Initial impressions are coming out now and they are overwhelmingly positive across the board. For me I was worried that it was going to be amazing or dreadful and now I can put those fears aside. These are encouraging signs and I can't wait to see it.
Blade Runner 2049
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
early Twitter reactions by the fanboys are always gushy. actual critics who've now seen it sound more divided
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2017/...l-nothingness/
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
Lest we forget that a lot of people hated the original Blade Runner when it came out.
That being said it was screened at press junket so most of the people saying it's great are film critics, fanboy or otherwise. It's a good sign that it has more credit than Alien: Covenant anyway.
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
What'd everyone think?
It was beautiful. I didn't feel the ample run time. However, I'm confused about many things.
SPOILERS BELOW: Highlight to see text.
So the memory-maker girl (fantastic actress) was Harrison/Rachel's child, and what did she do -- put the false memory of the orphanage and the horse with the date on it into Detective K? So that he would find her? Or just randomly, by chance she puts that memory into a bunch of androids in the hopes that...? What? Because she doesn't think her parent is looking for her, does she, so why does she do that? Why would she fill androids with THAT false memory which isn't pleasant?
Also, so Detective K ISN'T Harrison's son, right? So the thing about twins is a lie? It seems SOOOO labored to hide a plot point that this isn't about Gosling's character.
Also, if Wallace (Jared Leto's character) wanted to create androids that could reproduce, why was his minion girl trying to kill Detective K? Shouldn't she be working in conjunction with him? To find this fantastic girl that was the offspring of two replicants?
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
nobody's going to see it
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-debut-1046808
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
Saw the box office returns this morning - why is Blade Runner under performing? Is it because young fans have never watched the original? It's more niche than people thought? The original was a box office flop and critics hated it....until they didn't and it became a cult classic.
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
Originally posted by Friday View PostSaw the box office returns this morning - why is Blade Runner under performing? Is it because young fans have never watched the original? It's more niche than people thought? The original was a box office flop and critics hated it....until they didn't and it became a cult classic.
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
Originally posted by JoeBanks View Postit's not bringing in the under-35 crowd, for whatever reason. and it's a 2hr 45min visual jerk-off by Villenueve instead of an actual plotted story that will engage and hold viewers' attention
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
Originally posted by Friday View PostI don't think they've seen the original Blade Runner. It's not like Star Wars or Indiana Jones.
"world building" is just the icing on a (hopefully well-structured) cake, not the cake itself
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
I watched the original long time ago, liked it but not a big fan. Haven't watched 2049, but reasons I could think of for its poor showing:
1. Huge time gap between both movies, in fact almost two generations have passed between them. I'm sure interest has waned among many casual fans of the original.
2. This movie was too highly geared to the Over-30 male quadrant at the expense of everybody else.
3. Long running time. In order to appreciate this film, newcomers had to watch the first one too, meaning a grand total of 6 hours. A lot to ask from the casual viewer. I read that pacing is also an issue.
4. This movie's plot might be too similar to the recent Ghost in the Shell? Futuristic world, protag is a robot struggling with his/her humanity, etc?
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
It's probably not the quality as it's receiving high audience cinemascore and also reviews on rottentomatoes. A- cinemascore and 89% on Rottnetomatoes. I don't think a lot of the audience under 35 have actually seen the original Blade Runner, unless they are more of the hardcore film watchers. And even those that did watch it, it's probably been a long time. It's not like Star Wars where most of us have seen the films a dozen times.
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
Originally posted by JoeBanks View Postand it's a 2hr 45min visual jerk-off by Villenueve instead of an actual plotted story that will engage and hold viewers' attention
Villeneuve, who is just so straight-up overrated, got drunk on trippy and above all gratuitous visuals (the Elvis bit borderline pissed me off) and didn't give a shiznit about the convoluted and inaccessible and empty plot. Having said that -- his best work so far!
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
Not really sure the US market means as much these days. Can’t say I’m surprised either by the tepid BO figures stateside. It’s a heavily thematic sci-flick with an art house feel and made with a studio budget. Clearly better suited to the international market and was always gonna travel well. It’s already grossed over 50 mill in Europe and is yet to open across east Asia in the likes of China, Japan, Korea etc.
Ps I dug it. Thought it was a worthy companion piece to the original.
Comment
-
Re: Blade Runner 2049
Well, I'm waiting for video because:
1. I disliked the original Blade Runner
2. The trailer for 2049 gave me nothing to be excited about other than "ooo, pretty."
I usually like when trailers don't give much away, but it's not going to work when I'm already not a fan of the first film.
Comment
Comment