I've seen it twice now, and it is really not great. I want it to be great, but it really just isn't

I've seen it twice now, and it is really not great. I want it to be great, but it really just isn't.

>Shitty Hans Zimmer empty score that teases bits from the original Vangelis score but never adds anything new or substantial, and then predictably falls back on the original score at the end
>unrelatable villains with le take over the universe motivation
>completely unnecessary and obnoxious drawn-out fight scene between K and Deckard
>"you do not yet know what pain is, I will show you"
>throwaway, cringe-inducingly staged introduction to the replicant "army", complete with a very long and inconsequential monologue from a one-eyed lady who we don't care about, all just to reveal that K was not the special child
>Deckard is living alone in Las Vegas surviving on honey

overrated shit.

I don't disagree. But I still think it's worth seeing.

it's probably the worst movie of all time. normies have no appreciation for real film. i mean it was shot digitally, are these kids even trying? anyone who says this was a good movie is a russian bot frankly.

i agree it's worth seeing, but I keep seeing it hailed as a "masterpiece", and "as good if not better than the original", which seems totally unreasonable, it's like these people saw a different movie.

I'm not a cynical dead soul like a lot of Sup Forums and even I thought it didn't justify its existence.

remove the holographic girlfriend and even the virgins would come to their senses about this shitty boring movie

The only reason Sup Forums likes this movie at all is because they are all losers that can self insert as k

>villains need to be relatable
retard.

And Wallace wasn't trying to take over the world, he just wanted more money. Greedy bastard.

This happens with every sequel or remake that isn't complete shit.

To accept Villeneuve as a quality director is to garb yourself in a coat of hot pockets and video games and then writhe around on the ground in a supermarket while screaching and slapping yourself on the sides of your head.

He is cheeto dust. Nothing more.

Nothing more than a hack, a useful tool for studios to trot out to say "Hey, we're making art house!" I cannot wrap my head around the adulation he receives, let alone the wide praise this has got. The film trudges from set piece to set piece, leaves us no real questions or anything to think about really.

The worst part however was Deakins' "look at me I'm acting!" cinematography. This poor sap has become a parody of himself to appease his internet fans (much like Refn after Drive)

The same bullet that kills a capeshit fan will also kill the Villeneuve and Paul Thomas Anderson fan. They come from the same root, from the same doritos stained console. They are frauds, and as a warrior of cinema it's my duty to expose the fakes and the inauthentic when I see them. I will fight with nails and teeth until the last imposter has fallen to the ground

I have about as much respect for Denis Villeneuve as I do for the dogshit on my shoe. He is reddit. He is video game hotpocket. He is capeshit. He is cheeto dust. I'm literally screaming right now and slamming my arms down on my desk just thinking about him.

He is the most depraved video game infantilised manchild degeneracy. He is Saturday morning cartoons. He is non-neurotypicality. He is memes. He is video game. He is Inarritu. He is IMDB.

Even with flaws, it is better than the original in almost every way.

>>throwaway, cringe-inducingly staged introduction to the replicant "army", complete with a very long and inconsequential monologue from a one-eyed lady who we don't care about, all just to reveal that K was not the special child
only valid point

I don't think villains need to be relatable, but in cyberpunk, and following with the themes of the first movie I don't think there should necessarily be "villains" at all, and Wallace was way too close to a two-dimensional villain.

pfft

it's a 5 minute scene in a nearly 3 hour long movie, and doesn't follow through with the replicant rebellion bs anyhow. it was just needed to quickly develop k's character and transform into the real human bean.

The score was bad.

It's an ok movie. It's not deep it looks nice

i felt it was a very sneed-feed kafekeesque egalitarian treaty on hedonistic and nihlistic politics with a wicked sense of humour

this, I actually even got some Lovecraftian vibes witnessing the massive, Giger-esque statues in the films utterly enthralling depiction of post-apocalyptic Taskovsky-esque Las Vegas.

dont ever reply to me again

This.

The original film is unbelievably overrated. I can respect all the milestones it set for cyberpunk as a whole, but holy shit it just makes me snore half the time.

The new film is just far better, except for the final fight. The original at least did that better.

And what have you achieved?

You're missing the point, the original is /snoozecore/ kino. It's one of my favorite movies and I fall asleep almost every time I watch it.

I wish you were joking man... you need to learn to appreciate good art. Say what you want about the originals script or storyline, but its world (production/set design), music, and originality are so far above 2049 its not even debatable. 2049 will be forgotten; the original has lived on forever for a reason.

Was the ending leading up to a sequel? Deckard can't even leave with that girl considering her weakened immune system and there are still a lot of unanswered questions right?

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to admit that the original Blade Runner is shit. It got terrible reviews and bombed when it first came out.
Public opinion only changed because nerds found it in video stores and couldn't stop creaming their pants over it.

Yes, it looks great, but Harrison Ford gives the worst performance of his entire career.
Every character besides Roy is paper thin and uninteresting.
The story has no interesting ideas to offer and only like 5 things happen in the movie but it's stretched over the course of almost two hours.
And the soundtrack is boring as fuck.

the version that went to theaters deserved shit reviews though, it's completely different in tone from the Directors Cut/ Final Cut, which are the versions that receive praise.

>A movie with bad acting, bad writing, and a boring story can be a masterpiece

Final Cut is still dog shit.

no, this movie was great and there's 0 justification for a sequel.

it legitimately is better than the original.
take off those rose tinted glasses and put on these shiny new 3d ones

*tips fedora*

Adeu my good sir

>l considering her weakened immune system
Figured that was just a cover to keep people from being around her, and the suspense of their meeting was meant to be as liberating for one as the other when the truth gets out.

Pretty much. But I dont think any of those three aspects are bad in the original BR, and most would agree with me. Its a masterwork in its own right.

...

>sci-fi Mary from Children of men
>love scene from Her
>ambiguous hero death from Shane
>pleasure city statues from AI
2049 has it's finger in too many pies to be anything close to the original.

I've only seen Her.

>when you stumble upon a meme thread about kino runner

Fuck off

>>unrelatable villains with le take over the universe motivation
where the fuck does Wallace say that he wants to 'take over' the universe??

keep your bs hot takes to yourself brahhh

chuckfuckish-sneedesque kinographical post right here, truly a deviant devilish diversion from the diluted and dormant dwellings. i salute u, my good and noble sir, because ur post has enlightend me to the most lovecraftian of heights, and the very lynchesque juh nuh say kwa of these dubs check em

>Shitty Hans Zimmer empty score that teases bits from the original Vangelis score but never adds anything new or substantial, and then predictably falls back on the original score at the end
This is the most disappointing part desu

He says he wants the replicants to be "billions and then trillions" and expand across the universe. This is his stated reason for wanting to give replicants the ability to reproduce, because he can "only make so many".

>unrelatable villains with le take over the universe motivation
Stopped reading here. Opinion discarded. Op is still a fag.

He's not wrong. Wallace was cringe

Nah he just wants that many so humanity can colonize more planets. He outright expresses his dissatisfaction at humanity's stagnation

Yes it's about power for him, and having a giant "expendable workforce" of slaves to build his dream civilization upon

>And the soundtrack is boring as fuck.
Pleb test

He just wants to play god over his replicants, not necessarily with all of humanity. Also that makes him totally relatable. Who the fuck doesn't want to do that if they had the opportunity

I wish he would have just implied he felt sleighted that he couldn't surpass tyrell

The film repeatedly depicts him as cold and borderline sadistic, while the replicants are depicted as having humanity. He is not relatable. Compare him to Tyrell in the first film, who is deeply sympathetic to Roy's struggle, but unable to help him. Tyrell was involved in morally questionable activity but his character was depicted as having depth morality, and empathy. Wallace is depicted as being cold and robotic, and having le cool blind sonar drone eyes.

Nah it depicts him as ambitious and a man of progress. He just wants humanity to own the stars, a goal anyone can get behind. He just has to break an egg or two in the process and it's not like he doesn't offer fantastic deals for those people as an alternative.

...

So you think the goal of the scene where he slits open a female replicant's uterus and then delivers a monologue as she bleeds to death was to establish that he was an ambitious man of progress? Keep in mind that this is our introduction to him, and it's literally the only scene we see of him before the scene where he monologues again to Deckard who he has had kidnapped, because he is seeking to perform experiments on Deckard's daughter, so he offers a creepy copy of Deckards dead lover and then has her shot in the head in front of him when he refuses. Then he tries to take Deckard off-world to to teach him the meaning of pain. It really doesn't seem like the writers were trying to make him seem at all relatable, and if they did try it seems like they did a pretty awful job

didn't find Tyrell to be too relatable in his two scenes either

Yes? It establishes that the replicants he made
1. do not fight back and are willing to give their lives to preserve humanity over their own, essential for his ambitions.
2. have hit a roadblock in development and desperately need to find the key to unlock the problem in order to fulfill his dreams for a better humanity.
3. that he's basically like Steve Jobs throwing away a scratched iPod from the assembly line to maintain a perfect product.

There was literally nothing creepy about Deckard's dead lover and K came to his own understanding the very next scene of artificial love and whether or not it matters if it's "real." Deckard did not and voluntarily let his own waifu get blown away. Deckard himself chose that path, a path that would likely lead to war or extermination. If anything, that's not relatable at all.

He's not extremely relatable but Wallace is straight up depicted as a bond-tier villain. I'm not sure how anyone could convince themselves otherwise

So you're saying they are trying to realistically depict him as an extremely autistic hyper results-oriented emotionless engineer guy. How is that relatable?

What Bond villain literally saved the world and is pretty much the only thing still putting food on the table for all of humanity?

I dunno. Why do people like Steve Jobs even though he was a hyper autistic daughter hating results-oriented idea thief marketing guy?

fucking epic bants but you're wrong

Ok, is this a good film to take a girl to? I don't mean will she understand it or anything I don't care about that. Does it foster a romantic atmosphere?

Definitely not because he's relatable. He's a sort of messianic figure.

Nah he's pretty relatable. An ambitious go getter that actually succeeded by pushing the envelope and put his sleek dumb products in the houses of just about everyone.

Maybe 'aspirational' is what you're thinking of?

My girlfriend liked it more than I did for whatever that's worth

That's one way to relate to someone

>Does it foster a romantic atmosphere?
Haha. sure

Although there were some younger guys that came out behind me exclaiming that they couldn't believe that a movie so boring could get 90% on RT. Take that as you will.

>unrelatable villains with le take over the universe motivation
Stopped reading there. Riddick eye man never expressed any ambition beyond making replicants reproduce so humanity could have more of them. Literally wasnt even a bad guy

See

He was depicted as a bad guy lol.

He was depicted as an antagonist with an opposing world view, not a bad guy

We deserve the endless capeshit we are getting.

He was depicted as someone who thinks replicants are tools to be used. Nothing more.

He was a bussinessman who wanted to speed up his productionline and as replicants aren't even seen as a person it would be the same as making reproducing iphones so that he could sell more of them.

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UUUUPP
he was a bad guy didnt you see how he killed that woman wahh

I like the idea of him being ambiguous, and I can appreciate that he wanted to advance humanity, but at some point you have to acknowledge how his character was actually portrayed lol: monologing as a woman bleeds to death, having a copy of a man's lover shot in front of him, telling a man he will teach him the true meaning of pain. The writers made zero effort to make him relatable, and they could have, because I agree his motivations could have been laid out without turning him into a bond villain, but that's just not the way his character was handled.

Half the people spouting "kino this and kino that" haven't even watched the original. This is an ok sequel with great visuals, it doesn't come close to 1982 Blade Runner.

>lol
Is this some /reddit/ pasta you're spouting?

To me it is depressing and doesn't really present any interesting ideas.
It's quite pretty in some parts tho.

That matters lmao. He was depicted as an edgy monologuing bad guy, and it was totally unnecessary.

Well maybe since I'm a millenial brainlet I cant appreciate the original. I've watched it 4 times and every time it bores me to no end even though it has some highlights.

The new one gets a similar message and theme across without being a snoozefest

Not an argument ;^)

>bad guy
But he literally wasnt. Edgy and monologing and detached yes, someone to whom ends justify the means. But not an evil guy

>monologing as a woman
>woman
see there's the problem. It's not a woman, it's a tool. It's not even an uncommon opinion. K and Deckard are literally out there doing the same thing.

>copy of a man's lover shot in front of him
Deckard's choice. Still just a tool in his eyes.

>telling a man he will teach him the true meaning of pain
It was already established that Deckard loves pain. What that entails may simply be directly extracting the knowledge from his head so he lives on knowing all his sacrifices were in vain, even though such a sacrifice may end up saving the world.

The original is one of my favorite films of all time, I have it sitting in my small strict collection under my TV right now. It's a visually beautiful film with a great plot and philosophical overtones

That being said, I love Blade Runner 2049 too. In some ways not nearly as much, in some ways even more

There are no individual scenes in BR1983 that resonate with me as strongly as the BR2049 advertisement Scene, and the threesome scene. Maybe I have a personal connection through being a nolife loser who wants a holographic AI waifu

I love everything about this film basically except
>Scenes where K's boss talks
>Underground resistance scenes
>Harrison Ford scenes desu they seemed kind of cliched
>Ending where Harrison touches the window (should have ended with real human bean dying in the snow)

Nah. Seen the original, like the new one better. Had a friend that has seen every version and considers it one of his favorites and prefers the new one too.

I mean, 2049 is only more drawn out, has a bunch of long scenes with minimal dialogue, every potentially atmospheric scene being overridden by BWAHVROOOOOOM(s)

Can you define snoozefest? In this case, all I can glean is you thinking a film being loud and abrasive makes it exciting than something intriguing and well paced.

>Scenes where K's boss talks
Fuck off Joshi was best girl

I knew that by referring to the replicant as a woman I was leaving myself open to that argument, but the replicants in the film are established as having humanity. To Wallace they are just tools, because Wallace is depicted as having zero humanity.

Its a good movie experience but a bad film

this

But it does depict Wallace as having humanity. He clearly is ambitious in regards to humanity's survival and improvement. He is shown to want to expand the human race through his production of tools, he is shown to care for humanity as a species by creating a desperately needed supply of food, he gives Luv orders not to kill any humans unless absolutely necessary, and he offers Deckard the impossible even when he can just outright extract the information from him without a single care.

Hans (((Zimmer))) did like 15% of the OST

Don't act like Villeneuve hasn't been all about the BRRRMS for the last 3 films.

I liked the soundtrack, sure it did nothing new but it was nice homage to Vangelis

I think you're overexaggerating and because this is Sup Forums and because every time there's a good movie this sort of contrarian stuff starts crawling around a few days after the wave of euphoria passes.

OP is not correct.
OP is just the pendulum swinging the other way.

OP here. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but Blade Runner is one of my favorites and I keep seeing 2049 praised as being as good as or better than the original. And it's not. I'm using some of the Sup Forums buzzwords but this is genuinely how I feel about the movie. I would give it a 7/10

one pleb's opinion

if I'm to be perfectly honest

No u