Blade Runner 2049 Hate Thread BR LOVERS NOT WELCOME

>le miracle child
>bad guys kill people so edgy xD
>muh slavery
>muh replicate rights
>tfw brainlets will think this movie had a deep meaning about life
You're just paying for the atmosphere. The cyberpunk fantasy. You really can't name anything that's philosophically remarkable about this movie.

(You)

If you hate the movie so much why don't you just stop talking and thinking about it?

stick to video games

...

is this the dumbest post anyone has ever made on Sup Forums?

I saw it today.

Has absolutely no reason to be 3 hours long. Visuals are nice but the movie puts you to fucking sleep.

Also, its a movie that you really have to watch twice, but theres no incentive to watch the movie again when it takes up a fourth of my day.

>Have to watch it twice

Lol fucking brainlet

...

nice arguments there brshitters

it was aight

...

Blade Runner 2049 is a phenomenal film.

I refuse to watch this movie because I hate that stupid bland pos goose and will never watch any of his movies.

You better kill yourself before I find you.

>I le drive XD

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.

Why is this a pasta? It's actually a pretty stupid post

This movie is videogames, Sup Forums

You think I'm joking?

it's reddit

To any of you pathetic meme drones that keeps saying Blade Runner 2049 flopped:
>Arrival
>Production cost: 47 million dollars
>Domestic total: 100.5 million dollars

>Blade Runner 2049
>Production cost: 150 million dollars
>Domestic total: 81 million dollars

That's just domestic; BR2049 has seen tremendous success everywhere else
Blade Runner 2049 is getting 9s and 10s all over the fucking field, and will be remembered as one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time
Do you really think making an estimated domestic 19 million dollars less is considered a flop?

I want Sup Forums to leave

Why do entry level plebs love this flick so much? Is it because they're underexposed to actual film and cinema??

>bresson, Fellini, Goddard the list goes on and on

If you don't acknowledge Blade Runner for the achievement that it is, you are the biggest entry level pleb and you know nothing about the art of film-making

>Sup Forums, /wg/ and /got/
jesus christ the rumors are tru

Are Luvers welcome?

Sorry hit alt s to quick
Theres supposed to be a jab at you posting on Sup Forums too, election tourist

>triggered over ancient reaction image
Yes the rumors are true your mother is a whore. Now fuck off back where you came from you parasite.

Blade Runner is fantastic and pure kino

What a surprise no one has any credible arguments why this movie is so deep and amazing. Just people spamming (You) and b8. I swear you fucks are drones parroting whatever the hivemind of Sup Forums says. I want to like this movie because i enjoyed the original but i left it feeling it was average at best. Why is it so amazing it just feels like a dude tfw no gf movie lmao

Why are you using language thats been used against you, /vg/ scum? I mean it makes sense that you're in favor of general culture too considering your use of image, your posting on Sup Forums, and le witcherxD

Cringe.

I don't see your power of argumentation either
>average
>memes
There was actually more discussion about this movie than the average when it came out, but now the retard contrarian parasites invaded

>What a surprise no one has any credible arguments why this movie is so deep and amazing
did you read the op?

Agreed. 2049 is trash

don't forget
>dude holograms feel love too lmao

It's dishonest

If you thought the movie was actually about slavery or rights, you missed the point. That's important to the story, but not the central issue (which is whether or not the replicants are 'real').
Moreover, the villain isn't explicitly evil. He explains outright why he is able to disregard the replicants as conscious beings (humanity has lost its appetite for slavery, but it still needs slaves). He makes a legitimate point and has the legitimate support of a new line of replicants that legitimately believe in their place as slaves.

The goal of the revolutionaries is never depicted as realistic, and their number is probably profoundly small by comparison, not to mention they're physically weaker. They have an opportunity through the work the girl does through implants for wallace, but little else.

The main character disregards the central theme of the movie completely. He doesn't care if replicants are real or not. He doesn't care if the revolutionaries succeed or not. He just protects what is important to him when he can.

Avatar made more sense. At the end, Jake Sully turns into one of them.

Only way BR makes sense if Ryan Gosling would upload his brain (cells interlink) to see if his waifu recognized him.

>Miracle child
Established in the movie before it, and not particularly miraculous considering that they're a new generation of replicants not the old ones
>Bad guys kill people
Pretty standard in most movies idiot.
>Slavery
That's how a replicant that's built to obey orders exclusively would feel no?
>Replicant rights
A conscious being that is forced to obey the order to kill itself doesn't deserve any rights?
>MUH contrarianism.
/thread.

>A conscious being that is forced to obey the order to kill itself doesn't deserve any rights?
Part of the movie was to show you the executive's henchman/woman character which might not necessarily want rights.
She sees exactly how much respect Wallace has for replicants, and still believes wholly in his vision, to the point where she actually dies for him.
Never in any practical sense does she show doubt or hesitation about her role.

You should also think about the fact that Wallace doesn't actually see any retribution in the movie.
The movie very much leaves who is right up in the air.
The wallace corporation is certainly depicted as menacing and without much respect for human life, but their methods are never refuted or called into question.
They've fully delved into the ends justifying the means.
Wallace has a god complex, but in many senses it might be justified.

This is what makes Villeneuve's films interesting.
He never settles for simple and easy moralizing.

Why are they still casting Jared Leto?

I wouldn't say that she agreed with him that much really. She obviously felt badly about watching him murder a replicant infront of her.

I always got the impression that she was more compelled to do things out of spite against Joe than because she agreed with Wallace. Her actions are still ultimately in accordance, but I thought that when it showed that she was so far off base-line that she was becoming more of a person.

Her agreeing with the need for replicants doesn't change the fact that she might not like them mistreated either.

She seems startled, sure, but never are we given any solid indication that she feels any remorse.
She does the exact same thing herself to the Rachel recreation near the end of the film.
She never hesitated, she never showed guilt.
She showed impatience and anger when her success became less certain.

>br lovers not welcome

Why don't you like battle royale, user?

how so?

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

Well this part is especially stupid , shows whoever wrote this has no idea what they're talking about

There's definitely a hint of something when she knows she will have to kill Rachel. It's too subtle though.

OP here. When Joe saw the big hologram that resembles his dead fake girlfriend, he was confused about reality. That's why, as a replicant whose humanity was defined by fake memories, he finally decided to fight for the "good cause" for self-actualization. That's the main point of the movie, and it's really easy to understand. What can possibly be deep about this?

question from someone who hasnt seen it

why does everyone only talk about joi, deckard, wallace and luv? maybe one or two people comment on the soundtrack and visuals. a majority talk about the runtime.

no one talks about the plot or dialog. is it a good plot? it seems just like the first film, detective hunts down replicants. although it looks like they merged deckard and batty into one character for the sequel.

is it good dialog? what about the wardrobe? hows the setting, does it feel like a real world like ridley and syd mead dreamt up? or does it just feel like a tool trying to recreate the magic without any talent? missing entirely the point that the world is not supposed to be focused on , but the characters.

i've seen the bautista clip, it looked good. but then i hear he dies pretty quick. the original was full of character actors c emmet walsh, brian james, rutger hauer, edward james olmos, etc.

the new film not so much?

is leto fucking terrible like he always is?

is gooseman fucking terrible like he always is? i liked him in big short but thats about it. he gets repetitive quick (the nice guys) or drive.

also, listening to the soundtrack, it sounds like zimmer shits on vangelis. i understand tennisball villageman wanted his buddy to score it (e.g. copy vangelis) and his sound buddy said no. so zimmer was brought in to copy. everyone says zimmers shit was mixed too loud, and remembering both batmans and inception i see this as a worrying trend.

the original BR is a deeply flawed film that has serious pacing and tone issues. it makes up for it with atmosphere and quality craftsmanship.

people in this thread brought up avatar and prometheus. while they are well crafted films, the retarded parts, characters, plot, dialog ruin the atmosphere.

so does 2049 fall into the avatar/prometheus/covenant side or the blade runner / alien side ?

also, arrival was fucking shit.

I've been looking for a place to use this copypasta one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy replicant and his pals from Los Angeles as they track down assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make technology untechnological, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Ridley vetoed the idea of Deckard being human; he made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody? just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for his films. The Blade Runner series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Star Trek series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the original was good though r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the story was terrible. As I watched, I noticed that every time Deckard went for to "investigate", the character instead became a farcical parody of a detective, equipped in some versions with his own gloomy inner monologue.

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time a phrase was repeated, to remind the audience of what was happening. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Villeneuve's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that he has no other style of directing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Blade Runner by the same George Lucas. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are watching Blade Runner at 21 or 22, then when they get older they will go on to watch Star Wars." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you watch "Blade Runner" you are, in fact, trained to watch Star Wars.

what's the point of all this.
it's an audio/visual masterpiece, deserved to be seen in theaters, preferably IMAX.

Pretty embarrassing pasta. Try again, I know you can do better.

lol. Stong AI is defs highly philisophical, faggot. Look up the chinese room argument

>3 hours
>51 replies
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA^100
Sage.

the plot is excellent (just keep in mind that the story is about K from beginning to end) but the dialog was just okay. Nothing cringey was said but nothing really that memorable either.
You sound like you really don't want to like it though, since you already hate the actors and the soundtrack. But yeah it does have top-tier production values like Prometheus and feels similarly impressive in a big theater. But unlike Prometheus, BR2049 actually has great writing, deep characters, and good acting all around.

>Well this part is especially stupid
It's not stupid. Modern """"""""""""""""""AI"""""""""""""""""" is just a bunch of scripts and even this level of artificial """""""""""""thought""""""""""""" already BTFOs human intelligence in games like chess or even fucking DOTA where predicting your opponent's moves is much harder. Now, consider what an of doing.

LOL BASED BABY RUNNER

>consider what an of doing.
*consider what an actual futuristic AI would be capable of doing.

>He never settles for simple and easy moralizing.

And yet Wallace is most definitely presented as evil.

In his intro scene he casually kills a replicant and in his final scene he threatens Deckard with torture after killing a Rachel abomination in front of him.

that's pretty much simple and easy moralizing 101

>ai learning chess means it transcends human intelligence.
Dude

Yup. reddit blade 2 was a fucking disgrace to the original.

AI is not even close to transcending human intelligence.
And the entire argument is pointless anyway, there are many movies about futuristic AI, this one is about bio-engineered humans.

Brainlets, the point of that post is that there is no AI currently, yet what exists now is already superior to human intelligence in certain tasks. Again, imagine what a real AI could do.

>tfw we will never get a cinema tier blade runner sequel
why even live bros
i don't want this flick tier shit

...

Why was Rachel holding her baby in the picture if she died in childbirth?

>You're just paying for the atmosphere. The cyberpunk fantasy. You really can't name anything that's philosophically remarkable about this movie.
thats fine. i still like it.

These are the same idiots, who shilled BvS. Don't mind them.
BR'49 was a pretentious 'art movie', but the message was way too obvious.

"Real AI" is currently a fantasy.

This thread is embarrasing

Word. BR2049 drones haven't made one valid argument in favor of it.

Why do you do this my man? Yesterday it was the same thing, why can't you let this go?

>That's the main point of the movie, and it's really easy to understand.
user from earlier here.

It's not, it's just a part of the movie and if you focus only on the main character you miss everything said by Wallace and Harrison Ford/revolutionaries. The revolutionaries believe they are entitled to certain basic rights because they are 'real.'

Wallace doesn't even contest this. Of course they're real, but they have a place in society which necessitates their labor.
His aim is to make a self sustaining servant race which accepts its position as subordinate to their creators.

It's not an allegory for race or human slavery. They are genuinely the creations of man which are genuinely programmed to serve man. At least that was the intent behind their design.

For a greater good, though.
As I said before, Wallace is fully an ends justify the means kind of person.

How stupid am I for wanting to buy a oled just for when 2049 comes out on to ultra bluray?

>and will be remembered as one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time
nothing villenueve has made will be remembered at all

At best it will be something brainlets mention once or twice and think oh hey that was pretty

I actually agree with a lot of these points. For the firsr half hour it seemed wonderful, but things detiorated as these cliches came along.

>he's a blatantly evil god complex supervillain who lives in a dimly lit evil lair and has no regard for human or replicant life and has the clear goal of conquering the galaxy using slave labor but in some user's fanfiction this serves the greater good

This is unironically retard tier storytelling

>I can only make so many, I need replicant babies
>kills his product
What the heck did Wallace mean by this?

We're never lead to believe that Wallace doesn't respect human life.
Wallace is outright presented to you as the character who brought humanity out of the fucking gutter in the beginning of the film.

Slavery in one form or another is something that humans have always done, continue to do, and will do for the foreseeable future.
Everyone is selective about the sympathy they extend towards others.

What are you doing about the garment shops in India, user? Don't give two fucks about them?
Me neither, nor do I think anyone should.
Don't give me some halfassed answer about how you're not responsible for the actions of society at large. You are.

I wouldn't murder them or attempt unspeakable torture, though. He's one dimensionally evil and power hungry, the other user is right.

>I wouldn't murder them or attempt unspeakable torture, though.
I'll give you the initial scene where he kills the replicant.
I don't know why he did that at all.
But there was a clear reason behind everything else he did.
Before threatening to torture Deckard, he offered to recreate Rachel.
He needs Deckard to give him information which will mean the success or possible failure of his long term plans.
You would do the same under the same circumstances provided you think your end goal is just that important.

>Before threatening to torture Deckard, he offered to recreate Rachel.
To extract the info more conveniently.

He's a rational character, user.
I'm not making the argument that he's a compassionate person.

The impression I get is that he's not a man who cares about any sort of life but his own. He killed and tortured several living beings for no reason. You may say they were replicates, but he's smart enough to know they feel pain.

The man just acts like a textbook sociopath.

I could be convinced to agree that the two times he murders perfectly functional replicants were unnecessary and probably telling of Villeneuve's actual perspective.
But I'm responding to the idea that he's a nonsensical moustache twirling villain, which I think is absurd and incorrect.

Did you watch the film short which introduces wallace? He tortures and kills replicant there too.

I didn't, and that sounds really goofy.

It's canon lad. You 'd find it in keeping with his character since he does it to prove to a gov't agency that he has complete control of his replicants

If that's something that was Villeneuve's idea, then I'm rather disappointed.
But in the context of the movie alone, Wallace's character makes a lot of sense and has a clear point to be argued even if he has some character flaws.
The movie might be a little unfair with his perspective, but I think for the most part it handles his character intelligently.

Wallace is a victim of the "we must put in a few scenes for the normies so they don't completely fall asleep". They had to put some scenes where he fucks some shit up because if he was just talking then most normies will just ask: "What's the point of this guy, is he a bad guy? He did nothing wrong!"
Him stabbing the newborn in the womb was just his frustration about not being able to make them perfect. Also remember that replicates can take a lot of punishment and they have some cool healing tech so the newborn isn't necessarily dead.

that wasnt Rachel holding the baby that was Freysa, the lady towards the end of the film who was starting a revolution with the replicants

Why did the bad guys leave Ryan Gosling alive when they found him and Deckard? How did Gosling know where Harrison Ford was gonna be at the end?

>How did Gosling know where Harrison Ford was
He read the script.

>How did Gosling know where Harrison Ford was gonna be at the end?
the replicant rebels probably had spies who knew when and where Deckard was being moved, and they just told K

I'm with you OP
Recycled trash as usual.

Everyone is just a closeted faggot who loves Ryan Gosling

Half the movie is spent on a fucking robot waifu

>what’s that on the ground right there? is that the script?

>Everyone is just a closeted faggot who loves Ryan Gosling
Projection.
>Half the movie is spent on a fucking robot waifu
Contradicting his own train of thought it just 2 sentences. Which one is it, is everyone who likes the movie a faggot or is it about a waifu? It can't be both.