So, was this movie good?

So, was this movie good?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rrZk9sSgRyQ&t=81
streamable.com/7s8q3
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

9/10

8/10
too long, plot is not so good
decent sequel though

No. It's a movie for people that don't really watch movies, but think themselves movie buffs

Wonderful. 9.5/10

Best science fiction movie since The Matrix.

This film is void of everything that made the original a good film. The first film and the book Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, are often considered some of the best philisophical works of the past 100 years.
Blade Runner 2049 had no point from beginning to end. In the original. you could find 10 different major philisophical points the film had, about the relationship between god and man, mortality, what makes a person real, what does it mean to truly live.. and there are many more.
This film doesnt have any point... at all. The original had like 10 philisophical points you could write books on. This film does not have a single one. Not one. Its sort of mind blowing that they can get away with it.... I feel offended that they can just slap the Blade Runner name on it and have it have nothing to do with the heart of the original.... like if theyd made a new Star Wars film where they didnt mention or have the force. The whole heart and reason for existing is just not there.

No.

Let's break it down:

- K is sent to hunt down other replicants.
- K finds out one replicant had children.
- K tries to find out this child.
- K "discovers" he is the child, fueled in part by his AI waifu.
- Joe sets out to find Deckard.
- Joe finds Deckard, his AI waifu is killed.
- Joe realizes his waifu was a lie.
- Joe saves Deckard.
- Deckard is reunited with his true child.
- Joe dies a hero, not physically human, but human by his actions.

The problem is that it's not much different than Blade Runner. It basically repeats Roy Batty's character, in that he ends up becoming "human" by virtue of his actions.

Except in Blade Runner two characters changed: Roy Batty and Deckard. And Deckard had still another epiphany coming to him with the paper unicorn, something that was completely unnecessary in the grand scheme of things (as Roy Batty had already changed his perception of what humanity is).

Absolute KINO

The most beautifully shot movie in decades.

Moreover, what the fuck is up with Deckard completely forgetting he is a replicant? Blade Runner's Final Cut is pretty clear on this: Gaff knew what he dreamed about, because his memories have been implanted.

The only other possibility (it was all a huge coincidence) is too far fetched for a film.

>So, was this movie good?
naahhh

>Final Cut
Non-canon

It was made for its time. "Points" are so yesterday.

Really? Any proof to it?

>It was made for its time.
Wait, the whole point of this endeavor was just that Ana de Armas could be Weinsteined? Is it true?

He probably knew he was a replicant, but wasn't sure whether Wallace knew, so played dumb.

Also, considering his detective skills and the fact that he's a wanted man, why would he explicitly mention it?

8/10 movie general
10/10 scifi genre only

>Also, considering his detective skills and the fact that he's a wanted man, why would he explicitly mention it?
Why wouldn't he?

I'm pretty sure Wallace should know whether Deckard is a replicant or not, and Deckard as a consequence has nothing to hide.

I know you're shitposting but I kinda agree.

The problem I see with this film is that everything is too explained, not subtle unlike the first film.

Still a solid 9/10

are u a fedora? If yes, you'll love it.

how was it void of anything?
K spends the entire film in an enraged trace -- doing what he is told and hating all of it -- he is told he is a implement like toaster and buys into that garbage, just like people go into work and then out, everyday, with no idea what the fuck they're doing the entire time, just to scrape together a little morsel of understanding

where can I get the canon version on Blu Ray?

K wasn't Roy Batty

Roy was a god-killer.

K was just working his beat when this two dames get him into a world of shit.

Decker's not a replicant.

What didnt work for me is that K arc is underwhelming.
- In the beginning he is working on a case
- Sometimes that means he has to retire replicant or criminals
- after he finds out he is a child he still sets out to find Deckard and answers (another case basically)
- and this still means he sometimes has to retire replicants and other criminals
- when in the end he decides to save Deckard and reunite him with his daughter is nothing special cause when he and Deckard got swarmed at Las Vegas he still fought for his life and Deckard's

I know that you guys want to see K start as a robot and becoming Joe, a human, but he already is pretty humane in the beginning of the film (he truly loves JOI and is pretty all right with Morton)
I just didnt bought it like I did with Roy, which was extremely villanous in the beginning and then we got to the end and we actually feel for him cause he is being hunted down by Deckard after all his friends are dead.
He is the dying prey and Deckard is his hunter.
What made BR work was the subversion of the dynamic, and here it didnt happen

im not interested in K becoming human
he has value as he is

as for your "subversion of the dynamic" obsession, you've missed the big picture, which is why you don't "get" the sequel

It was pretty good. Arguably the best sequel to Blade Runner anyone could have hoped for.

Good is an extreme understatement. It's amazing.

YES its amazing but a lot of brainlets don't like it.

youtube.com/watch?v=rrZk9sSgRyQ&t=81

>"Let's break it down"
>proceeds to just list overly general plot points
???

This movie is deeply flawed but its flaws are not a result of laziness, phoning it in, or executive meddling. Its flaws and strengths are one and the same

>K wasn't Roy Batty
I don't know what you mean by God-killer, but the comparison I was drawing is that both feel themselves to be much more than just machines. It's basically what K goes through when his waifu tells him he is special, and when he thinks he is the first born replicant.

Just like Roy Batty didn't achieve a human life span, K didn't turn out to be special. But they die "human" nonetheless.

The Final Cut pretty much states it is. And Villeneuve said people should watch that film in preparation for 2049.

>I know that you guys want to see K start as a robot and becoming Joe, a human, but he already is pretty humane in the beginning of the film (he truly loves JOI and is pretty all right with Morton)
This too.

Deckard's character arc was interesting because he didn't see Replicants as anything more than a machine, he outright states "if they are a benefit they are not my problem".

Then he falls in love with a replicant, through the villain he realizes replicants can be human too, and in the end he discovers he was a replicant all along, kind of proving Batty right in the process.

Average.
The first one is better DESU

>And Villeneuve said people should watch that film in preparation for 2049.
He basically confirmed it remains ambiguous (for him) because when he was on a panel screening of the original BR recently with Kermode and Ridley Scott someone asked about the replicant question and Ridley and Villeneuve started arguing where Villeneuve was strongly defending the idea that it works only if his state remains ambiguous.
Not to mention that there are literal lines from Wallace in BR 2049 that directly and intentionally make his state remain ambiguous.

The new is better executed in quite a few departmens, for example the romantic subplot of K and his virtual waifu is ten times more genuinely emotionally investing and moving than the absolutely flat romance with non existent chemistry we got from Deckard and Rachel in the original.
This is pretty much a non disputable fact.

Why were the humans launching an EMP in the first place?

they didn't die "human", they died as what they are

i could care less about the 29 different versions of the movie other than the one released first; fuck scott especially given his alien sequel mishaps

and you still don't get it

god, i hate anime

I'm just sad because I know this film is just a brief precious anomaly in today's film industry which will immediately get replaced with the usual degenerate brain deteriorating capeshit/starwars flicks Hollywood has been feeding us all this time.

as long as you keep swallowing their dreck with pleasure...

it's one of the best sequels ever made

>for example the romantic subplot of K and his virtual waifu is ten times more genuinely emotionally investing and moving
Is it, though? Or is it just neckbeards falling for an AI waifu? (in the most negative connotation of the word)

I think it's more about people falling in love with Ana de Armas and trying to picture themselves in K's shoes, as opposed to genuinely falling for the relationship between the two. The former is what happened in Blade Runner 2049, the latter is what happens in Forrest Gump.

>and you still don't get it
I don't know what I'm suppposed to "get".

>they didn't die "human", they died as what they are
"More human than human". Did you watch the film?

this

>Is it, though?
Yes user it is. It's like a better executed version of Her, it works on every level possible, can't think of a single other romantic relationship that was this emotionally involving in any of the films released in recent times.
And the ironic thing is that it's a relationship between a robot and a program.

Isn't the place Deckard was hiding full of radiation or something? Only a replicant and a replicant dog could live there for so long.

No.
K checked and it was fine. Also that was the point of the bees.
Also replicant are supscetible to radiation too.

>Yes user it is. It's like a better executed version of Her
You are kidding, right?

>And the ironic thing is that it's a relationship between a robot and a program.
You are kidding, right? Because you slap "robot" and "AI" on top of them doesn't change the fact they are two human beings: Ryan Gosling and Ana de Armas. Both are barely robot and program in their portrayals, unlike the kid from A.I., who is spooky because his portrayal is very robot-like.

>he says as he posts on a site founded on anime

Yeah, it was pretty good. I need to watch it again.

The only people who don't like this film are nig nogs, bitches and faggots that get easily offended by hetrosexual imagery.

If you like
>BwOooOOMM, brrrrrrrroooommmMmMm
>BwOooOOMM, brrrrrrrroooommmMm
BwOWWwmmm

This movie didn't have enough pickle rick am I right???

streamable.com/7s8q3

fantastic movie 9/10
anyone that actually watches it and doesn't like it has shit taste

Villeneuve movies in many ways are just prolonged trailers. Makes the plebs feel good, makes them think they've watched an important work of cinema(Like pickle rick, nolan, etc).

I need to see it rn, but I'm not sure what to see it in. IMAX 3D, 4DX, IMAX or regular 2D.

>The first film and the book Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, are often considered some of the best philisophical works of the past 100 years.
hahahaha, oh my god, what a fuckinng pleb you have to be to say this!