This entry was posted on May 8, 2017 at 12:16 PM and is filed under the ugly. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
14 Responses to “Blade Runner 2049 trailers (updated)”
The main trailer is bit underwhelming looking after the expectations. The movie could still be good as Villeneuve is director. But doesn’t look mainstream at all. If the rumoured $200m budget is true then things doesn’t look too good for box office.
Just saw it tonight. Absolute pleasure to watch. Visual spectacle. The run time is a bit of an issue at times but overall this movie was great. Need a review from An Jo on this one since Mr. Satyam has seemingly retired from writing reviews!
I didn’t go into it watching the first one and realized it certainly would’ve made me appreciate and understand this one better. Simple answer would be yes but I wouldn’t say its required.
If it needs to be said, the domestic failure of Blade Runner 2049 (which, to be fair, would be a modest win had it cost $85 million instead of $155m) is another blow to the notion that Rotten Tomatoes is anything more than one factor among many in terms of audiences choosing what to see. Cars 3 earned mixed-positive reviews while War for the Planet of the Apes earned outright raves, yet both films underperformed in North America. And for a few days, I was the only negative Blade Runner 2049 review on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet despite overwhelmingly positive notices, the film opened well below expectations.
Yes, films that get poor reviews are generally doing worse than films that get mostly positive reviews, and that’s arguably a net-positive. But if it isn’t something that consumers want to see, if it (for example) is a 2.75-hour, R-rated, slow burn sci-fi drama that is also a sequel to a sci-fi cult flop from 35 years ago, then all the rave reviews in the world aren’t going to save it. Blade Runner 2049 isn’t Mad Max: Fury Road because it wasn’t an astonishing action spectacle with an unexpected feminist twist. It isn’t Tron: Legacy because it’s not a PG-rated, kid-friendly sci-fi actioner released by Walt Disney right during the Christmas season
SATYAMSHOT 
December 20, 2016 at 1:28 AM
Denis Villeneuve is knocking it out of the park every damn time! Super excited for this one. Villeneuve. Deakins. Vangelis. What a lethal combo.
LikeLike
May 8, 2017 at 4:32 PM
The main trailer is bit underwhelming looking after the expectations. The movie could still be good as Villeneuve is director. But doesn’t look mainstream at all. If the rumoured $200m budget is true then things doesn’t look too good for box office.
LikeLike
May 8, 2017 at 9:27 PM
Looking forward to this one. Ryan Gosling has perfected that facial expression though…or should i say the non facial expressions lol.
LikeLike
May 9, 2017 at 3:06 AM
Harrison Ford is having a great run at re-enacting characters from his 80s films: Indiana Jones, Star Wars and now this.
LikeLike
October 6, 2017 at 5:37 AM
can’t wait to get to this one:
LikeLike
October 8, 2017 at 12:19 AM
Just saw it tonight. Absolute pleasure to watch. Visual spectacle. The run time is a bit of an issue at times but overall this movie was great. Need a review from An Jo on this one since Mr. Satyam has seemingly retired from writing reviews!
LikeLike
October 8, 2017 at 11:36 PM
good to hear.. hope to watch it in a day or two..
LikeLike
October 12, 2017 at 2:55 PM
agreed completely.. found the film magnificent in most ways. actually think it’s way better than the original.
LikeLike
October 8, 2017 at 12:29 AM
Denis Villeneuve previous 3 movies:
Prisoners (2013)
Sicario (2015)
Arrival (2016)
and now Blade Runner 2049. The common features in his films are that they are always gripping and visually stunning to watch. This guy is so good.
LikeLike
October 8, 2017 at 10:42 PM
Thanks for the recco Aamirsfan. Am really wanting to watch this.
One question: Is it reqd to watch the he 1982 version to better appreciate or understand this?
LikeLike
October 9, 2017 at 2:20 AM
One question: Is it reqd to watch the he 1982 version to better appreciate or understand this?
>>>>
Yes
LikeLike
October 9, 2017 at 12:36 PM
I didn’t go into it watching the first one and realized it certainly would’ve made me appreciate and understand this one better. Simple answer would be yes but I wouldn’t say its required.
LikeLike
October 9, 2017 at 4:02 PM
LikeLike
October 12, 2017 at 11:33 AM
Rotten Tomatoes Couldn’t Prevent Box Office Disaster For ‘Blade Runner 2049’
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/10/11/box-office-why-rotten-tomatoes-couldnt-save-blade-runner-2049/#6b53f081c0c4
If it needs to be said, the domestic failure of Blade Runner 2049 (which, to be fair, would be a modest win had it cost $85 million instead of $155m) is another blow to the notion that Rotten Tomatoes is anything more than one factor among many in terms of audiences choosing what to see. Cars 3 earned mixed-positive reviews while War for the Planet of the Apes earned outright raves, yet both films underperformed in North America. And for a few days, I was the only negative Blade Runner 2049 review on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet despite overwhelmingly positive notices, the film opened well below expectations.
Yes, films that get poor reviews are generally doing worse than films that get mostly positive reviews, and that’s arguably a net-positive. But if it isn’t something that consumers want to see, if it (for example) is a 2.75-hour, R-rated, slow burn sci-fi drama that is also a sequel to a sci-fi cult flop from 35 years ago, then all the rave reviews in the world aren’t going to save it. Blade Runner 2049 isn’t Mad Max: Fury Road because it wasn’t an astonishing action spectacle with an unexpected feminist twist. It isn’t Tron: Legacy because it’s not a PG-rated, kid-friendly sci-fi actioner released by Walt Disney right during the Christmas season
LikeLiked by 1 person