|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 21, 2017 20:13:20 GMT
Now, I might be grasping at straws here, but I honestly think that it might be a good thing that it flopped.
I saw the movie last night, and I can honestly say that it might be one of the best movies ever made. Some time to think it over and possibly rewatch it will definitely clear things up, but I really think it's a masterpiece.
That being said, the movie flopped at the Box Office. Big time. Yet this might be a good thing. Now we don't have to see any unnecessary sequels that the studio force onto some amateur filmmaker to squeeze a few more bucks out of the franchise.
All the studio cares about is money. That's understandable of course, but this also means that some kind of sequel that neither Ridley Scott nor Villeneuve want to be a part of will not be forced (this is happening with an unnecessary sequel to Villeneuve's Sicario).
Maybe you all want a sequel, but I think it worked just fine as a standalone. I know this sounds pretentious, but if the average viewer doesn't like it, then sometimes that means that it's actually a masterpiece. If I had no interest in movies other than pure entertainment then I'm sure Blade Runner 2049 wouldn't even be on my radar either.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Oct 21, 2017 21:01:27 GMT
It falls short on too many aspects to be considered a masterpiece in my book but it is good.
Now, not to offense you or play the devil's advocate but if the masses think it's not great while you do, maybe it means you're the one with odd standards.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 21, 2017 22:07:14 GMT
It falls short on too many aspects to be considered a masterpiece in my book but it is good. Now, not to offense you or play the devil's advocate but if the masses think it's not great while you do, maybe it means you're the one with odd standards. Oh, I know that I have odd standards. That's why I'm saying that the average moviegoer doesn't like this movie. It's not the typical popcorn entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 21, 2017 22:35:16 GMT
It wont stop sequel regurgitation. Its actually terrible news that BR2049 flopped. Studio execs will see that the movie is slow paced with not enough comedy and action which doesnt have mass appeal. They will stop hiring quality directors like Denis and start employing the Michael Bays/Roland Emmirichs of this world to crank up the action and make a more generic product. If these type of people made BR2049 in the mould of a Jurassic World/Force Awakens (both medicore films imo) then BR2049 would have made double the amount its generated right now.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 22, 2017 18:59:04 GMT
They will stop hiring quality directors like Denis and start employing the Michael Bays/Roland Emmirichs of this world to crank up the action and make a more generic product. Intellectual, meditative, thought provoking....TO THE EXTREME!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Oct 22, 2017 19:36:34 GMT
.......right, because that's the lesson the studios will learn, and not to simply double down on these superhero films.... and I suppose horror now after the genre explosion since last year.
And now they'll probably wait 10+ years for another Blade Runner..... or play with the formula to include more action.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 22, 2017 20:08:21 GMT
I dislike that it flopped because it'll mean studios take less chances now ugh. As for the positive well, it won't get a watered down franchise.
|
|
nicermog
Sophomore
@nicermog
Posts: 774
Likes: 55
|
Post by nicermog on Oct 22, 2017 20:52:35 GMT
I'd like to see a TV series in this universe or even a series of shorts. I actually liked those prequel shorts more than the movie, which tbh could have used a bit more editing and better writing.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 23, 2017 16:48:16 GMT
I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony in the OP's post. I'm still deciding whether it was intentional. Raving about this flick and then complaining about potential 'unnecessary sequels.' 2049 is the definition of an unnecessary sequel.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 24, 2017 0:29:28 GMT
I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony in the OP's post. I'm still deciding whether it was intentional. Raving about this flick and then complaining about potential 'unnecessary sequels.' 2049 is the definition of an unnecessary sequel. I see that no one here picked up on my sarcasm, so I guess it's a problem on my end. I meant it as an ironic post about the skewed playing field of the modern movie industry.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 24, 2017 11:49:03 GMT
I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony in the OP's post. I'm still deciding whether it was intentional. Raving about this flick and then complaining about potential 'unnecessary sequels.' 2049 is the definition of an unnecessary sequel. I see that no one here picked up on my sarcasm, so I guess it's a problem on my end. I meant it as an ironic post about the skewed playing field of the modern movie industry. Yeah, like I said I wasn't sure if you were serious. You never can tell on the internet. For the record I didn't hate 2049, but I definitely found it unnecessary. Same goes for the upcoming Sicario (another of my favorite films) sequel. Not sure what I did to anger the movie gods but I wish the studios would stop tacking on pointless 'next chapters' to my favorite cinematic stories.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 24, 2017 17:53:09 GMT
Now, I might be grasping at straws here, but I honestly think that it might be a good thing that it flopped. I saw the movie last night, and I can honestly say that it might be one of the best movies ever made. Some time to think it over and possibly rewatch it will definitely clear things up, but I really think it's a masterpiece. That being said, the movie flopped at the Box Office. Big time. Yet this might be a good thing. Now we don't have to see any unnecessary sequels that the studio force onto some amateur filmmaker to squeeze a few more bucks out of the franchise. All the studio cares about is money. That's understandable of course, but this also means that some kind of sequel that neither Ridley Scott nor Villeneuve want to be a part of will not be forced (this is happening with an unnecessary sequel to Villeneuve's Sicario). Maybe you all want a sequel, but I think it worked just fine as a standalone. I know this sounds pretentious, but if the average viewer doesn't like it, then sometimes that means that it's actually a masterpiece. If I had no interest in movies other than pure entertainment then I'm sure Blade Runner 2049 wouldn't even be on my radar either. Well, if we're trying to find a silver lining in this I guess that's as good as any. No more sequel, reboots has to be a good thing.
However, the other backlash against this might also be not so good. They might decide not to give auteur directors like Villeneuve the big budgets they need to create deeply effective movies like this one. As much as I enjoy my super hero movies and my Star Wars I still want to see more thoughtful sci-fi like this too.
Add this to the flop of Ghost in the Shell earlier this year and I think we see a bleak future (no pun intended).
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 24, 2017 20:31:18 GMT
Now, I might be grasping at straws here, but I honestly think that it might be a good thing that it flopped. I saw the movie last night, and I can honestly say that it might be one of the best movies ever made. Some time to think it over and possibly rewatch it will definitely clear things up, but I really think it's a masterpiece. That being said, the movie flopped at the Box Office. Big time. Yet this might be a good thing. Now we don't have to see any unnecessary sequels that the studio force onto some amateur filmmaker to squeeze a few more bucks out of the franchise. All the studio cares about is money. That's understandable of course, but this also means that some kind of sequel that neither Ridley Scott nor Villeneuve want to be a part of will not be forced (this is happening with an unnecessary sequel to Villeneuve's Sicario). Maybe you all want a sequel, but I think it worked just fine as a standalone. I know this sounds pretentious, but if the average viewer doesn't like it, then sometimes that means that it's actually a masterpiece. If I had no interest in movies other than pure entertainment then I'm sure Blade Runner 2049 wouldn't even be on my radar either. Well, if we're trying to find a silver lining in this I guess that's as good as any. No more sequel, reboots has to be a good thing.
While I was going for a more ironic approach in my OP, I can tell that I was a little too on-the-nose about it, but I agree with you here. If we absolutely did have to find some sliver of something good out of BR 2049 flopping, you're right, no additional sequels to spoil it is certainly a positive.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 24, 2017 20:39:39 GMT
I see that no one here picked up on my sarcasm, so I guess it's a problem on my end. I meant it as an ironic post about the skewed playing field of the modern movie industry. Yeah, like I said I wasn't sure if you were serious. You never can tell on the internet. For the record I didn't hate 2049, but I definitely found it unnecessary. Same goes for the upcoming Sicario (another of my favorite films) sequel. Not sure what I did to anger the movie gods but I wish the studios would stop tacking on pointless 'next chapters' to my favorite cinematic stories. No, I understand. Tone is impossible to pick up on over text. That's my bad. I agree to an extent, though. Needless sequels are getting out of hand. Even BR 2049 could've been unnecessary, but I think they pulled it off better than they had any right to. I think it was a worthy sequel to the original, in fact I think it surpassed the original.
|
|
deeznutz
Sophomore
@deeznutz
Posts: 561
Likes: 92
|
Post by deeznutz on Oct 26, 2017 10:52:36 GMT
Saves people banging on about it also! I'm glad personally I think woggle eye is a shit lead
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 26, 2017 12:06:58 GMT
People have a point that it will discourage other smart movies from being made, but I agree that at least we wont get "Blade Runner: 2050-2067", along with "the Edward James Olmos retirement home spinoff movie" and "the Blade Runner Cinematic Universe".
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Oct 26, 2017 13:10:20 GMT
I think it's still too early to call it a failure. It's made $50m over it's budget, and still to be released in Japan & China
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Oct 26, 2017 13:11:06 GMT
I think it's still too early to call it a failure. It's made $50m over it's budget, and still to be released in Japan & China
|
|
phorlanx
Freshman
@phorlanx
Posts: 84
Likes: 22
|
Post by phorlanx on Oct 27, 2017 22:57:03 GMT
Now, I might be grasping at straws here, but I honestly think that it might be a good thing that it flopped. I saw the movie last night, and I can honestly say that it might be one of the best movies ever made. Some time to think it over and possibly rewatch it will definitely clear things up, but I really think it's a masterpiece. That being said, the movie flopped at the Box Office. Big time. Yet this might be a good thing. Now we don't have to see any unnecessary sequels that the studio force onto some amateur filmmaker to squeeze a few more bucks out of the franchise. All the studio cares about is money. That's understandable of course, but this also means that some kind of sequel that neither Ridley Scott nor Villeneuve want to be a part of will not be forced (this is happening with an unnecessary sequel to Villeneuve's Sicario). Maybe you all want a sequel, but I think it worked just fine as a standalone. I know this sounds pretentious, but if the average viewer doesn't like it, then sometimes that means that it's actually a masterpiece. If I had no interest in movies other than pure entertainment then I'm sure Blade Runner 2049 wouldn't even be on my radar either. It already made more than the budget, and it will continue making money. But just think about, when have you ever seen a neo-noir/arthouse film with such a vast budget? Its success might incentivise studios to make films like this in the future. And to your other point, 49 was an unnecessary sequel as well and it turned out great.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 28, 2017 1:54:22 GMT
Now, I might be grasping at straws here, but I honestly think that it might be a good thing that it flopped. I saw the movie last night, and I can honestly say that it might be one of the best movies ever made. Some time to think it over and possibly rewatch it will definitely clear things up, but I really think it's a masterpiece. That being said, the movie flopped at the Box Office. Big time. Yet this might be a good thing. Now we don't have to see any unnecessary sequels that the studio force onto some amateur filmmaker to squeeze a few more bucks out of the franchise. All the studio cares about is money. That's understandable of course, but this also means that some kind of sequel that neither Ridley Scott nor Villeneuve want to be a part of will not be forced (this is happening with an unnecessary sequel to Villeneuve's Sicario). Maybe you all want a sequel, but I think it worked just fine as a standalone. I know this sounds pretentious, but if the average viewer doesn't like it, then sometimes that means that it's actually a masterpiece. If I had no interest in movies other than pure entertainment then I'm sure Blade Runner 2049 wouldn't even be on my radar either. It already made more than the budget, and it will continue making money. But just think about, when have you ever seen a neo-noir/arthouse film with such a vast budget? Its success might incentivise studios to make films like this in the future. And to your other point, 49 was an unnecessary sequel as well and it turned out great. I know, I was trying to be sarcastic. Again, no one has understood it, so that's my poor writing skills. I get what you're saying. My point was that the entire playing field of Hollywood is skewed and contradictory.
|
|