Mr. Mister
Member
Barf. Hell no.
Then we would have just gotten another entertaining Nolan film for the masses. The world doesnt need another of those. They are sugar coated crap - Marvel for the refined taste.
-
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
Barf. Hell no.
Then we would have just gotten another entertaining Nolan film for the masses. The world doesnt need another of those. They are sugar coated crap - Marvel for the refined taste.
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.
More_Badass
Member
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.
Mr. Mister
Member
The reason its good is because they didnt take notes from people that thought it needed a bit more action or maybe chop of 45 minutes. Then its 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 its not a winner for the studio but holy shit that it got made. Its a miracle and something that we get to witness once every few years - glad I was around for it.
What we got was an expensive, high concept sci-fi vision from one of the better directors of our time. Totally sucks that its not a winner for the studio but holy shit that it got made. Its a miracle and something that we get to witness once every few years - glad I was around for it.
why are people so mean
Mr. Mister
Member
Because our bar has been lowered so much that we see something that slightly reminds us of good art as greatness.
Nolans artistry is knowing how to push the current audiences buttons. Hes a glossy JJ Abrams.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
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.
Mr. Mister
Member
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 Ill do that / no s.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
🤔
More_Badass
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Children of Men was sent to die. Opened wide in January for the US.
That's how you gotta go for every movie.
That's how you gotta go for every movie.
Mr. Mister
Member
Also a great movie.
So really, we have to wait around 10 years per great one. Ill take that over the watered down make it for me option.
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
Member
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
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
? Girl please. Shit is expensive.
http://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-go...n-ford-opening-weekend-box-office-1202183063/
Oh my god, that last one is fucking awful. It's like one of those Scary Mary trailers. (Except Scary Mary was awesome.)
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
Member
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
Member
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 didnt kill it.
Thanks for the spoiler
Mr. Mister
Member
Its in a trailer. Also Dekard is in it.
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.
More_Badass
Member
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
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
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
Member
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. Dont really get what posting them all adds to the discussion. It didnt under perform because of trailers.
You think a $100 million+ that they needed to make up didnt show up because of trailers? Those trailers are desperate good people trying to make as much back as they can knowing its a losing battle.
To be clear I think there is nothing that could been done to avoid this outcome. Was doomed from start - Im just happy that through circumstances that it happened.
More_Badass
Member
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
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
Member
No!!!!?!?!?!!!!! Thats the worst takeaway.
Its sucks so bad that good things get to be thrown under the easy to blame marketing dept. Huge portion is that people genuinely dont give a shit about artistry at scale anymore.
Its the shit weve accepted that masks it.
Hey, he was in Valerian!
More_Badass
Member
I'm not conflating the two. It was just a related thought
SuperStiltzkin
Member
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?
Im 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.
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.
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
Member
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. 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
Member
What did you think?
Discotheque
Banned
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.
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
Member
"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
Member
I enjoyed the movie, but the pace was horrendous. Should have been a lot left on the cutting room floor.
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.
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
Member
I felt the exact same way - Im watching a directors cut...but in the theater.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked