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

[tonytr87]

I'd like to see Villenueve get a couple more hits under his belt so Hollywood will give him Nolan-esque carte blanche. Unfortunately this wasn't it. Still weird to me that the pretty images in the trailers didn't get more people in the theater. 

[Fancyarcher]

Unfortunately it turns out Blade Runner is really a niche film. Shame as it one of my favorites of the year. I was engrossed from beginning to end. I can't wait to get it on blu-ray. 

[RobinHood26]

Now that this is out on Blu-Ray I can admit I thought this movie was gorgeous but kinda boring as fuck haha. 

 

Poor editing, no reason it needed to be that long. Pretty much every scene could have been cut 10 seconds. But im glad lots of people loved it. its still solid, but no Blade Runner 1 and not really for me. Still gonna buy the Blu ray. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Jay Hollywood

[John Marston]

1 hour ago, MrPink said:

 

Outside of  Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, Star Trek Into Darkness (Compendium Release), and the Nolan movies, can't recall many if any that have used shifting/IMAX ratios.

 

 

It didn't have a shifting aspect ratio in IMAX. It was 1.90:1 the whole film 

[tonytr87]

17 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Now that this is out on Blu-Ray I can admit I thought this movie was gorgeous but kinda boring as fuck haha. 

 

Poor editing, no reason it needed to be that long. Pretty much every scene could have been cut 10 seconds. But im glad lots of people loved it. its still solid, but no Blade Runner 1 and not really for me. Still gonna buy the Blu ray. 

 

Original Blade Runner had the same pacing, just a smaller story. Villenueve wasn't just trying to match up visually but tonally as well. 

[MrPink]

20 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

It didn't have a shifting aspect ratio in IMAX. It was 1.90:1 the whole film 

 

Couldn't remember when I saw it.

 

But even then, movies like Skyfall for example have had 1.90:1 IMAX releases, and they've never gotten that ratio on home video release. Basically, in general, I think the movies I've mentioned above are the only ones to have had any type of release to adhere to a ratio that was used for the IMAX format.

Edited January 20, 2018 by MrPink

[RobinHood26]

13 minutes ago, tonytr87 said:

 

Original Blade Runner had the same pacing, just a smaller story. Villenueve wasn't just trying to match up visually but tonally as well. 

 

No it didn't have the same pacing or structure at all.  Its 50 minutes longer. 

 

 

Blade Runner kicks the energy level up each act  a tad. And the movie gains more thrust then 2049 ever does once Roy kills Tyrell. You get a trust that this is the end, the start of the 3rd act. 

 

 

Little stuff like this though out the whole movie. I have a Adobe project opened and im gonna reedit the movie

 

Example of my cut is this 

 

 

04:34 he washes the eye, then after looks down to a pan, check its, pulls back up. Then it cuts to him outside. its an 11 second shot 

 

I re edited it, he turns on the water, washes the eye, turns the water off, BOOM cuts to him outside (which is the next shot after the long 11 seconds look at a pan anyways) I saved 11 seconds and the movie plays EXACTLY the same way, you loose nothing as an audience member. You wouldn't know the difference but I feel like it gives the movie far more rhythm, pace, keeps the audience more engaged. 

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Jay Hollywood

[MrPink]

4 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

 

No it didn't have the same pacing or structure at all.  Its 50 minutes longer. 

 

 

Blade Runner kicks the energy level up each act  a tad. And the movie gains more thrust then 2049 ever does once Roy kills Tyrell. You get a trust that this is the end, the start of the 3rd act. 

 

 

Little stuff like this though out the whole movie. I have a Adobe project opened and im gonna reedit the movie

 

Example of my cut is this 

 

 

04:34 he washes the eye, then after looks down to a pan, check its, pulls back up. Then it cuts to him outside. its an 11 second shot 

 

I re edited it, he turns on the water, washes the eye, turns the water off, BOOM cuts to him outside (which is the next shot after the long 11 seconds look at a pan anyways) I saved 11 seconds and the movie plays EXACTLY the same way, you loose nothing as an audience member. You wouldn't know the difference but I feel like it gives the movie far more rhythm, pace, keeps the audience more engaged. 

 

 

I haven't re-watched it and I've had some stewing thoughts on it for a while (bought the 4K) but I recall walking out of the theater that there was a lot of this. I don't think it's always wrong to let the mood settle in with some shots, but the whole movie moves at this pace and at 2hr 40 minutes, something has to give.

[TomCruiseTop]

6 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

 

No it didn't have the same pacing or structure at all.  Its 50 minutes longer. 

 

 

Blade Runner kicks the energy level up each act  a tad. And the movie gains more thrust then 2049 ever does once Roy kills Tyrell. You get a trust that this is the end, the start of the 3rd act. 

 

 

Little stuff like this though out the whole movie. I have a Adobe project opened and im gonna reedit the movie

 

Example of my cut is this 

 

 

04:34 he washes the eye, then after looks down to a pan, check its, pulls back up. Then it cuts to him outside. its an 11 second shot 

 

I re edited it, he turns on the water, washes the eye, turns the water off, BOOM cuts to him outside (which is the next shot after the long 11 seconds look at a pan anyways) I saved 11 seconds and the movie plays EXACTLY the same way, you loose nothing as an audience member. You wouldn't know the difference but I feel like it gives the movie far more rhythm, pace, keeps the audience more engaged. 

 

The original edit is far superior, you seem to want Marvel tier pacing, surprised you didn't add some smash cuts in there too. 

 

Then again, I suppose that's why Denis is a director and you're criticizing it on a box office message board. 

[WrathOfHan]

I passed the 4K copy earlier today in Target and took me lots of free will not to get it.

 

I should have gotten it  

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, MrPink said:

 

Outside of  Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, Star Trek Into Darkness (Compendium Release), and the Nolan movies, can't recall many if any that have used shifting/IMAX ratios.

Life of Pi and Catching Fire also.

[RobinHood26]

5 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

The original edit is far superior, you seem to want Marvel tier pacing, surprised you didn't add some smash cuts in there too. 

 

Then again, I suppose that's why Denis is a director and you're criticizing it on a box office message board. 

 

?????? what are you talking about hahah. I cut one shot out of a 5 minute scene hahah and the scene above is the ORIGINAL scene, so idk how you have such a string and violent opinion towards me or have any idea.

 

Honestly stop. Seriously,  don't make a fool of your self and label your self as Troll this early on in you BOT career.

 

 I definitely bitch about Marvelizing movies more than anyone on here, its my thing. And I also Love Jim Cameron the lord and Savor of the 3rd act bro. 

 

 

If you disagree thats fine, good haha Im not thinking for you or myself even, i'm just thinking about the audience. I don't think 11 seconds out of a 5 min scene even changes the tone or feel of the movie, it just gives it a tad more narrative focus to the normal movie goer. 

 

 

[RobinHood26]

also @JamesCameronScholar http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6159156/?ref_=nv_sr_2 

[PPZVGOS]

Such a shame that this excellent film did not make more money than it did. 

 

The general audience is condemning us to an eternal cycle of Wonder Womans, Jumanjis and rehashed cartoons to live-action. 

 

SMH

[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.

Edited January 20, 2018 by ThePhasmid

[TomCruiseTop]

2 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

also @JamesCameronScholar http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6159156/?ref_=nv_sr_2 

What's the point of this link? I uploaded my nephew juggling once on YouTube too, and could just as easily make an IMDb page for that, that doesn't make me Denis Villeneuve. 

 

And my 'BOT career'? Jesus, you need to get back in touch with reality my friend (assuming of course that you once were). Learn to take criticism without throwing out nonsense leftist speak (troll? really?). 

 

Also just an FYI 'yourself' is a single word, might want to get the basics down before you start describing yourself as a 'writer'.   

[tonytr87]

1 hour ago, ThePhasmid said:

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.

 

I fucking hated that voice over with Deckard and Rachel driving off together. Final Cut every time for me. 

[The Futurist]

Funny how this movie persuades casuals and peasants of filmmaking that a long scene is automatically because well, it s long.

So It s Deep, it 's ART.

You know.

Guys like the Berg, De Palma, Scorcese, Coppola would laugh at this mere idea.

And yet, here we are.

[tonytr87]

3 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Funny how this movie persuades casuals and peasants of filmmaking that a long scene is automatically because well, it s long.

So It s Deep, it 's ART.

You know.

Guys like the Berg, De Palma, Scorcese, Coppola would laugh at this mere idea.

And yet, here we are.

 

It's a stylistic choice in keeping with the film's themes and the original film. People don't just like it because slow = deep. You're just stereotyping film nerds. 

[PPZVGOS]

18 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Funny how this movie persuades casuals and peasants of filmmaking that a long scene is automatically because well, it s long.

So It s Deep, it 's ART.

You know.

Guys like the Berg, De Palma, Scorcese, Coppola would laugh at this mere idea.

And yet, here we are.

 

Sometimes long scenes can be nothing other than pretentious. But in many cases, they may very well fit the film's overall tone, themes and aesthetics. 

 

And yes, sometimes being slow and patient with your scenes allows the audience the necessary time to deliberate, reflect, analyze, admire and generally soak in what they are watching and experiencing. If done properly, deliberately slow films can be excellent ART!

 

Edit: and that was exactly the case with BOTH Blade Runner films. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by PPZVGOS