will there EVER be a better sci fi film?
Will there EVER be a better sci fi film?
Eli Butler
Cooper Lewis
This isn't even the best sci-fi, it's got too many flaws for that. Only a fanboy who overrates would claim so. But it's infinitely better than the sequel.
Gavin Brown
>it's got too many flaws for that
such as?
Liam Harris
nigga 2049 was better lmfao
Logan Jenkins
blade runner was good for its world building and mood invoking visuals, its shit as a sci fi with close to none of the sci part, pic related is infinitely more relevant today without even trying
the horrendous narration or the retarded binding on the nose unicorn scene, youd have to combine both releases to get something palpable
unironically this
Ian Cook
Such as the 3 different cuts, with the theatrical having narration, and the hack-approved Final Cut being digitally graded blue for no reason whatsoever. Such as it being an adaptation of a novel, meaning any praise to its sci-fi premise being misattributed. On a technical level alone, though, it's a classic.
Brayden Morales
end of evangelion
Cooper Howard
yes
Jose Myers
I'm probably just a pleb but I enjoyed 2049 more.
Henry Lewis
Its sequel
Daniel Allen
>nigga
>lmfao
Yes, I'm sure your opinion is relevant. The script is horrid and cliche, especially in regards to the shoehorned replicant resistance. 2049 is a consumerist product, film for people not into film. It's Fincher-tier in its assembly-line production, utilizing every industry gimmick there is.
Joshua Garcia
>lmfao
2049 is good in terms of visuals but the story boils down to waifubait. Doesn't help that Leto is a bad main villain.
Very competent movie but it could not exist without the first one, which never loses pace and is extremely methodical.
Michael Cruz
2049 but desu there are very few great films in Science Fiction compared to almost any genre. Probably a combination of them being expensive/difficult to make (normally) and how people they're considered "genre". Even the Horror genre had a lot of classic movies by legendary directors, one reason being Horror movies are easier to make.
Nathaniel Howard
Your entire post is nothing but word salad
Wyatt Baker
>the story boils down to waifubait
what did he mean by this?
Tyler Hughes
all me
Tyler Davis
Did you see any of the discussion threads after it came out? Half the posts were about JOI, the assassin chick and the prostitute.
Liam Roberts
>Doesn't help that Leto is a bad main villain.
>Leto
>"villain"
opinion discarded
Ryan Lewis
Recognizing what you perceive as "word salad" is up to you to utilize in a counter argument. But attempting discredit an argument or opinion so baselessly is a fallacy on its own. So what you have is a non-argument.
Zachary Edwards
what does that have to do with the story of the film? if the girls are hot, people will make waifu threads.
Adrian Nguyen
Fine, antagonist within the presented narrative.
Carson Evans
>Did you see any of the discussion threads after it came out?
Yes, tons. Can give you links to them if you want
Jace Gonzalez
Nope, that would be Luv
Jacob Robinson
There's no substance. It's all contrived fanfiction. They didn't even try to adapt more of the ideas from the book, just cheaply piggybacked off of the original. Manufactured from the get-go, artistic merit be damned.
Hunter Perez
>didn't adapt ideas from the book
>began where the original left off
I'm not following how that makes it a bad movie, user.
Daniel Turner
this but unironically
Brandon Morgan
I was exaggerating, but while the romance in the original is about two people discovering their humanity, 2049 panders more towards the "le punished Goose so alone waifu hologram" crowd.
Henry Scott
>There's no substance.
How? The comment on the AI state of being, further expanding the narrative of the original of how humans look on replicants and replicants viewing AI beings?
The overall theme of programming and memory and how that affects and forms an identity? The first one is about what it means to be human, while the sequel deals with what it means to be "special" and individual, and does it matter if you're programmed or not. To call it substance-less is as much of an argument as calling the first one "no substance" also
>They didn't even try to adapt more of the ideas from the book
But they literally did.
William Allen
Rape is "discovering of humanity"? Didn't know that.
Liam Scott
Bad acting, poor characterization, insultingly shallow writing, and themes that aren't original or profound. The cinematography and effects are the only substantial positives.
Jaxon Harris
Oh, so you're one of those "people" who doesn't understand movies made before 2010.
Blake Hall
>overused cgi despite practical effects
>sterile cinematography
>cheap emotional pandering, constant facial closeups just in case the braindead audience didn't get it
>horrid, unoriginal plot elements just to drive the narrative forward (e.g. replicant resistance)
>undeveloped elements, e.g. wallace, the portable joi, etc
>many elements completely shoehorned in, e.g. deckard, clearly as a marketing strategy from the get go and thus a producer incentive
>offers nothing new that the original didn't already explore in far more concise manner
>even the sci-fi elements aren't new, and are tacked on like a gimmick and never elaborated on
It's garbage, a popcorn movie.
Jordan Collins
Are you kidding? There were tons of discussions for it. That was the last time Sup Forums has actually properly discussed something
fuck off
Connor Sullivan
>blade runner was good for its world building and mood invoking visuals, its shit as a sci fi with close to none of the sci part, pic related is infinitely more relevant today without even trying
/thread (and you faggots know he's right, so just shut the fuck up already)
Owen Martinez
I corrected myself, try reading the thread.
Landon Clark
>>overused cgi despite practical effects
You didn't know that was CGI, don't pretend like you knew before you saw the VFX reel.
The only thing that matters is the final result, nothing else.
>>sterile cinematography
The monochromatic "sterile" visuals are the entire point of BR2049, to show the bleak empty future after the blackout where nature is practically non existent that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day.
It would make no sense for this film to look extremely colorful and dense, it would make no sense to fill the streets with thousands of extras, it would make no sense to shoot it on grainy film, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" and developed when everything in it is basically dead.
It's sad that you think that every film should be as vibrant and "pretty" as possible no matter what the narrative is about.
>>constant facial closeups just in case the braindead audience didn't get it
Are you now implying that close ups are a bad thing? How dumb can one be? Come and See is such a bad film right?
>>horrid, unoriginal plot elements just to drive the narrative forward (e.g. replicant resistance)
While I agree that the execution of that scene was a bit cheesy, they are there to show how K has to make a individual decision not depending on anyone to truly become special so he denies both Wallace and the rebellion. Also to show how both sides (Wallace and the rebellion) want to use K as a tool for their own goals, which is reflected in the fact that they both are in water reflected settings and both the rebellion bitch and Wallace are blind in some way or another.
Owen Richardson
>>undeveloped elements, e.g. wallace, the portable joi, etc
The "portable joi" is as developed as it can be, she literally became a real girl to K. As for Wallace, it's dumb to assume that you have to explore and completely close the plot line of every single on-screen character. But I agree that he was underused (which I think is a plus)
>>many elements completely shoehorned in, e.g. deckard, clearly as a marketing strategy from the get go and thus a producer incentive
Nope, he was in the script from the get go years ago by Fancher and Ridley, long before any studio was in it at all.
>>offers nothing new that the original didn't already explore in far more concise manner
The first one is about what it means to be human, while the sequel deals with what it means to be "special" and individual, and does it matter if you're programmed or not. The first one was about the human-replicant relationship, the second one about the replicant-AI relationship and the nature of the programming AI itself, which is not so prominant in the first one
>>even the sci-fi elements aren't new, and are tacked on like a gimmick and never elaborated on
The implication that everything has to be revolutionary and groundbreaking in order to be considered as valid is pretty dumb. Get better arguments
Michael Bennett
youre being too harsh in retrospect, I dont remember any bad acting at all
>overused cgi
literally how, nearly everything is practical, did you expect practical holograms as well
Owen Wood
Ford was awful in the first movie.
Jayden Collins
despite what many of the brain damaged dipshits in this thread might try to say, no.
Brody Adams
>You didn't know that was CGI, don't pretend like you knew before you saw the VFX reel.
>The only thing that matters is the final result, nothing else.
Who said it was poor CGI? The quality is irrelevant - every single instance of CGI use is too much, as it's inherently anti-art. CGI is money driven, and talent is irreverent. Instead of putting in the effort on set, they can just "fix" it up in post. They can just throw more and more money at it. CGI is used to allow the industry to churn out an endless stream of anti-art, consumerist spew. That webm is 100% unnecessary CGI, and outs the entire film for what it really is: a Hollywood product.
Michael Thomas
Literally all your points run counter to reality. Neck yourself mate.