Just saw this for the first time last night. I thought it was an intensely boring ripoff of other material that already ripped off Blade Runner years before. There is no resemblance of the original here until the theme at the very end, and all of the characters it introduces, as well as their individual arcs, are extremely uncompelling. Almost every scene lingers on for an unnecessary amount of time, and I'm sure you could trim an hour off the arduous runtime just by cutting the fat. Just saw the original again last week and thoroughly enjoyed it.
you watched it on your shitty laptop with your ghetto speakers and you're a zoomer brainlet
Austin Taylor
D:
Hudson Morales
2049 felt way more pretentious, fart-huffy, and generally removed from relatable human conflict than the original did.
Chase Sanchez
>So what did I miss that everyone else understood? a soul, I guess
Justin Fisher
>MUH BROOM AND RACING SOUNDS
Ian Roberts
Soulless is exactly the word that comes to mind with 2049. Fuck, even the brief few seconds in the original where Deckard slams the door open on his chief's office has more soul than anything in 2049. There's no grime in the scenery or characters smoking. All the characters, K, Joi, Madam, old-Harrison Ford, Luv, or Wallace all feel less human than even the Replicant characters in the original.
Landon Cox
If I watched it in the theater, I would've fallen asleep. The first 2 hours were agonizingly slow and boring.
Hudson Cruz
>humans less human than the replicants Wow bro no way, maybe thats one of the themes of the movie
Carson Perry
Self-dehumanization is a theme in the original. Deckard and his chief are very dehumanized for much of the movie, but they are still interesting to watch. The characters in 2049 are just fucking boring.
Carter Morales
Also fuck your reading comp. Half the characters I listed aren't human. I'm comparing them in terms of interest. How they come across to me as a human viewer of a story. The 4 original replicant characters all have more human and relatable characteristics than any character with any performance in 2049. Roy most of all, but even an archetype like Leon comes across as more authentic than 2049 characters, human or not.
Joseph Perez
>try to tell a new story set in the same universe Wah wah wah it's too different! >try to tell the same story set in the same universe It's a glib facsimile ;)
Kill yourself, OP.
Xavier Edwards
Why did we need another movie in the same universe at all? And the story isn't even one of my problems with it. It's everything else that's the problem.
I thought the first section was interesting. Then for some reason we meet deckard and have this incredibility long scene travelling through the desert. Which didn't work because we were shown vestiges of an old world but not what the old world really represented and why we should care. And then when deckard appears we're reminded how fucking boring this movie's MC is compared to Deckard from the first movie and we're left hoping and watching that the new MC (who's name I honestly dont remember) ever does something interesting.
2049 is just a boring fucking movie with no mystery or plot to it. It would have worked if our lens into the world was a normal, no one detective who we could experience the world through and we meet the Gosling's character and see that same revelation play out externally.
Wyatt Cox
This line confused me. She added that on after the conversation was over. >Was she just being a frigid cunt when he just said he'll follow orders? Why? or >by devaluing the concept of having a soul (in stating K doesn't need one), she's actually equating K, a piece of police equipment, with actual human police officers It just seems like one of those lines that sounds deep, but doesn't make sense. It could've been written by Jared Leto in-character. It's so pretentious and on-the-nose. Like, I get it, he's a fucking dishwasher. It's like all the overly literal references of the Replicants as slaves, it's trying to beat you over the head with something obvious.
Nathaniel Turner
No one is saying 2049 doesn't have nice visuals. It's fucking boring. Those two are not exclusive
Isaac Rodriguez
>MUH STATIC STERILE BACKGROUNDS This is one of the key distinctions between the original and 2049. 2049 is too fucking clean and some of the sets, like Wallace's offices, are just nonsensical and don't seem practical for working in. The stills in your jpg make me think of Ghost in the Shell more than Blade Runner. 2049 has still backgrounds, Blade Runner has places.
Josiah Williams
>Normalfag plebs can't appreciate kino Maybe you should watch the Avengers Endgame it has memes and quips that will keep your ADHD attention.
And? Who gives a shit Blade Runner is even more boring and its still an alright movie. This shit series is mad overrated overall.
Owen Morris
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. What did you want, a literal reboot remake with the same exact setting and storyline? And if you think the point of the first one was just to make it as "le pretty" as possible just because then you're not worth of that film also.
I don't get the hype either. I saw it with my girlfriend and another couple and I literally fell asleep in the theater. I'm probably gonna give it another go at some point tho.
Logan Fisher
>Blade Runner is even more boring I can't imagine being this tasteless.
Nathaniel Morris
be aware that 90% of your post is used in the same exact way when describing the first one by plot point mental midgets
Jordan Torres
>even more boring Not to mention still poorly edited after 3 versions. It's like watching a collection of scenes that just happen with no rhyme or reason.
Eli Thompson
>what did I miss Some important genes at the moment of conception I think
Leo Price
>the blackout I laughed when the movie tried to pull this cheap shit. >um yeah, we don't actually want to make an X movie, so we had this revolutionary off-screen event happen between movies so we can easily get away with changing shit Yeah, fuck that. Complete garbage no matter where it happens. >after the blackout where nature is practically non existent Was already the case in the original. You see any fucking trees in Blade Runner? But 2049 makes it seem like a big deal. >"alive" "lived-in" Every location in Blade Runner looks alive in that it looks lived-in. Homes look comparable to the homes of urban sprawl, and offices look like they've been used and worked in. >vibrant and "pretty" Check your own stills again. 2049 is both vibrant and pretty (in terms of color variation), which ISN'T Blade Runner. >What did you want, a literal reboot remake with the same exact setting and storyline? read the thread
Samuel Bennett
If I wanted to see a decent PkD adaptation I’d watch a scanner darkly If I wanted to watch a comercially faithful visual adaptation with non of the themes of characterization that made the book good I’d go watch blade runner (literal mental masturbation for normie intellectuals who have never read a book in their life’s) If I wanted a continuation of an already shit and stale garbage adaptation I’d go watch 2049
James Myers
It's bad. It was the original with even less interesting stuff and nothing new.
Hudson King
>we don't actually want to make an X movie Watch the released prequel shorts you dumb fuck, it's all explained. >Was already the case in the original. No it wasn't. Deckard can choose from a wide variety of foods to eat, in BR2049 there's nothing but synthetic bugs from Wallace. >lived-in Yes, because you could live in it. In BR2049 30 years have passed and everyone that is worth anything has moved Off-World to any of the 9 new planets. Barely anyone is in the streets because of the extremely harsh dust filled environment so most people reside indoors, which is evident when he enters the over populated hallways leading to his apartments. Los Angeles is now Los Angeles only at the core of the city, with the rest of the city being basically a favella. >2049 is both vibrant and pretty (in terms of color variation) You're absolutely dumb. Do you think the first BR is monochromatic with no variation in color?
>Watch the released prequel shorts you dumb fuck, it's all explained. >nope, can't watch a bloated 2hr43min movie, need extra material to understand the already established setting Not very high praise. >Deckard can choose from a wide variety of foods to eat, in BR2049 there's nothing but synthetic bugs from Wallace. What does this add to the movie or the setting? >Yes, because you could live in it. In BR2049 30 years have passed and everyone that is worth anything has moved Off-World to any of the 9 new planets. Barely anyone is in the streets because of the extremely harsh dust filled environment so most people reside indoors, which is evident when he enters the over populated hallways leading to his apartments. Los Angeles is now Los Angeles only at the core of the city, with the rest of the city being basically a favella. I was only talking about indoor living spaces and offices. Wallace's office looks like some anime-inspired shit. Bryant's office actually looks like someone spends a lot of time in it. K's apartment is just too clean. It feels to plain and barren. It lacks the character of Deckard or Sebastian's disorganized and messy areas. That's my big issue with sets in 2049; they lack character that came with the grime, clutter, and smokey aesthetic of Blade Runner. >Do you think the first BR is monochromatic with no variation in color? Less variation than 2049? Absolutely.
Kayden Allen
okay gay now buy a fucking brain in your local Walmart
Jackson Carter
>need extra material to understand the already established setting No you don't you mental midget, literally everything is explained by pure visuals. The very opening scene tells you everything you need to know about the state of the environment. >What does this add to the movie or the setting? It means that resources are extremely scarce and that Los Angeles and Earth in general is a shithole, which is why crime is so high. Also accentuates the disparity of the situation, for example the holo projection of a steak over the synthetic grey noodles. >Wallace's office looks like some anime-inspired shit. Bryant's office actually looks like someone spends a lot of time in it. Wallace is literally blind you double mental midget. Should he have paintings and pictures on the wall? Some nice decorations aswell? >K's apartment is just too clean. It feels to plain and barren. It lacks the character of Deckard or Sebastian's disorganized and messy areas Hmmm it's almost like that's the entire point? That K is not messy at all? You see him walking through that absolutely filthy disgusting hallway to his apartment and when you enter it's completely different than outside, just one of the things pointing out how he is different from the others. >grime, clutter, and smokey aesthetic of Blade Runner. 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 even more 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.
It's a sequel, a continuation of the narrative, not a damn remake.
>It means that resources are extremely scarce and that Los Angeles and Earth in general is a shithole, which is why crime is so high. Also accentuates the disparity of the situation, for example the holo projection of a steak over the synthetic grey noodles. Why is this necessary? Blade Runner was already an extremely shitty rundown version of real life. What does making it an almost unnoticibly shittier shithole do? >Wallace is literally blind you double mental midget. How does he design and program anything? Where are his tools? Things like that. Granted, we never see Tyrell's tools either, but his living area looking like a living, breathing place. And he wasn't also blind on top of that, which just makes everything less believable. >Hmmm it's almost like that's the entire point? >Hurr it's supposed to have less going on! It's supposed to lack character! This set piece is supposed to be boring and visually uninteresting. >Do you think they were not able to put even more things in the frame if they wanted to? I think it was within their ability. I just don't think they wanted to make a Blade Runner movie. Because this isn't even just "Blade Runner, but less". These choices in deviation from the art direction indicate to me that Blade Runner itself wasn't the closest artistic inspiration. It feels like it was inspired by anime that was inspired by Blade Runner.
>It's a sequel, a continuation of the narrative, not a damn remake. A follow-up to Blade Runner never needed to exist at all. It adds nothing to the original, it's messaging is more on-the-nose, it remarkably tells less with more runtime, it's characters are less interesting, and it's actors all have a lesser on-screen presence.
Hunter Scott
I should add that the fact that a set being purposefully plain and uninteresting doesn't stop it from being plain and uninteresting.
Adam Clark
>nothing but synthetic bugs so it's also a Snowpiercer ripoff? lmao they literally just mish mashed every recent sci fi movie into a script.
Brody Torres
all these posters arguing about whether BR2014 looks too "sterile" or not are kind of missing the point the problem with the movie is that it has a boring storyline, kind of like an abandoned TV show pilot. Blade Runner was meditative and existential BR2049 is clearly the product of a committee meeting where certain boxes had to be ticked also: Rutger Hauer
Easton Rogers
There are themes in this movie that I just havent seen anywhere else
>Joi and Ks relationship >the intense loneliness K felt despite everything being more or less ok before shit hits the fan >the ethics of replicants
Rec me some similar movies that are and ill check them out
Samuel Phillips
Drive Her Ex Machina
Kayden Torres
>Why is this necessary? So the finding of the daughter becomes that more important, especially to Wallace who wants to conquer as much as possible. >almost unnoticibly shittier Unnoticeably shittier? There's literally no direct sunlight, no people on the vast majority of the streets, dust everywhere, everyone crammed indoors, 90% of LA is a dead favella compared to the alive and vibrant landscape of LA in the first one. >How does he design and program anything He obviously has ways to see when he needs to. Have you even watched the film? >These choices in deviation from the art direction indicate to me that Blade Runner itself wasn't the closest artistic inspiration Absolute bullshit. What about the eye motifs? What about the rain motifs evolving into a snow motif? What about the themes of memories forming identities? The human-replicant relationship extended to the replicant-AI relationship? The Voight Kampff test to the baseline test? Literally every single element is directly grown from the first one. But your puny brain just goes "uhhhh no smoke no Blade Runner!!1" >It adds nothing to the original It not only adds, but even improves the original. When Deckard gives the Voight-Kampf test to Rachael in the original, her eye shows up as green on the monitor (even though her eyes are brown in the rest of the film and in real life). A minor continuity error that largely went unnoticed. And with that scene BR2049 literally makes even the original film better by turning a continuity error in the first one into a plot point in the sequel to make a commentary about the inconsistency of our memories and the failed basis of our human condition. >it's characters are less interesting Do you honestly, legitimately, unironically, find a character like Deckard more interesting than K? There is a reason why everyone talks about Roy first.
>He obviously has ways to see when he needs to. Have you even watched the film? Not what I mean. Wallace doesn't have much about him that feels like a character. The appeal for the set design in Blade Runner is in it's similarity to our own world. Blade Runner on it's own already takes steps away from that. Take more steps away from that...it doesn't connect to reality at all anymore. >The human-replicant relationship extended to the replicant-AI relationship? The replicant-AI relationship is severely mishandled in that Joi is literally just a product and that's obvious from the start, then the movie points it out, and then points it out AGAIN when it's supposed to have some emotional impact when it just makes K look like he belongs on /r9k/. >Voight Kampff test to the baseline test? It was a neat touch, but seemed like a glorified easter egg to me. >by turning a continuity error in the first one into a plot point Okay...? Future sequels making references to previous continuity errors isn't new. It's just a reference. >Do you honestly, legitimately, unironically, find a character like Deckard more interesting than K? 100%. K and his relationships with other characters never once came across to me as interesting or compelling. It just felt like the same basic "does this dishwasher have a soul story I've already seen a hundred times. Deckard's arc has to do with being dehumanized ("android" as PKD put it in interviews) as a retired Blade Runner. As is pointed out in the opening text, the very word they use for his occupation is retirement, not execution. And by the time that Roy finds acceptance in saving Deckard's life, Deckard is more human after the ordeal, as he's seen coming to grips with retirement, especially when he shoots Zhora.
Easton Lopez
>The appeal for the set design in Blade Runner is in it's similarity to our own world. What a headcanon asspull lmao. Yeah flying cars and human like androids, so similar. >Take more steps away from that...it doesn't connect to reality at all anymore. So fiction and fantasy as genres should just be shut down altogether? Every film should have a naturalistic narrative set on modern day Earth? >It's just a reference. I literally just explained to you how it isn't a reference, how it even improves and fixes the original. >Deckard's arc 90% of the film Deckard is the same exact character, while in BR2049 the entire film is K's character development. But like what you like, I enjoy the other characters in the first BR far more.
Henry James
>Yeah flying cars and human like androids I already acknowledged the obvious ways Blade Runner is radically different. The set designs were comparatively parallel. It makes the world and characters more authentic and believable. >So fiction and fantasy as genres should just be shut down altogether? Every film should have a naturalistic narrative set on modern day Earth? We aren't talking about every movie. We're talking about Blade Runner and 2049, and the fact is that 2049's world is further removed from our own in ways that can't be explained away with the 30 year jump. Does the future just phase out things like human laziness, smoking, interior decoration that you could recognize at your friend's house? 2049 isn't fantasy, but it's less familiar than Blade Runner is, and that removes a lot of the almost visceral authenticity that comes in Blade Runner constantly. >fixes the original That's not how it works. >I enjoy the other characters in the first BR far more Deckard isn't my favorite character in Blade Runner either. I just never saw anything in K. He's a dishwasher.
Cameron Hill
I think maybe you have to watch it again, it is a very dense movie and it is a lot to absorb in one go.
I had the exact same feeling the first time i watched it, but i watched it a few times more and it has become one of my favourites.
Jaxon Walker
>Does the future just phase out things like human laziness Huh, almost like K is not human? >I just never saw anything in K He's Pinocchio in a post apocalyptic BR world.
Ian Hill
>Huh, almost like K is not human? That might be the point, but like I said before, a set being supposedly boring doesn't undo the fact that it IS boring where the original just isn't. >He's Pinocchio in a post apocalyptic BR world. Pinocchio already exists. And I've just gone through to many stories where the central idea is debating on the humanity of an inhuman machine to care about this one. It doesn't do anything with the concept I haven't seen before. Data from TNG, Bicentennial Man, Legion from Mass Effect, it's just a really tired theme to me.
Parker Taylor
I didn't find the set boring at all. >Pinocchio already exists Yeah and do you think Blade Runner invented it's narrative aswell? Teams of what makes a human human to be first explored in 1982?
>Blade Runner invented it's narrative aswell Certainly not, but I haven't consumed those types stories since I was 10 years old either. It's much more interesting to me.
Blake Evans
I watched it in the IMAX theater. It was incredible visually. I almost fell asleep, though.
Jose Robinson
oops didn't mean to namefag lmao pay no attention it never happened.
