Blade Runner 2 on the way care of Ridley Scott 2 2

[revat]

4 minutes ago, nearmint said:

158 million worldwide, so far.  So if the film had done much better, would we have seen a sequel with the human/replicant war? 

I enjoyed the movie, but I don't really feel amped up for a sequel.  And I'm not sure the tone of these movies would be adequate to support a full war.  I like the ending fine. 

I COULD buy in to a prequel, the subterfuge and espionage of revolution that leads to the purge of replicants and the origins of the 1st Blade Runners.  This prequel may or may not end with the birth/creation of either Deckert or Rachel or Rutger Hauer.

[drotto]

16 hours ago, nearmint said:

158 million worldwide, so far.  So if the film had done much better, would we have seen a sequel with the human/replicant war? 

That would have been. My guess.  I saw it this weekend and personally really liked it despite it's flaws.  I loved the mood, I liked the very deliberate pacing that was more concerned with the story and themes then big set pieces.  The acting was great, and it was a great expansion on the original story.

 

With that said, I also now fully understand why it is underperforming.   It is not a movie for the short attention spans of modern audiences and lack of the big set piece moments.   Most movie goes are looking for that in today's films. Next, it forces you to think and does not provide all of the answers. Again great from a story standpoint, not soo much for people wanting a popcorn film.  And finally my only personal issue the run time.  I understand the deliberate pacing was intentional and a large part of the first film.  I know it helps establish and engulf you in the world, but at times it lingered a bit too much. One of the main criticisms of the first film was the pacing, and they repeated that here.  Certain scenes and segments could have been eliminated or shorted and had no impact on the film other than run time.

[reddwarf666222]

17 hours ago, revat said:

I enjoyed the movie, but I don't really feel amped up for a sequel.  And I'm not sure the tone of these movies would be adequate to support a full war.  I like the ending fine. 

I COULD buy in to a prequel, the subterfuge and espionage of revolution that leads to the purge of replicants and the origins of the 1st Blade Runners.  This prequel may or may not end with the birth/creation of either Deckert or Rachel or Rutger Hauer.

I actually see the sequel if they do one supporting an all out war between 3 parties the humans, replicants, and synthetics. It is just at what point in the war do the humans decide in order to win they need to join a side instead of keeping a 3 way war.

Edited October 17, 2017 by reddwarf666222

[Transplant]

Saw it.  Liked it a lot.  Please, don't do a sequel.  That sounds like it would be akin to Matrix 3. 

[Martin Sinescu]

The intro scene with Bautista was taken from the original opening that was written and storyboarded for Blade Runner but never filmed. I'd totally forgotten that until I re-watched the Dangerous Days feature on the making of BR where Hampton Fancher describes his intro like a sales pitch and it's dead-on the same freaking scene, boiling pot and all!. Neat "swipe" from the original! 

[fantastic_four]

10 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

The intro scene with Bautista was taken from the original opening that was written and storyboarded for Blade Runner but never filmed. I'd totally forgotten that until I re-watched the Dangerous Days feature on the making of BR where Hampton Fancher describes his intro like a sales pitch and it's dead-on the same freaking scene, boiling pot and all!. Neat "swipe" from the original! 

Did it say why Ridley Scott didn't include it in the original film, or who at the time was projected to play the role Bautista did?

[Get Marwood & I]

I found an old Film Review mag from 1982 in the loft. That was a great magazine in it's day. There's a nice article on the original, with some cool pictures you don't often see 

 

[Artboy99]

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 6:59 AM, drotto said:

That would have been. My guess.  I saw it this weekend and personally really liked it despite it's flaws.  I loved the mood, I liked the very deliberate pacing that was more concerned with the story and themes then big set pieces.  The acting was great, and it was a great expansion on the original story.

 

With that said, I also now fully understand why it is underperforming.   It is not a movie for the short attention spans of modern audiences and lack of the big set piece moments.   Most movie goes are looking for that in today's films. Next, it forces you to think and does not provide all of the answers. Again great from a story standpoint, not soo much for people wanting a popcorn film.  And finally my only personal issue the run time.  I understand the deliberate pacing was intentional and a large part of the first film.  I know it helps establish and engulf you in the world, but at times it lingered a bit too much. One of the main criticisms of the first film was the pacing, and they repeated that here.  Certain scenes and segments could have been eliminated or shorted and had no impact on the film other than run time.

I just saw the film this evening and I agree with you completely. I loved the mood, enjoyed the story and really felt that the only issue I had was the run time.

[Get Marwood & I]

5 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

On 17/10/2017 at 1:59 PM, drotto said:

That would have been. My guess.  I saw it this weekend and personally really liked it despite it's flaws.  I loved the mood, I liked the very deliberate pacing that was more concerned with the story and themes then big set pieces.  The acting was great, and it was a great expansion on the original story.

 

With that said, I also now fully understand why it is underperforming.   It is not a movie for the short attention spans of modern audiences and lack of the big set piece moments.   Most movie goes are looking for that in today's films. Next, it forces you to think and does not provide all of the answers. Again great from a story standpoint, not soo much for people wanting a popcorn film.  And finally my only personal issue the run time.  I understand the deliberate pacing was intentional and a large part of the first film.  I know it helps establish and engulf you in the world, but at times it lingered a bit too much. One of the main criticisms of the first film was the pacing, and they repeated that here.  Certain scenes and segments could have been eliminated or shorted and had no impact on the film other than run time.

I just saw the film this evening and I agree with you completely. I loved the mood, enjoyed the story and really felt that the only issue I had was the run time.

Maybe it is only under-performing from a financial perspective. The first film 'bombed' financially and look how that is now regarded by those who can think further than the next fight scene. I think the film is a success, in the same way that Morrissey records are a success. Neither are aimed at the market which generates multi-billions, as both require you to think. The run time was fine in my view. More time to think, immerse, admire.....

[Artboy99]

2 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

Maybe it is only under-performing from a financial perspective. The first film 'bombed' financially and look how that is now regarded by those who can think further than the next fight scene. I think the film is a success, in the same way that Morrissey records are a success. Neither are aimed at the market which generates multi-billions, as both require you to think. The run time was fine in my view. More time to think, immerse, admire.....

Maybe I should have gone to an earlier viewing. The movie didn't start until 9:45 pm and I didn't get home until 1:15 AM. This old guy was tired.

[Get Marwood & I]

7 minutes ago, Artboy99 said:

Maybe I should have gone to an earlier viewing. The movie didn't start until 9:45 pm and I didn't get home until 1:15 AM. This old guy was tired.

I went early afternoon, so managed to stay awake. I have a reputation for being able to sleep on demand however, and on a clothes line if needed, so it did well to hold my attention 

[ComicConnoisseur]

52 minutes ago, Artboy99 said:

Maybe I should have gone to an earlier viewing. The movie didn't start until 9:45 pm and I didn't get home until 1:15 AM. This old guy was tired.

and this is why Blade Runner 2049 and American Made may have underperformed at the box office. I am sure they are great movies, but I will wait for them on Amazon on demand when I can stream them on my HDTV for $4.99 in a few months to watch them at my convenience.

The box office game is changing fast,as watch people in the Star Wars Last Jedi and Justice League threads when they complain how disappointed they are at their upcoming movies box office take. It's not that the movies are bad it is just people have alternative ways to watch the movies now. To me it far more convenient to stream a movie on the HDTV screen that go to the movie theatre. 

Modern technology has changed the box office game.

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[NewEnglandGothic]

4 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

and this is why Blade Runner 2049 and American Made may have underperformed at the box office. I am sure they are great movies, but I will wait for them on Amazon on demand when I can stream them on my HDTV for $4.99 in a few months to watch them at my convenience.

The box office game is changing fast,as watch people in the Star Wars Last Jedi and Justice League threads when they complain how disappointed they are at their upcoming movies box office take. It's not that the movies are bad it is just people have alternative ways to watch the movies now. To me it far more convenient to stream a movie on the HDTV screen that go to the movie theatre. 

Modern technology has changed the box office game.

 

I would have never sat through the first hour of Spider-Man: Homecoming, if I saw it in a theater.

Watching it at home, I can work with it's dull spots by taking breaks from it now and then, for a better moviegoer experience.

The result, even though it wasn't for me, I didn't hate it.

[NewEnglandGothic]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 8:51 AM, Marwood & I said:

I found an old Film Review mag from 1982 in the loft. That was a great magazine in it's day. There's a nice article on the original, with some cool pictures you don't often see 

 

 

The Sword and the Sorcerer.  

One of my first VHS rentals.

Katherine Beller.  

[NewEnglandGothic]

Whoops! I meant Kathleen Beller.  

[Get Marwood & I]

6 minutes ago, NewEnglandGothic said:

Whoops! I meant Kathleen Beller.  

No Kathleen though 

[Bosco685]

5 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

and this is why Blade Runner 2049 and American Made may have underperformed at the box office. I am sure they are great movies, but I will wait for them on Amazon on demand when I can stream them on my HDTV for $4.99 in a few months to watch them at my convenience.

 

The box office game is changing fast,as watch people in the Star Wars Last Jedi and Justice League threads when they complain how disappointed they are at their upcoming movies box office take. It's not that the movies are bad it is just people have alternative ways to watch the movies now. To me it far more convenient to stream a movie on the HDTV screen that go to the movie theatre. 

 

Modern technology has changed the box office game.

I think this is a good point about how these sites can impact box office results for studios.

I liked Blade Runner 2049. I do agree on some of the pacing, where a shorter film could have made for a more succinct storyline. But overall, a really good production that seemed to bring further value to the original movie.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Bosco685

[reddwarf666222]

5 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

No Kathleen though 

Let’s see The Who Dares Wins article with Lewis Collins. Has one of the best 10 minute action sequences in the history of film. 

[Get Marwood & I]

10 hours ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Let’s see The Who Dares Wins article with Lewis Collins. Has one of the best 10 minute action sequences in the history of film. 

Here you go @reddwarf666222

Do you think Lewis would've made a good Bond? He could have introduced the more 'manly' approach and beat Danial Craig by 30 plus years....

 

Spoiler

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

On 10/22/2017 at 4:51 PM, Bosco685 said:

I think this is a good point about how these sites can impact box office results for studios.

I liked Blade Runner 2049. I do agree on some of the pacing, where a shorter film could have made for a more succinct storyline. But overall, a really good production that seemed to bring further value to the original movie.

Good points.

I might also add 35 years between sequels could have had something to do with a so-so box office.

That's a long time between movies. The only bigger gap I can think of us is Man from U.N.C.L.E. which was a big hit in the 1960s and 50 years later they bring it back to lukewarm success.

The intellectual properties with both these projects waiting far too long hurting box offices might be the biggest reason.

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur