Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com> wrote in
news:orc54g$cq6$1@dont-email.me:
IIRC, the original didn't actually do especially well in the
On 9/29/2017 4:54 PM, Your Name wrote:
The "Blade Runner 2049" reviews are rolling in ...
People aren't watching the movie because they aren't smart
enough:
http://www.showbiz411.com/2017/10/07/beautiful-classic-rave-revie
wed-blade-runner-2049-may-be-too-good-for-mainstream-audience
The reviews for this film are making it sound a whole lot like
the original film...boring and 'too smart' for the audience to
follow.
theaters. It because the cult classic later, afterh te video release.
(And Rotten Tomatores audience reviews give it 85%, so the reviewer
is apparently talking out of his ass anyway.)
In article <XnsA807E140EDF00taustingmail@69.16.179.42>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com> wrote in
news:orc54g$cq6$1@dont-email.me:
IIRC, the original didn't actually do especially well in the
On 9/29/2017 4:54 PM, Your Name wrote:
The "Blade Runner 2049" reviews are rolling in ...
People aren't watching the movie because they aren't smart
enough:
http://www.showbiz411.com/2017/10/07/beautiful-classic-rave-rev
ie
wed-blade-runner-2049-may-be-too-good-for-mainstream-audience
The reviews for this film are making it sound a whole lot like
the original film...boring and 'too smart' for the audience to
follow.
theaters. It because the cult classic later, afterh te video
release.
(And Rotten Tomatores audience reviews give it 85%, so the
reviewer is apparently talking out of his ass anyway.)
One analysis suggests it is just too long: 3 hours with
trailers.
I hope I get to see it, but it'll have to come behind Kingsman
2.
The "Blade Runner 2049" reviews are rolling in ...
On 9/29/2017 4:54 PM, Your Name wrote:
The "Blade Runner 2049" reviews are rolling in ...
People aren't watching the movie because they aren't smart
enough:
http://www.showbiz411.com/2017/10/07/beautiful-classic-rave-revie wed-blade-runner-2049-may-be-too-good-for-mainstream-audience
The reviews for this film are making it sound a whole lot like
the original film...boring and 'too smart' for the audience to
follow.
Someone mentioned in this thread that the timeline doesn't really fit,
that we should have flying cars and space colonies by now. Remember
that the first one was based on a book written in the 1960s, and for
the new movie they were stuck using the same timeline if they wanted
to have Harrison Ford in it.
In message <59dbee33.2225145375@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net> wrote:
Someone mentioned in this thread that the timeline doesn't really fit,
that we should have flying cars and space colonies by now. Remember
that the first one was based on a book written in the 1960s, and for
the new movie they were stuck using the same timeline if they wanted
to have Harrison Ford in it.
In Blade Runner 2049 the Soviet Union still exists and Atari is a real >company. Oh, and there's also a PanAm airline.
The typical mouth-breather will be confused by this.
On 9/29/2017 4:54 PM, Your Name wrote:
The "Blade Runner 2049" reviews are rolling in ...
People aren't watching the movie because they aren't smart enough:
http://www.showbiz411.com/2017/10/07/beautiful-classic-rave-reviewed-blade-runner-2049-may-be-too-good-for-mainstream-audience
The reviews for this film are making it sound a whole lot like the
original film...boring and 'too smart' for the audience to follow.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:37:08 -0000 (UTC), Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
In message <59dbee33.2225145375@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net> wrote:
Someone mentioned in this thread that the timeline doesn't really fit,
that we should have flying cars and space colonies by now. Remember
that the first one was based on a book written in the 1960s, and for
the new movie they were stuck using the same timeline if they wanted
to have Harrison Ford in it.
In Blade Runner 2049 the Soviet Union still exists and Atari is a real >>company. Oh, and there's also a PanAm airline.
The typical mouth-breather will be confused by this.
I missed all of that. However there was so much advertising depicted
that I could easily have been looking elsewhere on the screen
(probably at some portion of the female anatomy, quite a lot of which
was depicted in a manner that left little to the imagination).
Interesting that neither Amazon nor Apple sprung for product
placement--Joi could as easily have been Siri or Alexa (and I now have
a horrible crush on Ana de Armas). But I did notice that K's car was
a Peugeot.
One thing that I did wonder about though was all the solar farms
depicted at the beginning--why would anyone build that quantity of
solar farms in that climate?
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:37:08 -0000 (UTC), Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
In message <59dbee33.2225145375@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net> wrote:
Someone mentioned in this thread that the timeline doesn't really fit,
that we should have flying cars and space colonies by now. Remember
that the first one was based on a book written in the 1960s, and for
the new movie they were stuck using the same timeline if they wanted
to have Harrison Ford in it.
In Blade Runner 2049 the Soviet Union still exists and Atari is a real >>company. Oh, and there's also a PanAm airline.
Atari's still around.
In message <59dbee33.2225145375@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net> wrote:
Someone mentioned in this thread that the timeline doesn't really fit,
that we should have flying cars and space colonies by now. Remember
that the first one was based on a book written in the 1960s, and for
the new movie they were stuck using the same timeline if they wanted
to have Harrison Ford in it.
In Blade Runner 2049 the Soviet Union still exists and Atari is a real >company. Oh, and there's also a PanAm airline.
In message <59dd3790.2309462218@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:37:08 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
In message <59dbee33.2225145375@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net> wrote:
Someone mentioned in this thread that the timeline doesn't really fit, >>>> that we should have flying cars and space colonies by now. Remember
that the first one was based on a book written in the 1960s, and for
the new movie they were stuck using the same timeline if they wanted
to have Harrison Ford in it.
In Blade Runner 2049 the Soviet Union still exists and Atari is a real >>>company. Oh, and there's also a PanAm airline.
Atari's still around.
Please note what I said.
Atari is *not* still around.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:01:29 -0000 (UTC), Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:wrote:
In message <59dd3790.2309462218@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:37:08 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
In message <59dbee33.2225145375@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net>
Someone mentioned in this thread that the timeline doesn't really fit, >>>>> that we should have flying cars and space colonies by now. Remember >>>>> that the first one was based on a book written in the 1960s, and for >>>>> the new movie they were stuck using the same timeline if they wanted >>>>> to have Harrison Ford in it.
In Blade Runner 2049 the Soviet Union still exists and Atari is a real >>>>company. Oh, and there's also a PanAm airline.
Atari's still around.
Please note what I said.
Atari is *not* still around.
OK, the Atari *name* is still around, if you want to be picky about
it. So it's not impossible that there could be big neon Atari signs
in 2049.
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:13:21 -0400, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
On 9/29/2017 4:54 PM, Your Name wrote:
The "Blade Runner 2049" reviews are rolling in ...
People aren't watching the movie because they aren't smart enough:
http://www.showbiz411.com/2017/10/07/beautiful-classic-rave-reviewed-blade-runner-2049-may-be-too-good-for-mainstream-audience
The reviews for this film are making it sound a whole lot like the
original film...boring and 'too smart' for the audience to follow.
The wife and I went to see it over the weekend. I wouldn't say it's
"too smart" to follow, but it's probably far beyond the average modern viewer's attention span. About an hour of plot stretched out into a 2
hour 45 minute movie. Nearly every scene seems like it's playing out
in slow motion.
Looks amazing though. They did a great job duplicating the look and
feel of the original. I liked it, I just wish it would have gotten to
its point a lot faster.
I had to laugh because months ago someone on one of the newsgroups I
read proposed a jokingly rediculous plot for a Blade Runner
sequel...and it turns out he pretty much fully predicted this movie.
Someone mentioned in this thread that the timeline doesn't really fit,
that we should have flying cars and space colonies by now.
that the first one was based on a book written in the 1960s, and for
the new movie they were stuck using the same timeline if they wanted
to have Harrison Ford in it.
-- Bob
In message <59de829d.48583343@localhost> Bice <eichler2@comcastsucks.net> wrote:
OK, the Atari *name* is still around, if you want to be picky about
it. So it's not impossible that there could be big neon Atari signs
in 2049.
As I said originally "In Blade Runner 2049 the Soviet Union still exists
and Atari is a real company."
That was the statement that you objected to
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 152:06:11 |
| Calls: | 2,074 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 946,870 |