Why does twitter hate Blade Runner 2049 so much?

Blade Runner
Tron
Dark Crystal

Any other good follow ups to cult classics that came out decades later?

Blade runner 1 is great and is no thanks to Ford
Blade runner 2 is a gay mess with some pretty visuals and a great opening scene with batista

>twitter
Who gives a fuck you normalfag pretending to be a discerning viewer

>pretty visuals
Everything about 2049 was great except the visuals. It was an overly-clean orange and teal digital mess. Very ugly movie.

What did BR attempt, please? At the core, it was a generic detective story with nice optics, which also completely butchered the book and didn't even touch the interesting topics and implications.

I didn't say they were all pretty visuals. I said some. There are some pretty visuals in the movie usually Joi is involved in the prettier scenes

The movie is unmatched aesthetically. It basically created cyberpunk. Just to give an example of how the aesthetic added to the tone of the movie is the way the sound created a real sense of ambiguity throughout. It's something I had never seen before. Usually in movies voice work, on-set sound, and score are strictly separate. But in Blade Runner half the time you can't tell if the sound is diegetic or not; half of it is score, a lot of it is just a combination of reverb applied to the actor's voices and random synthesizer noises. And all of it together creates an atmosphere that plays out almost exactly like a dream.

This fuckin bitch is everywhere with her "controversial" opinions

This.

why do women hate 2049 so much?

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-09-15 at 2.33.07 PM.png (1206x784, 147K)

Nobody's tweets on the entire site are worth reading except the occasional Trump tweet.

Literal "films women don't understand"

>Moeposter is a twitterfag with shit taste
shocking

Yeah yeah, groundbreaking, atmosphere, yadda yadda. Just like Citizen Kane. Fuck all. Just because a movie influenced other movies doesn't mean it's particularly good or ages well or anything.

Yea, that dream-like atmosphere was lacking in the sequel, although I enjoy that film's cold aesthetic too. Ultimately you have to admire these films for putting so much effort and creativity into the audio/visual departments when so many blockbuster and sci-fi films are completely generic.

>the cinematography was amazing
lmao
Yea Forums was right about this movie being for numales

>All we’ve got to hang on to is Deckard, and the moviemakers seem to have decided that his characterization was complete when they signed Harrison Ford for the role. Deckard’s bachelor pad is part of a 1924 Frank Lloyd Wright house with a Mayan motif. Apart from that, the only things we learn about him are that he has inexplicably latched on to private-eye lingo, that he was married, and that he’s tired of killing replicants—it has begun to sicken him. (The piano in his apartment has dozens of family pictures on it, but they’re curiously old-fashioned photos—they seem to go back to the nineteenth century —and we have no idea what happened to all those people.) The film’s visual scale makes the sloppy bit of plot about Deckard going from one oddball place to another as he tracks down the four replicants—two men, two women—seem sort of pitiable But his encounters with the replicant women are sensationally, violently effective. As Zhora, who has found employment as an artificial snake charmer, Joanna Cassidy has some of the fine torrid sluttiness she had in The Late Show. (Nobody is less like a humanoid than Joanna Cassidy; her Zhora wasn’t manufactured as an adult—she was formed by bitter experience, and that’s what gives her a screen presence.) And, in the one really shocking and magical sequence, Daryl Hannah, as the straw haired, acrobatic Pris, does a punk variation on Olympia, the doll automaton of The Tales of Hoffmann.

Attached: 1550230707982.png (300x180, 49K)

Blade Runner ages well because there's no other movie like it. Even the countless movies that took its visual design feel completely different

This is the problem with BRfags. They can only talk about the "visual design". That the story drags on and on and on and isn't even told in an exciting way is of no matter because WOW THE LOOKS MAN! SICK VISUALS DUDE!
So yeah, for the effects and design alone, it is enjoyable. But that's it. Style over substance. Takes the broad theme from the book and adds so many neon lights that people are easily blinded by its flashiness.

A question: Did you read the book before or after watching the movie?

Eh I think it deliberately went for more open environments compared to the claustrophobia of the first. The opening scene set the tone.

There's no separation between form and content. Talking about the "story" of Blade Runner is like talking about the story of a really beautiful painting. It matters, but only to the extent in which it articulates particular themes. Blade Runner is important because its aesthetic is able to elicit an emotional response from its viewer, independent of its story.

This idea that plot is somehow more important than anything else is an idea that comes from when movies were trying to imitate theater. Back before movies had sound and were purely visual, people understood that the medium had more in common with painting and photography than it did with theater.

And no, I haven't read the book yet. I was actually planning on reading it after I finished Wuthering Heights, which I'm reading right now.

females in general don't like Blade Runner 2049
or any actual film actually

Attached: 1521486974736.png (716x1000, 557K)

>caring about the opinions of REEEEEEing twitter cunts

Frankly, I disagree with you there. While in film story is not EVERYTHING, it is still essential.
You can't have a book without a compelling story.
A film can have a bit shittier story, but still be entertaining. But without a story, you get stuff like Kooyanisqatsi, which is basically just a music video.

(You)

But (we) clicked

Are verified twitter journos the most annoyingly smug people on earth?

Attached: BR2049 1.png (1896x1055, 1.8M)

because it's better than the first one

see this thread

I liked Kooyanisqatsi though. I don't disagree that story is somewhat essential, I just disagree that A, plot is essential, and B, something can't be interesting and groundbreaking independent of its story. And I don't agree that you can't have a book without a compelling story. People remember Nabokov and Joyce because of the way they told their stories, not because of the stories themselves.

You have to keep in mind that the medium of film can be for whatever anyone uses it for. Whether it be to tell stories, document reality, or just to create an interesting piece of visual art. Blade Runner, to me, is an interesting and immersive piece of visual art, and it works enough on that level for me to enjoy my experience watching it. It doesn't also have to be something extra for me to like it.

Why does Yea Forums post screencaps of blue checkmarks?

99% of the time it isn't even blue checkmarks but 5 Twitter follower literal whos

Who cares? Neck yourself faggot

Absolute kinography.

I don't think that there's a movie with a better combination of sound and visuals than the original Blade Runner. The score might be one of the best ever

youtube.com/watch?v=OhgMDb9nGQs

Attached: BR2049 2.jpg (3000x2083, 3.6M)

>Blade Runner, to me, is an interesting and immersive piece of visual art
This, but my main problem with Blade Runner is that, instead of fully focusing on form, it focuses too much on substance, and substance is not good enough. It's like if Refn tried to tell a story in Only God Forgives instead of making pure cinematic experience, but Refn is too smart for that

What's the point of these? Movies are about motion, not still images. Some movies look great in stills but horrible at 24fps

I see what you mean and I am too tired to argue against it. Maybe I should rewatch it.

oi, the shoa

don’t reply to tripfags retard

Attached: 1558998893422.jpg (2700x1465, 1.23M)

Because it was form over function schlock riddled with plot holes.

why are old ugly bitches even watching BR2049
they should stick with 50 shades

It's too masculine for these times.

>M-MEN CAN'T FEEL, THEY CAN'T FEEL SAD, OR FRUSTRATED, OR LONELY
>REEEEEEEEEEE AAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHH

Basic bitch doesn't get Blafe Runner. Color me shocked.

so kino

Huh based and redpilled

Feminists literally believe this, but insist that they believe the exact opposite.

>"visual design"
>muh story
>style over substance being a bad thing
We get it, you don't like art. Film isn't for you.

Is there supposed to be english subs for the japanese parts?

But Koyaanisqatsi is incredible

film name?

Bladerunner 1989

Agreed NOT

Mad Max

"style"/form can BE the substance, what you mean is it focuses too much on plot

>28 mill dollars hollywood movie by riddley scott
>art

>be me
>discussing runnerkino with my mates at work
>qt 8/10 girl co-worker asking to join the discussion
>nah okay, what did you liked about the movie?
>says that she liked the visuals, directing, the soundtrak but also disliked Goose's performance saying it's too emotionless
>dumb cunt.jpg
>confidently explain to her why ourguy was top-tier with examples of GODDAMNIT and death of Joi scenes
>she silently agree
>asked if her bf liked the movie
>I-i always go to the cinema alone
>tell her that we should watch the movie together sometimes
>she blushes and smiles
>o-okay user!
>never invited her to watch movie together after that

Attached: 1553083179340.jpg (433x427, 86K)

women hate it because even robots are more human than they are

Of course, all this toxic masculinity shit is just an insidious plan to weed out the simps.

Debatable, but the way you write shows you don't understand what art even is.

you did good, why heat the water if chad is gonna bathe in it?

Black Rain aka if blade runner 2049 was made by someone that wasn't an annoyingly scholastic director

I enjoyed everything about 2049 except the fact that Deckard and Gosling didn't get enough interaction. Was probably cut of course.

>I watch films for the story
>"style over substance"

This is why we can't have nice things.

Attached: dumb wojack 4.jpg (326x294, 14K)

>in their budget range
BR had a fairly big budget and 2049 had a huge one.

LOL

Do you know which cut you saw? Netflix had only the theatrical cut up for a while, which is pretty awful

Attached: 1559736846002.jpg (500x353, 28K)

It seems like most people didn't like it. A lot of my friends are scifi/nostalgiafags and none of them liked it.

damn, here comes the faggot who thinks that movies are the same as books.

Because Twitter is literally the Discord trannies

you know it's a weeb fantasy when you read shit like this
>she blushes and smiles
>o-okay user!

sneed

Koyaanisqatsi is still film and still excellent

William Gibson had a crisis of confidence because it came out not long before Neuromancer was set to be published and when he saw it he was convinced he’d be accused of ripping it off.

Rewatched this the other day as it's on Netflix now and honestly think it might be one of the best movies ever made. It's at least one of the best scif-fi movies ever made. Call me a pleb, I don't care.

>tfw when K literally crawls out of the ocean at the end after saving Deckard, signifying the first steps of his evolution towards human life
Such good use of subtle symbolism in the movie

fpbp
also based and redpilled

It's one of the only movies to come out in the last five years that I actually like. Of course twitter hates it.

they hate it cause incels like it

I'm an incel and I like the movie. Is this true?

based

yes

Its a product of its time. It took noir and added a sci fi element to it. Its not a perfect movie (the zoom and enhance scene for example) but it poineered a whole genre of film.

No but it helps

Its not an exciting movie, no. But it doesnt try to be either. It does rely on its atmosphere heavily yes, but why does that have to be a bad thing? It sounds to me like your expectations are getting in the way of it, which is fine too. Its not a movie for everybody.

Blue check Twitter hated it when it came out because it had a message that could be interpreted as vaguely anti-feminist

Normies didn't like it because it wasn't two hours of quips explosions and corny melodrama

I have issues with 2049 but it was actually a real movie with a point other than to sell tickets for next movie

everyone hates dishonesty

I went to see Blade runner in IMAX in Tokyo
It was a packed theater, and people enjoyed it
I heard two Japanese girls saying how it was "sugoi" at the end, and there was many single women in the audience. They seemed to get the movie

Also leaving a showing of Blade Runner to a rain slick Tokyo night was 10/10 kino

Attached: Screenshot_2019-09-07_at_4.50.49_PM.jpg (600x554, 53K)

They hated it because it presented male sexual alienation as something worthy of exploration, which is a subject that women despise. The thing about it being anti-feminist is a completely made up excuse used to attack the film

It was a terrible movie with a handful of very good visual sequences and a decent soundtrack. That's all. The plot is garbage, Leto's performance is garbage, Harrison Ford and his whole plot should have been erased and Leto should not have been cast, the actress who played Luv was garbage also. It should have been about the main character as a replicant cop dealing with some plot revolving around the rise of androids. There shouldn't have been any homage to the original at all, other than the fact that the plot would be slightly similar and take place in the same world. It would have been kind of awesome if the first half of the film took place on earth and the second half was in space or something crazy like that. They could have done so much with this and they shat the bed by catering to fans of the original by dragging out Dickhard and his stale-ass plot. It's unfortunate because you see they were scratching at the surface of something very interesting but didn't have the balls to just go for it.

Attached: bladerunner2049.gif (480x270, 905K)

I really bought into K as a mirror for my 20-to-30's. Going from 'everyone is special and unique and that's the drive that makes them who they are' to 'no one's fucking special, we're all the same crud now are you gonna whine and mope about not being special or do something with what you have?'

this is a trueism

You must have taken a long time to find that and copy a paste it. Here’s a pity (you)

Women dont have the same sense of emotional attatchment that men do
Women only get attracted to money and jewelry
Their minds havent developed from what is equal to shaking your keys in front of a baby

>the actress who played Luv was garbage also.
Dislike the movie all you want, but this is a profoundly retarded take. Her performance was objectively great. The best in the film by far.

BR 2049 was is hated because it has an incel robot brought to a breaking point and spergs out to show that he is human.

It is a good movie. Only faggots and women hate it.

>(The piano in his apartment has dozens of family pictures on it, but they’re curiously old-fashioned photos—they seem to go back to the nineteenth century —and we have no idea what happened to all those people.)

Yeah, it's because he's a replicant. You're supposed to notice that there's something wrong with the family pictures. For the same reason he dreams/has semi-conscious memories of a unicorn. What's the only way to convey to the audience that the character's vision never actually happened? To make it about something that doesn't exist.

Some people don't like BR and that's totally fine but many of those who criticize it just don't understand it.

>muh cinegrid
is there any bigger red flag?

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

>Yeah, it's because he's a replicant.

>Instead of making this quetion ambiguous which would make more sense, Scott just straight up tells it to the audience
what a hack

these are both great what

Did she end up seeing and reviewing the director's cut?

>A question: Did you read the book before or after watching the movie?

Stop. Books and films are two different mediums. The fact that you complain about BR being style over substance proves you don't understand that. Films have video and audio, that's what distinguishes them from books as a form of entertainment.

If BR's style isn't enough for you, then you just don't like movies in general.

Or do you? Which movies do you think are better than it? Let's see you name some and embarrass yourself.

sNeed

I honestly see nothing interesting about her performance or her character. In fact, the prostitute who was in the movie for a few minutes was a more interesting character, desu. I know she was in love with k and keeping it inside but they didn't really show why and it was extremely forced and the actress was sort of trying to act robotic throughout the movie just a stones throw away from the T-X from Terminator 3. Sorry, I just view this as a shitty performance and a shitty character.

Why do movies shot on film look so much better? 2049 looks good, but the images are so clean and cold

This is slightly misleading because it's just the films with the highest delta between where men rank them vs women. So it's a more of a dark grey pill than a black pill.

>with nice optics
do you mean visuals lol

first blade runner is shit unless roy batty is on the screen or it's a big wide city shot
br2049 is kino all the way through

It would have been much better if it explored the concepts it brought up more directly than getting entangled in the stale Blade Runner 1 plot. Virtual worlds, augmented reality, interstellar exploration, the future of slave labor, automation, genetic manipulation, memory manipulation, totalitarianism, etc. They could have taken this as a chance to reboot a lot of ideas from 1984 and a brave new world with these concepts in mind.

Attached: recreated-bladerunner-2049-scene.jpg (1024x427, 163K)

not even close

Attached: br.jpg (682x1442, 342K)

No dude, the iciness was a facade. That what was so great about her performance. You'd see almost imperceptible hints of it try to worm their way out, like the way her mouth twitched when she first met K and he made a comment about Wallace naming her. It was so subtle. And when she did explode, her emotional immaturity made her come across as petulant, almost like a child. She's literally like 5 years old in the film's canon, which puts her "I'm the best one" line at the end in a completely different light. Her obsession with K was that of a sibling rivalry, not of romantic attraction.

Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott and the original author whose work BR was based off of Asimov are all Jews

There's far more ambiguity in 2049 than this image suggests, but it's mostly subtextual. If the original played out like a dream, 2049 played out almost like a novel. That's not necessarily a good thing (too much metaphor and a work becomes self-aware), but it does lend it a certain depth.

>OG Blade Runner
>lets observer decide
>done for fun and artistic satisfaction
>technical mastery but more SUBTLE
Jesus Christ, people actually believe this

>Short of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner has to be the most boring science fiction film of all time. Ridley Scott is a no-talent hack, a fact which has been demonstrated extensively by his subsequent output. He's a visual director with no sense of character or narrative, and this film is a classic case of all style and no substance.

>Blade Runner gets so much credit for asking "big questions" about what makes us human and how we come to terms with our finite existence, but like everything else in the film this is all on the surface with no depth or complexity. Take the famous "Tears in Rain" soliloquy from Roy Batty: this speech makes explicit what ought to be implicit, and the whole movie operates on this same level. There's a moment where Batty screams at Tyrell, "I want more life!" and this is about as subtle as the film ever gets.

>Here's a test for you: try to imagine Deckard outside of the film. What does he do with his free time? Having trouble? That's because he has no character. There's nothing there beyond Harrison Ford's superficial charms. He has no motivation for anything he does. He's simply a blank slate going through the motions of a generic police investigation. And even on that count, the film fails to deliver. The plot is glacially paced and lacking a single ounce of tension.

>Blade Runner is one of many films from Dr. Caligari to Inception which tricks its audience into thinking they're smart by asking an unanswerable question. Is Deckard a replicant? Maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but neither answer makes the movie anything more than the tedious, flat, insipid bore that it is.

Attached: 1550230707982.png (230x300, 57K)

The guy who wrote this on letterboxd also gave 2001 a 5-star review. He's clearly trolling.

BR2049 is literally a feminist film.

>Short of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner has to be the most boring science fiction film of all time.
I share oxygen with these fucking plebs

Attached: 1412234743715.png (621x433, 164K)

I know, but weirdly enough this review is so true it hurts

> No dude, the iciness was a facade. That what was so great about her performance. You'd see almost imperceptible hints of it try to worm their way out
I am aware of that and was aware of that even on the first viewing, and I did not view this as great acting, it was just two emotional levels she shifted between, one was a robotic T-X mode the other was tearful and angry mode. It's not that complex and not an amazing performance by any stretch of the imagination. It may have been imperceptible to you but it wasn't to me. It was actually kind of ridiculous and clumsy imo and what's worse is that there really was no reason SHOWN for the character to be in love with, or interested in k in any way. That's another reason why it was so forced. I saw a lot of reason why she hated Leto's character, but not why she loved k. It was like multiple disjointed storylines were merging into one movie. You have Luv and Leto, K and his augmented raality waifu, and the you Dickhard and his stale plot. These plots were like oil and water, none of them meshed. It was a mess of a plot. The threads holding them together were forced and made no sense.

> It was so subtle. And when she did explode, her emotional immaturity made her come across as petulant, almost like a child. She's literally like 5 years old in the film's canon, which puts her "I'm the best one" line at the end in a completely different light. Her obsession with K was that of a sibling rivalry, not of romantic attraction.
If this is true it still makes no sense. In a world with countless thousands possibly even millions of replicants, why would she give a shit about a rivalry with some random replicant cop like k? why "compete" with him? her plot seemed more to revolve around her love/hate relationship with Leto's character. k should have been generally irrelevant to her if you think about it. it's like the whole plot is force-driven rather than naturally unfolding.

Attached: 207123.gif (540x220, 2.95M)

Genuine question: what prompted the sudden pendulum swing on this board in terms of this movie? I couldn't go on here this time last year without seeing threads extolling the virtues of 2049; now it's the exact opposite.

I personally enjoyed the film; I think it's a vast improvement over the original, although the original does deserve some of the credit it's been given. There are parts that could be fine-tuned or cut, but overall, I think it's a nice change of pace from the capeshit schlock that's been choking out the film industry for almost a decade now.

>nice change of pace from the capeshit schlock
nobody tell him

Attached: 1528917881943.png (444x378, 214K)

People just like to be contrarian trolls. Which isn't to say disliking it makes someone a troll, but take note of which posts tend to exaggerate.

She was interested in K in the same way that a house slave is interested in a runaway slave being hunted down. He's a reminder of her own subordination. She hates how inferior his freedom makes her feel, and expresses that complex in a violent and explosive hatred. I never got the impression that she wanted to fuck him.

And some of the acting is quite literally imperceptible. Her facial twitch after K reminds her that Wallace named her is something I remember from the IMAX screening of the film I saw, but isn't something I'm able to see when I watch the film at home.

I only liked the portion of the film having to do with K and JOI, everything else could have been edited out and if they just expanded on that relationship and augmented reality in general I would have been much more interested. There were kernels of a very good movie in there but the overall film was bloated garbage with a pretty stupid ending.

It's odd, though, because that article proves the movie's goal was different than average MCU fare. He says that the way he approached writing the film was story first, universe second. They wanted to make a good story and a good film that could lay natural groundwork for later installments as a kind of contingency. Much in the same way Marvel approached the OG Iron Man, which is arguably one of the if not the best of the Marvel films from an actual filmmaking standpoint.

I agree with you that blockbusters are, by their very nature, going to be similar to each other, so perhaps it's not fair of me to try and say 2049 was that different of an approach. But I think it'd be hard to argue that it doesn't at least try to address certain themes that the MCU goes nowhere NEAR in their run, which is the key difference for me when comparing it to other movies of a similar form.

Yea Forums doesn't like a single movie. Any contemporary movie that becomes popular, Yea Forums unambiguously hates.

>tv is one person

I'm talking about Yea Forums collectively. Obviously individuals who post here like individual movies

Based

That's an okay take. But she didn't get it, that was the point. It's literally blasted directly into her face and she's like, why do all the pics look so old, derp derp derp!?

She saw the theatrical cut, which doesn't even suggest that Deckard's a replicant

> He's a reminder of her own subordination.
They were hinting at her being in love with him right off the bat. First of all they named her LUV which is a classic storytelling device to hint at some subtext of the character (Such as Holden Caulfield sounding like "hold in"), and then there is this scene on their first meetup: youtube.com/watch?v=b08cWOyHqAM#t=3m17s
There are at least some hints that she is doing this specifically because she loves him.
But setting that aside, even if she were doing this wholly out of envy of his freedom like a run away slave, it's not a particularly interesting take on a character in her position. It's kind of a cliche if you think about it. "The slave wants to be free"...that's not really very original and kind of a boring cliche.

> She hates how inferior his freedom makes her feel, and expresses that complex in a violent and explosive hatred. I never got the impression that she wanted to fuck him.
Her anger seemed more oriented around Leto's treatment of her than her envy of k. I don't really recall her being in awe of his freedom or anything. She's just hunting him.

> And some of the acting is quite literally imperceptible. Her facial twitch after K reminds her that Wallace named her is something I remember from the IMAX screening of the film I saw, but isn't something I'm able to see when I watch the film at home.
Her acting and the acting in this film in general felt ridiculous unnatural. Everyone acts like they have a broom stick rammed up their ass. Most of this film could have been cut out.

Ah, my bad.

How many films can you name where a slave's attraction to her master compellers her to do his bidding, even if that means acknowledging and contributing to her own subordination as a class by killing one of her own? I can't imagine that fairly complex emotional groundwork being considered cliché

It’s a cheap twist on a cliche concept Meant to come off as edgy. Honestly I couldn’t stand her character, it was like she was overly asserting herself into the main plot which had nothing to do with her and k was asserting himself into deckards plot which had nothing to do with him. The film is disjointed and unfocused.