Blade Runner 2049

[RubiconDecision]

The film is a bit long but generally praised. There are three shorts, I believe which then didn't have to be incorporated into the film.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rrZk9sSgRyQ
Blackout 2022
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ
2036 Nexus Dawn
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9Os8cP_gg
2048 Nowhere to Run

Then there is the featurette.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBsjZgu7T2U
Gosling and Leto's work have been praised. Ford shows up very late in the film. There are long analysis of the film, trying to be spoiler free on youtube. People are gushing over the marvelous cinematography and the flavor of the film and the appropriate use of special effects. It probably will be purchased to add to film libraries, especially if a Director's Cut with commentary becomes available.

That said, don't expect it to be commercially successful as Blade Runner was not. It took years and years for it to be lauded and make money. I would expect that to happen.

Many are saying that you must see it in the theatre as it wouldn't have the same power on home theatre systems, much less on your laptop.

[IronBrig4]

Many are saying that you must see it in the theatre as it wouldn't have the same power on home theatre systems, much less on your laptop.

So is it worth the extra money for IMAX or 3D?

[Halie Satanus]

Long brooding shots of rain, urban sprawl, more rain, lights, lots of pondering, snow and of course, rain.... A lot more dialogue than I was expecting, particularly Ford. It's a great sequel.

The audio fx and soundtrack demand big surround sound quality.

[Cyclops]

Yes the soundscape demands a cinema (a good one, not the crap I went to), and the effect of Zimmer's work is excellent. I haven't felt as detached from reality by a film's soundtrack since Eraserhead.

[RubiconDecision]

It depends upon the film, I reckon. Obviously Avatar, Saving Private Ryan, something epic like Dances With Wolves, etc.

I mean old farts like me were constantly watching films in theatres as this is prior to VCRs. Obviously a film like the first Alien which I saw in a theatre is vastly more horrifying than at home on a laptop.

The first year of dating my soon to be wife we went to the cinema twice a week. I rather feel sorry that couples watch quality movies on tiny screens.

Even poor kids on tiny allowances could go to the matinee and see three films.

[Cyclops]

It depends upon the film, I reckon. Obviously Avatar, Saving Private Ryan, something epic like Dances With Wolves, etc.

I mean old farts like me were constantly watching films in theatres as this is prior to VCRs. Obviously a film like the first Alien which I saw in a theatre is vastly more horrifying than at home on a laptop...

Indeed. Alien was terrifying and the sound/music was awfully effective. Saving private Ryan is an interesting call, but now I reflect on it the opening "chopped meat" scene would not have the same effect on a small screen. DwW as well I guess for the scenery, that goes for Lawrence of Arabia and a bunch of others .

...
The first year of dating my soon to be wife we went to the cinema twice a week. I rather feel sorry that couples watch quality movies on tiny screens.

Even poor kids on tiny allowances could go to the matinee and see three films.

[old fart mode] I can remember back in the 1970's my mother giving me two dollars and that was a ticket, the tram both ways and enough left over for popcorn or a disgusting icecream.[/old fart mode]

Actually a mate had a VCR so we watched a movie a couple of times a month and multiple videos every week as well, we got a bit of film education, and not just Arnie movies.

[Halie Satanus]

Yes the soundscape demands a cinema (a good one, not the crap I went to), and the effect of Zimmer's work is excellent. I haven't felt as detached from reality by a film's soundtrack since Eraserhead.

Yep, there were moments where I couldn't tell if I was hearing a sound effect or part of the soundtrack as they wove around each other and dragged you into the visuals.

[RubiconDecision]

The first time I saw Alien in the theatre, it scared me so badly when it burst out of his chest, impossibly tall on the silver screen, that I literally got a charleyhorse and was trying to step it out so I could watch the film. I shrieked like a little girl which amused my friends sitting with me...no end.

The same thing happened when Luke got his hand cut off in The Empire Strikes Back.

If I saw them on tiny screens, then I doubt I would remember them so fondly.

Local tv stations had VCRs (huge ones) in 1977 or so I got to see Monty Python and the Holy Grail years before my friends.

When Star Wars came out, people would see it up to ten times. That happened earlier with Dr.Zhivago. Or far later with Rocky Horror Picture Show as a participatory performance.

So yeah, see BR 2049 in IMAX if you can.

A $1.00 in 1967
Equals
$7.46 in 2017

But to go to the cinema is $8.84 and doesn't include Raisineettes, popcorn with real butter, and a Coke. So inflation has ruined going to the movies as you could spend $15.00 today.

[Cyclops]

The first time I saw Alien in the theatre, it scared me so badly when it burst out of his chest, impossibly tall on the silver screen, that I literally got a charleyhorse and was trying to step it out so I could watch the film. I shrieked like a little girl which amused my friends sitting with me...no end.....

One of my mates saw Alien in a very grand but dilapidated old cinema that had a leaky roof, in a storm. It was literally dripping around him during the horrifying chain scene with Harry Dean Stanton. He told me he was tormented by the worst nightmares that night, and woke constantly in overwhelming fear. Strangely he has never had a nightmare since.

[RubiconDecision]

In the early years of the 2000s there was a push to rescreen old cinema of lasting merit in fine theatres, often restored, as a way for younger people to recapture what that was like when they came out.

I feel that is an optimal way to see any classic top film like Blade Runner. The experience in the dark with minimal distraction is how to watch films. Today we are overly distracted by cell phones and Iphones such that we genuinely are not "immersed within the film and achieving suspension of disbelief."

Take the case of haunted houses in the early 80s in America. These were terrifying in ways you cannot achieve ordinarily.

Basically horror films today watched at home while comfortable with the lights on and eating a pizza, and answering the phone, or pausing to look up a reference in the film on Salem witchcraft trials,then breaks the spell.

Yet watching a horror film in 1980 or watching the Exorcist in the 70's actually made people FAINT. They were overcome with fright.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AkIqFK3KoZ4

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LSVHpX1CDN8

When Blade Runner, few people knew about the author, and even Ridley Scott wasn't well known. It was however one of the few times in cinema history to make an entire mythos in such a bold dystopic way. Really like the 1st Matrix film, there aren't many films like it.

[IronBrig4]

My Dad saw Alone in the Dark in theaters when it first came out. It's not a horror film, but definitely suspenseful. He said the climax at the end made people scream.

The only horror film in recent memory that has done that would probably be Blair Witch. Even though I hate shaky camera cinematography with the fury of a thousand exploding suns, the producers still built up a palpable sense of dread. That spooked the audience throughout the film.

I'd say a problem with modern horror films is they go for the cheap jump scare. It usually involves a sudden burst of screeching music and something jumping out of the shadows. That's just startling, and not SCARY. There's no sense of dread or foreboding. Instead it's just "BOO! Hahaha you flinched!"

[RubiconDecision]

Did you watch the clip of audiences freaking out over the Exorcist in the theaters? Some stood in line for six hours to see it. They would tell their friends and bring them to see it again with them. 1973 seems like yesterday.

Watching a movie today is totally different.

When I saw Blade Runner in the theater, I felt like I was there immersed in that grim rainy world that was largely abandoned.

Whenever you get the chance, watch a film with the director's commentary playing. It is fascinating when the director wants to do it...which isn't always the case as some don't want to reveal their process.

Samuel Coleridge coined the phrase "suspension of disbelief" which serious critics and film students use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

Strangely enough during the early nineties, the Turner Broadcasting.company was having difficulty with low audiences for old black and white movies, so they horribly colorized them. It was garish and imperfect at first and several directors like Woody Allen were flat out appalled. Naturally he worried about Manhattan suffering that fate. A film like Dead Man would be ruined by that meddling. Or the Elephant Man.

Well the theory is that black and white films break the suspension of disbelief for postmodern audiences. Which is pathetic. Some day fifty years hence, some audiences may say the same things about Blade Runner.

As late as the eighties, I can remember great films being wildly applauded at the conclusion. Few films today would have this happen. The audiences are different and disconnected from the process. Sometimes people would stay for ALL of the credits if the film was excellent.

[Halie Satanus]

The only horror film in recent memory that has done that would probably be Blair Witch. Even though I hate shaky camera cinematography with the fury of a thousand exploding suns, the producers still built up a palpable sense of dread. That spooked the audience throughout the film.

Se7en, though debatable it's a horror it's definitely horrific, and that ending. From the moment John Doe walks into the police station people in the cinema were struck dumb, then the 'what's in the box.'

[IronBrig4]

I've seen the director's cut of Blade Runner but not with commentary. I'll have to do that soon.

If you think about it, modern audiences ruin the fun for themselves. How many teasers, trailers, and TV spots do movies have today? Three? Five? Ten? Think about your average Marvel superhero film. They show the first teaser at Comic Con nearly a year before release. That's followed by more trailers around Christmas, then months of merchandising, viral marketing, and TV spots during the Super Bowl and NBA Finals. Every trailer and commercial has exclusive footage that audiences just eat up. In fact, they'll actively look for leaked footage because they want to be the first to know. The merchandise can also spoil the film (the Lego Ant-Man set gave away the villain). So the movie finally premieres and a lot of fans know exactly what's going to happen because they've already seen 10% of it. There's no immersion because they've spent the past year dissecting every scene.

While your typical horror movie isn't as big as a summer blockbuster, the same principles apply. Think about the IT remake. Production stills were leaked months beforehand so people had a lot of time to become accustomed to what Pennywise looked like. I saw the TV movie in the '90s and that first scene was genuinely frightening because such an affable, harmless-looking clown suddenly revealed razor-sharp teeth. There was no warning.

I forgot about Se7en. Yeah, it was more of a psychological thriller than a horror movie but it really did build up a sense of dread at the end.

[RubiconDecision]

I wish I could have seen IT in a theater when it first was a miniseries. That bathroom scene with the blood and the young girl...that was bloodcurdling for any parent.

HS has mentioned about not watching horror films that involve kids. If you are a parent then those films are twice as scary.

And that box scene was shocking because Paltrow and Pitt were actually dating and always in the news and who was expecting that scene? Fincher is a genius.

[Cyclops]

...
If you think about it, modern audiences ruin the fun for themselves. How many teasers, trailers, and TV spots do movies have today? Three? Five? Ten? Think about your average Marvel superhero film. They show the first teaser at Comic Con nearly a year before release. That's followed by more trailers around Christmas, then months of merchandising, viral marketing, and TV spots during the Super Bowl and NBA Finals. Every trailer and commercial has exclusive footage that audiences just eat up. In fact, they'll actively look for leaked footage because they want to be the first to know. The merchandise can also spoil the film (the Lego Ant-Man set gave away the villain). So the movie finally premieres and a lot of fans know exactly what's going to happen because they've already seen 10% of it. There's no immersion because they've spent the past year dissecting every scene.....

Blame Weinstein. IIRC Shakespeare in Love was the first film where they spent more on the marketing than the film itself, and it won a ridiculously undeserved Oscar. The marketing has been evolved and tweaked to an absurd degree and nine times out of ten if a film is getting imaginative marketing its a sign the film is crap: Cloverfield springs to mind, utter garbage ("lets remake Godzilla but with bits from Alien in the style of Blair Witch!", Hollywood is such a swill pit) and they went to the lengths of creating dummy snack food website months out as a teaser.

...

HS has mentioned about not watching horror films that involve kids. If you are a parent then those films are twice as scary....

Yep, plenty I shy away from now and I used to watch horror movies like a fat kid eats popcorn. I guess I watched at first for the shock value, then I'd seen enough that I'd actually enjoy schlock art criticism (hmm fast vs slow zombies? Was that jump scare lazy or well timed? Aesthetics of stabbing sound effects?) but its been reloaded with emotional value now.

[RubiconDecision]

I can't watch those Italian giallo films. The aren't for me and a lot of Japanese horror is influenced by giallo.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giallo

Blade Runner was uniquely and gleefully violent compared to the norm in 1982. Rutger Hauer was a madman and when he resets shoves his head through the wall or kills by crushing the eyeballs or breaks Deker's finger well that was highly unusual back then.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fOSuCsgJ26M
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5dA3DePirsE
It's masterful acting by Hauer because he is made to be a killer but his emotions are childlike, so in a sense he is like a child soldier from Africa with an inadequate amount of time to achieve emotional maturity. Roy is 3.9 years old, but his job is to be a supreme soldier perfect at combat.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PYFzW5sHfjM
Blade Runner unedited 1982
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7xBKrz0wdsM

Look how badly the producers meddled with Scott's vision.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vIDWGLOSVN4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n70PtKIhitA
Even the color tone was fiddled with by committee.

[Halie Satanus]

HS has mentioned about not watching horror films that involve kids. If you are a parent then those films are twice as scary.

Aye, though IT is different in that sense because Pennywise is the kids fears brought to life with all the exaggerations of children's imaginations, he's as ridiculous as he is scary.

hmm fast vs slow zombies?

Fast, always fast....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[RubiconDecision]

Tim Curry play the original Pennywise and he also played Lucifer in the now forgotten film Legend 1985 which was the next film made by Ridley Scott.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksk7wPX-MI4

Look how he paints with light. Artistically it was quite an achievement.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=als5pGB3Tfg

If you like fast zombies then watch the flawed but still good Train to Busan, a Korean zombie film.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pyWuHv2-Abk

[Michael Jack]

Hey, Guys, I'm searching this amazing Blade Runner Jacket. For this Winter Season Can anyone help me to find this amazing Jacket?
https://imgur.com/TllhHLD