Excellent reviews don't stop Blade Runner 2049 from bombing at the box office
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
Yup, got two little ones as well. I don't even know what the last movie we saw in theaters was. Maybe Zootopia?
p51d007
Posts: 3,929 +3,877
Boy you hit that one on the head! The attention span of most people these days is about how long it........SQUIRREL!!!!!
I wonder if they’ve factored in Hurricane Nate. I realize it wasn’t as destructive as some of the other recent hurricanes, but a lot of folks, myself included, didn’t take unnecessary chances and stayed put.
I realize I’m opening myself up to the always fun “rednecks think androids are just phones” contingent, but I figured I’d offer it up anyway.
I realize I’m opening myself up to the always fun “rednecks think androids are just phones” contingent, but I figured I’d offer it up anyway.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
I am not a 3D fan in any format and have not, nor will I, see it in 3D, however, there are some that say that it is better in 3D than in Dolby Cinema format especially if your IMAX theater happens to have a laser projector (I might see it in such a theater, but unfortunately, my local IMAX does not have a laser projector). See - http://www.avsforum.com/blade-runner-2049-dolby-vision-hdr-atmos-sound/ - particularly the comments section.
My wife and I have also noted this same Phenomenon. My wife and I thought Arrival was great, too, being yet another one of those movies that requires thinking and it was, gasp, original IMO. Another one I will throw out there is Cloud Atlas - IMO a superb movie for thinkers. And how about Railroad Man? Alas, these are not mainstream films!
Explosions, crappy fake martial arts fight scenes, and adolescent humor seem to be the preferred fodder for most theater goers these days.
And, unfortunately, I have to echo the comments of others that have said the theater experience is complete crap these days even in theaters with good reclining seats and superb sound systems. We prefer staying home in our own home theater where we can pause when we want and do not have obnoxious theater patrons next to us who have no respect for other theater goers.
Lastly, though I am not sure that I will classify this as a crappy remake once I have seen it, pretty much all Hollycrap is putting out these days seems to be very poor remakes. Anything that requires creativity to write seems to be taboo to most movie studios these days.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
I hate to say this, but given some of your posts...
mbrowne5061
Posts: 2,158 +1,362
Off the top of my head: La La Land, Moonlight, Arrival, Hateful Eight, Inception, Avatar, Moonrise Kingdom, Interstellar, Baby Driver, and I would argue The Martian since the book was published almost a full year after Fox had already obtained the movie rights. I even eliminated Paper Towns and The Grand Budapest Hotel because when I double checked, I found they were based on a cult classic book and the complete collection of work from a popular writer of the early 20th century, respectively. Those are also just in the last ten years, most in the last five to six years.
I admit, they do go after sequels and remakes too often, part of that is to meet investor demand for a safe return. The Writer's Strike of 2008 showed Hollywood that they could still make films without a huge writing staff if they made sequels and remakes - and in fact, saw safer returns by being able to target existing fan bases. The caveat is now writers have to produce truly stunning original works when they do branch out to tell a new story.
To say Hollywood doesn't know how to do original anymore isn't fair. They produce originals as often, but at $20 a ticket, I'm fine with going to see fewer movies of quality a year.
As someone said, niche movie segment. Not all SciFfi fans will even like it.
Bigger issue? It's a sequel to a movie that is 35 years old.
I turn 41 in 2 days and I was way too young to have seen the original in the theater. (I have seen it several times on DVD and Blu-ray as an adult.) When the only people who could have seen the original in the theater are all 50+ and only those that like smart, dark Sci-Fi would have cared to seen (and likely not all of them did see it) in the theater, you have severely limited the number who want to see it in the theater. Sure, there are plenty who saw it later in life and will want to see this one in the theater, but no "cult classic" has that huge a following.
Bigger issue? It's a sequel to a movie that is 35 years old.
I turn 41 in 2 days and I was way too young to have seen the original in the theater. (I have seen it several times on DVD and Blu-ray as an adult.) When the only people who could have seen the original in the theater are all 50+ and only those that like smart, dark Sci-Fi would have cared to seen (and likely not all of them did see it) in the theater, you have severely limited the number who want to see it in the theater. Sure, there are plenty who saw it later in life and will want to see this one in the theater, but no "cult classic" has that huge a following.
It was ok. The problem is, we didn't really need a sequel. 2049 doesn't add anything to the original story we couldn't live without. As for its box office failure, all I can say is an over 2 1/2 hour run-time hurts it, it's glacially paced, and since it's been 35 years since the first one, the only people interested in it are fans.
kapital98
Posts: 427 +393
I expect the same thing. This movie will do very well on streaming services and on high-profit 'collector's edition' type releases. It will probably make most of the money back in the foreign markets and then eventually gain a strong (and lasting) profit after the cinema run.
For me, most movies aren't worth buying in Blu-Ray (or, maybe soon, 4k). I'll just wait for streaming options or else torrent it. There are a limited number of movies, mostly sci-fi, where I put so much importance into the video and sound quality that I'll buy the $25+ Blu-Ray. Films like the Star Wars trilogy, Tarkovsky films (Solaris, etc), Lord of the Rings, etc.
TheBigFatClown
Posts: 1,110 +495
I don't really agree with any of your comments. Movies are about entertainment. Not "needing" sequels. A ninth Star Wars movie will be released soon...do we need it? I don't. But that doesn't mean it won't be entertaining. I'm not sure what "run time" has to do with the success or failure of a movie. "The Titanic" has a 3h15m runtime and its one of the most successful movies ever. I'm sure there are other examples. How many years has it been since the release of the first Star Wars film? About the same? Only fans see sequels? Maybe. Or people go see the movie and it makes them want to see the first one.
I agree with the comments about this movie doing just fine in the long run. It doesn't break box-office records it's weekend debut and people start jumping out of windows? Relax.
I guess nobody can say for sure why this movie did poorer than expected. Maybe it got released too late in the summer. Some movies make more money from DVD sales. That will probably be the case here.
J
Jibberish18
Saw it over the weekend. At first it seemed a bit boring, but interesting. The middle of the movie had me wishing I was watching another movie and I realized the movie even made me dislike the dark and rain future that I usually love from movies like the original Bladerunner. The end of the movie had me loving the movie and appreciated the fact that the movie was so long, slow and quiet. If none of this makes sense, just watch the movie. To sum it up, it starts of slow and stays slow until almost the very end and you realize that it was a good decision as you really feel the characters in the movie.
axiomatic13
Posts: 657 +835
I just don't go to the movies anymore. I have a 120" projection screen in my media room. This movie does not debut in my theater until the blu ray comes out.
The Star Wars is #8, but you are right, we don't need any movies, sequels or otherwise (though personally, I love them). As to run time, everyone 30 and under seems to think 2 hours is a long movie and three hours is torture. The original Star Wars was 5 years before Bladerunner, but it had two sequels (followed by three more and now a third trilogy going on now), and several cartoons, and many books and thousands of comic books and millions of action figures and was much bigger and never really went away. There is no comparison..
"I guess nobody can say for sure why this movie did poorer than expected." Well, they can, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the reasons.
bexwhitt
Posts: 662 +397
You are entitled to your opinion how ever off base it is. Movies are no worse than they ever were and with careful use of CGI can add flesh to a story without breaking the bank. I go to the cinema quite often and of the movies, I've seen this year many of them have been good. Sure there are ones that left me wishing I'd passed like Alien Covenant but your statement is rash at best and plain wrong at worst.
bexwhitt
Posts: 662 +397
I thought it was good and the pacing worked, that said I wouldn't want to live in that version of the Earth.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Revisit: How Does It Compare Against the 7700 XT?- i like foxes replied
