so it's confirmed to be a bomb already, as it's imposible for the film to approach that number, seeing how the launch went?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'Blade Runner 2049' Is A Box Office Disaster With Poor $13M Friday
- Thread starter ronaldthump
- Start date
- Status
so it's confirmed to be a bomb already, as it's imposible for the film to approach that number, seeing how the launch went?
Kibbles
Member
Saw it with 3 other friends and one of the girls was on her phone like the whole time and then bringing the drama she was dealing with to the other friends so they were going through each other's texts and shit the whole time then she had the gall to say it wasn't very good -_- for fucks sake.
Granted it was a Monday night but there were also only 2 other people in the entire super screen theater. 😬 I can see why the movie doesn't appeal to the masses though.
Granted it was a Monday night but there were also only 2 other people in the entire super screen theater. 😬 I can see why the movie doesn't appeal to the masses though.
This is why I see movies alone.
Leatherface
Member
Well I'm going to see it this week. Hope my money helps.
Atraveller
Banned
Texting in cinema? Why didn't you stop them?
admiraltaftbar
Member
Really loved the movie but there were teenage kids (who honestly seemed too young to be watching the movie) who laughed at a lot of the booming synths scenes and anytime there was nudity. It definitely seemed like a case of "I don't know what I'm watching so I'm going to laugh because I don't know how else to feel". If you find nudity funny you probably shouldn't go see serious R rated films.
Edit: also since I didn't make it clear, go see this film if you love the original. It is its own film that's somehow a direct sequel, remake and homage all rolled into one. I really appreciate that it feels like it's not trying to get you to marathon both it and the original together like it's the Star wars trilogy or Lord of the rings films.
Edit: also since I didn't make it clear, go see this film if you love the original. It is its own film that's somehow a direct sequel, remake and homage all rolled into one. I really appreciate that it feels like it's not trying to get you to marathon both it and the original together like it's the Star wars trilogy or Lord of the rings films.
dragonchild
Banned
Haven't seen it but since we're talking about the box office haul and not the movie itself, I think that's relevant, because. . . I love cyberpunk. And I enjoyed the original. I should be, or I daresay I am, the target audience. Why haven't I seen it yet?
Because I don't give a shit. This is not a movie I asked for, wanted, or gave a shit about from the day it as announced. I mean, folks here might pique my interest but that's beside the point. If circumstance does the heavy lifting to get my ass in a seat, that means the movie itself lacked sufficient appeal. If you liked it, great, but we're talking about why it's doing badly. If it can't get my ass, of all people, my lily-white Shadowrun-playing BGC-watching GitS-owning I-actually-didn't-hate-Matrix-Revolutions ass to the theatre, it doesn't have a chance at making back its money.
One of the things about the original is that there's a cult following that thinks it's BEST MOVIE EVAR but they've dwindled over the years as most GenXers have grown out of puberty and moved on. I'm definitely not some puritan who protests the existence of a sequel because the original is "art". I still think it's a pretty good movie, the pacing is fine, but its strengths lie in its setting, and aesthetics, and the creativity therein. These can be duplicated, as in a sequel, but duplicating them serves no purpose. To get the things that stand out the most in the original, you only have to watch the original. The story is more of a means to an end than the backbone of the film. It's a vehicle to introduce the audience to a world where the premise itself is self-limiting. That was the whole damn point of the soliloquy at the end FFS; that none of them were going to experience much -- or if so, for very long -- because of what they are. Alien left a lot unexplored about the xenomorphs, Mad Max films are more a tour of an imaginary world, and Ghostbusters had a premise that could've been easily expanded (though they never did and went the shit route), but this is the one movie that I would've guessed would've been as sequel-proof as any. It asked a question, answered it and then ended with a false "open ending" in that the characters' fate was predetermined. There was nothing left to say.
Because I don't give a shit. This is not a movie I asked for, wanted, or gave a shit about from the day it as announced. I mean, folks here might pique my interest but that's beside the point. If circumstance does the heavy lifting to get my ass in a seat, that means the movie itself lacked sufficient appeal. If you liked it, great, but we're talking about why it's doing badly. If it can't get my ass, of all people, my lily-white Shadowrun-playing BGC-watching GitS-owning I-actually-didn't-hate-Matrix-Revolutions ass to the theatre, it doesn't have a chance at making back its money.
One of the things about the original is that there's a cult following that thinks it's BEST MOVIE EVAR but they've dwindled over the years as most GenXers have grown out of puberty and moved on. I'm definitely not some puritan who protests the existence of a sequel because the original is "art". I still think it's a pretty good movie, the pacing is fine, but its strengths lie in its setting, and aesthetics, and the creativity therein. These can be duplicated, as in a sequel, but duplicating them serves no purpose. To get the things that stand out the most in the original, you only have to watch the original. The story is more of a means to an end than the backbone of the film. It's a vehicle to introduce the audience to a world where the premise itself is self-limiting. That was the whole damn point of the soliloquy at the end FFS; that none of them were going to experience much -- or if so, for very long -- because of what they are. Alien left a lot unexplored about the xenomorphs, Mad Max films are more a tour of an imaginary world, and Ghostbusters had a premise that could've been easily expanded (though they never did and went the shit route), but this is the one movie that I would've guessed would've been as sequel-proof as any. It asked a question, answered it and then ended with a false "open ending" in that the characters' fate was predetermined. There was nothing left to say.
Razorback
Member
Fine, don't go see it then. Your loss.
Going to see this again later in the week by myself. Went with a friend before but I think I need to take this all in myself. I also want to give a little more money, this kind of film (especially a sequel) doesn't happen often.
Saying that, as I said in the OT, I'm kind of glad this isn't doing well so the execs don't get ideas about a franchise. Say what you will about the originals being preserved despite horrible sequels, there is something to be said about diluting these things for future viewers.
I also think, considering the themes of both films, that kind of cynical exploitation would be especially gross here.
150 mill. Sequel to a much beloved but highly niche original. 3 hours long. Minimal wizz-bang.
Maybe Villeneuve knew what he was doing all along...
Saying that, as I said in the OT, I'm kind of glad this isn't doing well so the execs don't get ideas about a franchise. Say what you will about the originals being preserved despite horrible sequels, there is something to be said about diluting these things for future viewers.
I also think, considering the themes of both films, that kind of cynical exploitation would be especially gross here.
150 mill. Sequel to a much beloved but highly niche original. 3 hours long. Minimal wizz-bang.
Maybe Villeneuve knew what he was doing all along...
Mr. Mister
Member
Sucks for you.
More_Badass
Member
See, thats why 2049 is great. It doesnt try to duplicate the original. It paves its own path and tells its own story that isnt beholden to the first, and explores those themes with more nuance and different angles.
I really cant fathom your mindset. Liking this and being interested in this has nothing to do with Blade Runner being sequel proof. Its because it explores its themes and those questions in compelling ways, presents a lived-in realistic world that authentically presents 30 years past of the already shitty world of the first, and doesnt rely on the first to tell its own story. Theres no nostalgia pandering here; any kind of callback is all in service of the protagonists story here. A Blade Runner sequel that is able to succeed in how 2049 does shouldnt exist, but it pulls it off somehow.
If you like BSG you'd LOOOOOOOOOOVE this movie. Modern BSG is one giant homage to Blade Runner.
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face essentially. Have fun with that lol.
Lawrence of Arabia moves at a snappy pace.
2001 is a different story. That's the kind of movie that will only be made once. I'm pretty sure it wasn't successful in theaters either.
dragonchild
Banned
You completely missed the point.
You, also, completely missed the point.
My goodness, I guess I was naive about my cyberpunk-lovin' peers' level of reading comprehension.
2001 like Blade Runner mostly became seen as a classic after it's release. Was more of a cult thing in it's initial theatrical release.
Would bomb in today's market.
I doubt Close Encounters of the Third Kind which did fantastic in 1977 and was a cultural milestone would do well today at all. It's slow and has no action.
Hell, I wonder how ET would do today. Could be seen as too schmaltzy by the geek crowd and too slow for families.
Would bomb in today's market.
I doubt Close Encounters of the Third Kind which did fantastic in 1977 and was a cultural milestone would do well today at all. It's slow and has no action.
Hell, I wonder how ET would do today. Could be seen as too schmaltzy by the geek crowd and too slow for families.
I don't feel like 2049 is trying to ape the OG at all. It's not like TFA or Creed, which are revisions of their original products, meant for a newer audience. 2049 wants to take the original, build off of it, and then use what you know against you. It takes all the same concepts and elevates the material. There are two scenes in there, that are also like the director even admitting, he can't try to recapture the magic of the original.
Would opening weekend even be effected by things such as pacing when nobody but critics have seen it (and they were all positive).
Like I get word of mouth after the fact, but really the only reason for a poor opening weekend is lack of interest in the theme/idea of the movie in general.
Like I get word of mouth after the fact, but really the only reason for a poor opening weekend is lack of interest in the theme/idea of the movie in general.
You must be fun at parties.
I was skeptical of a Blade Runner sequel working, but honestly it is a better film in every way. And as a sequel it doesnt rely on similarities with the previous film ala Force Awakens and New Hope.
AuthenticM
Member
No. We're telling you that the movie does not try to replicate the original. It is its own thing, and what it does, it does extremely well. It adds to the themes explored in the original. It ties itself to that original movie organically. This isn't The Thing (2011).
No one here demanded a sequel to Blade Runner. And here we are, being extremely glad we got one, because it is a masterpiece.
You don't gain anything by standing your ground and refusing to go see it on principle. It just makes you look like a petulant child.
pffff hahahahahaha. I bet you felt smart writing that.
anyways, your loss. Don't go see it. The movie is still going to be there for others to enjoy.
The initial scene between Lawrence and Ali would be dropped on the cutting floor. It's also a 222min movie. Theaters would revolt at the thought of it.
The problem is you literally don't know what you are talking about. Your premise:
The sequel does not attempt to duplicate anything about Blade Runner. It's a distinct film with a very different take on the same themes, explored at length and with nuance from a very different angle than the original film. It's a remarkably intelligent film that stands both as a sequel and a stand-alone, with its own style and approach.
It's not trying to copy Blade Runner.
You also say "there's nothing left to say", something the film thoroughly refutes by saying an awful lot. What it does not do is try to repeat what was said in Blade Runner.
dragonchild
Banned
Except. . .
you know. . .
I didn't say a single word about not seeing it on principle. Did I say I wasn't going to see it?
This movie is as far away from a "copy" of Blade Runner as you can get. The plot line has little resemblance to the first. It very organically follows the first. The world has changed in the past 30 years and this is a very organic story that just happens to take place in that same universe. It stands on its own and works on its own.
Latvian Hitman
Member
You're 100% correct. The underperformance at the box office has little to nothing to do with runtime or pacing. The film simply never had an audience sized to match its budget. If this had been an $80 million dollar movie, nobody would be complaining about the opening numbers.
They didn't miss the point, you're being pompous and the film is wonderful.
Honestly, it's like the antithesis of the things you're moaning about without even seeing it. It does suck to be you if you're not giving it a chance, as there's a very high chance your lily-white Shadowrun-playing BGC-watching GitS-owning I-actually-didn't-hate-Matrix-Revolutions ass will appreciate it quite a bit.
And sure, while your post doesn't hinge on the fact you're not /not/ going to see it, you definitely come at it with a condescending and quite obnoxious view. Perhaps that's why they were saying it sucks to be you.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
More like blade runner 2049 tickets sold hehehehehehehehehe
Seriously though, the run time may or may not be the killer here it's hard to say. A lot of people probably don't want this one trip to the theater to take up their whole afternoon but then again it's not like the lord of the rings movies were short and people flocked to them.
It's more likely that there just wasn't much hype for this project. Regardless of how well it came out I guess people just didn't care?
I think that's the more correct observation since it's not like your average movie goer is gonna read up on the pacing of something that they haven't seen yet.
Seriously though, the run time may or may not be the killer here it's hard to say. A lot of people probably don't want this one trip to the theater to take up their whole afternoon but then again it's not like the lord of the rings movies were short and people flocked to them.
It's more likely that there just wasn't much hype for this project. Regardless of how well it came out I guess people just didn't care?
I think that's the more correct observation since it's not like your average movie goer is gonna read up on the pacing of something that they haven't seen yet.
old manatee
Banned
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Christ, you could have skipped all the filler here and boiled it down to 'My original Blade Runner didn't need a sequel!'
Too bad this is shaping up to be even better than the original, atleast on the critical side.
It honestly does feel like there are about that many intelligent people left in the world sometimes.
thestopsign
Member
This entire post and your original post belong on r/iamverysmart.
The movie is good, your reasoning behind not seeing it is bad.
Various Artists
Banned
Not when it is raining ALL the time and you have to pee for the last 90 minutes!
Ha, yeh, the use of water equally unsettled me and made me quite aware I needed to pee. Still, it's testament to the film that I remained planted in my seat for almost 3 hours despite that. At the end I actually had to remind myself I needed to go.
tearsintherain
Member
My wife really didn't like the movie and thought it was a bit misogynistic, I read somewhere that the opening weekend audience skewed heavily male (like 77%) and older. I wonder if that had something to do with it?
I dunno if just fundamental facts about the movie (setting, title, length) made it impossible to ever be a big opening weekend movie but I also wonder if they had changed the character of Wallace to have been played by a woman, and the story changes, character motiviations, actions, etc that might have unraveled from that would have attracted more women into the movie. Robin Wright might have been perfect in that role.
2h43m though I think was the biggest death knell, it should have been a 2h movie for theatrical release. Just that extra 43m cut might have added a few more screens opening weekends, which just by itself may have boosted opening weekend to $40-45m.
Justice League is currently 2h 50m runtime, will be interesting to see how that does. Thor 3 is 2h 10m and Star Wars TLJ is 2h 30m (TFA was 2h 15m). Geostorm, opening Oct 20th, is 1h 50m
I dunno if just fundamental facts about the movie (setting, title, length) made it impossible to ever be a big opening weekend movie but I also wonder if they had changed the character of Wallace to have been played by a woman, and the story changes, character motiviations, actions, etc that might have unraveled from that would have attracted more women into the movie. Robin Wright might have been perfect in that role.
2h43m though I think was the biggest death knell, it should have been a 2h movie for theatrical release. Just that extra 43m cut might have added a few more screens opening weekends, which just by itself may have boosted opening weekend to $40-45m.
Justice League is currently 2h 50m runtime, will be interesting to see how that does. Thor 3 is 2h 10m and Star Wars TLJ is 2h 30m (TFA was 2h 15m). Geostorm, opening Oct 20th, is 1h 50m
Don't, you want to see this in a theatre.
I mean, the film could easily have had greater representation, and perhaps that does make it sexist, but the actual film itself isn't imo.
But then I'm male, and I see Deckard's rape of Rachel as something intrinsic to the story (his inability to view her as anything more than an object, a product, or perhaps his own fear of falling in love with a machine). I can acknowledge elements such as these can mean very different things to other people, but analysing them I can't see anything about the characters and their actions that support this claim.
More_Badass
Member
dragonchild
Banned
I'm sure it's wonderful for fuck's sake. I'm exploring the question of WHY IT'S NOT DOING WELL. Because apparently it's not. What's its appeal to people who haven't seen it yet. For a movie to succeed FINANCIALLY (not artistically but make its money back -- are we clear on this?) it needs to at least get its core audience jumping to see it to build hype or you get bad openings and it all snowballs from there. But not only have I not been in a rush to see it, none of my Shadowrun mates have made it out to the cinema either. This is a problem entirely separate from whether or not the movie is awesome. It's really more a problem for marketing folks to get a headache over, and I'm saying maybe this is the sort of film that wasn't going to build hype on its own, no matter how friggin' awesome it really is.
I haven't said a single thing about judging the film on its own merits, though that hasn't stopped anyone from getting nasty.
Well, I'm getting half my answer at least; its own fans are driving off anyone from wanting to spend two and a half hours surrounded by them.
Some of the reasons being given for this underperforming are bordering on the insane to me, largely because they're things people couldn't possibly have known about without first seeing the film - e.g. themes, pacing.
Like, for real? I can understand sitting at home and getting distracted by your phone or whatever but I've never just zoned out during a film in a cinema - and I've seen some real pieces of shit.
Like, for real? I can understand sitting at home and getting distracted by your phone or whatever but I've never just zoned out during a film in a cinema - and I've seen some real pieces of shit.
The fundamental issue is that there wasn't a core audience for this film.
voodoopanda
Member
They should put out another cut of the film w/ an added voice over.
More_Badass
Member
Shadowrun and Blade Runner arent really alike at all besides sharing some superficial cyberpunk elements. Its far more related to Neuromancer. Liking Shadowrun is no correlation to being into Blade Runner, so Im not sure why you see that as an anecdotal point
Do you have any friends who like Obsverver or Gemini Rue? The appeal of those are much more in line with Blade Runner than Shadowrun
Razorback
Member
Here's my theory I just came up with. General audiences think of cyberpunk movies as B-tier trash basically. They look at this and they see another Robocop remake or Total Recall, or the recent GitS. Or worse, maybe they see something like that Vin Diesel flop, Babylon A.D.
It's easy for us to tell the difference, but we're a bunch a nerds.
Anyway, I doubt they would have liked the movie even if they had seen it.
The venn diagram intersection of people into both sci-fi and art-house cinema is very small.
It's easy for us to tell the difference, but we're a bunch a nerds.
Anyway, I doubt they would have liked the movie even if they had seen it.
The venn diagram intersection of people into both sci-fi and art-house cinema is very small.
dragonchild
Banned
Finally, someone's starting to get it. I mean, I don't know if I agree, but this the conversation I was trying to have.
Your loss dude.
- Status