I tend to be a tad sceptical of sequels and reboots/remakes at times,but the good reviews of this made me venture to the cinema to watch this.
But wow!
The hype was well deserved - what a fantastic film and a worthy follow up to the original.
Printable View
I tend to be a tad sceptical of sequels and reboots/remakes at times,but the good reviews of this made me venture to the cinema to watch this.
But wow!
The hype was well deserved - what a fantastic film and a worthy follow up to the original.
Words from Roger Deakins the cinematographer for the film:
https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-ta...2049-2d-or-3d/
Quote:
We shot the film in 2D and in a wide screen format.
I watched it on the superscreen at the O2 and this film definitely benefits from a large screen. It is apparently shot for IMAX,and in one or two scenes I could see slight cropping which would hint at that.Quote:
I think I said previously that I oversaw the timing of all the versions of 'BR2049' including the HDR version.
My preferred version is the standard 2D widescreen version. A problem I have with some viewing systems is their use of silvered screens. The image projected on a silvered screen lacks saturation as well as density as it falls off from a hot spot in the center of vision. This may not be so apparent for someone sitting in the optimum viewing seat but it is a compromise in terms of image quality wherever you are seated, though it maybe a compromise worth accepting if you are a fan of 3D.
However,for me I would rather have a larger normal screen than a smaller IMAX one to watch this on.
Also,the film was not shot in 3D,so the 3D version is not native 3D and from what I have read its very mildly implemented.
It is available in 4DX which I haven't tried yet. Not sure I want to smell a dystopian future mind when just viewing one is quite dramatic :DQuote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Saw it yesterday evening in 2D at the local IMAX theatre. Like CAT I was apprehensive to say the least, because I'm a huuuuge fan of Blade Runner. I went into the screening with moderate expectations, but an open mind ...and was summarily blown away! If anything, I would've preferred Vangelis to do the music again, but Ben Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer did a reasonably good imitation.
Good to know the film was shot in 2D. Seems I got the best possible viewing experience then. :D
Looking forward to seeing it when it comes to th3 small screen. (Or released on DVD)
Slightly worried that my expectations will be too high after listening to Kermode and Mayo but think it'll be a great film and that I will enjoy it, so looking forward to it massively.
It was alright... a few gripes and niggles, but certainly not the abysmal failure of Ridley piddling all over his previous work, like he has with certain other films, lately...!
However, I notice it's kinda tanking at the box office...
cant wait to see it!!!!
Only in the US where all the media is sensationalising it and the stupid media here just regurgitates it(even though its pulled more than expected abroad and is number 1 here) even though it is the number 1 in the US by a fair distance! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
For instance the media is saying its "tanked" since instead of at least $40 million it generated just above $30 million in the US,whereas they ignore the fact it pulled in $50 million elsewhere,and the UK is the second largest market after the US.
Its also only being released next month in China which is pretty big too(second after the US but for a number of films has actually contributed more IIRC).
Considering what type of film it is,it was never going to be another Star Wars!
Edit!!
Also this is another factor:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4326&p=.htm
It seems the US film market has been very tough this summer with lower than average takings overall for most films.
Tanked, as in failed to make double it's budget... assuming that is still one of the measures they use.
Even at the lowest estimate of $150mil, it's only brought in $81.7mil...
It missed it's $90 to $100 million dollar estimate by $10 million in three days(just over $80 million) especially in a summer in the US where takings are down,and the media looses the plot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Due to its length apparently cinemas also didn't do as many viewings either as it would displace other films from their roster.
The film cost $150 million - the estimate for the first few days was $40ish milllon in takings at the low end to $50 million at the high end in the US with a total of $90 to $100 million all-round. It make just over $80 million or 10% less then expected.
Despite this it still is no1 over there:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
It "tanked" even though it took as much as the next three films being shown in the US cinemas.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4326&p=.htm
I remember Pacific Rim which cost more to make than BR2049 "tanked" in the US but made 75% of its takings abroad. That cost nearly $200 million and made barely $100 million in the US over its entire run.Quote:
Disappointing August 2017 Closed Out the Worst Summer Movie Season in Over 10 Years
This is the problem with the media they panic rush to half complete conclusions way too quickly and seem to think the US=the world especially with our local publications doing the same.
They are so dumb they will only drive people away with their nonsense.
It's not even been released in China which is a hilarious move from the distributor though.
Also it's top of the UK charts and some:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ngsman-dunkirk
The thing is it won't be a billion dollar movie but it's still going to be OKish I suspect and if Pacific Rim can barely make double it's budget and get a sequel I assume a cheaper film with much less spent on advertising wont need to earn as much anyway.
However,I wouldn't mind if we moved away from financials back to the actual movie. Its not like the original Bladerunner was a success either when it came to the box office! ;)
I was very confused - people kept knowing where to go to, but the film did not let us know how they knew!
The action and thumping soundtrack was entertaining though.
Very proud to get to the end without a loo break.
Looking forward to watching it but i think i'll watch original again then go and watch this
I have read that 'Bladerunner 2049' has not fared well at the box-office. Apparently this is due to it being a long film requiring a decent IQ ~ sounds like my kind of film!
IIRC, 'Waterworld' was one of the biggest box-office flops but it still turned a profit eventually, via DVD sales, etc.
Its not fared well at the US box office,but internationally its doing far better. Its hit around $160 million already with nearly 65% of sales coming from outside the US,and the international numbers are mostly upto the 8th too:Quote:
Originally Posted by esde
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...nnersequel.htm
Its being released in Japan and China on the 27th.
It could also have been said about a number of other films which were actually just artsy-fartsy, up-their-own, overly self-indulgent, intellectual try-hard piles of arthouse-wannabe junk churned out by ex-filmschool dropouts... Happily BR2049 is not one of those!!Quote:
Originally Posted by esde
The original BR didn't do amazingly, either. Depends, though - I undestood a film had to make double it's budget to be considered a success, but that also depends on whether you include the marketing and all the other gumph, or just count 'what the studio paid to get it made'...Quote:
Originally Posted by esde
It'll probably make a bucket in the DVD sales, again just like the original.
Watched the original at the weekend (and first time for the other half) in preparation. Fingers crossed we can get to it in the cinema before it goes!
:help:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
Hopefully BR49 will not suffer from the plethora of DVD versions, as the original did. Talk about 'Smoke & Mirrors': cripes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Hopefully BR49 will not inflict a similar plethora of DVD versions upon us as the original did. Talk about 'Smoke & Mirrors' ~ cripes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
NB. Apologies for the unintended double posting! Could not discern how to delete a posted post. Ho hum.
TBH, most of those are actually just edited to comply with differing regulations and requirements on nudity, violence, running time and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by esde
It really comes down to one of two different versions, and whether they include or exclude the following:
1/. Deckard's voiceover
2/. The Unicorn
3/. The Happy Ending
So basically it's between the International Theatrical release and either the Director's Cut or the Final Cut.
I enjoyed it. Not as good as I was hoping but still a solid 9.2/10 for me. Plot was interesting and kept up the theme of the original. Could have spent a little / lot more time with Jared Leto's character who I thought was fantastically ominous and scary.
The Guardian seems to think the film is sexist because Ryan Gosling has a relationship with a BLAH BLAH BLAH and THING THING THING. Lulz
I enjoyed it even if I did get nudged early in the film and told to stop snoring!
First time I've ever falling asleep in the cinema, although I think it was more to do with the temperature of the cinema, how tired I was and the soothing sounds of the movie (fell asleep during the rainy bit early on in the film!)
Did feel it was dragged out further than it needed to be though, and I'm a massive BR fan, no idea how many times I've watched the original.
The massive plus for me was HFs performance, haven't seen one like that from him for a LONG time. I wasn't expecting it at all.
Anyone else tie together the Porn statues and Easter island ?