More_Badass
Member
There is a core audience. It just aint a big one.
-
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
Triggerhappytel
Member
I love going to he cinema by myself. I only do it about once every couple of years though, so it feels like a real treat when I do!
QuantumZebra
Member
shits mind boggling
"I dont have time in my day to watch a 3 hour masterpiece"
...
"binge watches Fuller House all day"
dragonchild
Banned
Demographics. If that Venn diagram don't have enough of an overlap, well, you ain't gonna make up for it by pulling in fans of J.J.Abrams' stuff.
Because he's not their mother?
The duplicating/repeating the same ideas from BR/other sci-fi films is completely hollow criticism. Should've stopped watching sci-fi films (or any piece of media) decades ago. Or should that be centuries?
Fine if you think it's not well done but you need to see it first bto make that assessment. It's also fine to say that these ideas appear irrelevant so interest levels are low in which case, well there's simpler of putting that than what's being presented here. Insufferable rants are fun to type out I guess.
Fine if you think it's not well done but you need to see it first bto make that assessment. It's also fine to say that these ideas appear irrelevant so interest levels are low in which case, well there's simpler of putting that than what's being presented here. Insufferable rants are fun to type out I guess.
He is saying it was the marketers job to get people like him hyped to go to the theater and watch the movie. He didn't feel that way so the marketing failed. It's really not that hard to understand what he was trying to say, even if you disagree with the point he was making.
QuantumZebra
Member
Pretty much what you said - but the exact opposite.
Blade Runner had a fuckload of unanswered questions... Is Deckard a replicant? Is Tyrell the only replicant maker? Is Rachel going to die? Could Deckard and Rachel procreate, and thus create a future for replicants? If no, then could it be possible?
I feel like you either haven't watched Blade Runner recently or are just trying to be edgy.
The film isn't nostalgia, I've watched it 3 times in the past month and each time I see something else I missed and each time my heartbeat picks up at the end when they get in the elevator and Vangelis takes over.
---
For the record I haven't seen BR2049 yet - going to this weekend with my wife, then going again solo just to show support.
The Force Awakens is a ripoff of A New Hope and A New Hope is a ripoff of Seven Samurai and ...
Dude, you came in here with a horrible attitude (rather obnoxious and condescending) and wonder why people aren't giving you the courtesy.
Dial it back a bit and perhaps people will engage more.
More_Badass
Member
Considering he also makes a point of saying hes a fan of cyberpunk but Blade Runner is practically sequel proof with nothing left to say, seems to be more to his point than marketing not grabbing people
Like even if the marketing was perfect, would he see this with such a mindset regarding 2049?
QuantumZebra
Member
Cut the false victim BS. You came storming in with barely coherent opinions and generalizations along with a very myopic view of what's occurring with BR2049, then get pissy and play victim when you're called out on it.
Nobody is skipping BR2049 because they are afraid of BR fans calling them out on crappy movie opinions, that's just your strawman.
Next time write better. Think better.
I think people would have got it fine if if had been more polite of a post. Half the problem here is his/her tone derailing their own posts.
Probably. But his entire last paragraph was irrelevant to his "point" imo. It was just talking about how good the original was which definitely hid his point
Lawrence actually has history already with being cut for time's sake.
So it would be nothing new.
I don't know. I think that would still fall under the marketing department. They had to know that a lot BR fans didn't think the movie needed a sequel. If you want spending 150m+ dollars making a movie and turn a profit you need to work to change those peoples minds.
dragonchild
Banned
I mean, maybe? Setting myself aside that's what needs to be done, if more movies like this are going to be made. And this isn't a new problem -- remember the atrocious marketing for Edge of Tomorrow? It's like they had no idea what to do with it. But this was a movie that was never going to sell itself. . . or at least, that was my point.
Personally, I'm probably going to go see it. Maybe not anytime soon, since Mrs. dragonchild isn't into this sort of thing, but I wasn't stating my personal inclination per se.
Looking back I can see I was overly abrasive and I apologize for that, because it's not clear that the whole "I don't give a shit" was more directed at the marketing than at anyone here. Basically that's a damning indictment of the film's release. Not the film itself.
TheModestGun
Neo Member
Yeah it doesn't make any sense to me either. I've seen much shorter films that felt MUUUCH longer.
People who complain about a quality movie have too long of a run time confuse the hell out of me. If a movie is good, I'll sit through a 4 hour movie in the theater no problem. I've watched the extended LOTR films back to back before with people (with short food breaks in between each).
2049 was incredible. I would have sat through another hour of it gladly, if it were useful to the story and necessary to continue the quality of the film.
2049 was incredible. I would have sat through another hour of it gladly, if it were useful to the story and necessary to continue the quality of the film.
I agree with you. The film's marketing was poor. If they had played to its strengths it might have been more successful, but that success would be relatively moderate considering the film itself (and the original) have niche appeal.
They either didn't understand it and just did what execs do, or they gambled on fooling the public into their seats thinking that initial burst would be a bigger benefit.
Regardless, they fumbled it, and while word of mouth is going to hinder this getting a running start I'm fairly certain it will prove a decent enough success in the long-run.
It's a beautiful film that isn't for everyone, the fact it even exists is wonderful. I can't imagine it being forgotten any time soon, and I think once people get over their initial reactions regarding it being a sequel to something beloved the strengths of the film in its own right will begin to carry it.
dragonchild
Banned
4 hours would be a bit much for me, at least without an intermission, if only because my bladder will have something to say about it.
But I mean, heck, aren't plenty of action movies running over 2 hours these days? I think the comments about length are really about pacing. Not many movies with nine-figure budgets ask their audiences to sit back and soak, and that goes double when the impression (deserved or not) is that futuristic = action.
Atraveller
Banned
If the friends I brought to cinema with started to text, I would tell them to knock that shit off. Not do nothing and let them worsen the movie watching experience for everyone else that were also not their mothers.
I mean, they need to market it for the mass right? You had people in GAF complaining that it looks like another Hollywood blockbuster with lots of action. What better way to market it to the general public? The team definitely had their work cut out for them
He didn't say he did nothing. But you assume his friends would actually stop just because he asked.
I think they went a bit too far with it, not every box office success is an action film with an explosive, exciting trailer.
It's a numbers game for the execs, and I guess they saw this as the most profitable option. I can't help but wonder what audience reactions would have been had they not been duped, though.
Jon Carter
Member
The condescension levels are off the charts in these threads. I get that the movie fascinated some people, but the idea that people who didn't like the movie all just wanted "whizbang" is ridiculous. People like a good plot, strong characters and a credible antagonist. It doesn't matter how long the movie is. People talk about complex themes, beautiful cinematography and music, all elements that help make a good movie great, but those don't make a successful movie. I don't see anybody making a good argument for the plot, the characters or the antagonist being strong. Think of any successful movie that didn't rely on blockbuster action, and they'll have those to thank for their success.
Also, not liking a slow movie doesn't mean not liking any slow movie. 2001, The Shining, 2046, Southland Tales are all part of my favorite movies of all time and they are long and slow-moving too. But they have great characters, or a great plot, or great suspense. I thought Blade Runner 2049 had none of those and that's why I didn't like it despite the things people rave about in this thread. Themes only matter to me if there are characters and a plot I'm invested in.
Also, not liking a slow movie doesn't mean not liking any slow movie. 2001, The Shining, 2046, Southland Tales are all part of my favorite movies of all time and they are long and slow-moving too. But they have great characters, or a great plot, or great suspense. I thought Blade Runner 2049 had none of those and that's why I didn't like it despite the things people rave about in this thread. Themes only matter to me if there are characters and a plot I'm invested in.
dragonchild
Banned
Sometimes, and mind you I can be wrong, but risk-averse business decisions can be self-defeating. Like throwing a 5-yard out on 3rd and 10, if football's your thing. They took what they perceived as a very likely bust and eliminated the risk by making it a guaranteed one.
So incoherent rant (sorry guys) aside, I'm frustrated because they don't make many movies like this, so they can't afford to make mistakes like this. I'm sure they have reams of data that support their business decisions, but the movie industry has been very, very wrong about a great number of things. I'm old enough to remember when comics were comics because Hollywood was adamant that comic books could never be made into profitable movies. It took Tim Burton making his production budget back eleven times over to get Hollywood's attention. It took forever to get a Wonder Woman movie made because they were adamant that a female comic book heroine would never sell. Yes, this is a different genre, but my point is that when people buy into the narratives they create for themselves, and gather data that support that narrative, their conclusions can wildly deviate from reality. Comic book movies never succeeded until they did, because until they succeeded, they weren't even given the time of day. Yet I've never seen things go well when Hollywood assumes a film's audience doesn't exist at all and tries to create one out of the lowest common denominator. Maybe this film was doomed for a loss but you're not even going to get the low-hanging fruit if you sell to the wrong crowd.
So here's my take, FWIW. If you've got something beautiful, then dare to sell that beauty. I mean, why not? The predictable approach got them predictable results.
The average movie goer definitely has less patience for a 2.5 hour genre film than a person invested in said genre. There's nothing condescending about that.
Go to the OT if you want talks on why some of us think the characters etc... are amazing. You didn't get that, but many people are articulating why they did just not ITT due to spoilers.
Jon Carter
Member
I went to the OT already. Not seeing a good argument there either.
I kinda get what he's saying. I'm in the same boat. I enjoy cyberpunk trappings and I enjoy the original, but I was never left wanting a sequel after the first. Sequel/Adaptations of cult classics have very spotty reputations, and everything about the marketing seemed like it was just playing up the aesthetics (because really, what else can you do in marketing?).
So if people like me are supposedly the core audience, I still held off seeing it because of trepidation about the necessity of another blade runner. Of course, now that reviews are out and my fears are alleviated, I'll probably go check it out.
But yes, this isn't marketing - like you said, that mindset would persist regardless of whatever the marketing is. The marketing can't really tell you it's a worthwhile sequel to the original, all it can do is try to play up nostalgia.
The overall point, which I think all parties are in agreement on, is that the core audience is small, and even then, not necessarily the type to go rush into a new adaptation of something they loved.
This is the biggest shit that ever happened post-released to a movie. It's in the same ballpark as Star Wars Special Edition. It doesn't make any fucking sense for Deckard to be a replicant. The whole movie would not make any sense and all the messages in it would be wasted and become obsolete. I don't know why Ridley Scott came up with it but it's one of the dumbest things ever.
And I've to agree the poster you've quoted. I'm a huge Sci-Fi fan and I love the first movie.I still think Rutger Hauer's monologe at the end is one of the best scenes of all time. But I never ever asked for a sequel. The movie was done for me. It answered all questions I had and if something was left open then let it be. You don't need the answers to everything. So that's one of the reasons why it probably flopped. Noone asked for this.
There are tons of good arguments. Maybe nothing that convinces you, but that's something else.
I really hope there is a directors cut of the movie with at least another thirty minutes of material.
What makes you think this movie is about providing answers?
International has been a lot better.
It's not just about having patience, for a long film you pretty much have to plan half your day around it. If it's a dinner and movie date on a weekday, you have to worry about getting home too late; if you need to get a babysitter, it might be out of the question.
I don't think liking Blade Runner or not or going to see it in cinema is fair litmus test for whether someone has good taste or whatnot. The longest film I've seen in cinema is probably A Brighter Summer's Day at 4 hours; it was very much worth it, but the only time it can be done was a weekend afternoon.
Bronetta
Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
It seems to be doing really well in UK and many other countries.
It just underperformed in Trumps America.
Welp..400 million to break even? Yeah that's not gonna happen.
I didn't say it was about "good taste", I said it was because the film is very much a niche genre piece and niche genre pieces are tough for the average cinema goer to appreciate even if they're shorter and snappier.
When I say "average" I'm not saying these people lack the intelligence to appreciate it, simply that niche appeal isn't universal appeal, and everyone has their own niches they appreciate.
Also it being long simply absolutely hurts simply because people have limited time, and there aren't as many options to see it as it's played less due to this.
All these things make it harder for this film to penetrate.
250 million in advertising, are you for goddamn real
looks around
Where is this advertising?!
Extra Sauce
Member
Montreal's Metro paper was reporting how the movie is doing great at the box office this morning, citing international numbers.
Dat Quebec bias.
Dat Quebec bias.
dragonchild
Banned
I disagree that the marketing was a hopeless cause; frankly, I think if nostalgia's all you've got then you're dead. There's art (potentially, anyway) within marketing, I think, and a movie like this needs more than a prefab campaign or, well, nothing, because I barely heard anything about it.
But I mean the original itself is a different beast. Not just that it's cult or niche or whatever. It's not just the well-justified doubts with making a sequel so long after a box office flop became a cult classic. If Tolkien emerged from the grave to announce a new Middle-Earth novel, I'd be hyped for it. Even Star Wars and Star Trek I feel are suffering badly from a dearth of creativity, but the settings have much left to explore. These stories are about exploration and adventure, so they make you wonder what lies beyond the edges of the map. They look outward. If it works, the audience becomes insatiable, and that makes expansions a relatively easy sell.
Taking the impressions here at face value it seems they found a way to explore the world of Blade Runner beyond what the original showed, but the original work itself wasn't the sort to imply that was possible, necessary, or even desirable. Blade Runner always gave me the impression that it was introspective and nihilistic, and was done exploring its own mind. Are there unanswered questions? Sure. But it's not like I was particularly interested in what Deckard and Rachael would find on their journey, because wasn't Roy's point that it wasn't going to matter?
My theatre was also sold out (I watched it on Saturday).
- Status