Blade Runner: 2049

Here's the quick rundown


>strongly lacking in the original's thick, shadowy atmosphere and cyberpunk aesthetics (Deakin's work here is visually impressive, but too much so: technically polished, clean; where's the grit?)

>long gone are the days of Vangelis' classic synth score, which have now been replaced with uninspired, inaudible fluff from Zimmer

>absent of noir vibes or philosophical ambiguity

>abandons the simplicity of Blade Runner on the surface, yet complicity within: now it's convoluted, unnecessarily twisty and over complicated on the outside, with no deeper subtext

>doesn't justify its existence

>WHY ISN'T IT EXACTLY LIKE THE ORIGINAL!?

Nice strawman.

>no deeper subtext

>too much of a brainlet to see the masterful Hegelian themes of loss and reconciliation with loss

>doesn't justify its existence
this is kind of ironic, don't you think? like tears in the rain on your wedding day

Sup brainlet

go back to plebbit

literal indian shills or 90 IQ reddit plebs?

That meme screams reddit as does your taste.

Why would they bring back Ford after they've seen his shit performances in recent movies

This other lead is also fucking awful, he's some beta male liberal faggot who only lusts after single mothers or brown women in all his movies
"I drive"
Good for you

>>technically polished, clean; where's the grit?
That's the entire point, the new one is showing the bleak empty sterile future after the blackout where nature is practically non existant that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day. Adding grain or "grit" to that would make no sense.

>>long gone are the days of Vangelis' classic synth score,
And that's a bad thing why? Do you really think a classic 80s soundtrack would suit this film?
The visuals are pretty clean, empty, sterile and the soundtrack is downright dirty, distorted and industrial. It's largely overwhelming and "in your face" unsettling, but in a good way.

>>absent of noir vibes or philosophical ambiguity
Highly disagree on both points, the whole film is basically a neo-noir detective drama in a scifi world that deals with the human condition, just like the original.

...

Back you go

>implying reddit isn't gushing over based deakins and based denis and his based practical effects

Why does Wallace need the daughter? Won't he go out of business once replicants can have children?

Also, why did he stab the girl right after birth?

>it's shit on purpose

your entire argument

You must have a very low reading comprehension.

>if the film is not exactly like the original, then it's shit xD
This is you user. Also I'm pretty sure if it did do all of those things you ask the film to do you would now make a thread how the film just rehashed the old one and how it's not at all original.
Just don't even bother replying

Why even bother posting if you just embarrass yourself each time?

>Won't he go out of business once replicants can have children?
He wants to colonize the stars, doesn't give a shit about money.
And because she was defective.

>abandons the simplicity of Blade Runner on the surface, yet complicity within: now it's convoluted, unnecessarily twisty and over complicated on the outside, with no deeper subtext

Ironic, because this is exactly what your criticism is. Assertions using big words and totally without evidence.

He wants to colonize further planets, which would involve extremely long travel time and he cant have replicant factories on ships and colonies, it'd cost too much. Having them able to reproduce would make the most sense.

Same reason whites in america let their slaves marry and have kids once the slave trade ended.

The biggest crime:
Action scenes that do not contribute to the plot.
You can cut the harpoon scene or the Goose-Deckard fight in Las Vegas and nothing will be lost.

Showed how psychopathic Love is.

Kills the forensic before
We knew that

Killing one guy to keep a secret isn't the same as blowing a whole town worth of people to push him to find the kid.

Why would deckard not attack k?

>We have to talk
>Five minutes later of punching
>Ok lets talk

Lemme guess, this is another contrarian Almond review?

1) The distinctiveness of its original dumpy, urban environment is lost due to looking like most of the hollow imitations that Blade Runner inspired; which is what this is - a pale replication of Scott's vision


2) A synth score is tonally pivotal. You're giving Zimmer too much credit. It isn't "in your face", it's just bombastic static from a man who is rarely able to manipulate emotions subtly.


3) It vaguely touches upon the human condition with Joi, but once she is killed off, and never brought up again, this subtext is also rendered as pointless and aimless because it never deals with its toll on K

This isn't your high school Word file essay, get out you tourist crossposting casual

>absent of noir vibes or philosophical ambiguity
what?

you clearly didn't "get" it

>because it never deals with its toll on K
what?

Vangelis' score while impressive sounds dated now. It has aged worse than the Moog Soundtrack of Clockwork Orange and Tubular Bells from The Exorcist.

>why isn't a sequel like the original
jump off a bridge any time

the world builds on the original exploring the other concepts the original missed out on

Deckard realizes he's not a threat when he doesn't fight back. Normies need to have everything spelled out for them I guess.

Both.

read a book lmao

Literary They Live tier

>It has aged worse than the Moog Soundtrack of Clockwork Orange and Tubular Bells from The Exorcist.
holy shit no it hasn't?

>>absent of noir vibes or philosophical ambiguity

WRONG