|
Bongo Bill posted:Hi. Spoiling as little as possible, which cut of "Blade Runner" is the sequel to "Blade Runner" a sequel to, please? All of them I think
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Hi. Spoiling as little as possible, which cut of "Blade Runner" is the sequel to "Blade Runner" a sequel to, please? It fits best as a sequel to the Final Cut version IMO. That's also the best version of the original by a large margin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Lord of the Rings was way too long. It would have been much more palatable as an hour and a half romp through Middle Earth. Why can't you people see that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It fits best as a sequel to the Final Cut version IMO. That's also the best version of the original by a large margin. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It fits best as a sequel to the Final Cut version IMO. That's also the best version of the original by a large margin. A lot of the premise of 2049 is based on a sentence of dialogue that is only in the Theatrical cut
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Cacator posted:They explicitly spell it out for you earlier in the film though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:Lord of the Rings was way too long. It would have been much more palatable as an hour and a half romp through Middle Earth. Why can't you people see that? I can't stand the idea that a weakness of a film is your own inability to enjoy it. Seriously who cares about the run time? Rushing through a film can kill the atmosphere and hurt the story. You also need time to actually process what happens or else it's awkward as hell like "holy-poo poo-Han-Solo-murdered-holy-poo poo-lightsaber-fighting-holy-poo poo-there's-Luke-Skywalker-finally-end-credits ...wait, Han Solo was murdered by his son? What the gently caress? It certainly doesn't feel like it..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:They don't. They kind of do though. I wouldn't have said explicitly, but they do infer it heavily if you've been paying attention to the clues carefully enough. Unrelated: the set design for Wallace Corp's HQ was some of the coolest poo poo I've ever seen in my life. Simulated sunlight tracking across hallways and rooms as you move through them. I'd feel like a living God too if I had lighting like that. BarronsArtGallery posted:I can't stand the idea that a weakness of a film is your own inability to enjoy it. Seriously who cares about the run time? Rushing through a film can kill the atmosphere and hurt the story. I was just poking fun at people griping about the run-time. I liked the length of it and I wanted more, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:Lord of the Rings was way too long. It would have been much more palatable as an hour and a half romp through Middle Earth. Why can't you people see that? Ask the (wrong) kind of people about LOTR, and they'll tell you that poo poo that was (correctly) excised was important, like the Scouring Of The Shire or Tom Bombadill. Besides, who didn't have issue with the length of Return Of The King?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Give credit to MisterBibs, he's trying something new by mustering up an opinion while waiting for the real barometer of quality; the box office takings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
One thing I don't get about the new replicants (like K) ... why do they even bother giving them memories if all the new replicants know they're replicants and know their memories are fake?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:Give credit to MisterBibs, he's trying something new by mustering up an opinion while waiting for the real barometer of quality; the box office takings. I figured it'd be a bit gauche to point out that the powers that be were expecting a 45-50mil opening, and that it's looking like a barely-30mil opening. Wouldn't be surprised if the key lesson is "don't make a nearly 3 hour movie, especially if it's a sequel 35 years after the fact".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I figured it'd be a bit gauche to point out that the powers that be were expecting a 45-50mil opening, and that it's looking like a barely-30mil opening. Wouldn't be surprised if the key lesson is "don't make a nearly 3 hour movie, especially if it's a sequel 35 years after the fact". I'm sorry to be mean, but I was going to say that ever since Jurassic World became like the highest grossing movie of all time, I have fully divorced myself from giving a poo poo about box office sales as an infallible barometer for quality. That movie was hot garbage, just the worst example of how to cash in on nostalgia for something that was great. This movie is to me an example of how to do it right. ....and you have a Jurassic World avatar. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
IMB posted:One thing I don't get about the new replicants (like K) ... why do they even bother giving them memories if all the new replicants know they're replicants and know their memories are fake? Art itself is kind of a "fake memory" of events that did or didn't happen, but that doesn't mean they still can't cause people to feel things even if they know they aren't real, or didn't happen to us or whatever. I'd imagine it works similarly with the replicants of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I figured it'd be a bit gauche to point out that the powers that be were expecting a 45-50mil opening, and that it's looking like a barely-30mil opening. Wouldn't be surprised if the key lesson is "don't make a nearly 3 hour movie, especially if it's a sequel 35 years after the fact". Man you’re picking a weird hill to die on here. Please explain your lovely logic of how you think general audiences know or give a poo poo about a movies runtime and how that affects box office. Hint - they don’t and it doesn’t.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:They compare the fake memories in the movie to art. Man that's crazy to think about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Was a pretty good movie, alot more watchable than Blade Runner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:For me, the only weak spot of the original Blade Runner was Deckard and his relationship with Rachel. The Metropolis trope always rubs me the wrong way, and Blade Runner plays it to the hilt. (The problem is somewhat mitigated if Deckard is himself a replicant, but only somewhat.) 2049 also has a Metropolis love story with Joi, but I like that it seems to acknowledge the inherent misogyny of the trope. All of Joi's posters say stuff like "Made for you!" or "Everything you want to hear!", which is a little on the nose, but a far cry from the naive sincerity of the original. But there are layers to it beyond the posters. The first time we see Joi it's as a subservient housewife, and she has nothing but flattery for K. The sex scene is cool too. At first, it seems like a ham-fisted way to expand the theme of not recognizing reality. It's difficult to discern Joi's genuine affection for K from Mariette's professional detachment, even though they're doing pretty much the same thing. However, cutting to the Joi poster reminds us that Joi's love is just as artificial as Mariette's if not more so. I think the Joi subplot is one of the most genuinely dystopic aspects of the whole Blade Runner setting. It's pretty good, but I haven't seen Her, which probably covers similar territory. The closest is Luv and I was hoping that she would have some sort of break from her conditioning or some realization like Batty. I was kind of hoping that ending fight would have had K spare her on the verge of drowning, only for her to return the favor and spare both him and Deckard. Probably end with her reporting back to Wallace, lying about everything, and then cutting his throat mid-speech while he's monologuing. Regarding Joi, I'm still not quite sure if she was on the up-and-up. I know someone taking the whole scene with the billboard Joi talking to K was taking as K comparing her to his Joi, but I just thought that Joi was always plant or spy for Wallace, and the billboard incident was him realizing that he was always manipulated by Wallace. pospysyl posted:Speaking of Tyrell, Jared Leto pales in comparison to Joe Turkell, and Villenevue's insistence on shooting him like Dr. Claw is ridiculous. For all of Wallace's Biblical allusions and loquacious metaphors, he's really just a stock megalomaniac who wants more slaves to make more money so that he can achieve his vision of godhood. Tyrell, on the other hand, has this perverse love for his creations, wanting them to be as perfect as they can be even as he's condemned them to a life of servitude and despair. He has a grandiose vision that actually matters to the central characters of the movie, but despite his genius he's a venal creature. Wallace was disappointing to me, too. Tyrell obviously wants to be the god of biomechanics, perhaps even an immortal one, but, with Wallace, he could have been a head in a jar or a hologram dictating orders to Luv for as much as the film cares. Probably would be better if Luv reported to an Evangelion-style SEELE monoliths, glowing holographic text, or some abstract representation for really all that Wallace mattered. For pretty much the movie, Luv was the lead villain, not Wallace. Also, for all his talk of slavery, it would have been better if they had gone with the whole emulation of the Antebellum South from the book and have him speak with a Southern accent, dressed up like Colonel Sanders or DiCaprio from Django Unchained WMain00 posted:I'm quite sure he does because it's suppose to be in homage to Batty's death (I heard someone whisper in the audience "Time to die" and smiled a little) Oh yeah, it definitely is. He's literally crying in precipitation, tears in (frozen) rain. Although, the thing I was joking to myself about is that type of torso wound both takes a poo poo-long time to die from (thanks Reservoir Dogs) and has a good recovery rate given proper medical treatment. IMB posted:One thing I don't get about the new replicants (like K) ... why do they even bother giving them memories if all the new replicants know they're replicants and know their memories are fake? They have mental conditioning now. The four-year lifespan was removed for unexplained reasons and later product lines had the memory implants, which obviously didn't work since they still rebelled. The Nexus Dawn short has Wallace demonstrating this. It's why Luv sheds a tear when she kills someone or witnesses something like Wallace opening up the replicant, the conditioning is suppressing her emotions. It's also the whole point of the Baseline test, since it brings up a bunch of words that have an emotional context that has to be said rote and without effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
For all of the talk about length I actually thought it felt like it was about 2 hours long. When it was wrapping up I was like "huh I know this is 3 hours so there must be another 45 minutes left but it feels like it's pretty much over" Which to me makes it feel like the length was warranted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:A lot of the premise of 2049 is based on a sentence of dialogue that is only in the Theatrical cut Also, Theatrical Cut shows Deckard and Rachel clearly escaping by going to the Overlook, as well as the narration mentioning her non-limited life span (not that it matters). Both the Director's Cut and Final Cut ending on the elevator makes the whole thing ambiguous. You're not sure with those cuts if they get away or Gaff is waiting in the lobby ready to pop both of them. Thus, Theatrical Cut is canon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
[quote="“Steve Yun”" post="“477150640”"] A lot of the premise of 2049 is based on a sentence of dialogue that is only in the Theatrical cut [/quote] "Rachel is an experiment" is in final cut too
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:....and you have a Jurassic World avatar. gently caress. Someone gave it to me after talking in General about an in-theater commercial in which audience members can review movies. Jurassic World was the example the commercial used: the kids gave it five stars, the family gave it five stars, and old couple gave it five stars... and the guy-from-the-internet-we-only-stuck-here-for-balance person rated it two stars. We all know that guy who doesn't like a movie everyone else does because, fundamentally, everyone else does. Bottom Liner posted:Please explain your lovely logic of how you think general audiences know or give a poo poo about a movies runtime and how that affects box office. Normal people check how long a movie is before they go see it, as they have other things going on in their lives. Given that we know already that the movie isn't opening to expectations, and it's a nearly three hour movie, it's entirely reasonable to posit a connection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Citation needed Actually nevermind, your Jurassic World comments tell us all we need to know about your movie critique.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
In this movie's defense - not that it needs it really - I have been reading that theater attendance is way, way down in the USA over the past few years. It's not necessarily this movie specifically, it's all movies. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-2017-alien-king-arthur-blues-guardians-galaxy-revenue-down-2016-1006020 It's down 10% this year, and was already at a 19 year low in 2015. So no, I don't see it as being a huge correlation to this movie's run-time. It's a symptom of cord-cutting culture and the theater experience generally being total poo poo for most folks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
It was a pretty long movie but nothing really felt that boring, except for the first time he goes to his apartment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:In this movie's defense - not that it needs it really - I have been reading that theater attendance is way, way down in the USA over the past few years. It's not necessarily this movie specifically, it's all movies. I'm going to admit, this and Guardians Vol. 2 was the only movies I saw this year. I was a bit concerned with BR2049 because of the 3 hour runtime, but my mosquito's bladder held for the entire length. It was long, but it wasn't boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
This is the first long blockbuster I've seen in eons that actually feels long to suit the tone and pace, and not to just cram as much poo poo as possible into it. Remember like 6 years ago every summer movie was like 3 hours long and they were all huge piles of poo poo? I'll take Blade runner any day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Given the prevalence of "binge watching" television shows I'm not sure if a nearly 3 hour running time is really that much of a detriment to people when they'll also watch an entire Breaking Bad season in a day or whatever.Young Freud posted:I'm going to admit, this and Guardians Vol. 2 was the only movies I saw this year. I was a bit concerned with BR2049 because of the 3 hour runtime, but my mosquito's bladder held for the entire length. It was long, but it wasn't boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Remember like 6 years ago every summer movie was like 3 hours long and they were all huge piles of poo poo? I'll take Blade runner any day. What movies? Or is this just some hasty generalization? Scary movie ain't no 3 hours long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:What movies? Or is this just some hasty generalization? Scary movie ain't no 3 hours long. I'm talking summer epic kind of movies. There was certainly a stretch after Braveheart and then again after Lord of the Rings where a lot of movies were really drat long and mostly devoid of substance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:I think we're arriving at the conclusion that going to see a film high on substances might be fun because of the sensory experience, but you probably won't understand a lot of poo poo presented in the film, even on a basic level. I intentionally saw the film stone cold sober the first time so I could follow everything with the expectation that I'd see it again stoned as gently caress just to soak in the ambiance. AwkwardKnob posted:They kind of do though. I wouldn't have said explicitly, but they do infer it heavily if you've been paying attention to the clues carefully enough. I figured flashbacks revealing all the clues they laid out and then showing you it was the girl all along was pretty explicit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:I'm talking summer epic kind of movies. There was certainly a stretch after Braveheart and then again after Lord of the Rings where a lot of movies were really drat long and mostly devoid of substance. So 6 years ago braveheart came out? LOTR/Hobbit came out in December. Mmm Denny's Hobbit menu. I don't recall any summer movie being over 3 hours long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Basically just Peter Jackson movies
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Basically just Peter Jackson movies They didn't come out during the summer though. LOTR is one hell of a 'summer epic kind of movie'. I thought it would make more sense if the sexbot K sexes up, is the child, her bangs were the same as Rachael. Why would the rebel leader hide the child in some hamster ball? She's out making her work her womb. The memory gal did say that she was one of places that make memories for the robots. Would kinda make sense if all the rebellion robots all thought they were Rachael's child too. Its kinda creepy. They are raising an army of Snakes. Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:They didn't come out during the summer though. LOTR is one hell of a 'summer epic kind of movie'. Probably would be just too obvious to have a skinjob prostitute getting pregnant. I would consider that the memorymaker basically inserting bits of her intellectual/psychological self into nearly every production line replicant to be a more satisfying way to demonstrate the non-biological aspects of parenthood and child development, anyway. The irony is that they give her a fully functional womb that she doesn't even need, to still become almost literally parent to every single one of them. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:So 6 years ago braveheart came out? LOTR/Hobbit came out in December. Mmm Denny's Hobbit menu. I don't recall any summer movie being over 3 hours long. Your nit picking stuff that wasn't even my point. This forum is so loving stupid sometimes. Here's a list of a bunch of long rear end big hollywood movies that all came out in the 2ks and that's only a fraction of them. A lot of them got really long for a while. https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/the-hobbit-desolation-of-smaug-box-office?utm_term=.gmqqgXv3W#.ntLKqo0ND veni veni veni fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
I don't know when 2 hours and 40 minutes become "too long" for a movie. Like somebody said, it feels like yesterday that every other "big" blockbuster was 2:30, pushing 3 hours. The Pirates sequels were like 2 hours and 50. Dark Knight was like 2 and a half hours. Independence Day, Titanic, all the loving Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Heat, Godfather, Interstellar, Django, Gladiator, Inception, etc. Now it seems like critics think a movie is pushing it at 2 hours and 10, tops. I don't get it. Like, if you're not a movie person that's cool, stay home and watch a TV show if following a single storyline for that long wears on you. The movie is the length it is, there's not a wasted scene or shot in there that doesn't service the plot, characters, world, or visuals in some way. Scenes shouldn't just be cut because you can, there's not any inherent value in a shorter movie besides servicing your attention span or individual lack of interest in the movie. The length hurting the box office thing doesn't hold much water, like I said there's a mountain of examples that runtime doesn't mean a lot to box office draw. It's definitely not a dealbreaker, anyway. Blade Runner isn't doing good numbers because there's anything wrong with it as a movie (a given, since word of mouth is overwhelmingly positive and people don't decide they're not going to see a movie because they thought the replicant rebellion subplot they don't know about was unnecessary), it's because it's loving Blade Runner. It's a follow-up to a niche movie that doesn't hold much weight branding wise for the vast majority of people. And like it's predecessor it's tricky to market because weird cyberpunk retro-futurism noir is not and has never been a huge draw for the general public. They obviously tried to sell it as an action film, but weird cyberpunk retro-futurism action flick isn't a huge draw either. Ironically, there's probably a much bigger audience for that with the prestige TV crowd these days, if Westworld is any indication. And while people love Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, people don't really turn out in blockbuster numbers for movie stars anymore. The studio had to know all this going in, it's not like it's a big secret that Blade Runner is a cult classic that your average person hasn't heard of, it's like the whole Thing about that movie. If somebody thought they had a big franchise on their hands here they were nuts Mandrel fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:Probably would be just too obvious to have a skinjob prostitute getting pregnant. The implication is that she's implanting some of her own memories as a way to guide replicants to independence. Remember when the hooker recognized the horse?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
What would be their goal though? To make new robots in a factory that can breed or do some kind of upgrade on the other older models? It's like they are almost just doing the same thing the evil corporation Wallace guy is trying to do. At least hes trying to push humanity to the stars. The rebels are trying to pull a skynet on humanity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Mandrel posted:I don't know when 2 hours and 40 minutes become "too long" for a movie. Like somebody said, it feels like yesterday that every other "big" blockbuster was 2:30, pushing 3 hours. The Pirates sequels were like 2 hours and 50. Dark Knight was like 2 and a half hours. Independence Day, Titanic, all the loving Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Heat, Godfather, Interstellar, Django, Gladiator, Inception, etc. The original Blade Runner is not even 2 hours long, and accomplishes a lot more in its runtime than this film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:16
|
|
