Blade Runner 2049

[olo]

Yikes, only $34 mil opening weekend? 

[doublename]

Did it ever seem likely that this would do big numbers?

Edited October 9, 2017 by doublename

[WeAreOceans]

The only thing I remember from the OST was that loud ass horn that sounded like a motorcycle engine

 

actually there were some big, cavernous drums that reminded me a lot of Haxan Cloak as well

[olo]

Did it ever seem likely that this would do big numbers?

 

Hollywood was expecting double of what it took.

[Auditor]

So it's pretty much doing exactly as well as the original did

[Guest transmisiones ferox]

just watched it. the score was good.  gigantic compared to the original. but the movie itself is colossal, so it helps. the action scenes very very good and the dream sequence was my favorite, added unexpected depth.

 

8/10

Edited October 9, 2017 by transmisiones ferox

[Joyrex]

I saw it opening night - in IMAX. Theatre was practically empty, which I didn't mind at all, even though we had reserved seats.

 

I really, really liked it - was it perfect? No.

 

Was the original? No.

 

Did it do what it set out to do, which was to tell a continuation of the story from the first film? Sort of.

 

Did it manage to convince me this is the same world from the first movie? Absolutely.

 

Was it visually stunning? Hell fucking yes - best visuals I have seen in a long, long time.

 

Was it emotionally stirring like the first movie? Yes. Very sad in some parts - your milage will vary depending on your personality.

 

The music - so minimal I really appreciated how it became transparent in the background and didn't interfere with the story or the visuals. Glad they didn't feel the need to reference the first movie hardly at all.

 

The sounds - I'm not sure if I like how loud the Spinners are now - how the first movie almost purposely replaced any car sounds with Vangelis' soundtrack was magical, whereas this was more like "See how realistic and loud we can make future vehicles despite our modern cars being relatively quiet".

 

The characters - very interesting, and far more varied than the first movie. Some they could have left out entirely; others are integral to why this movie is special.

 

Can't wait to see it again once it (quickly, based on box office receipts so far) comes to 4K home video.

[oscillik]

I've been avoiding this thread since just after the first teaser came out. Didn't want any spoilers.

 

Apart from issues with the soundtrack (I disagree with you Joyrex - I think it referenced the original soundtrack way too much), I am very very happy with this sequel.

[manmower]

Movie was excellent for 2 hours 10 min, then Harrison Ford's character shows up and it lost me.

Things got real slippery once they got to Vegas but they navigated it rather well I thought. It never went all the way to where I feared it could have (either full on 'fan service', or shitting all over the first film). That would have been heartbreaking so close to the ending.

 

I have to admit there are things I didn't like.  Such as...

Those over the top theatrical rebel replicants were probably intended to be douchebags anyway, same as Wallace. They needed K to turn on them about 30 seconds after their introduction so no wonder it was laid on so thick.

 

And even though reproduction per se was obviously a big deal in the story I don't think "the movie" actually picked the side you are implying. As in the first one there seems to be more that points to the opposite being true; namely K and Joi being among the most human(e) characters in the story.

 

[fumi]

The Ringer:

 

Heading into this past weekend, Blade Runner 2049, the sequel to Ridley Scott’s pioneering 1982 sci-fi film Blade Runner, was expected to be the box office’s big winner. With a ton of critical praise and hardly any competition, experts prognosticated that the movie would pull in close to $55 million. By the time Sunday rolled around, however, Blade Runner 2049 was performing well below those expectations. In all, the movie—which had a whopping budget of $150 million—made only $36 million domestically in its first weekend.

 

For a movie that seemingly had so much buzz, and that has two very famous leads in Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, to pull up so short of predictions, which really weren’t all that high to begin with—for context, a $55 million domestic opening would have been the 12th-biggest opening of 2017—is both surprising and unsurprising.

 

On the surprising side, Ford and Gosling’s star power has perhaps been overstated. With the exceptions of returning roles in the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises (can we all forget The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull even happened though?), Ford hasn’t been a bankable box office winner since the days of Air Force One. Two of his biggest blockbusters of this century, Ender’s Game and Cowboys & Aliens, barely made back their budget. You probably didn’t see Morning Glory—and that’s a good thing. Gosling, meanwhile, has found his best success when he shares the spotlight—think Emma Stone in La La Land, Brad Pitt, Christian Bale, and Steve Carell in The Big Short, or Emma Stone in Crazy, Stupid, Love. (Maybe “make movies with Emma Stone” should be his strategy.)

 

But even with stars, 2049 was always going to be a tough sell to a broader audience, even as some trailers marketed it as a blockbuster action movie. In fact, those who made the movie actually went out of their way to keep details about the movie limited. Critics were given strict guidelines for spoilers in their reviews, meaning even the many pieces of effusive praise for the sequel were vague. That extended to many of the film’s trailers too, which ditched all semblances of a plot for gorgeous frames of Roger Deakins’s cinematography. For example, that Ryan Gosling’s blade runner, K, is a replicant is revealed within minutes of the film’s start, so it’s not exactly a huge spoiler. But even that’s unclear from the trailers.

 

Perhaps most indicting, though, there was the a misunderstanding of how popular Blade Runner was as a property to begin with. Since 1982, the movie has maintained a niche fandom, beloved more by cinephiles than a mainstream audience—nowhere near as popular as Star Wars, or even Star Trek. However, a $200 million budget placed 2049 in the realm of the Star Wars spinoff Rogue One and Star Trek: Beyond, and with that came higher expectations at the box office. The money put behind Blade Runner 2049 saddled it with the perception that it was a blockbuster, when the finished product stays true to the original. It’s an artsy, meditative slow burn that once again holds a niche appeal.

 

The list of less important, but still influencing factors continues: It has the longest run time of any major studio film this year, a fact that became an internet punch line. Additionally, Warner Bros. reported that 71 percent of opening-weekend ticket buyers were male, a fact the studio points to as being most responsible for the flop. “The real trick now is to expand the audience past older men,” Warner Bros. president of domestic distribution Jeff Goldstein told The New York Times.

 

The lesson to be learned from 2049’s box office failure is a familiar one for Hollywood: It’s probably best to avoid spending an absurd amount of money on properties that have proved to not have a mainstream appeal, especially when the movie’s information gap is nearly impossible to bridge. Unfortunately, that means more of the same and less original ideas. Did you know Harrison Ford is making a fifth Indiana Jones film?

[YO303]

i saw this again in some kind of dolby atmos theater and the seats were literally vibrating to the point that i couldn't focus on the movie at all. it felt like star tours. 

 

same here, the vibrating seats are pointless, everything else was great tho (sound and video)

 

this movie has to be seen on an imax or dolby theater, its such a visual masterpiece

Edited October 9, 2017 by Deer

[eugene]

it's not even shot on imax film as far as i understand, so what's the point in watching an upscale? it's like watching 720p on a huge 4k tv. just sit closer to the screen.

[Braintree]

Saw it in IMAX last night pretty drunk and high. It was definitely visually stunning, but there were some things that didn't need to be in there.

 

 

The AI hologram group(?) sex thing was confusing. It also felt like an eternity when Gosling's character drowned that woman

 

[dr lopez]

 

The AI hologram group(?) sex thing was confusing.

 

??? this was the best part of the film by far

[Amen Lare]

 

 

The AI hologram group(?) sex thing was confusing.

 

??? this was the best part of the film by far

 

 

Confusing and the best often goes hand in hand

 

(not seen it yet)

[Rubin Farr]

 

there was something about the sound/score i didn't get and i don't see it mentioned elsewhere. there was this loud, skrillex like, saw-wave shaped ascending sound during the shots of the city. very reminiscent of the ending of portishead's "threads". so wtf was that about? was that a part of the score or some kind of industrial machinery making this sound in the film world? it was stupid in any case, but i'm just curious what was it supposed to be.

 

It's the soundtrack. Check out the track 'Sea Wall' - it's a really jarring, awful sound. Zimmer's trademark really.

That made me think of Atticus Ross' sound design.

[chim]

 

 

there was something about the sound/score i didn't get and i don't see it mentioned elsewhere. there was this loud, skrillex like, saw-wave shaped ascending sound during the shots of the city. very reminiscent of the ending of portishead's "threads". so wtf was that about? was that a part of the score or some kind of industrial machinery making this sound in the film world? it was stupid in any case, but i'm just curious what was it supposed to be.

It's the soundtrack. Check out the track 'Sea Wall' - it's a really jarring, awful sound. Zimmer's trademark really.

That made me think of Atticus Ross' sound design.

I didn't like that one but I liked the Flight to LAPD one, think it's a shame it was reduced in the soundtrack...

[Silent Member]

I've paid good money to go watch this turd tomorrow, and I'm blaming all of you guys. Not Eugene though, he did well.

[Alcofribas]

 

The Ringer:

 

Heading into this past weekend, Blade Runner 2049, the sequel to Ridley Scott’s pioneering 1982 sci-fi film Blade Runner, was expected to be the box office’s big winner. With a ton of critical praise and hardly any competition, experts prognosticated that the movie would pull in close to $55 million. By the time Sunday rolled around, however, Blade Runner 2049 was performing well below those expectations. In all, the movie—which had a whopping budget of $150 million—made only $36 million domestically in its first weekend.

 

For a movie that seemingly had so much buzz, and that has two very famous leads in Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, to pull up so short of predictions, which really weren’t all that high to begin with—for context, a $55 million domestic opening would have been the 12th-biggest opening of 2017—is both surprising and unsurprising.

 

On the surprising side, Ford and Gosling’s star power has perhaps been overstated. With the exceptions of returning roles in the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises (can we all forget The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull even happened though?), Ford hasn’t been a bankable box office winner since the days of Air Force One. Two of his biggest blockbusters of this century, Ender’s Game and Cowboys & Aliens, barely made back their budget. You probably didn’t see Morning Glory—and that’s a good thing. Gosling, meanwhile, has found his best success when he shares the spotlight—think Emma Stone in La La Land, Brad Pitt, Christian Bale, and Steve Carell in The Big Short, or Emma Stone in Crazy, Stupid, Love. (Maybe “make movies with Emma Stone” should be his strategy.)

 

But even with stars, 2049 was always going to be a tough sell to a broader audience, even as some trailers marketed it as a blockbuster action movie. In fact, those who made the movie actually went out of their way to keep details about the movie limited. Critics were given strict guidelines for spoilers in their reviews, meaning even the many pieces of effusive praise for the sequel were vague. That extended to many of the film’s trailers too, which ditched all semblances of a plot for gorgeous frames of Roger Deakins’s cinematography. For example, that Ryan Gosling’s blade runner, K, is a replicant is revealed within minutes of the film’s start, so it’s not exactly a huge spoiler. But even that’s unclear from the trailers.

 

Perhaps most indicting, though, there was the a misunderstanding of how popular Blade Runner was as a property to begin with. Since 1982, the movie has maintained a niche fandom, beloved more by cinephiles than a mainstream audience—nowhere near as popular as Star Wars, or even Star Trek. However, a $200 million budget placed 2049 in the realm of the Star Wars spinoff Rogue One and Star Trek: Beyond, and with that came higher expectations at the box office. The money put behind Blade Runner 2049 saddled it with the perception that it was a blockbuster, when the finished product stays true to the original. It’s an artsy, meditative slow burn that once again holds a niche appeal.

 

The list of less important, but still influencing factors continues: It has the longest run time of any major studio film this year, a fact that became an internet punch line. Additionally, Warner Bros. reported that 71 percent of opening-weekend ticket buyers were male, a fact the studio points to as being most responsible for the flop. “The real trick now is to expand the audience past older men,” Warner Bros. president of domestic distribution Jeff Goldstein told The New York Times.

 

The lesson to be learned from 2049’s box office failure is a familiar one for Hollywood: It’s probably best to avoid spending an absurd amount of money on properties that have proved to not have a mainstream appeal, especially when the movie’s information gap is nearly impossible to bridge. Unfortunately, that means more of the same and less original ideas. Did you know Harrison Ford is making a fifth Indiana Jones film?

 

 

do you really read so much *before* you see movies? just watch it lol

[Hugh Mughnus]

Do we have an alcofribas review of the movie yet?

 

Or do you save your expertise for albums only?

 

 

Alco review pls 

[goDel]

just posting this here: B12 on Blade Runner

 

whaaaaat!?

[Guest]

they cranked it in the 'max, a speaker clipping hard

enjoyed a high percentage of the things for the most part,

xcept Jared Leto full retard,

[juiceciuj]

 

 

The AI hologram group(?) sex thing was confusing.

 

??? this was the best part of the film by far

lol

jared leto is getting up there with vincent donofrio on the worst actors list.

 

movie was pointless attempted cash grab that looks like it failed

[xox]

lol @ full retard

 

 

 

[xox]

just posting this here: B12 on Blade Runner

 

whaaaaat!?

 

_oh_my_god_!  what was this? is this really b12? talking shit, head nodding and the tb8...?