The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.
I saw the movie in theaters and just finished my first rewatch. It is just so good in my opinion. My favorite movie of 2017. But I have heard from numerous opinions that some people did not like it. My 60 year old mother is very strict with movies and she even said it was fantastic. She said it was better than the original. If she applauds a movie that usually means that she is very very impressed. I just want to know why people didn’t like the movie.
Because none of it made sense.
Replicants are manufactured beings. Exploring the idea of whether or not artificially created entities have a "soul" is one thing, but then to completely negate the idea by making them dependant on biological reproduction for validation and somehow mystically "evolving" without originally being designed for it is ludicrous.
If you're engineered without a uterus/gametes then you can't reproduce/evolve. The infertility of replicants isn't a mysterious problem. If Tyrell Corp wanted replicants that could have babies they would only need to recode the human genome and "grow" them rather than assemble them from individual parts. It would simply require an entirely new "species" of replicant.
And why would Tyrell Corp need to lean on law enforcement? They make the cops now...
Also, satellite and drone technology make hiding a sizable resistance of replicant "rebels" pretty much impossible, so making Deckard "important" by having him know about the skin-job hideout seems pretty forced.
Too much of this movie seems to exist solely for dramatic effect with no consistency or sense or reason.
The atmosphere is great, as no one has forgotten to point out. So great that it seems to have bamboozled people into thinking this is a good sci fi movie. I found it to be overly derivative and lacking any substance. I felt like I wasted my time watching it.
same, i simply found it boring. It was visually stunning and so on and so forth, but nothing really fucking happened. Im very much into „boring“ Movies such as Hateful 8 which is basically only dialogue, but this movie just lacked substance as already mentioned. I also think the only reason that there are so many Interpretations and Theorys about what every little detail in this movie means, is that there is really no point given to the whole Story
The original Blade Runner is pretty much the epitome of a ‘nothing happens’ movie. Not sure why you’ve only reserved this criticism for the sequel.
I feel like you’re applying a ruthlessly critical eye to the sequel that you haven’t to the original. I mean, why would a corporation capable of creating replicants nearly indistinguishable from humans not install a irremovable tracker or even a self-destruct function where the body shuts down if they need it to? Why have blade runners hunting them down with fucking guns?
‘Overly derivative’ lol. Well yes, a franchise is bound to be ‘derivative’ of itself, genius. It certainly wasn’t lacking in substance any more than the first was, unless you’re programmed by your possessive fandom to hate any new entries.
It’s a Hollywood sci-fi movie, and the original is certainly not without its flaws. The sequel was great, but fanboys will find any reason to hate it cuz gatekeeping.
You're a smart man
Actually you’re both morons
It's kind of boring. I liked it a lot. Visually it was very impressive but there were long stretches where nothing of consequence happens. It's not going to stop me from watching it every so often but I can understand why some people didn't like it.
I could see where people could think some scenes were boring, but I think that is when the background and visuals are meant to be enjoyed.
Didn't like it? This subreddit basically carried it on their shoulders chanting "masterpiece" for a straight month after its release.
As there are plenty of people who loved it, there were some who did not. And I was simply wanting to know the reasons behind not liking the film.
Most people complain that the movie is very slow and too long. Even Ridley Scott said he'd cut a half hour from the film. I personally loved the movie, though I don't think it's unfair to feel that way
Real talk, Ridley Scott has too low of a hit rate the past couple of decades to critique the film.
Blade Runner is one of my favorite films and I really enjoyed 2049 and thought it had some absolutely brilliant sequences but I completely agree with Ridley. The original was slow but deliberate. 2049 was slow but a bit repetitive. I kept figuring stuff out before it happened, and certain scenes felt like they were rehashing previous scenes without much difference in the information they conveyed.
Luckily BR movies have a history of cuts, so maybe one day we'll get a slightly tighter flick that works a little better because I truly think the film is THIS close to being a masterpiece, as opposed to just really really good.
I think being an executive producer for Blade Runner 2049 gave him some room to critique the movie.
False talk, r/movies elitism means nothing. Promethus was well recieved and so was Alien Covenant.
There is scenes that could be cut. But the slow scenes usually have very atmospheric backgrounds, and I believe they are meant to be explored when the story is slow.
I agree. There is a remarkable amount of symbolism in the movie, and a big part of what made the original so great was the music and and the world itself so taking the time to just show it off isn't bad at all, especially when there's just so much to see
Slow and taking time is fine if the journey is worth it. 2049 just didn't have the same weighty feel and compelling drive that the original had. The original posed tons of questions that weren't as overt and obvious as the sequel, and the sequel didn't go about considering those questions in quite as interesting a way.
It has slow-ish pacing, but is much better in that regard and more interesting than the original.
He's jealous of the film I bet
Why would he be jealous when he made the first Bladerunner? This sequel wouldn't even exist without it. Silly kid.
IMO it was lacking the main thing that made the original great to me, ambiguous characters (no real hero/villain) and a profound story that gave an interesting commentary on humanity. I still liked 2049 for what it was though, the story was still engaging enough to stand on its own but it doesn't really feel like a real blade runner story.
The “hero” was K and the villain was Wallace and his female replicant who was trying to kill K. I would say K is the hero because he is trying to protect Deckard and lead him to his daughter.
I meant that the reason why the original Blade Runner was great to me was because there was no real hero or villain. They simplified the story plot structure by putting obvious heroes and villains in 2049.
Oh ok. My bad. I just misunderstood you. Yeah I know you mean then lol.
It's hard to see the Tyrell corporation as anything but an outright villain (such callous disregard for human life, literal enslavement of non-human life), although in general I do agree. I can't think of anything Tyrell does that isn't villainous, and would be curious if you have examples?
It wasn't the slow pace that bothered me. I love a slow burn and I'm about as close to an expert on the original outside of people directly involved with it, but I was underwhelmed with 2049. I liked it, but it was missing the feel and pacing of the original, even though everyone said it captured the atmosphere of the original perfectly. But it didn't. That has a lot to do with film vs digital, but I still feel Villeneuve was just missing something.
Blade Runner was all about the atmosphere, and Ridley was largely responsible for that. They don't call him the master of atmosphere for nothing. He understood how to capture the desired aesthetic because of his background and extensive experience in art direction and award winning commercials. It's the same reason Alien was so successful: atmosphere.
However, Ridley has never really concerned himself with script or plot because of this same background and clinical work ethic. I honestly feel that he chose the wrong project to direct with the Alien prequels, because their scripts were terrible. Whereas the 2049 script was excellent. With Ridley left to his own devices, he would've had a lot more to work with on 2049 without being hindered by a terrible script. He would've been in his element.
Villeneuve, on the other hand, is much more in tune with a film's narrative and understands the storytelling nuances better. I would've preferred Ridley direct 2049 and produce the Alien prequels while giving directing duties to Villeneuve, because Villeneuve would've seen through the bullshit scripts and reworked them to something more coherent and palatable while still giving us good sci-fi horror thrillers.
I agree that the aesthetic and feel of 2049 was different and less appealing. But I think that was intentional, in 2049 they made the world feel more drab and empty because they wanted it to feel like the Earth was ruined and in decline. And much of the population had either already left, or were trying to go ‘off-world’ and live in space/planetary colonies.
Instead of going for a neo-Asian aesthetic that the original had. 2049 went for a bleak East European look. With Cyrillic writing and East European background chatter replacing the Japanese and Chinese references. IMO I suspect this is also in part because they shot much of the film in Hungary.
And while I do enjoy a film with a great atmosphere and world, I value narrative or character driven stories more. So overall I prefer 2049.
Hey, I just saw the movie on netflix, and hated it. After I finished, I came online to read up about it, because I thought I had heard that most people liked it haha. I know this post is from long ago, but maybe I can explain.
It combined multiple things I hate about a lot of Hollywood movies.
First off, it's needlessly slow. I'm fine with slow movies. Many people think Interstellar was slow, but that's one of my favorite movies. The difference is in having a reason for when it's slow and when it's fast.
Secondly, none of the characters were developed. I think we were supposed to feel something when his digi-girlfriend died, but I didn't. Their relationship had no depth beyond "here's the relationship, so just implant your own feelings into it." There was no struggle, no development, no character, nothing except a creepy forced threesome which came hours after he just found out (he thought) that he was the robo-boy and minutes after he had just been effectively told by his boss that he'd be killed in 48 hours.
Finally, and probably my main gripe with this and many hollywood movies... it was full of fascinating ideas that were never developed because they want to end stuff with flashy fights.
The movie is exploring fascinating ideas about what separates AI from real life, at what point do they serve us or themselves, and ultimately what is the nature of life. You have powerful forces driving against each other. One wants to push forward the robot-life, some robots want to free themselves and realize their own potential, the police lady wants to shut it all down to maintain peace.
Interesting ideas! So how are we going to resolve all of this? Well he's gonna shoot down the antagonists car with a rocket and then they're going to fight in the rain and she's gonna kill him then go kill Ford but then she didn't really kill him because he silently sneaks up behind her and then he kills her and then he drives off with Ford and then he dies the moment after they say goodbye. WOW GREAT, THANKS
This isn't to say the movie is without merit. The robo-baby line was interesting. The reveal of the bubble-girl as the robo-baby was cool and very well developed, considering her viewing of the memory and her delivery of "yeah, that memory really happened." That was an excellent plotline all the way through. And, obviously, visuals were among the best.
I think the target audience really enjoyed the film, myself included. It just didn't do well at the box office
You're not bothered by the lack of explanations?
Yeah I went pretty soon after release and there were ten people in the cinema including me and two friends.
It just didn’t appeal to the general public.
It’s a shame.
I also really enjoyed the film.
One complaint I heard was that's it's got a slow pace (in comparison to other blockbusters) and because of that it's a long film.
I agree it is slow. But the original Blade Runner is also slow paced. So I just get the slow atmospheric feel from the whole franchise.
The original Blade Runner also did poorly at the box office
Alot of my friends didn’t like the movie at all (must have been the slow pace or something). I personally loved it.
This thread = Lots of people who loved the movie making stawman arguments.
When people ask me what was the best movie I seen in 2017. I say Blade Runner 2049.
I have the same answer friend.
I really hope they make a full feature length movie based on the blackout years. But since this one was considered a flop we may not see it.
I do not believe that will be made either sadly.
People have different tastes.
I thought it was not so great in terms of plot. It seemed too contrived and obvious. Basically if you can figure out the reveal within the first 45 minutes, the rest is just filler. For example, I loved that the first time I saw The Sixth Sense it took almost until the end that it revealed that Dr. Malcolm had been dead the whole time. With the new BR it just got boring less than half the way through.
My mother believed that K was the son of Deckard. Which everyone was led to believe about halfway through, but then it is revealed that the memory created was Deckard’s child. My mother was very surprised by that. I was too when I saw the movie in theaters if I remember correctly.
You have to see a movie in order to not enjoy it.
First off, I've been a sci fi geek since before a lot of your parents were born but this movie just didn't do it.
It was just boring. Every shot seemed to take 10 minutes and the music was so heavy and overly dramatic even when nothing was happening. I seriously can't even remember any good moments.
I didn't really care for Blade Runner 2049 because I wasn't really able to connect with the characters. The aesthetic was beautiful and performances were good, but the lack of a solid human connection made me disinterested. The long runtime and slow pace furthered that problem, as I have no problem with slow paced films. I just need to care about what's happening, or at least be entertained.
I wrote a review of it, if you'd like to read it.
I feel as if a point of the movie is the lack of human connection. I feel as if K falls in love with Joi because he thinks as a replicant that he cannot be in love with a human. As to why he is so sad when she is destroyed. Then once he believes that he could be the son of Deckard he starts to become closer to him.
IMO, and I emphasize that it’s just my opinion, the movie was too predictable and it rehashed all of the obvious existential themes from the first one. It was pretty, but nothing beneath the surface felt unique or compelling to me.
Respectfully, I do not think it was very predictable to me. You are led to believe that K is the child of Deckard, then it is emphasized when he finds the wooden horse. Then all of a sudden he finds out that it is not him. And once you realize that the memory maker was crying because it is her real life memory, it surprises you.
I ended up figuring it out after a while. I figured him being the child was too obvious so it must be the girl because she was so abruptly introduced and then moved away from.
I never expected it was her due to K just going to see if the dream was real or not. But then I realized once she started crying in the flashback he had.
It feels too pretentious. I get the film is supposed to be more artistic noir-ish but the pacing is just too stretched out
You should give Villeneuve's other films a watch. It gives a little bit of context to the style of filmmaking you see in BR. Personally one of my favorite directors, due to his extremely tight control of thematic elements. I'm a fan of good sci fi so I enjoyed BR but I think that if you give some of his other movies (specifically Prisoners or Arrival) a chance, you'll find his movies extremely rewarding.
I actually love Prisoners and Arrival, top 10 films for me
It's all atmosphere and no substance.
Why do you think there is no substance?
The whole movie summed up to nothing, the 'main protagonist' K had a pretty meaningless death, where he could have lived a more decent life if he simply could have had Joi with him but then he ended up doing exactly what he was tasked with at the start, to kill the child as he lead Wallace to his daughter, which was the exact opposite of what the replicant freedom movement told him to do.
He instantly becomes the side character after the death as he only suffered pain and the most human characters of the film: K and Joi (ik she's an ai but you can't say she was any less real than K, cuz then literally every other replicant would be inferior to humans and contradicts the original films) were mere tools that died meaninglessly to unite a father and daughter with never actually having a life of their own.
If only he knew Deckard wasn't his father and Ana was the child, if only Ana had told him that the memories were hers, then we would have seen a better ending with Joi and K enjoying the last moments they had with each other.
If I went to watch a movie in a good mood and then watched my only favourite characters die a meaningless death then ofc I'd be pissed. Nobody questioned the point of the story and thought it was a good movie bcz of the atmosphere. The 'substance' of the film led to nothing. This is bcs I put myself only in the shoes of K. Imagine if you were K for the entire film and everyone else means nothing to you, then won't his death be in vain? That's why some people hate this film
Have you seen the reviews?
That title is bullshit. I've encountered so many people who can't keep their tongues in their mouths when it comes to praising that film. To paraphrase Yahtzee, everyone treats it like it's some beached whale that would die if not continually moistened by everybody's tongues.
heheh
It's one of my favorite films of last year. It's not going to be for everyone, especially if they never seen the first film.
The pacing wasn't great, the "twist" was so telegraphed it felt like they beat you over the head with it, the characters weren't particularly interesting or well developed, and the action sequences were dull.
A fair amount of the flat characters is on the actors, rather than Scott, but Olmos delivered a character in the original that felt better developed than any in 2049 with only around 5 minutes of screen time.
Maybe it's because the movie makes no sense. Why did this happen? Who is that? Why are the robots bilogical? No mechanical robots? Is everyone a robot? What is on the other planets? What's the purpose of word test? Why can't he just load a backup if the hologram? If he's a robot why does he live in an apartment? Why did they bury the body where it was? So many questions...
What did what happen? Who is who? The replicants are biological because they have been so engineered to the state of pretty much being human. I mean it is a made up future. There probably is mechanical robots but they are not the focus of the story. No, everyone is not a replicant. Maybe there will be a film about what is on other planets in the future. The baseline test was to determine if K was functioning normally. He cannot load a backup because he put her in the emanator. Where else will he live? A replicant is almost human, so they want to live like humans. The body was buried under the tree because that is where she died.
One of Reddit's favorite films and I love it, too.
But I could understand why it didn't make much money. Probably too long and slow for some people
I loved it
I know my enjoyment of the movie was affected by the length. Maybe not exactly the length but at least the structure and ending. There was just one or two too many set pieces. Had it resolved in Vegas (or wherever that was) I think it would have been a lot more satisfying. After that I was definitely checking my watch.
A lot of people mentioned the film’s slow pace and how that affected its appeal to a wide audience. And while I do think there’s truth to that. There’s a bigger reason why this film was a flop at the box office.
Most people hadn’t watched the original.
Interest in, and enjoyment of this movie was heavily predicated in having watched (or at least know the plot of) the first film...a film that wasn’t a hit with mass audiences. So outside of sci-fi fans and film buffs, Blade Runner isn’t a much loved movie. Unlike some other 80s classics.
It also didn’t help that, leading up to its release, Villneuve wanted his cast and marketing to be really secretive about even the basic premise of the movie. Which is a bad decision when you’re trying to introduce a film world to a new audience.
It’s a shame. The original is such a good film. One of my all time favorites.
I don't understand how anyone couldn't like it. I loved it, apocalyptic movies are kind of my weakness. But it was made beautifully.
The only complaint that I repeatedly see is the pace and the length, I myself do not mind this.
I think many people expected this to be way more action packed than it was. But the original Blade Runner was also slow paced. It is just a slow paced movie.
I was a big fan of the first movie as well, which is why I wasn't expecting this movie to be faster paced.
In fact I really appreciated that it was slower, way too many movies are become action packed, this was a great change of pace. Plus every scene was absolutely beautiful.
I’d say the visuals and cinematography are the best aspect of the movie by far. The acting is strong, and the story’s pretty good (if familiar).
The “trouble” so to speak in terms of clicking with mass audiences was the combination of slow paced scenes AND a long run time overall. That felt like a long slog for a lot of folks.
Also it had a perception problem given the budget and inflated box office expectations; it probably never should have been seen as a surefire blockbuster.
I feel that people who complain about the pacing haven’t seen the original movie.
Well not many saw the original either which is another problem with banking $200 million on a new one.
I wish more would’ve seen it. My cousin saw only 2049 and still loved it. I wouldn’t allow my parents or friends to see 2049 without seeing the original.
You are correct - the original was not popular in theaters, it only became popular over time. Expecting a sequel to be a box office hit was a stretch. Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling are not enough to carry a movie that does not have the mass appeal of Avengers or Star Wars. I liked the movie. Also Villeneuve movies are slow and moody - he was a good choice to direct but his films are not for everyone.
The horrifying CGI Rachel scene. The movie was a nostalgia trip with great atmosphere, but did nothing new and spent far too long with Deckard. They made a fucking CGI model of Rachel. I wanted something new and half of the movie was just Harrison Ford's drunken grumbling. They leaned too heavily into the original Blade Runner.
He wasn't in half the movie at all. He has about 20 minutes in a two and a half hour film.
I actually like it more than the original, sure they can cut some but I didn't feel that way after watching it.
Agreed. I went in expecting it to be slow and not filled with explosions and jerky cameras. The pacing reflected the story and vice versa. I think it was better than the original as well. Still think the shorts should have been included before the film though.
The shorts did come before the film I thought?
Not in this subreddit, most of the complain is about duration and "slow" pacing. I personally like it more than the original, although I prefer the original's less defined good guy-bad guy
It's not a film for everyone. The pace is super slow, which makes it very polarising. People are so used to breakneck plot paces that it feels uncomfortable to watch such a long film.
Personally, I adored it, and it's immediately one of my favourite films. I personally loved the slow pace, because it made the movie much more immersive and cinematic. I really feel like it's almost more than a film, it's an experience. I just love soaking up the visuals, listening to the soundtrack, and just feeling like I'm part of the world.
Denis made a bold move to make the movie he did (and Sony were out of character to not ruin it).
Denis is one of my favorite directors. After watching Arrival (another of my favorite movies) I was very excited once I learned that he was directing 2049. So I had big expectations. I was expecting a mix of the og BR and Arrival and that is pretty much what I got from it. It is a movie that was meant to be seen in theaters. The noises and visuals were the best I’d ever seen. I loved the actors and I loved the plot.
You are so right about everyone expecting every movie to be infinity war now. Not every movie is fast paced and I do not understand why people cannot comprehend that.
I’m very glad Denis made this movie.
How does anyone like arrival? It had the most retarded premise. The $-#_&+/: could have just used a (@!*''#& to accomplish what they set out to do and the movie would have been over in minutes.
They build a huge rube goldberg machine to open a door when a guy could have just walked over and opened the door.
Maybe it's just me. I have too analytical of a mind to appreciate artsy films with gigantic plot holes.
It must suck to be too smart for movies. I feel for you man.
Im definitely not too smart.
But I felt the same way about ex machina. Everyone called it a great movie. Why? Because some dood built a super hot robot to trick some nerdy virgin to help her &#($-_+?
No safeguards in place? Maybe just a rentacop watching some security camera? Some safety protocols? Nope...im just going to do this massively risky experiment squandering trillions of dollars worth of life saving technology. Makes perfect sense.
Yeah, every movie being super fast paced is basically why I don't watch movies anymore. I just can't be immersed when a film just jumps set-piece to set-piece.
Hopefully Deniz makes more sci-fi, because he's perfect for it.
He truly is. Arrival is the best sci-fi film in a long time.
Most people who liked it knew what they were getting into. It's just that most teenagers today would rather watch truth and dare than a Sci Fi movie.
That’s such a sad truth.
Ive seen it 3 times and it doesn't feel long. I guess in a world where people consider infinity war as masterpiece which barely has any story a movie like this has a hard time because it requires the viewer to listen
I loved Infinity War because it was so jam packed, but I excepted it to be. Now if it was slow paced then I would’ve not liked it. But going into Blade Runner I expected a more scenic version of the old one, which is what it was. So I loved both movies but they are not similar at all.
I think as a marvel fan you will never have a bad time at these movies but in my opinion these movies have no plot/story compared to this heavy scifi gem
Oh no o definitely agree with you. I am a huge marvel fan so I do enjoy them, but when I want to watch a movie based on its story this one will be above all of them.
Why is it that to validate your love for one film, that it's necessary for you to put down another, more popular film? I vehemently disagree with the notion that Infinity War has 'barely' any story. Please tell me what the oh-so complex plot of Blade Runner was. BR2049 basically boils down to K's parentage and if an audience member figures out the twist in the film in the first 45 min, the remaining film is just filler.
I loved both 2049 AND Infinity War and I think both films are fantastic.
Ah and tell me why the russos wanted no one to spoiler? There is nothing to spoiler because the goal of the avengers was to stop thanos gettin all stones guess what happend