant hunters but the main thrust of the movie is that of identity. Gosling's character is trying to figure out who he is and what his place is in the world.

thank you!

 

[EL GOAT]

Watch it on Dolby digital.

How do I know if a movie theater is Dolby Digital?

 

[jabba the punk]

Fuck the casual audience. I'm glad this wasn't made for them.

Omg yes! What you just said is exactly how I feel. I hate how the masses dictate Hollywood. Everything has to be a marvel film to make money.... and I hate to admit this one, but starwars too.

BR 2049 is like a fine wine; complex. Now a days people just want to drink their bud lights.

 

[Guestx]

Should've gotten McG to direct instead of Villeneuve.

Who's with me?