BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23084
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Scott & Ford Still Don't Agree Over "That"

#76 Post by AndyDursin » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:31 pm

163 min run time!

Soundtrack announced -- only 2049 copies of the CD will be pressed:

https://bladerunner2049.shop.musictoday.com/store/

mkaroly
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#77 Post by mkaroly » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:40 pm

Nice way to tempt people to buy it as a "collector's item" in order to make it sell out quickly and then laud how great the score is BECAUSE it sold out!

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4288
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#78 Post by Paul MacLean » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:40 pm

mkaroly wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:40 pm
Nice way to tempt people to buy it as a "collector's item" in order to make it sell out quickly and then laud how great the score is BECAUSE it sold out!
:lol:

I'd have bought one had the cover said "Music by Vangelis".

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23084
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#79 Post by AndyDursin » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:46 pm

Reviews off the hook so far. Villeneuve kool aid -- or really that good? Find out next Thursday! :lol:

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23084
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#80 Post by AndyDursin » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:01 pm


Eric W.
Posts: 6598
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#81 Post by Eric W. » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:08 pm

I keep seeing and hearing a lot of "better than the original" out there.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23084
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#82 Post by AndyDursin » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:16 pm

Just about to down a gallon of caffeine for the 930 show.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#83 Post by Monterey Jack » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:56 pm

Eric W. wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:08 pm
I keep seeing and hearing a lot of "better than the original" out there.
Wouldn't take that much...I don't consider the original to be any sort of Sacred Cow, and there's lots of room for improvement on every level other than a visual one. That may be blasphemous to admit, but I still admire the original film far more than I like it. :| You actually add a narrative spine and characters I can give a damn about, and you might have the classic everyone claims the original is, but I've never been able to see.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23084
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#84 Post by AndyDursin » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:36 am

I couldn't disagree more with MJ on Blade Runner, which for me is one of my Top 10 movies of all time. To each his own.

This movie is nowhere in it's league, nor does it really feel like an extension of it. Critics are drinking the Villeneuve kool aid in over praising the movie and its glacial pacing...so slow in sections you could hear people yawning. Gosling's boring one note performance is like most of his work and doesn't help, and the score blows. The only section that works is surprise surprise when Vangelis' score reappears at the end.

That said, once you get past the asinine reviews this is receiving, if you can accept the film as a futuristic detective story on it's own terms, it is entertaining and involving. And eventually goes to a place that is satisfying...it just might have been easier to accept if it had nothing to do with Blade Runner at all. I mean Harrison Ford isn't even playing Rick Deckard in this movie...he's playing Harrison Ford.

A pretty solid 7/10 for me, maybe an 8 if the left front speaker wasn't buzzing like an AM radio for much of it...but I guarantee you it won't be making as much money as some think it will. The slow as molasses pacing and dense storyline are going to be a huge turnoff to casual viewers.

Eric W.
Posts: 6598
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#85 Post by Eric W. » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:28 am

^^ This is more along the lines of what I would expect and I have see others also bring a more realistic take to the table.


The first Blade Runner... as time has gone on I respect and admire it more but I'll admit it's never been one of my "personal favorites" in terms of "let's fire something up and watch it for the dozenth time." It takes a mood. ;)

It definitely deserves the accolades that it's earned over time.

The fact that this second one isn't complete dreck is pretty good news given the state of affairs these days. :)

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23084
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#86 Post by AndyDursin » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:33 am

My review is up on the front page:

http://andyfilm.com/2017/09/28/10-4-17- ... l-edition/

The fact that this second one isn't complete dreck is pretty good news given the state of affairs these days.
No you're right, Eric, and that's the thing: it IS thoughtful and interesting, and it works well as a futuristic detective story. I just found it less satisfying as an extension of the original. Maybe it shouldn't have been called "Blade Runner" or perhaps not had as much of a direct connection plot-wise -- because I think that would've served the movie better.

I also liked the ending a lot. I confess if it didn't go to the place it did, I likely wouldn't have had the same reaction, because I found some of it tedious and was worried about where it was all going (I kept thinking they were headed for a TERMINATOR uprising kind of thing, which they teased -- let's hope that's not the sequel they make!).

So it's a mix of some great, good, and underwhelming components -- and it certainly is NOT "the greatest sci film ever made!" and is a good 20 minutes too long at least -- but at least it's ambitious and isn't just another super-hero movie.

When I see it at home without the buzzing speaker (a real problem because of how quiet the film often is), I may just like it more!

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4288
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#87 Post by Paul MacLean » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:49 pm

On reflection I didn't really care for it. I agree, Andy, on the strengths of the script, but for me it was sabotaged by Villeneuve's anemic direction. Many scenes were full of pregnant pauses, and as a result there was little dramatic tension. It wasn't exactly "boring", but I found Villeneuve's treatment of the material tedious, and overly ponderous.

Ryan Gosling doesn't have a great deal of charisma either, and as a result, "K" -- in spite of the fact he spends the whole film trying to do the right thing -- isn't an especially sympathetic character.

And while the script was very good, the concepts it was exploring have been addressed in so many productions since the original Blade Runner (like Star Trek: TNG, Ex Machina, A.I., Battlestar Galatica, and even as far back as the 80s Roger Corman cheapie Android), so it wasn't exactly chock full of new and different ideas.

Visually, this new picture pales in comparison to Ridley Scott's original. Whatever one may think of the original Blade Runner in the realm of story and character, no one can say it isn't one of the most visually arresting movies ever made (it is arguably the most). While the original is obviously the point of departure for the look of the sequel, the art direction, photography, design and overall style never really "felt" much like Scott's film.

The worst thing about this film is the "score", if you can call it that. I was hoping Hans Zimmer would provide something in the style of Vangelis' original, but alas the soundtrack is nothing more than ambient sound, with no melody and only the most rudimentary use of harmony. Obviously Vangelis himself has done his share of "ambient" music, but at least his always employed rich, complex harmonies. Only in the final scene does the score possess anything musically appealing -- because it utilizes Vangelis' "Tears in Rain" from the original film.

While I would love to have heard Vangelis follow-up on his Blade Runner music, I have a feeling that even if he had provided a score, the studio would probably have replaced him with Zimmer too!

I will never understand why Ridley Scott passed on directing this project and instead made Alien Covenant. Blade Runner 2049 could have been truly impressive with Scott (or a lot of other directors) at the helm. A missed opportunity.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23084
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#88 Post by AndyDursin » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:37 am

It didn't occur to me before but I am now believing Zimmer was brought on board by Ridley. He's the one with an association with Zimmer...would make more sense that it were him and not studio heads, seeing as this was an independent production from Alcon the studios are only releasing (Sony's logos are all over this film and they are handling the distribution outside the US).

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23084
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#89 Post by AndyDursin » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:14 am

This is totally unsurprising...our theater was totally empty.
...is now looking at a three-day weekend of $36.5M, an awful start for this brilliantly crafted cinematic opus directed by Denis Villeneuve and executive produced by Ridley Scott. In fact, Blade Runner 2049‘s projected weekend isn’t that far from Scott’s summer misfire Alien: Covenant ($36.1M).

By some miracle, should Blade Runner 2049 get into the low $40Ms by Sunday, it’s still not a fantastic start for this tentpole size budgeted sci-fi film. One financier remarked tonight that they weren’t impressed by the early European B.O. results for the sequel, and that it’s now up to Asia to save Blade Runner 2049.

Those affiliated with the movie have been saying that $400M is the magic breakeven number, but Deadline sources believe that’s far from true. One source with knowledge of the budget claims it’s significantly higher in the $170M range versus the $155M being floated around. To Alcon’s credit they took advantage of foreign credits and rebates, shooting Blade Runner 2049 in Hungary. One insider even asserts they came in under their original proposed budget.

Nonetheless, this is truly a very depressing result for Blade Runner 2049:
http://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-goslin ... 202183063/

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Thread

#90 Post by Monterey Jack » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:39 am

Shades of the Thing prequel from 2011...no matter how many ardent fans the original 1982 film has now, it doesn't change the fact that it was a HUGE bomb back in the day that critics and audiences hated with a passion (even the Fangoria crowd disliked it, probably because it wasn't the kind of "fun" slasher movie that was in vogue at the time, and featured no women therefore no boobies), so it's not surprising the prequel didn't find an audience either. And at least the 2011 Thing didn't cost over $150 million to make. :| I'm amazed that such an esoteric, glacially-paced, thought-driven sci-fi movie even exists in this day and age, and I'm glad to have seen the new Blade Runner, but anyone expecting a Star Wars-style nostalgic audience to show up for this was dreaming. I took in a 3D noon matinee, and there were MAYBE six other people there, and there was virtually no reaction from the audience to anything (certainly no wave of cheers when Harrison Ford finally shows up two hours in, a la The Force Awakens).

Like the original Blade Runner, I found 2049 to be visually captivating, occasionally thought-provoking, and just-a-tad dull. It certainly did not need to be close to three hours (Scott's movie was fifty minutes shorter, and was already plodding and ponderous). It's certainly fascinating in many respects, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again at some point, but -- also like the original -- it's not the kind of movie I could ever profess to "love".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests