Paid Members Nick Soapdish Posted October 8, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2017 Box office mojo now say Blade Runner 2049 will open with $31.5 million, $4 million less then the most conservative estimates. Ouch. It's been a very weird year this year for movies and Box Office returns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Scott Malbranque Posted October 8, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2017 Geralds Game was really good. It was wired, mental and creepy. Essentially all the things Mother wanted to be, but wasn't. Thoroughly enjoyed it and further testamemt to the fact that Gugino should be a much bigger star than she is.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator Onyx2 Posted October 8, 2017 Awards Moderator Share Posted October 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Nick Soapdish said: they might install Laser What is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Nick Soapdish Posted October 8, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2017 18 minutes ago, Onyx2 said: What is that? I went to see The Force Awakens in Leicester Square not long after they installed it. One of the best 3D experiences I've had and TFA wasn't even a great example. Just very clear  https://www.whathifi.com/news/imax-launches-laser-projection-system-in-uk-and-it-looks-spectacular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 8, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2017 Blade Runner was never going to make that much money at its opening. It's a sequel to a 35 year old film that was a box office failure itself on its initial release. Factor in its length and its lack of appeal to most young people, I think it's done well with what it's got. I was expecting it to be a box office flop and just glad the studio were dopey enough to part with over $150 million on a film unlikely to make them that much back but almost certain to be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Nick Soapdish Posted October 8, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2017 37 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said: Blade Runner was never going to make that much money at its opening. It's a sequel to a 35 year old film that was a box office failure itself on its initial release. Factor in its length and its lack of appeal to most young people, I think it's done well with what it's got. I was expecting it to be a box office flop and just glad the studio were dopey enough to part with over $150 million on a film unlikely to make them that much back but almost certain to be great. Tron: Legacy did alright. Better then Tron did 28 years earlier, but similar story to Blade Runner (bleated sequel to cult film). My main worry is the more big budgeted flops happen, the less likely we see this thing again (also see Ghost in the Shell and Valarian from earlier this year) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 9, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 9, 2017 Tron: Legacy had the advantage of not being R / 15 rated though. Valerian was shite and completely over-budgeted, absolute insanity spending $200 million on a film starring a supermodel and Dane fucking DeHaan. Ghost in the Shell was based on a thing almost none of the multiplex going public had heard of and was always a risk, although I liked it and much preferred it to the stupid anime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Justice Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 So, I've tried watching Blade Runner a couple of times but just can't get into it. I'm not a huge fan of sci-fi films so I'm sure it's great, it just didn't grip me. My question is, do you need to have seen the original to "get" the sequel? Or is it a good stand alone film without the knowledge of back story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Nick Soapdish Posted October 9, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Steve Justice said: So, I've tried watching Blade Runner a couple of times but just can't get into it. I'm not a huge fan of sci-fi films so I'm sure it's great, it just didn't grip me. My question is, do you need to have seen the original to "get" the sequel? Or is it a good stand alone film without the knowledge of back story? If you couldnt get into the first, unless your watching it for free, don't bother in that case  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Nick Soapdish Posted October 9, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 9, 2017 8 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said: Tron: Legacy had the advantage of not being R / 15 rated though. Valerian was shite and completely over-budgeted, absolute insanity spending $200 million on a film starring a supermodel and Dane fucking DeHaan. Ghost in the Shell was based on a thing almost none of the multiplex going public had heard of and was always a risk, although I liked it and much preferred it to the stupid anime. Hell IS freezing over. I really liked Ghost In The Shell, was an unexpected highlight when it had bombed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 9, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Steve Justice said: So, I've tried watching Blade Runner a couple of times but just can't get into it. I'm not a huge fan of sci-fi films so I'm sure it's great, it just didn't grip me. My question is, do you need to have seen the original to "get" the sequel? Or is it a good stand alone film without the knowledge of back story? If you couldn't even get through the original, why on earth would you contemplate seeing the sequel? You're a nutter when it comes to films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Nick Soapdish Posted October 9, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said: If you couldn't even get through the original, why on earth would you contemplate seeing the sequel? You're a nutter when it comes to films. it is bloody pretty though, although so is the original. Â Plus it stars Big Dave / Bluetista Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merzbow Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Speaking of Big Dave, he's got at least 6 more movies that he's filmed or is filming coming out. There's also talk of him being given his own big action-comedy franchise, how long till he's a big a Hollywood star as The Rock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 9, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 9, 2017 I don't think he has anywhere near the charisma of the Great One but he's done very well for himself. Without spoiling Blade Runner 2049 as regards his role, he holds his own very well. He's not just doing blockbusters either, he's done a couple of smaller independent films. Bushwick didn't get great reviews but apparently he shows real promise as a lead. I love Big Dave though so I'm glad he's doing so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Au Posted October 9, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 9, 2017  On 10/6/2017 at 4:18 PM, Scott Malbranque said: It’s way more subdued than what’s deemed “Zimmerrific” but there’s plenty of nods to Vangelis’ score throughout. It’s nothing outstanding or jaw dropping - I found, anyway - and there’s nothing that will linger long like some of his work on Inception and Interstellar, but it did exactly what it needed to do and it did it very well.  Would really like to hear Jóhann Jóhannsson’s rejected score as I absolutely adored his work on Sicario. I thought the score was definitely the weakest part actually. I'm sure I read that Johansson didn't get that far but given he had to sign a non-disclosure, it's a shame we might never know. I'm more intrigued about whatever El P did for the trailer that got rejected. Zimmer seems a weird choice to me and although he definitely tried to do something different to what he'd usually do it stood out to me that it didn't quite fit the feel of the rest of the film. I found it very hard managing my expectations for this one. Blade Runner is among my favourite films of all time, top two or three for sure, and Villeneuve has been my favourite contemporary director for quite some time. It was impossible to not go into this with very high hopes and I think that's unfortunately meant that although I really liked it; loved the story and the fact there were some absolutely jaw dropping and breath taking shots, I can't stop finding things I want to complain about. Like, I loved it. But I thought Arrival had much better pacing. I thought Sicario had a better score. I thought it lacked some of the charm of the original, like the scenes with JF Sebastian. I saw someone say on Facebook that there isn't a wasted minute but after that first scene at the farm it definitely dragged for a bit until he went to find the orphanage. But I know it's because I had no expectations for either Sicario or Arrival and conversely had high expectations that this would struggle to meet. I'm going to watch the shorts tonight and then go watch it again on Wednesday. I strongly suspect my gripes about length and pacing might be lessened knowing what's coming up. And if not then it's still the most gorgeous, sumptuous film I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts