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

[Jack]

They have those extraordinary CG and epic special effects and all but it doesn't look nice. Those dark tones, yellowish, orange-ish, messy lights, several scenes hurt my eyes and look pretty much unrealistic. Too much color effects I guess.

Visuals in several scenes look great but not incredibly great. So... most of them are just forgettable to me. Scenes with the holographic stunned me and I do remember a scene from the forest in the lab though.

 

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, Jack said:

but it doesn't look nice. Those dark tones, yellowish, orange-ish, messy lights, several scenes hurt my eyes and look pretty much unrealistic. Too much color effects I guess.

 

lmao what the fuck

[Ethan Hunt]

That's one of the worst takes I've seen in a while

[Brainbug]

Anyone who says that BR2049 didnt look amazing cant be taken seriously.

[Barnack]

Come on people, if there is something subjective is the movie look, for some BvS was some of the best looking movie for other it did look bad.

 

Except for the very just well shooted natural shoot that will make consensus (like Tree of Life, BadLands, Thin red line, Days of heaven The new world, well Malick in general etc..) anything stylized a lot like the orange sequence will be something of a taste ( I loved it personally), the poster is not saying it was overexposed/not well light/shot, but that he didn't liked the aesthetic, I did read some that didn't like Fury Road atheistic/way action was shoot for an other example.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Barnack

[Captain Craig]

I only got to speak to one person who saw this. The comment he and his wife agree on is that it ran for too long. That the length of the film didn't provide significant exposition as it related to the plot or the other characters. It is indeed a beautiful film to look at it. They just feel trimming at least 20min off would've tightened it up a lot. Worth the big screen he said for the visuals. He felt Ford had a solid performance and looked younger than his years. 

[Cochofles]

1 hour ago, Brainbug said:

Anyone who says that BR2049 didnt look amazing cant be taken seriously.

Maybe...I don't know...they just have a different opinion?

[MrPink]

I would have kept really most scenes, but some scenes could have moved with a faster clip and shaved off some minutes in the process.

 

It felt long, but I probably shouldn't have saw it at 10:30pm 

[trifle]

 

A friend of mine called out of nowhere just to tell me I 'have to' see this film.  I said I understand it isn't doing as well as expected and he said 'nevermind the metrics! This movie is an event!'

 

So I have to see it now, even if I weren't going to, just to figure out what he was talking about.

[CoolioD1]

i am into movies that just let you sit inside the atmosphere so i actually think the long scenes are a big part of why i like the movie so much i think a pacier version wouldn't have felt as unique to me. i get that it's not what people have been conditioned to respond to though.

[Cmasterclay]

The only time this movie dragged to me were in a couple of action scenes that are usually what works for the "too long and boring" crowd. But otherwise, fuck yea this rocked.

[Goffe]

EDIT: Nope.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Goffe

[divinity83]

I saw it in Dolby Cinema at AMC. The sound was fantastic, but (and since no one else is talking about this, I'm guessing it was the projector in my theater) the actors were outlined with a color...like an aura. It was distracting. I'm just going to assume there was a problem with my showing because the audio also cut out for about 2 minutes during a scene when there was no dialogue. 

 

Anyways, I think this movie is "underperforming" for two reasons. Number 1: Blade Runner (1982) is not as good as critics try and tell us. Number 2: Blade Runner 2042 is too long.

 

Even though it was too long, I really enjoyed it. Much better than Blade Runner which I have seen twice, though not very recently. I recommended it to a couple of people yesterday and one of them said they would probably see it today.

[WrathOfHan]

I really don't see how anyone thinks this movie dragged *shrug*

[Mrwick]

Why are so many calling this an under-performance? I'd say its making what is expected given the limited people out there that actually care about the original, not to mention the trailers weren't your typical eye catching popcorn spectacle. Were people really expecting this to open to the same ballpark as interstellar? 30m sounds about right

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, Mrwick said:

Why are so many calling this an under-performance? I'd say its making what is expected given the limited people out there that actually care about the original, not to mention the trailers weren't your typical eye catching popcorn spectacle. Were people really expecting this to open to the same ballpark as interstellar? 30m sounds about right

Because it tracked to do much higher, huge pre-sales number with a 4m Thursday night preview and is performing really well in many market (some very similar like the UK).

 

There is also the huge budget, total absence of relevant competition and critical reception, those all point out to be reasonable to call an under 35m OW underperforming, Fury Road 45m was not that much out of reach for many and that was not that unreasonable to expect something around 40m and that number was still in play until Friday performance.

[WrathOfHan]

Reading the Runpee times for this movie, it's really impressive how far into the movie some plot points.

 

Spoiler

Harrison Ford doesn't appear until 105 minutes into the movie, yet those last 50 minutes feel a hell of a lot shorter.

 

[DeeCee]

4 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

i am into movies that just let you sit inside the atmosphere so i actually think the long scenes are a big part of why i like the movie so much i think a pacier version wouldn't have felt as unique to me. i get that it's not what people have been conditioned to respond to though.

That's pretty much one of the few expectations I had for this.  A slow burn immersive atmosphere.  And it delivered.

[Arlborn]

I've just watched it after having watched the first one again(final cut) earlier today and damn... I'm a bit dazzled and I need time to process it but my immediate take-away from this is that it actually feels better than the first one for me.

 

I need time though as I said, too much to digest. What an experience.

[kowhite]

Really, this movie was fantastic.  Box office?  I kinda kept saying If this movie delivers on its promise, its box office will suffer.  It doesn't seem that bad, but I might be right.  But damn Denis, you did good.

 

You did good.  Alcon.  You did good.  My sympathies to your wallet.