FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages
 Forum Index      Log in  Register
New International trailer
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Blade Runner General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nexus7
Community Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Posts: 296
Location: New York Metro Area

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


You are literally the only person that I know of that didn't like Arrival.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Art Deckard
Community Member


Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 270
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

andy wrote:
The clean modern space age design of the 1950s-60s culminated in the film 2001: a Space Odyssey, but also TV shows like Star Trek where the future promised cleanliness. The problem with doing it in film is that over time that look itself became a cliche' and was constantly used as a clue to futurism, even though it really ended up being boring and looking fake. Star Wars might have been the first to take the future and dirty it down and make it truly look lived in, though Kubrick to some degree did it in A Clockwork Orange. Blade Runner took a piece from that and the artistic density of the Heavy metal Comic artists. It showed a contrast between the rich and poor, with Tyrell's living spaces being much cleaner, but still having texture in the way of Art Deco and neo-classical ornamentalism. Ridley even counteracted some of the sparseness in Tyrell's office with the use of light, fog, and reflections to create more texture. It made the film a sensual experience. The clean "Zen" styling we see today seem overly commercial to me, and are less of a style than a mental trick to lessen anxiety during a shopping experience. The decor needs to be constantly updated because any wear and tear will make ruin it's perfection, and function. The great brilliance in the style of Blade Runner was as Rutger Hauer put it "the future is old". The future is unable to be refurbishing itself, and instead it is adding parts and pieces to keep things going, in what was called "Retro-fitting", and unintentionally created Cyberpunk DIY style. We are now conditioned to love new and clean commercial product, and fear the imperfection of man-made items. Blade Runner showed the resourcefulness of the poor in a post consumer technological underground society. The rich perhaps have their zen clean apartments and condos, but many of them have left the earth, leaving behind much of their collections of antiques. Making the future in this film clean and slick, is pretentious, commercial, lazy, boring, sterile, dehumanizing, and antithetical to major themes in the original film, not to mention it just seems cheap. If they show a contrast between the rich and regular people using it, okay, but it just doesn't work for me. It doesn't look authentic or lived in. It takes me out of the environment, and makes it feel like I am not allowed to go in there. Blade Runner should not be a stark film, but rich in color and texture. That is what made the film great originally.

Andy



Excellent post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
rickhoward
Community Member


Joined: 03 Jul 2016
Posts: 72
Location: Midwestopia, USA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've enjoyed the conversation, and realize that I hold a minority opinion. I shared before (elsewhere), that my expectations for BR2049 are low, but I'm optimistic.

Blade Runner's production history, as everyone in this community knows, is unique and not repeatable. In many ways a happy accident as it was intentional. But what we've glimpsed of BR2049 so far feels to me like they might do a better job bridging the gap than we might expect at first blush.

I think that what we've seen seems consistent/appropriate for what we know at this point: continuing adverse climate change and food shortages at the very least. More snow than rain, population density consistent with a world even shorter on resources and still building colonies off-world...

We also don't know where the film is set in detail - clearly not just L.A.'s Sector 4 this time (if there at all). New-to-us locations with new characters (and maybe segments of society) of different means and backgrounds (Deckard's apartment versus K's apartment doesn't feel like low-effort art production, it feels like what K is likely to be able to afford, have access to, maybe even prefer) - and even the impression that old neighborhoods are now rubble. What catastrophes have shaped the BR universe in the past 30 years...?

We've also been gifted with some subtle consistencies to the original BR universe - cigarettes and ashtrays are still part of the "future is old" culture, as is liquor. Portable technology is minimal (no mobile phones that I've seen as yet - just pay phones) and what there is retains a 1980's aesthetic (the bulky hand held recorder in the 2036 short), as does office tech (the police captain's streamlined, but still fat back, computer monitors). Despite a visually less cluttered/retro-fitted environment, it is still an environment in decay.

I think it will be interesting to experience the film in its finished entirety. BR2049 can't be BR2019, but if we get a decent in-universe story, I'll enjoy it for what it is.

And if it proves to be utter crap, hopefully my low expectations will soften the blow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Nexus7
Community Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Posts: 296
Location: New York Metro Area

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rickhoward wrote:
I've enjoyed the conversation, and realize that I hold a minority opinion. I shared before (elsewhere), that my expectations for BR2049 are low, but I'm optimistic.

Blade Runner's production history, as everyone in this community knows, is unique and not repeatable. In many ways a happy accident as it was intentional. But what we've glimpsed of BR2049 so far feels to me like they might do a better job bridging the gap than we might expect at first blush.

I think that what we've seen seems consistent/appropriate for what we know at this point: continuing adverse climate change and food shortages at the very least. More snow than rain, population density consistent with a world even shorter on resources and still building colonies off-world...

We also don't know where the film is set in detail - clearly not just L.A.'s Sector 4 this time (if there at all). New-to-us locations with new characters (and maybe segments of society) of different means and backgrounds (Deckard's apartment versus K's apartment doesn't feel like low-effort art production, it feels like what K is likely to be able to afford, have access to, maybe even prefer) - and even the impression that old neighborhoods are now rubble. What catastrophes have shaped the BR universe in the past 30 years...?

We've also been gifted with some subtle consistencies to the original BR universe - cigarettes and ashtrays are still part of the "future is old" culture, as is liquor. Portable technology is minimal (no mobile phones that I've seen as yet - just pay phones) and what there is retains a 1980's aesthetic (the bulky hand held recorder in the 2036 short), as does office tech (the police captain's streamlined, but still fat back, computer monitors). Despite a visually less cluttered/retro-fitted environment, it is still an environment in decay.

I think it will be interesting to experience the film in its finished entirety. BR2049 can't be BR2019, but if we get a decent in-universe story, I'll enjoy it for what it is.

And if it proves to be utter crap, hopefully my low expectations will soften the blow.


ALSO an excellent post. I hold the same low expectations but am hopeful/optimistic because of the caliber of the people that are involved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
hirohawa
Community Member


Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


You are literally the only person that I know of that didn't like Arrival.


You know who else didn't like Arrival? Audiences.

Arrival struggled to barely make $100 million US- In this renaissance of "Serious" Sci - Fi films where audiences actually are showing up $100 million is not successful by any metric. Interstellar Planet of the Apes and Gravity made way way more - heck even Close Encounters made more money -$116 million - 40 years ago unadjusted.

Arrival also flat lined at Oscars winning just a Sound editing award. As it offered nothing new or earth shattering in any way. The characters are flat and one dimensional - They are their job and their circumstance and that's it. Amy Adams is a linguist with a dead daughter. She does a great job - is sad walks through sparse, clean Mid Century Modern ikea sets and when the movie ends I have no idea who she really is or what she is about.

It's OK I like a lot of bad movies too. But I'm not going to argue that they are good just because I like them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Author Message
Buch
Community Member


Joined: 27 Feb 2014
Posts: 1050
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


Because it's a valuable lesson to acquire the new language ourselves?

It totally reminds me of Ian Malcolm's point i Jurassic Park: "I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you’re using here: it didn’t require any discipline to attain it."

Seen from a strictly logical point of view most movies are dumb.

Blade Runner is extremely dumb. To quote Rutger Hauer about Deckard's character in Blade Runner: “He gets a gun pointed at his head and then he fucks a dishwasher, and then he falls in love with her. It doesn’t make any sense.”

How did Blade Runner do in theaters back in '82?
_________________
Monsieur, azonnal kövessen engem bitte
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
hirohawa
Community Member


Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buch wrote:
hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


Because it's a valuable lesson to acquire the new language ourselves?

It totally reminds me of Ian Malcolm's point i Jurassic Park: "I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you’re using here: it didn’t require any discipline to attain it."

Seen from a strictly logical point of view most movies are dumb.

Blade Runner is extremely dumb. To quote Rutger Hauer about Deckard's character in Blade Runner: “He gets a gun pointed at his head and then he fucks a dishwasher, and then he falls in love with her. It doesn’t make any sense.”

How did Blade Runner do in theaters back in '82?


Blade Runner did terrible in theaters in 1982 because it is a heavily flawed film. It is slow and meandering with a ton of problems. But it is also beautiful, has great sets, and Harrison Ford in his prime wielding a cool blaster.

See I love Blade Runner but it also think it kinda sucks. It's visionary in style and design - one of the all time greatest in that regard - but it is also rudimentary and deficient in Character, pacing and story. Look at another similar modern noir film about an ex-police officer getting pulled back into his old life, falling in love with an unlikely girl while solving a case against an eccentric millionaire - Chinatown - That knocked it out of the park on every level. Story, Direction, characters, acting, cinematography, etc. etc.

With Blade Runner the script was messed around with so much so that giant swaths of the novel and story is lost. You know like tears in the rain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Author Message
Buch
Community Member


Joined: 27 Feb 2014
Posts: 1050
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hirohawa wrote:
Buch wrote:
hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


Because it's a valuable lesson to acquire the new language ourselves?

It totally reminds me of Ian Malcolm's point i Jurassic Park: "I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you’re using here: it didn’t require any discipline to attain it."

Seen from a strictly logical point of view most movies are dumb.

Blade Runner is extremely dumb. To quote Rutger Hauer about Deckard's character in Blade Runner: “He gets a gun pointed at his head and then he fucks a dishwasher, and then he falls in love with her. It doesn’t make any sense.”

How did Blade Runner do in theaters back in '82?


Blade Runner did terrible in theaters in 1982 because it is a heavily flawed film. It is slow and meandering with a ton of problems. But it is also beautiful, has great sets, and Harrison Ford in his prime wielding a cool blaster.

See I love Blade Runner but it also think it kinda sucks. It's visionary in style and design - one of the all time greatest in that regard - but it is also rudimentary and deficient in Character, pacing and story. Look at another similar modern noir film about an ex-police officer getting pulled back into his old life, falling in love with an unlikely girl while solving a case against an eccentric millionaire - Chinatown - That knocked it out of the park on every level. Story, Direction, characters, acting, cinematography, etc. etc.

With Blade Runner the script was messed around with so much so that giant swaths of the novel and story is lost. You know like tears in the rain.


I too love Blade Runner, even though it kinda sucks. But I find Arrival interesting too, in it's own way. It doesn't re-define the genre, but to me it has a sensitive side that I find interesting. Chinatown I find boring. The same with Close Encounters. I guess preferences are just individual Wink
_________________
Monsieur, azonnal kövessen engem bitte
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8533

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Make no mistakes: if I had the money (and I'm talking MONEY) I would pay the original set designers to build me a Deckard apt. Wink
After that, I'd hire a cleaning lady to dust all that stuff even the walls for Heaven's sake...nooks and crannies to dust!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Nexus7
Community Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Posts: 296
Location: New York Metro Area

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


You are literally the only person that I know of that didn't like Arrival.


You know who else didn't like Arrival? Audiences.

Arrival struggled to barely make $100 million US- In this renaissance of "Serious" Sci - Fi films where audiences actually are showing up $100 million is not successful by any metric. Interstellar Planet of the Apes and Gravity made way way more - heck even Close Encounters made more money -$116 million - 40 years ago unadjusted.

Arrival also flat lined at Oscars winning just a Sound editing award. As it offered nothing new or earth shattering in any way. The characters are flat and one dimensional - They are their job and their circumstance and that's it. Amy Adams is a linguist with a dead daughter. She does a great job - is sad walks through sparse, clean Mid Century Modern ikea sets and when the movie ends I have no idea who she really is or what she is about.

It's OK I like a lot of bad movies too. But I'm not going to argue that they are good just because I like them.


If your metric for measuring how good a movie is is box office bank then I could name 2 dozen off the top of my head that are great but had little success in theaters. Also, Forrest Gump and Titanic both won the Best Picture Oscar and Dances With Wolves beat Goodfellas, so I'm not sure the Oscar thing is the perfect metric, either.

Lets agree to disagree. You're just wrong on this one.


Last edited by Nexus7 on Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Bwood
Community Member


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You are literally the only person that I know of that didn't like Arrival.


I didn't like Arrival either, not at all... Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
hirohawa
Community Member


Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


You are literally the only person that I know of that didn't like Arrival.


You know who else didn't like Arrival? Audiences.

Arrival struggled to barely make $100 million US- In this renaissance of "Serious" Sci - Fi films where audiences actually are showing up $100 million is not successful by any metric. Interstellar Planet of the Apes and Gravity made way way more - heck even Close Encounters made more money -$116 million - 40 years ago unadjusted.

Arrival also flat lined at Oscars winning just a Sound editing award. As it offered nothing new or earth shattering in any way. The characters are flat and one dimensional - They are their job and their circumstance and that's it. Amy Adams is a linguist with a dead daughter. She does a great job - is sad walks through sparse, clean Mid Century Modern ikea sets and when the movie ends I have no idea who she really is or what she is about.

It's OK I like a lot of bad movies too. But I'm not going to argue that they are good just because I like them.


If your metric for measuring how good a movie is is box office bank then I could name 2 dozen off the top of my head that are great but had little success in theaters. Also, Forrest Gump and Titanic both won the Best Picture Oscar and Dances With Wolves beat Goodfellas, so I'm not sure the Oscar thing is the perfect metric, either.

Lets agree to disagree. You're just wrong on this one.


As you know It's not my only metric - but it is incredibly significant how little interest the audience had in Arrival. Also it was nominated for 8 awards and won 1 for sound losing all the major categories - so it did not garner real critical acclaim either. Titanic and Forest Gump are basically 10,000 times better than Arrival - critical success, box office success and multiple significant awards.

Arrival will never be re-released theatrically - ever. Can't say that about Forest Gump, Blade Runner, and Titanic which is also a pretty good metric of lasting quality for a film.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Author Message
Nexus7
Community Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Posts: 296
Location: New York Metro Area

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


You are literally the only person that I know of that didn't like Arrival.


You know who else didn't like Arrival? Audiences.

Arrival struggled to barely make $100 million US- In this renaissance of "Serious" Sci - Fi films where audiences actually are showing up $100 million is not successful by any metric. Interstellar Planet of the Apes and Gravity made way way more - heck even Close Encounters made more money -$116 million - 40 years ago unadjusted.

Arrival also flat lined at Oscars winning just a Sound editing award. As it offered nothing new or earth shattering in any way. The characters are flat and one dimensional - They are their job and their circumstance and that's it. Amy Adams is a linguist with a dead daughter. She does a great job - is sad walks through sparse, clean Mid Century Modern ikea sets and when the movie ends I have no idea who she really is or what she is about.

It's OK I like a lot of bad movies too. But I'm not going to argue that they are good just because I like them.


If your metric for measuring how good a movie is is box office bank then I could name 2 dozen off the top of my head that are great but had little success in theaters. Also, Forrest Gump and Titanic both won the Best Picture Oscar and Dances With Wolves beat Goodfellas, so I'm not sure the Oscar thing is the perfect metric, either.

Lets agree to disagree. You're just wrong on this one.


As you know It's not my only metric - but it is incredibly significant how little interest the audience had in Arrival. Also it was nominated for 8 awards and won 1 for sound losing all the major categories - so it did not garner real critical acclaim either. Titanic and Forest Gump are basically 10,000 times better than Arrival - critical success, box office success and multiple significant awards.

Arrival will never be re-released theatrically - ever. Can't say that about Forest Gump, Blade Runner, and Titanic which is also a pretty good metric of lasting quality for a film.


Yeah, we're definitely at an impasse on the whole greatness of Gump/Titanic thing but each to his own. Have a great night!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Buch
Community Member


Joined: 27 Feb 2014
Posts: 1050
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've never seen Titanic.
_________________
Monsieur, azonnal kövessen engem bitte
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Bwood
Community Member


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://propsummit.com/upload/696/titanic-movie.jpg
There, now you've seen it. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
hirohawa
Community Member


Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


You are literally the only person that I know of that didn't like Arrival.


You know who else didn't like Arrival? Audiences.

Arrival struggled to barely make $100 million US- In this renaissance of "Serious" Sci - Fi films where audiences actually are showing up $100 million is not successful by any metric. Interstellar Planet of the Apes and Gravity made way way more - heck even Close Encounters made more money -$116 million - 40 years ago unadjusted.

Arrival also flat lined at Oscars winning just a Sound editing award. As it offered nothing new or earth shattering in any way. The characters are flat and one dimensional - They are their job and their circumstance and that's it. Amy Adams is a linguist with a dead daughter. She does a great job - is sad walks through sparse, clean Mid Century Modern ikea sets and when the movie ends I have no idea who she really is or what she is about.

It's OK I like a lot of bad movies too. But I'm not going to argue that they are good just because I like them.


If your metric for measuring how good a movie is is box office bank then I could name 2 dozen off the top of my head that are great but had little success in theaters. Also, Forrest Gump and Titanic both won the Best Picture Oscar and Dances With Wolves beat Goodfellas, so I'm not sure the Oscar thing is the perfect metric, either.

Lets agree to disagree. You're just wrong on this one.


As you know It's not my only metric - but it is incredibly significant how little interest the audience had in Arrival. Also it was nominated for 8 awards and won 1 for sound losing all the major categories - so it did not garner real critical acclaim either. Titanic and Forest Gump are basically 10,000 times better than Arrival - critical success, box office success and multiple significant awards.

Arrival will never be re-released theatrically - ever. Can't say that about Forest Gump, Blade Runner, and Titanic which is also a pretty good metric of lasting quality for a film.


Yeah, we're definitely at an impasse on the whole greatness of Gump/Titanic thing but each to his own. Have a great night!


Gump and Titanic are great movies no matter what either of our opinions are. There was a zeitgeist moment where tens of millions of people all over the world made a consensus - Certain films become significant entries in the Pantheon because of such moments.

Also two amazing directors with cherished works in both of their filmographies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Author Message
Nexus7
Community Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Posts: 296
Location: New York Metro Area

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:
Nexus7 wrote:
hirohawa wrote:


And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.


You are literally the only person that I know of that didn't like Arrival.


You know who else didn't like Arrival? Audiences.

Arrival struggled to barely make $100 million US- In this renaissance of "Serious" Sci - Fi films where audiences actually are showing up $100 million is not successful by any metric. Interstellar Planet of the Apes and Gravity made way way more - heck even Close Encounters made more money -$116 million - 40 years ago unadjusted.

Arrival also flat lined at Oscars winning just a Sound editing award. As it offered nothing new or earth shattering in any way. The characters are flat and one dimensional - They are their job and their circumstance and that's it. Amy Adams is a linguist with a dead daughter. She does a great job - is sad walks through sparse, clean Mid Century Modern ikea sets and when the movie ends I have no idea who she really is or what she is about.

It's OK I like a lot of bad movies too. But I'm not going to argue that they are good just because I like them.


If your metric for measuring how good a movie is is box office bank then I could name 2 dozen off the top of my head that are great but had little success in theaters. Also, Forrest Gump and Titanic both won the Best Picture Oscar and Dances With Wolves beat Goodfellas, so I'm not sure the Oscar thing is the perfect metric, either.

Lets agree to disagree. You're just wrong on this one.


As you know It's not my only metric - but it is incredibly significant how little interest the audience had in Arrival. Also it was nominated for 8 awards and won 1 for sound losing all the major categories - so it did not garner real critical acclaim either. Titanic and Forest Gump are basically 10,000 times better than Arrival - critical success, box office success and multiple significant awards.

Arrival will never be re-released theatrically - ever. Can't say that about Forest Gump, Blade Runner, and Titanic which is also a pretty good metric of lasting quality for a film.


Yeah, we're definitely at an impasse on the whole greatness of Gump/Titanic thing but each to his own. Have a great night!


Gump and Titanic are great movies no matter what either of our opinions are. There was a zeitgeist moment where tens of millions of people all over the world made a consensus - Certain films become significant entries in the Pantheon because of such moments.

Also two amazing directors with cherished works in both of their filmographies.


We still talking about this? lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Blade Runner General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign

Problems Registering Contact: help@propsummit.com