Support NeoGAF

[Mr. Mister]

For that they should have spiced up the plot with a bit more action. They should have taken notes from Nolan as he is pretty good with this.

Barf. Hell no.

Then we would have just gotten another “entertaining” Nolan film for the masses. The world doesn’t need another of those. They are sugar coated crap - Marvel for the “refined” taste.

 

[Vectorman]

That said, I'm not really surprised that it bombs at the box office as it has next to no entertainment value. It's a piece of art and I'm baffled that Villeneuve actually got 150 Million bucks to make this flick. Big props to Sony for fronting this. But I do wonder how stupid the execs were if they actually thought this movie would make the money back. For that they should have spiced up the plot with a bit more action. They should have taken notes from Nolan as he is pretty good with this.

I'm actually shocked the execs didn't force Denis to do a Spinner car chase in the city. Probably something they would have suggested. More shooting as well. I can't even recall them doing too much use of the guns like in the first one either.

 

[Gattsu25]

21 screens near me on Wednesday
5 for Friday

I don't think I've seen that before

 

[More_Badass]

I'm actually shocked the execs didn't force Denis to do a Spinner car chase in the city. Probably something they would have suggested. More shooting as well. I can't even recall them doing too much use of the guns like in the first one either.

I wouldn't even be exactly averse to a scene like that. Ideally if it was more like Drive's tension and clever evasion than wild chase.

 

[duckroll]

If they wanted a Nolan movie they would have asked Nolan. They didn't, they asked Villeneuve. Why? Because they made Prisoners together and they love his work.

 

[Mr. Mister]

The reason it’s good is because they didn’t take notes from people that thought it needed a bit more action or maybe chop of 45 minutes. Then it’s just the diluted shit we put up with 98% of the time.

What we got was an expensive, high concept sci-fi vision from one of the better directors of our time. Totally sucks that it’s not a winner for the studio but holy shit that it got made. It’s a miracle and something that we get to witness once every few years - glad I was around for it.

 

[robotrock]

Barf. Hell no.

Then we would have just gotten another “entertaining” Nolan film for the masses. The world doesn’t need another of those. They are sugar coated crap - Marvel for the “refined” taste.

why are people so mean

 

[Mr. Mister]

why are people so mean

Because our bar has been lowered so much that we see something that slightly reminds us of good art as greatness.

Nolan’s artistry is knowing how to push the current audiences buttons. He’s a glossy JJ Abrams.

 

[Cerium]

This movie was amazing. It deserves to make money.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Barf. Hell no.

Then we would have just gotten another ”entertaining" Nolan film for the masses. The world doesn't need another of those. They are sugar coated crap - Marvel for the ”refined" taste.

It would have been a rather small compromise to make this movie more accessible to many more people and I don't think a bit more action would have hurt the overall plot.

But yeah, rather have this one great movie that bombed so hard we have to wait another 30 years before a studio fronts so much money to make anything like this again... /s

There is a middle ground you know and Nolan manages it pretty well - see Interstellar. I'm also no happy with all stuff he pulled there but you have to see it more objective. Nolan is smart to spice up his movies with this "bland" stuff to make them more accessible to the masses. It's a business after all. I'd rather have a couple of complex blockbuster movies with a bit bland stuff in them than none at all.

 

[robotrock]

Personally, I enjoy something more if it has a small fanbase rather than a large one. So this worked out for me.

 

[Mr. Mister]

It would have been a rather small compromise to make this movie more accessible to many more people and I don't think a bit more action would have hurt the overall plot.

But yeah, rather have this one great movie that bombed so hard we have to wait another 30 years before a studio fronts so much money to make anything like this again... /s

There is a middle ground you know and Nolan manages it pretty well - see Interstellar. I'm also no happy with all stuff he pulled there but you have to see it more objective. Nolan is smart to spice up his movies with this "bland" stuff to make them more accessible to the masses. It's a business after all. I'd rather have a couple of complex blockbuster movies with a bit bland stuff in them than none at all.

Cool for you. I live in the world where this got made. If I have to wait another 30 years for another film with this subject matter made with such an uncompromising vision I’ll do that / no s.

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

Personally, I enjoy something more if it has a small fanbase rather than a large one. So this worked out for me.

🤔

 

[More_Badass]

It would have been a rather small compromise to make this movie more accessible to many more people and I don't think a bit more action would have hurt the overall plot.

But yeah, rather have this one great movie that bombed so hard we have to wait another 30 years before a studio fronts so much money to make anything like this again... /s

There is a middle ground you know and Nolan manages it pretty well - see Interstellar. I'm also no happy with all stuff he pulled there but you have to see it more objective. Nolan is smart to spice up his movies with this "bland" stuff to make them more accessible to the masses. It's a business after all. I'd rather have a couple of complex blockbuster movies with a bit bland stuff in it them than none at all.

I really like Nolan movies (3/4ths of Interstellar is fantastic) but that this isn't afraid to not be more accessible is what makes it special. That kind of decision isn't a simple thing; it influences pacing, storytelling, character and plot, how scenes are filmed and edited, and so on.

Considering the other best sci-fi film of the 21st century (aka Children of Men) also bombed, I don't think some more action and exposition would have helped. I mean, CoM has some amazingly intense and gripping action and war scenes, compared to Blade Runner.

The film that unflinchingly presents its vision, tone, and story on this scale is pretty rare for a reason.

 

[robotrock]

Cool for you. I live in the world where this got made. If I have to wait another 30 years for another film with this subject matter made with such an uncompromising vision I'll do that / no s.

Agreed/ no s too.

There's really not much like this out there, especially with that kind of a budget. I'd hate to have had the vision compromised for higher accessibility. We're really lucky to get this. And just like I never really asked for a sequel to Blade Runner, I don't really think I'd ask for one to this too. Just make sure Denis keeps getting to do crazy shit.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'll just note that I saw this film totally blind - I hadn't seen a second of footage.

I watched the trailers for it after and was gobsmacked at how bad they were. They kept putting more and more action into them, such that the firs trailer and the last were selling different movies. The last two were trying to sell an action film, with basically every moment of action stuffed into the trailers. The last trailer I saw was pitching a movie where Gosling and Ford team up to take down an evil guy with an army of replicants, cue action montage.

If I'd seen the trailers before hand I'd have been pretty apprehensive about the film. I went on the strength of the reviews, cast and director instead.

 

[Schryver]

Officially one of my favorite movies. I really want to go see it again after going to IMAX yesterday. I feel like it will do decent box office numbers through the weekend due to word of mouth but definitely disappointing that more people don’t appreciate quality like this

 

[robotrock]

Children of Men was sent to die. Opened wide in January for the US.

If I'd seen the trailers before hand I'd have been pretty apprehensive about the film. I went on the strength of the reviews, cast and director instead.

That's how you gotta go for every movie.

 

[Mr. Mister]

Children of Men was sent to die. Opened wide in January for the US.

Also a great movie.

So really, we have to wait around 10 years per great one. I’ll take that over the watered down “make it for me” option.

 

[HariKari]

For that they should have spiced up the plot with a bit more action. They should have taken notes from Nolan as he is pretty good with this.

You're asking for something that isn't Blade Runner. So, in a way, you're bang on that it isn't for you.

I don't want Alcon to shutter, so I hope they break even, but you can't undo this movie. It exists. You can't take it away from the fans. They spent $150 mil on a piece of art and that's fucking awesome.

 

[More_Badass]

I'll just note that I saw this film totally blind - I hadn't seen a second of footage.

I watched the trailers for it after and was gobsmacked at how bad they were. They kept putting more and more action into them, such that the firs trailer and the last were selling different movies. The last two were trying to sell an action film, with basically every moment of action stuffed into the trailers. The last trailer I saw was pitching a movie where Gosling and Ford team up to take down an evil guy with an army of replicants, cue action montage.

If I'd seen the trailers before hand I'd have been pretty apprehensive about the film. I went on the strength of the reviews, cast and director instead.

You're not kidding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFp9v_InWM

From slow moody trailer with some hints of action to "epic masterpiece" and quick cut actiony montage at the end

 

[vinnygambini]

They did not spend an amount nearly equal to the production budget on advertising. Especially not for a somewhat niche, rated R sci-fi movie. That's an completely absurd assumption

? Girl please. Shit is expensive.

Any P&A dollars stateside is backstopped by Alcon. Industry estimates figure $130M overall P&A for Blade Runner 2049.

http://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-go...n-ford-opening-weekend-box-office-1202183063/

 

[A-V-B]

You're not kidding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFp9v_InWM

From slow moody trailer with some hints of action to "epic masterpiece" and quick cut actiony montage at the end

Oh my god, that last one is fucking awful. It's like one of those Scary Mary trailers. (Except Scary Mary was awesome.)

 

[Dommo]

I'll just note that I saw this film totally blind - I hadn't seen a second of footage.

I watched the trailers for it after and was gobsmacked at how bad they were. They kept putting more and more action into them, such that the firs trailer and the last were selling different movies. The last two were trying to sell an action film, with basically every moment of action stuffed into the trailers. The last trailer I saw was pitching a movie where Gosling and Ford team up to take down an evil guy with an army of replicants, cue action montage.

If I'd seen the trailers before hand I'd have been pretty apprehensive about the film. I went on the strength of the reviews, cast and director instead.

Well I did see the trailers before hand and I was apprehensive about the film until the reviews started rolling in. Seriously, I started fairly interested from the announcement of Gosling + Denis + first teaser, then with every passing new piece of information my hype deflated.

I understand the desire to get butts into seats by drumming home the action side of things, but I really wonder how effective it is to ever misrepresent your film in the marketing. All you're gonna do is get the wrong crowd into the cinema. Those who want an action film are going to be disappointed and the word of mouth won't be good, and those that are actually looking for something slower and more cerebral aren't actually going to go see it because they think it's an action film. How is this effective?

It'd be like advertising a strawberry milkshake as a chocolate milkshake because chocolate milkshakes sell more. Well, okay, but you'd spit out a chocolate shake if you thought you were getting strawberry, and those that actually want strawberry aren't going to know it's being sold. What the hell?

 

[More_Badass]

Oh my god, that last one is fucking awful. It's like one of those Scary Mary trailers. (Except Scary Mary was awesome.)

I hadn't seen that one before. It twists the story like a pretzel through editing to make it look like a Ford-Gosling action thriller team-up to take down Wallace while they're being hunted and pursued

I mean, at least mother! technically presents you with the actual basic story and tone in its trailers.

 

[Mr. Mister]

You're not kidding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFp9v_InWM

From slow moody trailer with some hints of action to "epic masterpiece" and quick cut actiony montage at the end

Wow. They show Gaff in that second trailer. Glad I
never saw that one and went in semi-blind.

To be fair I see the plan here - get in hard core fans with first then try to reach out further. They just never realized potential size. Better marketing at most gives it a 10-15% bump. Bamboozled action fan films bad word of mouth didn’t kill it.

 

[Chinner]

Wow. They show Gaff in that second trailer. Glad I
never saw that one and went in semi-blind.

To be fair I see the plan here - get in hard core fans with first then try to reach out further. They just never realized potential size. Better marketing at most gives it a 10-15% bump.

Thanks for the spoiler

 

[Mr. Mister]

Thanks for the spoiler

It’s in a trailer. Also Dekard is in it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

You're not kidding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFp9v_InWM

From slow moody trailer with some hints of action to "epic masterpiece" and quick cut actiony montage at the end

Yeah, those were two of the ones I watched. I saw them after the film, but I can only imagine how confused someone not familiar with the film would be. And how someone who came on the basis of that last trailer would find the actual film boring, slow, etc. It's not what they came to see.

Well I did see the trailers before hand and I was apprehensive about the film until the reviews started rolling in. Seriously, I started fairly interested from the announcement of Gosling + Denis + first teaser, then with every passing new piece of information my hype deflated.

I understand the desire to get butts into seats by drumming home the action side of things, but I really wonder how effective it is to ever misrepresent your film in the marketing. All you're gonna do is get the wrong crowd into the cinema. Those who want an action film are going to be disappointed and the word of mouth won't be good, and those that are actually looking for something slower and more cerebral aren't actually going to go see it because they think it's an action film. How is this effective?

It'd be like advertising a strawberry milkshake as a chocolate milkshake because chocolate milkshakes sell more. Well, okay, but you'd spit out a chocolate shake if you thought you were getting strawberry, and those that actually want strawberry aren't going to know it's being sold. What the hell?

How much of the film's poor opening is being attributed to the marketing? I've seen most of the blame being put on the run time and genre, but those trailers. Oof. Your description is on point.

 

[More_Badass]

Yeah, those were two of the ones I watched. I saw them after the film, but I can only imagine how confused someone not familiar with the film would be. And how someone who came on the basis of that last trailer would find the actual film boring, slow, etc. It's not what they came to see.


How much of the film's poor opening is being attributed to the marketing? I've seen most of the blame being put on the run time and genre, but those trailers. Oof. Your description is on point.

You see that last trailer, and then considering how the movie ends? I'd probably be annoyed and saying nothing happened in the movie too, like other people

There's one thing with presenting the movie in a different tone, like mother! did. That movie actually does have horrifying and disturbing imagery.,and the trailers never really lied about the actual plot.

But yeah, that last trailer is some It Comes At Night-level mismarketing

 

[BocoDragon]

You're not kidding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFp9v_InWM

From slow moody trailer with some hints of action to "epic masterpiece" and quick cut actiony montage at the end

I don't mind the actual trailer at the top. Trailer 2 is probably better though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOaI_Fn5o4

The TV one at the bottom is a deliberate mislead for sure.

 

[Mr. Mister]

I don't mind the actual trailer at the top. Trailer 2 is probably better though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOaI_Fn5o4

The TV one at the bottom is a deliberate mislead for sure.

Yea - trailer 2 - the last I officially saw is still in the realm of what the actual movie was. Posting the others feels a little weird and slightly disingenuous. Studios cut a ton of trailers. Don’t really get what posting them all adds to the discussion. It didn’t under perform because of trailers.

You think a $100 million+ that they needed to make up didn’t show up because of trailers? Those trailers are desperate good people trying to make as much back as they can knowing it’s a losing battle.

To be clear I think there is nothing that could been done to avoid this outcome. Was doomed from start - I’m just happy that through circumstances that it happened.

 

[More_Badass]

Can you imagine a marketing department trying to sell Children of Men today? That movie missed the whole 5 seconds YouTube pre-trailer/endless TV spots/social media teasers era

People would be thinking it was some wild post-apocalyptic war movie given how much they'd use the car scene and big war scene to make the movie look action-packed

 

[Mr. Mister]

Can you imagine a marketing department trying to sell Children of Men today? That movie missed the whole 5 seconds YouTube pre-trailer/endless TV spots/social media teasers era

People would be thinking it was some wild post-apocalyptic war movie given how much they'd use the car scene and big war scene to make the movie look action-packed

No!!!!?!?!?!!!!! That’s the worst takeaway.

It’s sucks so bad that good things get to be thrown under the easy to blame marketing dept. Huge portion is that people genuinely don’t give a shit about artistry at scale anymore.

It’s the shit we’ve accepted that masks it.

 

[robotrock]

could you imagine if clive owen still did stuff

 

[Pezking]

could you imagine if clive owen still did stuff

Hey, he was in Valerian!

 

[More_Badass]

No!!!!?!?!?!!!!! That’s the worst takeaway.

It’s sucks so bad that good things get to be thrown under the easy to blame marketing dept. Huge portion is that people genuinely don’t give a shit about artistry at scale anymore.

It’s the shit we’ve accepted that masks it.

I'm not conflating the two. It was just a related thought

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

It would have been a rather small compromise to make this movie more accessible to many more people and I don't think a bit more action would have hurt the overall plot.

But yeah, rather have this one great movie that bombed so hard we have to wait another 30 years before a studio fronts so much money to make anything like this again... /s

There is a middle ground you know and Nolan manages it pretty well - see Interstellar. I'm also no happy with all stuff he pulled there but you have to see it more objective. Nolan is smart to spice up his movies with this "bland" stuff to make them more accessible to the masses. It's a business after all. I'd rather have a couple of complex blockbuster movies with a bit bland stuff in them than none at all.

A middle ground is still a compromise and would have led to a lesser, though more financially successful Blade Runner. Which one do you want?

I’m glad we got an uncompromising vision from an auteur. So what if it bombed? It feels like a gift to the fans, not a product sent out to collect ticket money.

 

[robotrock]

Hey, he was in Valerian!

wish you didn't tell me this dude. man

clive buddy. i hope it was worth it

 

[Kvik]

wish you didn't tell me this dude. man

clive buddy. i hope it was worth it

I'm sure he still likes eating and going to the movies sometimes, hence the job.

At least we had two seasons of The Knick (RIP) where he excels.

 

[Dommo]

Yea - trailer 2 - the last I officially saw is still in the realm of what the actual movie was. Posting the others feels a little weird and slightly disingenuous. Studios cut a ton of trailers. Don't really get what posting them all adds to the discussion. It didn't under perform because of trailers.

You think a $100 million+ that they needed to make up didn't show up because of trailers? Those trailers are desperate good people trying to make as much back as they can knowing it's a losing battle.

To be clear I think there is nothing that could been done to avoid this outcome. Was doomed from start - I'm just happy that through circumstances that it happened.

Probably, but that doesn't mean the trailers helped things.

Slightly less related, it's funny how swiftly our feelings towards big budget cinema as a whole shifted over the last week. Like, after the reviews hit and the first batch of cinema goers saw it, the feeling was "Everyone talks shit about cinematic universes and cynical cash grabs but if we're getting quality films like BR2049 every year then we'll be just fine." One week later and it's like "Oh we're never gonna get anything like BR2049 again. Outlook's grim."

It just doesn't make any business sense to be making films like this anymore and that's pretty depressing. Also, wasn't there talk that Rotten Tomatoes has a legitimate effect on the box office of films these days? Like a good chunk of audiences refer to it as a barometer. Clearly doesn't have as much sway as we'd think.

 

[DieNgamers]

Man, the film generally doesn't seem to do anything for many women my age. Just talking about anecdotal evidence here. People I know or conversations I've witnessed... I've heard things like "dull, boring, sexist, macho".

What. Is this a guy-movie? A female friend really liked it and appreciated it for its subtle tone and heavy messages. Still...

 

[robotrock]

Man, the film generally doesn't seem to do anything for many women my age. Just talking about anecdotal evidence here. People I know or conversations I've witnessed... I've heard things like "dull, boring, sexist, macho".

What. Is this a guy-movie? A female friend really liked it and appreciated it for its subtle tone and heavy messages. Still...

I am a man, but I can objectively tell you that this is 100% a film for women.

 

[Mr. Mister]

Man, the film generally doesn't seem to do anything for many women my age. Just talking about anecdotal evidence here. People I know or conversations I've witnessed... I've heard things like "dull, boring, sexist, macho".

What. Is this a guy-movie? A female friend really liked it and appreciated it for its subtle tone and heavy messages. Still...

What did you think?

 

[Discotheque]

Just got out of it tonight. I really enjoyed this but you can practically feel the aura of disappointment and boredom from the audience

I am not surprised at how bad the box office performance for this will be but its a damn shame. I was a huge sucker for the themes of this (a lot of elements in here reminded me of AI and Her) and the visual spectacle. And I did like how much of a slow burn it was tbh.

Not as good as the first movie though for me nor do I think it will hold the same iconic significance years from now.

and YES IT DESERVED THAT 150 MIL BUDGET. I don't even wanna think about how this would have looked with a more stringent (and wiser financially) amount of money behind it. god damn did this look great.

 

[DieNgamers]

What did you think?

After I saw it? More along these lines, honestly:

I am a man, but I can objectively tell you that this is 100% a film for women.

 

[TARS]

Barf. Hell no.

Then we would have just gotten another ”entertaining" Nolan film for the masses. The world doesn't need another of those. They are sugar coated crap - Marvel for the ”refined" taste.

"Technically awe-inspiring, narratively inventive and thematically complex, Dunkirk reinvigorates its genre with a war movie that is both harrowing and smart."

"Both intimate and epic, as emotional as it is tension-filled, it is being ballyhooed as a departure for bravura filmmaker Christopher Nolan, but in truth the reason it succeeds so masterfully is that it is anything but."

"This is a grand spectacle, not an empty one, a rare example of the Hollywood blockbuster dollar well spent."

"Dunkirk is a tour de force of cinematic craft and technique, but one that is unambiguously in the service of a sober, sincere, profoundly moral story that closes the distance between yesterday's fights and today's."

"This blockbuster spectacle is an intense experience of pure cinema that far exceeds the standard "miracle at Dunkirk" narrative."

"It's at once minimalist and maximalist, cynical and dopey, a big-boy white elephant art film that is actually a lean and mean suspense set-piece machine."

"This is visceral, big-budget filmmaking that can be called Art. It's also, hands down, the best motion picture of the year so far."

"Dunkirk is an impressionist masterpiece."

But sure, let's call movies like Memento, The Prestige and now Dunkirk "Marvel for the "refined" taste".

I will never understand the need to put down other people's work so they can feel better about what or who they prefer instead.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

A movie can be long and have lots of grounds to cover making it long.

BR2049 is long because its slow and no, it doesn’t tell an epic story. Or a deep long internal one.

Reading some of the posts about the length, there’s scope to make cuts in this. And of course the comments that imply that cutting it = worse film. It could be, or it could not. As is, the length + Pacing of the feature is a deteriment.

I enjoyed the movie, but the pace was horrendous. Should have been a lot left on the cutting room floor.

 

[hateradio]

Saw it earlier tonight.

Man. Those scenes moved at a glacial pace.

A few scenes felt like extras that would be included in a "director's cut" or something. Some scenes just tumbled into each other. In the end, it could have been an hour short. Not to say that there weren't great scenes, but they seemed to ebb because of the pace of everything around them.

I don't remember feeling like this about the first movie at all.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Saw it earlier tonight.

Man. Those scenes moved at a glacial pace.

A few scenes felt like extras that would be included in a "director's cut" or something. Some scenes just tumbled into each other. In the end, it could have been an hour short. Not to say that there weren't great scenes, but they seemed to ebb because of the pace of everything around them.

I don't remember feeling like this about the first movie at all.

I felt the exact same way - “I’m watching a director’s cut...but in the theater.”