Blade Runner 2049

Atticus Ross & Reznor would have been very interesting for Blade Runner

Just watched it in IMAX. Fucking great.

That's chen's review.

Did they ever share any of Jóhannsson's score, in teasers or whatever? Or is it mostly just an assumption that he would've come up with something more remarkable than the eventual soundtrack?

  On 10/15/2017 at 12:44 AM, Kavinsky said:

Atticus Ross & Reznor would have been very interesting for Blade Runner

Did you hear what they did to the Halloween Theme?

http://riotfest.org/2017/10/trent-reznor-atticus-ross-release-cover-john-carpenters-halloween-friday-13th/

  On 10/14/2017 at 12:22 PM, Kavinsky said:

 

  On 10/14/2017 at 11:31 AM, Zeffolia said:

saw it a second time in imax this time 10/10

 

going to see it again for sure maybe even 4 times

 

this is my favorite movie ive ever seen in a theatre before

but why , whyyy ??? its so fking boring and story is shit or are you watching because of the visual aesthetics ? tell me so i can understand.

 

one word

H O L O G R A P H I C       A I      W A I F U

  On 10/15/2017 at 12:44 AM, Kavinsky said:

Atticus Ross & Reznor would have been very interesting for Blade Runner

I really want to see this movie. 

Seems like they miraculously succeeded in meeting the tremendous high expectations.

(unlike another dark sci-fi movie I shall not mention, but of which the original was/is a masterpiece)

Looking forward to this. 

A bit sad that this masterpiece has been knocked off the top after only one week by some teen-orientated B-Movie Horror flick.

Me and Osc were talking about that on discord.

Fucking EMOJI MOVIE, universally panned by critics and consumers as being a really shit movie, box office = 200M USD. 

Blade Runner 2049, critics and fans praising it, box office = 160M so far and likely to be pulled from theaters in a week or two.

  On 10/15/2017 at 8:14 PM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Me and Osc were talking about that on discord.

 

Fucking EMOJI MOVIE, universally panned by critics and consumers as being a really shit movie, box office = 200M USD. 

 

Blade Runner 2049, critics and fans praising it, box office = 160M so far and likely to be pulled from theaters in a week or two.

Already up for pre-order on Amazon. The Blu-ray and digital downloads are as early as 14th December.

It's a (happy) but unfortunate side to a film that has bombed really badly. It only took 15 million dollars this past weekend and has suffered a 50% drop since last week.

Profit is so far only $60 million (domestic) and $158 million worldwide. That's crushing for a film that cost upwards of $155 million.

In contrast, I.T has cruised past 600 million (it only cost 35 to make!!) and shows no sign of stopping.

I think we'll have to wait another 30+ years for another Blade Runner movie.

i wonder what this means for dune

I sat next to a pair of cunts when I went to see it.

The one guy in particular felt the need to loudly comment on the last scene we'd watched to his friend if anything exciting or intense had happened. Got his phone out at full brightness to answer some messages 2hrs in and: when it had just ended and the credits started rolling they turned to each other and unsurely said "oh-kaaay?"

I would say that's kinda indicative of how the great unwashed are experiencing this film

  On 10/15/2017 at 8:14 PM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Me and Osc were talking about that on discord.

 

Fucking EMOJI MOVIE, universally panned by critics and consumers as being a really shit movie, box office = 200M USD. 

 

Blade Runner 2049, critics and fans praising it, box office = 160M so far and likely to be pulled from theaters in a week or two.

Children.

  On 10/15/2017 at 8:22 PM, fumi said:

Profit is so far only $60 million (domestic) and $158 million worldwide. That's crushing for a film that cost upwards of $155 million.

 

I think we'll have to wait another 30+ years for another Blade Runner movie.

Not at you fumi, but it's kinda fucked up that a movie with vast praise thrown at it, almost certain to garner more attention when it wins awards, and already at approximately 20+% profit return rate after only a few weeks out is seen as a failure/bomb. 

I'd also be okay with never seeing another Blade Runner movie. If they could make another tomorrow up to the quality of BR2049, then great, do it, but that's not too likely imo, lightning striking three times with the same property.

  On 10/15/2017 at 8:26 PM, zaphod said:

i wonder what this means for dune

Fuck don't scare me. I want Vilenneuve to do a Dune movie/trilogy/series/whatever-he-wants so bad and have a stupid budget to run with.

that 150 mil budget figure doesn't cover marketing costs which can be pretty huge, that's why it's seen as a failure i guess.

also, half of the budget was just ford's salary probably.

  On 10/15/2017 at 10:16 PM, eugene said:

that 150 mil budget figure doesn't cover marketing costs which can be pretty huge, that's why it's seen as a failure i guess.

I read before that the budget was 150-185 mil, but everywhere I read now says 150 only? I imagine that 185 included marketing etc.

Or maybe that figure was just an estimate and the 150 is known to be actual now?

I wanna say that I've heard before that marketing is figured in to overall budgets generally, but I certainly could be misremembering or just plain wrong. The same point still stands even if the numbers are off, a lot of shit I've seen over the years is that if a film doesn't make like 2-10 times what was spent on it, it ain't worth it to many investors or producers or whoever. Just always struck me as strange.

  On 10/15/2017 at 8:41 PM, hello spiral said:

I sat next to a pair of cunts when I went to see it.

 

The one guy in particular felt the need to loudly comment on the last scene we'd watched to his friend if anything exciting or intense had happened. Got his phone out at full brightness to answer some messages 2hrs in and: when it had just ended and the credits started rolling they turned to each other and unsurely said "oh-kaaay?"

 

I would say that's kinda indicative of how the great unwashed are experiencing this film

That's really bad. If I had paid $15 or whatever to see a film, I would have grabbed that phone and chucked it. Or complained to the staff. There's no excuse.

People who need to check their phones during a movie don't have an attention span long enough for any movie, let alone one running nearly three hours.

  On 10/15/2017 at 8:26 PM, zaphod said:

i wonder what this means for dune

LOL. Dune was an even bigger financial failure with an even smaller niche audience. There's no way that's going to be made now. In today's Hollywood, how would you even market a film like this? I assume you've seen the film and/or read the book. 

  On 10/15/2017 at 8:14 PM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Me and Osc were talking about that on discord.

 

Fucking EMOJI MOVIE, universally panned by critics and consumers as being a really shit movie, box office = 200M USD. 

 

Blade Runner 2049, critics and fans praising it, box office = 160M so far and likely to be pulled from theaters in a week or two.

Critics and fans are the only people who've bothered going to watch it. And they mostly saw it within a day or two of release. 

  On 10/15/2017 at 8:41 PM, hello spiral said:

The one guy in particular felt the need to loudly comment on the last scene we'd watched to his friend if anything exciting or intense had happened. Got his phone out at full brightness to answer some messages 2hrs in and: when it had just ended and the credits started rolling they turned to each other and unsurely said "oh-kaaay?"

they should double their money, at least! it's not been very long yet

  On 10/15/2017 at 10:18 PM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

 

  On 10/15/2017 at 10:16 PM, eugene said:

that 150 mil budget figure doesn't cover marketing costs which can be pretty huge, that's why it's seen as a failure i guess.

 

I read before that the budget was 150-185 mil, but everywhere I read now says 150 only? I imagine that 185 included marketing etc.

 

Or maybe that figure was just an estimate and the 150 is known to be actual now?

 

  On 10/15/2017 at 10:20 PM, auxien said:

I wanna say that I've heard before that marketing is figured in to overall budgets generally, but I certainly could be misremembering or just plain wrong. The same point still stands even if the numbers are off, a lot of shit I've seen over the years is that if a film doesn't make like 2-10 times what was spent on it, it ain't worth it to many investors or producers or whoever. Just always struck me as strange.

  On 10/15/2017 at 10:16 PM, eugene said:

that 150 mil budget figure doesn't cover marketing costs which can be pretty huge, that's why it's seen as a failure i guess.

 

also, half of the budget was just ford's salary probably.

Bladerunner 2049 will undoubtedly make its money back eventually. The problem is that studios and investors want that money now, not two or three years down the road.

When you consider how Hollywood works now - endless comic book movies, (conveniently) expanded universes for every concievable intellectual property, millions flocking to see an emoji movie, it's nothing sort of a miracle in itself that Blade Runner 2049 ever got made and turned out to be so magnificent. 

There are so many amazing touches and stuff in this movie. I wonder how long before someone copies the presentation box that the Emanator come in?

Also, good article on how likely/realistic the technologies in the movie are in the near future (50 years).

https://qz.com/1095377/how-realistic-is-the-incredible-futuristic-technology-in-blade-runner-2049/

Consequence Of  Sound article on the soundtrack. 

https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/10/album-review-hans-zimmer-and-benjamin-wallfisch-blade-runner-2049-original-motion-picture-soundtrack/

It’s hard to think of a Blade Runner movie without Vangelis. Of course, until now, there’s only been one Blade Runner movie, but Ridley Scott’s 1982 neo-noir sci-fi cult classic is all about aesthetic, and as such, the Greek composer’s work has always been as integral to the film as, say, Syd Mead’s neo-futuristic concepts or Harrison Ford’s stoic portrayal as titular hero, Rick Deckard. The very mention of the film can’t go by without hearing echoes of “Rachel’s Song” or “Blade Runner Blues” or any of the other dozen compositions that add to the dystopian feelings of isolation, uncertainty, or paranoia. So, when it was first announced that Scott and screenwriter Hampton Fancher were (finally) moving ahead with a followup, some 35 years after the original confused American audiences, fans consciously assumed that Vangelis would also be along for the ride. Not exactly.

Instead, it was Icelandic mastermind Jóhann Jóhannsson who was scooped up by a Spinner, leaving our trusty Academy Award-winning composer in the rain, only there were no tears to be shed — it was ostensibly by choice. “You can never repeat certain things,” Vangelis told NPR last year of his decision to recuse himself. “It’s only once in lifetime. It’s like doing another Chariots of Fire, it’s impossible.” To his credit, it’s an understandable notion — after all, who in their right mind would want to followup one of the most iconic scores of all time? — but that didn’t stop director Denis Villeneuve from wanting to try. And so, Jóhannsson was surprisingly deactivated late into the process, opening the doors for Hans Zimmer and rising talent Benjamin Wallfisch.

this is a pretty bad movie and I'd love someone to convince me I'm wrong.  there are interesting ingredients:  sound design, some of the lighting and scene stuff, maybe two acting moments.  it's pretty.  it does not make a good movie.

it feels sterile, and the soundtrack is boring and apes vangelis hard, but in a boring way.  this is like star wars ep7 all over again where a massive crew of people attempt tirelessly to capture old magic, and instead make lifeless ingredients which amount to an uncomfortable echo.

shame on me I guess for re-watching the original last week and re-reading the book too.  at least that was enjoyable

Finally just watched this tonight, and thought it was excellent. Not gonna make any sweeping statements or anything, and i expect to get shit on for this, but in a number of ways I actually enjoyed it just as much if not slightly more than the original.

  On 10/16/2017 at 9:06 AM, Rpeg said:

this is a pretty bad movie and I'd love someone to convince me I'm wrong.  there are interesting ingredients:  sound design, some of the lighting and scene stuff, maybe two acting moments.  it's pretty.  it does not make a good movie.

 

it feels sterile, and the soundtrack is boring and apes vangelis hard, but in a boring way.  this is like star wars ep7 all over again where a massive crew of people attempt tirelessly to capture old magic, and instead make lifeless ingredients which amount to an uncomfortable echo.

 

shame on me I guess for re-watching the original last week and re-reading the book too.  at least that was enjoyable

I'd be interested in hearing what you'd say is a really good movie. I'm not being trite. Genuinely interested because for me, this movie is probably the best I've seen this decade.