ThePhasmid
-
Posts
774 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by ThePhasmid
-
-
The original had the same complaints of it being too deliberately paced and languid. That's why the studio forced Harrison to do a voice over, which was staunchly defended by some fans (Guillermo Del Toro oddly joining the ranks of the few). It's hilarious in its perfunctory "beat by beat" explanation of things that are so obvious on the surface. Blade Runner 2049 is equally as visually stunning and beguiling to those who are not commonly drawn to aesthetic mastery.
Furthermore, the sequel to the grandfather of futuristic anime stylized motion and atmosphere made the Ghost in the Shell translation look like cheap imitation.
-
2
-
-
De Palma's style in the original cannot be underestimated. Aesthetically speaking, it's hard to top the original. The Langley heist is one of the most breathtaking action sequences of the 90s. Rogue Nation is a close second, and Ghost Protocol a close third. III and II are entertaining despite being the lesser entries.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Chewy said:
Yes, but does Renner want to take the mantle? Does he? I'd accept with open arms.
-
23 minutes ago, grim22 said:
I see Cruise leading one more movie at the end of which he takes over as the head of the IMF. They also introduce the new actor/actress/team who will take over in that movie and they carry the series forward.
I hear Taylor Lautner and Kristen Stewart are available.
I like the cut of your jib, sir.
Until you mentioned Lautner and Stewart. Paramount et al. has better sense than to cast those milquetoast actors lacking the magnetic charisma of Cruise. Unlike the snooty Brits, I don't think we're opposed to casting an international star in the lead role of the hot shot IMF agent. We'll branch beyond our oceanic borders to find the best talent possible for this massive action franchise. Shady accent and all.
-
Since this series is clearly shaping up to be the American version of Bond, who would be an acceptable replacement of Cruise for Hunt? Cruise is inevitably going to have to take a backseat to the role, and solely stick to producing duties with this beloved action franchise. Who can seriously replace Cruise's magnetism? It's gonna be tough, but I don't see how Cruise/studios avoid it.
-
Rogue Nation turned out amazing despite its OG release date being pushed up to a nightmarish degree. 5 months cut off of post production. It's incredible how the opera sequence turned out to be one of the best espionage sequences of the new millennium on such a pressured schedule. McQuarrie now has plenty of flexibility with the schedule. This sequel is gonna be something special. My most anticipated action blockbuster of the summer right now.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, CoolEric258 said:
FAIL #7
BLADE RUNNER 2049
"Sometimes to love someone, you got to be a stranger."
Release Date: October 6
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James, Dave Bautista, Jared Leto
B.O. Gross: $91.7M DOM, $258.7M WW
I'm sorry. I had to do it. I didn’t want to do it, really, but I had to. As much as we may all love this movie, it’s still in the end a flop.
When the first Blade Runner was released, it was not the critical darling it would later become. It underperformed at the box office and recieved a polarized response from critics and audiences alike. But as time had gone on, the film would garner more appreciation and soon became a cult smash and considered one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, being an inspiration for dozens of other sci-fi works.
35 years later, the film was given a brand new sequel, with a lot of clout behind it. For one, it had Denis Villenueve as director, fresh off of hit films like Sicario and Arrival. It also promised the return of Harrison Ford reprising his previous role as Deckard alongside the hot young rising star Ryan Gosling. It also had a massive marketing campaign behind it, with the first promotional materials arriving in December 2016, as well as three short films that served as prequels to 2049. And with a gargantuan budget ranging from $150 to $185 million, otherworldly visuals, as well as a runtime of 2.5 hours, it was marketed as an epic event that you had to see on the big screen, a tactic WB had already used for Dunkirk to great success. And of course, there was the critical reception, which was unbelievable, as many proclaimed the film was just as good, if not better than its 1982 predecessor. The tracking estimated the film would have a weekend somewhere in the $45 million range, and everything seemed to be going swimmingly and on track. Even if it wouldn’t be a massive success, it would still generate at least Mad Max: Fury Road levels of box office.
Well, when the opening day numbers were revealed to only be $12.6 million it was a serious disappointment, and the opening weekend was even worse, as it only earned $32.8 million in its opening weekend. It earned okay enough legs, but its domestic total was only $90 million, with a $258.7 million worldwide total. Experts say that the film was supposed to make more than $400 million to break even, and it’s rumored production studio Alcon will lose $80 million on the project.
How did this happen? How did a film that had everything going right turn out so very wrong? While there are a lot of reasons as to why, I think the main issue comes down to that general audiences don’t care about Blade Runner. Like or dislike it, the film is still just a cult classic. Sure, people might know the name of the movie, but how many people actually saw it? How many actually like it? How many actually like it enough they were willing to see the sequel? Simply put, it’s a film that was never that popular, with a sequel that was positioned as a tentpole release. Then you add on a gigantic runtime that limited the amount of shows it could play, as well as a lack of OS appeal, and it simply bombed.
But at the end, does it matter if the movie was a hit or not? We still got one of the best movies of the year, we got something that is sure to influence dozens of future filmmakers. And in the end, isn’t having a great movie all that matters?
I knew this was going to make it, but it still hurts.
-
Breakout suggests a film that people knew would do well, but not as well as it inevitably turned out to be. This isn't necessarily based upon the total number it brought in, but rather how much better it performed than what everyone thought it would. I'm gonna go ahead and toss the die on "Ready Player One". Black Panther has the marketing and franchise connection. That's a gimme. RP1 has a chance to surprise, and mark Spielberg's official return to blockbuster cinema.
-
Get Out was a relative surprise, but I chose "It". It wrecked all records despite everyone being somewhat tempered with its chances. We all knew it was going to do well, but HOLY SHIT!
-
1
-
-
I will cringe a bit when I see Blade Runner 2049 show up. It's one of the best sci-fi sequels ever made, and the best film I've seen all year. Damn shame it didn't do so well at the BO.
-
1
-
-
Despite my reservations from the absence of a modern great auteur, Denis, this looks very effin' entertaining. It might end up making more than the original despite whatever critical reaction comes its way. That is a fantastic action driven trailer tailor made for general audiences.
-
Fireplace cracking. Stockings hung. Die Hard trilogy and Forrest Gump marathons/re-runs on the TV. Another Star Wars film slaying at the BO. Merry Christmas, y'all.
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:
Is Avatar the only pure franchise in this thread?
I don't know how to answer this question. However, objectively speaking, Avatar deserves a sequel. If by pure, you mean the almighty dollar is the singular force of continuing an artistic vision in Hollywood, I would say that is a definitive yes.
-
1
-
-
All of these franchises have had terrible films attached to their name. X-3, X-Men Origins, the first two Thor films, Iron Man 2, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Catwoman, Superman Returns, Green Lantern, the first few Harry Potter films, almost all of the SW prequels, etc. I don't care what studio released it, but the worst of the worst being Fant4stic.
-
On 12/5/2017 at 12:33 PM, cookie said:
I didn't say JP3 wasn't really stupid, it is. Lost World is just worse.
And my issue wasn't that she wanted to go to study dinosaurs, my issue was that she didn't bother to tell her boyfriend who may still have trauma from past events about it. That's just an asshole thing to do.
Fuck Lost World.
I hope this breaks the Goldblum sequelitis (Thor doesn't count as he's a new player). Honestly, I don't see it in the trailer. At this point, I'd rather watch a "proper" sequel to Cronenberg's rendition of The Fly as directed by Mr. Del Toro. Brundle didn't fully perish during the transport. His spirit lived on as consciousness embraced by the insect world. Think about it...it makes more sense than people returning to this shitty island. It'd be like an R rated version of Antz.
-
1
-
Blade Runner 2049 | October 6, 2017 | Villeneuve directs | Full Trailer on Page 40
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
To mistake careful attention to visual fidelity as pretentious art is pretty much the thesis for Hollywood short funding time vs. budget. Congrats, you're an idiot.