Peven wrote:aaaaaaaand Harrison Ford is clearly older in that clip than he was in the original Bladerunner..........meaning......he is human and NOT an android
Tyrone_Shoelaces wrote:So this is a sequel to the original theatrical cut?
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Am I the only one that just wants to punch Ryan Gosling's smug "Oh I'm OH so good looking and therefore behave as arrogant and obnoxious as I want"'s face in?
TheBaxter wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Am I the only one that just wants to punch Ryan Gosling's smug "Oh I'm OH so good looking and therefore behave as arrogant and obnoxious as I want"'s face in?
i'd rather punch Michael Cera in the face.
or Jesse Eisenberg, now that Michael Cera doesn't get work anymore.
so sorry wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Am I the only one that just wants to punch Ryan Gosling's smug "Oh I'm OH so good looking and therefore behave as arrogant and obnoxious as I want"'s face in?
i'd rather punch Michael Cera in the face.
or Jesse Eisenberg, now that Michael Cera doesn't get work anymore.
I can't stand Ryan Gosling. Its not so much about his smugness (which is definitely there), its something about his face. I can't quite figure it out, but something about his face looks wrong. Eyes to close together? Too much forehead? I don't know what it is, but God damn I hate this guy.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:so sorry wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Am I the only one that just wants to punch Ryan Gosling's smug "Oh I'm OH so good looking and therefore behave as arrogant and obnoxious as I want"'s face in?
i'd rather punch Michael Cera in the face.
or Jesse Eisenberg, now that Michael Cera doesn't get work anymore.
I can't stand Ryan Gosling. Its not so much about his smugness (which is definitely there), its something about his face. I can't quite figure it out, but something about his face looks wrong. Eyes to close together? Too much forehead? I don't know what it is, but God damn I hate this guy.
For me it's his mouth. That smug smirking shape it always makes. I had a mate who did that, I want to punch his mouth in too.
I also think it's because so many girls want to put their mouth to his as well. Try my fist instead, Ryan, at least someone's body part will enjoy it.
Peven wrote:the inferiority complexes in here are starting to overcrowd the available space.you don't like him because you know that every woman you've ever been with would pick him over you.
BY VARIETY STAFF
Sylvia Hoeks
Actress, Netherlands
As a girl, Hoeks was always trying to figure out why people made certain choices in life. “And that turned into a life’s quest,” she says. After being scouted by Elite Model Management at age 14, Hoeks decided to become an actor following her high school graduation, studying at the Maastricht Theatre Academy. Success came early, with an acclaimed supporting role in the 2007 midlife-crisis drama “Duska,” and she points to Giuseppe Tornatore’s “The Best Offer” (2013) as a personal favorite. Now 33, she is less forthcoming about her role in this year’s hot ticket “Blade Runner 2049.” “It’s a big secret,” she laughs, but its scale and the anticipation, hasn’t daunted her. “I want to make the right choices,” she says, “to be able to combine intelligent blockbuster movies with independent gems and to tell the stories I feel are worth telling.”
Fried Gold wrote:
Ribbons wrote:I'm still excited for this because of Villeneuve, the involvement of Blade Runner co-scribe Hampton Fancher and just how gorgeous everything looks overall, but I'm a bit concerned that I still can't make out any sort of plot beyond hidden codes and secret books, and the cops have to find Deckard to prevent a war, or something...? I'm worried about the presence of "world-building" hack Michael Green in the credits, and that whatever cool bits may be in the film are hanging on a shaggy dog story full of MacGuffins and needlessly inflated stakes.
Ribbons wrote:Yeah, it looks like I was worried over nothing. The official reviews are rolling in now, and they're almost universally raves:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049/
Pamela McClintock wrote:Producers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove — who met at Princeton University before convincing FexEx founder Fred Smith to help them launch the film company Alcon Entertainment 20 years ago — are candid. They admit that Alcon's future depends on Blade Runner 2049, the sequel to Ridley Scott's sci-fi epic that hits theaters Oct. 6. "This is a chips-in-the-center-of-the-table exercise," says Kosove.
After a string of box-office wins — most notably, The Blind Side in 2009 — Kosove, 47, and Johnson, 50, arrived at a moment of reckoning. Alcon, with a staff of 45, no longer wanted to subsist solely on smaller, one-off movies, however successful (Alcon's past slate includes Insomnia, P.S. I Love You, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, Dolphin Tale and Prisoners). The company, which has a long-term distribution deal with Warner Bros., needed to be in the tentpole franchise business.
"We were sitting on a substantial balance sheet," adds Kosove. "Normally, we would have refinanced the business and taken the shareholder money off the table. We would then make new movies with other people's money. But the high-water mark coincided with the financial crisis. The capital markets were tied up. We had two options — go home or take the company to the next level." That meant bigger but riskier bets. "If you don't have repetitive cash flow, which is a fancy way of saying being in the sequel business, you are going to be in trouble eventually."
Alcon missed its first target — a $100 million redo of Point Break. The 2015 remake earned just $28.8 million domestically and $133.7 million globally. Alcon sold off international rights, mitigating losses, but it was a disastrous experience.
"Point Break was fundamentally rejected. If we had decided to do a sequel, it would have been perceived differently," says Johnson. Adds Kosove, "Most people who have a degree of success say they were more shaped by their failures than their successes. We learned a lot of lessons from Point Break. I never want to be involved in a remake again. We were pure of heart, but we offended a lot of people."
Remaking Blade Runner was never an option, since the remake rights weren't available. Instead, Kosove and Johnson bought all other rights to the property from the late Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, including sequel rights. Next, they put together an impressive team to make the movie, including enlisting the guidance of Scott and hiring Villeneuve, who helmed Prisoners, to direct. Ryan Gosling was cast in the lead role, followed by the announcement that Harrison Ford would reprise the role of Rick Deckard.
Blade Runner 2049 cost a net $150 million to make, and was co-financed by Alcon and Sony (each committed to spend $90 million before rebates and tax incentives brought down the budget). Alcon owns the film; Sony will release it overseas and get a slice of the profits. Warners is handling the film domestically and will get a fee per its deal with Alcon. "We're confident Alcon has delivered another hit," Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara says in a statement. Insiders say the movie will need to clear $400 million at the worldwide box office to be considered a win.
Adds Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group chairman Tom Rothman, "we feel honored and lucky as hell to collaborate with Alcon, Ridley, Denis and all the exceptional talent involved in this long-awaited new chapter in the Blade Runner story to the big screen, where it belongs."
Kosove, Johnson and Smith, who put up the initial investment, remain Alcon's only shareholders, meaning unlike many other film financing companies, they don't have to answer to numerous investors. Alcon has a 32-title library that has generated more than $2 billion in revenue.
Alcon has also diversified into television — including Syfy series The Expanse — music and talent management, while its interactive and merchandising units will rely on Blade Runner 2049 to build their portfolios.
Is it a winning strategy? Says Johnson: "If it works, it transforms what we do."
Kevin Jagernauth wrote:With all due respect to Martin Scorsese, part of the conversation around “Blade Runner 2049” has been its weaker than expected opening weekend numbers. Warner Bros. has admitted the turnout was “narrower” than they had anticipated, and the picture looks unlikely to crack $100 million domestic. That’s not a good look for a movie that cost $150 million plus marketing, and it seems even the theater chains are bracing for what this will do to their bottom line.
The stock market reacted to the low figures for “Blade Runner 2049,” and exhibitors AMC, Regal and Cinemark all saw their stock prices drop on Monday, with the former taking the biggest hit, losing 7.9%.
What’s the takeaway here? Well, it’s a reminder that in the current go big or go home, blockbuster climate, the stakes are absurdly high. It’s almost a miracle that Denis Villeneuve got to make his contemplative, moody sci-fi sequel at all, but you can bet it will be a long, long time before anybody on the Warner Bros. lot (besides Christopher Nolan) gets that kind of creative blank slate to make what they want. When a film missing its opening weekend goalposts causes a ripple effect of financial worry, it’s only going to make executives all the more cautious when it comes to taking risks.
It’ll certainly be interesting to see what Villeneuve is able to do next. Will Legendary feel less confident about moving ahead with “Dune,” another cult sci-fi property, in the wake of these box office numbers? My guess is there will be some serious second guessing as Hollywood watches where these numbers wind up. [Deadline]
Fried Gold wrote:I saw Blade Runner 2049 and awarded it the rating of "Quite Good".
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Astonishing work, gorgeous in every frame, technically it's perfect, great and rather original take on the AI theme, the acting is spot on. It's just rather slow and long. I think some people walked out.
As amazing as this film is though I can see why it has flopped big time and isn't popular with the mass audience.
TheBaxter wrote:people walked out after TWO HOURS? i mean, how long does it take to realize a movie is too slow for you? how long is this movie anyways? you'd think by the 2-hour mark, if you made it that far you may as well stick it out til the end.
TheBaxter wrote:people walked out after TWO HOURS? i mean, how long does it take to realize a movie is too slow for you? how long is this movie anyways? you'd think by the 2-hour mark, if you made it that far you may as well stick it out til the end.
as much as i like the original Blade Runner, it's also got a pretty slow and deliberate pace, and often i fall asleep while watching it. it's actually refreshing and appropriate then that BR2049 seems to follow the same pacing and atmosphere, because it would have been so easy for them to jack this up into some A.D.D. action and FX extravaganza instead.
that said, i'll end up seeing it on DVD and probably splitting my viewing into 2 or 3 separate nights, if it's really as slow as people say.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Don't you see any of the movies that I'm in? If I told you I was in this, would you watch it?
YOU'RE THE REASON I'M OUT OF WORK, HERMIT!
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:But though I also wanted to go to the toilet toward the end, there was no unnecessary scene that I could walk out on, neither do I think there was such an irrelevant scene at any earlier point.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests