When I see people call things like Lord of the Rings or Blade Runner 2049 a boring story i question their attention...

Blade Runner and Fellowship are great.
2049, TTT, and RotK are pompous and badly paced.

We love 2049 because Joe was one of us.

I don't know anyone who'd call Lord of the Rings boring. Blade Runner 2049 was slower than it needed to be, especially when you compare it to the first Blade Runner. If it had cut some of the time it spent doing a subpar cover version of Her it'd probably be a better movie

When I see people that praise Lord of the Rings and BR2049, I question their ego. They watch decent yet mainstream films, and act like they are somehow superior to the average movie goer.

Attached: 6D1D9C57-ECDD-4509-9CD2-616984588791.jpg (720x720, 43K)

I don't know anyone who thinks either of those are boring.
All of my friends love LotR and my dad and I love BR2049

My attention span isn't the problem. It's my patience with unnecessarily sluggish films.

The robots in Bladerunner are basically 98% perfect human beings. They sort of experience empathy but it hasn’t been perfected yet. Which is terrifying. Plus the way they are treated by the “real” humans.

the point of blade runner is that batty and k actually want to be alive. there's nothing nihilist about it

People only like 2049 because DUDE HE IS JUST LIKE ME!! BASED GOOSE!!! or because they play videogames.

its just a boring movie. the original was boring as well, I could never finish it because I always fell asleep. and I say that as a huge fan of the PKD novels.

>LotR isn't boring.
>2049 is.

/thread

>If it had cut some of the time it spent doing a subpar cover version of Her
It was a better She than Her.
If anything, less (no) Harrison, more moping would have been better.

Hm, my wife and I both absolutely LOVED 2049 and agreed it was indeed high art, but we also both couldn't stand the needlessly dry 9 hour walk that was the LOTR trilogy; it's the only movie she ever fell asleep in, and one of the only movies I ever walked out of (also walked out of Nacho Libre.)

yikes

The other half is a subpar version of Drive with anime references.

>Lord of the Rings or Blade Runner 2049
Don't compare those two. Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 are finely crafted visual storytelling, where nary a line or frame was wasted. LoTR, both the movie and the novels, are the cinematic and literary equivalents of elevator music: they are incredibly wasteful with words and shots, and exist largely to take up space and eat time when you have nothing better to do, but don't want to pay too much attention.

The action scenes are really dull in 2049

>your wife fell asleep
>you walked out

Well I hope her boyfriend gave her a lift home

>finely crafted visual storytelling,
Both are actually as subtle as two bricks to the face but no one wants to admit it.

Attached: Roy_Batty_Nail_016.jpg (1100x461, 125K)

Picasso wasn't subtle either. Subtly and quality are neither mutually inclusive, nor mutually exclusive.

Attached: Guernica.jpg (1552x873, 233K)

>Pulling Picasso paintings out your ass
They're both films that obviously try very hard to be subtle and fail. How is pic related what you'd call 'fine visual storytelling'?

Attached: a24a44896c123d74748f8e01af6bd70b.jpg (1920x1080, 118K)

>They're both films that obviously try very hard to be subtle and fail
Affecting an emotional response and having meaningful and deliberate choices behind shots is not "trying to be subtle." That's not what subtly is. Words mean things.

For shit's sake man, they literally put the message of the shot literally written out in the shot, and you claim it's "trying to be subtle."

Now, a legitimate criticism regarding subtlty or lack thereof would be "it doesn't make me work to find its messages, which cheapens the payoff for me." Ultimately that'd be a matter of taste, but at-least it'd be legitimate. However, there's no inherent value in making your audience work harder, it just frequently makes a certain type of person overvalue it because of sunken cost fallacy... then again, art only truly exists in the effect it has on the observer, so its one of the only places where sunk cost fallacy actually has value.

kek
>t fags that have never read a book and just use a one sentence definition of nihilism they found on wikipedia

Attached: 1512418227273.png (645x729, 63K)

>For shit's sake man, they literally put the message of the shot literally written out in the shot, and you claim it's "trying to be subtle."
Except you started by claiming LOTR doesn't make you pay too much attention and now you're admitting 2049 doesn't either.

No, I said LOTR wastes space and time with mountains of meaningless/worthless shots/pages that accomplish nothing, making the majority of the film functional background noise and/or elevator music. It's inoffensive, and better than nothing, and takes a lot of time, and by a large margin its greatest asset is its ability to eat time (applies to both the films and the books.)

That's neither subtly nor attempted subtly... that's padding, filler, and wasted space.

>I said LOTR wastes space and time with mountains of meaningless/worthless shots/pages that accomplish nothing,
>shooting yourself in the foot this bad
Did you watch the film you're defending? what exactly does the length of this scene
accomplish except padding?
youtube.com/watch?v=IQgSg_IQKJU

If you hate LOTR or any of the BR films you're either a woman or a tranny, no exceptions.

So you're not a completely useless retard. Keep bragging about it please.

So was K a replicant?

Yes? It's not even a question.

Well the movie kinda suggested he isn't with that memory of hiding that small wooden horse as a kid, and then actually finding it from the same location as an adult.

>Ford's inclusion was contrived, connecting it to the prior film via core plot was a serious mistake.
This. Blade Runner had a rich setting. It didn't need to inflate Deckard's significance or be a direct sequel at all.

2049 completely falls apart at Las Vegas, which ironically is both the best and worst sequence.
Neither film is worth a damn compared to Dick's original work, though. Fancher is a terrible screenwriter.

normies aren't into cyberpunk
fantasy, yeah or sci-fi like star trek

blade runner > return of the king > blade runner 2049 > fellowship of the ring

all very good

Nihilism is the truest expression of existential depression and has no correllation on where you go on the internet in attempts to distract yourself from the pointlessness of existence.

did you see the ending...? he desperately wanted to be human but ultimately those were fake memories implanted into him

>Well the movie kinda suggested he isn't with that memory
No it didn't, it only suggested that he is maybe a born replicant with an actual childhood.

>Nihilism is the truest expression of existential depression
Maybe if you're Reddit.

Attached: AleisterCrowley.jpg (683x420, 56K)

>the best memories are hers
what did he even mean by this?
did he mean like, in general? but his time with JOI wasn't one of "her" memories.
the fuck did he mean by this?

He meant his impalnted memories are the best. Don't think too hard about it.

b...but the only implanted memory we see, in particular reference to the wooden horse, isn't exactly a happy one
help me, Hampton, I can't turn my brain off

they’re the best because they gave him the false hope that he was human

Nihilist?
NIHILIST?
We are talking about blade runner here right?

user...

i thought the point of this entire franchise was that it didn't matter, though
why would he care about a false hope
humanity is only an ethereal concept to humans
is K retarded?

Attached: 9F5148FD-76A9-4E55-9EFE-BC3CE4B86874.jpg (537x534, 75K)

>is K retarded?
Yes

in-universe it matters quite a bit when replicants are considered subhuman.
on a philosophical level it’s up to the viewer to decide whether the replicants’ artificial consciousness is equal to humanity (the franchise clearly leans towards yes though)

i think it’s not just that K wants to be human though, it’s also that for awhile there he genuinely believed he was deckard/rachel’s child and a special miracle baby. it would be disappointing to find out you weren’t

You're dumb, he never thought he was human, only that he was born.
He thinks those memories are the best because those memories made him think he had an actual childhood and ultimately made him the "special boy" with a purpose he always wanted to be.
If he didn't get those memories implanted he would more than likely live like a NPC replicant slave for the rest of his life.

>the guy stops responding because he realised he was retarded and had no argument
2049 and the Director's Cut of the original are two of the most pretentious snooze-fests I've ever unfortunately had to witness. Literally what is the benefit of the "enhance" scene being so long, or Gosling lying in the snow?
What's worse is the films think they're intelligent when they're really not. LotR is infinitely better with tighter storytelling.
Also, Harrison Ford having any part at all damaged the film, its been 40 years since he could act, and it was bad then.

So it's basically a 200 mil dollar Pinnochio. That's so fucking mindblowing.

okay sorry i only watched it once in theaters. if deckard is human would his child with rachel not be human?

the pacing of the individual scenes are fine. it suits the contemplative mood of the franchise. br2049 is a bit bloated because there are some elements that could have been excised entirely (subplot involving pink-haired girl) and the movie would have been better for it. but there’s nothing wrong with a slow, meditative pace

ingest tsai-ming liang’s filmography then get back to us

replicant + human =/= human

>or Gosling lying in the snow?
Literal visual storytelling.

The scene is basically the same scene as the tears in rain scene in the first BR in the sense that both characters are then finally fully aware of their identity, just the motif here is snow instead of rain and everything is told visually instead of the actor just reciting lines into the camera.
K makes the first true individual choice of this life through a moral self-sacrifice act that reunites a father with his daughter. When that is accomplished he is done, he's becomes "special" like he always wanted to be, lays on the steps as the unique "special" snowflakes fall on his hand and melt away, like tears in rain.

All told completely by visuals alone.

Attached: Blade.Runner.2049.02_31_50.jpg (3840x1600, 2.12M)

>it suits the contemplative mood
The scene is not contemplating anything
>there’s nothing wrong with a slow, meditative pace
It turns into an action film with multiple flashback scenes halfway through
>ingest tsai-ming liang’s filmography then get back to us
Are you baiting?

cringe

Yet "slow" films like Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy are infinitely more interesting and with less wasted time.

I understand vistula storytelling, but why does it have to be so long? The point can be made in a fraction or the time.

>you've never seen a miracle
What did he mean by this?

30 seconds is long to you?
He is literally dying there, would you prefer if he just collapsed and died in 3 seconds like it's a damn cartoon? Replace the tears in rain soundtrack with a WOMP WOMP WOMP sound effect and call it a day?

That he has never seen a replicant give birth.

read sculpting in time.

I fucking KNEW you were gonna namedrop Tarkovsky whose films I do like. Fuck off.

The film has been going on for 4 hours at this point, so yeah.

It's literally a director (a good one in your defence) shilling his own artistic vision. Regardless of his writing, just because he says the style is good doesn't make br2049 any better.

I met a girl who said she kept trying to watch them but couldn't get past the first twenty minutes, because 'nothing's happening'.
She was very qt though

great that you like his films, even better to read sculpting in time

have you read sculpting in time though? at least read chapter 6. it puts forth a comprehensive theory of cinema that specifically treats time/rhythm as the fundamental unit of cinema. br2049 uses time, rhythm, and pacing very well.

>The film has been going on for 4 hours at this point, so yeah.
So the ending of 2001 should actually be 5 seconds long instead of the 30 minutes of visual storytelling just so your zoomer mentally ill ADHD plot point mental midget brain can endure it better?

>br2049 uses time, rhythm, and pacing very well.
This is totally on par with Ryan Gosling staring into a furnace like an imbecile
youtube.com/watch?v=s0VJa3HmsJQ

Huge blade runner fan here, it really did drag on, I think I appreciate the length now I can watch it at home but the cinema was a little much. Kind of like apocalypse now redux. The whole resistance storyline could’ve been removed.

clearly br2049 is not on par with stalker. few things are. that doesn’t mean it’s not good

>dude if you don't like this derivative movie you are no "kino" or whatever new meme we use now expert!!

It's not even on par with Drive which is Gosling's best film.

br2049 was a large hollywood production grossing 100 million - not marvel-tier maybe but without a doubt mainstream

>naming another pretentious, self-indulgent film with an obvious message as an argument
Good work.

>She was very qt though
What does this have to do with anything?

Glad to have confirmed your plot point mental midget status. Now go ahead and enjoy your tarantino flicks

LOTR IS a boring story. BR is great though.

>uhh yeah villeneuve and the goose are definitely the successor to tarkovsky, whom we all know is the greatest filmmaker of all time
the absolute state

>tarantino flicks
Ironically Pulp Fiction is on another different level of craft that Vilenueve will never reach in his career.

Attached: Pulp Fiction Confederate Flag with US flag.jpg (676x304, 60K)

Thanks I will. I'll leave you to continue masturbating into your stack of Kubrick Polaroids.

>this one brainlet zoomer having a melt down after being exposed ITT
lmao

if you think BR is about nihilism then you're literally a reddit zoomer with a mental defect

He went from LOTR to Picasso, to some asian guy, to Tarkovsky, to 2001, to Tarantino

Attached: shirtless-picasso-25.jpg (315x242, 33K)

>tsai ming liang
>some asian guy

oh no no no

Attached: 1547067119994.jpg (1400x3857, 2.18M)

When I see people call things like Stalker and Solyaris a boring story I question their attention span.

Attached: stalker.jpg (1479x1743, 1.14M)

The name literally sounds like his parents threw a pan down a flight of stairs.

Do you think they were not able to put even more things in the frame if they wanted to? Do you think a film is better the more things you shove in frame? Should've Deakins put even more blinds on windows with smoke filled interiors and just make a complete rehash of the first one?
It would make no sense to do any of those things in that narrative, and considering that absolutely every scene was made on an actual set with beyond absurd lighting setups it's pretty retarded to even imply they were just lazy to do it

Attached: bfs_br2049ss4.jpg (1200x800, 334K)

what video game is that from?

Attached: 1515383944441.jpg (960x1225, 492K)

yes they are far stronger and smarter than humans. but they have a small lifespan and they can't reproduce. the small lifespan was basically the failsafe incase they went rogue. later replicants have longer lifespans but stronger obedience. the point of 2049 is that the only thing making replicants not fully human is the ability to reproduce, which as we know, turns out it's possible somehow.

>sequel acts as sequel and that's bad

Attached: 1544698340176.jpg (600x600, 44K)

yikes dude. it's clearly stated it was a planted memory

Everything on the left except for the poster has more color contrast.
It's not bad, but sequel doesn't mean it has to tie things so closely together.

Attached: actual valid BR comparison.jpg (960x800, 379K)

do you have ADHD or something? are you in a rush

it's obvious this is bait at this point. each LotR movie is like 3 hours long

Cringe

but the events in the first movie are directly important and relevant to the second one. it's a sequel. it continues the story and themes

The memory is real, but it's not his memory. Someone experienced it then it was curated and implanted to him.

>the events in the first movie are directly important and relevant to the second one
Sure, and they needn't have been.

>durrr there's no rush
Woah, guess sitting through a shit film is fine then.

Shit happens in them.

It's a worker reduced to slavery wishing he was free.
Also the abuse of what is essentially humanity. They are even called Angel's a few times.

You didnt get that?

If the only thing you care about is plot points then you might aswell just read the plot synopsis of every film on wikipedia and be done with it

>Ford
I'll give you that.

>on a philosophical level it’s up to the viewer to decide whether the replicants’ artificial consciousness is equal to humanity (the franchise clearly leans towards yes though)
The Voight-Kampff test can detect whether someone is a replicant or not, the Rachael model being much harder to detect than Nexus-6 models. So they clearly moved towards and improved the consciousness (whatever that means) with each new iteration but they still weren't equal to humans (which doesn't necessarily mean worse).

Attached: 6l8t7wd7vpt11.png (940x788, 27K)

>somehow
Designed purposefully. One guy took the technology to his grave however.

Its said in simple English.
>Is the dog real?
>ask the dog.

>if I make a false equivalence, I win the argument
You're not even on the same plane of argument. I don't like the pretentious fart-sniffing in bl2049 and the drawn out scenes, not the plot of the film (which is also poor).

they did though. watch a different franchise if you want a different story

I get your point but both answers are correct.

Look, I'm not trying to rewrite it, I enjoyed some of it, but in doing so they unnecessarily weakened the movie.

Unlike some ITT, I don't have any issue with the visual storytelling elements. and a lot of the movie looking pretty is good enough for me.
The issue is that the story they told is just weak, and the rest of the movie isn't enough to carry it.
I'm also of the mind that plots are rarely even the most important thing to consider, but in this case, what plot there is, provides for bland filmmaking opportunities.
I don't hate the movie, I just don't care for it that much.

>DUDE I SAW STUFF!
...okay?

>The issue is that the story they told is just weak
Stalker has a shit plot as well. The issue is that Denis tried to emulate Tarkovsky and thought it'll work if you throw 200 million dollars at it. I'm sorry for his fans ITT but he seems like an idiot.

I'm a big Denisfag, and even with the strike out in 2049, I think he's a strong contender for best working director.
And, while I don't agree Stalker's plot is shit, I do agree that it has a lot lot more going for it than 2049.

The film is under 3 hours.

>while I don't agree Stalker's plot is shit
I don't think they even cared about it. There's glaring additions of sci fi shit from the book that doesn't fit the film like the meat grinder and traps.