Which one is better and why?

Which one is better and why?

Original stands on it's own better. The new one leaves too much open for sequel bait.

That being said, 2049 is worthy of the Blade Runner name as a direct follow up.

left if you're a capeshit videogame playing /r/movies buff that thinks hes moved pass nolan and fincher
right if you're Sup Forums, /lit/, /ic/ and authentic

>falsefag spotted boys

Blade Runner = True cyberpunk movie, with a deep and compelling plot. Great atmosphere, and art design.
Blade Runner 2049 = Soulless remake. Barely has anything to do with the cyberpunk genre, other than in style. Doubles down on the gimmicks and neon. Not a bad movie, just unnecessary.

I get the feeling that it's Blade Runner for modern audiences, people who have probably never seen the original and who are into the whole retro 80s shit that's spreading like wild fire.

It's what Tron Legacy was to Tron (if that makes sense)

Original is best but the new one was great

>unnecessary
Name a more meme criticism, I dare you

Lol at this thread. Denis is a billion times the director Ridley is and it shows. 2049 is damn near perfect in all ways. If Scott had a hand in writing the script then good for him contributing.

Bladerunner the original is better literally only because Jared Leto and that woman are only a tenth as compelling as Rutger Hauer is

Everything else (except the soundtrack) is better in 2049

The original isn't very obtuse. Its even more straightforward than the new one.

t. nolanite

>Soulless remake
Don't you mean "Soulless sequel"?

>unnecessary
jesus fucking christ, at least your other points had weight

Soft-reboot is more like it.

I'm inclined to agree seeing as how so many on Sup Forums can't grasp the most basic things about the new one

>at least your other points had weight
'no'

Too early to make that call and besides you'd have go to point by point, they are very different movies despite both being tech-noir dystopian sci-fi films.

Regardless a 30 year later sequel of one of the most beloved movies of all time has no right to be this not-shit when we've had to put up with near constant reboots and remakes an illegitimate sequels of 80's movies for the past decade.

I like Bladerunner better because I prefer Noire as a genre, and I think it handles things better.

2049 is more of a conspiracy movie, and it works well as a sequel, but the original is still better (provided you have the right cut). They nailed the cinematography in the new one though.

In terms of theatrical release versions 2049 is way the fuck better.

Not at all.

I'd say the original is better because it did a few things no one had done before while 2049, despite being a risky as fuck movie and I'm sure it's going to flop, is not as innovative. From a technical and narrative standpoint it's a really close call

>comparing Roy to Wallace and Luv

Officer K was this film's Roy. [Spoiler]Both of their death scenes have the same music [/spoiler]

How is this even a question?

Eh, I think Nolan is just OK actually. I never really had a favorite director until sicario came along and I binged on the French Canadian genius' back catalog. I guess I thought Scorsese had the highest rate of success until Denis.

So you're saying the trailer for Blade Runner: 2049 isn't as good as the original Blade Runner?

HES SAYING THAT FARGO REMAINS DEAKINS BEST WORK

The original is nearly a tone poem, the plot is secondary to the world the imagery and music create and the ideas that come up as the potboiler plot progresses. Blade Runner 2049 is ALL plot, too much plot, which is interesting, because all of Hampton Fancher's early drafts of Blade Runner had the same issue of trying to cram too many ideas into the script.

No Vangelis, no blade runner

This
I love The Goose and Villeneuve but they dropped the ball here

Still, Officer K had nothing of the Roy development

the original is just that much better

new is great but I have to give it to the original

They asked him to work in 2049 but he refused

He don't give a shit for bladerunner

tempted to drop the 12 buck-a-roonies to see it in theaters. Worth it Sup Forums?

what a loser

left if you're a rick and morty fan, right if you're not but still act like a pseudo intellectual

>le smart person

this is really the key. The original blade runner had a retarded story. People liked it because it was dazzling and futuristic and felt realistic when it was released. It also had excellent soundtrack that blended into an atmosphere creating a mood. The whole atmosphere was like music, it was like being swallowed up in a partly decaying technological future. It was both adventurous and nihilistic at the same time. The new one is interpreting blade runner too narratively. It's not about the narrative, it's about telling a story through the aesthetic and mood. They made a similar mistake with the live action Ghost in the Shell (which was influenced also by Blade Runner), they ignored the aesthetic and just pumped out the story and through in some matrix-style action and CGI.

Again we have a sequel that takes one concept of the original movie (replicants) and makes the entire plot be about that concept.
Replicants are not really that interesting, who is or is not a replicant is boring.
Blade Runner deals with authority, control systems, the people that are of no more use to the system, and navigating a world that is devoid of nature.
The replicants are just a literary device underlining this world.

Its the exact same thing with Ridley's new Alien movies. The xenomorph is just a literary device in the original movie but now it takes central stage and the movie suffers for it.

>Too much plot
Most of the criticisms say its style over substance though wtf

Yeah, it is.

literally the thinking mans kino meme

haven't seen the new one but i already know it's going to be derivative, soulless and devoid of subtext. villeneuve is not a good filmmaker, but beyond that hollywood is no longer capable of making anything nebulous and thoughtful.

>original blade runner had a retarded story
your other points are good but this is pretty stupid. the story was simple but it was interesting and allowed for a lot of thematic exploration.

>haven't seen the new one
Stopped reading right there

>villeneuve
Sicario Arrival Incendies...
Blade runner 2049

This is bait, on the off chance it's not you need to hit the gym and gain some muscle, because by the way you talk I can tell you are not a healthy person

2049 had too many explosions. Felt like a fucking Transformers movie.

The new one has a more intriguing and fleshed out story, especially in the romance sub plot which was quite flat in the original.
Also it has bigger budget so the film isn't limited to just one setting throughout (the original is basically entirely filmed at night)
And the sound design and the set-pieces are better here.

The original still has a better atmosphere, production design and soundtrack, but BR 2049 isn't even trying to be like it, it's a film entirely on it's own.
Zero 80s nostalgia or "hehe you remember this hehe" references.

Oh c'mon, there are maybe 3 or 4 explosions in the entire film that is almost 3 hours long.
Stop being an over exaggerating contrarian just to get (You)'s

Have litteraly two explosion

This.

Thank you, I can't tell if OP is shitposting

I give the original a 9.7/10 and the new one 9.5/10

If you think 2049 is a "soft reboot" or "soulless remake" then you haven't seen it.

There are 0 action set pieces user. You have about 4 explosions in the whole 3 hour movie. Are you waiting for the torrent because you don't have any friends or self esteem to go watch it alone?

They both stand on their own merits

>implying
Original Blade Runner had 0 explosions and was fine. There was no reason to include any explosion other than to appeal to HDHD audiences.

>it has an explosion or two more than the original so it's just like the Transformers flicks
sure thing buddy

>tfw op was talking about the posters not the movies.