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

[Dementeleus]

56 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

Seeing as Blade Runner has multiple versions (seven according to wikipedia), including theatrical release versions for the US vs internationally (in '82), "The Director's Cut" (in '92), and "The Final Cut" (in '07), which one should be watched? Is "The Final Cut" considered the definitive version according to fans? Is this the version fans are referring to when they cite it as one of the best films of all time? Do we even bother with the previous versions? Is the original theatrical version considered a mess to this day? Etc.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Answering each question in order:

 

1. The Final Cut

2. Yes, as much as we'll ever get (it's also the Scott-preferred version).

3. All the versions are fantastic. The original version is (IMO) the weakest, since it has a different ending that was pushed by the studio (and opposed by the filmmakers). The other versions all move toward the eventual version that is The Final Cut. Many of the variances are pretty minor once you get past the Director's Cut (which was the first alternate version and established most of the major changes). 

4. The other versions would be mainly academic, IMO. The two worth watching are TFC and the theatrical version (for comparison).

5. No, it's not a mess. It has some elements that were pushed by the studio but some people still prefer those. It has a more upbeat ending. It is more ambiguous in some ways (especially thematically). Still very much worth watching. 

 

[The Futurist]

Very curious about GA s reception and if a movie like this can have any maintream appeal.

 

 

[The Stingray]

6 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Very curious about GA s reception and if a movie like this can have any maintream appeal.

 

 

 

Short answer: no.

 

[Barnack]

19 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Very curious about GA s reception and if a movie like this can have any maintream appeal.

 

It can, but it need a virtuous circle to kick-in and trigger our heard following of the brain, like The Revenant achieved to trigger on us.

 

Mainstream is a bit relative, if you get 10% of the 360 million of the domestic population just one time in theater and get a good average ticket price with special screens, you will do 325 to 350 million at the domestic box office, it is rare that a movie need to convince more than 5% of the population to go in theater to be considered a huge success.

 

A movie like that can reach a bit over 5% of the population with a couple of rewatch like The Revenant did, but I'm not sure that is enough to make it mainstream.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Barnack

[MikeQ]

11 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

Answering each question in order:

 

1. The Final Cut

2. Yes, as much as we'll ever get (it's also the Scott-preferred version).

3. All the versions are fantastic. The original version is (IMO) the weakest, since it has a different ending that was pushed by the studio (and opposed by the filmmakers). The other versions all move toward the eventual version that is The Final Cut. Many of the variances are pretty minor once you get past the Director's Cut (which was the first alternate version and established most of the major changes). 

4. The other versions would be mainly academic, IMO. The two worth watching are TFC and the theatrical version (for comparison).

5. No, it's not a mess. It has some elements that were pushed by the studio but some people still prefer those. It has a more upbeat ending. It is more ambiguous in some ways (especially thematically). Still very much worth watching. 

 

 

Thank you for this. I think then I'll watch The Final Cut and the theatrical version. The Final Cut first, since it seems to be the version that Scott would have released originally if the studio hadn't meddled. And then I would like to watch the theatrical version because it is the first version that fans got to experience. I'm sure I'll share my thoughts here once I have.

 

I wonder what it was like to make this follow up film given the different versions of the original (I'm not sure how different they are thematically and narratively, and if it would matter for the purposes of a sequel). Maybe Villeneuve has already talked about this in interviews (or will), I'm not sure.

 

Peace,

Mike

[Jandrew]

4 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

I still haven't seen the first film so i have no idea what's going on or why Leto is rubbing honey on people or whatever. some kind of winnie the pooh fetish idk. i'll probably see it before october, but if ever there was a movie i would gladly watch on mute it would be this.

 

I watched it for the first time a couple years ago and I don't think I was a big fan. I'm trying to find my review, but the search function sucks. @Tele Came Back basically said that I interpreted the movie wrong or something, and I remember expecting much more action, so I need to go back before October too and redo.

[Hatebox]

Beyond the studio I kinda doubt anyone involved gives that much of a fuck about box office. They get to play around in the holy grail of cinematic universes, which is enough. This movie doesn't strike me as the reboot of a franchise.

[PPZVGOS]

4 hours ago, The Stingray said:

Waiting for the obligatory 'I was down with Villeneuve before it became cool' post.

 

 

For me, Sicario was when I took notice of him. That movie is tremendously powerful and beautifully shot! 

[The Futurist]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by The Futurist

[aabattery]

59 minutes ago, jandrew said:

 

I watched it for the first time a couple years ago and I don't think I was a big fan. I'm trying to find my review, but the search function sucks. @Tele Came Back basically said that I interpreted the movie wrong or something, and I remember expecting much more action, so I need to go back before October too and redo.

 

Found it:

 

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/18101-back-to-the-past-jandrew-gets-cultured-the-new-years-cram-begins/?page=2#comment-1930786

 

Personally, I haven't watched it for yeeeeaaars. I liked it but it pretty much went one ear and out the other. I'm hoping they do some screenings before of the original before it comes out here. They did one a couple of months ago but I had stuff on so I missed it.

[Ethan Hunt]

1 minute ago, THE PHENOMENAL BKB said:

I just watched the trailer and thought it looked surprisingly good.. Surprised for something from Ridley Scott like this and BLADE RUNNER being a bonafide classic, that this isn't garnering more pages on the hour than it has, which has only been what?? 5 pages??? No love for this trailer or what folks???

Ummm there's been nothing but jizzing all over this trailer if you actually read the thread

[Jandrew]

11 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

Found it:

 

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/18101-back-to-the-past-jandrew-gets-cultured-the-new-years-cram-begins/?page=2#comment-1930786

 

Personally, I haven't watched it for yeeeeaaars. I liked it but it pretty much went one ear and out the other. I'm hoping they do some screenings before of the original before it comes out here. They did one a couple of months ago but I had stuff on so I missed it.

 

Yes! How'd you find it so easily lol. Yep, I remember now, that's exactly how I felt. But I understand that it's one of those movies you really have to digest, so I'll definitely be watching again, but BR49 looks dang cool.

[Hatebox]

16 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

Found it:

 

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/18101-back-to-the-past-jandrew-gets-cultured-the-new-years-cram-begins/?page=2#comment-1930786

 

Personally, I haven't watched it for yeeeeaaars. I liked it but it pretty much went one ear and out the other. I'm hoping they do some screenings before of the original before it comes out here. They did one a couple of months ago but I had stuff on so I missed it.

 

Don't feel bad: almost everyone goes into the movie expecting action, and are then mildly appalled to find it's a slow, ponderous meditation on what it means to be human. Many of those viewers then hate it forever, while some rewatch it a few years later and bask in the aesthetics.

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Hatebox

[shayhiri]

7 minutes ago, THE PHENOMENAL BKB said:

I just watched the trailer and thought it looked surprisingly good.. Surprised for something from Ridley Scott like this and BLADE RUNNER being a bonafide classic, that this isn't garnering more pages on the hour than it has, which has only been what?? 5 pages??? No love for this trailer or what folks???

 

Well, if Ridley was directing this, we'd be impressed; but they've surprisingly given this to some no name French guy - so we're not.

[aabattery]

6 minutes ago, jandrew said:

 

Yes! How'd you find it so easily lol. Yep, I remember now, that's exactly how I felt. But I understand that it's one of those movies you really have to digest, so I'll definitely be watching again, but BR49 looks dang cool.

 

There's a search by user function haha.

 

Typed in Blade Runner and there it was.

[That One Girl]

5 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

some no name French guy

 

 

[somebody85]

Easily one of the best trailers of the year. Gave nothing away and got me hyped. Had to watch it 3 times in a row.

Visually gorgeous, amazing director, all star cast, synthwave score.

I hope this is the only trailer they release. That was all we needed.
 

Edited May 8, 2017 by somebody85

[somebody85]

5 hours ago, iJackSparrow said:

I'm skipping the trailer and avoiding this thread until I see the film. 

I wouldn't if I were you. It followed all the rules of great trailers.

1) Give very little away
2) Still show a lot visually
3) Use very little text
4) Include a great score

Result: Massive hype.

[MrPink]

Give Deakins his Oscar.

[IronJimbo]

Great trailer.

Harrison Ford ruins the aesthetic though, his clothing is honestly annoying me.