Topic: Bladerunner 2.

[Zlen]

And to think that Villeneuve is working on Dune.
My oh my, excited doesn't even begin to explain it.

[Ray K]

The expensive science-fiction sequel “Blade Runner 2049” collapsed at the North American box office over the weekend, taking in $31.5 million, or roughly 30 percent less than analysts had expected, as younger audiences and women failed to materialize in sizable numbers.

“I’m disappointed,” said Jeff Goldstein, president of domestic distribution for Warner Bros., which released the independently produced movie in the United States and Canada. “The real trick now is to expand the audience past older men.” Warner said that 71 percent of opening-weekend ticket buyers were male.

Euphoric reviews and possible attention on Hollywood’s awards circuit could help “Blade Runner 2049” play longer and more successfully in theaters than would be typically expected. Denis Villeneuve, who directed the film, had that kind of luck with his last movie, “Arrival,” which had $24 million in initial ticket sales last fall and ultimately collected $100.5 million.

And “Blade Runner 2049” did better overseas, where Sony Pictures Entertainment has the distribution rights. Sony said that the movie took in $50.2 million in partial international release, with major countries like Japan, South Korea and China still to come.

-NY Times

[Blinis]

The profitability threshold must be around 300 million dollars, so that's quite a stretch.

[Stevie-A]

And to think that Villeneuve is working on Dune.
My oh my, excited doesn't even begin to explain it.

A genuinely thrilling prospect. BR2047 was utterly mesmerizing. The original is my favourite movie of all time, and this left me feeling exhausted, with both joy and visceral overload. The soundtrack was utterly bewildering. Cannot wait to see it again.

[24/7]

And to think that Villeneuve is working on Dune.
My oh my, excited doesn't even begin to explain it.

Now there's an original that needs some magic As much as I love Sean Young in the original BR, she wasn't up to much in Dune - nor in Ace Ventura for that matter So to see your post is really encouraging in the context of this thread, given how well people think BR2 is going......

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The expensive science-fiction sequel “Blade Runner 2049” collapsed at the North American box office over the weekend, taking in $31.5 million, or roughly 30 percent less than analysts had expected, as younger audiences and women failed to materialize in sizable numbers.

“I’m disappointed,” said Jeff Goldstein, president of domestic distribution for Warner Bros., which released the independently produced movie in the United States and Canada. “The real trick now is to expand the audience past older men.” Warner said that 71 percent of opening-weekend ticket buyers were male.

Euphoric reviews and possible attention on Hollywood’s awards circuit could help “Blade Runner 2049” play longer and more successfully in theaters than would be typically expected. Denis Villeneuve, who directed the film, had that kind of luck with his last movie, “Arrival,” which had $24 million in initial ticket sales last fall and ultimately collected $100.5 million.

And “Blade Runner 2049” did better overseas, where Sony Pictures Entertainment has the distribution rights. Sony said that the movie took in $50.2 million in partial international release, with major countries like Japan, South Korea and China still to come.

-NY Times

Not much of a surprise. The American audience are notoriously fucking thick.

It was their fault the original had that fucking horrific twatting narration shite stuck on it.

[afc tukrish]

Now there's an original that needs some magic As much as I love Sean Young in the original BR, she wasn't up to much in Dune - nor in Ace Ventura for that matter So to see your post is really encouraging in the context of this thread, given how well people think BR2 is going......

Got up to quite a bit with Kevin Costner in No Way Out, though...

[ToneLa]

Not much of a surprise. The American audience are notoriously fucking thick.

It was their fault the original had that fucking horrific twatting narration shite stuck on it.

This is such a perfect sequel it's even honouring the terrible box office of the original 

[Ray K]

This is such a perfect sequel it's even honouring the terrible box office of the original 

Ha!

As well known as he is, Gosling doesn't have the box office clout other actors have. Only La La Land has passed the $100m US box office mark.

The actress playing Joi was very good in what could have been a small role. Not unattractive too, I thought.

[classycarra]

Ha!

As well known as he is, Gosling doesn't have the box office clout other actors have. Only La La Land has passed the $100m US box office mark.

The actress playing Joi was very good in what could have been a small role. Not unattractive too, I thought.

Thought the casting was spot on all round, to the last dog, but she wasn't alone in those stakes. Some very attractive people in this film!

[ToneLa]

Ana de Armas, if I could have her as a virtual reality companion, I'd be spending all my wages on upgrades too!

[fudge]

Amazing film, preferred it to the original which of course was a classic.

Such amazing vision

[Macphisto80]

The expensive science-fiction sequel “Blade Runner 2049” collapsed at the North American box office over the weekend, taking in $31.5 million, or roughly 30 percent less than analysts had expected, as younger audiences and women failed to materialize in sizable numbers.

“I’m disappointed,” said Jeff Goldstein, president of domestic distribution for Warner Bros., which released the independently produced movie in the United States and Canada. “The real trick now is to expand the audience past older men.” Warner said that 71 percent of opening-weekend ticket buyers were male.

Euphoric reviews and possible attention on Hollywood’s awards circuit could help “Blade Runner 2049” play longer and more successfully in theaters than would be typically expected. Denis Villeneuve, who directed the film, had that kind of luck with his last movie, “Arrival,” which had $24 million in initial ticket sales last fall and ultimately collected $100.5 million.

And “Blade Runner 2049” did better overseas, where Sony Pictures Entertainment has the distribution rights. Sony said that the movie took in $50.2 million in partial international release, with major countries like Japan, South Korea and China still to come.

-NY Times

Hardly surprising, this. Properly grounded, or mature science fiction generally does not do well at the box office. In a way, it's a comforting thing to know its not breaking any kinds of records or anything. Then I'd really be worried. Makes me want to see it even more now.

[24/7]

Hardly surprising, this. Properly grounded, or mature science fiction generally does not do well at the box office. In a way, it's a comforting thing to know its not breaking any kinds of records or anything. Then I'd really be worried. Makes me want to see it even more now.

Was surprised how many seats were empty at the IMAX screening I almost went to (Saturday 17:00) - but like you am quietly happy about that. I hate crowded cinemas full of mouth-breathers choking on their popcorn and/or rustling their huge bags of sweets.....as for people talking, fuck right off. You're not at home!!! Usually I go to the cinema in Ljubljana these days - matinée performances - quite often audiences of single figures, giving a kind of seedy feel to it at times. Very noir 

[Redcap]

I dunno. They put a lot of money into marketing for this movie. It's a real shame it's not a hit at the box office.

Honestly as I've said in the film thread, there seems to be a lot of flack for Hollywood sequels and remakes, and a lot of blame that they're not producing the goods.

But this has been a very enjoyable year for movies. It's a shame so many people are missing out on some excellent stuff.

[DrTobiasFunke]

I dunno. They put a lot of money into marketing for this movie. It's a real shame it's not a hit at the box office.

Honestly as I've said in the film thread, there seems to be a lot of flack for Hollywood sequels and remakes, and a lot of blame that they're not producing the goods.

But this has been a very enjoyable year for movies. It's a shame so many people are missing out on some excellent stuff.

There have been some great mainstream movies this year - Dunkirk, Baby Driver and this have all been superb.

One thing I couldn't figure out towards the end:

Spoiler

What was Wallace hoping to get out of Deckard? When trying to bribe him with the (super realistic) Rachel clone and then threatening him, he seemed to be wanting some information about Deckard's daughter but Deckard seemed just as clueless as everyone else about this.

If Wallace didn't have anything to gain from Deckard then doesn't it make K saving him at the end sort of pointless?

[close]

I'm hoping I just missed something because other than that the movie was pretty much flawless. It seemed to be made with such care in every department - the sound, visuals, performances and the pacing were all perfectly in tune with the original but also offered something new. I think I'll see it again soon in IMAX.

[Zee_26]

There have been some great mainstream movies this year - Dunkirk, Baby Driver and this have all been superb.

One thing I couldn't figure out towards the end:

Spoiler

What was Wallace hoping to get out of Deckard? When trying to bribe him with the (super realistic) Rachel clone and then threatening him, he seemed to be wanting some information about Deckard's daughter but Deckard seemed just as clueless as everyone else about this.

If Wallace didn't have anything to gain from Deckard then doesn't it make K saving him at the end sort of pointless?

[close]

I'm hoping I just missed something because other than that the movie was pretty much flawless. It seemed to be made with such care in every department - the sound, visuals, performances and the pacing were all perfectly in tune with the original but also offered something new. I think I'll see it again soon in IMAX.

This might help  with your spoiler question:

Spoiler

Wallace kind of knew Deckard had no clue about the whereabouts of his daughter. He wanted Deckard to reveal some info about the replicants that hid her. Basically, he would start with Deckard (torturing him off world until he gave up a name) and move his way up the line until it led him to the daughter. The leader of the resistance said as much when she gave orders to K to kill Deckard.

[close]

[Macphisto80]

Was surprised how many seats were empty at the IMAX screening I almost went to (Saturday 17:00) - but like you am quietly happy about that. I hate crowded cinemas full of mouth-breathers choking on their popcorn and/or rustling their huge bags of sweets.....as for people talking, fuck right off. You're not at home!!! Usually I go to the cinema in Ljubljana these days - matinée performances - quite often audiences of single figures, giving a kind of seedy feel to it at times. Very noir 

That's why I avoid going to opening nights of anything. I prefer watching something in a near empty theater for a couple of reasons. If I'm going with someone likeminded, then sometimes I like to have a passing commentary regarding the film during, having noone within earshot so that we don't interrupt their viewing. No kids running about (talking about the adults here too) and no one hopping up and down every two fucking seconds to answer their phones. Fucks me right off, that one. Plus, if I need to go take a piss, then I don't need to worry about blocking someone's view and have to duck down low like I'm in a battlefield or something. One of the better experiences I had was going to see Dredd. Just a day or two after its opening, and I was literally the only person in the theatre. Really odd, but it felt like they just opened the place for me and me alone.

[Zee_26]

One scene in particular which I haven't really seen mentioned:

Spoiler

The scene where Wallace is describing to Deckard his and Rachel's first meeting at Tyrell Corp. and we see the "new" Rachel walk in from the black background is probably one of the most beautiful things I've seen. One of the best scenes I've seen about recollecting a memory and the feelings associated with it and Ford did an amazing job with it.

"All those moment's lost in time"...

[close]

[ToneLa]

One scene in particular which I haven't really seen mentioned:

Spoiler

The scene where Wallace is describing to Deckard his and Rachel's first meeting at Tyrell Corp. and we see the "new" Rachel walk in from the black background is probably one of the most beautiful things I've seen. One of the best scenes I've seen about recollecting a memory and the feelings associated with it and Ford did an amazing job with it.

"All those moment's lost in time"...

[close]

I loved that. I was amazed at how they actually did..

Spoiler

Sean Young / Rachael - seems like they CGId her up after she acted it out, but it was really great. And his reply - "her eyes were green". And boom, shot in the head....

Fan fucking tastic

[close]

[DrTobiasFunke]

This might help  with your spoiler question:

Spoiler

Wallace kind of knew Deckard had no clue about the whereabouts of his daughter. He wanted Deckard to reveal some info about the replicants that hid her. Basically, he would start with Deckard (torturing him off world until he gave up a name) and move his way up the line until it led him to the daughter. The leader of the resistance said as much when she gave orders to K to kill Deckard.

[close]

Yeah, you're right. That makes sense.

[The Gulleysucker]

Loved it.

Only about 10 people in our local fleapit to watch it.

Rest is spoilered...

Spoiler

I went into it not having watched any trailers other the first one and have avoided any reviews.

Gosling was excellent, had a worn look about him that fitted the part well.

I was suckered into assuming early on that he was the child and totally missed the clue about the girl in the memory 'tent'.

I thought some other bits were telegraphed, the hooker girl (she's the girl from Halt and set fire) effectively playing a vaguely Kris type character and obviously a replicant, as it turned out.

I also loved the idea of the virtual woman (very cute actress), I imagine the CGI lads must have had fun constructing the love scene.

And the CGI for the Rachel scene was very impressive.

And the ending was fine, loose ends tidied up.

All in all, really very good for a sequel, it possibly could have been edited to a tad less running time, but super visuals pretty faithful to the original and no real qualms about it at all.

But the sound....I don't know what's happening in recent films but we have been deafened a bit too often now and it's starting to spoil it. I don't know what the sound people are doing these days but as if they are trying to demonstrate the phenomenal dynamics they can play around with. While the volume is fine for voice, though still a bit muffled at times, the music and sound effects at times were just way too loud. And I had hoped that the music would be more Vangelis and thematic. I'm not sure about that, I wasn't humming any of the tunes like I was from the first one.

[close]

[Redcap]

Speaking of favourite scenes in the film

Spoiler

Mine was definitely the sex scene, which was one of the beautiful, moving sex scenes I've ever seen. Joi is such a terrific character.

[close]

[ToneLa]

[Trump's tiny tiny hands]

Loved it.

Only about 10 people in our local fleapit to watch it.

Rest is spoilered...

Spoiler

I went into it not having watched any trailers other the first one and have avoided any reviews.

Gosling was excellent, had a worn look about him that fitted the part well.

I was suckered into assuming early on that he was the child and totally missed the clue about the girl in the memory 'tent'.

I thought some other bits were telegraphed, the hooker girl (she's the girl from Halt and set fire) effectively playing a vaguely Kris type character and obviously a replicant, as it turned out.

I also loved the idea of the virtual woman (very cute actress), I imagine the CGI lads must have had fun constructing the love scene.

And the CGI for the Rachel scene was very impressive.

And the ending was fine, loose ends tidied up.

All in all, really very good for a sequel, it possibly could have been edited to a tad less running time, but super visuals pretty faithful to the original and no real qualms about it at all.

But the sound....I don't know what's happening in recent films but we have been deafened a bit too often now and it's starting to spoil it. I don't know what the sound people are doing these days but as if they are trying to demonstrate the phenomenal dynamics they can play around with. While the volume is fine for voice, though still a bit muffled at times, the music and sound effects at times were just way too loud. And I had hoped that the music would be more Vangelis and thematic. I'm not sure about that, I wasn't humming any of the tunes like I was from the first one.

[close]

Thank god someone else mentioned the peak volume levels 

[ToneLa]

Heh, I thought it got a bit too loud and then some gonk at the back eating loads and loads of crisps was somehow louder than dialogue. Just thought it was where I saw it.

[Chalky Boots]

The expensive science-fiction sequel “Blade Runner 2049” collapsed at the North American box office over the weekend, taking in $31.5 million, or roughly 30 percent less than analysts had expected, as younger audiences and women failed to materialize in sizable numbers.

“I’m disappointed,” said Jeff Goldstein, president of domestic distribution for Warner Bros., which released the independently produced movie in the United States and Canada. “The real trick now is to expand the audience past older men.” Warner said that 71 percent of opening-weekend ticket buyers were male.

Euphoric reviews and possible attention on Hollywood’s awards circuit could help “Blade Runner 2049” play longer and more successfully in theaters than would be typically expected. Denis Villeneuve, who directed the film, had that kind of luck with his last movie, “Arrival,” which had $24 million in initial ticket sales last fall and ultimately collected $100.5 million.

And “Blade Runner 2049” did better overseas, where Sony Pictures Entertainment has the distribution rights. Sony said that the movie took in $50.2 million in partial international release, with major countries like Japan, South Korea and China still to come.

-NY Times

Hopefully puts off money men thinking they can scrape a third one together. Maybe it's condescending towards American audiences but to me the average goer there doesn't like A. Long run-times B. Social commentary C. Slow Burning action

This and the original had all three so I'm not really surprised by it's box office take.

So far as the film goes it's a modern masterpiece. I love it, not quite as much as the original, but I'm so incredibly happy with how it turned out.  I usually always look to whether a film makes me think for extended periods as to discover if it's something I've merely enjoyed or I'm genuinely going to hold dearly far into the future. Well, I'm still thinking about it, and not just the plot; the score, the acting and the breath-taking visuals provided by Deakins genuinely have taken me back.

I feel partially underwhelmed by the year to date in cinema but this, this makes up for it and I'm so happy it's turned out the way it has.

[ToneLa]

Yeah, I don't mind this not turning an obvious profit. I just feel lucky getting THIS AMAZING SEQUEL, it isn't a property that needs sequels!

My first thought after walking out from seeing 2049 was this:

Hampton Fancher and Villeneuve are straight-up, no-foolin geniuses.

Villeneuve I'd now class as equal to Cuarón, especially if you think sci-fi.

[Redcap]

Thank god someone else mentioned the peak volume levels 

I blame Zimmer.

The same issue plagued Dunkirk.

I don't think you should ever feel like the composer is trying to steal the spotlight in a movie, and I think it's becoming more and more of an issue with Zimmer scores. It's not so much that the score doesn't fit the film. The score feels like it's competing with the film to tell the same story.

Mind you, I think it's for the most part, a solid score with a few excellent moments. There are only a couple of moments where it distracted me. But I think even a single such moment is too many.

[Redcap]

In Dallas Buyers Club he's only outdone by Matthew McConaughey, and they both get an Oscar for their troubles. He's great in Requiem for a Dream too.

Felt his character was pretty decent in this, wanted to see more but it felt a little unresolved for me. Hope they're not planning to turn this into a series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMR2PsPj_4c

It's a joke from Bojack Horseman.

But in this instance, true.

[AndyMuller]

Going to see this on Sunday with my arl man. He's seen the original but I've never seen it so is it essential before watching this?

Thinking of picking it up on blu-ray in HMV to watch before Sunday like.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[classycarra]

Going to see this on Sunday with my arl man. He's seen the original but I've never seen it so is it essential before watching this?

Thinking of picking it up on blu-ray in HMV to watch before Sunday like.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

In order for the more emotional aspects to resonate, yes. But you can still understand the film and the concepts easily enough without.

If you have time for a film before Sunday anyway, I would watch it

[AndyMuller]

In order for the more emotional aspects to resonate, yes. But you can still understand the film and the concepts easily enough without.

If you have time for a film before Sunday anyway, I would watch it

Cheers mate. The bigger question is, which version of the film do I watch?!

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[ToneLa]

Cheers mate. The bigger question is, which version of the film do I watch?!

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

The new one is quite clever at not needing any specific version  seen, just any Blade Runner. I'd recommend the Final Cut though

[The Gulleysucker]

I'd highly recommend seeing the original before.

There are many details and subtle references in the new one that may be missed otherwise or just not understood or appreciated and that could otherwise even appear bewildering.

I'll spoiler this just in case it reveals something people don't want to know about yet.

Spoiler

Just off the top of my head, there's things like the significance of finding the serial number on the bones, Rachel herself and her background and the relationship to Deckard, origami animals....

[close]

[AndyMuller]

Thanks folks. Will be buying The Final Cut and watching before Sunday then. ☺

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[gamble]

Saw it on Saturday, came on here and read some of the reaction. Thought you guys were going OTT on how good it was, but slept on it and do think it is a very enjoyable film. Some beautiful visuals and different to the first.

[Kashinoda]

Good review on Half in the Bag

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/O1Gqjjq1nic" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/O1Gqjjq1nic</a>

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

Brilliant movie. Haven't seen the original but this makes you want to.

[Redcap]

Brilliant movie. Haven't seen the original but this makes you want to.

In some ways it's a better movie if you haven't seen the original, because the themes and questions feel more fresh.

In other ways seeing the original amplifies the emotional punch of some scenes.

But works fairly well as a self-contained film.