All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Didn't like that it had Ford's character in it and I thought it should have ended 5 mins sooner than it did. However, all in all, it was really well made and it had really good sound design in some places, so it was nice to see it in a theater and experience that.
Visually it's too dark in a few parts and some of the dialogue is a bit off, but overall it was really good. Worth a watch.
Just saw this. Personally I think it's a masterpiece. It looks fantastic, the acting it great, score is top notch. I honestly can't say a bad thing about it. I could have easily turned around and sat through the whole 2.5hrs again. Some really cool concepts and quite thought provoking as well.
It's a definite must see on the big screen in my opinion.
Shame this didn't do well at the Box Office. Somewhat expected though
With this not doing good and Ghost in the Shell I would imagine studios will be way more wary of producing big budget "smart" sci-fi movies. These movies are generally oriented to a more mature and male audience. While that may be good enough for smaller movies, these 100+ million dollar movies need to get younger people in the theaters.
As an example, it is completely ridiculous to me that a film like The Fate of the Furious can make over a billion dollars and Blade Runner is struggling to make bank.
Fate of the Furious has minimal to no story; the action is overdone and just stupid. The acting, well, can you even use that word in conjunction with that piece of shit? Thankfully I didn’t pay to see this.
That 15-25 demo is really crucial for these 100+ million dollar movies. I think according to statistics, they are forty something percent of the theater going audience.
So, you'll have something like Spider-man Homecoming make 900 million WW and things like Blade Runner, Arrival, Mad Max struggle to make 300.
Those Fast and The Furious movies hit that demo, plus they are easier to sell internationally because they have been on TV for 17 years and it's a known brand. It's interesting, as some of these franchise get fatigue in the US, they slightly grow internationally.
In any case, it probably a good move to keep "smart" plot-oriented movies to a smaller budget.
This movie (Blade Runner 2049) tried to be smart, to have twists, to have action, visuals, to use devices to better explain the plot etc. It tried to balance a lot of things to make it interesting, artsy and try to appeal to a bigger audience. And... I thought it pulled it off.
But in the end, all that and the good reviews didn't help it. Maybe word of mouth will carry it through the next few weeks. However, one has to wonder if even that will help it reach 100 mil in the US and Canada.
Carson from another popular script reviewing site didn't seem too keen on the story. For whatever it's worth.
"Blade Runner 2049 is fun to look at for awhile. Its technical achievements are, for the most part, impressive. But as a story, it’s boring. It’s too icy. Too devoid of emotion despite emotion being a key theme. It’s visually monotonous. People will shame you if you dislike this film. They’ll tell you you don’t understand it or that you’re not a fan of movies. But I’m here to tell you it’s okay. It may be time to admit that the Blade Runner premise isn’t strong enough to build movies around."
Carson from another popular script reviewing site didn't seem too keen on the story. For whatever it's worth.
"Blade Runner 2049 is fun to look at for awhile. Its technical achievements are, for the most part, impressive. But as a story, it's boring. It's too icy. Too devoid of emotion despite emotion being a key theme. It's visually monotonous. People will shame you if you dislike this film. They'll tell you you don't understand it or that you're not a fan of movies. But I'm here to tell you it's okay. It may be time to admit that the Blade Runner premise isn't strong enough to build movies around."
What utter shit.
This movie was shot by a cinematographer most working cinematographers study. His lighting and shots are deconstructed in workshops around the globe. To call his work here visually monotonous is beyond ignorant and ridiculous.
Look at this gem.
Quoted Text
I’ll just say it: Denis Villeneuve is too minimalist and his imagination is too limited.
I went opening night. Full crowd in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Sounded like some hated it.
I think it's a strong companion to the original. Villeneuve is towards the Michael Bay end of things, for me -- a director whose style takes precedence over content, regardless of whether or not it fits (not an insult; I think they're two of the best big North American directors). The plot is essentially as obvious and telegraphed as any blockbuster, but it does its job as a skeleton for an ambitious attempt at real, honest-to-goodness science fiction.
Anyway, for gosh sake, see it in theatre! See it for all the stuff that makes people love movies in the first place...the world-building, the staging, the set design, the cinematography, the sound design, the score! Visual monotony is Marvel, DC, Star Wars. This thing is pure cinema.
According to PostTrack, 65% of the film's audience was made up of males and a whopping 77% was moviegoers over the age of 25, meaning the film failed to breakout of its core fan base.
Goes to show how important young people are to the box office success of a blockbuster.
With the raise of VOD platforms older audiences are staying more at home and theater admissions are going down. Which is why all these big movies are in 3D.