By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Blade Runner 2049 has disappointing opening weekend of $32-35 million

green_sky said:
Saw it in Imax and really enjoyed it. Probably my favourite movie of the year. The running time was not an issue at all. I guess audience just don't have the attention spans these days. Beautiful cinematography, every frame a painting.

Saying people don’t have the attention span is usually an excuse for a boring movie. Is there any reason why we need to see Ryan Gosling looking around for 5 minutes. A movie needs to move at a good pace.



Around the Network
Lawlight said:
green_sky said:
Saw it in Imax and really enjoyed it. Probably my favourite movie of the year. The running time was not an issue at all. I guess audience just don't have the attention spans these days. Beautiful cinematography, every frame a painting.

Saying people don’t have the attention span is usually an excuse for a boring movie. Is there any reason why we need to see Ryan Gosling looking around for 5 minutes. A movie needs to move at a good pace.

A slow pace can be a good pace too, sadly this is something the usual movie goers don't understand.



Lawlight said:
green_sky said:
Saw it in Imax and really enjoyed it. Probably my favourite movie of the year. The running time was not an issue at all. I guess audience just don't have the attention spans these days. Beautiful cinematography, every frame a painting.

Saying people don’t have the attention span is usually an excuse for a boring movie. Is there any reason why we need to see Ryan Gosling looking around for 5 minutes. A movie needs to move at a good pace.

Please dude, don't quote me again. You see me posting something and don't agree. Just ignore me. I do the same for you. 



Lawlight said:
ShadowSoldier said:
This saddens me. Denis Villeneuve is an incredible director and this was such a worthy successor to such an important film. The original Blade Runner sucked at the Box office too. Hopefully things are different over this film's course in theatres.

I think he’s made 2 very good movies. Arrival was a borefest, nonsensical movie though. Blade Runner 2049 sounds like an insufferable snorefest though.

Arrival is one of the best sci fi movies of the last decades and nothing about it is nonsensical, it will be remembered as a classic, mark my words.



Lawlight said:
ShadowSoldier said:
This saddens me. Denis Villeneuve is an incredible director and this was such a worthy successor to such an important film. The original Blade Runner sucked at the Box office too. Hopefully things are different over this film's course in theatres.

I think he’s made 2 very good movies. Arrival was a borefest, nonsensical movie though. Blade Runner 2049 sounds like an insufferable snorefest though.

I didn't like Arrival either, but it probably has a lot more to do with poor writing and bad production direction than direction. For example, the major issue was the simplistic plot stretched out over a lot of uninspired subplots, redundant scenes, and all of the drama having virtually nothing to do with anything going on in the plot of the film; A lot of this can't necessarily be blamed on the director. 

Blade Runner 2049 was actually quite good, and I wasn't really a fan of the original, either... although I enjoyed it more on a rewatch after having scene 2049. 2049 casts a much wider net on examining the world of Blade Runner than the original film does - you learn a lot more of what's going on with the politics, the culture, the factions. Basically the plot is to take you through all of that. While the plot is not the same as the original, it does take a lot of things from the original - such as memories; what's real and what's implanted - and perhaps, develops their potential a little more.

 

The level of box office success has much more to do with the fact that they didn't give away what the film was about in any of the marketing. With most successful blockbuster films, marketers typically say - this is an X-film about character(s) X. If it is a super-hero film, then the entire story is typically known because it's usually one of two things. Spiderman, X-Men, Batman, Avengers; all those films follow the same 3 act formula with the same plot mechanics, so saying a film is a superhero film featuring the character spiderman Spiderman, and the villain of the day is Doctor Octopus, Venom, or Goblin - you can pretty much figure out what it's going to be all about - not really so with Bladerunner; you know there's Replicants and a cop, and that's about it; because it's not following the same formula as 95% of other blockbusters; there are many more turning points in the plot for one thing - but the other thing is that the plot is a vessel for exploring the world; like the original, it's still primarily an art film, afterall; but IMO, it has more interesting personalities, and more interesting questions and things to think about.

SPOILER BELOW

 

 

 


Not to mention the great tragic element with K's holographic girlfriend, Joi. As a viewer, it really seemed she was feeling true love for him. It seemed they were really building something, her gaining of greater independence... becoming more and more human. Then she is killed, and it's a very tragic moment. At the end of that, afterwards, his head is clear, and he sees another AI-hologram which basically confirms that Joi's whole set of feelings, reactions, everything, was merely programming. It ties into the whole counter-conflict K has going on in his own head, as to whether or not he has a soul, if anything about him is real, or just programming.

Typically with films, questions are asked and answered. Blade Runner asks some questions that are intended for contemplation... kind of like American Psycho - more so the book than the film; while I enjoyed that film, it didn't dare take on that aspect of the book - which is really a plot weaving through a world, asking questions and not answering them. That's sort of what the theme is here. To the Replicants, the fact that a baby was born to them gives them a lot of hope, a whole new perspective on what they are... That they have souls, and that their revolution is just worth fighting for - not to convince the world about it, but to really convince themselves, and so they rally to the cause. It's a little less on the nose of Roy Battey wanting to extend his life, but ultimately hitting the same notes of a fight against inequality, but from a deeper level.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
Jumpin said:
Lawlight said:

I think he’s made 2 very good movies. Arrival was a borefest, nonsensical movie though. Blade Runner 2049 sounds like an insufferable snorefest though.

I didn't like Arrival either, but it probably has a lot more to do with poor writing and bad production direction than direction. For example, the major issue was the simplistic plot stretched out over a lot of uninspired subplots, redundant scenes, and all of the drama having virtually nothing to do with anything going on in the plot of the film; A lot of this can't necessarily be blamed on the director. 

Blade Runner 2049 was actually quite good, and I wasn't really a fan of the original, either... although I enjoyed it more on a rewatch after having scene 2049. 2049 casts a much wider net on examining the world of Blade Runner than the original film does - you learn a lot more of what's going on with the politics, the culture, the factions. Basically the plot is to take you through all of that. While the plot is not the same as the original, it does take a lot of things from the original - such as memories; what's real and what's implanted - and perhaps, develops their potential a little more.

 

The level of box office success has much more to do with the fact that they didn't give away what the film was about in any of the marketing. With most successful blockbuster films, marketers typically say - this is an X-film about character(s) X. If it is a super-hero film, then the entire story is typically known because it's usually one of two things. Spiderman, X-Men, Batman, Avengers; all those films follow the same 3 act formula with the same plot mechanics, so saying a film is a superhero film featuring the character spiderman Spiderman, and the villain of the day is Doctor Octopus, Venom, or Goblin - you can pretty much figure out what it's going to be all about - not really so with Bladerunner; you know there's Replicants and a cop, and that's about it; because it's not following the same formula as 95% of other blockbusters; there are many more turning points in the plot for one thing - but the other thing is that the plot is a vessel for exploring the world; like the original, it's still primarily an art film, afterall; but IMO, it has more interesting personalities, and more interesting questions and things to think about.

SPOILER BELOW

 

 

 


Not to mention the great tragic element with K's holographic girlfriend, Joi. As a viewer, it really seemed she was feeling true love for him. It seemed they were really building something, her gaining of greater independence... becoming more and more human. Then she is killed, and it's a very tragic moment. At the end of that, afterwards, his head is clear, and he sees another AI-hologram which basically confirms that Joi's whole set of feelings, reactions, everything, was merely programming. It ties into the whole counter-conflict K has going on in his own head, as to whether or not he has a soul, if anything about him is real, or just programming.

Typically with films, questions are asked and answered. Blade Runner asks some questions that are intended for contemplation... kind of like American Psycho - more so the book than the film; while I enjoyed that film, it didn't dare take on that aspect of the book - which is really a plot weaving through a world, asking questions and not answering them. That's sort of what the theme is here. To the Replicants, the fact that a baby was born to them gives them a lot of hope, a whole new perspective on what they are... That they have souls, and that their revolution is just worth fighting for - not to convince the world about it, but to really convince themselves, and so they rally to the cause. It's a little less on the nose of Roy Battey wanting to extend his life, but ultimately hitting the same notes of a fight against inequality, but from a deeper level.

I read the non-spoiler part of your post. That actually makes me want to watch the movie now. Because I’m actually interested in the world of blade runner. I rewatched the first one recently and actually liked it more than the first time. It still doesn’t excuse the slow pace of the movie.

 

For Arrival, yeah, the direction and cinematrography of Arrival is good. But as most movies that fail, the script is where it fails.



green_sky said:
Lawlight said:

Saying people don’t have the attention span is usually an excuse for a boring movie. Is there any reason why we need to see Ryan Gosling looking around for 5 minutes. A movie needs to move at a good pace.

Please dude, don't quote me again. You see me posting something and don't agree. Just ignore me. I do the same for you. 

I’ll do what I want, thank you. If you don’t like something I say, take it to a mod.



Goodnightmoon said:
Lawlight said:

Saying people don’t have the attention span is usually an excuse for a boring movie. Is there any reason why we need to see Ryan Gosling looking around for 5 minutes. A movie needs to move at a good pace.

A slow pace can be a good pace too, sadly this is something the usual movie goers don't understand.

Agree but there is no reason for us to watch a static scene for a minute or so. Zodiac, for example, has a slow pace but it’s never dull.



Goodnightmoon said:
Lawlight said:

I think he’s made 2 very good movies. Arrival was a borefest, nonsensical movie though. Blade Runner 2049 sounds like an insufferable snorefest though.

Arrival is one of the best sci fi movies of the last decades and nothing about it is nonsensical, it will be remembered as a classic, mark my words.

Only because people can’t see the flaws. Once you start asking questions it falls apart.



Lawlight said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Arrival is one of the best sci fi movies of the last decades and nothing about it is nonsensical, it will be remembered as a classic, mark my words.

Only because people can’t see the flaws. Once you start asking questions it falls apart.

Not at all, I know dozens of people working on cinema, I still haven't found a single one that thinks Arrival isn't great and that's the kind of people that deeply analizes movies, Arrival is a masterpiece on its genre, a great adaptation of a great (and multi-awarded) novel, from the writting to the perfect direction.