Are Audiences Too Lazy to Appreciate Blade Runner 2049?

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
Those who believe that Blade Runner 2049 actually improves upon the 35-year-old original are calling out audiences for not appreciating thoughtful, slow-burning films: “A lot of today’s Hollywood films don’t have a lot of patience,” Science fiction author Matthew Kressel says. “They sort of expect the audience to get bored really quickly, so they’re like, ‘We’ve got to have an explosion every 10 minutes.'

The slow pace of Blade Runner 2049 is proving a challenge for many viewers, and so far the movie hasn’t attracted an audience that extends much beyond fans of the original. Michener thinks it’s appropriate that the film, like its predecessor, is a box office disappointment. “They made a sequel to a cult classic,” she says. “It was not designed to work with the Fast & Furious crowd.” Bestselling author Daniel H. Wilson thinks the movie will pick up steam over time due to its many ambiguities, which compel discussion.
 

Shmee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
1,148
I liked it. It is slow. I mean the first one wasn't a hit either, and it was called slow back in the 80's, so I don't think this is a modern audience thing. It is a slow movies don't tend to do well thing.
 

skiddierow

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
300
I loved it. Thought it was better than the original.

Went with some friends, and saw it opening night.

It did drag on in a couple scenes.


Get super high and just enjoy being in the moment. It's a visual feast.


I find it amusing people binge garbage streaming shows for 8 hours, and complain about this.
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,598
Saw it last weekend, and without any spoilers, it's a far superior film to the original in many ways. Villeneuve has proven he really is THE sci-fi director of the decade IMO. It treats the source material well and is a great continuation of the story, and expansion of the universe and themes. There are icebergs of complexity and depth floating around the film. For a Blade Runner superfan like myself, it was freaking glorious.

In other ways, mostly around cinemotographic uniformity and editing, 2049 is the lessor movie.

My wife, on the other hand, generally hated it mostly due to the runtime and the overwhelming "male gaze" in the film (which I partially see, like in the original, bit ultimately disagree with in 2049 due to where ultimate power lies... again no spoilers). I can certainly understand why the masses aren't going to accept the film especially for the runtime.
 
Last edited:

lostinseganet

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
1,175
But will theaters wait long enough for them to make a profit? Its almost December...
 

Brokennails

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
2,010
People have the attention spans of gnats soooo... not surprising. That’s why Michael Bay’s movies do so well.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,463
Whenever I see a question posed "Are audiences too lazy"... that's a movie I don't want to bother with.
Pretty much. I love Japanese films, which are often labeled as "slow."

Blade Runner isn't slow. It feels too highly of itself and its simple themes, which are not enough to support its runtime. Sure, it's visuals are impressive, but that doesn't mean much anymore.

Same could be said for the new one.
 

Chebsy

Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
523
I haven't been to see it yet, but I will definitely go and see it whatever others think.
 

Volume

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
4,010
I thought this movie was 11/10. Having said that, a couple of the trailers sold it as an action movie rather than the noir drama it really is. So I'm not surprised if some went to see it and came out disappointed.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,678
They did such a great job world building that I didn't even notice that 2 1/2 hours had gone by the time of the climax. Amazing film, can't wait for an extended edition.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
I liked it. It is slow. I mean the first one wasn't a hit either, and it was called slow back in the 80's, so I don't think this is a modern audience thing. It is a slow movies don't tend to do well thing.

I liked it too. But I did think that the long runtime may hurt it in theaters.

It'll likely do well for home as people can take a break and watch on their own time.
 

Cmdrmonkey

Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
1,011
Hollywood needs to embrace paid streaming of films that are currently in theaters. So many adults no longer go to the theaters and just wait for stuff to hit netflix, cable, redbox, torrent sites, etc. I would have happily paid to stream this, but with a two month old infant and a full time job, I don't have time to go to the theater. And to be honest, I never liked the theater experience all that much in the first place. I think many adults are in the time boat. And I think it's why PG and PG-13 stuff for kids and teenagers generally does ok, but R rated movies aimed squarely at adults tend to fail at the box office.
 

Wolf_Tech

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
226
Ya it was a great movie good acting. The problem is the gens these days that text on there phones and have short attention spans cannot see good acting anymore. They need exploding things and action action all threw the film. If the current gen watched something like Gone with the Wind they would fall asleep in ten mins. Maybe if these people would stop using tech and read a book for once.
 

dyzophoria

Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
946
Its okay with me, I like the noir cinematography. Not mind bogglingly great, just good. (Might attribute to me watching the first movie, and somewhat like it as well). My wife was more on the hated crowd (well she hates ryan gosling so no suprise to me on that part), she agrees though its visually stunning, just too dragging on some parts(which I would agree more or less).
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
2,840
Just saw it last night. Great flic, epic cinema. The attention to detail in every scene was staggeringly good. Loved just soaking it all in. Simply amazing world building - props to the set designers for making it all look so authentic and carrying the original material forward and enhancing it so well. Music/sound design was likewise phenomenal.

I'll gladly watch this over a transformers movie any day of the week. Really can't stand all the mindless, attention seeking, over-the-top crap that passes as movie entertainment these days, catering to those that need to check their phones every 20 seconds as if they are obtaining oxygen from them and are bored with everything unless it is smacking them in the face.
 
Last edited:

_l_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
1,151
back in the 90's I went to a children's library in Santa Fe NM, that day they had a Native American story teller. 1/4 the way through his story he stopped, paused and then told the parents that their children's attention span is very not good (and he was right). Must be some kind of disease.
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,866
It may have been a pretty film, but it was about 45 minutes too long. The story was slow moving. Ryan Gosling's I have to shit face and sterile acting almost made it unwatchable. Don't blame the audience when it's the film.
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,313
I enjoyed the movie but did think throughout the film what was going through Ryan Goslings head as an actor while just slowly and quietly walking around massive sets by himself which took up roughly half the film. It kinda took me out of the splendor of the film but they were trying to set a certain mood and feel. I really appreciated the art design and overall look of the film, and am happy to give it a 4/5.
 

burton14e7

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
91
Hollywood needs to embrace paid streaming of films that are currently in theaters. So many adults no longer go to the theaters and just wait for stuff to hit netflix, cable, redbox, torrent sites, etc. I would have happily paid to stream this, but with a two month old infant and a full time job, I don't have time to go to the theater. And to be honest, I never liked the theater experience all that much in the first place. I think many adults are in the time boat. And I think it's why PG and PG-13 stuff for kids and teenagers generally does ok, but R rated movies aimed squarely at adults tend to fail at the box office.

I agree with this because I have a theater in my house so I get the same experience at home. I only go to the theaters when I can't wait for it to show up on Netflix/Torrents etc..
 

illram

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
1,466
Not only is is visually amazing but it's score is fantastic. The movie totally sucks you into it's world. I can't think of another 3 hour movie I'd willingly see again but this one I would.
 

Nanogrip

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
444
It's all over my Facebook as if it is the best movie ever made. I'll wait for it to go on home release.
 

fdiaz78

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
2,123
It may have been a pretty film, but it was about 45 minutes too long. The story was slow moving. Ryan Gosling's I have to shit face and sterile acting almost made it unwatchable. Don't blame the audience when it's the film.


Agreed. Ryan is an overrated actor and made this unwatchable.
 

Dekar12

Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
745
Overall, I really liked this one. It felt very much akin to the original, good music, visuals.

I actually didn't even check the time once during the movie, it went by pretty fast. But, I am a bit bias, that I like the original, so it was exciting to watch this as well.
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
735
Really enjoyed this, glad I saw it IMAX

should of seen it in dolby! we got a dolby cinema close by (little over an hour drive). dude, loudest theatre i've ever been in!(wow) and most comfortable, electronically controlled recliners w/ foot rest! was straight chillin! + louder than IMAX, we're talking freakin earthquake status!! ...but would have went to imax if it was in 3D!!!! that is what made imax great! imo.. screw realD got nothing on imax 3D. and not gonna pay imax ticket price w/out 3D. and they are saying imax is done w/ 3D well, then IMAX is just done. period. pack it up boys. dolby cinema>imax 2D
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,204
The original movie has a good story, acting, atmosphere etc. but I didn't really like it because it was too slow for me. I feel similarly about Star Trek the Motion Picture. I don't think it's a lack of intelligence on my part for not enjoying the original movie. I watch movies to entertain me, not because they are smart or thought provoking. I don't have a problem with films having those qualities, but a film has to entertain me above all else. Franly, a film like Blade Runner or Star Trek the Motion Picture suffer from poor pacing that keep them from being entertaining to me. I can appreciate a film like that for being well done in other areas, but you won't catch me rewatching those movies over and over again because I find them dull and boring.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
690
I'm a big time fan of original and this was painful to watch most of. So many things left unanswered, spent way too much time trying to develop the atmosphere with extremely long camera shots of walks. Was super bright film, lacked any real background development of the characters, why not show us wallace years ago and Bautistas character rather than gosling walking down 4 flights of stairs slowly.

They did a horrible job showing the hatred towards skin jobs and why they would hate humans.

Shooting scenes belonged in a John Wick film

He was also the most spoon fed detective I think I've seen, zero actual work done.

It just felt like they were more focused on scenery than letting you get background and to know the main characters and why you should feel or hate them or expanding on major conflict between them.

Villeneuve has really shat the bed non stop on films, so far haven't enjoyed any of his and this really really felt like he used arrival as the basis. Sort of "Ryan Gosling goes for a mundane walk" would have been accurate
 

Viper87227

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
17,873
I went to see this movie really not knowing what to expect (haven't seen the first) and ended up enjoying it immensely. Had I realized it was so long, I would have gone to a more comfortable theater, but I can't fault the movie because I didn't look into its length ahead of time.
 
Top