Bladerunner 2

[polishgenius]

@Leap Wrong topic this ain't the spoiler thread!

[Werthead]

Very much worth watching: On the Edge of Blade Runner.

UK film critic Mark Kermode produced this documentary back in 2000 with extensive interviews with the film's writers and actors (but not Sean Young or Harrison Ford, who was still apparently too annoyed to talk about the film at that point) about the film, the Dick novel and the film's impact after the Director's Cut came out.

[Martini Sigil]

Also....

Spoiler

 

 

[Фейсал]

This movie was tailor made for me. Utter perfection - still thinking about it to this moment.

[ants]

It's brilliant. 

[AncalagonTheBlack]

Rotten Tomatoes Couldn't Prevent Box Office Disaster For 'Blade Runner 2049'

Quote

Because the film cost so much to produce, at least $155 million via Alcon Entertainment and Sony, even a best-case scenario performance after its underwhelming opening weekend would still require an overseas rescue.

If it needs to be said, the domestic failure of Blade Runner 2049 (which, to be fair, would be a modest win had it cost $85 million instead of $155m) is another blow to the notion that Rotten Tomatoes is anything more than one factor among many in terms of audiences choosing what to see

But if it isn’t something that consumers want to see, if it (for example) is a 2.75-hour, R-rated, slow burn sci-fi drama that is also a sequel to a sci-fi cult flop from 35 years ago, then all the rave reviews in the world aren’t going to save it. Blade Runner 2049 isn’t Mad Max: Fury Road because it wasn’t an astonishing action spectacle with an unexpected feminist twist. It isn’t Tron: Legacy because it’s not a PG-rated, kid-friendly sci-fi actioner released by Walt Disney right during the Christmas season.

 

[Werthead]

8 hours ago, AncalagonTheBlack said:

Rotten Tomatoes Couldn't Prevent Box Office Disaster For 'Blade Runner 2049'

 

As he points out, the film did a fair bit better over 5 days than many of the films it was being ranked against, but it's still underperforming. It's just underperforming a bit rather than apocalyptically bad.

The overseas figures seem to be encouraging, especially given that it still hasn't opened in a number of markets, and it's another two weeks until Thor Ragnarok comes out, with nothing inbetween really worth seeing. So it could have a little bit of a longer tail than first expected and I actually expect the home release and streaming to be very healthy indeed.

I do strongly suspect that we won't see Blade Runner 2055 (or whatever) in the cinema. If this universe continues further, I suspect it will be on TV (especially if Altered Carbon does well).

[Фейсал]

there shouldn't be a sequel at all. i want more of the world since it's so compelling but it's perfect as is

[Calibandar]

On 10/8/2017 at 10:20 PM, polishgenius said:

I do wonder if its so far failure has anything to do with audiences feeling they've had too much of this sort of premise. I mean, I'd have thought that coming shortly after Westworld and Ghost in the Shell (as averagely recieved as the remake was) would have softened the ground, it's hardly saturation, but maybe it's done the opposite for what is a theme that necessiates some fairly highbrow storytelling.

One thing I noticed from some who have seen it is that there is more and more dislike of how the future is presented as dystopia. It's grainy, dark, the weather is fucked up, there are Tokyo style neon light and giant artificial women in the cities, you know the drill. Some people just get tired of that, and Ghost in the Shell had that in much the same way earlier in the year.

Didn't bother me personally. I thought this film was overlong and it never managed to actually stir excitement in me, but it was well made and I enjoyed watching it.