Spoilers Blade Runner 2049 - Grading and Discussion
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Blade Runner is sexist.
https://twitter.com/DanaSchwartzzz/status/922282514827358208
https://twitter.com/DanaSchwartzzz/status/922282514827358208
An early cut of the film ran four hours long.
Doesn't sound like it was ever intended as a final product, least of all because of the split in the middle, but I do wonder how much of that footage will show up as extras.
Doesn't sound like it was ever intended as a final product, least of all because of the split in the middle, but I do wonder how much of that footage will show up as extras.
The Screencrush article they source seems to think it'll be "little to none," as no one involved is a fan of deleted scenes, which is a shame.
A pity but unsurprising. The only times Ridley Scott has utilized additional footage in any form is when there was studio meddling (Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven) and Denis Villeneuve has always struck me as a very precise director, much in the same way as Stanley Kubrick.
Scott also released a longer cut of Gladiator, though he is careful to point out in the intro on disc that he does NOT consider it a “director’s cut”, unlike those other two titles.
As well as those two, just looking at my shelf the following Ridley flicks have alternate cuts or deleted scene included:
Prometheus, Alien Covenant, Alien, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Exodus, Hannibal, Legend, American Gangster, Robin Hood, and The Martian.
That's true, I did think of Gladiator after I made that post, although I knew he didn't consider it the director's cut (but that's the version I always watch anyways).
Ah, I stand corrected on all of those. Aside from The Martian and Gladiator, I don't own any of those on DVD and I haven't opened my copy of The Martian yet.
I still don't understand the "it's quite long" thing. It's 16 minutes longer than Captain America: Civil War (147mins vs 163mins)
You know, that comic-book movie "for kids", only the 14th movie on the all-time box office list. And it's two minutes longer than Avatar, another "family" movie. Which as I recall also did pretty well. So if kids can sit through those then Jesus Christ can't adults in 2017 not sit through this without whining and moaning?
You know, that comic-book movie "for kids", only the 14th movie on the all-time box office list. And it's two minutes longer than Avatar, another "family" movie. Which as I recall also did pretty well. So if kids can sit through those then Jesus Christ can't adults in 2017 not sit through this without whining and moaning?
Apparently not. I don't think it's long at all, but then I love films with (earned) long running times.
I swear films like Lawrence of Arabia would be considered disasters in this day and age.
I swear films like Lawrence of Arabia would be considered disasters in this day and age.
I think many, possibly most, blockbusters now are too long, even those I’ve enjoyed. But I wouldn’t cut a second from this film.
When people say it was long, they generally just mean it dragged and they were bored. Some half hour sitcoms feel long.
It's not about comparing run times to other movies. Otherwise Titanic wouldn't be the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time if "it was long" was only a reference to run time.
It's not about comparing run times to other movies. Otherwise Titanic wouldn't be the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time if "it was long" was only a reference to run time.
I swear films like Lawrence of Arabia would be considered disasters in this day and age.
Lawrence of Arabia isn't boring. Big difference.
Very arguable point.
You're right. They're both excellent films.
I'm not getting why older audiences haven't supported this film more. I do understand younger audiences not liking the run time or the pacing. I'm 49 and have shown so-called "film fans" half my age such classics as Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia and been told they were dull films. People brought up in the age of the "quick-cut" just don't seem to emotionally invest in films like those of us brought up when such films were common. Still, Blade Runner 2049's target audience is clearly older people who saw and liked the first film and ARE capable of enjoying a film that unfolds at such a pace. So, what happened?
Any interesting nuggets you can share from Mr. Hauer?
I really liked this film. It's one of those films I could spend all day watching. I can understand why it has not been a success though. It's not a film that general audiences are going to like. It's a big budget cinephile's film. It's not your Trek 09 or Force Awakens. It's a sequel that actually is it's own thing.
There aren't enough of us?
We don't go to a lot of movies.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
