No
Blade Runner is not a mainstream blockbuster title that casual fans are going to line up to see...and if it was released at the same time as Star Wars it would probably make even less $$
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Blade Runner 2049 Stumbles at Box Office
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
No
Blade Runner is not a mainstream blockbuster title that casual fans are going to line up to see...and if it was released at the same time as Star Wars it would probably make even less $$
hawkeye_wx
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 70
I'm not a big movie theater guy. The last two movies I went to see were the last two Star Wars. Still, I thought it might be a cool experience to go see BR at the $6 4pm showing yesterday. Ultimately, I decided I didn't really want to sit in a theater for 3 hours. Perhaps I'll rent it sometime, or I'll just wait until it's on cable.
viper1152012
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,025
Basically I got perfect seats for 3d, but I was sad to see the super low turn out.
The theatre even had all staff on deck and when I asked they were like " there must be an amazing event somewhere because this is the first decent movie we have had besides Dunkirk"
The theatre even had all staff on deck and when I asked they were like " there must be an amazing event somewhere because this is the first decent movie we have had besides Dunkirk"
As usual, stuff that takes actual creative risk is roasted.
Honestly though, I have never seen the original. So I ordered the FC 30th anniversary BD on Amazon, but they seem to be out of stock. I was hoping I could get it and watch it before 2049 came out so I could go see it.
Honestly though, I have never seen the original. So I ordered the FC 30th anniversary BD on Amazon, but they seem to be out of stock. I was hoping I could get it and watch it before 2049 came out so I could go see it.
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
The last time I went to a movie theater, I brought earplugs. Those fuckers put the volume so high, I could hear the sounds from outside of the theater.
I watched it on Friday evening, and I was surprised at the paltry audience.
It's a slow burn, but the movie stays in your mind because of its exquisite set pieces, Ryan Gosling's acting and the beautifully crafted cityscapes.
Slightly unrelated, but I am glad moviepass exists now- I have been able to see more movies in the last month than in 5 years before that. I hope it stays around and doesn't go bankrupt.
It's a slow burn, but the movie stays in your mind because of its exquisite set pieces, Ryan Gosling's acting and the beautifully crafted cityscapes.
Slightly unrelated, but I am glad moviepass exists now- I have been able to see more movies in the last month than in 5 years before that. I hope it stays around and doesn't go bankrupt.
Is it really that hard to find 3 hours of the day to enjoy a movie? It's well worth seeing in the theater!
Cmdrmonkey
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
I couldn't disagree more, and this kind of thinking is why the movie flopped. Studio execs probably thought it was too niche and set it up to fail by releasing it at a time when no one is at the movies like they were ashamed of it or something. Also there is massive overlap in the fanbases for Star Wars and Blade Runner. People who grew up in the 80s and love sci-fi generally love both Blade Runner and Star Wars. The theaters would have been packed if both had released in December and both movies would likely have seen even higher ticket sales. But the way Blade Runner was released at such a weird time, I bet a lot of people who would have seen it aren't even aware that it's out.
Last edited:
dark_reign
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,314
Was it the Director's Cut? It's way better than the theatrical cut with the awkward voiceover and happy ending. The DC gets a 9/10 from me.
4saken
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 13,217
great movie. was not disappointed, especially as a life long OG bladerunner fan. I can see why the mainstream wont go for it as it isnt a typical sci-fi blow em up action flick. But I am thankful that they true to the original in so many ways and didnt cheese it up. Unfortunate that if it fails at the box office we wont see more.
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
My favorite movie in the last 5 years for me. The director totally captured the feel of the original and did an incredible sequel. Shame it might do poorly financially but I was satisfied with how it ended. I am just glad I got to see more of the Blade Runner world.
No but in this movie there is a lot of padding.
Essentially what they have done is put out the over-indulgent Director's Cut first.
I'll look forward to seeing it again as the reduced cut of 2 hours 10 mins.
5150Joker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,568
I rarely go to the movies anymore, too many loud and annoying people. I just grab it when it’s on Netflix or Amazon Prime after a few months and watch it in the comfort of my own home; I suspect many other people in the country are doing the same thing.
The long run time is helping to keep me away. I really wanted to see it, but as I'm getting older, sitting in a theater for 3 hours with no break is getting less and less appealing. Then there's the fact that I have a theater in my basement that is about as good as most commercial theaters. Just have to wait a few weeks for the home release.
Is opening theater figures really all that important still? I can't longer remember when I was last at the movie theater. I will buy this one on 4K Blu-ray though. I buy a lot of movies in addition to have all the usual streaming services. In my mind figures from those sectors is ultimately what is going to deem success. But in the corporate world they have lost patience for return of investment and want instant gratification economically.
I brought ear plugs to Dunkirk. When I see BR2049 again in IMAX I'll be doing the same. The regular 2D showings are also insanely loud and it's getting worse.
I personally found BR2049 to be a great movie that could have certainly been reduced on runtime by 20-30 minutes. At the same time I'm torn with that because I find the world so interesting along with the questions posed. I honestly haven't stopped thinking about it all that much since Thursday night and it has sparked a lot of conversation between myself and those who have seen it.
Also, I'm a big fan of Denis Villeneuve's camera work. There were a lot of fantastic shots but I loved the simplicity of the embers shot and the transition they made with that. Some of those scenes with Joi, like the rooftop scene, were beautiful, too.
Oh, and I only just saw this but I had no idea how much they paid homage to the first Blade Runner in the trailer, lol:
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
They could always add some micro transactions to the film genre if there concerned about money 
Totally agree. When I was 10 years younger, I'd most definitely want to sit through 3 hours of a good movie. But nowadays I need my bathroom break after 2 hours of sitting.
Riptide_NVN
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,062
No offense taken. I enjoyed the original. Enjoyed the short story it was based on even more.
workshop35
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2013
- Messages
- 783
Loved the movie, but had to go running as soon as it ended. We went to a theater that serves beer and drinking one at the beginning of a long movie wasnt a smart move.Totally agree. When I was 10 years younger, I'd most definitely want to sit through 3 hours of a good movie. But nowadays I need my bathroom break after 2 hours of sitting.
Went yesterday, there might have been 30 people in there, tops. Good movie, great visuals and I am usually put off by over the top CGI abuse. It's long though, almost 3 hours. My brain didn't notice it as much as my bladder and my lower back did. Cinemark's "lounger" seats may recline, but calling them comfortable is a bit of a stretch.
This one could be the benchmark 4K UHD disc when it comes out, it's beautifully shot. I bet it comes with a "director's cut" that is even longer.
As much as I enjoyed it, I think if I were in charge of editing I could have cut out 20 minutes of "gazing at scenery" shots.
It was worth going though to see it on the big screen. Now, my $4 bottle of water on the other hand... I brought it home, I'm going to keep that forever!
This one could be the benchmark 4K UHD disc when it comes out, it's beautifully shot. I bet it comes with a "director's cut" that is even longer.
As much as I enjoyed it, I think if I were in charge of editing I could have cut out 20 minutes of "gazing at scenery" shots.
It was worth going though to see it on the big screen. Now, my $4 bottle of water on the other hand... I brought it home, I'm going to keep that forever!
Last edited:
I haven't seen it yet and not reading comments here but something tells me advertising has a lot to do with it. I swear I'm a fan of the original (even, shocked, read the a few times too!) and even I had no idea they were making this til like a month ago and thought it was a while til release...not two days ago.
D4rkn3ss
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,619
maybe it could just be people dont really feel like supporting those hollyweirdo pedo creeps like they used to anymore
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
There are a few reasons I think this movie is failing, one, they don't have Vangelis. As we all know, his soundtrack was a HUGE reason the original Blade Runner did so well.
And while yes there were serious issues with Vangelis those issues could have been worked out given this project was more than a few years in the making.
The other reasons, if you watch all the trailers, it just doesn't have the same look and feel. No, new is not always better. The movie follows all the modern trends and just doesn't have it's own soul.
Jared Leto's acting is fucking horrible. And emotionless same dumb look pretty boy Ryan Gosling .... terrible casting on both these guys.
They took the Original Blade Runner and added Hollywood lipstick and dropped it off at some corner.
And while yes there were serious issues with Vangelis those issues could have been worked out given this project was more than a few years in the making.
The other reasons, if you watch all the trailers, it just doesn't have the same look and feel. No, new is not always better. The movie follows all the modern trends and just doesn't have it's own soul.
Jared Leto's acting is fucking horrible. And emotionless same dumb look pretty boy Ryan Gosling .... terrible casting on both these guys.
They took the Original Blade Runner and added Hollywood lipstick and dropped it off at some corner.
Padding? Really? The pacing was slower - like the original - and is the style of the movie. It's not padding, it's adding depth. It's hard to think of the last movie i've seen with such detail to character development of basically every character with any screen time.
I guess if anyone's going, wanting to see an action movie, they'll be disappointed. If they saw the original they will know what to expect.
I think what they're talking about is some of the scenes where he's just walking and nothing really happens. I know in one scene it seemed to take 1-2 minutes of walking to get to a building when 10-20 seconds would have accomplished the same thing. Not sure if there was 45 minutes to cut though. That said, the original was was 45 minutes shorter than this one, and having just watched the first one, i think the pacing was slower on this movie than that one. I also think I liked the original better, and to be clear, I'm not a die hard fan boy. AFAIK, I've only seen the movie 2x. once the original cut and once the final cut.
You're apparently under the mistaken impression that hte original movie did well. It didn't. It was at best a disappointment.
Once you account for the fact that this movie takes place 32 years after the original, I don't think it looks all that different.
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,435
When it comes to Ridley Scott, I wait for ComicBookGirl19 to tell me what to think. She's in his head, living rent free.
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
No, I am under no such illusion. You act as tho I care about what the movie did at the box-office or for that matter, the army of fans that love the original. If you want to take the side of bankers, that's fine but don't assume I do or have or ever will. I could care less.
The movie did very well and has stood the test of time for it's artistry, cinematography, soundtrack, casting, etc. For you to use "disappointment" in the same breath as Blade Runner shows where your concern lies .... with money. And if so why would anyone care what you have to say? I don't or think others should.
I actually went and saw the movie last night and it was pretty disappointing in terms of social impact/longevity and especially artistry. I thought it was worth the money and I enjoyed my time there but the movie is nothing even close to the look and feel or impact of the original. It's a soulless sold out piece of Hollywood shovel-ware, nothing more, nothing less.
I even took it one step further since I consider myself a true fan of the original and purchased the soundtrack - Hans Zimmer & Benjamin Wallfisch - Blade Runner 2049. I've had a chance to listen through it and again, my initial reaction is disappointment. What qualifies me here i think is that I've listened to electronica with passion ever since I first heard Tour De France by Kraftwerk ( 10 Speed Cover ) when I went to see Breakin' in 1984 when I was 15 back when Break Dancing was all the rage. It's good but it feels more like Hollywood regurgitation. Of course maybe I am just too jaded and cynical these days.
Last edited:
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,224
I haven't seen it yet. The problem for me is time constraint with work and the length of time of this movie.
I cannot wait to see it and judge for myself, so I think Ill wait for bluray.
4K Blu-ray will have to suffice.
I cannot wait to see it and judge for myself, so I think Ill wait for bluray.
4K Blu-ray will have to suffice.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,747
But Star Wars isn't a sci-fi movie.
Cmdrmonkey
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
???? I'll admit that it has more going on that just sci-fi. It could also be classified as fantasy or space opera. But it definitely also falls into the sci-fi genre.
If Star Wars isn't sci-fi then Dune isn't either, as A New Hope borrows heavily from Dune, and Lucas even admits this. And yet Dune is considered perhaps the greatest sci-fi novel of all time.
This movie is the Godfather 2/Aliens of Sequels. It stands on it's own. You don't need to watch the first one to get any of the inside info. If you do it's chock full of points of interest and goodies that you can point to. The plot twists are all there, the 3hr movie time is worth it, the payoff is awesome, and by god this is one of the best movies of the year.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,945
Star Wars, and Dune for that matter, are much more fantasy than sci-fi.
mcravenufo
Ravenufo's Macs
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 5,590
I agree with a response I read a few days ago in that the movie was too intellectual. It's not Fast & Furious or Transformers. I really enjoyed the movie.
It's not too intellectual. That excuse will be used to paste over the cracks in the script and other issues the movie has.
It's like folks said that Prometheus was too much for general audiences because it 'asks big questions about life and existence!"
However, those of us that didn't like the movie were saying it 'asks big questions as to how all this budget and talent could produce such a turd?"
I still have a sneaky feeling Damon Lindelof may have worked on 2049's script on the quiet. It just felt like his kind of work.
There isn't enough dialogue to be 'intellectual'. Silence gives the illusion but it's just as vapid as loud noises in Transformers.
Last edited:
I disagree the almost 3 hour movie time is not worth it. This pokey of a movie could have been condensed down to 1 1/2 hours easily.
viper1152012
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,025
People are buying into toooo many sequal runs. If it were a too fastererer more deliriouser it would have still packed people in.
It just wasn't pushed as hard as the safe sequel movies have been
It just wasn't pushed as hard as the safe sequel movies have been
Droc
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,402
My aunt runs a theatre, her husband owns one and togher they own a drve in. They said they have seen more ppl walk out of this than anything in years