Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Neo

Blade Runner 2049 | October 6, 2017 | Villeneuve directs | Full Trailer on Page 40

1,153 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

Alien's legacy is like JP and terminater. Not getting tarnished by latter movies.

 

If Episodes 1-3 couldn't ruin 4-6, then no movie is getting ruined by later installments :lol:

 

But unlike Alien, one thing Bladerunner has going for it is that its still a cult film and hasn't become a slave to its big ass fanbase which has unwittingly become its own worst enemy over time.  Alien has now gotten 4 additional movies(5 if you count Prometheus), 2 lame ass franchise crossovers(AvP), shoot'em up video games, toys, novels, comics, fansites... all of which are just about the monster and not much else, its been overcooked for a long time now.  Bladerunner has none of that baggage or a loud and established fanbase with narrow expectations and Denis Whatshisname is clearly the new heavyweight on the block.  Just compare the Alien Covenant trailer to the Bladerunner 2049 trailer.  One is like "oh, that" and the other "hell yeah"

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

 

If Episodes 1-3 couldn't ruin 4-6, then no movie is getting ruined by later installments :lol:

 

But unlike Alien, one thing Bladerunner has going for it is that its still a cult film and hasn't become a slave to its big ass fanbase which has unwittingly become its own worst enemy over time.  Alien has now gotten 4 additional movies(5 if you count Prometheus), 2 lame ass franchise crossovers(AvP), shoot'em up video games, toys, novels, comics, fansites... all of which are just about the monster and not much else, its been overcooked for a long time now.  Bladerunner has none of that baggage or a loud and established fanbase with narrow expectations and Denis Whatshisname is clearly the new heavyweight on the block.  Just compare the Alien Covenant trailer to the Bladerunner 2049 trailer.  One is like "oh, that" and the other "hell yeah"

 

Dennis Villeneuve said it, Blade Runner 2049 is the first movie of his career he didn't somehow develop himself.

He was asked to do it by Scott.

The movie was developped by Scott Free (Scott s production company) and he could have directed it in different circumstances but Ridley Scott is so big & powerful he has like 10 projects on his plate at all times.

 

Still hoping for the best tho and that the Québec Libre rises to the occasion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Spoilers regarding the original:

 

Spoiler

 

I've been doing some reading about the film.

 

Apparently, the screenwriter, Fancher, wrote Deckard as a human, and Ford has considered his character to be human, but that most recently, Scott has said that Deckard is unquestionably a replicant.

 

From Wikipedia:

Spoiler

 

  • Philip K. Dick wrote the character Deckard as a human in the original novel.[17] The film differs from the book in some ways that provide ambiguity on the issue. For example, the book states explicitly that Deckard passed the Voight-Kampff test, while the movie shows Deckard declining to answer whether he did or not.
  • Screenwriter Hampton Fancher has said that he wrote the character as a human, but wanted the film to suggest the possibility that he may be a replicant. When asked, "Is Deckard a replicant?", Fancher replied, "No. It wasn't like I had a tricky idea about Deckard that way."[18] During a discussion panel with Ridley Scott to discuss Blade Runner: The Final Cut, Fancher again stated that he believes Deckard is human (saying that "[Scott's] idea is too complex"), but also repeated that he prefers the film to remain ambiguous: "I like asking the question and I like it to be asked but I think it’s nonsense to answer it. That’s not interesting to me."[19]
  • Harrison Ford considers Deckard to be human. "That was the main area of contention between Ridley and myself at the time," Ford told an interviewer during a BBC One Hollywood Greats segment. "I thought the audience deserved one human being on screen that they could establish an emotional relationship with. I thought I had won Ridley's agreement to that, but in fact I think he had a little reservation about that. I think he really wanted to have it both ways."[20]
  • Ridley Scott stated in an interview in 2002 that he considers Deckard to be a replicant.[21][22] In a 2007 interview with Wired, he reiterated that he believes Deckard to unquestionably be a replicant and that he considers the debate to be closed. He also suggests that Ford may have since adopted this view as well.[23]

 

 

Ridley Scott on the issue in a Wired interview in 2007:

https://www.wired.com/2007/09/ff-bladerunner/?currentPage=all

Spoiler

 

Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant. 
Scott: It was, actually. That’s the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn’t like Deckard, and we don’t really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let’s say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it’s a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard’s daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn’t normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it’s Gaff’s message to say, “I’ve read your file, mate.” That relates to Deckard’s first speech to Rachael when he says, “That’s not your imagination, that’s Tyrell’s niece’s daydream.” And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head. 

 

---

 

Wired: When Deckard picks up the origami unicorn at the end of the movie, the look on his face says to me, “Oh, so Gaff was here, and he let Rachael live.” It doesn’t say, “Oh my God! Am I a replicant, too?” 
Scott:No? Why is he nodding when he looks at this silver unicorn? I’m not going to send up a balloon. Doing the job he does, reading the files he reads on other replicants, Deckard may have wondered at one point, “Am I human or am I a replicant?” That’s in his innermost thoughts. I’m just giving you the fully fleshed-out possibility to justify that look at the end, where he kind of glints and looks angry. To me, it’s an affirmation. He nods, he agrees. “Ah hah! Gaff was here. I’ve been told.” 
Wired: Harrison Ford is on record saying Deckard is not a replicant. 
Scott:Yeah, but that was, like, 20 years ago. He’s given up now. He said, “OK, mate. You win! Anything! Just put it to rest.” 

 

 

And a comment from Scott in 2012:

 

  • When Scott was asked about the possibility of a sequel in October 2012, he said, "It's not a rumor—it's happening. With Harrison Ford? I don't know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus-6 so we don't know how long he can live. And that's all I'm going to say at this stage."

 

I would say thematically it works either way, but I find it, I think, somewhat more compelling if Deckard is not a replicant. But I'm still thinking it through and absorbing the film.

 

But I have been interested in this given [potential minor spoiler regarding sequel, if trying to avoid all news about sequel]:

Spoiler

 

Scott's previous comments and Villeneuve saying that the sequel will include the "replicant-or-not-a-replicant" ambiguity.

 

Villeneuve said at TIFF:

 

  • The thing I must say is that I love mystery. I love shadows. I love doubts. I would just want to say to the fans that we will take care of that mystery. I will take care of it.

 

What that means, I don't know...

 

 

 

Peace,

Mike

Edited by MikeQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

Spoilers regarding the original:

 

  Hide contents

 

I've been doing some reading about the film.

 

Apparently, the screenwriter, Fancher, wrote Deckard as a human, and Ford has considered his character to be human, but that most recently, Scott has said that Deckard is unquestionably a replicant.

 

From Wikipedia:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Ridley Scott on the issue in a Wired interview in 2007:

https://www.wired.com/2007/09/ff-bladerunner/?currentPage=all

  Reveal hidden contents

 

And a comment from Scott in 2012:

 

  • When Scott was asked about the possibility of a sequel in October 2012, he said, "It's not a rumor—it's happening. With Harrison Ford? I don't know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus-6 so we don't know how long he can live. And that's all I'm going to say at this stage."

 

I would say thematically it works either way, but I find it, I think, somewhat more compelling if Deckard is not a replicant. But I'm still thinking it through and absorbing the film.

 

But I have been interested in this given [potential minor spoiler regarding sequel, if trying to avoid all news about sequel]:

  Hide contents

 

Scott's previous comments and Villeneuve saying that the sequel will include the "replicant-or-not-a-replicant" ambiguity.

 

Villeneuve said at TIFF:

 

  • The thing I must say is that I love mystery. I love shadows. I love doubts. I would just want to say to the fans that we will take care of that mystery. I will take care of it.

 

What that means, I don't know...

 

 

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Mike, I never responded to your first reactions.

 

A little bit of the charm is gone now that Scott is so emphatic about Deckard being a replicant. I think the movie unquestionably makes the case that he is -- at least the Final Cut does -- but it never out-and-out says it, and a little ambiguity never hurt anyone. I wish Scott wouldn't have said what he did. The theatrical cut was completely ambiguous (at best) and I think most people would've assumed he wasn't. The dream is gone, the ending is happy, there's every sense that he's just a regular guy who finally manages to escape the chaos.

 

Although I've shared this anecdote before, I'll share it again: I discovered BLADE RUNNER on video (like many people). Back then, that meant VHS. Even when I had my laserdisc copy, the quality was better but still nothing like Blu-ray. In 1992 the Director's Cut was released, and had a small theatrical run before ending up on video as well. I found a way to get to San Francisco to see it. The theater was packed and what was interesting was how much detail was revealed in the images (35mm vs laserdisc, duh!). But there was a scene -- a moment -- that I'd never given a second thought to that played really differently simply because of resolution/clarity/detail. It happens maybe halfway through, when Deckard and Rachel are in his apartment. He's cleaning himself up from the fight with Leon and explaining blade runners to her. She asks him if he would hunt her down. He turns to her and says, "No... but someone would." In the video version, this just played like a normal beat. He has some feelings for her, and so forth. In the theater, when he turns, there's a reddish glint in his eye -- the same glint we saw repeatedly on replicants throughout the movie. He says "No..." (the glint, with a subtly ominous music cue, no less!) "...but someone would." There was an audible gasp throughout the audience in the theater -- that's how much of an impact it had.[/quote]

 

I hope the sequel plays with ambiguity the way the original does. Questions don't necessarily need to be answered.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

Mike, I never responded to your first reactions.

 

 

  Hide contents

A little bit of the charm is gone now that Scott is so emphatic about Deckard being a replicant. I think the movie unquestionably makes the case that he is -- at least the Final Cut does -- but it never out-and-out says it, and a little ambiguity never hurt anyone. I wish Scott wouldn't have said what he did. The theatrical cut was completely ambiguous (at best) and I think most people would've assumed he wasn't. The dream is gone, the ending is happy, there's every sense that he's just a regular guy who finally manages to escape the chaos.

 

Although I've shared this anecdote before, I'll share it again: I discovered BLADE RUNNER on video (like many people). Back then, that meant VHS. Even when I had my laserdisc copy, the quality was better but still nothing like Blu-ray. In 1992 the Director's Cut was released, and had a small theatrical run before ending up on video as well. I found a way to get to San Francisco to see it. The theater was packed and what was interesting was how much detail was revealed in the images (35mm vs laserdisc, duh!). But there was a scene -- a moment -- that I'd never given a second thought to that played really differently simply because of resolution/clarity/detail. It happens maybe halfway through, when Deckard and Rachel are in his apartment. He's cleaning himself up from the fight with Leon and explaining blade runners to her. She asks him if he would hunt her down. He turns to her and says, "No... but someone would." In the video version, this just played like a normal beat. He has some feelings for her, and so forth. In the theater, when he turns, there's a reddish glint in his eye -- the same glint we saw repeatedly on replicants throughout the movie. He says "No..." (the glint, with a subtly ominous music cue, no less!) "...but someone would." There was an audible gasp throughout the audience in the theater -- that's how much of an impact it had.[/quote]

 

I hope the sequel plays with ambiguity the way the original does. Questions don't necessarily need to be answered.

Spoiler

 

Wow, terrific anecdote - thank you for sharing. I hadn't noticed this when watching it, but I'm going to pay close attention on my next viewing. And right after that is when Rachael asks Deckard if he's taken the Voight-Kampf (sp?) test himself. 

 

I agree, I like that the film sits in relative ambiguity. I'm hopeful the sequel will play this way as well, given Villeneuve's comment about loving mystery/shadows/doubt.

 

 

Peace,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally, I still love the original theatrical cut. It was the version I grew up with. I've never had a problem with the voice over. In fact, I kind of prefer it. The couple of times I've watched the directors cut I miss it. 

 

I dont remeber what channel it was, maybe AMC or IFC, but it was playing one day earlier this year and I switched to it to see what version it was. To my surprise it was the theatrical version. Not sure why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can 2049 pull a Fury Road? Like, be fantastic? (Like, 10 nominations fantastic?)

Edited by Travod
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Travod said:

Can 2049 pull a Fury Road? Like, be fantastic? (Like, 10 nominations fantastic?)

 

No. Miller is a God, Villeneuve is a nobody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

 

No. Miller is a God, Villeneuve is a nobody.

 

Shay, don't do this. :(

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I will never compare them two again.

 

Because it just isn't possible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blade Runner 2049 OW: $47.5 Million

2nd Weekend - $34.15 (-30%) Total: $89.65 Million

3rd Weekend - $25 Million (-27%) Total: $119 Million

4th Weekend - $19 Million (-24%)  Total: $140.5 Million

5th Weekend - $11.21 Million (-41%) Total: $153.75 Million

 

RT Prediction: 98% 

 

Domestic Total: $165 Million (3.474 X)

 

Foreign Prediction: $325 Million

 

Worldwide Prediction: $490 Million

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will probably show up at TIFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I hadn't realized the trailer had hewn so closely (and clearly intentionally) to the original's trailer.

 

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Edited by MikeQ
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.