|
This will either be Mad Max: Fury Road levels of good or disappointing poo poo. Nothing in between. I will say something felt off from the trailer to me.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Bar Crow posted:That's how these things should ideally work. If you trade off the name of an existing work then you should be able to live up to the expectations. This includes improvements and refinements because otherwise it's just the same thing but less original. This is very accurate.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
I thought Deckard was a Replicant, why is hr old now?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
atrus50 posted:Someone reedited the trailer to not be as bad https://youtu.be/F2-735VnH_Y I feel it lacks a punch, but it certainly feels far more Blade Runner than the official trailer does.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:It's background, background, background, pretty shot, background. Non-stop "See! We get Blade Runner! We also did the big hologram thing from Ghost in the Shell! See!" but it's all background direction. Meanwhile nothing in the foreground is happening of much interest. So like Blade Runner?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Like tears... In rain...
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Finally managed to see this film. I am pretty disappointed. It could be viewed as a poster child of why you don't let your director go wild. While the first Blade Runner suffered from studio interference, 2049 in contrast suffered from the studio being too lenient. The main problem with the film is that it is so loving long. I was asking "when will this end?" halfway through its runtime. Don't get me wrong, there is a benefit to a long run time, as the film managed to do some fantastic world building. However, world building can only keep one's interest for so long. Each scene went on for twice as long as it had to. On top of that, many scenes weren't really needed. I mean it became very obvious that the main character was the child early on, okay they really weren't and that was the twist, but still... why drag on the film to build up something that the audience already knows? That being said, the film wasn't all bad. The world building was excellent. It was well casted. The special effects are great. I loved all the winks and nudges to the original. And on paper, the story seemed good. However, the film is too ambitious for its own good. Blade Runner didn't become a cult classic solely due to its world building, but that it is a good movie on its own. Blade Runner 2049, focused far too much on setting aside time to build an intricate world, even if the pacing and punch of the story suffer. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
I'm surprised that I am the only person disappointed with the film. Everyone on here and the critics seemed to really enjoy it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
One good thing I will say about the film is that the end climax was very well done. I didn't expect a cheapening out of being at ocean's edge in the dark to be satisfying but the way it was shot and paced it totally was.SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well yeah; Wyoming is right. Discussion of Joi (her personhood, her consciousness, etc.) is disconnected from basically everything else that happens in the film. And this is because she overwhelms everything else, which points to a certain failure in the narrative. Nobody gives a poo poo about the family drama of Stelline, Rachel, Joseph and Deckard. There’s nothing interesting about them. Joi, on the other hand, sticks out because she doesn’t make sense - she’s an alien intrusion from an entirely different film, the MC Skat Kat to Gosling’s Paula Abdul... This is very true, and actually something I overlooked.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Cacator posted:Featurette on the minature work: God drat practical effects are so amazing. Weta is the best there ever was.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 06:43
|
|