Poor g.a. and their hard earned money, better spent on another horror mediocrity that will disappear next week amirite?
There was more than enough reason here. The point is g.a. isn't really in it for those particular reasons, they just want their weekend kick. Sometimes, you have a director like Nolan who can connect the two polar opposite audiences, but more than often it's a battle against the windmills. Personally, I never go for marketing as my primary source of info on whether I should go and see the movie or not. If I were to listen only what PR is telling me mother! wouldn't be on the list of movies for the next week. Basically, this is the way the world is spinning doesn't mean I should agree with the status quo. Marketing for BR2049 was, imo, solid. Reviews have been more than that. It just didn't work, people did not care enough. They were 'too tired' for art these couple of weeks I guess.
It's a nice movie, a nice sci-fi but as a Blade Runner sequel it was kind of a disappointment. The ties to the original feel the least interesting part of it, and some of the plotting is shoddy as hell. Also...The Dark Knight Rises, right? Right? You guys already mentioned it, right? Cause...yeah. Even the way it is told, its straight up TDKR.
I can see some similarity between the two but mostly with the public perception of the ending. "We didn't need to see that" "I would have prefered it to be open-ended".
Whatever the case may be some people thought the endings to these films are ambiguous and I cannot fathom why would anyone think that's the case. Bruce is clearly alive in TDKR. All the other scenes point to it, so making it ambiguous makes no sense. Deckard is also going to meet his daughter. What else was supposed to happen. He gets a heart attack opening the door? I get that with Blade Runner people had other, more reasonable, complaints like that the ending should focus on K, since that's what the movie was ultimately about. But the original also doesn't end with Roy's death. It ends with Deckard and Rachael running away. I think it's a nice touch to see Deckard with his daughter because of it.
I can see some similarity between the two but mostly with the public perception of the ending. "We didn't need to see that" "I would have prefered it to be open-ended".
Whatever the case may be some people thought the endings to these films are ambiguous and I cannot fathom why would anyone think that's the case. Bruce is clearly alive in TDKR. All the other scenes point to it, so making it ambiguous makes no sense. Deckard is also going to meet his daughter. What else was supposed to happen. He gets a heart attack opening the door? I get that with Blade Runner people had other, more reasonable, complaints like that the ending should focus on K, since that's what the movie was ultimately about. But the original also doesn't end with Roy's death. It ends with Deckard and Rachael running away. I think it's a nice touch to see Deckard with his daughter because of it.
Im talking about the
Talia/Bane, Deckard-daughter/Joe child revelation. It's told very similarly. Not just the twist itself of the child being a woman, but the memories superimposed over a false character (wrongful perception of Joe memories and Bruce's story) and the realization of it (you were the child/ the child was a boy). It plays very similar beats, emotionally, audience expectations and even form-wise