Why are there so many people on here who claim br2049 is kino?

Why are there so many people on here who claim br2049 is kino?

I mean, it was an alright movie on it's own, but it doesn't hold a candle to the original. It's very dumbed down compared to br, pretty much all it has going are pretty visuals.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4wMQz3iJDzE[/spoilers]
youtube.com/watch?v=6iqmIoHL74Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Wow, thanks for your opinion!

It's not like people have different taste and some people will like it or some people won't (like you)

faggot

I agree. It was decent enough, but nothing to write home about.

It's just the easily impressed redditors
If you ask them to name their other favorites of 2017 it'll be garbage like dunkirk, baby driver and logan almost every single time

>It's very dumbed down compared to br, pretty much all it has going are pretty visuals.

Factually incorrect, the story is much more intricate than the original

Sup Forums relates to real human beans

I asked a question. If you feel like refuting my opinion and lending credence to yours, feel free to make a valid argument

faggot

I guess it was just too smart for you, user. Probably best sticking to your Blacked.com videos.

Like I've said before, it's an art project. Nothing more

What was wrong with Dunkirk?

But every film is an art project?

I'm gonna have to call you a contrarian rather than a pleb because at least you like the original.

LE KINO REDDIT CHEETO DUST BASED HACK PLEB FLICK SNEED PATRICIAN IMDB PARTY ROCKERS IN THE HOUSE TONIGHT etc

this
replicant baby, can you believe this shit?
now, was it forced on the movie to attract the 'nostalgia' crowd or was it a legitimate creative decision?
i honestly don't know which one is worse.

Aye, but there is time spent on actually doing stuff besides making the movie look pretty in others.
Blade runner doesn't do that, just wants you to look at the pretty shots

You have a stroke or something?

It makes sense when you consider Rachael was the ultimate replicant.

Couldn't you make that same exact dumb overly general statement for the original too?

Yes and I do

because they decided it for the movie's sake.
she was merely a prototype to showcase memory implants.
also, how do you explain the science of replicant babies? would the child of roy be an invincible genius baby? are those traits genetical, do they pass on to the child? how exactly do you explain that the ability to not freeze in extreme temperatures is passed through DNA?
we should have gotten something based on the books, or at least something focused on K's identity struggle. everything bar the stuff related to the original movie was just fine, except the soundtrack (sea wall was fantastic though).

it insists upon itself

Doubt it. Too much thought process is required for redditor brains to understand it

What's there to think about? The entire movie is absolutely straightforward.

It's boring

Eh, I like both. Prefer 2049 due to K being a much better protagonist, and the romance was much better and deeply explored than what we got with Deckard and Rachel

...

Is Joi's love for K real? Does it matter that she's programmed to love him if the end result is the same? What's the difference between something being programmed or genetically embedded? Is Deckard a replicant? Why was Luv so sympathetic to every replicant? Did K accept and cherish his relationship with Joi at the end or did he abandon it completely?

nick_young_confused.jpg

"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.

Same people praise and circlejerk over the original btw

Sup Forums justifies everything by projecting shit the movie never states or mentions.

More like Soy Runner

I mean, those are all questions without answers. There's not much of the philosophical in 2049 which was a big reason the first one was so good, except I guess the relationship between Joi and K. Then again, that's not exactly a main focus of the film.

and Sup Forums constantly praises the prequels. shut the fuck up.

>I mean, those are all questions without answers.
Can't you think about questions?

Sound about right

"cyber punk" is pure reddit shit

>but it doesn't hold a candle to the original

It's on par with it at least.. I think it maybe better to be honest

The only thing I really hate about it is the autistic "fan"base, they're very annoying stupid dweebs.. like this guy I hate how loud and retarded he/she is

Wrong. The first one was good because of the fucking amazing set design with help of syd mead. It was a 50s nior caper in the near future.

it would have been fine if the mother and father weren't rachael and deckard, since racheal already had a reason for existing and it wasn't the pregnancy aspect.
but they had to fit harrison ford in it i guess
i'm okay with it though, just felt a bit forced

So BR2049 is not reddit shit then because it isn't cyber punk at all.

What a load crap. You obviously trolling.

That was worded badly. I meant they're not philosophical per se, the only reason they're questions is because the movie just didn't answer them outright. Its questions about the film itself vs questions the film raises about life, being, etc.

Movies are categorized as entertainment.
If a movie is boring, it was not entertaining, which is a valid reason to say a movie is bad because, if a movie was boring it failed it's ultimate purpose of being entertaining (so that people will enjoy it and it will make money).
Boring is a valid assessment

>It's very dumbed down compared to br, pretty much all it has going are pretty visuals.

Most people find films by Tarkovsky "boring", probably because they are a bit slower than todays films. Are they bad films then?
Most people find flicks by Marvel "fun", probably because it's non stop braindead quips and mindless CGI action. Are they good films then?

Also it's quite embarassing that you think that all films are only meant to be empty "entertainment". Are films like Threads and The Hunt entertaining?

>"cyber punk" is pure reddit shit
Nope. Reddit loves "steam punk" actually

If this was any more shallow it would be rey

Because 2017 was absolutely shit for cinema.

This was a bit better than most of the shit.

Good Time
The Killing of a Sacred Deer
Dunkirk
Logan Lucky
Wind River
Blade Runner 2049
The Square
Three Billboards

All great, decent year.

Sup Forums is 90% meme loving redditors who watch 3 movies a year. They're very easily impressed, so when they go to see something that isn't Star Wars you won't hear the fucking end of it

see; Drive, Nightcrawler, Birdman, Dunkirk, Interstellar

all boring/uninteresting except for like 3

A24 is killing cinema

But Sup Forums absolutely hates Birdman?

I don't find marvel films to be "fun". As you said they are overdone cgi fests. To me they're boring.
But others find them entertaining and they generate alotta revenue so the movie's ultimate goal is accomplished.
As for the movies you mentioned, I have never heard of them
>Inb4 pleb
Sorry I don't watch every single film people on tv think is kino.
But yes ultimately even if a film is supposed to make you think, its ultimate goal is to entertain you.
If a movie makes you think and has a seriously deep message, you will spend time to try and understand it, you will then appreciate it more, and you won't have found the movie boring. You will have enjoyed it, which means you were entertained and the movie makes money.

not when it came out

>Most people
not an argument

You are doing heavy fucking mental gymnastics there.

You proved me and contradicted yourself when you said that saying that something is boring is a "valid assessment", when clearly what you personally find boring others can find fun and vice versa.
As for those two films, they are not meant to be "deep" and philosophical, but extremely negatively but realistically impactful on the portrayal of us as humans. One is about a terrifyingly realistic portrayal of a nuclear disaster and the other about a false allegation that goes horribly wrong. Saying that any of them have "entertained" you as a viewer would be pretty absurd, but most people absolutely love both of those films.
I think the word you are looking for here is emotionally impactful, at least in some way.

youtube.com/watch?v=4wMQz3iJDzE[/spoilers]

youtube.com/watch?v=6iqmIoHL74Y

stop shilling your videos, fucking cocksucker.
your production is shit, you don't plan what you're gonna say very well and your voice is incredibly annoying to listen to.

even a broken clock is right twice a day

daily reminder that htis guy is BALDING
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

If a movie is emotionally impactful, does it not make you think. If a movie makes you think about how awful and violent human beings can be, does it not make you think?
If it makes you think or consider something you wouldn't normally, and you like that the movie does so, you will enjoy it.
Now as for people having differences of opinions with movies, of course there is. Some people people will find stuff fun that others don't. I never said this was not the case. I simply said a movie boring is a valid reason for a person to not enjoy it, because if it was not "fun" nor made them think or be emotionally significant to them, then the movie does nothing for the viewer, thus it is boring and fails to achieve anything

>I simply said a movie boring is a valid reason for a person to not enjoy it
This was never even the question.
Ofcourse, no one is saying that you aren't bored by a film that you find boring. All I'm saying is that just saying that a certain film is boring/fun says literally nothing about the actual quality of the film and is not a valid argument indicative of is the film good or not.

big if true

>it's shit cause reddit likes it
not an argument pleb

hairlets BTFO
how will they ever recover?

Remember to mass report this guy shilling his own videos.