Blade Runner 2049 Flops

The movie looks cheap

OP, speak for yourself.

I love Ryan but I don't think that he was the right choice for this role. Of course, it's likely that any better choices were already snapped up for all of those comic book movies being cranked out.

[QUOTE]OP, speak for yourself.

I will continue to speak for everyone, thank you very much.

I really think it was just the length of the movie. No one wanted to sit through a near 3-hour story, no matter how good the reviews. I'm sure most saw the running time and said "Eh, I'll just wait for it on cable."

It's funny how Gosling seems to have carved out an industry-wide reputation for being THE definitive blank-faced actor.

Harrison Ford apparently suggested Gosling as a fitting casting option for a human-like robot - and the studio ironically replied with smthg like: "Well, DUH. Already in casting talks with him".

I like Ryan Gosling but I don't like sci-fi. I never have.

The reviews weren’t good R5. Several said it was the sequel no one asked for. I like Villeneuve, but there was no reason for this.

But let's be real, folks: This movie tanking is not going to hurt Ryan Gosling's career. He's white, male, and Hollywood's idea of handsome, which means he's going to get many, many more chances to prove he's not really a box-office attraction.

I don't know why Hollywood is hellbent on trying to make this plain looking minimally talented man a star.

You are very wrong r8, the reviews for this were great.

It is a very sad to see this flop.

Movies like this flopping are why we are constantly bombarded with comic book properties. Try to give the public something different, and even when it is highly acclaimed, they might ignore it.

Gosling is so fake-charismatic. His awful SNL hosting stints show it. His acting, his charm. It's all posturing bullshit. I actually think he's probably a genuinely kind person but he's not smart at all.

R11 "Try to give the public something different, and even when it is highly acclaimed, they might ignore it."

You seriously just said this about a yet another film whose subject matter is humans vs. lifelike robots which is ALSO a sequel to a 35 year old film that also didn't do well at the box office?

R9 is right. He'll have many opportunities to prove again and again he cannot open a movie. I find him overrated in looks and acting skill

Pretty much every other movie released these days could be subtitled "The Sequel No One Asked For"

Who the fuck goes to a movie anymore just because so-and-so is in it? Those days are long gone, friend. There are no real stars in today's Hollywood.

People only like Gosling in his rom-com roles. That's how he got his career back on track after a slump a few years ago. He seemed to finally accept that he's a limited actor who's main asset is his charm. He's really a Clooney/Cary Grant type (admittedly nowhere near as charismatic/charming but a bit better in dramatic acting than them), not a chameleon-Auteur type. Going back to this blank-faced shit in this movie was stupid.

Gosling killed this movie dead.

He sucks and is so over.

It's a stunning movie. Denis Villeneuve is terrific with noir and visual tension.

Yeah, it could be shorter. If you have the patience though it's worth it.

In a weird way Gosling works well as an android. Leto is incoherent but creepy AF. His Dutch sidekick is terrifying.

Very thoroughly researched - feels extremely connected to the present. Slum megacities with 50 million people, profound income inequality, haphazard solutions to rising oceans, etc.

It should be pointed out that the original tanked at the box office as well.

That's all I've got.

But he SAVED JAZZ!

the original looked like a million bucks. This one looks like straight to netflix quality.

Isn't he about to play (well attempt to) Neil Armstrong? LOL.

35 million is a flop? Yeah I know it cost a lot BUT the original was a cult film to begin with. Did the studio do the market research for Gosling as star? He is an absolute snooze test.

This was a huge movie (budget 155 mil), that they were counting on being a blockbuster hit.

Alcon Entertainment put all their chips into this basket, this is a disaster for them.

The trailers were terrible. I wasn't around for the original and the trailers didn't pique my interest at all. I will check it out, though, because the reviews were generally very good.

I don't think gosling gives two shits about being in massive box office hits. He has carved himself a career making interesting movies that would never huge box office hits. I'm sure he could make a bunch of romcoms or uninspired action flicks that would make money but he is choosing to make something he finds artistically fulfilling. Similar to what Jake Gyllenhaal has been doing. I haven't seen it yet but denis Villeneuve is one of the best directors out there right now consistently delivering quality, but rarely mainstream movies. Sometimes art is about making something you are proud of and not just something that makes tonnes of money.

Ryan was not the right choice for this film.

It'll do well overseas. I too don't understand the the adulation for Gosling, or the other Ryan (Reynolds). But if you're pretty, you get all the chances and redos you need in life.

When did Gosling earn his movie stardom? I feel like Hollywood just assumes people want to see someone likes him, his acting sucks.

Did Gosling have to blow Weinstein?

I loved the original, but hate Gosling and Leto and Arquette. I would only consider seeing this if the sets and the score are worth it,

I haven’t been to the movies in years because they’re crap. Will this flick infuriate me if I spend the money to see it?

If you liked the original, R31, there's a good chance you'll be bored by this sequel. It looks similar stylistically, but feels hollow inside. Content-wise, it doesn't add anything special to the original's message.

The score was more or less fitting, but I didn't notice much of it, so can't comment.

The sets (mostly CGI) look beautiful, but also feel empty compared to the original. The original film had a bustling, interesting, palpable, inhabited world - even if very dystopian. The sequel mostly has frame after frame of desolate cityscapes and farms - as if no one else inhabits this world besides the handful of main & 2ndary characters. Even for a post-apocalyptic world, it still feels too unrealistically empty, and therefore a bit boring.

When people talk about who else would've worked in the lead role instead of Gosling, I realize this is a really off-the-wall choice but I wonder had they gone with a woman -- specifically, Tilda Swinton -- in the lead, how that would've affected the film both quality and box office-wise. Certainly would've made it a more must-see for me.

Thanks, r32.

Think I’ll pass then.

He needs to do full frontal.

He's shown a huge bulge in underwear and a love scene.

I agree OP, Gosling is not that great and he proved it last week on SNL. It's like they keep telling us somebody is attractive until the public starts believing it, but I've always thought he was below average looks wise.

Well, if it's any consolation, the wildly over-rated original flopped as well.

Hopefully this is the end for him with these kind of movies. It was right up my alley, and I absolutely adore Villeneuve. But I can’t fucking stand Gosling. Go back to your stupid romcoms so I don’t have to worry about seeing you in films.

Gosling had always looked like a product of incest. Wonky ass face.

Yes the nose job didn't really help much.

Who would have been good to cast in this movie instead?

I don’t care for Gosling.

His nose is thin. His eyes are too close together. His body is ordinary. I don't think I've ever actually sat through any of this kid's product.

Hollywood will never stop trying to create film franchises out of "brand" titles like BR.

I wouldn't be surprised if they try another sequel in a few years.

The only sequels I'm looking forward to is Avatar.

Would this be worth seeing as a late nite popcorn flick?

I really just want some popcorn and to not have riff-raff in the theater for once.

The original BR was one of my favorite movies, and I realize this will be shit.

It is is so shit that I will be angry about wasting the $18.00? I’m considering a 10:45 pm showing tonight.

go! it's very good and Gosling is great in it.

Ok, I think I will, r46.

I will keep my expectations low and get extra butter on my popcorn.

International sales are not saving the day for this movie either. More fanboy grasping. Why was the budget sky high? It should have been $60 million, tops.

I thnk Gosling is as good an actor as anyone who makes movies. But I just think actors have gotten away from acting in real dramas with real stories, not fantasy stuff/super human/sci fi stuff. I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan and have thought that his doing copy cat Mission Impossibles and end of the world/futuristic stuff. Tonight I saw American Made and I really liked it. I thought he was very good. The character was based on a true person involved in drug/gun running in the Iran -Contra era. The film is almost like a comedy...his character was a wild and adventurous sort. To me roles like that are the kind a Gosling should play.

Trying not to include spoilers...

The idea behind the main conflict in the movie seemed to arrive very late. I was pretty bored by then. And even after I found out why we were watching this story, I kind of didn't care. If I had cared about the plight of the replicants, that might have made a difference. If I hadn't been left wondering in disbelief, "okay, so why did this miracle only happen to just that one pair of replicants?" I did like the original, which I saw when the director's cut came out. I think they should have left this one as a standalone.

As much as I love the original Blade Runner, I just don't think it was screaming for a sequel. People have grown to love the original over the years but I think people love it as a standalone film.

I still want to see this but I don't think the demand was there. Gosling is simply no Ford.

I wish they would re-release the original on the big screen.

I’d pay a $50 ticket price to see it.

I mean re-release the Final Cut version.

I'm shocked by some of the negative comments about Gosling in this thread.

A) He's undeniably hot as fuck. Honestly, they don't make them hotter. How anyone could say otherwise make me think it is a troll post.

B) He truly is one of the better actors or his generation and often picks interesting projects. Can those speaking ill of him actually say they didn't like Half Nelson? Lars and the Real Girl? Blue Valentine? The Place Beyond the Pines? Drive? Only God Forgives?

Hello, it's Hedda here.

I'm the one who was making negative comments about Gosling back in [42].

I can see that he's really ultra-groomed now and he's beefed up a bit but he did look like a goose-faced drooby dweeb when he was younger.

I can't comment on his thespian abilities because I can't remember sitting through any of the stuff he appeared in. (I will watch La-la-Land later)

[QUOTE]He's undeniably hot as fuck.

Allow me to deny it. He’s bland as fuck. Nothing about him screams hot, just regular. His face looks like a shoehorn.

Thank you, OP, I agree with you 100%. When I heard there was going to be an update on Blade Runner, I was ecstatic......until I heard RG was starring. Blech. Now that I'm on MoviePass, I will probably go see it, but otherwise I wouldn't. He just doesn't register as a leading man (or anything) to me.

Does anyone know gosling's fee for this movie?

[quote]A) He's undeniably hot as fuck. Honestly, they don't make them hotter. How anyone could say otherwise make me think it is a troll post.

Well you’ve revealed your standards r54. Enjoy your brooding, cross-eyed, shoehorn-faced goose.

[56] "His face looks like a shoehorn"

Yes, it is rather concave. But Keira Knightley is worse— hers looks like a spade

Keira is in Blade Runner 2049?

Pay attention to Hedda!

We're taking about concave faces. Not this remake which seems to be bombing at the box office.

Agree with R54, Gosling is one of the better actors working today. He has far more range than most actors under 40, plus great comic timing..

I also think he's hot as hell but it's not the looks, it's the sexy vibes he gives off. I read People Magazine asked him several times to be the SMA but he's always turned it down. The one physical flaw, IMO, is his odd-looking flat head so he looks far better when his hair is longer.

I get really pissed off that there's always sequel after sequel when something makes money. I get that while you're on a good thing, stick to it & all that...

But 99% of the time they're lame and don't do that well - and you know there are so many great books out there that'd make wonderful movies or series - and sure there are planet of great original scripts too! - but no. Zero creativity or risk. Let's just make another sequel... blah!

You whores are a pack of lying bitches. If Ryan Gosling climbed into your bed naked, you'd all have an epileptic seizure. A Grand Maul seizure in fact.

Gosling is good, always has been

it's an excellent film, quite beautiful. I really enjoyed it!

[QUOTE]You whores are a pack of lying bitches. If Ryan Gosling climbed into your bed naked, you'd all have an epileptic seizure.

If he climbed into my bed nude, I’d strangle him to death and use the gay panic defense in court just to rid the world of Ryan Gosling.

The movie looks dreadful. But the first Blade Runner was dreadful. I hate that sci-fi shit.

I think most of the people putting the movie down have not seen it. My brother just saw it and he said it was awesome. It is one of those movies that will get more box office from word of mouth and the good reviews. I was going to see it with friends but we changed our minds when we learned it was almost 3 hours long and we had things to do.

r71 just confirms what r5 said. The length is a turn-off. When you have to sit through 10 minutes of commercials and then almost 15 minutes of previews, plus the film itself, that's a lot of time.

Gosling is the modern day Alan Ladd

It’s great — I just saw it!

Best direction, cinematography, score, art direction and costumes all year!

I just came from the theater.

THIS MOVIE SUCKS SO BAD, I CANNOT BELIEVE IT.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you love the original, as I do, you will HATE this piece of crap!!!!!!!

I’m so pissed, I can’t even write up a detailed review yet, but all the complaints above are 100% valid.

I love long movies, so that was not this issue. This shit piece is an empty husk. It can’t even lick the boots of the original.

I can't believe that they expected this to be a massive hit.

I haven't been to the cinema in years, but made the effort with this because Blade Runner is my all-time favorite film.

2049 is a wonderful piece of cinema that is breathtakingly beautiful, but it takes its own time with its very deliberate - but never boring - pacing. This is not a film for everyone but i was really impressed and think it's a worthy, and legitimate, companion piece to the original.

R77, I too haven’t been to the movies in years p, but made the effort to go because I loved the original so much.

And I could not disagree more with your assessment of this “film.”

It was utter shit. But I will enumerate my reasons tomorrow after I have composed myself.

The movie was great, though overlong. Gosling was great, too. He's had me ever since "Drive." Kinda kept to the same lane in this performance.

They could've saved some runtime and a lot of my patience had they just cut Jared Leto from the film.

Gosling should have been paid 75 cents for his absolutely horrific performance.

Who keeps hiring this asshole???

I just saw this movie. It is pretty but lifeless. The last third of the movie is very good but the first two thirds is slowwwwwwwwww.......

Gosling is so lifeless here, his voice and his eyes communicate nothing. It's just too dull. And the film is paced so slowly. It's beautiful to look at though. And finally perks up a bit when Harrison Ford shows up.

This should have been a Netflix movie.

It’s that shitty.

I’m watching the original as I type just to wipe the shitfest I just saw from my mind.

It was the most generic of sci-fi movies.

Who’s the asshole who thought this had anything to do with the glorious original??

Did Stallone direct this or something??

And where was the music/score?!

Answer: THERE WAS NONE. ZERO.

Hi, Gays!

It’s me, Canadian thespian Ryan Gosling!

////

They have been promoting the shit out of this movie, I see the ads everywhere! and they show a lot in the preview. I had a feeling it was gonna be crap.

I don't like Gosling. La La Land has been showing on cable, it was shit. I didn't even watch the whole thing. of course I didn't waste 20 in the theater either.

It’s bad.

Really, really bad.

The problem with Ryan's acting is that you can see him acting.

I guess I'm one of the few that enjoyed the film. The story was a bit thin and Jared Leto needs to be physically restrained from acting ever again, but otherwise the visuals, sound and world building were excellent.

For such an expensive movie, they *really* cheaped out on the sets.

The sets and props were so complex in the original. Every little corner had pieces of stuff that made it all seem real. the detail in the original was incredible.

The new one looks like it was filmed on a amateur hour sound stage, aside from the CGI.

Arquette was absolutely dreadful. She played her role EXACTLY as she plays her lame character on House of Cards (which I was forced to sit through a few times).

She totally sucks.

Leto? Horrific.

And the dialogue in the whole thing is some of the worst and cheesiest I’ve ever heard. A character kicks Gosling and then says (CSI style) “Bad dog.”

Literally the only character that was the slightest bit authentic and not total bad cliche cardboard was a 2 minute scene with a Somali two-bit black-market type (not the guy with the kids in the stupid sweatshop).

He was the actor that starred in the movie about African pirates a few years ago.

His scene and the flashbacks to the original movie really threw the awfulness of this flick into ultra high relief.

The world building was total shit.

Whoever upthread said none of these characters had any believable motivations was right on the money.

R88 Thats so Nicole Kidman

The film was slow but that wasn't a problem. I don't mind films that take their time. The story was alright but not as intricate and high concept as the reviews made out. I think I've been spoilt by seeing too many good sci fi tv shows dealing with the same topic and attending too many sci fi film festivals showing excellent films that never made it to release.

I was interested to see the almost total lack of black characters. There was one prostitute and a couple of black background extras I spotted as well as the black-market type guy and the guy with the kids. There were no Hispanic characters in future LA. I could only assume they all managed to afford to move offworld. Generally the film lacked the sense of teeming city life that the original had.

I was disappointed at the lack of male flesh on display. We didn't even see the glimpse of a bicep. Again, this is not a problem (I don't watch sci fi films for nudity) except that, as usual, female bodies were on display everywhere. The nipple count was impressively high. There was a precious scene where we passed among giant naked toppled female statues complete with nipples and high heels. I can accept it's the commodification of sexuality in that dystopian world etc etc, but why didn't the same apply to male bodies and men? After all it's happening in 2017 in advertising and so on. I'm asking why but of course we know...the fanboy market.

There was a layer of complexity to the female love interest that I wished they'd made more of. As it was she was bland and dull and I could only infer it. They could have done more with her conceptually.

Ryan's eyes are too close together. he looks too much like a rodent. I'm not interested in watching him in a movie.

He's not a good actor

Yeah, the female love interest thing was so stupidly done.

And could they have picked a less generic looking bitch for that role?

Christ, whoever made this film has no style or taste, at least in this movie. It’s such a flyover piece of shit.

You could replace ALL OF THE CHARACTERS with literally anyone else, and no one would miss them.

Whereas in the original, every single character, even the very minor ones, was real and memorable and really integral to the verisimilitude and style of the film.

I’m serious when I say the Asian counterman selling Deckard noodles for 2 seconds in the beginning of the first film was more memorable than all the characters in the sequel put together.

I said characters but i meant actors/characters.

- r98 and r99

Found this article which sums up my problems with the film pretty neatly

It was extremely myopic, unlike the first which dealt with meaningful themes and actually made you think.

Ultimately it’s a trite, cheap, generic, and tacky movie with nothing to say.

Blade Runner 2049

89% Rotten Tomatoes

4.3 Letterboxd

Budgett$150–185 million

Box officet$81.7 million

It’s shit.

Critics will praise any old dung pile these days, and I don’t even want to discuss the infantile tastes of the viewing public at large.

'Blade Runner 2049' Star Jared Leto's Method Acting Won't Change — No Matter How Many Times You Meme It

R107 I agree

The original had real noir style.

This one is just paint-by-number sci-fi trash.

Horrible and instantly forgettable.

Jared Leto should be run out of town on a rail.

What a doofus. It was like seeing Tom Hiddleston play his part in this movie.

Cringeworthy and just plain bad.

Just look at the picture at R101 and compare it to the hooker costumes in the original.

The sequel looks like they just came from a bar in Ohio.

Apparently Variety loves this piece of generic trash. But the critics today are absolutely amateur hour.

These guys are a bit nerdy, but their video review enumerates many of the reasons why this movie is such a shitpile.

There was no music at all in this movie, which was stupid since itt was so iconic in the first one.

There wasn’t even any ambient scene-setting music. Bizarre and one of many mistakes that kills the flick.

I agree R26. Casey Affleck is another that doesn't seem to be bothered about making hits.maybe that's just as well given recent PR, but it's good to see actors going for the quality stuff.

R115, a soundtrack has been released. Hans Zimmer and Ben Wallfisch are credited.

I don’t see what it could possibly have on it, r117.

But Zimmer always puts out utter shit, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

LOL if you ignore the poster who hates the movie (R114 among others), half the thread disappears

Point taken.

However, it does suck.

Carry on...

[quote]There were no Hispanic characters in future LA. I could only assume they all managed to afford to move offworld.

This always make me laugh when I watch futuristic films. Hollywood really does exist in a bubble.

What’s amusing about the “hater” is that every one of his criticisms applies to the first feature. The first feature was a clichéd detective story. The first one had weakly drawn characters. The first one had parts that looked cheap (the notorious double-duty YUKON and NUYOK sign, itself a scrap of the production of Franic Ford Coppola’s Las Vegas set from One From the Heart)

He only likes the first one out of nostalgia, and not because of its themes, which the sequel enriches.

Can't stand him. Hated La La Land. won't bother with this one.

I'm still going to get baked and see it.

[quote]There was no music at all in this movie, which was stupid since itt was so iconic in the first one.

That's not even remotely true.

$30 million isn't really a flop.

It absolutely is on a $150 million budgeted movie with another $100 mil for PR.

This movie will lose over $100 million for its financiers, Alcon Entertainment.

That Bustle piece with the all caps editorial inserts was bizarre.

Ryan Gosling is the weak link in this film he has the staring role but doesn't have the chops to carry the film. The film is lifeless until Harrison Ford appears. The love scene was a joke Gosling doesn't have the sex appeal or the face/body for a love scene which is why he never takes off his shirt, they shoot him in dim light with his t-shirt on. I saw him on a talk show with Harrison Ford promoting the film. He let HF do all the talking while he sat there with a dumb grin on his face. I don't understand why producers keep pushing him. He's had his chances to breakout in a few films and he was the one to drag the films down.

According to Entertainment Weekly this movie is Gosling's biggest film opening. He's just not a star. Wonder how he keeps being promoted as one.

R133 He probably can take a hard pounding.

R41 Who would have been good to cast in this movie instead?

Toby Kebbell

Toby would’ve been great.

The casting was appropriate, the leading character is supposed to be a robot so they cast a real robot to plays the lead.

I thought it was mesmerizing. It also has some strong ideas in its head. But it's probably too smart and stylish for Trump nation and the basic gays on this thread who prefer Marvel Entertainment.

Is Blade Runner 2049 a sexist film – or a fair depiction of a dystopic future?

the reason the movie flopped is that it's so slow and is THREE HOURS long. Nobody needs that.

Interesting that people believe most of the sets were CG as they shot in Budapest in order to afford the massive practical sets that Denis Villeneuve wanted for the film. Many of the cityscapes were also large miniatures, not CGI. Say what you want about the look but this is most definitely not another CGI/greenscreen film. The Vegas sets alone should win the film an oscar for art direction...

Well, I liked it a lot. I tought it was mesmerizing and intelligent. They didn't have to spell out everything for the audience. I liked the melancholy it leaves us with. I never liked Gosling, but I cared for his character. Such loneliness.

However, since it is slow paced, I understand, people could get bored if they expected an action movie. It is not. It is a reflection. Since, it is very contemplative, I was happy to see it on the big screen and take the time to explore the universe, let the details sink in.

I agree that for all the female nudity we didn't get to see male bodies, not even as a statue. And I didn't care that much for Leto's villain. But I don't blame the actor.

Poor Denis, though, after being lauded by the critics for weeks and being listed as a real threat for the Oscars, he falls flat from high. I feel bad for him.

R12 BINGO!!! You hit it. He's been that way since MMC.

It was very bland.

I felt the same way about Villneuve's last film, the one with Amy Adams. Utterly lifeless. There is no pacing, no sense of drama. It drags. Beautiful to look at though.

Not a huge fan here either but you can't be serious that he's got a lousy body

Harrison Ford is hardly Olivier, but he brought such charm to the original.

Sadly Gosling brought nothing. He was a huge vacuum at the center of the movie. I watched them back to back, and Gosling was just dreadful and amateurish. Not very masculine either.

I think Gosling is hot as hell. For anyone who actually saw it, I really want to get stoned before hand. I was baked before Arrival and I loved it even though the ending lost me, but what do you want from me? I was baked!

R146, his body looks lousy to me. He has the shoulders of a teenage boy. No traps at all. Looks like his Hollywood personal trainer prescribed a dose of ab crunches and salad eating with nothing for upper muscular development.

This is what he could’ve easily achieved with his time, a natural looking but fuller physique that matches Ryan’s build:

[quote]Try to give the public something different, and even when it is highly acclaimed, they might ignore it.

R9 - this isn't something "different"!!!! Please. It's a rehash of an old movie (which was excellent at the time) that nobody wanted to see any more of.

Something different would be Hollywood actually coming up with an idea and we all know that's not going to happen. There are so many books and ideas floating around out there that it's just inconceivable why Hollywood can't come up with anything new. Just comic book movie rehashes...

Re: r149, excessive devotion to trap development is a red flag. It's the 5 inch stilettos of masculinity.

You guys who claim to love the original but don’t like the new movie’s slow pace are FULL OF SHIT.

The original was slowly paced and “boring” to those with ADHD.

The new one has more action sequences that pick up that pace.

But a beauty of both films is the visual artistry. The slow pace gives you more time to soak in and appreciate breathtaking, panoramic visuals and landscapes.

Wondrously, beautifully designed futurism.

It’s like an art museum. And just because you don’t like art museums doesn’t make the movie boring to everyone.

It makes you a pedestrian pig with no taste.

Or it makes you a pretentious prig who revels in boredom while pretending to be enthralled by 'artistry'

[quote] The first feature was a clichéd detective story.

The original wasn’t cliché for its time (1982). Let’s remember that it came out even before the first Terminator (1984). BR explored the existentialist puzzle whether highly advanced AI can be considered ‘sentient’ and whether it might be immoral to kill such ‘sentient life’.

BR 2049 is rather cliché for 2017, in light of recent movies like “Her”, “Ghost in the Shell”, and the exploration of androids’ ‘humanity’ in “Bicentennial Man”.

[quote] likes the first one out of nostalgia, and not because of its themes, which the sequel enriches.

[quote] it's probably too smart and stylish for Trump nation and the basic gays on this thread

How did the sequel “enrich” the original? It’s essentially the same regurgitated story of the main character falling in love with a beautiful, sexy AI model. It’s the same story of him hunting down insubordinate replicants - only to realize that replicants should perhaps have a right to life.

The main thing the sequel added is a bewildering, superficial theme about breeding-ability and suicidal self-sacrifice as signs of being ‘human-like’. Which is actually false. Lots of humans are sterile or don’t want to commit heroic suicide – that doesn’t make them any less ‘human’.

[quote] They didn't have to spell out everything for the audience.

Thematically, there was nothing to spell out. The movie was very literal, almost ham-fisted, with its story-telling.

Plot-wise, too many plot-holes in a movie are not an automatic indication of a movie’s intellectualism. In this case, it’s more a symptom of lazy screenwriting: How did K so easily find Deckard in a vast, abandoned city like Las Vegas? How did K again so easily locate Luv’s moving vehicle, for Deckard’s rescue, in a vast, sprawling city like LA? How did K know to retrace his steps to the farm, press a piano key and find a photo hidden in the piano?!

K is unbelievably finding needles in haystacks throughout the whole movie.

R135, Another superior option: Christian Bale.

I just saw it. I loved it. It was amazing. Visually spectacular.

But I can also see how the hoi-paloi would maybe not like it. It requires and rewards both patience and thought. It's a 150million dollar art movie. It's not a "block-buster". It's almost meditative. Thought provoking. And just GORGEOUS.

Totally agree, [R156].

I really wanted to like this movie but it so boring and unnecessarily long. They easily could have cut out 45 minutes and tightened up the story.

I wasn't bored for even a moment. It was long, but not unnecessarily so IMHO. It was a sumptuous feast... savored slowly over the course of an entire evening.

Yeah, if you are into endless boredom. I saw it with a diehard audience and not a single person applauded.

It's not an "applause" type movie. What a weird thing to say.

It was an amazing work of art, and I'll be thinking about it for days, weeks, and months. It was visually stunning. And I am not into 'boredom' at all, and this movie wasn't boring. Contemplative and Meditative is not "boring"... unless there's really nothing going on between your ears.

I get that you liked it but it’s a flop. It is too enamored with itself to tell a concise story. Dreary scenes go on forever. Jared Leto is terrible in a pointless role. All the women are expendable robots or sex toys. Robin Wright is a cliche detective. Ryan Gosling is flat and full. Waste of time and money

* flat and dull

Yeah, I can't agree with a single thing you said, R162, other than it's clearly not doing as well as hoped at the box office.

I don't get why Gosling keeps getting given the most important roles going. He's unattractive and boring. Zero charisma. He seems like a nice guy and comes across well in interviews. He's a moderately talented actor. Why him?

I think you're pretty-much in a tiny minority with the opinion that Ryan Gosling is "unattractive".

R166 what is attractive about him? He's got beady little close-set eyes. Very simian. Terrible hair. Pointy head. Nondescript features. He looks like Trey Gowdy's little bro.

Gosling worked up a "handsome" but it only lasted a few years. Lately he's just a joe, again. The smoke and mirrors of his "handsome" was a pretty short spell.

R167, I think you've shown your hand now. You just have really shitty taste. In men AND movies. Your opinion can be easily discounted now. Run along.

He has a little boy lost quality in the movie and is not believable as a strong man. He is sexless and they don’t show his body much at all. It’s unfortunate they let the director turn in a 2 hour and 43 minute “meditation”.

I just saw it and liked it, but probably because at times I felt like I was all fucked up at a rave. Was a little long though.

Whoever said Christian Bale could have made this bearable was right on.

I paid $40 to see this in 4dx it better be worth it. The original blade runner is my favorite film. I never saw it in theaters(I wasn't born then) and I think it the original would be even more amazing on a full screen. I'm also disappointed that Ridley didn't direct the sequel.

I saw it the other night and thought it was really good. Never saw the original.

Prepared to be massively disappointed and pissed off, r173.

R174, Not sure how you even follow the movie without having seen the original.

Go watch the original and then watch the sequel again.

Yeah I was disappointed. Doesn't even compare to the original. @R175

Why is Villeneuve considered such a good director? This film was a boring, way too long remake of the first one. Arrival was a remake of Contact. Sicario was every border drug movie ever made. Yawn.

It wasn't boring. It was amazing. The direction was fantastic. Lighting design, effects, set design, costuming, everything was amazing. This movie deserves tons of Oscars.

Gosling has a natural sexiness about him, which I don't see in pretty boys like Colton Haynes (who is not sexy at all).

Agree, r177.

It was shallow, obvious, bland, and unstylish.

I adore Ryan Gosling as do many other cinema goers

Remarkable that 2049's reaction from moviegoers (or at least DL) seems to exactly mirror that for the original back in 82'...

Ryan gosling has the face and sex appeal of a Wooden plank

Ryan!

I honestly thought that was him for a second.

[quote] Remarkable that 2049's reaction from moviegoers (or at least DL) seems to exactly mirror that for the original back in 82'...

That doesn't seem like a workable comparison. The lukewarm reaction to the original BR was mostly based on the US domestic audience. (Wiki says: "While not initially a success with North American audiences, Blade Runner was popular internationally".)

Whereas, DL is an international forum. Yes, mostly American, but there's still a fair share of Brits, other Europeans, etc. on here.

Many of us Europeans grew up on languid, meditative movies: e.g. Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" or French avant-garde movies, where everyone mostly sits around tables, puffs smoke and talks for 2.5 hours. Not much happens in them, it's all very introspective.

I love those movies, I'm used to them. But even with that kind of film-goer background, I still found BR 2049 a generally unremarkable movie: prosaic script and rather redundant, if you've already seen the more complex, poetic original. Some nice stylistic touches here and there.

It's doing well at the UK Box Office: people are very curious to see it, because of the original's cult reputation and BR 2049's well-executed trailer. But the post-cinema comments on The Guardian (i.e. the mostly erudite, inquisitive crowd this movie was supposed to impress philosophically or emotionally) suggest many people were left disappointed.

BR 2049 feels a bit like a replicant itself - compared to the original, which felt much more alive.

Hollywood is in such a free fall these days. It’s as if actors can’t carry movies anymore; everything is dependent upon franchises and CGI special effects films with no plot and interchangeable actors and actresses. I haven’t been inside a movie theater in three years. If it’s something worth seeing, I will download it from a P2P site or Xfinity On Demand. And that is a big IF!!

So the consensus is you will either love it, or you will hate it.

I havent been to the movie theatre in 10 years. I hate CGI and comic books. I don't like british actors pretending to be americans. I agree no actors have star quality anymore. Hollywood is dead to me. I just watch docu movies and films from the 80s and 90s and ocassionally some older ones.

I saw it the other day, and while I liked it and I'm glad I saw it on a big screen, I understand why it failed at the US box office: the movie is indeed too long and too slow for mainstream audiences, and is definitely more contemplative than action-packed. I didn't mind that one bit, as I was happy to watch an ambitious sci-fi movie that was for once made for adults, but I realize that this isn't exactly a crowd-pleaser. Visually it's quite remarkable, as most people have observed. I was surprised how much it refers to the original in terms of plot elements, characters, tone and even soundtrack. It definitely helps to be familiar with the first film to follow the story and appreciate it.

Overall, I thought the first half of the film was solid, but I'm not sure I loved the direction things turned once Harrison Ford shows up. I have a feeling though that it's a movie that might grow on me on a second viewing, so I might change my opinion about this. In any case, I think it's definitely worth seeing. By the way, I'm no fan of Ryan Gosling, but he's actually fine in this. He plays a new generation Replicant after all, so his blandness is somewhat appropriate here.

Interesting. I thought the only good part of the movie was the final third, when HF shows up.

The posters mentioning Christian Bale made me realize that an actor of his caliber would have commanded a lot more money. This would have further inflated the already big budget, no? I suspect this may be where Gosling comes in - with Harrison Ford in it (even for only 15 minutes) they needed a star who could come cheap.

I suppose another culprit is the director. As another posted pointed out Arrival was boring and pointless with a "love story" that was pulled out thin air. BR2049 was hollow, bad acting, bad writing and characters that you didn't care about & Ford pushing 80 still has way more appeal than a star nearly half his age.

Totally agree, r187.

Well said.

Christian Bale would have vastly improved this tacky and uninspired shitfest.

R41 Alexander Skarsgard

Did my doppelganger's new movie really flopped? Too bad.

The original never needed a sequel, but this one worked.

But unlike this original, this movie almost begs for a sequel. There's a lot more I'd love to know about what happens next.

A Leo DiCaprio in shape would have worked and attracted a wider audience.

He does put butts in the seats.

Leo is no longer pretty or fit

Meh, R200 ! Was Ryan ? He didn't have charisma and we didn't get to see skin from him.

Even looking like an Hessian peasant, Leo can attract people to the movie.

I never liked Ryan

Ok, fair enough !

We did see Ryan's skin [R201] he did a nude shower scene in this film and it was very nice indeed!

Oh? I kind of forgot that, and I saw the movie only 3 days ago. It was a brief scene ? Must not have left an impression.

I enjoyed the film, but it is true that women are still presented as objects of desire, with plenty of nudity, but men have not reached parity in that domaine. Pity.

And I still think Leo would have worked as a man you believe can be Harrison Ford 's son (even though, you know ...).

It was early on in the film not long after his female companion served up dinner?

Ok, thank you.

It was SO refreshing that the film didn't pander to politically correct bullshit. I was kind of amused and perversely satisfied to see a mostly white cast and female characters who weren't contrived to satisfy the politically correct freaks. I do hate it when characters are created simply for diversity's sake. Don't get me wrong, i love seeing vibrant black or coloured characters... but only when it feels authentic and not done just because somebody feels obligated.

Saw it tonight. I strongly recommend it but see it on an IMAX screen. It's gorgeous. It's also strong, compelling storytelling. Ana de Armas is phenomenal in the picture.

Also saw it tonight, great looking movie and it does hold your attention, for the most part, for the 3 hours. I will say Ryan Gosling would not have been in my top 10 actors to play this part, he's very bland and adds nothing extra to the role that's not already in the script.

I haven't seen the movie, but Gosling is a good actor. These blockbuster roles just might not be for him. I liked him better in the Half Nelson, LATRG era, basically his independent films. He couldn't just keep doing indie films though. I think his hype always outweighed his actual following as far as fame goes. It was only the pairing with McAdams in the Notebook era that the masses seemed interested in him.

Gosling has. GED very poorly.

His features are sliding to the center of his face.

*has aged

I generally liked it. It was beautifully shot and I liked the story, though I acknowledge criticisms about the length.

I would disagree about the lack of musical presence. I appreciated the percussive music as we flew through the city, and the hints of Vangelis' original synthy theme. I do think the noir feel could've been improved by some recapitulation of the blues music from the original film.

Generally, I agree with the criticism of the use of CG. The city was meant to feel closed in, suffocating you with darkness and neon, whereas the large scapes in this film don't do that. The long shots just don't work for this world. More closeups and dimly lit rooms, used so effectively in the original, would have definitely helped.

The sex scene was also a bit meh and felt forced, though I think the concept fit the story very well. I think it would've been better without the CG. Gosling, who is IMO as averagely attractive as Ford was in the original, did his job well with his subdued emotions.

I love Gosling. So sexy. And I love sci fi. But no way would I have the patience to sit in a theater for three hours.

[QUOTE]I was kind of amused and perversely satisfied to see a mostly white cast and female characters

You mean like every other movie and TV show?

Maybe the movie will have legs ? Sure hope so. It was beautiful, but not for everybody.

R215, that'd be your loss then. You should see your doctor about your A.D.D.

It honestly didn't seem like 3 hours (and let's be honest, it's 3 hours INCLUDING PREVIEWS, so really only about 2 hours and 40 minutes)

This movie was so trite.

Doesn’t hold a candle to the original.

Leto and Arqutte were such cartoons, they take you right out of the film.

The sets looked very cheap and empty. They appeared to hire zero extras.

So, I checked with Boxofficemojo and, no, it doesn't have legs. Too bad.

While I really appreciate the film, I agree that there was a lack of extras populating the streets.

So, is referring to Robin Wright as Patricia Arquette some kind of DL joke? I laughed at the first instance, but it's kind of strange now.

I think this film will make its money back especially when you factor in dvd sales but very possibly before then. It won't make tons of profit though.

The movie needs to make 2x its cost to break even, basically. That means it needs to generate 300 million world-wide. It doesn't seem like that's even a remote possibility, even after factoring in rentals and such. That's a shame. Because I really want to see a sequel to this movie.

It needs to cover its total costs to break even[R223] not double its total cost.

R224, r223 was not wrong. A movie only keeps about 50% of the box office, thus needs to double its production costs to see any money. Fanboys always get it wrong and know zero about finance, costs and the dwindling DVD market.

I still think this movie could have lost 45 minutes and then it would have done better. It will play even worse on home screens.

They still make a lot of money from dvds even if it is dwindling as well as money from it being shown on sky box office and other similar services. The studios keep the majority of the box office money for the first week or two of release and then the cinema keeps a bigger slice percentage wise of the ticket revenue in the subsequent weeks.

Yeah, Robin Wright sucked!

She has no range. She did the same character in House of Cards, which also sucked.

Sorry, I get Arquette and Wright switched.

- r219 & r228

I didn't see the first film because I'm not an elder gay. What happened for the world to be so fucked up. Is this supposed to be in the year 2049 because I don't see L.A experiencing a huge skyscraper building boom anytime soon

I am an eldergay. I loved the old film - except Harrison Ford's shitty performance. Apparently, Ford hated the film, hated Ridley Scott and did his best to screw up the movie. Harrison Ford is a dumb guy. Hypocritical of him to be in this one. First movie belonged to Rutger Hauer.

R230 Pauline Kael's complaint at the time was that LA would be so Japanese, it would logically be Hispanic.

The Hispanics all stowed away to get to the Off-World Colonies, r231.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Why the fuck did Rutger Hauer not get an Oscar?

I loved the original and really enjoyed this. Ryan and Harrison were terrific.

There was not one second of dialogue even approaching that in the shitty sequel, r233.

The sequel is so hammy and trashy.

I want to know how R224 thinks movie theaters get paid, and how all those commercials and promotions get paid for.

Seriously? You think a movie that costs $150Million to make is breaking even if it brings in 150 Million at the boxoffice? Just how ignorant and naïve are you?

[R236] Not ignorant at all. I'm well aware that the cinemas don't get a majority slice of the ticket revenue until about week three of film release. Cinemas business model seems to be geared towards making more money of the food and drink actually. Hollywood studios aren't interested in how much cinemas make for themselves. Their just interested in if they make their money back and I have a feeling they will with blade runner but I never claimed they'd make it all back at the box office but subsequent to the box office.

Fear/Fret not. Ridley Scott loyalists. The original BR did not generate anticipated revenue in its initial/original release; though look what it is today: a proven Masterpiece.

As it has been proven, time and time again in cinema history, Ridley Scott is a fukcin' genius!

Even 'Prometheus' will age well with time.

The studious' not realizing ROI, so what -

It seems to be killing it internationally...

Forget Harvey. Can't we concentrate on getting rid of people like the ones who greenlight THIS?! "I know, let's do an expensive remake of a movie that flopped over 30 years ago. Who's in?"

Indeed[239] A lot speak on here as if box office takings are just about the US but many films make their money back via the global box office. This is why I'm confident it will ultimately not be a loss maker but rather below what was expected and hoped for.

Ridley Scott did not direct this piece of shit, r238, so I don’t know what your point is.

Speaking of Ridley Scott, he needs to do a final cut for LEGEND. There are two versions of that movie and there are strengths and weaknesses to both. We need the definitive version, especially since BLADE RUNNER has been given so much loving attention. LEGEND is also a visionary masterpiece and outdoes BLADE RUNNER on a visual level.

The problem with Jared Leto's performance is that he is too self conscious about being a villain and he plays up to it. Tyrell, the original replicant maker and industrialist of the first film, was not a comic book villain, he was a very amiable figure even though you knew he was responsible for this terrible predicament over man vs replicant which drives the film.

You're right, R242, Scott didn't direct BR 2049, he directed Alien: Covenant. Care to compare?

r244, much like Richard Attenborough's character in Jurassic Park. He is a lovable and kindly grandfather figure and yet he is responsible for unleashing this terrible reawakened force and all for profit. Those are the best kind of movie villains, the ones who don't even know they are villains. Jared Leto is too enamoured with himself to play any kind of antagonist character that doesn't give off a glamorous or sinister vibe.

R234, did they ever find the missing footage that they only had the sound to? I've always hoped that scene could be re-integrated...

R238, "Prometheus" is now and will forever be one of the worst movies ever made... sure, it LOOKS beautiful, but it's utter bullshit in every other way. HORRIBLE acting, writing, plotting, shitty characters, completely missing motivations, and a completely muddled, nonsensical "message" or "meaning". Everyone will eventually forget the movie even existed.

Those who love the homosex are so melodramatic. Prometheus one of the worst movies ever made? Please Miss, SPARE US.

Please watch a Coleman Francis film and then get back to us.

[quote]I didn't see the first film because I'm not an elder gay.

My 20 year old nephew is neither elder nor gay and has seen the original BR three times.

What terrible predicament was unleashed by Tyrell in the first film? Four rogue replicants? Not much of a terrible predicament especially since they had expiration dates. Yeah they knocked off a few people but they weren't exactly a crime wave.

Replicants weren't the problem. An overcrowded dying world was the problem.

BR2049 was great. Visually stunning. Really pulled me in.

Ridley's last vaguely decent movie was Hannibal - and it wasn't very good. He should retire. Anybody capable of directing the dumbest movie ever made - The Counselor - should be forcibly retired. And Hollywood, stop trying to make Fassbender and his orange teeth a star. Nobody cares.

I frankly can Nazi what R208's problem was.

R252 giggle

Well, they did knock off *Tyrell*, R250, so no small thing on their part...

I wonder what crazy nutjob Sean young thought of her lookalike in the movie?

She's credited in the credits, R255, so... I assume she was involved somehow.

I saw it and found it visually stunning but overall was a disappointed. The original is one of my favorite movies. It wasn't Gosling's fault, it was the way they wrote his character. He was too bland, too emotionless, not human enough to sympathize with. Of course, that was the whole plot line but it was enough to make you NOT care. It would have been better to make the BladeRunner human like Decker.

This movie was terrible and generic.

The first one is soo overated not surprised at all.

It’s now certified.

[QUOTE]Blade Runner 2049 earned $15.1 million in its second weekend of domestic release. That’s a 55% drop from last weekend for a $60m ten-day total. And, like everything else about Blade Runner 2049, it’s a relative disaster precisely due to its obscene $155m+ budget.

Wow, Forbes really has it in for BOTH Blade Runners, it's like a fucking Jihad...

R251 Fassbender has orange teeth? You DL cunts really are deaf, blind, and stupider than a fucking Hillbot.

R262, there is no one most stupid than moron trolls who actually use the term 'Hillbot'.

[quote]Literally the only character that was the slightest bit authentic and not total bad cliche cardboard was a 2 minute scene with a Somali two-bit black-market type

Yes! This movie took the gaudy, overcrowded, colorful world of the original and flattened it into a portentous cliché. What was implied in the first film and left mysterious was explicated AT GREAT LENGTH in the most self important tone. And who thought of casting tryhard Jared Leto?! Somali guy was the only real breath of life in the whole thing.

Well, R264, to be fair the director wanted David Bowie for the role. When he became permanently unavailable, they thought of Leto.

The problem is the role is weirdly written.

Nah, Leto's a ham. Between this and Suicide Squad, he needs to stop being cast.

Agree, r266.

[quote] I do hate it when characters are created simply for diversity's sake.

So true. There are very barely any people of color in LA, so any such casting would simply be for diversity's sake.

Just saw it and agree with many reviews here. I was a huge fan of the original, saw it at the theater when I was 9 and have been in love since then. I thought Gosling would ruin it too but I was wrong, it was Leto that wrecked it. What was the point of his fucking character? Seriously, Tyrell was in the first one as a counter point to the excellent, tortured Roy Batty. He was there for Batty to kill him, no such luck of Jared getting offed too. And then he said something like, "you don't know what pain IS!" and...it's on to the next scene. Um...what? You wanna develop that idea, Jared? and Yes, no subtlety at all. The unicorn in the original was only in a dream sequence and as something Gaff made and left. The fucking horse in this is so ubiquitous, we get it! Prepare for a shitty sequel, which I won't go see, it will be Leto's character expanded even further. No thanks!

Yup, r269.

R262 photoshop much? Fassbender: red hair, red face, orange teeth.

They look yellow lol not orange wtf He's got smoker tea drinker teeth How an actor doesn't invest in teeth whitening is beyond me.

It was anything but generic! [R258]

Was Leto's character blind? His character really didn't make any sense. He just killed a female replicant for the hell of it

I disagree, r273.

It could have been any shitty stand alone sci-fi movie.

Gosling was fine as K/Joe, you could understand his dilema. If he allowed himself to feel, it was pretty much a death sentence.

If the first generation of replicants were slaves the 2049 replicants are like abused children. They have to stay quiet, smile politely and never complain in case their carers put them down.

R271 fuck off and die cunt. Most pics show him with white teeth.

A friend who is a huge fan of the original like I am was waiting for me to see it and then tell me what he thought. I told him about my beef with Leto and he sent me a youtube link of some fucking mini movies that explain Leto's character and some of the other ones as well. Dude, I just fucking sat through a three hour movie, I am not going to watch some webisodes to tie shit together. How fucking presumptuous of them to even film them, like people are chomping at the bit to get inside any of these shitty character's heads and discover their motivations. Fuck that, that pissed me off even more. Bottom line, this was a movie that didn't need to be made and a well crafted insult is still a fucking insult.

100% agree, r278.

Speaking of the Somali guy, he says some like “I can get you anything, Off-World papers, whatever you want...”

I thought that would make an interesting movie - the crooks and desperate customers involved in an off world human smuggling operation.

Especially since in the Phillip K. Dick book, it’s heavily implied that the Off World Colonies are hellholes and horrible wastelands - far from the paradise promised by the ads back on earth, and that once there you can’t return.

R269, the studio that financed this movie (WB only did the marketing and distribution) can't take a $100 million+ loss and is likely to go under. No way this movie had enough interest to justify the cost. Only dumbass fanboys think companies are fine with a movie eventually breaking even years later.

Loved the original. Loved this one (it is slow though).

I originally wasn't going to see this because I love the original and cannot stand Ryan G. I finally caved because I'm on MoviePass so I wouldn't be throwing money away (just 3 hours of my life). It looked great visually, but the rest sucked until HG showed up. Ryan G. is just too lightweight. Jared Leto needs to retire and never attempt acting again. Why so many French chicks? The holograms of Elvis, Frank S., etc. were okay for a little while, but then it went on and on, then Frank popped up again. Too much! So many plot holes and I didn't care.

About an hour and 45 minutes into the movie I started to panic because it was all so static and boring and I thought I was mistaken about Harrison Ford and maybe he wasn't in the movie. I was ready to walk out. Harrison is not a great actor, but he has 10 times the presence of RG.

And the end is left open for a sequel. I hope this movie loses so much money that it's never considered.

Yeah, this movie was really very bad.

You only need to see this film once while you can watch the original over and over again

The whole purpose of this movie wasn't about Ryan :/ there are some people who actually appreciate all the other aspects of it...

Huh. I loved it, and would also love to watch it over and over.

R130 Alcon will lose 100 M on this on top of the 100 M they lost on Transcendence. Those Dolphin movies aren't going to keep them afloat. They get what they deserve.

On a related topic, guess what the top-grossing international movie was last week.

In every participating country.

They'll do just fine. Like the original it will take a while to recoup its budget.

The screen-writing by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green is embarrassingly lazy.

SPOILERS AHEAD:

1. During the penultimate fight, Luv (the minion of Jared Leto's 'baddie' Wallace) kidnaps Deckard (Harrison Ford) and leaves K (Ryan G.) for dead in Las Vegas. K is rescued by the Replicant Resistance (*eye-roll for that over-abused cliché*).

Later on, Luv is transporting a handcuffed Deckard in a flying car somewhere in Los Angeles. Suddenly, K’s flying car comes out of nowhere and rams into Luv’s car, making it crash down.

How did K even find the in-motion(!) flying car carrying Luv & Deckard around Los Angeles? Never explained.

How did he know that by crashing it down he won’t accidentally kill Deckard (who K was trying to rescue)?

The screen-writers had all that long run-time, but apparently were too lazy or careless to bridge their own plot events.

The more the movie progressed, the more it gave up on any semblance of a logical script.

And that’s fine for a light-weight superhero movie or summer action blockbuster. But not for an aspiring ‘thinking’ movie.

2.tK is a Mary-Sue character, which is a very annoying and lazy plot device.

He keeps accomplishing impossible detective tasks, all by himself:

- He waltzes into the endless abandoned radioactive wasteland that is Las Vegas and miraculously immediately locates Deckard.

- He inexplicably locates Luv’s moving car in sprawling Los Angeles.

- He lies to his boss about killing the ‘miracle-child’ and she miraculously believes him, without checking.

- He finds clues to the mystery – often in very eye-rolling ways (like randomly pressing a piano key on a random piano – and ‘voila! there’s a new clue inside the piano!’).

r290 One reviewer summed it up best for me by saying, "We break company with the plot no less than 4 times during the course of this film."

[quote]They'll do just fine.

Nope. Sony gets most of the non-domestic gross, Alcon's profit margin had to come from the domestic gross. They are still fucked on this movie.

And the movie need to do at least 300mil worldwide to cover bases, it isn't going to hit that.

I fucking loathe Ryan Gosling, so this makes me happy.

Another weirdo Disney kid who was throttled by men and can't act to save his asshole.

R285 is right.

It was the sound effects that blew me away, best appreciated in a movie theater, rather than on Netflix on a standard sound system.

R289 is truly a dumbass. That number is terrible, especially since there are no other blockbusters or big movies currently vying for money. Furthermore, overseas money is important, but you have to make even more of it because they take more than a 50% cut, especially in places like China, which sometimes takes a 75% cut.

If you loved the movie, fine, but STOP embarrassing yourself regarding the financial aspects of it. All of the trades have called it a dead duck even if you are optimist about future receipts.

R289 when you have different major studios distributing domestically and internationally, it is an indication that the production company sold off the international rights to fund production of the movie. Alcon may have covered a significant portion their production costs this way but they and Warner Bros. still spent at least $100 M on advertising and marketing domestically. Most likely, they will get VERY little of the international Box Office so there is no money to be made overseas for them. Additionally, remember that exhibition (the movie theaters) take approximately half of the number you see reported in the media.

R290, this is the second time you mentioned the piano key as a weird plot hole, and it makes me think you're an idiot who is blind.

He was sitting in the room, looking around, and noticed one key was uneven on the piano. So it wasn't out of nowhere, it was his OBSERVATIONAL SKILLS, which was completely obvious in the movie. He went over and touched the key to see what was up, and that's when he noticed there was something obstructing the string/hammer. And then he pulled the item out of the strings.

Trying to seize on this as an example of bad writing or plotting is just stupid, and says more about your lack of observational skills and intellect than anything else.

R295, yes... the movie definitely deserves an Oscar for sound design.

R298 - writing in a scene where a Mary-Sue character finds a clue by way of a very random & laughably lucky 'observation' is just weak screen-writing.

An uneven key on a piano is not smthg exceptional or generally note-worthy (my old piano developed 4 depressed / uneven keys, before it got fixed). The older the piano, the more out-of-whack its keys will become time from time (requiring regular fine-tuning and maintenance).

So the fact that K saw smthg so trivial and mundane (an even piano key), but miraculously sensed it was somehow important - so he pressed it, heard a strange thud and found a clue hidden inside! - that just stretches incredulity.

What next? He's going to notice that there's a button missing from a coat - and find a clue in that coat's pocket?

It's not some great detective work / observational skill / deductive reasoning - it's simply another one of the character's 'random lucky breaks' – an easy cop-out by the screen-writers.

If it were just one instance of such a ‘lucky break’ in the film, that would be forgivable. But it got progressively more eye-rolling when most of K's actions became ‘lucky breaks’, often inexplicable.

As mentioned, it’s lazy screen-writing.

I just saw it on a large screen format, and I was very pleased.

It's not the masterpiece that the original was, but I was still blown away. It reminded me of a Kubrick movie -- big ideas, gorgeous photography, thought provoking scenes…

I thought the ideas were very small and hackneyed.

The visuals and aesthetics on this film were superb and superior in every way. Rich in symbolism, hidden meanings, metaphors and creating Surreal atmospherics. Definitely a film best enjoyed on the big screen.

He found Deckard by reading the heat signature of the city.

R290, you need stop with the supposed plot holes. All those things were addressed in the movie. It's hardly the screen writer's fault that you missed things. There are lots of other legitimate things you can critique the movie about.

R305, you didn't understand my post. In R209 I highlighted 2 (separate) categories of screen-writing faux-pas in the film: (1) plot-holes (i.e. big plot-jumps that are inexplicable) and (2) lazy plot devices (i.e. not a plot-hole, but generally considered a bad screen-writing trick: e.g. 'Mary Sue' character / 'Deus Ex Machina' intervention / etc).

Regarding the 1st category (plot holes) - they're not "supposed" ones as you claim, they're actual, blatant ones:

How did Ryan Gosling find Luv's flying car at the end for the final battle & rescue? If you're claiming this was "addressed in the movie" and that I "missed things" about this - then please, go ahead, explain how the movie "addressed" this.

Re: the 2nd category (lazy plot devices) - they're fine if they're limited in use. But when you have a full movie of them it becomes tedious.

As for "legitimate things" to critique about the movie - for me the plot / script / dialogue is the most interesting thing about any movie. I actually thought the acting was palatable, the visuals were fine - but the plot, script & characterization were very vapid.

If you're more of a visuals / sound person, that's fine. But don't tell others what aspects of a movie they should care more about.

Both Blade Runner and BR 2049 are written in the film noir style and all film noir plots rely on outstanding coincidences and plot holes. The plot of Vertigo, arguably the greatest film noir and often ranked as the greatest film ever made, makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE in the real world.

R306 is just being a pedantic cunt.

R306, you sound really tedious and annoying. I'm glad I don't know you in person. And I bet people who DO know you are envious of me.

Pedantic Cunt is about the nicest thing anyone can say about you.

Go away. Shut up. Nobody cares what you think.

R308 hissy fit!

r307 Blade Runner is in the noir style, I don't know about 2049. Wondering why the CEO of a fucking fortune 500 company has a scruffy hipster beard and what is with the fucking holograms when the original had nary a fucking one. Let's face it, Leto made me take a critical look at this shitstorm, had he dialed it back about 100 notches it would have been way better.

They keep remaking perfection into steaming piles of shit and then wonder why they stink.

Aesthetically speaking it is a fucking beauty of a sci-fi .... they just made it a bit too long and they should have just killed off Harrison Ford in the beginning as he brings nothing to the film whatsoever. Anybody know why Sean Young didn't get to make an appearance of any kind? This movie will become a cult classic. The soundtrack is badass and its a visual orgasm for all sci-fi nerds and blade runner fans.

r312 She's listed in the credits and not as archive footage or whatever it would normally say if they were just using old film, maybe she was cut? Oh let me ask you guys this, I was reading some things on IMDB and someone complained that they changed some of the old Voigt Kampff readback of her and Deckard, they said it was changed from her asking if he was testing whether she's a replicant or a lesbian to her saying nympho instead. I didn't notice that and neither did my friend but maybe cause we've seen the original so much we just thought it played out as we remembered. Did anyone notice that?

I hear the movie is actually quite good despite it flopping. I think Gosling is actually an incredible actor though often miscast.

[quote]How did he know that by crashing it down he won’t accidentally kill Deckard (who K was trying to rescue)?

Ha ha another hater who didn't even understand the movie. K was not trying to rescue Deckard, he was sent by the replicants to KILL Deckard. Which people with basic comprehension skills understood, because it was plainly stated in the film.

Plot hole indeed!

I saw it last night. It was a gorgeous looking movie. And I didnt hate it. I didnt love it. It was just enjoyable enough. It was sooo long tho. But never, not once, did I ever not once, ever think "WOW that Gosling, is a great actor" He was stiff, beige dmv wall like. Even during his revelation breakdown scenes. But I guess its what mediocre white actors can get away with these days. If they white, and bland - Oh thats the hardest introverted acting to do. Brilliant!. Um no Jan!@ He is the male Scarlett Jo!

There is nothing noir about this flick.

The original defined sci-fi noir.

The sequel is horrible.

There is nothing horrible about the sequel. I swear, some of you drama queens... sound like the critics of the first movie when it came out.

He's a replicant. He's not human. He is advanced technology. He's not a human Mary Sue, he's a flesh and blood powerful computer. Jeeze some of you are dim.

This thread is awesome. It seems to have a rhythm: 1) Ryan Gosling is ugly 2) You bitches wouldn't kick him out of bed 3) The movie sucks! 4) The movie is amazing. See it on a big screen. 5) Ryan Gosling's eyes are too close together 6) You'd still fuck him 7) Pedantic Cunt 8) He's a replicant 9) The original is superior 10) He's not a star 11) Pedantic Cunt 12) The movie sucks

So do replicants poop?

True, they killed the entire noir vibe. I don't think it would've worked with Gosling. Fassbender should've been cast. I think the Frank Sinatra bits and hologram girl in 50's getup are a nod to the missing noir aspect of the film.

I loved the film but I'll agree with that. It had more of a Euro Dystopian Future feel than neo noir. That's ok by me because I like both.

[quote]There is nothing horrible about the sequel.

I wouldn't go that far -- I agree with the anti-Leto comments in the thread. Rest of the movie, and that's most of it, was great.

Fassbender is about to add yet another critical and commercial flop to his resume with the Snowman. Despite a big media push and some critics worshipping him, audiences don't care for him or his movies. His imdb is looking bleak at the moment.

A sci fi/action pic audience wants bells & whistles- not endless scenes of taaalking.

"Anybody know why Sean Young didn't get to make an appearance of any kind?"

I think she recorded some new dialogue for the retro footage.

Wait r327, I asked upthread about them changing the dialog for, "Am I being tested for being a replicant or a lesbian?" So they did change it then? Wow.

For what it's worth R328, that audio portion of the Deckard/Rachael test scene is repeated in '2049' and she still says lesbian, not nympho...

On a side note, I think Psuedo-Rachael's appearance towards the end of 2049 was a truly amazing and transgressive moment in the film, especially if you love the original. I remember seeing the original one week into it's run at a packed, 70mm presentation in Pasadena California. My fondest memory of that showing was a woman actually gasping when Rachael first appears in the Tyrell office. Sean Young's poise, her delivery, that suit, hair, and makeup...it was stunning, like one for the ages. I was thrilled to see actual footage from that scene on the big screen again, and then to have her 're-appear' moments later was devastating. Kudos to the filmmakers and the studio for being able to keep that under wraps until the opening. There aren't too many true shocks in films anymore, and I'm grateful for this one...

Thank you r329! I saw the new one too and don't remember it being changed but I saw the original 800 times so wasn't sure if I was just assuming I heard it the way I remembered it.

They didn’t change the dialogue in that scene.

[quote] pedantic cunt

[quote] Go away. Shut up.

R307 and R308 sound really triggered. And over what – a general movie critique? That's just sad.

They both lack any logical arguments, so they just label people “cunts”. How cute.

The fangurling is strong with these two.

[quote] another hater who didn't even understand the movie. K was not trying to rescue Deckard, he was sent by the replicants to KILL Deckard. Which people with basic comprehension skills understood, because it was plainly stated in the film.

R315, you’re incorrect.

From the Bladerunner wiki: "K intercepts Luv's spinnercar and forces it to crash before fighting and killing Luv. He then fakes Deckard's death in the spinner's explosion to PROTECT [Deckard] from both Wallace and the replicants."

Sean Young, what waste. She was so wonderful in her movies, way back when.

IMO, r334, no movies are better in their times and for their genres, than "No Way Out" and "Bladerunner" so if you have to be washed up fairly early, better to have those on your resume' than to make shitty movies forever.

Terrific look at Entertainment Weekly's piece on Rachael's reappearance in 2049 at the link. Not only was Sean Young on set, but her son worked as a production assistant on the film, very cool...

Oh good r336. I think the last we saw of Sean she was on the roof with Bai Ling!

Did Ryan present hole in this movie?

I was just thinking how devastated I was seeing Roy die in the original. All that rage for life, just melting away on some crumbling rooftop in the rain.

Saw it for the second time last night on IMAX. I left the theater at 1:30 am from a 10:30 pm showing, and I was the only one left in the theater when it finished. I thought it was such a beautiful film, masterfully done, beautiful score, beautiful cinematography, perhaps 30 minutes too long. Not as shockingly innovative as the original, of course, and it could have used more time to flesh out the world and add more creative, eclectic elements in the way the first drew from so many diverse artists and deep thinkers in its world building. I was thinking about it on and off today, and it's such a shame that, now that it has left all the local IMAX theaters, in all likelihood that was the last chance I'll ever have to see it in such a large format. I do have many problems with it, probably the most significant are the casting of Robin Wright, and the characters of Wallace, Love (Luv?) and Joi (as wonderful as Ana de Armas was). However, on reflection I do think that Joi was very much a Philip K Dick type element, as much as it flew in the face of plausibility.

I like my uncertainty over Joe's fate (nobody spoil me!)

No issues with Leto r340? Who hamfisted and vocal tic'ed and stuttered embarrassingly trying to capture just one fucking modicum of what Rutger Haur effortlessly brought to the screen? Here you go r339

R341 reminds me how brilliant Hauer was and what a mediocre actor Ford is.

Same, r342. The difference is startlingly. People working on totally different levels.

Why Leto, why not someone good? Does Hollywood think we all think Letos sexy that we'll rush to see this movie?

Leto = Wallace in my comment, r341. I think more than Leto's performance the problem was with the character as written, which is why I said "Wallace."

It was tedious. It was like flicking through a special edition of a glossy architectural magazine: How To Build For A Dystopian Future - 50 Gorgeous Examples.

Such an incredible scene, r341.

The sequel just can’t compare.

R344, Villeneuve wanted David Bowie. Unfortunately, he became permanently unavailable. It still doesn't explain why they chose Leto as a second choice.

Leto should be banned from Hollywood.

How did the director watch his scenes and not decide to reshoot them??

Should have given it to Tommy Wiseau to direct.

Ha ha, r350.

You present s good question though.

Who would have been a better director for this movie?

In mu opinion, anyone.

r345 Ah, so you did, my apologies. I just get so worked up about the whole character. I was at a Pixies show tonight and some fucking chubby hipster had a "Wallace Corporation" t-shirt on, so those exist now. I wanted to kick him in the gunt.

Honest to fucking God for the first hour of the movie Gosling was the only one in ALL OF LOS FUCKING ANGELES with a flying car????????????????

This ruined it for me. Not one other VEHICLE the entire time he was up there. The fuck was that about? No other cops, no replicants, no nobody flying around up there.

Also Jared Leto is a horrific actor.

Unfortunately, R353, the 'Blackout' that is referred to several times in the film was an EMP that many years earlier took out any flying Spinners (and the Off-World Blimp!) while they were mid-air. Not explicit in the film, but I would imagine that street-level vehicles became popular once again after that little incident. You can watch a lot of that original BR iconography meet its doom at the link...

But why do they have to make all these fucking youtube videos to introduce characters and give back stories? The movie should stand alone. I'm not investing any more time after I already sat in a theater for 3 hours and the hubris that these fuckers show in thinking anyone is going to do all this youtube homework after watching this...

it's there if you want it and if, not then you don't have to watch it, R354. Would you have preferred a massive flashback within the body of the film on the Great Blackout? The short elaborates on a plot point that still functions well by itself within BR 2049's narrative. If you really want to put the thought into it then it's easy enough to discern that the Blackout caused massive across the board changes in that society...viewing the short is hardly a requirement. And, if you had been paying attention, there was plenty of flying traffic in and around the LAPD headquarters in the first half of the film. One gets the feeling that the police still considered the Spinners necessary for their work, even with the possibility of another EMP. We know that K's Puegot didn't have shielding as the scavengers lightning kite was enough to bring it (and Joi) down temporarily. The majority of civilian traffic, as in the first film, appears at ground level...

[QUOTE]I'm not investing any more time after I already sat in a theater for 3 hours and the hubris that these fuckers show in thinking anyone is going to do all this youtube homework after watching this...

They probably planned more sequels which would flesh this stuff out.

R340, I was also enraptured. It was the best film I’ve seen in a theater in years. Maybe a decade. I don’t think the current climate for superhero movies is healthy for a story this pensive.

And it is fucking gorgeous to look at. Grim but gorgeous.

Gosling is passable. Gorgeous as the sets, but only passable.

Harrison Ford, however, gives maybe the best dramatic performance of his career. I’d nominate him for Best Supporting Actor in a heartbeat, but since the movie has a giant budget and flopped, I doubt he’ll have a chance.

Yikes. Production company set to lose $80 million on this flop.

I’m not surprised.

Never confuse the growing popularity of a cult movie (which is essentially an arthouse film) with the potential for commercial success in a sequel.

Making a Blade Runner sequel is the equivalent of making a sequel to Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead... both movies have huge cult followings but that doesn't make them mainstream hits. Joanna Cassidy is in both of these films by the way!

WEHT Joanna Cassidy? She was great. I love the original Blade Runner but the sequel was like a wimpy remake of the original. It added nothing.

Sad as it seems the chance of a quality franchise has evaporated.

She's still around r363. Seems to work a lot for a 72 year old if at a lower profile nowadays.

the last thing I remember seeing her in was a series of pretty great guest appearances on "Six Feet Under."

BTW her death always freaked me out as a kid in the original. It just seemed so cruel.

Joanna Cassidy did a youtube recreation of Zhora's snake dance (which was never filmed for the original movie due to them going over budget). She still looks like she did in 1982!!!

Agree, r63.

It was also very unstylish compared to the visionary futuristic-noir chic of the first film.

Stylistically, the sequel had absolutely nothing to say.

^For r363

Weta Workshop video on the "miniature" work they did on 2049. Gorgeous stuff, so glad they went old school with a lot of the effects:

So many people are so upset that it doesn't have the look or sense of style that the original did, but it really *shouldn't* look the same. This is the same cinematic world but a different era. Would a 70's film set in say, New York, look the same as 50's New York film? Of course not. I thought the dis-similarities were genius.

Finally saw this on Blu-Ray and wish I had seen it on the big screen. Stunning film. Ryan is excellent in it, as is Harrison Ford, and Ana de Armas is very affecting.

Joanna Cassidy was Ridley Scott's girlfriend at the time. He dropped her after he hooked up with a pushy Italian woman.

BR 2049 was a really great film that deserved a larger audience. I hope it finds the audience it deserves on blu Ray/home rental/download. It was set up perfectly for another sequel and I’d really like to see where the story goes next.

I found the movie mesmerizing. I loved it. Beautifully filmed and scored. Yes, I was a little baked.

I loved the original but thought this was one of the dullest and most pointless films I've ever seen. Villeneuve is a dreadful filmmaker, though. All of his films are shit.

R375 yeah - it was like a watered down remake of the original. Why the fuck do people claim Villeneuve's a good director? Arrival was just a remake of Contact. He's a hack.

Hampton Fancher is a shit screenwriter, too. The original Blade Runner was completely re-written by another writer by executives which made it a better film. The bloated shit of BR 2049 is evidence of how terrible he was.

"What terrible predicament was unleashed by Tyrell in the first film?"

r250 - the ad-line they used for Tyrell's replicants was "More Human Than Human"

He gave the replicants memory (not memories per se) and sentience - and a two-year life span. It is in the nature of life to strive to continue to exist. No wonder the highly intelligent Batty was pissed.

To steal from and paraphrase Dr Malcolm in Jurassic Park - Tyrrell and his scientists were so preoccupied with whether they COULD, they didn't stop to consider whether they SHOULD...

R376 Very much so, but then there’s Sicario

R377 has the worst aspect and probable true cause for its failure.

R370, the production design was less captivating than 1982. There’s no guarantee any era’s design will be better than what came before, it is what it is. Its strengths would have been much more appreciated though, if only they hadn’t cheaped out and made everything barely populated and over-sterile.

First Man = another Ryan Gosling flop.

^i don’t understand how Ryan gosling is still getting parts. He has also aged horribly since “the notebook”

He keeps doing boring, rich, dramatic stuff. If he wants to top the box office, he needs a blockbuster. Marvel, DC, Jurassic, Star Wars...

If he wants an Academy Award, he's on the right course, IMO.

RYAN GOSLING ROCKS!

I care about him and will gladly take him off your hands.

HE LOVES CEREAL

The real bottom line is that the majority of moviegoers today are incapable of sitting through anything that long and that slow and that demanding of their attention.

Most are also afraid of melancholy and reflection in films.

The film is a huge achievement, with flaws.

That, when you search by genre, for science fiction on say, Virgin movies, and up comes a list that includes all the cynically engineered ( you can’t say they are directed ) superhero films says much. Just more dumbing down.