|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Oct 10, 2017 13:56:29 GMT
It just sucks this won't be a success at the box office. God damn it, the typical moviegoer audience can be so fucking dumb sometimes The fact that I don't like the same movie you do doesn't make me dumb.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 15:13:56 GMT
It just sucks this won't be a success at the box office. God damn it, the typical moviegoer audience can be so fucking dumb sometimes The fact that I don't like the same movie you do doesn't make me dumb. Very true. My bad, just frustrated that bull shit like those Fast & the Furious movies are very successful at the box office , while Blade Runner flops. Kinda irks me.
|
|
Peter B. Parker
Sophomore
Watch the hands, not the mouth
@babygroot
Posts: 853
Likes: 411
|
Post by Peter B. Parker on Oct 10, 2017 15:27:00 GMT
The fact that I don't like the same movie you do doesn't make me dumb. Very true. My bad, just frustrated that bull shit like those Fast & the Furious movies are very successful at the box office , while Blade Runner flops. Kinda irks me. Yeah, it seems they're milking the Fast and Furious franchise for what it's worth at this point, and making them less realistic each film. Just wait until Fast and Furious goes to space lol.
|
|
Troyal1
Sophomore
@troyal1
Posts: 223
Likes: 108
|
Post by Troyal1 on Oct 11, 2017 3:14:51 GMT
Yeah but we also have to remember that there are a lot of factors in play here. Most people simply don’t understand or know what Blade Runner is, much less care. I mean the original came out 35 years ago and is hardly a pop culture icon like Star Wars. It bombed as well. Long run time, and R rating did not help. I do agree that’s it’s sad though. I feel like this movie is so good that “the last Jedi” will look laughable in comparison science fiction wise.I agree with this. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and Blade Runner fan and after immersing myself in the Blade Runner world again, the new Last Jedi trailer looks silly and cartoonish by comparison. I know right? I got my day one tickets for that and I’m excited. but at the end of the day Disney got the last Jedi made to make a ridiculous amount of money. 2049 is a sequel that was completely bold creativity wise. It was not necessary. But the artists got to do their own story their own way with no compromises(huge budget, long, a new take on the universe, unexpected story etc). And that’s how truly great films are made is with passion. Nobody in the universe was begging for a Blade runner sequel as far as Hollywood executives. But the director had a strong vision and he was clearly allowed to go wherever he wanted and that’s why people are loving the film critically. It just reminds me of how good movies used to be. Now a days they are like thrill rides at universal Orlando where you’re just going from set piece to set piece with humor in between. It’s just hard to get hyped up when I’m going from that, to a movie made by Disney who’s first and primary objective is to probably play it safe and make as much money as possible. Rian is a great director but at the end of the day if you don’t conform to Disney you’re kicked out. And that’s sucks for creativity. I’m not trying to hate on Star Wars here but do you get what I’m saying? Such a shame that Blade Runner flopped(so far). It’s a kick in the nuts to bold and ambitious science fiction projects everywhere because studios may not want to invest. We can only hope it does well internationally. edit: also if you didn’t like blade runner that’s fine with me, hell I didn’t like the original much lol. I just had to go off on a tangent about how “commercial “ the movie industry is in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 11, 2017 11:53:13 GMT
I agree with this. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and Blade Runner fan and after immersing myself in the Blade Runner world again, the new Last Jedi trailer looks silly and cartoonish by comparison. I know right? I got my day one tickets for that and I’m excited. but at the end of the day Disney got the last Jedi made to make a ridiculous amount of money. 2049 is a sequel that was completely bold creativity wise. It was not necessary. But the artists got to do their own story their own way with no compromises(huge budget, long, a new take on the universe, unexpected story etc). And that’s how truly great films are made is with passion. Nobody in the universe was begging for a Blade runner sequel as far as Hollywood executives. But the director had a strong vision and he was clearly allowed to go wherever he wanted and that’s why people are loving the film critically. It just reminds me of how good movies used to be. Now a days they are like thrill rides at universal Orlando where you’re just going from set piece to set piece with humor in between. It’s just hard to get hyped up when I’m going from that, to a movie made by Disney who’s first and primary objective is to probably play it safe and make as much money as possible. Rian is a great director but at the end of the day if you don’t conform to Disney you’re kicked out. And that’s sucks for creativity. I’m not trying to hate on Star Wars here but do you get what I’m saying? Such a shame that Blade Runner flopped(so far). It’s a kick in the nuts to bold and ambitious science fiction projects everywhere because studios may not want to invest. We can only hope it does well internationally. edit: also if you didn’t like blade runner that’s fine with me, hell I didn’t like the original much lol. I just had to go off on a tangent about how “commercial “ the movie industry is in this day and age. Completely agree with what's happening with Star Wars I also loved Rogue One despite it being completely unnecessary. It had its share of fan service but it was darker overall; it showed us things we hadn't seen in the SW universe. As much fun as I had with TFA, I can't help but feel underwhelmed upon rewatch. It feels like something I've already seen for many years now. I have the same concerns with Last Jedi. Of course I already have my tickets but I can't honestly say I'm as excited as I was before TFA. Blade Runner is my favorite film of all time so 2049 had a lot to live up to. What 2049 did well, it did incredibly well. There were various aspects of it that bothered me but it's a well crafted film from top to bottom, no doubt. And as you said, at least they didn't turn it into an amusement park ride.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Oct 11, 2017 22:17:11 GMT
Saw it and I must admit I was slightly disappointed. I was fine with the pace but somehow found the movie to be long, so it might have to do with the script. The visuals were nice, the ambiance was nice but I felt the music from the first one was better. Also, it may come from the fact that multiple movies with the same themes and discourse came between 2049 and the original but I felt I pretty much had seen most of it before. I don't pretend to know if, nor claim that Blade Runner (1982) was the first movie to touch the subject of artificial intelligence entities who have the desire to be human or extend their life or struggle to find their identity in-between. For its era, it seems different. Since the 1982 movie and before 2049 we had (in no peculiar order and just sticking with movies): Automata (2014: www.imdb.com/title/tt1971325/?ref_=nv_sr_1 ), 8 man & 8 man After ( 1992: www.imdb.com/title/tt0182668/?ref_=nv_sr_2 & 1993: www.imdb.com/title/tt0124971/?ref_=nv_sr_1 ) , The Man who bites his tongue (1990: www.imdb.com/title/tt0088657/), all the RoboCop, all the Ghost in the shell and others I might forget. Not all the movies listed are good or worth your time but combined with the first movie, it gave me the impression I kinda saw the whole "line of questioning" before. The acting was uneven and it annoyed me. I haven't seen every movie in which Ryan Gosling plays but it seems he just can't act serious. He can act happy, sad, mad, surprised, whatever but when it comes to serious, his face becomes expressionless. He puts on a straight face and nothing moves, not even an eyebrow or a kind of smirk when something happens, nothing, not even a line appears somewhere, it's just bland. Story wise, I loved it but it was partially ruined when it was said "it was calculated". That statement just made the first movie part of something global by the Wallace enterprise rather than just a chain of event. It was planned come on, not that! Overall, I liked it but found it slightly subpar compared to the expectations(even if they were high) and the 1982 movie. 7.5/10
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Oct 11, 2017 22:25:36 GMT
For those who might be interested 3 short movies were made to explain few things (in order):
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 14:53:09 GMT
A 7 for me, and that only for the excellent visuals and decent music. The music was too aggressive at times, for no apparent reason at all. It all looked nice, great even, but it had no content. At all. Yeah, there's the 'miracle', but other than that, it was all generic and hardly interesting, not for that length. The times someone just stared in the distance, or all the slow conversations, for no good reason other than to add to the 'atmosphere' of the movie. It annoyed me after a while, and when the movie (finally!) ended, I was left with very little. A forgettable movie, with no characters that left any impression. Ryan Gosling was a wooden puppet. Even in his moments of outrage, it felt lifeless. (and yes, I see the irony of thinking that, given the situation, but look at the original Bladerunner and you see characters that are in the exact same situation yet look completely lifelike.) It's not a horrible movie at all, but what was the point? Storywise it felt like a mediocre SF movie or an episode of Black Mirror or the likes. The movie tried to emulate the Original (several scenes were copied, altered, yet never quite satisfy), and apart from the visuals, it pretty much failed imo. And even the visuals rarely added much to the story. I might be too harsh, and that probably because I absolutely love the original movie, but this sequel lacks a soul. (and no matter what Robin Wright says, yes, having a soul does matter )
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 13, 2017 10:06:41 GMT
Watched it last night in a packed IMAX showing. I thought it was great. I switched off the original 82 film halway through so I'm no fan of the property in itself. But 2049 kept be hooked for the majority of its runtime. Thought they could have trimmed down on some fight scenes and love scenes but I was not bored for the vast majority of the film. I wished we got to see more of Jared Letos character though, I didnt quite grasp his motive. Overall, another hit (critically anyway) for Villanue and id give 2049 9/10. I still think Arrival is his best film.
|
|
Troyal1
Sophomore
@troyal1
Posts: 223
Likes: 108
|
Post by Troyal1 on Oct 14, 2017 3:13:16 GMT
Watched it last night in a packed IMAX showing. I thought it was great. I switched off the original 82 film halway through so I'm no fan of the property in itself. But 2049 kept be hooked for the majority of its runtime. Thought they could have trimmed down on some fight scenes and love scenes but I was not bored for the vast majority of the film. I wished we got to see more of Jared Letos character though, I didnt quite grasp his motive. Overall, another hit (critically anyway) for Villanue and id give 2049 9/10. I still think Arrival is his best film. I agree about Leto but this is his motive. He says he wants to build a civilization on the backs of slaves(like history) but that he can only build so many. Basically he can’t produce his own fast enough so he wants to find the secret to how a replicant can reproduce. Hence the search for the child to be studied. i agree that he needed more time and a better backstory for why he wants slaves. Besides just greed I guess.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 14, 2017 9:23:26 GMT
Watched it last night in a packed IMAX showing. I thought it was great. I switched off the original 82 film halway through so I'm no fan of the property in itself. But 2049 kept be hooked for the majority of its runtime. Thought they could have trimmed down on some fight scenes and love scenes but I was not bored for the vast majority of the film. I wished we got to see more of Jared Letos character though, I didnt quite grasp his motive. Overall, another hit (critically anyway) for Villanue and id give 2049 9/10. I still think Arrival is his best film. I agree about Leto but this is his motive. He says he wants to build a civilization on the backs of slaves(like history) but that he can only build so many. Basically he can’t produce his own fast enough so he wants to find the secret to how a replicant can reproduce. Hence the search for the child to be studied. i agree that he needed more time and a better backstory for why he wants slaves. Besides just greed I guess. So why does he kill that new born replicant covered in the goo? And also is he a replicant himself or a human?
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Oct 14, 2017 11:51:43 GMT
I agree about Leto but this is his motive. He says he wants to build a civilization on the backs of slaves(like history) but that he can only build so many. Basically he can’t produce his own fast enough so he wants to find the secret to how a replicant can reproduce. Hence the search for the child to be studied. i agree that he needed more time and a better backstory for why he wants slaves. Besides just greed I guess. So why does he kill that new born replicant covered in the goo? And also is he a replicant himself or a human? If I'm not mistaken Wallace (Leto) was talking about how hard it was to build some at the pace required for the colonies outside of earth and also about how it somehow hurt him to see them die since he considered them as his children (like when he tells Deckard that he has millions of children). That replicant dropped from the bag was said to be their new model and while it may be the top product available, my guess is he killed it in "rage" because despite their best efforts, he and his Corporation can't find the "secret" to make the replicant able to reproduce. So, as perfect as it was, it still fell short of what he wanted/needed. Well that's my take for that part.
As for himself, I really don't know. I would guess he is human, with some enhancements.
|
|
Troyal1
Sophomore
@troyal1
Posts: 223
Likes: 108
|
Post by Troyal1 on Oct 14, 2017 16:31:25 GMT
I agree about Leto but this is his motive. He says he wants to build a civilization on the backs of slaves(like history) but that he can only build so many. Basically he can’t produce his own fast enough so he wants to find the secret to how a replicant can reproduce. Hence the search for the child to be studied. i agree that he needed more time and a better backstory for why he wants slaves. Besides just greed I guess. So why does he kill that new born replicant covered in the goo? And also is he a replicant himself or a human? He slashed it right across the belly because he was mad it couldn’t have children. I think he’s human. The drones help him see.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Oct 14, 2017 16:46:45 GMT
8.5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2017 19:59:01 GMT
It took me a little while to get into this movie but when I did I was fascinated. Great film. Fat 8.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 15, 2017 19:01:52 GMT
I've seen Blade Runner 2049 now and I really like it!!
I give it a 9/10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 15:05:56 GMT
So why does he kill that new born replicant covered in the goo? And also is he a replicant himself or a human? If I'm not mistaken Wallace (Leto) was talking about how hard it was to build some at the pace required for the colonies outside of earth and also about how it somehow hurt him to see them die since he considered them as his children (like when he tells Deckard that he has millions of children). That replicant dropped from the bag was said to be their new model and while it may be the top product available, my guess is he killed it in "rage" because despite their best efforts, he and his Corporation can't find the "secret" to make the replicant able to reproduce. So, as perfect as it was, it still fell short of what he wanted/needed. Well that's my take for that part.
As for himself, I really don't know. I would guess he is human, with some enhancements.
This is one of the things that bothered me. For a movie with this length, so little got any background. At all. Especially the Wallace corporation and what exactly they were up to and why. There's also the matter of the psycho assistant, what the heck was that all about?
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Oct 16, 2017 18:17:23 GMT
If I'm not mistaken Wallace (Leto) was talking about how hard it was to build some at the pace required for the colonies outside of earth and also about how it somehow hurt him to see them die since he considered them as his children (like when he tells Deckard that he has millions of children). That replicant dropped from the bag was said to be their new model and while it may be the top product available, my guess is he killed it in "rage" because despite their best efforts, he and his Corporation can't find the "secret" to make the replicant able to reproduce. So, as perfect as it was, it still fell short of what he wanted/needed. Well that's my take for that part.
As for himself, I really don't know. I would guess he is human, with some enhancements.
This is one of the things that bothered me. For a movie with this length, so little got any background. At all. Especially the Wallace corporation and what exactly they were up to and why. There's also the matter of the psycho assistant, what the heck was that all about? I completely agree. Overall it felt short of the expectations but for (very little) background, Villeneuve made 3 short movies (not sure if you saw them but it takes roughly 30 minutes to watch them all): imdb2.freeforums.net/post/966803As for the assistant, here is my take on her: First, I got to be honest, I don't remember if we ever get an answer about what she is, either human or replicant, but my understanding is she is the latter. If I'm wrong, then probably half of what's next won't make sense. So, let's talk about her psycho side. As you can see in the short 2036: Nexus Dawn (found in the link above) and from 2049, Wallace seems to be the kind of person who would not stop at anything to achieve his goals. If that's the way he goes, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't get an assistant that is reluctant to do shady and/or dirty work. Now, in this scene: She tells Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), that she'll just tell Wallace that Joshi attacked her first. It was then obvious she isn't upfront with her boss and it also raised the question whether she has her own agenda or not. Now I may be totally wrong but the way it happened and considering her position, it nearly suggested that she would or could take over the Wallace corp or at least try to break free from his control. Whether she succeed or not, her head would be on the chopping block pretty fast. Also, wasn't she the one who "pushed" for Wallace to inspect the new model and didn't she had a tear when he killed it? It kinda proves she's under pressure and may not totally agree with the way he does things. To me, the only thing that is keeping her from really taking over is the "wall" Joshi talked about to K. She then claimed that there would be a revolution or numerous deaths if somehow replicants where able to control their "destiny" by being able to reproduce themselves. Again, the only thing that is holding her back is the fact she "sees" that "wall", otherwise she would run on her own.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 16, 2017 18:23:39 GMT
This is one of the things that bothered me. For a movie with this length, so little got any background. At all. Especially the Wallace corporation and what exactly they were up to and why. There's also the matter of the psycho assistant, what the heck was that all about? I completely agree. Overall it felt short of the expectations but for (very little) background, Villeneuve made 3 short movies (not sure if you saw them but it takes roughly 30 minutes to watch them all): imdb2.freeforums.net/post/966803As for the assistant, here is my take on her: First, I got to be honest, I don't remember if we ever get an answer about what she is, either human or replicant, but my understanding is she is the latter. If I'm wrong, then probably half of what's next won't make sense. So, let's talk about her psycho side. As you can see in the short 2036: Nexus Dawn (found in the link above) and from 2049, Wallace seems to be the kind of person who would not stop at anything to achieve his goals. If that's the way he goes, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't get an assistant that is reluctant to do shady and/or dirty work. Now, in this scene: She tells Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), that she'll just tell Wallace that Joshi attacked her first. It was then obvious she isn't upfront with her boss and it also raised the question whether she has her own agenda or not. Now I may be totally wrong but the way it happened and considering her position, it nearly suggested that she would or could take over the Wallace corp or at least try to break free from his control. Whether she succeed or not, her head would be on the chopping block pretty fast. Also, wasn't she the one who "pushed" for Wallace to inspect the new model and didn't she had a tear when he killed it? It kinda proves she's under pressure and may not totally agree with the way he does things. To me, the only thing that is keeping her from really taking over is the "wall" Joshi talked about to K. She then claimed that there would be a revolution or numerous deaths if somehow replicants where able to control their "destiny" by being able to reproduce themselves. Again, the only thing that is holding her back is the fact she "sees" that "wall", otherwise she would run on her own. Didn't K say something to the assistant that might shed some light on all this....? I thought I heard him say that she had a name, so she must be special. This would indicate that she's a replicant. Also, I thought her stiff demeanor was meant to show this (except for a few tears here and there).
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Oct 16, 2017 19:30:08 GMT
I completely agree. Overall it felt short of the expectations but for (very little) background, Villeneuve made 3 short movies (not sure if you saw them but it takes roughly 30 minutes to watch them all): imdb2.freeforums.net/post/966803As for the assistant, here is my take on her: First, I got to be honest, I don't remember if we ever get an answer about what she is, either human or replicant, but my understanding is she is the latter. If I'm wrong, then probably half of what's next won't make sense. So, let's talk about her psycho side. As you can see in the short 2036: Nexus Dawn (found in the link above) and from 2049, Wallace seems to be the kind of person who would not stop at anything to achieve his goals. If that's the way he goes, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't get an assistant that is reluctant to do shady and/or dirty work. Now, in this scene: She tells Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), that she'll just tell Wallace that Joshi attacked her first. It was then obvious she isn't upfront with her boss and it also raised the question whether she has her own agenda or not. Now I may be totally wrong but the way it happened and considering her position, it nearly suggested that she would or could take over the Wallace corp or at least try to break free from his control. Whether she succeed or not, her head would be on the chopping block pretty fast. Also, wasn't she the one who "pushed" for Wallace to inspect the new model and didn't she had a tear when he killed it? It kinda proves she's under pressure and may not totally agree with the way he does things. To me, the only thing that is keeping her from really taking over is the "wall" Joshi talked about to K. She then claimed that there would be a revolution or numerous deaths if somehow replicants where able to control their "destiny" by being able to reproduce themselves. Again, the only thing that is holding her back is the fact she "sees" that "wall", otherwise she would run on her own. Didn't K say something to the assistant that might shed some light on all this....? I thought I heard him say that she had a name, so she must be special. This would indicate that she's a replicant. Also, I thought her stiff demeanor was meant to show this (except for a few tears here and there). It's quite possible, I can't say I remember that line. I saw the movie but I don't pretend to have understood it all or remember it all perfectly.
|
|