Blade Runner 2049 - 10.6.17 (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

He may not have wrote it, but he is the face of the film. No film has ever stated "a film by (fill in the writer)". Regardless of who writes it, the film is always referred to as the director's.

Well, to the first part of that, yes, there are films that are attributed to the writer of the story. Stephen King, Agatha Christie, it all depends upon what they best think sells the picture.

Directors, particularly today, are often just hired guns and prior to the 1970s were not given much credit for the films they worked on. It was late in the game for Hitchcock even before he began to be looked at as anything special. I forget who it was...maybe John Ford or Howard Hawks...that said a monkey could direct a motion picture. In general you really need to look at their body of work to know if a director is the kind of director that makes a difference or just a guy they can hire to bring the project in on time.

I agree with you, I assume, that Villeneuve seems the type that brings something to the table but in a case like this Blade Runner film I think he is required to shoot the script they gave him because he was brought in when this film was well into development.

Ridley Scott is thought of as an excellent director but he is horrible with story and characters. He does not write the pictures he makes and does not get involved with the writing...and when he does it tends to be bad news. You are in big trouble if Ridley has to get in on the story.

If it was in the script and he filmed it that way, without bringing up any concern, then he tacitly agrees with what is written.

I think it actually means he has agreed to do his job and figure out how to shoot what was written. Denis did not develop the script. He agreed to shoot it though. Films are a collaborative effort and so the writer often determines how well a film will turn out. If the script stinks the picture starts out behind the 8 ball.

There has always been a debate on whether the main theme of Blade Runner was about slavery or humanity.

The replicants are slaves...this is made perfectly clear in the first picture so there is no debate to be had. The question the first film poses is even though they are "creations" of mankind do they have any "rights" as they are thinking machines that learn and appear to be conscious of what they are and their existence. They not only look like us, they think like us and act like us...so do we have the right to treat them as just "property" and to shut them off when we are done with them.

I don't think there should be a debate as to if the theme was slavery or humanity...that does not make sense...the film is asking if we create something, and this creation can think and reason for itself and appears to also have emotions, what rights do we have over this creation once it has a life of it's own.

Is it right to say "I made it so I can kill it!"

 

[Sam Favate]

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think what is funny is that poster is going to scream "Orange and Teal 2049!!!" to some people.

 

[WillG]

Ooof!

How hard, how damn hard is it to create a non shit poster. Especially for an iconic brand. Do these studios have any regard at all for how things used to be done.

 

[Sam Favate]

Three more:

FWIW, I know there are plenty of fan art posters floating around, but these are all from the studio.
(PS Someone in the art department has been watching/reading A Song of Ice and Fire.)

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Holy cow, those are even more orange and teal...that will set some people off.

It is almost as if they want to rub some people's noses in orange and teal. Oh boy...

Orange and Teal: The Movie

 

[RobertR]

Even the posters are slathered in orange and teal. So ridiculous.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Even the posters are slathered in orange and teal. So ridiculous.

I hear Gosling and Ford are doing a buddy cop picture together...Gosling is Dave Orange and Ford is Sam Teal and they are going to clean up the streets of LA of every color except orange and teal.

"Red, green, yellow and brown are going down..." Coming May 2018!!!

 

[TJPC]

Well, I would say what constitutes good pacing varies from generation to generation. I feel Blade Runner is perfectly paced for the material...which is a futuristic noir. The story should unfold in a thoughtful manner...which it does...allowing you to absorb what is taking place and the consequences for the characters. This makes the film much more meaningful.

I guess people would need to give an example of something they feel is well paced as opposed to something they feel is poorly paced for each of us to understand how another person views pacing.

My problem with films today is so many of them are cut with no understanding of pacing beyond we just need to get to the next joke, explosion, or action sequence within a 2 1/2 to 3 minute window...and I think that window is shrinking all the time. I do not think that the frame being constantly busy should conflate with a picture being well paced. So many filmmakers now seem to feel that the way to keep an audience interested is to have constant movement on the screen. This leads to things in say a science fiction film zipping around in all directions in the frame but also to never having a still camera. The camera in so many of today's pictures is moving constantly even when they are only shooting a conversation.

This I believe has led to younger generations feeling that almost all films made prior to MTV, or right in that early to mid 1980s time frame, are slow because in many of today's pictures a still camera is a rarity and is often now only used to indicate something is wrong. When there is stillness on the screen or a shot is held for longer than a few seconds (because the cutting style is now to have many cuts to again generate the feeling of movement) then it appears...at least to me...that younger audiences feel this means a film is "moving slowly."

I don't mind constant movement if you can actually see what is going on! If the images are so shaky and blurry and you can't really tell what is going on, or who is winning the fight, for some reason, I lose interest! This is when I fast forward at home.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don't mind constant movement if you can actually see what is going on! If the images are so shaky and blurry and you can't really tell what is going on, or who is winning the fight, for some reason, I lose interest! This is when I fast forward at home.

The last time I felt like that was during the last Star Trek film during the attack on the Enterprise early in the film. It was about as frenetic a sequence as I have seen and damn if I did not feel somewhat lost at times as to who was doing what to who and who was winning that battle.

 

[AshJW]

I saw the trailer today at the movies, when I was going to see ATOMIC BLONDE.
I can't say that I liked it. It didn't breathe atmosphere of the original.

 

[lud]

Nothing can beat original.

 

[AshJW]

No, of cause not. I didn't mean that it should beat the original.

 

[dpippel]

Those posters are amazingly bad, but I still hold out hope that this film will be better than most think it will be.

 

[WillG]

I hear Gosling and Ford are doing a buddy cop picture together...Gosling is Dave Orange and Ford is Sam Teal and they are going to clean up the streets of LA of every color except orange and teal.

"Red, green, yellow and brown are going down..." Coming May 2018!!!

"Hollywood Homocide II"

 

[HonkyTonkMan]

Blade Runner (1982) is such a marvelous, iconic and epic neo-noir science fiction film.
I've seen Blade Runner twice.
The only version of Blade Runner that I've ever seen is The Final Cut which was first released in (2007)

I have the Blade Runner: 30th Anniversary Collector's Edition 3-disc Blu-Ray Digibook release
which has all five versions of this movie included.

Maybe at some point in the future, I might finally decide to watch the other four versions of this film.

I'm predicting that Blade Runner 2049 won't be anywhere near as good as the first Blade Runner film.
It's a rare occurrence when a movie sequel or a movie remake turns out to be as good as the original.
I just hope that Blade Runner 2049 turns out to be a good movie.

Ridley Scott said back in 2014 that Harrison Ford would appear in just the third act of Blade Runner 2049.
I find it extremely disappointing that Harrison Ford will have just a supporting role in Blade Runner 2049.
I would have been far more excited about Blade Runner 2049 if Harrison Ford had a much larger role in it.
I wouldn't have had any interest in ever seeing Blade Runner 2049 if Harrison Ford hadn't been in it.

"Hollywood Homocide II"

I think that you meant to write Hollywood Homicide II.

I have Hollywood Homicide (2003) on DVD and I've seen this movie just once.
I thought that this movie was okay.
I don't think that this movie is as bad as what so very many professional movie critics have said.
With that said, there are still such a very large amount of Harrison Ford movies that I've enjoyed more than this movie.

 

[SamT]

It will be 163 mins!

 

[TravisR]

It will be 163 mins!

Holy crap. I better make sure not to drink anything before going to the theater.

 

[SamT]

Longer than the original classic!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The Wrap is reporting a final runtime of 152 minutes:
http://www.thewrap.com/blade-runner-2049-longest-movie/

So, I suppose one of two things are possible -- that the movie proper is 152 minutes, and then the end credits bring us to the 163 minute time that Sam cited; or that the movie with credits is 152 minutes, so the movie-only portion is closer to 140.

Either way, 2 1/2 hours seems about what I expected - the article I linked to makes a big point that Blade Runner 2049 is the longest studio blockbuster of the year so far, but points out half a dozen movies that are within ten minutes of its running time.