It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Were you the guy sitting next to me, whispering to your pal, rattling your candy bag and checking your phone all the time?
It certainly didn't pander to the usual blockbuster audience, probably why it's likely to under perform.
DV already has a more consistent track record than Ridley, Alien & Blade Runner are is only truly great films, everything just pales in comparrison.
Yes there are some great films in there but there is also quite a bit of tosh.
The only possibility I saw for following this on is
Better it ends here and if the film being a flop is the price so be it.
I don't think this being a flop makes any difference to Denis signing on, he'll either do it or he won't and this being a BO flop or a hit wouldn't factor in.
I think he'd like to do it and it will all come down to whether he wants to give some breathing space between BR 2049 and Dune and do a different type of film or he wants to head straight into Dune.
I'm not sure I see Cleopatra coming off with him, also there is the Jo Nesbo adaptation The Son although if The Snowman bombs and gets slated and it's not looking good due to the late embargo that might not come to fruition.
I know some will argue Aliens is superior but it's not.
I think if the shoe was on the other foot and BR had been a hit and turned into a franchise and Alien had under performed and been misunderstood and grown a cult audience over the years and then 30 or more years later Aliens had come along I might be able to understand Blade Runner worshippers problem with this.
I would no doubt argue that Alien was superior, better written and just outright a better film despite this film which took the story in a different direction on a more epic scale.
Personally I can't share the criticisms and see what is so badly written about 2049.
I loved it and already think slightly for me at least it's a superior film and I'm not on my own.
Also Terminator remains Cameron's best film for me personally.
Also, my theory on the future of the franchise: Ridley Scott will see the success of the new one and decide to come back with a bunch of ideas he's apparently had since the first movie and then ruin it (actually enjoyed Prometheus for what it was but yeah I'm still bitter over Alien Covenant).
That's a very good comparison @bondjames. Here's just a few off the top of my head:
2. The two good guys square off before becoming allies. The comics do this ALL the time (see: Marvel Team-Up)
3. Rachel died in childbirth. Easy way to avoid if she had a termination date (Final Cut) or not (narrated versions).
4. Wallace carves up a newborn replicant because, hey! Evil!
5. Joe takes terrible damage and still kills Luv with the Rocky method (almost dead = determination). The original never depicted winning a physical confrontation as a 'hero' thing.
6. When hunted, hide your kid in a violent orphanage. It's what I would do... (?!?!?!?)
7. Wallace spent months creating a Rachel 'clone' so he could kill her in front of Deckard to achieve... umm, nothing much...
8. Joe, a basically good guy, dies and from this we've learned.... why we got napkins with the popcorn. (cheap shot there... sacrifice, I guess...)
9. Tease a revolution because, hey! SEQUEL!! Blade Runner 2051: Attack of the Clones!
It's a testament to the director's amazing skill that I only see these things after and not during the movie. I'll see anything this man directs from now on.
I'm with Mark Twain "I like a good story, well told". So all of the factors I mention relate to the telling of the story but you need a good story to start with. Is the story in 2049 a good story? If you had to condense it down to the basic plot and the background themes, then I can't see it myself. @chrisisall is spot on with those points but I think there are broader issues with the central key points and the lack of emotion and , linked to that, emotional drama. People mention T2. I think there is more emotion in T2 with Arnie's death than at the end of 2049 with Ryan's (and definately more with Batty's). That could be the aim (to make a cold movie) but, IMHIO, I want to feel an emotional connection when I watch a movie. Moon is a tiny movie in comparison (re budget) but, as an example of a good story, I think it's a better movie.
I don't think it's superior but I think with those two they're both so good at what they set out to do that it's genuinely completely subjective. My personal preference is the first because I love the atmosphere and the simplicity of it but I think that both films are pretty much on par with one another. Aliens was well written, full of great characters, developed Ripley really well, added to the universe, managed to expand on the original while still doing its own thing and avoiding being a retread, coming up with loads of its own iconic concepts and moments to add to the first one. It's more of an action movie/blockbuster but that doesn't mean it's dumber or worse in any way, it's just as well written (you could even say it's got a deeper script than the first with the obvious Vietnam parallels, more to say) and just as well put together as the first. It's the perfect sequel.
Typed up a quick, spoiler-free review:
What a simply mesmerizing experience that was. 2049 is a feat of cinematic perfection.
I need to see it again now, not because of how much I enjoyed it, but because 2049 requires a great deal of thinking. The plot, the story developments aren't conveyed via words, but rather mainly through visuals. I won't deny that there were several segments throughout the film where I felt about as intelligent as a can-opener, because as an audience member you're forced to sit back and think about what has happened and why. There were moments where I actually had to ask myself if I was an idiot for not understanding why something was happening upon initial viewing, or is this a film that asks you to think instead of explicitly displaying everything you need to know at the tip of your fingers? After some theorizing once the movie ended I realized that it was definately the latter. 2049 is one of very few sci-fi films that actually forces you to think, not because of plot convolution or narrative inconsistencies, but because of its complex nature.
Everything is on point here. The direction is superb, as is the writing. The cinematography is genuinely among the best I've seen from a mainstream film (as is the production design, I heavily misjudged Gassner). And every actor brings out some of their best performances (with Ford deserving special praise, he truly is a powerhouse here). Blade Runner 2049 represents a monumental achievement in modern-day filming that meets and supersedes the expectations set by Blade Runner (1982), thanks to the undeniable efforts of everyone involved.
Oh, and if Villeneuve doesn't end up directing a Bond film, I'll be astonishingly pissed.
I don't get that impression at all. He decided to do something different and expand on what the first one set up rather than just do a retread. He had his own ideas but that's a good thing imo or you just end up hitting all the same beats as the first. And he still clearly respected the original, the way Ripley develops for example feels really natural after the events of the first one and despite being more of a blockbuster there's still horror there. It's just more war movie/unwinnable situation horror than fear of the unknown, which was perfect because we already knew about the alien after the first movie so no point going down that road again.
Aliens is a perfect sequel, partly because of how different it is without ever feeling like it doesn't fit in the same world as the first one. That's how a sequel should be done imo. Expand on the first one, add new stuff while still feeling like a proper follow up. The Raid 2 is another good example. To add to this I'll point out the opposite: Die Hard 2. It's a bad sequel partly because of how safe and unoriginal it feels, and even points this out and makes a joke of the whole "not again!" idea. While Die Hard 3 did its own thing and followed on from the first in an organic, natural feeling way.
I think Aliens is great but now I actually prefer the Assembly Cut of Alien 3 but Alien has aged the best by far and the dialogue is superior but my point was that @chrisisall loves the original Blade Runner and finds fault in BR 2049 although he very much enjoyed it.
I think if you do have a certain film on a pedestial and think it so great that a sequel however good they are, you are likely to pick fault, my point was that you switch them and I'd be defending Alien over a similarly received 2017 version of Aliens.
It has biggger themes and is more ambitious very much like BR2049 is I just don't hold up the original BR as much as some and can possibly look at it more objectively but I'd likely be in the same boat if it was Alien that had just been followed up after 30 or so years with a critically acclaimed sequel.
Ridley has pretty much taken the Alien franchise and done as much damage as the Alien Vs Predator films did but the thing is he should have known better.
BR2049 flopping is probably the best thing as if it had been a hit the fear is that Ridders would have likely set in motion another film and possibly this time thought to direct it and that fate would make me fear what kind of effect that would have on the BR & BR2049. I've not watched and have no intention to watch Alien Covenant because I don't want my memory of Alien sullied by Scott and co's retrofitting and tinkering.
What he's done with that franchise gives me a good idea of what he'd do with a potential continuation of the BR franchise and for that I'm happy to accept a flop if that is the price.
I'd characterize it like this: if you really liked Blade Runner (Final Cut), you will like 2049 as much or possibly more. And deservedly so, for 2049 is way better than it had any real right to be.
If you LOVED Blade Runner (any version) I think you'll in time see that 2049 is constructed to be a sequel without that fierce love and understanding of the original, and intrinsically and necessarily lacks an organic connection to it.
Blade Runner is a little like Highlander in that way; there can be only one.
Blade Runner 2049’ Crashes at Box Office With $31.5 Million.
Despite critical praise and optimistic tracking, Warner Bros./Alcon/Columbia's "Blade Runner 2049" has crashed hard at the box office, grossing just $31.5 million in its opening weekend from 4,058 screens against a reported budget of $150 million.
It's a tough fall for the Denis Villeneuve-directed sequel to Ridley Scott's classic sci-fi noir. Before the weekend, the most conservative tracking estimates had this film matching the $45 million opening earned in 2015 by "Mad Max: Fury Road." Instead, "2049" is falling short even of the "$36.1 million made earlier this year by Scott's "Alien: Covenant," which tanked in subsequent weeks after all the hardcore "Alien" fans saw the film on opening night.
Now signs are already pointing to "2049" suffering a similar fate. After making $12.7 million on Friday, including $4 million from Thursday previews, revenue fell 11 percent on Saturday to $11.4 million. "Blade Runner 2049" is proving to be a very front-loaded film, as the original's cult fanbase packed early screenings while mainstream audiences have been slow to buy tickets.
This in part explains the discrepancy between the film's A- grade on CinemaScore and the lack of word-of-mouth we've seen among mainstream audiences. The CinemaScore demographic breakdown was 71 percent male and 86 percent over the age of 25, with 63 percent over the age of 35. For a generation of hardcore film buffs -- mostly male -- who remember seeing the original "Blade Runner" in theaters, "2049" was an event release. But for other demos, this film doesn't seem to have struck a chord, even with Ryan Gosling in his first wide release since "La La Land."
This weekend's other new releases also performed below pre-weekend expectations. Fox/Chernin's "The Mountain Between Us" took second place this weekend with $10.1 million from 3,068 screens against a $35 million budget and pre-weekend projections of $11-13 million. Lionsgate's "My Little Pony: The Movie" came in fourth with $8.8 million from 2,528 screens against projections of $10 million. Both films had an A- on CinemaScore, but "MLP" had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 57 percent while "Mountain" had a 46 percent score.
Why is it a tough fall? Yes, financially. But ask yourself this. Do you prefer watching a sh*t-film like "Furious 8" that manages to gross $1.2 Billion globally? Or do you prefer a critically acclaimed film, loved by fans as well, that isn't doing that well financially?
That should be more and more the question that even Bond fans should answer themselves. And if accidentally the film grosses well, after it gets critical acclaim from media outlets and fans alike? Then that's a nice extra :-).
PS: It could very well be that "Blade Runner 2049" has much better financial 'legs' then we can predict right now.
Blade Runner isn't like Star Wars or Star Trek which have a massive ever growing fanbase.
Blade Runner is a cult film. An old cult film that while popular amongst a large number of die hard enthusiasts its sequel was never going to set the box office on fire.
I'm still amazed that certain members on here are only just seeing it for the first time.
I must admit the likes of films like F&F 8 making over a billion at the box office is a depressing thought.
I'm just so pleased that BR 2049 is such a critical success.
Got my ticket for Thursday. That day can't come quick enough!
No, but that's not where I am comparing "Blade Runner 2049" to. I prefer to compare it more with recent sci-fi films like "Gravity", "The Martian", "Interstellar" and "Arrival". Also films like "Mad Max: Fury Road" and "Ex-Machina" come to my mind. All of these are blockbusters, but simply not mainstream enough to easily gross $900 Million globally or more.
"Blade Runner 2049" will earn itself back and by the way, it's a film posed to have long legs.
I only usually go to the cinema for Bond films.
For this i'll make an exception.
Aliens was clever as it was very commercial but had deeper themes. 2049 is not commercial IMHO as it has tried to keep the tone and pace of the original (we know the original audience found this hard) rather than going for a more commercial approach. It's easy for us to celebrate and respect DV for keeping to the spirit of the original and playing down the financial performace BUT , if these movies dont make money, who will back future projects? I fear we just get Fast and Furious bubble gum tripe with fast edits and little to think about rather than mature, grown up movies.
Purely on a finanacial basis, I know what I would invest in.