So present your pros and cons with each movie and what do you think is better.
For me:
>The first one has better visuals.
>The first one has better soundtrack.
>The first one has the most kino scene (Tears in Rain)
>The first one has a better villain.
>The second one has a better protagonist.
>The second one has better action scenes.
>The second one has better plot? (I don't know yet)
My veredict would be that for me the first one is better.
Other urls found in this thread:
DO NOT PIT THE BLADE RUNNERS AGAINST EACHOTHER
The first one is better in terms of acting and characterization but the second one has better visuals. Plot is really just a skeleton in both but the first one gets to the next scene easier.
>The first one has better visuals.
no
>The first one has better soundtrack.
no
>The first one has the most kino scene (Tears in Rain)
yes
>The first one has a better villain.
no, besides the above monologue and one other monologue all he did was howl like a furry and skip around like an autistic moron then change his tune completely for no reason.
>2049 has better visuals
Just get the fuck out because you plebs clearly have no semblance of something even approaching an iota of an idea of what “visuals” are. Muh bigger budget and CGI don’t make it better. Blade Runner masterfully crafts a lived-in, cyberpunk world. Let’s just compare lighting: the original contains truly magnificent neo-noir aesthetics that compliment the dim society on display and slow pacing of the film, whereas the lighting in 2049 is much more sterile and uniform.
Also we must put these films in context because nothing in 2049 is really awe-inspiring in this age of computer generated imagery and multi-million dollar budgets. Keep in mind Blade Runner was released in 1982, and the effects at work are really visually stunning.
The best scenes in 2049 imo were the opening establishing shots showing all the solar panels, and then showing the cirtyscape to see how tall/deep the buildings really are compared to the actual streets below. But after that, I didn’t really get that sense of grand scale that the original had. K’s apt is sterile, as is the police HQ and most of the set pieces.
I don’t think 2049 was a bad movie at all, it certainly explored interesting themes with Joi/AI that was absent from the original, but I really don’t think it’ll stand the test of time like the original. Everyone’s just jerking off cuz it’s the only decent cyberpunk in the last decade and a half.
>first one had a good amount of handheld camerawork, making the overall feel grittier
>second one had more variety in color, making everything feel more alive
But as said, we should be happy we got two kinos out of the deal, let's not shit on them.
Quick, should i watch Original BR Directors Cut or Theatrical Cut?
Final Cut
visually, 2049 is only slightly better than rupert sanders recent ghost in the shell adaptation
>>The first one has better soundtrack.
>no
This
I don't know how they managed it but the sets and miniatures in the original movie shit all over 2049. I can let the latter pass (the original was Doug Trumbull's magnum opus while the CGI in 2049 is par for the course these days), the former baffles me. All the good set dressers in Hollywood must be dead or something.
well that was ridleys forte as well
his sets have always been second to none
The director doesn't have that level of control over the sets' look. He may have informed the production designer but ultimately it's some lowly art department goon who had to blanket Deckard's apartment and Taffey's bar with knickknacks, or cover the floors of the Bradbury building with grit.
>The director doesn't have that level of control over the sets' look.
yes he does
Theatrical cut is kind of funny. Harrison Ford reads his narration like his family is being held hostage, and he isn't in that big of a hurry to get them back.
lolno
It takes a whole team of professionals to make a set look the way it does. The director may have final editorial control but he doesn't have time to prescribe every little detail. And what made Blade Runner so fascinating is all those little details.
The voiceover lines were written in post by some script doctor. Ford hated having to read them and made no secret of it. I've heard rumors that he have a bad reading on purpose only to have them use the tracks anyway - likely not true but a hilarious story nonetheless.
Do i need to watch the first one to understand 2049?
This guy described perfectly why the first one has better visuals. All people can't see this are plebs.
>sterile and uniform
just add film grain
It's Terminator vs Terminator 2 all over again...
>Debate
There is no debate. Outside of MAYBE soundtrack, 2049 shits on the original in every way
>police HQ
loved the movie, but that set looked terrible, specially lightning was atrocious, TV series tier.
not the same you kike. grain is crystals, not a photoshop plugin you can slap over things.
>the first one has better visuals
They both are a feast for the eyes, only I find 2049's more haunting than the first one
And dirt. And smoke. And rain sprinklers. And random props. And a bunch of extras in goofy costumes.
That atmosphere we're missing took fucking *effort*, man.
First one has definitely the better poster. Second one looks like a direct-to-video cover.
in Blade Runner the world had the feel of the eighties with its of neon lights and analogue technology, a future very much based on the then relevant general technological context.
in 2049, the primary lighting is LED based with holographic projections being a departure from the original.
instead of japanese woman in a blown up screen, we have holographic advertisements that interact with individuals.
whereas the the sets of the original still looked like normal LA to an extent, in 2049 we have a more brutalized version of life as seen in LA with San Diego shown as a literal trash dump
2049 takes the underlying logic behind the details of the world of Blade Runner and takes them even further, of course 2049 shouldn't be a replication of the original
I have no problem with updating the aesthetic where not doing so would be anachronistic. Obviously neon lights and CRT displays wouldn't work in a 2017 movie.
However, there's nothing anachronistic about dirt, or crowds, or sets that actually look like spaces people live in. That's where 2049 comes up short.
There is not a wasted frame in BR.
2049 could be trimmed by 15 minutes and have Jared Leto removed.
>There is not a wasted frame in BR
>Enhance...
K
They should have just made the film about K and Joi and say that it was a sequel to Candy2000
Yes
The isolation and lack of crowds outside of one or two scenes make sense though because more people have left for the off world colonies, so there's less people on earth.
Nah, interplanetary travel as a means of population control makes zero sense. The offworld colonies are likely just a way of avoiding the demise of the human species when Earth's biosphere collapses. The planet is still clearly overpopulated; otherwise why the cityscape shots with endless illuminated super blocks?
I wouldn't compare them. Great films that are complimentary toward each other. BUT, if I was to compare them, I'd say Blade Runner had better visual appeal/aesthetic and music, whatever meme you want to call it, while 2049 had better characters/characterization and ingenuity when it came to the details of the world (they just kept introducing crazy design after crazy design).
Still, I can't say one is better than the other. Just feels impossible to me.
Why was he so lazy in Blade Runner?
Why is this even up for debate?
Blade Runner 2049 is a terrible sequel, and a mediocre movie.
Can people stop the meme original Blade Runner was that good visually? Yeah it had nice city shots but most of it looked like it was either filmed in apartments or a parking lot.
>Grain is crystals, not a photoshop plugin you can slap over things
Fuck off idiot, you can literally get ACTUAL RECORDED FILM GRAIN to overlay on digital. It means nothing.
>The second one has a better protagonist.
There's no way in hell K is better than Roy though.
BR49 has the staying power of Jurassic World.
It's a meme movie merely made to cash in on the nostalgia "geek culture" craze that's fueling a lot of reboots as of late.
It offers nothing of substance.
The final cut
Not, T2 went full HOLLYWOOD, while 2049 maintains the same tone as the original.
Get your eyes fixed and read some film theory, pleb.
>2049 has bad visua-
not bad, just not as good
>Blade Runner
Roy Batty is the best character, and the Tears in Rain monologue encapsulates the themes of both perfectly in the most concise way. Darker and moodier noir atmosphere combined with the better soundtrack. Phenomenal set design and miniature work, the pinnacle of the masters of 70s and 80s effects work. Immensely influential and inseparable from the aesthetic of the entire genre.
>Blade Runner 2049
Better plot with more interesting themes, and more interesting and developed characters across the board. K is a far better protagonist than Deckard. The pacing is far better across the board, the cinematography is sublime. The soundtrack, while not as good as the first, is better woven into the movie with an impeccable audio design that the original can't match. All of the actions scenes though brief are more engaging and thematically resonant than those in the first. The city of the first was more well realized, but 2049 expanded the world and developed so much outside of LA as to be comparable.
Soundtrack and villain goes to the original. I think 2049 had better visuals to be honest, it just didn't go in the city much. As kino scenes it may be a tie, K's moment with giant joi is seriously an amazing scene.
K is a much better protagonist, he's a tragic hero, the plot is better than the first, but not explained well to the audience(which is intentional but thats the reason for flopping in us) Action scenes also second is better.
I think 2049 is better than the original but it's close. Either way i'm really glad we got such a kino movie in this day and age.
I'm sorry, but the sequel is better in every fucking way.
The story is much more thoughtful and fleshed out. The first one has a great narrative, but there's not a lot too observe in it. Not only are there more themes in the sequel, they're more realized.
The emotional stakes are so much higher in the sequel.
I can't believe people are saying the original had a better soundtrack. Sometimes it just sounds like pots, pans, and synths banging around. 2049 has one of the greatest soundtracks I've ever heard.
The new Blade Runner is overhyped mediocrity that manages to have a couple of interesting scenes. The first one is superior in every way.
It's still true.
You are a hopeless pleb.
cons
BR had bad editing
BR2049 had jared leto
plot > villain and soundtrack
2nd one is better
really says something when a movie can look this good and I can still seriously say the original had the better visuals because it was the original idea and it was executed with subtlety and taste, while 2049 is, while cool looking visually in comparison to most movies, just kind of done without any real direction. it's more than just "VIBRANT 80'S PALETTE MIXED WITH NEO NOIR LIGHTING AND CYBERPUNK WITH ASIAN THEMES"
2049 doesn't look 80s
it certainly looks technology also progressed from 2019
also cyberpunk with asian themes is also in br
reading comprehension
Earth isnt as nice of a place in 2049 as it was in 2019. The world has gotten a lot more bleak, probably because of nuclear wars and rich people moving to other worlds
>First one has definitely the better poster.
>Rachel looks like melted wax
so they decided to completely change the world of blade runner with an atom bomb.
look, you can take any story and make a sequel where in between the 2 stories an atom bomb was dropped, but it changes the entire world, just seems like a dumb decision to make
blade runner was already like this corporatist cyberpunk dystopia
I'm all for sequels moving in new directions and exploring new themes, but 2049 kind of shows a lack of understanding of the original
>reddit spacing
stopped reading there, take your nostaligiafagging back.
also there wasn't an atom bomb, if you paid attention to the film or even watched the Watanabe short you'd realize that there was a blackout in 2022 which majorly affected the world, they establish it quite clearly.
>but 2049 kind of shows a lack of understanding of the original
It is the exact opposite of what happened. Movie is very faithful to the original, maybe even too much so.
I thought Zimmer did a decent job with the score but I really wish we could have heard what Johannsson could have done
Didn't he do some work? Why was it scrapped entirely?
Yeah but he's contractually obligated not to discuss why he got canned or release any of the material he made. Wonder why he was let go
i literally did watch the shorty you fucking retard
I saw the shot of the corporation ziggeraut as an obvious miniature prop. Could have added some smog clouds to make it believable as actual size.
Also I may get some flak on here, but why exactly did the replicants on earth go apeshit? I heard from the movie there was 4 years left of expiring, or did I mishear something important? I just watched the final cut off piratebay.
Replicants are banned on earth over an incident where they killed someone I believe. They're equipped with a 4 year life span in the off world colonies so they don't begin developing advanced emotional responses and rebelling.
Blade Runner: Kino espousing Libertarian princples
Blade Runner 2049: Communist propaganda
There is no such thing as which is better than the other considering they aren't the same film to compare in the first place (They are standalone projects based on the same universe). So this debate is retarded bait in the first place. But i'll take the bait and give some arguments about superior cinematography.
Visuals and scenery: Nowadays technology makes 2049 stand out from the origianl when it comes to landscaping, photography, angles. It is sublime (if you have a bit of knowledge in aesthetics u will know what sublime means) considering the protagonists always appear as a small part of the world, something that is pursued during the whole duration of the film with shots that make u understand the unsignificance of the chars in a titanic wasteland.
Plot: First one is superior because the story gives a sense of closure, it's very hermetically sealed. Second could use some more development and tying up some loose ends.
Soundtrack: Both are amazing soundtracks, but here there is none better than the other. Individually speaking, tracks on first are better when it comes to sheer track quality. On the other hand when it comes to ost as a whole and immersion, 2049 soundtrack is superior. The combination of photography, scenery and music in 2049 is just breathtaking.
Acting: I will not give and argument here as i might be a lot more biased than before.
2049 is a great film. If you didn't understand it, read the books. If you have plotholes, read the books. Nothing in 2049 has not been treated in the books before. So yeah, this debate of which is better is totally stupid, this should be a debate of "which i have subjectively enjoyed most"
Both are 10/10 in my eyes, with their flaws and virtues.
If so why do feminists and numales hate it so much? Admit it, its /ourkino/
You realize Ridley was a set designer before he was a director right? The dude pays more attention to production design than most directors usually do. He had a great degree if input into the sets.
2049 is a standalone project but it is still a sequel despite the time spent on it's own ideas with K, and Blade Runner was never a movie that needed a sequel and any follow up was only going to suffer. 2049 was trying to reconstruct a real universe which wasn't important in the original. It's like trying to make a universe based on a painting, all you end up with is a flat hollow world with some landmarks and it loses all the meaning of the painting like the artist's perspective, the emotions, the composition etc.
Because they already buy into the pie, they want you.
They detonated a bomb over LA to create the EMP.
That's how EMPs work.
Philip Dick hated communists too. This is spitting on his memory.
Nuclear war is also the reason for LA being the seat of power and the influx of Asian immigrants.
>The first one has better soundtrack.
Let's talk about the fucking soundtrack in 2049.
Who the actual fuck though it was a good idea to make a sound effect hit that sounded like a microphone stuck to the back end of a riced out Geo Metro with a busted muffler that's being driven by some douche who's gunning it at a stop sign?
I didn't register this sound until I saw it the second time. A bit distracting, but not too bad, I don't think.
The first time I heard it, I thought that someone must have tried to drag race right outside the movietheatre.
The next five times I heard it I wanted to hang the parties responsible.
Why? Should every soundtrack be in the background and "subtle"? Why is it bad if a soundtrack is intentionally opressive and overwhelming?
In some departments the new one is most definitely better, 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.
There's nothing oppressive about the sound breaking immersion by making me think someone blew out their muffler just outside the theatre. It brought me out of the experience and distracted from the movie. It's bad sound design.
First off it's not "sound design", it's a part of the soundtrack. Secondly it's entirely in line with the narrative and compliments the heavily brutalistic dead setting of the current BR world with those industrial distorted synth hits which are in contrast with the melancholic dreamy synth lines of the original.
And if you really think it sounded like "someone blew out their muffler just outside the theatre" that's more of a problem of your shitty theater audio system, not the film itself.
en.wikipedia.org
>Sound design is the process of specifying, acquiring, manipulating or generating audio elements. It is employed in a variety of disciplines including filmmaking, television production, theatre, sound recording and reproduction, live performance, sound art, post-production, radio and video game development. Sound design most commonly involves the manipulation of previously composed or recorded audio, such as sound effects and dialogue. In some instances it may also involve the composition or manipulation of audio to create a desired effect or mood. A sound designer is one who practices the art of sound design.
There's plenty of ways to use sound to create oppression and brutalism with sound. They opted to use a riced out Civic. It's bad sound design.
This is like Alien vs Aliens, they're both good but disctinct enough to fill slightly different niches.
>the romantic subplot of K and his virtual waifu is ten times more genuinely emotionally investing and moving
"emotionally investing and moving" depending on how illogically sensitive and delusional the viewer is to project his humanity on non human entities built for construction work and jerking off
I like them both for different reasons.
Blade Runner is a really engaging and thought-provoking film. Some may find it slow paced, or boring, but i'm always captivated by the film's world and atmosphere.
If you can get past how stupid Blade Runner 2049 is, it is quite a spectacularly looking and sounding movie.
The plot of 49 is badly sketched and boring. Leto and his anime girl are bad characters and they should have been casted better and given better dialogues.
They don't have any level of moral ambiguity, they're just cape shit villains. I really couldn't care less about their scenes. They were used as an excuse to transition between various situations, but I seriously think they ruin the movie. It's sad because the parts where they're not there are mostly exceptional (except the Freysa part which just looks like an incomplete and dumb draft of a scene)
>The first one has better visuals.
Subjective
>The first one has better soundtrack.
Subjective
>The first one has the most kino scene (Tears in Rain)
Pic related. It's a tie.
>The first one has a better villain.
Agreed.
2049 is objectively the better film overall and anyone who disagrees is a shameless nostalgia-cuck.
You could argue that the relationship in the original is also between "non human entities".
Also, if at the ending there was some dumb plot twist that proves Joi was an actual real human being projected to K and K was also a real born human, you would suddenly be invested?
"Boring" is not a valid argument, it only says what your mood was while watching the film.
Same as saying "it was fun", that does not indicate anything about the actual quality of the film whatsoever.
>They don't have any level of moral ambiguity, they're just cape shit villains.
This, his introductory scene was basically "Hey, lets have a heavy-handed rape metaphor while espousing my God complex just to show how evil I am."
Get the fuck outta this thread.
If you didn't find it boring you're a mind washed manchild, who's watched too many superhero movies. I can't be more objective than that
Nailed it right here. Get fucked haters..
That's a general explanation for sound design, when you're talking about the sound design of a film you're talking about the sound of everything happening in the film, not how the soundtrack sounds (even though someone had to produce that sound to be put in the soundtrack). Or maybe you actually have a problem with the sound mixing because you think it's overly loud, but I don't see that as an argument of any kind.
Also if that's how a riced out Civic sounds I am getting it immediately.
>If you didn't find it boring you're a mind washed manchild, who's watched too many superhero movies
Something here doesn't add up user, are you sure what you even wrote?
>you would suddenly be invested?
lol are you the same user who asked me this before? my answer was yes then and it's yes now
Cool it down with the projection there kiddo.