Film Criticism Dead

Blade Runner 2049 is proof that Rotten Tomatoes and critics are one big joke and part of one big scam. This film is just as mediocre as the average MCU film yet people are treating it as the second coming. You cannot even discuss the film on here without some paid shill attacking you for pointing out the many flaws in this movie.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2049
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>you now realize that setting it in 2049 is the equivalent from setting something in 2000 from the 90's.

that's only 20 freaking years from current day.

How many threads have you made now? 10? 20?

might want to recheck your math, champ

>film criticism dead
>doesn't actually levy any criticism

ok normie

1997 was 10 years ago chieferino

2049 is actually great you Disney-drone. Rotten Tomatoes was always shit.
Fuck off.

I'd say better than average capeshit, but yeah, it is pretty mediocre.
I'm not sure if it is being blown out of proportion solely because some people have really low standarts or is it a "babies first 3 hour film" syndrome for some.

Eitherway, it still is going to flop, despite those paid shills getting overly emotional over any kind of criticism made for this movie.

Literally how much are you getting paid? Don't tell me you're just an insane person.

this movie has nothing on cape kino and disney star wars flicks amirite?

The only glaring flaw i saw in this movie was its lack of an intermission.
3 hrs is too much, and is unhealthy.
Villenueve should have put a chance for everyone to strech, and also have time to digest the first part of the movie.

Any move over 90 minutes should be required to have them.
Just cut the trailers in half and show all the stupid, buy concessions, cocacola ads during intermission.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE,
THE DONT WANT YOU TO PEE.

>2049 is to 2017 as 2000 is to 1997

true, I'm also glad WB decided that the best place to shit the movie was Sup Forums, where most the people here are lonely virgins that haven't or will never go to the movies.

an american will unironically agree with this post

so 2049 is 3 years from now?

The new spider man movie is TRASH
everyone rated it 99%
It's not true it's bullshit

The movie is a max 7/10
Dude was not even relatable unlike the original Spiderman.

It was alright, but the original blade runner did the whole "what makes humans human" thing 10 times better in half the time.

They are different things. The original Blade Runner is a self -contained, small, noir story with sprinkles of existentialism. It's very earnest about what it wants to communicate. This one tries to expand on the world and do bigger things, but despite doing a lot of stuff better than the original, falls flat in some other areas.

What I don't get is why it has to be either the best thing since the coming of Jesus, or putrid shit. It's an okay movie, excellent in some areas, lacking in others. I enjoyed it pretty much despite the exceedingly long runtime and some hamfisted bullshit in the script (like Wallace being comically, take candy from kids, evil).

point out some flaws please that are not cinemasins tier plothole nitpicking

STOP BUMP HIS THREADS

IT'S THE SAME GUY MAKING THE SAME THREADS AROUND THE CLOCK FOR FUCKS SAKE

Not OP, but for example, excessive runtime due to unnecessarily overlong scenes (the meeting between Deckard and K comes to mind, or K's visit to San Diego), Wallace's motives not making much sense besides "hurr I am evil".

I would've preferred a smaller, noir-er story, but that's just my opinion. It tries to go epic in its themes and it falls a bit flat, but as I said, those are nitpicks.

>Wallace's motives not making much sense besides "hurr I am evil".

He wants to breed replicants because it is more efficient that making them.

You're a brainlet, I'm sorry.

It's made by Sony you brainless mongoloid

>says film criticism is dead
>proceeds to type the most braindead meaningless buzzword filled post he can about the film
I guess film criticism is indeed truly dead.

It's my headcanon that he's also irresistibly drawn to the idea because Tyrell did it and he wants to top his legendary predecessor. It would be the ultimate eccentric billionaire ego trip creating a brand new self-perpetuating species.

>when I wanted to love it so much but couldn't get over the fact that blade runner should never have had a sequel

It was a good film, but I never wanted to see or find out what happened to Rachel and Deckard. Would have been much happier with a film in the same universe that doesn't have previous events taking such a large role, and I couldn't help but feel that none of the new characters engaged me in the same way the original replicants did.

Not been conflicted like this after watching a film in ages, I simultaneously think its great while like disliking everything that it is. it just felt unnecessary, but the best a totally unnecessary film could be.

I think I need to see it again.

>It's my headcanon that he's also irresistibly drawn to the idea because Tyrell did it and he wants to top his legendary predecessor. It would be the ultimate eccentric billionaire ego trip creating a brand new self-perpetuating species.

yeah probably. So I guess he got 20 time more motivation than the average movie baddy. I don't know it worked for me.

Yeah, but he has no reason to be such an asshole to everyone, even if he sees the replicants as little more than a product. His pseudo-religious tirades and him being an asshar to everyone around him don't make sense without a bit of character development. Show me why he does what he does, and maybe I'll understand why he is the way he is. Like he is right now, he was an evil laugh away of being a moustache-twirling caricature.

Maybe it's the other way around and the average state of film isn't all that bad and your perception is simply screwed from browsing Sup Forums 24/7.

...

Uh, the first one took place in 2019, dude. The year the sequel takes place in doesn't matter when it's already not our actual future.

user.

user, user, user.

You DO know that Blade Runner 2049, like the original, is made by WB, right? And that, if Blade Runner does well, it would mean more of the DC"Kino" you love to peddle so much.

If anything, you should be SUPPORTING Blade Runner 2049. Because ( a) it isn't Disney and ( b) its literally everything that MCU, or capemovies aren't.

You DO know that Snyder is not the only director in WB, let alone Hollywood, right? Or are you stupid?

Might want to check your facts there, pajeet.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2049

Sony is only distributing it internationally - domestically its distributed by WB, and WB made the movie.

>This film is just as mediocre as the average MCU film
You wish Disney shill, go back convincing people in r*ddit to buy those nu Ewoks

i have to agree, the hype leading up to mad max was the same and it turned out to be feminist propaganda trash

Some user found proof the guy is on Sup Forums too. Yep, you read that right, this anti-art autist spamming the anti BR49 is a fucking Sup Forumsedditor

>reddit spacing
Every.
Single.
Time.

>presents no arguments

Its failing at the box office thats a sign its not for plebs, it's also a slow burn film in the 2 hour range, (too long for normie attention spans) it subverts A LOT of typical plot paths that normie movies could take which is interesting in my opinion, calling everyone a shill that likes it is retarded though its rare when Sup Forums likes anything but the people who do are called shills and if you hate on things here you're a contrarian asshole

TL;DR: OP is a faggot

Wallace was not comically evil he just wants to colonate endless worlds and extend the longevity of humankind which is going to die out

My pops whose film taste I deeply respect said it was everything it was meant to be and more. SAid the film was amazing except a few plot holes towards the end.

I am looking forward to it like crazy. To bad Japan gets new movies like LAST in the fucking world.

Honestly this

I can't see how it is more efficient than making them, seeing how you have to wait 20 years for a baby to grow up while you can manufacture adult replicants directly, sure it takes longer than a pregnancy apparently but you don't have to wait 20 years afterwards

it had flaws, sure

it is still the best movie of the last 3 years

Imagine populating distant colony planets with workers to extract minerals or something. A long term ongoing project that will take decades or even centuries. Instead of making a shitload of individual replicants and depositing them on planets you could seed each one with a core group of breeders. Wouldn't need to constantly go back and replace the original replicants when they die off. They'd be replaced naturally by the next generation. It's exponential growth vs. linear.

>what is alternative history

My worthless two cents after coming from seeing it. Wasn't interested in it to begin with but after seeing so many people gush over it figured it would be worth the trip. Was surprised to see how true it stayed to the original film in style and pacing. I guess you could argue 2049 does a better job at keeping the audience engaged, which I can understand. Overall though, I don't see how this could be considered a masterpiece or anything above an 8. The film very clearly takes a nose dive in quality after K and Han Solo get captured, like I can physically feel the writer going 'okay this is when I start wrapping things up', and the underground revolution scene was very cringe and took me out of the experience quite a bit. There's a lot to love about the film, and I'm glad I went to saw it. It's certainly no masterpiece though.

Cool story, bro
The resistance is not K story. K is an average Joe, the resistance is there to allow K to make a choice: receive orders from another entity, or choose by himself.
But why explore character motivation

Yeah, but the reveal just feels underwhelming. You can see the plot twist coming because of the uncertainty in which the subject is treated by K and the constant clues about the wooden horse and the memory. It would've been way more effective had the movie been on board with the whole K is the replicant jesus, and then made the reveal, or having him actually be Deckard and Rachael's son despite all his doubts, instead of a character that feels flat and wholly unimportant to every level in a story that centers around them. Hell, I would've been sold on it if Luv had been her. But the memory girl...

You missed the point of the whole fucking movie, but that's ok.
You wanted the hollywood plot, the "standard special" protagonist. Is not that kind of movie.

>you just don't understand it

No, I do. I just don't like how the movie handled it. You can understand something and not like it, user.

Dude, you plainly stated that you wanted an hollywood plot.
I am not accusing of do not understanding, I am just stating that you have shit tastes.

>The resistance is not K story
Except I'm watching a film where K is clearly the protagonist. This has nothing to do with a Hollywood style ending you retard. It was an incredibly unsatisfying bait and switch. They destroy all that tension and build up so they can have their twist, and then immediately replace it with 'le dying for a worthy cause makes us just as human' (which falls completely flat) so that K has an ending. We get it - it's just that it's shit.

This is what hollywood does to people

Okay so, I read the tv threads through the night, and went to see it in imax at 10 am. The visuals are mind blowing, it's like some other user put it everything ghost in the shell tried to be. I liked the Goose but I can never stand ford, luckily he weren't in the whole movie.
I felt like letos charater was a bit too detached or deranged or whatever you call it and I oddly enough like leto. Soundtrack was just a bunch of synth and a whole lot of BRRRRRRPPPP which sure is cool and fits the vibe but I feel like this movie wasn't the masterpiece that the visual movie itself was.

If you paid close attention there were hints that gave it away. I didn't like they spoonfed the answer but him not being the Jesus baby was a better ending.

I saw the clues buddy, and having an entire scene where K literally says 'two people can't have to same DNA - one of them is a fake' is as spoon-feeding as it gets. The problem isn't the reveal - it's the way it's presented. The revolution is flat out cringe an unnecessary, since this film is about K. It would have been much more appropriate, timely and fitting to have this revealed when K visits the daughter and she reveals that this is her memory, which upsets K and through an event he comes to the conclusion of risking his life to save Deckard. But instead, well after two hours of being invested in K, some random underground grandma tells her K is nothing special and he should help them out because 'le dying for what you believe in'. It's garbage senpai, plain and simple.

I think you are rationalizing your butthurt for not seeing le epic chosen protagonist.
I mean now you are talking about the twist but this was not your point above.
> well after two hours of being invested in K
is
>h-how can Villeneuve do this to me, I was so invested...

I was talking more about the flashes when the leader says he isn't special. But that's true too. Also the guy saying "you've never witnessed a miracle" and the place the child was at is called "Merricolle".

Meh, I think the group needed to be there. I'll agree that they weren't well established but they didn't need to be. They were a setup so that K could be truly free. Because until that point he's serving humans. Then the replicants want him to serve them. Him saving Harrison is him displaying humanity by dying for what he really believes in and getting Harrison to his daughter.