Blade Runner 2049

How worried are you?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ
youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9Os8cP_gg
youtube.com/watch?v=OD0RCfcaols
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Not worried since Gosling and Leto ensure that I'll never watch this!!!FACT!!!

I didn't like the first one. I thought the sci fi aesthetic was perfect but I didn't find the story or writing compelling in the slightest. 2049 intrigues me because a new director is helming it, and it has my autistic role model, but that near 3 hour runtime might not be worth it.

>I didn't find the story or writing compelling in the slightest.

As a fan of Blade Runner I kinda agree. It's basically about good versus evil and why evil people do the things they do. Nothing special, but yeah I love the special effects and the mood

What movie were you watching? Good versus evil? Who was evil, exactly?

Escaped refugees with Roy Batty were criminals and were breaking the law. They simply wanted to live longer since most replicants have a short lifespan. We understand Roy's purpose and why he did the things he did. If Rick killed Roy he wouldn't be any different than him. Was Rick the evil one wanting Roy to die simply for being a replicant? What's good and evil anyways?

duni vinuv is good so it'll be fine

>It's basically about good versus evil and why evil people do the things they do.

what

Denis will deliver

That's...one way to look at it, but not in line with the source material or the majority of what the movie tried to do.

Roy and his group simply wanted to live longer, yes, but the driving theme is what makes the humans any more "human" than the replicants? The novel used empathy as the key, where the movie just suggest it with the Voight Kampff test. Hence Rachel asking if Deckard has ever taken it. The "humans" are stiff and unempathetic, where the replicants have started to become emotional, empathetic towards each other and generally "human." That blurry line is also part of why there were questions about Deckard being a replicant, along with the origami unicorn. His realization by the end was that Roy was arguably just as human as he was, and the speech was about how his experiences and life were considered worthless.

But sure, good and evil are one way to read it.

>Replicants

It was a metaphor of being evil or sociopathic in my honest opinion.

Dennis is LITERALLY /ourguy/ and he has never once disappointed me before. Not with Incendies. Not with Enemy. Not with Prisoners. Not with Sicario. Not with Arrival.

I already made up my mind that I'm not going to watch it, so it doesn't really matter.

Your honest opinion is fucking stupid.

I'm pissed they got rid of johannson, last thing this movie needs is zimmershit

>robots built for slave labor end up becoming sentient and want to live
>hurr good and evil

Yeah, m8, no.

Watched Blade Runner. Dozed off. Still hyped to see this after Arrival. Anything I need to know before going into this?

>I already made up my mind that I'm not going to watch it
And yet you had to open up the thread and post about it. And when the criticall acclaim comes, fresh RT rating and a few Sup Forums threads which call it "absolute kino" you will be contemplating going to the theater or atleast torrenting it. If you had to post about it, you care.

watch the shorts
youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ
youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9Os8cP_gg
youtube.com/watch?v=OD0RCfcaols

I'm worried the shills at RLM are gonna like it, but have been shitting on the original for ages

Did Phillip K. Dick write a second book that I missed?

Vilenevue is literally red-dit, though. Seems like you might fit there better, too.

I expect it to suck, since the director himself said something like we shouldn't expect much and that he's unsure of how it's gonna be received.

I'vew only seen him say that you shouldn't expect everything to be answered or resolved

>since the director himself said something like we shouldn't expect much
Yes, the director of a 200 million dollar film said that you "shouldn't expect much", right

I'm not expecting a lot. If they can keep the visuals, music, and tone of the film in line with the original, I'll be happy.

Blade Runner was a pretty simplistic movie when you get down to the bare bones of the plot. A detective tracks down criminals. The nature of the setting is what made it enticing. It made you question where the line is between man and machine, whether there is a line at all. It's a pretty common trope these days, but I don't think anyone else has pulled it off nearly as well. It dropped you into a vague dystopian future both familiar and strange, yet at the center of it was the same as our world - people. Just people trying to live. Some were human, some were machine; some were "good", some were "bad". It made you empathize with the characters and the world they inhabited. Complex in its simplicity.

I trust Villeneuve (and Roger Deakins) to do a great job, but just like any movie/game with extreme hype behind it, I go in a bit sceptical so I don't get my soul crushed. Trailer 2 didn't look great but I love Villeneuve and I think the people behind it are passionate about the film, so I think it'll at least be a competent, original sequel rather than a phoned in mess.

Purely thinking about RT scores, I think the absolute lowest it'll possibly get is somewhere in the 50s; Deakins' cinematography and the Blade Runner brand itself will be enough to justify its existence for some critics. At the absolute best, I think it'll get somewhere in the mid 90s, maybe around a 93 or 94%.

>Deckard being a replicant, along with the origami unicorn
Yeah fuck off

The whole point of the movie is Deckard being a replicant, almost every scene makes some kind of reference to this fact. Rewatch it.

Based FACT!!! poster

>samefag namefag