• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Blade Runner 2049 - Grading and Discussion

Grade the Movie


  • Total voters
    68
Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies. It took me a month to finally get to the theatres to see this one, so unfortunately that detracted from the vieweing (smaller screen, no sound system, etc...). It was still visually stunning, however, and I enjoyed getting a bigger glimpse of the BR universe. I wonder what happened to Las Vegas -- terrorist nuke?

Anyway, I really wanted to like it... but alas, it was just so BOOOOORRRRRING! It's not like I was expecting pew-pew fast paced action, and I can totally immerse myself in repeated viewings of the original, but geez! Let's step up the pace a little. Ford was underused, even down to the prolonged scenes of him drowning in the background. Gaff -- what happened to him? He lost his accent, which completely defined the character. I felt like I was watching Edward James Olmos being interviewed in a retirement home. Took me right out of the movie.

It was pretty easy to figure out the plot twist when K visits Ana in the memory lab. "The artist puts a little of herself in every work." Oh, that was subtle.

It seems like a potential set-up for a sequel, what with the planned replicant revolution et al. But short of being just a "Rise of the Planet of the Replicants", I can't see how this could continue in the BR tradition.
 
Last edited:
I got a JOI of my own today. Maybe not quite the same but still cute nonetheless :D
Joi_zpsxx4kapui.jpg


(hoping that even works, I can never tell with Photobucket now)
 
$88,051,760 total domestically for Blade Runner. It had decent legs and will finish around $90 million. With $160,275,037 international take for a total of $248,326,797. The movie probably lost some money when marketing and distribution costs are factored in, but it's not the career ending disaster I feared.
 
To touch back on a question: the rebel faction was shown to give the audience knowledge of who would endanger human society if it were to become known that replicants could be made to become pregnant.
 
It doesn't sound like he wants to direct it, just that he has an idea he's hoping to develop.
 
I walked out. I tried to hang tough but after 90 minutes or so I just lost any interest in where the story was going...I made it to the part where Jared Leto has Harrison captured and I thought, "this is unpleasant and I don't care how it ends"...so I walked out.(I wasn't the only one in the theatre who walked out BTW) I did like Ryan Gosling's performance and one line of dialogue. Another stylish, well polished piece of filmaking in desparate need of a quality story and passable running length. The original had such charm..
 
Last edited:
Ridley Scott wants to make a sequel. He would have cut half an hour out of 2049. Also claims credit for 2049 script.
Considering Ridley's output of late, I wouldn't trust his instincts. Maybe BR2049 was too long for a lot of people, but I loved every minute of it. And maybe he did have a lot of script input...but if so, why are the scripts for the last two Alien flicks so awful? Why didn't he fix them? (And why did he even manage to ruin them even more in the final edits?)
 
Maybe BR2049 was too long for a lot of people, but I loved every minute of it.
As did I. Villeneuve did a fantastic job. Also helped that I got to see it on a full size IMAX screen. And no one walked out at the packed screening (though Villeneuve is a “homeboy” in Québec, so that probably accounts for it still being in local cinemas, as well as the packed screenings in the first month).
 
I did have some issues with the movie's length, but it never crossed my mind to walk out, and I don't remember seeing anyone else walk out.
 
I saw it 3 times in the theatre. I am normally strongly believe many movies today would be better if tightened up and shorter. But I did not feel that way with this. I felt transported to another world and felt the story flowed at an appropriate pace.

The only advantage of shortening it would have been to have gotten more people to see it in the theaters. But I am not sure where to even start on that. Any cuts would have needed to been small spread out earlier whole film. There are no sequences that could have been totally cut.
 
I think just trimming the length a few of the scenes and some single shots that I felt dragged on to long would have helped.
 
It's 16 minutes longer than Captain America: Civil War. And people stay right through the credits for that too. And it's 17 minutes shorter than Wolf of Wall Street, a film that was a huge comedy hit.
It makes me laugh that people make out like BR2049 was like 6 hours long. I feel like it's because some folk can't go 3 minutes nowadays with desperatly wanting to check something like their Twitter or Istagram likes.

Anyway, best film of the year easily, can't wait for the Blu ray

EDIT: *without, *Instagram :)
 
Last edited:
It's 16 minutes longer than Captain America: Civil War. And people stay right through the credits for that too. And it's 17 minutes shorter than Wolf of Wall Street, a film that was a huge comedy hit.
It makes me laugh that people make out like BR2049 was like 6 hours long. I feel like it's because some folk can't go 3 minutes nowadays with desperatly wanting to check something like their Twitter or Istagram likes.

Anyway, best film of the year easily, can't wait for the Blu ray
I always think every time this kind of discussion comes up that today's audiences wouldn't be able to handle films like Lawrence of Arabia (especially with its pace) or even The Sound of Music.
 
When I go to see a movie at the theater I consciously cut myself off from all of that for 2 to 3 hours, just to experience a film, that's why I still go to the movies. At home, watching Lawrence of Arabia without company takes me one or two days, it wasn't always like that but it is now...
 
I think I managed to get through Lawrence of Arabia in one sitting, but I can't remember for sure. I've never seen Sound of Music.
 
Why is it when anyone brings up a movie being long and boring, the "what about...!!" comparisons chime in, as if well crafted and interesting long movies with fascinationg characters ( the true to term epic, Lawrence of Arabia, for example) MUST compare equally with bloated, plodding ones that don't even have compelling characters to help keep things interesting? Running time doesn't put movies on even ground. There's more than 1 variable at play.
 
I do understand the pacing is a little different to say CA: Civil War. And I'll admit I've seen it twice and felt it did drag a little in the sequence when he goes to the old factory and talks to Morgan from the Walking Dead ;) And maybe the initial fight with Deckard once he finds him does go on a bit.
Apart from that though I was always riveted by the story, performances, score and espeically the incredible visuals.

Yes if people simply didn't like it fair play to them; everyone enjoys different things. I just find it odd how some think the notion of a 2.5 hour film is some kind of crazy, insane concept. Shrug.

Even most comic book films are slightly over 2 hours now. Wonder Woman is 141 minutes. Again, I know, maybe different pacing. But just saying. I've seen some articles saying like "ooh it didn't perform well because it was WAY too long and therefore theatres couldn't fit in enough screening in a day." It's 20 minutes longer than your standard box office fare, not like a 6 hour arthouse film.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top