Villeneuve said that the theatrical version of Blade Runner 2049 was the final cut and that's that...(like for all his films...And like Nolan, he doesn't care about "director's cut" editions...The one you see in theatres is always the final version of the film)..
I for one would've loved a longer version, i don't care "how bored" some people were...I had no issues with this film's rythm.
...
...
what about Luv and Rachael?
Hopefully they will release the longer version.
>Hopefully they will release the longer version.
Especially since there's also little to no hope of seeing a trilogy...Considered how bad it bombed at the box office
Kinda sad how these journalists are latching onto what the editor said.
He simply said the first assembly was 4 hours long. Assemblies are always super long, there's dead time they need to cut. For the impact of editing lots of time is cut. If you get a longer cut it'll probably just be lame and lose the atmosphere created by the original editing. Villeneuve had enough freedom to get the cut he wanted.
The two parts was simply just to manage the workload, not to split it into 2 parts, it even says that in your image.
"Bomb" is a bit strong. It's more likely than not to break even before all is said and done.
This.
People fail reading comprehension if they think it was ever going to be released in two parts.
I do hope we get some deleted scenes, but I don't think we need an extended cut.
Longest version is always best imo
>Phase 19. You wish an 18 hour cut of BR2049 existed so every single waking hour of every single day could be spent watching The Goose.
The "Alan Smithee" extended cuts of Dune managed to be an even bigger mess than the theatrical version.
Sometimes longer is not better.
Why is there so much footage shot for a movie of this length just to have a huge part of it cut? I understand cutting a few scenes out of a regular length movie for pacing but I don't understand how these massive assembly cuts come to be if a large part of it is going to be cut anyway.
I would have liked to see it.
>Why is there so much footage shot for a movie of this length just to have a huge part of it cut?
Nothing comes as close as Jared Leto's Joker in Suicide Squad.
WHY SHOOT OVER 30 MINS OF FOOTAGE IF YOU ARE GONNA CUT HIS ENTIRE PERFORMANCE OUT?
Ideas change in iteration, and rarely does a director have the whole beginning to end planned out in merciless detail. So you shoot everything and more, and then work with that. It's like that in most creative mediums.
We need an Ultimate Cut like Snyder did with Watchmen
Director said he doesn't like deleted scenes on blu ray and doesn't like extended cuts so doubt we will see another version.
But as we all know; directors change over time so who knows maybe in 20 + years when he has made lots of films and wishes to return to an earlier one, he will release another cut. But for now. We will not get another version.
Money laundering and no show jobs.
Its just a material
After filming it they start montage
Basicly they just compilate, combinate and cut it into one piece
You gotta be retarded to complain about this
The Hobbit didn't get any improvement from stretching it out.
Breaking even is bombing mate. This is general and I have no idea of the actual numbers but:
>invest $250 million into making Blade Runner reboot
>takes 6 years
>eventually make back the $250 million after 6 years
vs
>decide not to make Blade Runner reboot, invest $250 million elsewhere
>for example, a high interest annuity, 3.5% p.a. compounding yearly
>wait 6 years
>withdraw $307.3 million guaranteed
In this example the movie breaking even is an economic loss of $57.3 million, and that’s assuming they didn’t decide to spend the funds on some other movie project that might actually have turned a profit.
Think of the opportunity cost man.
yes, but atleast they can be happy that they didnt make geostorm with the money
director's cuts are a blade runner staple!