excitement...

[BillJ]

That made me remember, I actually have the 4K version of Blade Runner 2049 on my shelf. Still haven't watched it yet.

 

[Armus]

That made me remember, I actually have the 4K version of Blade Runner 2049 on my shelf. Still haven't watched it yet.

I saw the first half. I walked out in the theater. There were like 4 people there. A couple walked out. Then I walked out when Harrison Ford was beat up by the villain.

 

[fireproof78]

I only disagree that audiences haven't demonstrated a desire for new things. How can they demonstrate a disinterest if nothing new is being made?

They don't. It's a vicious cycle. As I stated, Hollywood is extremely risk adverse right now-has been for ten years. That might change but audiences will need to work hard to push past that.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

It's interesting to note that BR49 failed at the box office. One reason for this is because they put the name of the film and expected the name, along with the futuristic look, alone to be enough to bring people in. The marketing for the film was atrocious. The trailers just showed images of cool stuff, but didn't even hint as to what the film was about. It was basically the studio selling us a film like the way it would be if Best Buy sold me an unlabeled box: "buy this, you'll love what is in it, but we are not going to tell you at all what is in it"

I have a great deal of respect for the first BR film, but I actually don't really like either film.. they both were snooze-fests. It's ok to be slow, methodical and profound and even boring (2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite movie and ti was all of these things) yet BR has a hard boiled cop, and the tropes that go along with that, so why didn't that movie have more of a punch to it? It was as if all the ingredients were there, but they too put too much of one ingredient and not enough of the other. I will always respect the first film and I love a lot of things about it, but I don't find myself drawn to watching it.

 

[Armus]

It's interesting to note that BR49 failed at the box office. One reason for this is because they put the name of the film and expected the name, along with the futuristic look, alone to be enough to bring people in. The marketing for the film was atrocious. The trailers just showed images of cool stuff, but didn't even hint as to what the film was about. It was basically the studio selling us a film like the way it would be if Best Buy sold me an unlabeled box: "buy this, you'll love what is in it, but we are not going to tell you at all what is in it"

I have a great deal of respect for the first BR film, but I actually don't really like either film.. they both were snooze-fests. It's ok to be slow, methodical and profound and even boring (2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite movie and ti was all of these things) yet BR has a hard boiled cop, and the tropes that go along with that, so why didn't that movie have more of a punch to it? It was as if all the ingredients were there, but they too put too much of one ingredient and not enough of the other. I will always respect the first film and I love a lot of things about it, but I don't find myself drawn to watching it.

Even some of the people involved in the production felt it came off as a beautiful sci-fi art film that lacked a narrative and emotional logic. I enjoy it for what it is and I think it's one of Harrison Ford's best performances. And it doesn't overstay its welcome-it's like an hour shorter than the sequel.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yeah I will never really bash the original Blade Runner, it's visionary, and fantastic and it looks brand new, and the acting was great. But if anyone were to ask me why I personally don't watch it much, it's the reasons that I gave

 

[Spot261]

I guess I'll try to cleanse the palate here, try to tap into a simple point that is difficult to articulate.

Excitement.

I mean, step back for a second, Star wars.. the original films were made in a different time, and I'm starting to think their unique charm may actually be limited in its ubiquity to that time, and cannot carry over to today. Example: when Luke was trying to escape the cave, when he had that encounter with the wampa, that whole sequence was tense and exciting (it still is for me when I watch it) but I imaging that today that excitement is no longer felt. That he used his recovered saber to confront an adversary much bigger than him, and cut it's arm off was.. well.. it was AT LEAST as exciting as the music John Williams composed for that scene. Not sure if it it would play that way now, and maybe my point is that, whatever you think about modern Star Wars, good, bad, or treading water between the two, this moment to moment excitement isn't as much a part of the equation, and I'm not sure why why, and the same moment to moment excitement that built the original films isn't as exciting for today's younger (or young at heart) audiences anymore. Like in the same scene, Luke is trying to pull the saber to his hand, there is a real tangible sense of tension. In the last film, we know he touched the force to make a single shot, whether he steered the torpedoes with his mind, or he used the force to set the target on the guns to be react to BOTH his feelings as he touched the Force and to line up with the target we don't know (I'm glad they don't explain it) but we he started to move the saber, us kids in 1980 knew, or at least thought "yeah" he might be able to do it, probably. But now we are in a world where characters like Ebony Maw can move anything with his mind with nearly no effort.

It might not be the fault of star Wars, but the moment to moment excitement that built the originals (maybe) cannot be recaptured anymore.

Rare event, we are in agreement, albeit with a proviso.

This observation isn't about Star Wars, it's about movie making.

The thrills of seeing action on screen lies in no small part in the novelty, in the amazement at what can be shown and the fear, danger and not knowing where it will go.

Most, if not all, of that has been neutered over time and familiarity. We wouldn't be amazed by the Battle of Hoth anymore, but equally Jurassic Park would in no way carry the same sense of wonder. Modern filmmakers have gone several routes to deal with this problem, they've tried to rework the formula in novel ways (Inception or the MCU, for example), they've made self referential comedy (Spy, the MCU), they've increased the volume (James Bond, the MCU), they've worked the fireworks into more thoughtful works (A History of Violence, some of the MCU), they've honoured classics by doing them the justice once denied (Lord of The Rings, the MCU).

We've come almost to expect everyone to be able to perform virtually superhuman feats, dodge bullets, turn somersaults and be a master in kung fu. We expect every new family home to have a resident demonic child, old woman or clown. We expect every loser to quickly become a great hero somehow.

That's one of the reasons streaming services and shows with ongoing story arcs have become so successful, because they have given writers and producers the space to work over a longer format, to develop characters, to work outside of the expected format, to tell epic tales on an epic scale without that meaning more and more special effects crammed into the 90 minutes available, to tell smaller, more human tales at a human pace.

That's why Picard is being so appreciated, because it's doing what many people wanted TNG to do in it's mini arcs and take it's time developing a scenario rather than rushing to completion. We're seeing it at something approaching the pace that the characters themselves are experiencing it and it helps develop an understanding of who they are and what they are about week by week. Put simply we get more of a chance to actually get to know our heroes.

I'm off work atm and binge watching Preacher. It's absolutely beautifully done and spends hours exploring the characters whilst still telling the story, getting laughs and maintaining the sense of fascinated horror at where it will go next. You learn to empathise with people whose actions could only make them the villain in another format. It just could not have been made twenty years ago and been such a close spiritual cousin to the graphic novels which inspired it and it's not alone. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, all of these companies have realised what they have in their hands and why it lends itself so readily to creating TV and films which go outside of the Hollywood box.

What has really come to our attention here is just how much the OT relied upon the novelty of it's special effects at the time, how much it was of it's time and how that format has reached a point where filmmakers either have to smarten up or dumb down. Where we disagree is in which way they have gone with the ST. I know you see it as the latter, whereas I see it as being marginally the former, still entertaining but lacking the context which could have made it great.

 

[Spot261]

It was also a flop at the box office. Something that was a little too esoteric for main stream box office ticket buyers. 2049 was a financial disaster waiting to happen.

Sorry for the double post but I think this is an important point.

BD49 was a flop at the box office, but it's easy to forget that so was the original. Somehow, however, it became one of the pillars of classic sci fi, visionary not just then but also now.

Great art (and I am tentatively willing to put BD in that category entirely aside from being a fan) is frequently very different from popular art.

 

[Smellmet]

It's interesting to note that BR49 failed at the box office. One reason for this is because they put the name of the film and expected the name, along with the futuristic look, alone to be enough to bring people in. The marketing for the film was atrocious. The trailers just showed images of cool stuff, but didn't even hint as to what the film was about. It was basically the studio selling us a film like the way it would be if Best Buy sold me an unlabeled box: "buy this, you'll love what is in it, but we are not going to tell you at all what is in it"

I have a great deal of respect for the first BR film, but I actually don't really like either film.. they both were snooze-fests. It's ok to be slow, methodical and profound and even boring (2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite movie and ti was all of these things) yet BR has a hard boiled cop, and the tropes that go along with that, so why didn't that movie have more of a punch to it? It was as if all the ingredients were there, but they too put too much of one ingredient and not enough of the other. I will always respect the first film and I love a lot of things about it, but I don't find myself drawn to watching it.

You've summed up my feelings towards that movie to a tee. I respect it, but I have no desire to ever watch it again. Same goes for the way too long sequel.

 

[Armus]

We've come almost to expect everyone to be able to perform virtually superhuman feats, dodge bullets, turn somersaults and be a master in kung fu. We expect every new family home to have a resident demonic child, old woman or clown. We expect every loser to quickly become a great hero somehow.

Exactly. Zero suspense and cringey cliches abound today.

 

[JD]

Blade Runner got a sequel because of risk aversion. Familiar property, familiar actors is as safe as it can be.

Audiences have not demonstrated any desire for new things, and Hollywood is not willing to move past that and take the risk. That's the thing. Hollywood has changed in terms of output and there simply isn't the cushion that was available in the 70s and 80s. Star Wars was considered a lark-it was there to prop up 20th Century Fox if "Damnation Alley" underperformed. Underperformance now means a lot more with a lot less cushion.

I only disagree that audiences haven't demonstrated a desire for new things. How can they demonstrate a disinterest if nothing new is being made?

They have made it pretty clear they aren't interested in new things. Pretty much every time someone has tried to make a completely original genre movie, it has completely bombed.

 

[Armus]

They have made it pretty clear they aren't interested in new things. Pretty much every time someone has tried to make a completely original genre movie, it has completely bombed.

Can you provide a few examples? I'm not an active film-watcher.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Rare event, we are in agreement, albeit with a proviso.

This observation isn't about Star Wars, it's about movie making.

The thrills of seeing action on screen lies in no small part in the novelty, in the amazement at what can be shown and the fear, danger and not knowing where it will go.

Most, if not all, of that has been neutered over time and familiarity. We wouldn't be amazed by the Battle of Hoth anymore, but equally Jurassic Park would in no way carry the same sense of wonder. Modern filmmakers have gone several routes to deal with this problem, they've tried to rework the formula in novel ways (Inception or the MCU, for example), they've made self referential comedy (Spy, the MCU), they've increased the volume (James Bond, the MCU), they've worked the fireworks into more thoughtful works (A History of Violence, some of the MCU), they've honoured classics by doing them the justice once denied (Lord of The Rings, the MCU).

We've come almost to expect everyone to be able to perform virtually superhuman feats, dodge bullets, turn somersaults and be a master in kung fu. We expect every new family home to have a resident demonic child, old woman or clown. We expect every loser to quickly become a great hero somehow.

That's one of the reasons streaming services and shows with ongoing story arcs have become so successful, because they have given writers and producers the space to work over a longer format, to develop characters, to work outside of the expected format, to tell epic tales on an epic scale without that meaning more and more special effects crammed into the 90 minutes available, to tell smaller, more human tales at a human pace.

That's why Picard is being so appreciated, because it's doing what many people wanted TNG to do in it's mini arcs and take it's time developing a scenario rather than rushing to completion. We're seeing it at something approaching the pace that the characters themselves are experiencing it and it helps develop an understanding of who they are and what they are about week by week. Put simply we get more of a chance to actually get to know our heroes.

I'm off work atm and binge watching Preacher. It's absolutely beautifully done and spends hours exploring the characters whilst still telling the story, getting laughs and maintaining the sense of fascinated horror at where it will go next. You learn to empathise with people whose actions could only make them the villain in another format. It just could not have been made twenty years ago and been such a close spiritual cousin to the graphic novels which inspired it and it's not alone. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, all of these companies have realised what they have in their hands and why it lends itself so readily to creating TV and films which go outside of the Hollywood box.

What has really come to our attention here is just how much the OT relied upon the novelty of it's special effects at the time, how much it was of it's time and how that format has reached a point where filmmakers either have to smarten up or dumb down. Where we disagree is in which way they have gone with the ST. I know you see it as the latter, whereas I see it as being marginally the former, still entertaining but lacking the context which could have made it great.

Very well said on all points! You actually expressed my point better than I could have and I appreciate that very much and yes even where we disagree. it's ok.. we are both fans

 

[Alan Roi]

It might not be the fault of star Wars, but the moment to moment excitement that built the originals (maybe) cannot be recaptured anymore.

The excitement can't be recaptured if the producers are compelled to directly remind the audiences of the originals with every single new film or TV show that comes out. Excitement most often comes from something new being created, not repetition of something old and familiar as that provokes nostalgia instead. Fact is, Star Wars was already falling into the nostalgia trap as early as Return of the Jedi.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Can you provide a few examples? I'm not an active film-watcher.

It wasn't my post, but my favorite film of the last decade.. bombed.. that would be Cloud Atlas. It was a genre/actor/ storytelling mindbender

 

[Alan Roi]

They have made it pretty clear they aren't interested in new things. Pretty much every time someone has tried to make a completely original genre movie, it has completely bombed.

Is there any such thing as a completely original genre movie? Almost every single genre movie I can think of is a patchwork of familiar tropes placed in a new setting in a slightly different configuration.

 

[Alan Roi]

It wasn't my post, but my favorite film of the last decade.. bombed.. that would be Cloud Atlas. It was a genre/actor/ storytelling mindbender

It was, though, a collection of stories which in and of themselves not particularly original. It was only the arrangement of these stories that was in any way remotely innovative. I will also admit that the race swapping of actors was something that is rarely attempted.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

It was, though, a collection of stories which in and of themselves not particularly original. It was only the arrangement of these stories that was in any way remotely innovative.

Yes, but not just the arrangement.. I'd say it's in the execution. SW felt huge, it was so well executed, from the incredible production design to the smallest effect. The storytelling itself was simple as well.. and people connected to this..

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Maybe people's expectations are too high?

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross/?ref_=bo_cso_ac

https://www.rapidtvnews.com/2019120...mes-the-most-in-demand-show-in-the-world.html

And if you take Star Wars out of the equation we just came off a massively huge run from Marvel Phase I. Look how huge Harry Potter movies AND books were not too long ago.

 

[Alan Roi]

Yes, but not just the arrangement.. I'd say it's in the execution. SW felt huge, it was so well executed, from the incredible production design to the smallest effect. The storytelling itself was simple as well.. and people connected to this..

I won't disagree. But, IMO, it took Star Wars all of 2 films to start repeating itself, and therin lies the problem. Most people can agree on the 2 best SW films, the first 2 ever made. There's little consensus on #3, and I see that as a problem.