The problem with dystopian fiction is that it tends to be one-sided...

The problem with dystopian fiction is that it tends to be one-sided. Good for Villeneuve because he barely manages more than one tone per film.

It also has a bad track record of actually becoming true.

To label this film science-fiction in 2017 is either offensive or ignorant. Why the hell would someone create androids when we already have evidence that the human body is not the most efficient for labor? And why wouldn’t they just have a killswitch?

Blade Runner 2049 is really just a continuation of ideas people had half a century ago. It’s even worse than the usual 80s nostalgia because this demonstrates a complete dismissal of current progress and is ignorant to more likely predictions.

We‘re either heading towards a positive future with technological progress where humans are subservient to our AI overlords or we become part of a hivemind utopia.
Or something terrible happens and we have something apocalyptic like The Walking Dead.

Blade Runner 2049 has the audacity to project a future with human AI, flying cars and fancy gadgets but earth pretty much in ruins. Human AI that never transcends human intelligence? We’ve already seen that’s unlikely (Chess, Go, Dota, self-driving cars etc). And does anyone seriously believe we‘re getting flying cars before solving the energy and climate crisis? Lmao.

This movie is another example of unimaginative fantasy masquerading as sci-fi. It requires tremendous suspension of disbelief in order to convey themes for almost three hours that have been covered much better in a short story 50 years ago. Embarrassing.

(You)

just say it's kino or reddit garbage
you're not supposed to write out why shits shit/why somethings good in spic/tv/

/film/ WHEN

>this demonstrates a complete dismissal of current progress

like WHAT?

>Human AI that never transcends human intelligence? We’ve already seen that’s unlikely (Chess, Go, Dota, self-driving cars etc).

whoever wrote this knows NOTHING about AI.

I think this film really shows us what it means through its characters or is ist just a job that comes along, i think they are masters in what they do and have a real love for cinema. The human aspect along with slave aspect all tie in to what it really means in different ways emotionally and physical of who is human or what it means to be human and the more times you watch the movie you get the same story but you get a different perspective. One time i focused more on luv and she gives us the same story through a different lens and I was blown away by how much there is to her story and how much it paralels the resistance and k's arc and then you focus on joi and you just a real sense of what the directors where ultimatly trying to say

>Why the hell would someone create androids
Why would Saudi Arabia grant one of them citizenship?

Another of those posters who didn't understand that the replicants aren't fucking robots with AI but manufactured humans.

> Complaining about realism in a science fiction film.

reminder under the skin was better

gay effort poast
heres your (You) to make you feel less alone
i tend to agree that the whole dystopian future with flying cars backdrop is played out and unimaginative.

i'm also getting bored with the whole "lol are robots even real human beans" angle.

pretty much everything has been done to death at this point and if you truly want to make innovative stories it's going to veer into very weird uncomfortable truths like the idea that certain people want to be genetically modified to be furries.

the actual future is just going to be similar to now but with slightly more tech. it's still going to be boring and jewfaggotized. it'll be dystopia for sure though. there's gonna be trannies, niggers and muslims everywhere and basically all cities will either look like complete shit, e.g. new york, detroit, or they will be hyper-tech like tokyo if it's a majority white/asian populace.

it's not that hard to picture 20 years into the future. now, picturing 100+ yrs into the future is harder.

Source for those? I only heard of the hivemind in herzog's internet film.
Genuinely interested

>historically, science-fiction stories were intended to have a grounding inscience-based fact or theoryat the time the story was created

Movies genre is called Cyberpunk. What did you expect?

I want the mods to give /film/ another chance.

The problem with 2049 is that it had Gosling AND Leto. One alone is already guaranteed to make a movie unwatchable to anyone but nu-males and tumblrettes.

true

I think you missed the point where it was 30 years in the original Bladerunner's future, not our future. Obviously, tech and society progressed differently than what ours have.

The Bladerunner universe in the original was a shitcan. The earth literally looked like it crapped its pants and then people put a bunch of a billboards over it and called it a day. 30 years later, it hasn't improved very much and arguably got worse since they don't have a lot of real food anymore and eat worms.

I actually liked that about this movie instead of, for instance, watching Prometheus and seeing that they have tech so vastly different than what was in the Alien movies.

This.
You think the USSR add would tip people off but no

Not coming true isn’t a fault in dystopian fiction. It presents a posibility. You’re taking it too literally, because you have a low iq.

You want multiple tones in one film?