You Often Don't Find Horror Stories -- Especially Hard-Boiled Sci-Fi Thrillers -- Doing Well at More Than a 2.5-Hour Running Time
The fact is Mr. Ridley Scott himself, one of the scriptwriters for BLADE RUNNER 2049,
admitted that the long running time (the film clocked in at a gradual 164 minutes) might have been the film's biggest failure --
admitted that the long running time (the film clocked in at a gradual 164 minutes) might have been the film's biggest failure --
"[Whispers] I have to be careful what I say. I have to be careful what I say. It was f*cking way too long. F*ck me! And most of that script's mine."Such surprise in my heart at what the man said to Vulture during an interview as to why BLADE RUNNER 2049 essentially under-performed at the box office.... The long running time hurt it. And that had to be it, because overall the sequel itself was an irreverent masterpiece of brilliant film-making, but not the money-maker it deserved to be for audiences.
Such is the case with genre films like that, particularly horror movies -- they may be phenomenally made, but not resonate with a crowd the way they should. Which is unfortunate. Still, like I said.... I love me a long, sweeping flick -- be it horror, drama, action, I don't care. But I get it. And the fact is this:
The Action and the Suspense Has to Hit Hard and Fast
A quicker pace. Sharper dialogue. The film has claws gripping you for a fierce ride, and you better hold on. No slow burn at all, baby. I would have to ask, though: if a lot of BLADE RUNNER 2049 would be cut down, would that make it a better film? -- Or just yield better box office returns? Or both?
I say if it's already a masterful creation, don't modify it. It is what it is. Let it be.
No comments:
Post a Comment