Is cyberpunk dead?

Is cyberpunk dead?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rrZk9sSgRyQ
youtube.com/watch?v=xs_HhZrCBdg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Politipunk is the in thing now.

>first waifu I ever had as a child gets shitted up by this pig-bodied 3DPD hag

What is cyberpunk?

Nah.

Not when THAT game will be out

Commentary on capitalism.

You mean Marx's "Das Kapital" is cyberpunk?

It was never alive in the first place.

>first waifu
Kill yourself

Somebody is triggered.

No.

It's "shat", not "shitted".

The scifi version of film noir. Underdogs against almost omnipotent elites, a blurring of the boundaries between man and machine and gray&black morals.

we live in an actual dystopian world now so it has lost its appeal

Blade runner just came out you know ...

Was it ever really that prominent? Either way you should watch the new Blade Runner.

>Is cyberpunk dead?

is this a bait thread? I'm pretty sure I just saw one of the 5 best movies in my life this past weekend called "Blade Runner 2049", and that's most definitely "cyberpunk"

Funny how it managed to do GitS's themes better then the GitS movie.

Yeah, and I flopped.

Is it as bad as I am expecting it to be?

It's okay. Looks beautiful and rips off Nolan's audio-visual style like crazy, but the story is really bog-standard "do robots have souls" stuff.

Is that the new Blade Runner on top? Jesus christ, those fucks can't do anything original.

>2017
>cyberpunk
Ha!

we are living in a world full of cyber punks

Story is standard, sure, but more is communicated through form than anything literary. Thought it did a good job of that, the cinematography was ace and the atmosphere it created was palpable.

top looks more like actual hong kong

cyberpunk is real so it's not fun anymore

Scarjo GitS being bad is a bad meme. But yeah it clearly isn't a 10/10.

That's the joke.

It wasn't "bad" at all actually. Much like Fury Road it's literally the perfect sequel. Actually expanding on the world and concepts of the original, while also bringing something new to it. Beautifully shot, the fucking soundtrack was excellent.

Problem is it was clearly marketed ( at least from the way the trailers are edited) as an action flick and people came in expecting explosions and shit ( which there are) and it's not what Blade Runner is about.

The original flopped too as i remember but over thew years became popular on home video. I think the same will be said of this one.

Guess I'll try it out.

Hasn't Ghost in The Shell always been more "post cyber punk" though?

This is a joke post right?

>every time someone talks about cyberpunk it's only GitS

It has never been alive to begin with.

Wait for 2077.

>implying we'll still be counting the years as per Anno Domini in 60 years

Its much like fury road in its visuals and minimal dialogue. It's not exactly cyberpunk each act has a mix of different settings

Dont believe the marketers saying its a flop as if it matters just look at this

They are both GiTS

No. One of them is an atrocity.

The top image is just awful, I guess non of the people involved ever cared much for Gits. Fucking Hollywood garbage.

I think that's only true to a certain extent and mostly due to the fact that it is fairly well known in the West. Obviously people mostly talk about well known series, just because they only know Gits and System Shock and think that's the pinnacle of cyberpunk doesn't mean it's never been alive. It's just that a few very popular titles act as representatives.

Top focus on Motoko while bottom focus on the city. Which match the plot of both.

They were just hacks who couldn't light properly

The original is powerful even though it's extremely simple artistically speaking. The top one could be from a bed commercial with cheesy pop music. They aren't even in the same universe.

It's a "flop" in the sense that its box office gross is very low compared to its budget. You don't give a movie a blockbuster-tier budget if you expect it to perform like a mid-tier flick.

The picture is nice, but the story is retarded.

>The top image is just awful, I guess non of the people involved ever cared much for Gits. Fucking Hollywood garbage.


This is of course the biggest difference with Ghost in the Shell(2017) and Blade Runner:2049.

One was made by talented filmmakers who actually gave a shit about the source material, and expanded on what made it good to begin with.

The other was made by a director who's biggest claim to fame is fucking another guys GF, and had no real understanding of what he was adapting and clearly didn't give that much of a shit about it.

Cynically throwing in scenes from the anime that don't fit within the context of the story they're telling to appease fans of the source material. Ultimately ending up a generic sci fi action movie that calls itself GITS but really isn't.

There's so little genuine cyberpunk to even talk about outside of novels. Go ahead, name something that isn't Johnny Mnemonic. No tangential stuff like Blade Runner or the Matrix.

It has the budget but doesnt have the blockbuster normie appeal lile Fast and Furious does so of course it wont perform the same

There was literally NO FUCKING REASON to make live GITS, they literally did nothing to add any sort of creativity or reason to exist over the original, they just made a cheap fax machine copy that lost all the artistry and sheer beauty of the original. Every single color, every tone, every shape that the original director and animators intended replaced by a child's play-acting interpretation viewed through shitty generic by-the-numbers camera work and scene composition. OP image literally makes me fucking throw up.

Blade Runner is way more than just tangential. "High tech, low life" fits it great: Deckard is a worn down cop combing through seedy nightlife that's filled with a combination of high tech things being used by people who live on the edge.

That's great but you didn't answer the question.

Get a life, nerd.

>I think the same will be said of this one.
Honestly, I doubt it. I liked BR2049 a lot, even more than the original, but BR was new and ground-breaking back in 1982. Its themes and visuals were just something you wouldn't see in films back them. BR2049, on the other hand, doesn't have anything new to offer. It's beautiful and well-made, but the audiences have seen it all before.

I wasn't trying to, I was addressing something else in your post that I found interesting

This

Serial Experiments Lain is cyberpunk

I mean if a talented director who gave a shit about the material made it , it COULD HAVE been pulled off well.

Watching Blade Runner i wonder what could have been had a director such as Denis Villeneuve were given the keys to the live action GITS. Or Alex Garland or hell, even the fucking Wachowski's would have done a good job adapting it.

But no they bring in the fucker who did Snow White and the fucking Huntsman.

I want that old classic cyberpunk aesthetic. Filmmakers don't want to make anything that doesn't look more-modern-than-modern anymore. Everything got to be sleek and plastic iTech now. Sure, it's fine to have your corporate police death squads wearing shiny black armor with full face visors and firing high-intensity railguns. But where's the DIRTY tech? Where's the corroded plugs in the side of a neck a guy uses to jack synthetic pleasure dreams into his brain. Where's the mass of battered keyboards and wires the furtive hacker attaches to the control console to hack the bank while glancing over his shoulder through his cracked, worn holo-visor. Hell, the very first fucking page of Neuromancer made a point of describing what a piece of shit the bartender's robotic arm was. It's true the real-world modern tech has already moved beyond many of the conventions captured in this old aesthetic, but I think it would still work in the magic of film. I want everything to stop being so damn CLEAN all the time.

Live action GITS already existed and was called Avalon

Blade Runner just came out.

No.

Exactly, which is where the flop comments come in. A movie is a success if it manages to appeal to more people than expected - a low-budget movie has low expectations, while a high-budget movie has high expectations. IT, for example, had a modest budget and managed to attract a huge number of people. It's a resounding success. BR2049 had the budget and marketing campaign of a blockbuster, but not the audience numbers. That makes it a flop.

Don't forget femme fatales.

dirty tech isn't modern anymore, its antiquated

Cyberpunk as a genre of literature or cinematography, or as an art or aesthetic movement, is absolutely dead.

But only because we absolutely live in a cyberpunk world. It's just not as fantastic as past author's pictured it would be. It is, unsurprisingly, mundane.

Absolutely agree but it's a general issue with the understanding regarding cyberpunk now. It's not that I wish for no diversity within cyberpunk, clean is fine but it becomes a problem when people start thinking cyberpunk is clean by definition.

Also there is this
youtube.com/watch?v=rrZk9sSgRyQ


I kinda wish they went full "Animatrix" with it had had more shorts done by animators. Would love to see something from Kawajiri and even Oshii set in the BR universe.

And that can still make for interesting storytelling, when you have the underdogs who have to use old pieces of outdated shit to survive in the cutthroat high-tech world.

This has got to be the single most inaccurate interpretation of anything I have ever read on this website.

Like socialists wouldn't use technology. Like communism hasn't led to despotic government control through technology.

It's like everyone only adapts the "cyber" part of cyberpunk and forgets the "punk".

>even the fucking Wachowski's would have done a good job adapting it.
Have you seen their last couple of movies? The Watchowskis have completely lost it.
>watch Bound and The Matrix back to back with Jupiter Ascending and Cloud Atlas
>what the fuck happened.jpg

Gotta wait for CD project RED, mate.

Cyberpunk is probably going to be dead across all mediums, that aren't novels, after BR2049.

It's a shame as BR2049 is a fantastic movie but audiences don't want thinking scifi nowadays.

>Nolan's audio-visual style
So you mean it rips off Mann's audio-visual style?

Cyberpunk became real life.

cyberpunk was culturally and socially relevant because in the 80s it was a projection of a possible future to come
now we basically live in a cyberpunk world, cyberpunk is dead and only exists as a meme aesthetic where kids listen to 'neo 80s' tracks on youtube to feel comfy

what's your point

The 'punk' part doesn't really exist in the real world anymore, so no wonder. Today's income and social inequality looks very different than its classic cyberpunk depiction.

>normie

>cyberpunk
sup

That's going to be 2019 at the earliest.

Michael Mann is like 5 times as interesting as Noland. I think Noland might be the most overrated director alive, I can't think of anyone else really.

cyberpunk isn't interesting anymore, its dead

That's not cyberpuck, that's cyberdyke.

>successful hard sci-fi movies have been coming out every year lately
>hurr, muh audiences are stupid excuse
BR2049 would have been considered a huge success if its budget wasn't planned by retards.

>being a genre nihilist
There's a market for it, but no creators who want to step up to the plate. Rather do some low risk paint by numbers Faux-sci-fi trash and slap Tom Cruise in it to keep people coming to the box office. It's not cyberpunk that's dead, it's Hollywood creativity.

Such as?

I agree, bro, Mann has got to be one of my favs.
What movies?

Try wes anderson

Micheal Mann has kinda lost his mojo as of late if shit like "Black Hat" is anything to go by. Speaking of Nolan there were very "cyberpunk" elements to Inception.

I liked BR2049
Is the anime good?

>A cyberpunk themed film by Wes Anderson

I...want to see this now

2022? Yeah it's pretty good. It's only 15 minutes so why not

Inception, Gravity, Interstellar, Arrival, The Martian, Fury Road, Ex Machina. Not all of them are hard sci-fi, granted, but they're all great movies that did very well financially.

That kind of cyberpunk isnt "realistic" enough it will come off as just bad, they could do it with Steampunk

When future generations make a documentary of our times it will be the greatest cyberpunk ever conceived.

See

The guy who did Resident Evil? He's shit.
Or is he the guy who did Rushmore? I can never remember. In that case he's great.

>Not all of them are hard sci-fi,
Of the ones I watched, none were.
I have no idea why people keep praising Interstellar for its science. It's like the difference between showing people a physics book and actual physics.

None of those are cyberpunk, they're just sci-fi. Ok, Fury Road might be.

Were on the cusp of a cyberpunk world m8. Biotecs round the corner, growing humans outside of the womb, connecting your brain to the internet, neural implants, genetic-engineering, sentient AI and humanoid robots.

Once people start modifying their own body for enhancements in intelligence, strength, processing speed etc That's when you’re going to see big disparities in Rich and poor.

youtube.com/watch?v=xs_HhZrCBdg