Blade Runner does not attract younger people in general. A younger generation probably felt bored while watching the first film and didn't care about a movie that didn't have funny dialogue or an action scene every 5 minutes.
(I have not seen the new one yet, unfortunately.)
Comment has been collapsed.
most people wont check this movie indeed, its not as hard to watch as they might think, The first movie is rather unconventional, It practically tells you everything you need to know, and your left appreciating this universe and the gorgeous shots. The original blade runner now would be a huge disaster.
Comment has been collapsed.
The original blade runner WAS a huge disaster, in that it didn't do well at its time.
Comment has been collapsed.
huge in that it wouldn't make half of its budget, the original was a failure but it practically covered its costs in US alone.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword for example made $39.175.066 out of a $175.000.000 budget, thats a disaster.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, but in the state the studio forced it to be released it's miraculous it wasn't even more of a disaster - the director's cut is one of my favourite films of all time, but the studio cut is almost unbearable.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you are right.
We watched Blade Runner at school when we were like 12-13. I remember we found it boring, the only thing I could remember was the orange lighting. I think it is a quite slow-paced movie, but I started to like slow-paced stuff (movies, music and games)
A couple years ago I played Deus Ex: Human Revolution (and liked it a lot) and found that orange lighting again, and I recalled that Blade Runner movie. I watched it and liked it very, very much.
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment is spot on; millennials at my workplace complained to me the first movie was terribly slow and they "forced" themselves to sit through it to be ready for the sequel. The generation is different, expectations are different... and it is why movies are taking a hit in general, less people are going vs streaming from home when they want, anytime they want, and can fast forward.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe. One of my top three favorite movies is Tarkovsky's Stalker, sometimes described as the movie about three men taking three hours to walk across a field.
I mean, I like action (finally got around to John Wick 2 the other night, lots of fun), but I like atmosphere, good dialogue, and interesting concepts too. Blade Runner has...at least two of those. And it and Bullfrog's Syndicate introduced me to Cyberpunk, which I loved immediately.
Comment has been collapsed.
This one? Been a while, so I had to look it up. I might agree, but the audio makes it really disorienting. Probably the point.
Stalker had something similar with a cart. I've only seen these two movies; I know long shots were his thing, but I wonder if long wordless transportation shots like these were in his other films.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh man, Stalker is one of those movies, that one has to watch, I couldn't agree more. It's sad that Tarkovsky films are fading away (meaning people generally don't watch them), almost all his works are spectacular.
I have read the novel Stalker is based on as well, and I have to say, Tarkovsky does an amazing job at capturing atmosphere and story, through tiny details. Even the games did a fairly good job at portraying the world, I was genuinely surprised.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've only seen it and Solaris so far, though I've heard The Mirror and Sacrifice are good as well.
I'll be honest, I think some of my love of the movie comes from starting on the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games and reading Roadside Picnic first. I'm viewing it through them. It's such a beautiful, thoughtful, atmospheric movie though even without that. The surprise transition from the sepia tones of the drab everyday world to the glory of green life in the Zone. The dialog...great stuff! That alone might have won me over.
"May everything come true. May they believe. And may they laugh at their passions, for that which they call passion…is not really the energy of the soul, but…merely friction between the soul and the outer world. But, mostly, may they have hope…and may they become as helpless as children, for weakness is great, and strength is worthless. When a man is born, he is weak and supple. When he dies, he is strong and callous. When the tree grows, it's tender and supple. And when it's dry and hard, it dies. Callousness and strength are Death's companions. Suppleness and weakness express freshness of life. That which has become hard shall not triumph."
"While I am digging for the truth, so much happens to it that instead of discovering the truth I dig up a heap of, pardon... I'd better not name it."
" A man writes because he is tormented, because he doubts. He needs to constantly prove to himself and the others that he's worth something. And if I know for sure that I'm a genius? Why write then? What the hell for?"
About the only thing I don't think worked out that well was making the Meatgrinder into just a walk in a pipe. I understand it was turning it into a psychological attack (which was GREAT, especially with showing what it did to Writer), but the shot itself could have been a lot clearer. I think the director even mentioned that in a later interview.
BTW, do you know that Stalker's plot was supposed to follow the book more closely? Everything was all filmed, but there was an accident and it was mostly destroyed. He started over with a smaller budget and decided to go for a more philosophical take. I read a bit of one of the old scripts and.......I'm actually rather glad with what we ended up with. From what I remember, Professor did blow them all up. It's just a pity the making of the film ended up eventually killing several people, including the director.
Found these while I went hunting for the script:
Blade Runner 2049 should send us back to Tarkovsky’s 1979 film Stalker
Why Andrei Tarkovsky’s interminably dull 1979 sci-fi masterpiece “Stalker” is the movie we need right now ("Interminably dull" my butt)
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is, these movies, especially The Mirror are hard to watch. (I can barely find people to watch it with) In the age of jumpcut and action oriented filmmaking such an experience is hard to swallow for many. I can see several flaws in Stalker, mostly from the storytelling side, but I can overlook these, as long as they don't interfere with the overall tone of the movie.
I remember reading about some issues during production, but I had no idea the entire thing got destroyed in a fire. This is quite interesting though. But I agree expanding one chapter was more than enough. The other parts of the text, although similar in tone tell a bigger story, that the film just didn't need, since the visuals filled that aspect.
It's quite funny 'cause the first trailer of the new Blade Runner reminded me so much of Stalker, that I thought they were paying a homage to it for some narrative reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will :3 i was really afraid they would just make action movie out of it but one of my friends saw it ( who appreciates original as much as i do ) and said it's worth a watch:)
Comment has been collapsed.
So i'm just back from the movie and holy moly it was amazing! Visuals and music alone is solid 10 and everything around it was excellent as well. Worthy sequal to masterpiece that is the original.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seen it day one. I can tell you this Portuguese theater was full.
I noticed they tried to reach with the mainstream audience, but mainstream audience doesnt go for slow paced movies anymore.
Its not a big deal, its not a career ending movie, The original Blade Runner also did poorly and we still got a "sequel" for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I loved it, but I'm aware that people I know who should be able to handle it are completely distressed that, I don't know, it doesn't go Boom enough, or something. Pretty sad state of affairs; it's why I rarely see first-run movies these days, because there's too much booming. Fortunately here in NYC we've got a film renaissance going on, with lots of art-house spaces again (we lost most of these for a couple of decades).
My guess is that this will be a slow-burn picture, and that it will be regarded as a classic in ten years. Which is, frankly, pretty much how it went with Blade Runner. I saw Blade Runner when it came out; critics were divided but cautiously favorable, and the public was indifferent and bored.
Comment has been collapsed.
I watched it and it honeslty didn't live up to its predecessor. It shouldn't have been a 3 hour movie, the beginning and middle was amazing, but the end was weird and so you leave with a meh impression. Still, box office means nothing, and both of those are sequeals, so we kinda do get noce things for the fans of both of 'em.
Comment has been collapsed.
Consider this: The original Blade Runner was a flop too when it came out. Although now it is a cult classic, which means there isn't necessarily a wide audience who wanted a second movie in the first place (let alone enough people who even saw the original).
So, if you are really comparing it to a movie (Kingsman) that is tailored to a wider audience (action adventure vs philosophical sci-fi) which did have a movie much more recently, then yeah, Blade Runner is not going to do as well.
So yeah, people who enjoy that sort of sci fi should totally go see it, but I don't think telling an audience it is not tailored for, to go watch it is going to do anything :/
Comment has been collapsed.
stupid action movies (without good actors and a good story) seels good by all the kiddies that runs into the cinemas...........
money, money, money....
as long as such "work" will be, good, rewarded it will give such (bad) movies
and lesser good ones
Comment has been collapsed.
Hollywood needs to let go of the archaic "box office weekend" model, it clearly isn't how we consume media anymore. These systems are slow to change, in TV we are still struggling to get away from the Nielsen rating system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Idk, why, is there a misconception that it accounts for the entire profit made? Or that the numbers are not reliable.?
but how would it be done, would IMDB update it every year, so we know how much it made off DVD/Blu Ray, TV. Amazon, netflix and of course Merch. Or should we just get rid of the numbers, since all movies will eventually turn a profit anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, from a business perspective it's pretty accurate.
Most movies make most of their money in the first few weeks, then again when it first gets released for home viewing
Even for movies with a long tail, opening weekend is a good indicator of how big that tail is going to be.
There are exceptions of course, including ye olde direct to video market, and the industry has gotten pretty good in how to forecast these things too. Hollywood's models are far more sophisticated, but in the end opening weekend is the largest factor in predicting revenue
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, with the old model. That's my point, the old model is dying. Going to the theatre on opening weekend is now just another overpriced option for weekend fun, in a world of infinite other choices. The future is microcasting, spreading out the risk. It's silly to take such big gambles with $100mil+ films and hope for the wide opening, especially when so many other uncontrollable variable can ruin your weekend.
I could seriously go on about this for ages, but I'm off work and am done talking shop for today. Suffice to say, Hollywood is a lumbering beast that is slow to adapt. In the interim, we can only hope for more critical successes that are box office failures. Just because you make a good film, does not mean people will jump through your specific hoops to watch it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Feel free to go into more detail when you have a moment.
Hollywood blockbusters still make the largest share of their income on opening weekend, and the infinite other choices can usually be estimated based on the opening weekend.
There are different financial models in hollywood, they're not all expected to be blockbusters. There's also the direct-to-dvd market, there are movies designed with a long tail versus a short tail, there's merchandising tie-ins. And different movies follow different avenues. But that is different than spreading the risk.
Spreading out the risk is typically done by financing a lot of movies, knowing some will fail and some will be massive successes. You don't bet the studio on one big tentpole summer blockbuster, but you plan X blockbuster movies over Y years. Some will flop completely, some will make a small profit, and others will be a runaway success. Another way of spreading the risk is to invest in different types of movies. The numbers will be different for comedies, but the issue is still the same, invest in a number of comedies, some of which will fail, and some of which will be successful enough to pay for the failures.
coincidentally, that's the way theater, music, and gaming, work too
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright, I'm currently at work and pouring coffee on my brain.
So first of all, you are correct on all of your points. This is generally the way things currently operate. So I'm not at all debating your assessment of the current system as is. My beef is primarily the draconian adherence to said system, simply by virtue of its own longevity. But relatively speaking, Film/Television/Radio are quite young and still evolving.
The old guard is really great about embracing technology for filmmaking purposes, but loathe to incorporate it into the economics. They want solid formulas that guarantee profit. Is that bad? Not at all, but they're handicapping themselves by sticking to their guns especially when the opening box office model has become a shadow of its former self. The industry is too fragmented between production, creation, and distribution. Now is the time to start taking risks and reforming the system as a whole, rather than jumping on trodden-ground implementations such as bare-bones streaming. Hollywood is too dependent on certain monetary figures when they don't even understand all of the implications that affect said figures.
Yes, this is more of a philosophical stroke here, but we truly live in a different age of media consumption. In the last ten years alone, the market has changed more rapidly than it has since docu-tech race in the 60s and 70s (and even there, the comparison is shallow to the latter). I am not saying I have an answer to this solution yet either, I simply believe that not enough people in the industry are reaching for the new paradigm (usually because the old system makes them plenty enough $$$). Again, my problem is more about capitalistic gains preventing market evolution that would ultimately result in more quality and quantity for the individual consumer.
Comment has been collapsed.
especially in the realm of television there is more innovation and diversification than ever before, just look at the sheer variety of shows being produced, and the quality involved.
TV and Cinema must be viewed as a whole. There is a lot less innovation in film, but this is not because of an adherence to old economic models, but due to changes in the industry. There is more room for innovation, and more room for error, in television than on the big screen.
The industry has shifted significantly over the years. There have been some times where it took the industry a while to catch on to changes, such as the increased importance of DVD sales around the turn of the century, but these don't last long. There are lots of people whose entire career is figuring out how to monetize movies, and they can be quite innovative in how they do so. Not all economic success stories are predicated by a strong opening weekend, but a strong opening weekend has become a significant indicator.
And as much as you say that the opening weekend is the old economic model, the opposite is actually true. Years ago, movies could run for a few weeks and build buzz through word of mouth, but today the sheer volume of movies that are being released has changed the paradigm. If a movie doesn't pull in enough viewers in the first week or two, theaters will drop it for other pictures. Meanwhile, there are new big releases every few weeks, so now that old picture is competing against new movies. And lastly, a lot of people will just wait for the movie to show up on TV.
It's not that a strong box office means it'll be successful, actually it works the other way around, a weak box office means it'll be a failure. again, plenty of exceptions, but if a movie doesn't succeed early on, it could take years to gain the cult following needed to become profitable
Comment has been collapsed.
Sigh, I had a feeling you just wanted to state facts. Again, this is my industry-- but yes, I'm still not refuting anything you're saying. We're talking about different things.
Comment has been collapsed.
How are you going to call it a cult classic and obsess over it with legions of like-minded nerds if it's a big box office hit? This is Just As Planned.
Comment has been collapsed.
I ran away after reading this thread...
...just to come back from store with snacks because im going to watch the 80's original in o-ton it tonight (in an hr)... :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh. Villeneuve is too overhyped. Again. Anyway, there isn't any logic in comparisons of box office. Most popular(and with more profit, of course) movies are primitive fun now(or rather last 2 decades or so). Not an art of cinematography, just visual fast-food with simple jokes like Kingsman.
Comment has been collapsed.
If we can just be honest for a second...
The first Blade Runner was okay, but it wasn't THAT good.
I do have high hopes for the new one.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll see it when it comes to Blu-ray. I don't go to movie theaters, and haven't been to one in 15 years, with one exception.* I prefer to watch movies in the comfort of my own home. I have a big TV, nice surround sound, I can eat and drink what I want without paying ridiculous prices. I can pause the move to go to the bathroom, get another drink/snack/etc, and best of all, I don't have to deal with other people.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do still enjoy big action movies in the theater, for the pure spectacle, but otherwise I'm much in the same boat. I prefer being able to watch a movie in the comfort of my own home while enjoying a beer, not being distracted by others, and not having my ear drums blasted out.
Comment has been collapsed.
I realized I forgot to mention the exception. My sister lived in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX area for a while. Out there they have a place called Studio Movie Grill (I just looked at the locations and it seems they've expanded to a few other states now). The movie ticket price is the same as other theaters, but they don't charge $12 for a small popcorn. They have a full menu of real food at decent prices, and beer and cocktails too. Every time I visited her, I'd go see a movie there.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are so many cool things and people, but I would not move there now if I were you. They're seeing an insane influx of population and gentrification is in full swing. Downtown is entirely exploited and East Austin is becoming West Austin. On top of this, it's an incredibly liberal city under the yoke of a very conservative state government, which regardless of your leanings causes a lot of static.
That said, the music and food are still good. Still probably the coolest place in Texas.
Comment has been collapsed.
Our Brooklyn Alamo is terrific. I watched Blade Runner 2049 at the Brooklyn Academy of Music Cinemas - I'm a member, so it's free, and their screens are great - but I think I'm going to see it a second time at Alamo (which is running a Blade Runner menu, I gather). Just bought a Shining ticket as well, I couldn't resist. After all, it matches their carpet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think marketing may have played a large role in this.
Kingsman is a sequel to a recent movie which is still fresh in a lot of people's minds, while Blade Runner is a sequel to a 35 year old movie that many people have probably never seen.
Likewise, I see advertisements for Kingsman everywhere. I haven't seen a single advertisement for Blade Runner. The first I learned that a sequel was out was from a review in another forum I frequent. Whatever the marketing strategy was for Blade Runner, it failed to reach me entirely.
But thanks for letting me know that it's good.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/8/16443330/blade-runner-2049-box-office-flop
This explains it well.
Comment has been collapsed.
no major (current) stars
Don't remind me. I liked they days when Gosling and Ford were stars :/
Comment has been collapsed.
70 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by Marius11
15,412 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Aradiel
2,067 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Wok
103 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by cartcollector
46,826 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by FranckCastle
11 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by Chris76de
1,340 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by LuckyStrike1305
112 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by ThePonz
64 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by quijote3000
79 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by Dvn2010
136 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by NymCast
42 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by NymCast
590 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by 7Years
35 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by Lubiii
You damn heathens. This is why we can't have nice things.
KINGSMAN THE GOLDEN CIRCLE made more in it's 2nd weekend in America than Blade Runner did in it's opening weekend. Seriously. Fuck you guys.
Comment has been collapsed.