Bladerunner 2 (Spoilers!)

jonneymendoza said:
well apparently thi movie tanked so hard in the box office :( last classic sci fi we will ever see lads. back to the Avengers then...
Click to expand...

It's made $250 million worldwide against a budget of $150 million

Taking in to account marketing, I'm sure it would have made a small amount of profit.

Obviously a movie like Thor Ragnarok (also good) is going to make a lot more.
 
I was utterly underwhelmed by this. I've tried hard to understand what people think is so perfect about it but I can't get away from the fact that it brings nothing really new, simply retreads old ground and in the same manner.
 
jonneymendoza said:
I heard only 80m it made
Click to expand...

There might also be some confusion here due to stories like this which suggest losses of $80m for the investors/producers but that appears to be against their hopes of it making $400m+. It's a bit of an odd one, the film cost around $155m to produce, has grossed around $241m so far and even when everything is netted off you'd still expect that to be into the realms of marginal profit at least from that.
 
I loved DC version and that was one of the first DVDs I bought back in the day (having only heard about it before buying :)), around the same time that Mark Kermode's documentary came out. Now I love the Final Cut in bluray and recently saw 2049 in imax and loved it. Me and a mate actually left it late to see it, wish I could watch again in imax now but it seems its not showing in that format anymore. Soundtrack is great. Making me look again at a 4K TV.. Yes, it can't top DC/Final, but its a great sequel imo, even if
it ignores/destroys the unicorn ending. We get a bitter sweet happy ending for Deckard.

as good as imax was my screening was slightly out of focus for an imax imo, so struggling to read tiny fonts :) kinda defeats the purpose of imax! (Birmingham Cineworld). I think there is supposed to be an auto focus or something coz no human would think that blury crap was acceptable. The irony of that wasn't lost on me as the film started.
 
Last edited:
Just watched this for the first time.This film was average at best....without all the mental contrived construct. The film is very weak.

The end fight scene in the water was terrible in fact it was cringe...

It's far to long...

The majority of the Green scene stuff was just filler...and old Harrison Ford is jarring...he was in TFA too...

I won't be watching this again anytime soon. Dissapointed.

Now the dust has settled and the hype train stooped it seems Scott thinks it was too long aswell

Earlier in the interview, Scott, who directed the original “Blade Runner” in 1982, admitted he thought the 2017 sequel “was f—ing way too long.”
 
Last edited:
I actually thought Harrison's performance was one of the strongest in the flick. The strongest he's given for some time in fact!

Tbf, as much as I love old Ridley, his opinions on the length, structure and general direction of movies mean less then squat to me because... well, Prometheus and Covenant xD
 
I think Scott has past his Prime and if you look at original blade runner, it’s very dull in modern standard for a sci fi.

2049 goes in the same vein and I would say it’s a better film.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I think Scott has past his Prime and if you look at original blade runner, it’s very dull in modern standard for a sci fi.

2049 goes in the same vein and I would say it’s a better film.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The original is one of my favourite movies of all time and always will be, but 2049 is just a lot more concise in terms of it's characters, themes and general direction imo.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I think Scott has past his Prime and if you look at original blade runner, it’s very dull in modern standard for a sci fi.

2049 goes in the same vein and I would say it’s a better film.
Click to expand...

Considering when BR 1 was made ...and what 2049 offers...the original blows chunks all over it.

Just in production value alone...considering the lack of technology available at the time.

2049 is Dull...considering the tech that's available to modern day directors and producers.
 
easyrider said:
Considering when BR 1 was made ...and what 2049 offers...the original blows chunks all over it.

Just in production value alone...considering the lack of technology available at the time.

2049 is Dull...considering the tech that's available to modern day directors and producers.
Click to expand...

I disagree with almost every word there.

Sure BR has its importance but 2049 is not only a great sequel, it’s a better than the original, it’s a great science fiction and a great movie period.

The acting is great, the story had me guessing, the cinematography is first rate, the special and visual effects was ridiculously real, the music has impact, the way it ties to the original yet does not ruin the original is clever and keeps its faith.

Scott would not have pulled this off judging the mess he is making with Alien franchise. At first I was nervous someone else directed it but now I am relieved.
 
easyrider said:
You're thinking BR1 is dated....I'm saying 2049 is stagnant.
Click to expand...

I never said the word dated did I?

Where did I say that? Or imply that? I said it’s dull by modern standard, the same way 2049 is with its pacing but these “qualities” are shared by both movies. 2049 is dull compare to the likes of Marvel, from the perspective of they are all bang bang in your face these days.
 
easyrider said:
Considering when BR 1 was made ...and what 2049 offers...the original blows chunks all over it.

Just in production value alone...considering the lack of technology available at the time.

2049 is Dull...considering the tech that's available to modern day directors and producers.
Click to expand...
You may love the new star wars then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom