Blade Runner 2049

[Looney]

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought I should start a thread to read what everyone has to say. Blade Runner is a movie I have always loved and definitely one that I have always felt should not have a sequel. Couple that with the fact that my respect for Ridley Scott has dwindled over the last twenty years and this movie has been a pass for me since I heard it was announced. Then I heard Scott wasn't directing, but he is still an Executive Producer. Now I have heard a few good things and I am curious. So basically I am starting this thread to hear SPOILER FREE opinions to help me decide whether or not it is worth seeing. Please keep it SPOILER FREE for at least the first week or so.

[Ubik]

Numerous friends, whose opinion I trust, have said it's good, if not very good.

[sense8ional]

It's supposedly very good but it is also a box office flop as modern audiences are not familiar with the property (I mean the original bombed in the first place, but over the years it has become a classic) and are not in the mood of watching a 3h film either.

http://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-gosling-blade-runner-2049-harrison-ford-opening-weekend-box-office-1202183063/

The biggest challenge for Blade Runner 2049 is that the brand hardly means anything to those under 40. We heard for some time that there was concern among those close to the film that the younger crowd wouldn’t show up. Indeed, that’s what we’re seeing, with ComScore/Screen Engine’s PostTrak showing those under 25 repping 24% of all ticket buyers. On CinemaScore, it’s worse: 14% under 25. Overall, CinemaScore showed 71% males giving the pic an A-, the 50-set repping a third of the crowd. It’s too bad that Alcon couldn’t hook more of the 25-34 crowd (repping 23% on CinemaScore) because they enjoyed Blade Runner 2049 the most, with a solid A. As we’ve continually emphasized, when making a movie of this size, you can’t reap a fortune off of one quadrant alone, and in Blade Runner 2049’s case, that’s men over 25 who turned up at 53%.

In addition, what’s choking Blade Runner 2049 is the movie itself. The sequel is based off the original’s Byzantine mythology, and the only people who are apt to appreciate Blade Runner 2049 in all its zenith are those who know the first film like the back of their hand, more specifically the 2007 director’s cut, which raises the question that Harrison Ford’s android hunter (called “replicants” in the movie) is really a robot himself. Furthermore, with so many re-release cuts of Blade Runner, did movie-goers even know which one to watch before heading to the theater? ...

In addition, that 163-minute running time is a killer. Forget about the fact that Blade Runner 2049 has its slow moments. Once you count the trailer pre-show, how do you ask audiences to commit four hours of their time to sit in the theater? Not only does that limit the number of showtimes in a given auditorium, but with these screens failing to generate income, it will be a challenge to keep Blade Runner 2049 on screen. If things couldn’t get more complicated, there’s a number of loose ends in Blade Runner 2049, ones which will likely keep those leaving the theater debating. Exclaimed one rival studio executive today, “You’d think that at 163 minutes, they’d have some closure.

[Ubik]

I can see it being hard sell for modern audiences, but I think it may have legs as a film. I'm definitely going to see it, but I'm part of the older generation who loved the original film. And I don't often venture out to the cinema these days.

It's nice to see a film that doesn't conform to the Hollywood norm of explosions and wall to wall action.

[sarthaz]

Yeah, I don't understand this film or its marketing. I showed my wife the trailer, and she goes "Huh?" Can't blame her. I've seen Blade Runner probably a dozen times, even though I don't actually think it's a good movie; but it's important in sci-fi history, so I revisit it from time to time just to make sure I didn't miss something in my youth. It's visually stunning, and the source material is deep, but the film itself is a mess, hiding behind style to seem more intelligent than it actually is. Still, to a small group of devoted fans, it's a masterpiece, and I'm sure they're thrilled to have another film, but who else will see this? I'll go, just out of curiosity, and because I've heard it's better than the first, but I don't know who else is supposed to see this.

I mean, the name of the original film itself is just cool-sounding words that they optioned. Now you have a sequel to a film audiences don't know using a title that still has no context with vague and confusing marketing? And while Ryan Gosling may be the most interesting actor working today, I don't see him as the kind of name star audiences blindly flock to.

The whole thing is just weird, but we so often hear how some crappy film with lots of explosions or futuristic gibberish makes a ton of money in foreign markets, so maybe that's their goal here. Whatever the case, I just hope it doesn't suck if I spend 3 hours watching it.

[Jonas]

It's... eh. I don't like this director, because he always does the exact same thing: slow takes, monochromatic visuals, extremely intense droney music. This gives the impression of artistic depth even where there is none.

The story in this film isn't the worst, although it really adds nothing new. Mostly it seems like a rip-off of Battlestar Galactica, which itself ripped off the original Blade Runner. It doesn't have the guts to really engage with any of its material.

And although I'm usually the last person to go in for this kind of critique, I thought it fetishized violence against women, and women in their childbearing function, to an incredibly unhealthy degree.

(It is very pretty, of course, in that specific way mentioned above.)

[Ubik]

So, I finally saw this, and strangely it did very little for me.

Thought it looked beautiful, but the plot and characters were paper thin. It wasn't bad enough to offend, but I struggled to like it for any reason other than its cinematography and beautiful sets.

For some reason Zimmer's score really irked me a lot too. It just sounded like he'd grabbed all the synths Vangelis used and recycled the original score. I think I was expecting something a bit more arty and daring after all the positive reviews.

Blergh. Another pointless sequel.

[Looney]

So, I finally saw this, and strangely it did very little for me.

Thought it looked beautiful, but the plot and characters were paper thin. It wasn't bad enough to offend, but I struggled to like it for any reason other than its cinematography and beautiful sets.

For some reason Zimmer's score really irked me a lot too. It just sounded like he'd grabbed all the synths Vangelis used and recycled the original score. I think I was expecting something a bit more arty and daring after all the positive reviews.

Blergh. Another pointless sequel.

I think I can agree with most of this. I wanted to love it and I didn't. I didn't hate it, but it did seem pointless to me. Oddly enough I agree with you on the soundtrack too, but I still bought it because it was only $7. I would probably purchase the Blu-Ray as well, but I will wait until it drops down to $5 or less. I want to see it again because I might have missed something. I likely did not, but my love for the original is trying to trick me. LOL

[Ubik]

I think I can agree with most of this. I wanted to love it and I didn't. I didn't hate it, but it did seem pointless to me. Oddly enough I agree with you on the soundtrack too, but I still bought it because it was only $7. I would probably purchase the Blu-Ray as well, but I will wait until it drops down to $5 or less. I want to see it again because I might have missed something. I likely did not, but my love for the original is trying to trick me. LOL

Yeah, it makes me question my desire for more B5, when I see stuff like this.

[Looney]

Yeah, it makes me question my desire for more B5, when I see stuff like this.

Well I think that is an entirely different animal because JMS would be at the helm. I've shared my thoughts on Ridley Scott before, but I think he captured lightning in a bottle twice - Alien and Blade Runner. Those are classics and the rest of the work he has done is nowhere near as impressive. Basically I think he got lucky in that his ideas meshed well with a team of ideas that gave us two classics. I'm not saying all of his work is bad, but the more I see things he does the more I am astonished that he directed those two movies. I think we all assume a Babylon 5 reboot would have JMS in control; and I mean that down to a director who would just do it JMS' way. I don't know how much Scott really pulled any strings with the new Blade Runner. If he did then I can point to a reason the project might have suffered. Conversely maybe it would have been better had he pulled more strings, but we'll never know. It did well enough that no one is laying blame for it not being that great.

[Ubik]

Well I think that is an entirely different animal because JMS would be at the helm. I've shared my thoughts on Ridley Scott before, but I think he captured lightning in a bottle twice - Alien and Blade Runner. Those are classics and the rest of the work he has done is nowhere near as impressive. Basically I think he got lucky in that his ideas meshed well with a team of ideas that gave us two classics. I'm not saying all of his work is bad, but the more I see things he does the more I am astonished that he directed those two movies. I think we all assume a Babylon 5 reboot would have JMS in control; and I mean that down to a director who would just do it JMS' way. I don't know how much Scott really pulled any strings with the new Blade Runner. If he did then I can point to a reason the project might have suffered. Conversely maybe it would have been better had he pulled more strings, but we'll never know. It did well enough that no one is laying blame for it not being that great.

I think it's that question of does it NEED a sequel. I'm unsure Blade Runner needed any kind of follow up. I feel like it works better as a stand alone.

[Looney]

I think it's that question of does it NEED a sequel. I'm unsure Blade Runner needed any kind of follow up. I feel like it works better as a stand alone.

To that I would say that we don't have any context that says a B5 reboot would be a sequel. With B5 we have the scarier proposition of it being a full on reboot. That both excites and terrifies me.

[Ubik]

To that I would say that we don't have any context that says a B5 reboot would be a sequel. With B5 we have the scarier proposition of it being a full on reboot. That both excites and terrifies me.

Yeah, I'd be squarely excited primarily because we'll always have the original.