MovieChat Forums > Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Discussion > Why it sucks? And it sucked!

Why it sucks? And it sucked!


I think it sucked. I hated it.

What are your reasons because I am sure I am not alone.

reply

I didn't hate it, but it is overrated in my opinion. The plot was pretty flat.

reply


I respectfully disagree. I thought it was a very good film: 7.9/10.


😎

reply


PS What are your reasons for saying it sucked?


😎

reply

What should have been reduced was the deckard & rachael storyling. Ford shouldn't have even been in the movie. Wasted alot of money and resource with legacy stuff.

K and Joi ...vs the antagonist Niander & Luv that would have made the story tighter and the world more focused on a NEW chapter, with new experiences...... Right?

Ford didn't have an old hack shadowing him half the movie in 1982, why did Gosling? In 1982 it was Deckard vs Roy batty.

Stop with the legacy garbage, it's the reason many of us didn't even see Rocky 7

reply

No Deckard, no movie...K earns humanity by rescuing Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter. And Ford isn't phoning it in...Deckard wasn't the life of the party even in the original, and thirty years worth of loss and grief gnawing at him isn't going to improve his outlook.

reply

^^^This^^^

reply

As for length, I think it was longer than necessary. In fact, I find many current movies running longer than they should. I find the majority of movies running two hours or more could easily be cut down to an hour and a half or less.

Up until about 30 years ago, many movies had much shorter and faster moving plot lines and action. On occasion a movie with some important and enhancing shots unwisely got cut and left on the editing room floor, but that was only only for a few movies.

I'd really like movie studios and directors to try and streamline their movies a bit more like they used to. "BR2014" could've easily cut out about an hour's worth of footage and still have been a good (perhaps better) movie.

reply

I don't think it sucked but it had some serious flaws:

* Too much daylight and too much 'freedom' (i.e. flying around, nipping over to Vegas). It lost the claustrophobic/noir atmosphere that was so brilliant in the original.
* Ryan Gosling was both miscast and badly directed. Replicants are not automatons, that's the whole point - they're almost impossible to tell apart from real humans.
* That t-shirt. Wtf were they thinking? Why not have it had some porridge stains down the front while they were at it?
* As someone else said, Ford phoning it in (but then the script gave him nothing to work with)
* The fight between RG and Ford was one of the coolest looking moments ever shot in a film but it we all knew it was a misunderstanding and so totally pointless.
* The plot: too often Sci Fi films feel they have to be about the 'end of the world' or some epoc changing event. Nothing wrong with telling smaller more personal stories.
* The villain (the female replicant) was awful. Miscast and totally nonthreatening. She felt like the baddy from a Saturday morning cartoon.
* The near total absence of Vangelis' score. This was a crime against music and Zimmer needs a slap in the face for this. I get it's probably intimidating to follow up one of the greatest and most original scores in history but he just need to work more of the original themes in: more 'Memories of Green' and less French horn parps.

reply

It didn't suck, and I loved it. I went to see the original back in 1982, and remember walking out of the theater hugely disappointed. I was a science fiction and adventure fan, and here was a sci fi film featuring Harrison Ford (from Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark). I thought I was going to get a great, exciting, sci fi space opera adventure; what I got instead was a bleak, dystopian, philosophical film, and I was disappointed because it had dashed my expectations. As I got older, I learned to appreciate the film on its own artistic merits; it was never trying to be a space opera or an adventure story. When I saw it for what it really was, and was always meant to be, I loved it. I think other viewers had the exact same reaction, as witness the classic status it has attained, despite its intial lack of success.

This movie is the same. Visually, it's just sublime -- as one review put it, you could take almost any shot from the film and frame it, and it would belong in an art museum. I think it's got a really interesting story to tell besides, and like the original, says a lot about what it means to be human.

reply

I saw Blade Runner on the opening Friday and it was another one of those films where there was nothing like it. Over the course of my life I have seen several films like that and sitting in the audience was amazing, especially on opening night when there was no talk about the film. I wanted to see it because Harrison ford was in it.

Anyway, the idea that organic robots could be made was mindblowing. Then, you find out that these organic robots are basically whores seemed harsh. But, they were clearly the bad guys, until you start seeing that they have feelings and feel lost and hopeless. My mom's family tended to die from cancer around 60, so I REALLY understood the theme of the 4 year lifespan as the film went on. So, by the end of the film, you were seeing ideas that you never saw before, then Roy decides to save the Ford because at the end of his life, he valued life more than anything, and he was the bad guy, but he really wasn't, he was a victim of the absurdity of life!

I walked out of that theater and my head was spinning with ideas. I have seen that movie countless times after and have explained it to many friends and wanted them to watch. Not too many people love the movie as much as me.

So, a SEQUEL to Blade Runner, man it had better be good!

This was amazingly not good and he has no repeat viewing value.

I liked the actors and the visuals. However, it had none of the themes that make Blade Runner important which are about the value of life and the question about what life is. The first was about simulated people, who are people, and their violent fight to find a solution to their lives because they sadly know when they will end.

There is no reason that couldn't continue in a sequel. This film was entirely too quiet. There could have been a militant conflict on Earth with replicants, you could have the child as maybe a breeding solution to the 4 year problem, or something else, that the replicants are fighting for to stay alive. It could have been a broader message to what Roy experienced.

Whatever the case, this film was boring when the subject matter isn't boring at all.

reply