Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 54586
Joined: May 2010
Location: Arrakis
Call me naive but, can general audiences make their own judgement for once, without overblown marketing?

:looksuplatesttrumpnews:

Yeah, maybe not.

User avatar
Posts: 9826
Joined: October 2011
Location: Foot of Mt. Belzoni
m4st4 wrote:Call me naive but, can general audiences make their own judgement for once, without overblown marketing?

:looksuplatesttrumpnews:

Yeah, maybe not.
Why would the general audience part with their hard earned without a compelling reason to do so? This is the way movies have worked since forever.

User avatar
Posts: 54586
Joined: May 2010
Location: Arrakis
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.

Posts: 136
Joined: April 2017
Nice movie

User avatar
Posts: 1070
Joined: November 2012
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.

User avatar
Posts: 2799
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
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.

User avatar
Posts: 1070
Joined: November 2012
LelekPL wrote:
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

User avatar
Posts: 12731
Joined: February 2011
NFometer: (97%) [↑ 1%]
Based on the Ratings of 43 Members
Average Score: (8.8/10)





Positive

m4st4 (10/10)
antovolk (10/10)
shauner111 (10/10)
SINCEPTION (10/10)
Teslashelby (10/10)
xWhereAmI? (10/10)
Dunkirk2017! (10/10)
Ruth (9.5/10)
Allstar (9.5/10)
Now Where Was I ? (9.5/10)
CoolwhipSpecial (9.5/10)
Pioneerr (9.5/10)
AsianVersionOfET (9.5/10)
Vader182 (9.25/10)
Panapaok (9/10)*
Sanchez (9/10)
4N Legend (9/10)
Cilogy (9/10)*
prowlercomesaround (9/10)
BlairCo (9/10)
Durden (9/10)*
LEXX (9/10)
anepicmoviereviewer (9/10)*
dafox (9/10)*
Ivan (9/10)
Crazy Eight (9/10)
Bacon (9/10)
spade (9/10)
sander121 (8.7/10)
Skyab23 (8.6/10)
prince0gotham (8.5/10)
Silverheart (8.5/10)
elemunt (8/10)
Michaelf2225 (8/10)
LeoCobb (8/10)
mosh89 (8/10)
Mantis Toboggan (8/10)
LelekPL (8/10)
07212017 (7.9/10)
EctoCooler31 (7.5/10)
Sky007 (7/10)





Mixed to Positive

ArmandFancypants (6.5/10)




Mixed

MyCocaine (5/10)






£

User avatar
Posts: 445
Joined: June 2017
Location: Holland

Posts: 3324
Joined: September 2013
Location: Copenhagen
What fucking twist?

It's pretty damn obvious from the first 20 minutes. This movie wears subtlety on its sleeve.

Post Reply