Are Audiences Too Lazy to Appreciate Blade Runner 2049?

arestavo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,617
HUGE fan of the original (Director's / Final cuts). This was the first movie that I've seen in theater in over a year - and it was worth every penny to me. It was a long movie, but it told a story and it told it well and without a twist/explosion/fight scene every 30 seconds like most hollywood POS movies these days. Oh, and the music was good - not as great as the original, but then again what movie is as good as the original?

"It's too bad she won't live. But then again who does?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this

Criticalhitkoala

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,815
HUGE fan of the original (Director's / Final cuts). This was the first movie that I've seen in theater in over a year - and it was worth every penny to me. It was a long movie, but it told a story and it told it well and without a twist/explosion/fight scene every 30 seconds like most hollywood POS movies these days. Oh, and the music was good - not as great as the original, but then again what movie is as good as the original?

"It's too bad she won't live. But then again who does?"

100% agreed about the music. I love Hans Zimmer, but Vangelis soundtrack in number 1 is superior.

I loved this movie. I can't wait to watch it again on the home theater.
 

michalrz

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
2,730
The original blade runner was so visually appealing that I considered making the famed 'photo' which was then enhanced in the movie as part of the plot my wallpaper. Even that little tidbit was perfect.

Haven't yet seen the new one, but obviously need to.
 

MRAB54

Gawd
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
849
I never saw the original, saw this at an IMAX laser on a rainy day. Side note - bought my tickets online, went to this theater which was IMAX only (not going to name where) and they didn't even have anyone checking tickets. Craziest thing I've ever seen. They had two ticket computer booths to purchase tickets and three people working concessions. Nobody ever checked tickets, we could have just walked right in.

I thought the movie was pretty damn good. Gosling was good but some other characters could have been better. Visually it was awesome. Sound was awesome. Loved the story line, really sucked me in. First movie I've been to in theater in years, definitely worth to see this in theater.
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,196
I'm curious about this movie, from the comments here I'd probably like it.

Thing is I always thought that the original was good, but wasn't amazing or anything. But then I'm a little spoiled here. I'm a big Philip k dick fan so I read the book before seeing the movie. The book is incredible :)
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
there is really a lack of urgency in the sequel. (there's a deadline in the superior 1st) . Unquestionably very good cinematography but many scenes can be edited to be shorter, to fit in more changes of sets and character development. it's close to 3 hours! You could fit in one extraneous investigation before the main story line to enable the viewer to explore the world better.
 

tungt88

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
2,076
Just got back from seeing this movie. The real star is the environment/cinematography/sound & Foley work/art direction -- it is the real focus of the film, much more than anything else. But, because the original already set the environmental pattern (to endless, even slavish copying/parodying), it is a worthy, even evolutionary, successor to the first film, but not a groundbreaker. Fittingly, the story itself is slim, and there are enough carefully placed "plot holes/thought-provoking moments" in the script to set up endless sequels (in all manner of opinions/interpretations, and all manner of formats, from comic to film). Nods to the first film abound, and the movie is long, yet well-paced, in order to continually display it's strength: the environment.

I suspect Gosling was chosen because his Pinocchio acting lends itself very well to playing a "replicant".

There are a few purely unnecessary moments: the nursing home scene, and the "female Odin" scene -- both are meaningless and redundant, but seem to have been inserted to please the core Blade Runner fanbase. Also in this category is the "scavenger confrontation" scene -- completely pointless (one suspects it was inserted in by the demands of studio executives, in order to "actionize" a film that needs precious little of it already).

The "martial art" elements between two of the major characters are (perhaps understandably) laughable.

The interactions with Gosling and passerby (as opposed to Gosling and characters of note) are nowhere near as personalized, or as significant (in developing the edge and feel) as they were in the first movie. This is the major flaw in the environment, unfortunately (and it is a very noticeable, and very big flaw, and also repeats itself).

Some call it sci-fi noir, others were deceived by misleading trailers. Seek elsewhere: the art is all in the environment -- not story, not acting.

Worthy of a look in the theaters (I felt I got my money's worth), but not a film that I find myself wanting to watch again and again, or spend a lot of time pondering about (did spend some time at dinner, afterwards, with my cousin, discussing elements of the movie).

6.8/10 in my book.
 
Last edited:

daglesj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
5,301
No not too lazy at all. I'll sit and watch a 3 hour movie no problem.

The problem with Bladerunner 2049 and in fact the original, is that they are not that well written.

Sure they look and sound great (saying that I cannot remember a single bit about the new movies soundtrack other then the Sinatra and Presley bits) but the scripts are actually pretty poor.

The other problem with the length is that the average age of the packed audience I saw it with was probably 50 and you shouldn't ask folks that age or older to sit for 3 hours without a toilet break. Several people had to get up and go and some never came back. Even I was getting uncomfortable in the last 45 minutes.

Needed a Intermission like we had in the old days.
 

zkostik

Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
929
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.

Well, the movie isn't packed with dumb action and explosions from start to finish. Unfortunately this is what far too many viewers want to see (I call this facebook generation movies). They also don't want to use their brain or think about anything at all so if there's a slight plot twist, it usually doesn't take long before the movie explains it to the viewer. Same reason there aren't many open ended movies or those that have some kind of ambiguous ending. I'm yet to watch the new Blade Runner but I really like the original. I personally found that many movies that didn't do well in theaters are actually the ones that are truly good and worth seeing.
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,598
I never saw the original and loved. I hope Villeneuve does Dune.

Oh hell yes, I hope he does. After 2049, can totally see him doing Dune justice (although it would need to at least be done in 2-3 parts). I've seen every film he's done since Incendies and the guy is the best modern director around in my view. Prisoners, Sicario, Arrival, 2049... they've all been excellent. Much more than Nolan (whose film I also enjoy, in their right), Villeneuve let's in a lot more shades of grey, does a better job of implying backstory without overt exposition, and let's the viewer decide for themselves on morale themes/choices.

I just hope the guy doesn't burn out: he's done 5-6 films over the past 6 years. I think Sicario 2 is on the block next for hime.
 

Cmdrmonkey

Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
1,011
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..

You bring up another good point. In the days of tiny standard def CRT TVs and VHS, going to the theater was a big deal because the quality was so much better than anything you could achieve at home. This is no longer true. You can get gigantic UHDTVs now for not a whole lot of money, good home theater systems, and even many sound bars sound quite good. The experience is not much different from a theater. The theater will still look and sound better, but it's a marginal difference many people won't notice. And many prefer the comfort of their own home over a theater.
 

Sikkyu

I Question Reality
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
2,878
Well, the movie isn't packed with dumb action and explosions from start to finish. Unfortunately this is what far too many viewers want to see (I call this facebook generation movies). They also don't want to use their brain or think about anything at all so if there's a slight plot twist, it usually doesn't take long before the movie explains it to the viewer. Same reason there aren't many open ended movies or those that have some kind of ambiguous ending. I'm yet to watch the new Blade Runner but I really like the original. I personally found that many movies that didn't do well in theaters are actually the ones that are truly good and worth seeing.

Most action movies are pretty mindless. Without superb execution (john wick) i just don't care. Too man directors rely on shaky type cam and while that has fallen out of favor in recent years, they didn't actually up the quality of the fights and just added more cuts which is super irritating. Which is probably why I really like Blade Runner 2049 with its slow cuts so you can linger on each scene which is already interesting on its own.

I care way more for the characters and their stories and this has one of the best I have seen in recent memory. 3 hour long movie is fine just to be part of the ride, get immersed and find out what makes these people tick.
 

Patton187

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
666
Just got back from seeing this movie. The real star is the environment/cinematography/sound & Foley work/art direction -- it is the real focus of the film, much more than anything else. But, because the original already set the environmental pattern (to endless, even slavish copying/parodying), it is a worthy, even evolutionary, successor to the first film, but not a groundbreaker. Fittingly, the story itself is slim, and there are enough carefully placed "plot holes/thought-provoking moments" in the script to set up endless sequels (in all manner of opinions/interpretations, and all manner of formats, from comic to film). Nods to the first film abound, and the movie is long, yet well-paced, in order to continually display it's strength: the environment.

I suspect Gosling was chosen because his Pinocchio acting lends itself very well to playing a "replicant".

There are a few purely unnecessary moments: the nursing home scene, and the "female Odin" scene -- both are meaningless and redundant, but seem to have been inserted to please the core Blade Runner fanbase. Also in this category is the "scavenger confrontation" scene -- completely pointless (one suspects it was inserted in by the demands of studio executives, in order to "actionize" a film that needs precious little of it already).

The "martial art" elements between two of the major characters are (perhaps understandably) laughable.

The interactions with Gosling and passerby (as opposed to Gosling and characters of note) are nowhere near as personalized, or as significant (in developing the edge and feel) as they were in the first movie. This is the major flaw in the environment, unfortunately (and it is a very noticeable, and very big flaw, and also repeats itself).

Some call it sci-fi noir, others were deceived by misleading trailers. Seek elsewhere: the art is all in the environment -- not story, not acting.

Worthy of a look in the theaters (I felt I got my money's worth), but not a film that I find myself wanting to watch again and again, or spend a lot of time pondering about (did spend some time at dinner, afterwards, with my cousin, discussing elements of the movie).

6.8/10 in my book.
May as well use Keanu.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,678
This may be a movie that legitimately can claim it's a work of art going underappriciated.

Eh everyone has their own taste. I can't go to an art museum expecting to like every painting I see either. I loved the movie but I can also see why some would dislike it. I thought IT was fantastic but a lot of my friends said it was boring and not scary.
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
Movie is 2 hours and 44 minutes long. I don’t want to sit through that in a theater, I’ll pay $5 and stream it once it becomes available.

Holy crap. I think my analogy for something like this is when I get in a meeting for work and it's 3 hours long when someone could have sent a memo that takes 5 minutes to read. It's not that I can't enjoy a slow movie, it's that unless the length serves a purpose, I just get annoyed.
 

HeadRusch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
1,365
Blade Runner, the original, is a boring movie. If you don't watch the theatrical, with the voiceover, it's even more boring.........that's not really a fault, it was designed that way to be a pulp noir detective story, just happens to involve robots instead of 'seedy characters who hang out by the wharf".........it's heavy on style, heavy on Harrison Ford looking forlorn, he's supposed to be that hard drinking, hard acting burned-out detective that deals with the dregs of humanity every day, when in the end he realizes he's an assassin...and isn't proud of it.

But people didn't go see the new one because its 25 years late, and this movie will do better in home sales where 3 hours is more agreeable to couch-surfing. And, I get the impression that people are simply sick of Hollywood.

Why are horror movies making a dent this year? Cuz people are feeling dark, alienated, and not interested in anything trying to blow a sunrise up their asses. My armchair psychology is provided free of charge, and free of education too, just an opinion :)
 

raz-0

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
4,746
Movie is 2 hours and 44 minutes long. I don’t want to sit through that in a theater, I’ll pay $5 and stream it once it becomes available.

It's very hard for me to get to the movies. Since the wife isn't really a fan, I took a day off work and saw it myself opening day.

It's probably the only movie I have seen in recent years where seeing it in the theater was worth it. Also saw it in 3d, and it was the first movie I thought the 3d worked well. It definitely complimented the visual design and cinematography.

I also really only go to the AMC fork and screen locations near me. They cost a bit more but have recliners and the booze and price keeps the kids out. It's worth the extra $5.
 

burton14e7

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
91
Oh hell yes, I hope he does. After 2049, can totally see him doing Dune justice (although it would need to at least be done in 2-3 parts). I've seen every film he's done since Incendies and the guy is the best modern director around in my view. Prisoners, Sicario, Arrival, 2049... they've all been excellent. Much more than Nolan (whose film I also enjoy, in their right), Villeneuve let's in a lot more shades of grey, does a better job of implying backstory without overt exposition, and let's the viewer decide for themselves on morale themes/choices.

I just hope the guy doesn't burn out: he's done 5-6 films over the past 6 years. I think Sicario 2 is on the block next for hime.

I agree with you 100%. The flyovers and expansive vistas he did in 2049 and Arrival would really bring Dune to life, just trade the greys for oranges. And then you have his Los Angeles in 2049 which you could just change the signs to Geidi Prime and nobody would know it was a different film.
 

ngoy

n00b
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
12
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

I watched this at a LieMax in Connecticut, and have to say that the volume at the AMC actually made the movie unenjoyable. Several scenes you couldn't hear the dialog, and every time there was a vehicle they had to make the whole theater shake like an epileptic King Kong was in the room. Probably loud enough to be an OSHA violation if it was a work site with no ear protection. Other than the piss poor sound mix (much like that horrendous Bane voice "cleanup"in TDKR) I definitely would watch the movie again. I thought the pacing was perfect - it gave you enough time to come up with all those "I wonder" questions and let each reveal lead into another question without layering them on so fast you couldn't keep track of the plot lines.

But, in 2049, there is antigravity, travel to other star systems, the ability to essentially read someone's mind, but we still use window wipers. Really?
 

tungt88

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
2,076
May as well use Keanu.

Heh, Gosling is bad enough; Keanu Reeves would really deep-six this movie -- he might even break out into a post-Neo dance through some of the longer montages.

(3:10 - 4:31 is the focus)

and an older Keanu, nowadays:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
690
Oh hell yes, I hope he does. After 2049, can totally see him doing Dune justice (although it would need to at least be done in 2-3 parts). I've seen every film he's done since Incendies and the guy is the best modern director around in my view. Prisoners, Sicario, Arrival, 2049... they've all been excellent. Much more than Nolan (whose film I also enjoy, in their right), Villeneuve let's in a lot more shades of grey, does a better job of implying backstory without overt exposition, and let's the viewer decide for themselves on morale themes/choices.

I just hope the guy doesn't burn out: he's done 5-6 films over the past 6 years. I think Sicario 2 is on the block next for hime.


Dear god please no, 3 hours of people watering crops will be the main focus. Guy is a terrible director, he completely skips on backstory and character development, zero background for Sapper(Bautista) or Wallace, nada nothing. He could have at least built some sort of connection with the audience for the characters, the only person I had any sort of emotional attachment to wasn't even alive. Spends way too much time trying to do long drawn out scenes with virtually no impact to the movie and adds run time.

Give me Ridley Scott back for the love of god, Gladiator was one of the best theatrical movies I've seen still, beautiful artistically and was completely drawn in to the entire film start to finish(minus what's her names cheese speech at end). First Blade Runner was worlds better, I actually was thinking through the entire film, and felt bad for Replicants and Deckard...and it didn't have BR2049s terrible attempt at a plot twist
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,757
Guy is a terrible director, he completely skips on backstory and character development, zero background for Sapper(Bautista) or Wallace, nada nothing. He could have at least built some sort of connection with the audience for the characters, the only person I had any sort of emotional attachment to wasn't even alive.
A lot of things happened between the end of Blade Runner in 2019 and the new Blade Runner 2049. Three short movies, set in the years 2022, 2036 and 2048 tell us the events that transpired in these years.
They were required viewing before seeing the movie.
 

nightfly

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
2,640
I wasn't overly impressed by the first, so I'm going to wait until this one comes out on disk or streaming. The first was okay. I saw it once, thought it was decent, but that's as far as I will go. It wasn't anything special. There are always fanboys who love something, and simply don't get that not everyone loves something as much as they do.
David Lynch and Quinton Tarantino's works pretty much all fall into that category: A small group of hard core fans (proportionately) who are dismayed that no one else shares their over the top enthusiasm for the product.

The one thing that gets me the most, is when people tell me that you have to see something more than once, to 'get it'. My opinion is that if you have to see something more than once to understand it, the storyteller (director) has failed in his job. Making things more obscure to appeal to a snob audience is just stupid.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
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.


Wait up, so the original BladeRunner was slow, but Star Trek the Movie, FFS that was just a drag with those really pointless long marvels of bullshit color shifts and crap. The two aren't even in the same ball park.

Now if you want slow story telling and awesome character development. Watch the Jesse Stone movies with Peter Selleck, they are some old school acting and I really enjoyed them. Still one or two I haven't seen, I better check NetFlix and see if they are available, some were only on disk.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,204
Wait up, so the original BladeRunner was slow, but Star Trek the Movie, FFS that was just a drag with those really pointless long marvels of bullshit color shifts and crap. The two aren't even in the same ball park.

Now if you want slow story telling and awesome character development. Watch the Jesse Stone movies with Peter Selleck, they are some old school acting and I really enjoyed them. Still one or two I haven't seen, I better check NetFlix and see if they are available, some were only on disk.

They both have story telling that moves at the pace of a glacier. They both had good visuals for the day and in my opinion, a good story. Both are slow and far more cerebral than most shit that gets made then or now. They sound about the same in my mind.
 

wildfire99

Gawd
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
720
I really wanted to see this film, and I'm very much into sci-fi and noir, but I passed on this one. Why? Two reasons: first, I haven't seen the original film in over 10 years, so I'm not really up to speed on the story line, and I felt I would not get as much out of the movie having no idea of the backstory. More so since I have to track down and watch all the miscellaneous "prequel" shorts. Second, and most importantly, with movie ticket prices starting at $12 around me, just going with a friend is going to cost as much or more than buying the dumb thing on disc three or four months later anyway. Then I can watch it as much as I want.

I did the same thing with the Hobbit movies and the new Star Wars films. If it costs less to buy than to go to the theater, I'll buy every time. I have a projector, and it's almost always more in focus than the theaters' is. The only reason I go to a theater now is 3D, and with that dying off I don't even have that reason to go any more. I just hate knowing the studios look at this and say "oh people don't want a cerebral film", kind of like how I hate that Valerian was passed over even though I appreciated the risk Besson took. Disc buy? Yes. $100+ movie trip with popcorn? Hell no.
 

aeliusg

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
772
I really wanted to see this film, and I'm very much into sci-fi and noir, but I passed on this one. Why? Two reasons: first, I haven't seen the original film in over 10 years, so I'm not really up to speed on the story line, and I felt I would not get as much out of the movie having no idea of the backstory. More so since I have to track down and watch all the miscellaneous "prequel" shorts. Second, and most importantly, with movie ticket prices starting at $12 around me, just going with a friend is going to cost as much or more than buying the dumb thing on disc three or four months later anyway. Then I can watch it as much as I want.

I did the same thing with the Hobbit movies and the new Star Wars films. If it costs less to buy than to go to the theater, I'll buy every time. I have a projector, and it's almost always more in focus than the theaters' is. The only reason I go to a theater now is 3D, and with that dying off I don't even have that reason to go any more. I just hate knowing the studios look at this and say "oh people don't want a cerebral film", kind of like how I hate that Valerian was passed over even though I appreciated the risk Besson took. Disc buy? Yes. $100+ movie trip with popcorn? Hell no.
The only thing I can think of that would be hard to replicate in a home theater with this title is the sound. The cinematographer said so himself on his private site that he prefers the no-frills standard theater version over IMAX or the other enhanced versions, and any decent home theater projector and screen will probably net you better contrast than you'd get at a theater in regular DCI 4K. The low-frequency effects, on the other hand, I don't think the typical home theater can reproduce unless you've got some serious equipment or tactile transducers.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,189
It is yet another sequel to a classic that didn't need to exist and is another piece of Hollywood's unoriginality. For that reason alone I will not be seeing it, probably at all, let alone in a theatre.
 

aeliusg

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
772
It is yet another sequel to a classic that didn't need to exist and is another piece of Hollywood's unoriginality. For that reason alone I will not be seeing it, probably at all, let alone in a theatre.
The original as released was hardly a classic. Most people who think of Blade Runner have in mind the Final Cut, which came out in 2007 as a major revision of a film that was in theaters 25 years earlier. This one was actually original in a bad way because it is hardly a continuation of the visual themes of the Final Cut more than an attempt at creating a new one that just so happens to be very similar looking to all modern science fiction movies at a glance. I would have preferred an actual sequel derivative of the first, so in that sense I would agree with you.
 

DPI

Nitpick Police
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,061
Saw it tonight. Phenomenal. GF and I agreed best film in years - transfixing from beginning to end.

Forget reviews, forget the random nitpicks you read online. They made a sequel to a cult classic, it wasn't built for the Fast & Furious crowd. It's intelligent, thought provoking, visually staggering. It's amazing.

Just go see it. See it in IMAX and go big - if you wait to watch it at home you won't have the sound or visual system to do it justice and will miss all the immersion into this beautifully bleak world.
 
Last edited:

Tweak42

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
609
I saw the original Bladerunner when I was to young to appreciate it. Then I became fan of the various films and anime that were influenced by it. Went back and rewatched made a huge difference and fan for life.

Saw 2049 this weekend and was very impressed that they did a great job capturing the world and flavor of original story without drastic ruining changes like recent sci-fi reboots (AKA Ghost in the Shell and Robocop) Glad I caught it in theaters, the pacing was tad slow in the middle but the acting was fantastic.


I haven't seen the original in at least 10 years, will need to go back and watch it again when the home release for 2049 comes out.
 
Top