Just saw this for the first time

Just saw this for the first time.
You are literally a retarded pleb if you think 2049 is anywhere near as good.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7ir-bCPOBYk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

dubs makes this truth

seriously though, 2049 was anything but good. It was relatively mediocre, had serious pacing issues, and beat its only good qualities (aesthetic and sound design) to death.

I brought my old man to see the new one. He said he remembers taking my mom to see he original when he was my age. All he did on the car ride home was complain about how shit the new one is compared to the old one. It's funny listening to old people get so mad about silly things like movies.

Wait, so you just saw this, yet you already know the quality of 2049? You're telling me you watched 2049 before this? Or are you just upset that Sup Forums likes the sequel?

Never heard of it

I thought this went without saying

are you telling me there are really people who think 2049 is superior?

if you just watched this just >>>/reddit/

Why?
>Ur retarded
isnt very insightful.

The original has groundbreaking aesthetics, some classic scenes and a wonderful finale. In many ways it's better than 2049. But there's a case to be made for 2049's own design, direction especially, performances. Both great.

>watches classic film for the first time thirty-five (35) years after it's release
>calls others pleb
There's the door. Enjoy your subreddit, pleb

2049 is better

I feel sorry for people who thought that the world actually need a sequel to BR, and actually went out and paid a ticket to see it.

And people here talk about how cancerous Hollywood is when they themselves are perpetuating the cancer.

Literally most people online they are plebs

omg literally?

>had serious pacing issues

You thought Sup Forumseddit wetent hypocrites?

Yes, anyone who isnt a rabid nostalgia fag

BR - 8
BR 2049 - 7

I'm not actually underage and saw this movie like 15 years ago.

2049 is so much better.

THANK YOU this guy gets it
I feel like we were born in the wrong generation. *sigh*

Can you explain why though?

Yea don't support high budget R rated uncompromising movies.

You're right but it's not like 2049 is complete shit. It would almost be better if it was some standalone project, it wouldn't have to live up to the original

>had serious pacing issues
I know you think that sound savvy but, like what?

>BR - 6.5
Has great visuals, soundtrack, and villain that's it
>BR 2049 - 9
>Great visuals
>Competent soundtrack
>Much better protagonist, character arc
>Much better romance (which is ironic)
>Actually has a plot
>Better acting all around. Harrison Ford even gives a better performance than the original
>Luv was great
>Massive use of practical effects and barely any greenscreen despite being made in 2017

Happy 18th birthday user.

accurate points

Ye I didn't think very highly of the original although the set pieces and costumes were fucking amazing. Great soundtrack too. Haven't seen the sequel tho

Haven't seen the sequel, is the soundtrack anything near as good as the TRON: Legacy soundtrack? That movie bumped up a point or two to me just cause of the soundtrack.

>never watched blade runner before
>calls people plebs
Oh the ironing

Agreed.

At least half an hour if not more could have been entirely cut from the movie

Fury Road was a better revival and I can honestly see how you could think that it's better than the originals

The protagonist was a wooden plank.

>I'm not special, maybe I am, no I'm not, I guess I'll randomly do something good fuck it, I'm dead

If that counts as a character arc then so does a day of me doing chores and running random errands

No. 2049 is literally better in every conceivable way.

Again, like what? What didnt the film need, what cuts, etc. Films are about more than what happens, but how it happens.

Time for your nightly dilation session sweetie

>You are literally a retarded pleb
they are proshills(or probably just one with many persocoms just samefaging) and they get pay to be retarded.

profesional samefaging sound like something dick would come up.

It's "trips of truth" you fucking plebbit tourist

like how ryan gosling needs to take 5 minutes to open a fucking box. kys and fuck off

The original had a better soundtack, although 2049 had some good stuff

Please name the parts that should have been cut

What do you expect from a board full of autistic plebs? They can't detect good acting or kino.

>kys and fuck off
About the level of discourse i'd expect. Thanks for dropping the pretense.

The resistance

This. We need to ignore the fucks claiming it far surpasses the original. They know nothing about cinema.

Kek what? Is this really all you asshurt nostalgia fags have?

Oh, so it was bad acting now? That's a new one.

>The protagonist was a wooden plank.
I mean he is a replicant after all, they aren't supposed to have lots of emotions.

K basically discovers his humanity despite his conditioning. Simplifying a plot down like that doesn't make it bad or prove your point.

lmao, that scene was like 5 minutes long and integral to the plot.

I'm just glad BR2049 wasn't filled with DUCKADUCKADUCKA samey shitty synthwave, and that the soundtrack was an audio tour de force clearly inspired by Vangelis and built upon.

Was afraid it would be filled with DUCKADUCKADUCKAshit to appease faggy millennials, glad I was wrong

I have… seen things you people wouldn't believe… A fully working Ubisoft game on the day of release. I watched the low resolution graphics of Xbone games shimmer in the shabbily upscaled dark crushed blacks near the Bill 'Tannhäuser' Gates. All those… dropped frames on PS4… will be lost in time, like [small cough] salty tears… in… rain. Time… to buy a gaming PC…

agreed it was a good mix, the vangelis moments, like over the waterfall were transcendent.

I liked 2049 just because it reminded of EYE
youtube.com/watch?v=7ir-bCPOBYk

Those are the major beats everyone says when defining his character arc and its climax doesn't justify its build up.

If he isn't supposed to have emotions than he isn't interesting, we real humans in the real world have real emotions and characters that do are the ones that we connect with the most. Fuck man even finding nemo and walle had non human characters that still had emotion.

I'd have to re-watch it to give you an in depth answer. Scenes I can think of off the top of my head are the forensics scene that took 5 minutes to zoom in on some bones, then another 5 minutes to react to it. Even in the original, it might be drawn out but its actually Deckard doing forensic work, having to analyze and figure out if there's anything important in the photo. In 2049 they have tech that can do it instantly.
Another was K's death scene. Totally melodramatic and out of place. Another was K wandering through the old city, looking at all the statues as if that was supposed to mean something.

The problem was that the movie was really trying so hard to push the philosophical ideas, that it spent way too much time on it. We already knew what the idea was when the Captain told K "You're doing fine without a soul," and even at that point we already had the gist of it. There were SO many scenes that should've been edited, and we're dragging out the point to the extent that it had scrape marks on its bare ass

>If he isn't supposed to have emotions than he isn't interesting
A lot of it read as allegorical to suppressing or not being in touch with emotions subtextually

You are right
They should have shortened those scenes and went with the original 8-minute Baseline sequence
It would be true kino experience

That's pretty nice t b h

>You are right
Agreed

i liked both i hope that ok

the bandwagoning is millennials trying to culturally appropriate the classics of the past and pass them off as their own or that they own them or belong to it

2049 is trash, in so many ways

blade runner is a classic for a reason

like first 15 mins if you arent blown away by blade runner youre a fucking pleb

first 15 minutes of 2049 is cringe and tryhards trying to be deep and philosophical about some lame ass murder

no wojek
u mst chose

I thought they were both just ok, but still good sci-fi movies
BR had amazing visuals (not just for its time), great atmosphere and a wonderful villain. But it dropped the ball on the themes from the book and was pretty surface level

2049 had good visuals, but they weren't as memorable as BR. The giant JOI scene, replicant birthing, and the walk through radiation were probably the best. But none of those come even close to the shot in the Tyrell headquarters with the sunset through the window. It expanded greatly on the ideas but it also beat the crap out them.

i saw 2049 with my 64 year old father who is a huge fan of the original and he loves the new one

HIS NAME
IS
FUCKING
FEELSGUY!

The replicant giving birth revelation was enormous and the plot, and individual scene needed time to sit and breathe before properly dropping it for maximum effect. Simply showing them chillin in the lab, 'what's that?' 'Oh shit whaat!?' aaand scene. Would feel rushed and cheap like most Blockbusters.

K's death was beautiful as he selflessly had the power to choose to give his life to perform an act of grace. Especially after finding out the meaning he thought might exist in his life didnt. I don't know how it was melodramatic or out of place as he was the protagonist and of course his death is supposed to be affecting.

K making his way through the once irradiated wasteland of Vegas was meant to feel grand and mythic, he really was on a quest as his boss said these revelations could upset the entire world order. It also served to set Deckard's entrance up in a momentous way.

It hardly spent *any* time on philosophical ideas. The script was such that any exposition was tied into emotion, subtext, and plot progression rather than a lesser talent like Nolan droning on about his ideas with endless exposition. The soul line was perfectly apt and affecting.

>"All the color scheme was controlled in camera & this gives it a reality I doubt it would have had if left to post" -Roger Deakins

I think 2049 is an incredible film and a worthy sequel, but there's just something so hypnotic about the original. Not to mention that few films can capture a moment on the level of Roy's death, which is just heartbreakingly beautiful. Still think the new one was great, though

>silly things like movies

am i on reddit or something?

>64 posts
>Only one person has acknowledged that OP watched 2049 before the original

>tfw everybody now likes the final cut

What the fuck is wrong with you all, deckards narration and him bein a replicant ruined everything

>reddit spacing
>using the terms "millennial", "culturally appropriate", "cringe", "deep" and "lame"
>says 2049 is trash "in so many ways" but is incapable of expanding on said ways
>claims blade runner is a classic "for a reason" without specifying said reason
>writes like a fucking child using "like" at the start of the sentence

This is either the most masterfully executed troll or the most pathetic defence of a film I've ever seen. Most millennials have more intelligence than you

so?

So just slowing down scenes makes movies better "to give room for maximum impact" . That kind of just cheapens everything if that were true.

I saw it with my parents and they liked it

>deckards narration is in the final cut
are you retarded?

>him being a replicant ruined everything
And you think the hokey and tonally ill-fitting scene of Deckard riding off into the sunset with Rachel at the end was better?

Never watch Kiarostami.

I was actually going to respond to your post until i saw
>It hardly spent *any* time on philosophical ideas.

It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. The entire focus of the movie was on the question of 'What does it mean to be human.' Nearly every aspect of every scene of the movie focused on that point. Joi, Wallace's replicant assistant, K's misgiving that he was human, the replicant revolution, Deckard's daughter, etc. Even small scenes where the librarian tries to fuck K because she thinks it might make her more human, or when Deckard argues that he had to leave the daughter in order to give her a life.
But thanks for making this post, because now I know that any time I argue with one of you 2049 dick-suckers they're all going to be as retarded as you.

>I was actually going to respond
You just did you fucking retard lmao
I obviously meant exposition more or less, or thought you meant it. If you're talking about the central conceits of the film in general. What it means to be human, etc. Of fucking course the movie is going to spend time on its themes. But there's a way to do so elegantly, poetically, baked into the plot, which is what Based Denny did. Fuck you.

>tonally ill-fitting scene of Deckard riding off into the sunset

Nevermind tonally ill-fitting, it wasn't even from the same movie. It was scrap footage from "The Shining" that Kubrick let them use.

>"I never include more than two colors in a given scene" -Roger Deakins

both blade runners are fun light hearted sci fi romps. i dont see why people act like the first one is such a classic

This is who fucking posts here. Good god.

Got any actual arguments or?

i like the first one but harrison ford's acting in it is so weird. I dont really get what he was going for.
>hhhes a replicant get it
no hes not.

The problem with the Theatrical vs. Final cut and Deckard is a human or not debate is that if you pick one, the other comes with it.

If you are dead set on Deckard being a human, you have to prefer the Theatrical Cut, since the Final Cut is very clear that Deckard is a replicant. The Final Cut was made so Ridley Scott could nuke the whole debate.

My argument is that Blade Runner 2049 doesn’t touch the orignal. My reasons are: sterile production design, derivative soundtrack with only a couple standout tracks, rushed third act (should have either been 20 minutes longer or cut some earlier scenes), unoriginal both aesthetically and in its narrative style AND in its general plot. It’s a solid 7.5 but the original is a 9 LITERALLY on visuals and sound alone. I believe that 2049 has a stronger narrative but that’s it. It will be forgotten in time. Like tears...in rain. And before you say my argument is weak, yeah I’m not writing a fucking essay.

>I believe that 2049 has a stronger narrative but that’s it. It will be forgotten in time

director's cut in a few year's. Make more money on Bluray sales. The film is going to be flogged until it makes its money back.

If it gets a legitimate directors cut with an 8 minute long baseline test and an extended third act that reframes the resistance shit it will be much better to me. The pacing is one of the strong points, so I don’t mind if it’s a bit longer.

The baseline shit is already forced and overdone as it is. It's like something from a Hunger Games film.

Also Villeneuve doesn't do director's cuts.

the entire fight scene between K and Deckard was completely unnecessary and difficult to sit through.

>not liking the baseline scenes
they are unironically some of the best in the film

An 8 minute version would be an intense audiovisual experience, plebs couldn’t handle it.

...

they are really not great. Once you become aware of how overly reliant Villeneuve's style is on pretentious minimalism, almost all of the charm is lost.

>duuude slow deliberate pacing, and constant tension built with creeping dolly-in's and an ominous bassy score lmao

it's gimmicky

BUT ITS KEEENOO
BASED LE DENNY
BASED DEAKINS
BASED GOOSE BECAUSE I WAS HERE FOR DRIVE BUT WANT TO FEEL LIKE I WAS

They're not.

It's trying way too hard to project an oppressive dystopia. Shouting mnemonics at the audience is the most cliche way to do it.

What about the fifteen minute scene in the original where deckard is zooming in on an image roy batty took, or the useless scene of him pretending to be a peep hole fixer with a nasaly voice or the constant scenes where deckard drinks alone a fucks around on the piano for no reason. Not to mention the retarded unicorn scene. Face it the originals pacing was seriously fucked, the story was basic with no where near the amount of moving parts as 2049. That being said those roy batty scenes make it all worth it.

Quentin always reminds me of Roasted.

2049 is a way better film. Anything else is just nostalgia

>BR had amazing visuals (not just for its time), great atmosphere and a wonderful villain. But it dropped the ball on the themes from the book and was pretty surface level
>2049 had good visuals, but they weren't as memorable as BR. The giant JOI scene, replicant birthing, and the walk through radiation were probably the best. But none of those come even close to the shot in the Tyrell headquarters with the sunset through the window. It expanded greatly on the ideas
I agree with all of this.

I consider the first Blade Runner a dogshit movie, but can't deny the memorable/more interesting visuals, great villain and atmosphere.

>Face it the originals pacing was seriously fucked, the story was basic with no where near the amount of moving parts as 2049. That being said those roy batty scenes make it all worth it.
what I like about the original is the way every scene feels like its own thing, the best scenes like Rachael's Voigt-Kampf test scene and the fight at the end up to and including tears in rain just have such striking visual force. the dialogue often goes along with this but relies on the imagery to push it forward.
>have you ever retired a human by mistake?
>...
>no.
it takes deckard a little while to reply but why is this? it's not because he's thinking about it. deckard isn't a pensive guy. he hasn't given this stuff much thought, IMO, not since he quite the force and probably not much then. he got out because he was a selfish danger-averse alcoholic who sensed that it was getting too dangerous.
there's a pause there to let the visuals sink in, the light from the windows, and then the closing of the blinds, tyrell's entrance, his glasses. the movie's pacing is built around making an impression on you, but it's still trying to tell a coherent self-contained narrative. it doesn't do a great job. a lot is left unsaid.
2049 says more and takes longer to say it, but on the central questions of the first movie it remains silent, prodding the themes further while closing off avenues of inquiry.
>Is it real?
>I dunno, ask him.
not
>are you real?
>that's for me to know and you to find out
or
>are you real?
>*10-minute fight scene where K blows off Deckard's head and finds gears and circuits in his neck
or
>are you real?
>no, and I"m with the resistance
it skirts around the issues
and then Wallace's experiment gets shut down when Deckard refuses to mate with his Angel Rachael.
the movie reminded me of The Divine Invasion more than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and that's a good thing