Balde Runner, And Blade RUnner 2049

Both these movies are completely style over substance, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/6iqmIoHL74Y
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>,And

youtu.be/6iqmIoHL74Y

>style over substance
>BR, where just this movie we had a thread that lasted 8 hrs discussing whether the love between 2 artificial entities can be 'real'

try Tron

when just this afternoon*

>Insinuating that style isn't substance.

neck yourself OP

I dont wanna sound contrarian and shit but bladerunner 2049 was all about style, the scenario was really weak
Gosling was perfect for the role(didnt expect it)
Ana de Armas was eyecandy
But thats about it

im 1 hour and half in and im loving this shit. its more ghost in the shell then the ghost in the shell movie. when did Sci fi audience become such snobs?

>correction shit eaters

people just want to be edgy contrarians and also bait other people to reply in anger

like this lousy thread

They apparently don’t like the, um, dishonesty... but that’s mostly because of severe retardation.

I could go on for days about how Villeneuve constructs every shot, cut and line of dialogue as if they were not-so-subtle nudges to make the intellectually stunted feel like they're in on some intricate evolution in the art of plot; how Deakins' cinematography has just enough stylized gimmickry to pass off as something above-average to the ordinary moviegoer, from which such people can pat themselves on the back for having sat through their idea of cinema; how each "instropective" moment with the camera superfluously lingering on Gosling's dopey, emotionless face as he stares at nothing feels oh so very contrived, deliberate and unnatural; and how the movie is completely devoid of artistic merit and is merely a product that builds off of the legacy of a timeless classic.

But I won't.

...

This is now a Luv appreciation thread.

>pauses a movie to check up on Sup Forums
>calls people snobs
Does sci-fi only appeal to people with downs?

SMUG

External discussion between autists is hardly validation of the work itself's use of such themes; people spend their entire adult lives discussing sonic the hedgehog

nigga i paused it as an intermission while i get beers went to you check what threads was up and found this, you hot pile of steaming shit. Movie is kino hands down, go watch babadookie or the vvitch or whatever the fuck you hipster kids like now a days. neo tv is such a fucking joke

You can't even watch a whole movie sober and in one sitting and you think you're allowed to have an opinion on anything.

holy shit imagine being this pretentious? I can only dream of writing shit paragraphs about a movie i dont like.

bro just cause your underage doesnt mean you cant enjoy beers and watch a movie.

>im not active i just popped out to grab a few beers 1 hour 30 minutes into a 2 hour 40 minute film
>still posting 40 minutes after first post

what's yr excuse this time nerd

to piss you off lol i just paused to check back loving this movie

Do brooding landscape shots count as style nowadays?

epic.. just epic..

middle brow art is very important and our culture currently lacks it

holy fucking shit
this puts into words perfectly EXACTLY how I feel about this movie
thanks for that eloquent af string of words you put together there bruh

Style over substance isn't inherently bad.

Where are all these mysterious movies overflowing with so called substance? Movies are a visual fucking medium. They're not philosophical literature breaking down the minutiae of human existence. OP is a faggot.

>blade runner 2049
>style
after 1 hour the movie takes place in a garbage dump.... where's the style

Substance over style films are the worst ones, barely films at all.
A prime example is The Man from Earth, absolute fucking dogshit

>where's the style
BR49 is what an autistic dork thinks style looks like
fucking oversaturated trash with zero subtle romanticism or artfulness

>born in 2000

the replicants in Blade Runner know they're replicants. Except Rachael. She's a new type of replicant and shes been given somebody else's memories to cushion her emotional responses so she can be more easily controlled. So if Deckard is also a replicant, he doesn't know about it either. So hes the same as Rachael. So it follows that he must have somebody else's memories too. And there's really only one person who's memories he could have.

GAFF IS DECKARD. If you think about it, it makes complete sense. Who is Gaff anyway? I propose that he was the best Blade Runner in the business before he got injured and acquired his limp, possibly even going after the replicants in the film. He's right up there in the cop ranks and appears to be close to Police Chief Bryant, the same relationship Deckard re-assumes when he's hauled in at the start of the film. Deckard isn't even allowed to fly his own police car. Pretty much every time he needs to go somewhere, Gaff has to drive him. He's a real dick about it too, he doesn't talk to him or even acknowledge his presence. He just drives him around with that resentful scowl on his face. How come Deckard isn't flying himself?

Right through the film, Gaff shows complete contempt for Deckard. Right at the start when he approaches him eating those delicious looking noodles, his way of saying "hello" is by hitting him on the arm with his cane. All the way through he's basically a massive prick to him. The relationship makes sense - this whole endeavour of using a robot to hunt robots is experimental. If Deckard has Gaff's memories and skills than who better to keep a close eye on him to assess how things are going? And how much would Gaff hate doing this? The more Deckard succeeds, the more reason Gaff has to hate him. He's everything Gaff once was and serves as a painfull reminder.

Then we have the one big clue. The unicorn.

>every film should have subtle and "romanticised" visuals no matter what the narrative is about
Spoken like a true mental midget

I just never understood that particular phrase of criticism as it pertains to film. It makes sense in literature. Strong prose can mask the absence of ideas. One of my favorite Faulkner quotes: "He had nothing to say and he said it well."

But with movies, a good bulk of what the director creates and the audience receives is up to interpretation depending largely around visual themes. Just because a movie night deal largely in silence doesn't mean it's absent of meaning. I hate that criticism.

lmao this movie is legit pleb filter at its finest they cant even read between lines and see parallels of the first. fuck these idiots really rule the world

who gives a fuck it has good waifus

>he thinks that "style over substance" is a valid criticism in an aesthetic medium
The absolute state of Sup Forums

>stop staring at your phones and getting you opinions from someone else

t. oldest of fags

It's just a brainlet cope mechanism from surface-level plot driven manbabies who only consume plot points and nothing else

>aesthetic medium
Hello, Sup Forumseddit.

This post perfectly encapsulates the "kino" posters.

>But with movies, a good bulk of what the director creates and the audience receives is up to interpretation
What is this even supposed to mean? Just because visual storytelling isn't usually as explicit as storytelling in lit doesn't mean it's "up to interpretation." I mean, it does in that you have to literally interpret what the director is trying to say, but usually there is one "right" interpretation.

Just because visually storytelling isn't explicit doesn't mean it it's so ambiguous that you can't say a director masks his lack of ideas in his style.

>surface-level plot driven manbabies who only consume plot points and nothing else
from what I can tell that summarizes 99% of replies in this thread and the majority of /tv
didn't like BR49? you just didn't understand the layers broooooo
no, I got the layers, they're an inch deep and a mile wide

>director masks his lack of ideas in his style
this sums up Blade Runner 2049 perfectly