Film adaptations that got it right

The story is much worse in this one than the first.

It's Blade Runner 2049. It's sipping with parallels to Pale Fire though.

None of these posts are true.

wait... what does any of this have to do with pic related??

Philip k.Dick has been superseded by Vladimir Knobikov.

medium.com/@mariabustillos/blade-runner-2049-is-revealed-through-the-novel-pale-fire-dd9f04768439

seems like the two novels arent related in any way

im very confused, cant wait to see the new blade runner anyway

Lolita(1999) not the original in black e whitr
Moby Dick (60s)
The Crime of Father Amaro , the mexixan one ( not perfect but still)
1984 (1984) wasnt so bad
Ive never read Woman in the Dunes, but the is really good
White Nights( a French adaptation in black e white)

Ive never read Pale Fire, this cover makes it seem like some generic sci-fïį

You'll comprehend the purpose this thread once you've seen the film.

It was bad

Just two references and a vague allegorical similarity doesn't make an adaptation

The OP is tongue-in-cheek, obviously.

I thought the story was pretty great what were your issues? It was a little slow in it's delivery but everything else was great: character motivations , character development, conflict, world building; all these were good. The only complaint I've seen about this movie is that it was boring but I think it's just not star wars level excitement. It's exciting in its own noir type of way which, granted, many people aren't accustom to.

get out of Veeky Forums

Xplain

there's a thread about the (surprising) relationship between the film and the novel on reddit

dare I post it?

reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/74x9e3/blade_runner_2049_spoiler_indepth_look_at_the/

Fight Club. Even the author says the movie is better.

The trailers look aesthetically corny. Like typical orange and teal hollywood crap. Does the film actually look good?

Gone With the Wind.

...

Let's be real dorks, the original Blade Runner is visually sexy but overrated as fuck in terms of storytelling and "philosophy." 2049 is simply a better film because it has an emotionally heftier story without being try-hard nooby with its philosophy.

Also, even though I like the book enough, No Country for Old Men is one god damn great film.

Not really a legitimate complaint. Just like you can enjoy a novel for its prose, you can enjoy a film based on its aesthetic qualities alone. I loved 2001 before I was old enough to understand what it meant.

the shining because it was nothing like the piece of shit book.

Yes, ridiculously good. That's inarguably the strongest part in a movie I really like.
The only actual complaints I've heard against it are those /tv/ retards talking about how they think that some subtle reasoning that isn't explicitly laid out in the movie and handheld for them is a plot hole and that if they find one they get to feel smugly superior for saying the movie is bad.

nah

What does PF have to do with Bladerunner?

I think Nabokov is referenced in the new movie

See
Rather than the Voight Kampff test there's a "baseline" test that tries to assess a replicants emotional state by reading them poetry and having them repeat certain phrases. Later a copy of the book is shown in the protagonists apartment.

The marketing for this film was very bad and misleading.

It's more than just that. See:

It was marketed as an action film... but even that couldn't help it

>pic related

forgot fucking pic

INTERLINKED

Am I a pleb if I wanna read Pale Fire after seeing BR?

I really dont get why every film or book has to have an incredibly complex, beautiful, or life changing story. I can appreciate simple concise stories, and Bladerunner and the sequel did it for me. I agree that NCFOM is fucking awesome.

no

its a "box office dissapointement" only in the states
it's doiong great internationally

It made 80million these articles are bullshit

Yes but you're more of a pleb if you don't so give it a read dude

Nice, thanks man.

is it a /tv/ people invasion that has turned this into a shit/mediocre thread? (like everything on /tv/)

It would explain the rise in "what if ____ was made into a netflix show!?" threads. But I doubt it's an invasion, probably just one user crossposting.

It was alright.

It's a flop in the US because 'murricans. It did well in Europe. (Just like the first film. Really makes me think.)

The ending feels rushed and entirely loses its focus after the second revelation. In fact, the movie barely makes it to the finish line after Deckard enters i.e., the last third or so.

K saving Deckard feels awkward and drawn out where the final scene of the first film, although somewhat different given the confrontation between Roy and Deckard that preceded it, is a concise, subtle gesture that in a span of a few moments punctuates a final shift in Roy's character. People can babble on about this sequel being its own entity that doesn't copy--blah blah blah--but almost every narrative movement in this film is just a far more explicit rendering of an idea from the last movie. 'Everyone wants to believe they're the child,' 'a piece of the artist in their work,' 'dying for the cause'--the film is going out of its way to setup similar pieces of religious imagery, only to retread familiar ground come credits. Gosling bleeding out on the steps at the end as the "tears in rain" score plays over his character's silence feels like a particularly apt way of closing this film: the flick invokes its source material, but nothing it's brought along has anything to add.

Also, great character motivations and development? What? I'll let K slide, but I'm gonna need you need to break down Deckard, Joi, Luv, the prostitute--a whole lot of nothing. Luv could have been interesting, but her mutterings at the end about 'being the best' were not paid nearly enough attention to throughout the rest of the film.

And don't get me started on the obnoxious dialogue and flashback replays, Zimmerman's one-note score, etc.

Listen, I thought the movie was alright, but it's no masterpiece.

guess you didn't see dunkirk a few months ago

I agree with many of your points, but i quite liked Luv's character. She was meant to directly parallel K. She looks uncomfortable when K tells hers that wallace must find her special, because she knows that he doesn't. She cries when wallace stabs a replicant in the gut because seeing a fellow replicant treated like disposable garbage reminds her that she's disposable garbage. Much like K's, she's desperate to feel special. Rather than disobeying her masters, like K does, she attempts to gain a sense of uniqueness by following her master's orders incredibly well, better than all of her peers. When she says "I'm the best" after beating the shit out of K, she's attempting to convince herself that the statement is true.

Dunkirk is severely overrated

Sure, I got most of that, but this is a ten minute story that only ends up getting in the way of a compelling final confrontation. I'm not saying that Luv needed a more clearly defined arc, but even her death was just a reminder of how little she's evolved over the course of the film. There's nothing tragic about her obedience, nothing her conclusion that closes her story--there's just nothing with her by the end. idk

The fact that she didn't change at all is the whole point of her arc. She's faced with the same existential crisis as K, but unlike K, she chooses inertia. While K's death has meaning (harrison gets to meet his daughter, wallace won't be able to reverse engineer the replicant pregnancy technoclogy), her's means absolutely nothing, because she chose to blindly follow orders. When K fights her at the end of the film, he's fighting someone that thinks exactly like he did only few days before, that's what makes her death tragic, and in my opinion, that's what makes the final encounter so compelling
I guess I see where you're coming from though, she could've been developed a bit more.
I'm surprised that you didn't criticize wallace in your first post, he fucking sucked

There isn't, but there was an adaptation of Laughter in the Dark.

I understand; I just saw lines like 'I'm the best' and whatever (stuff that was a little on the nose) as the film struggling to pull things together for this character's final moment--a moment it can almost get away with by simply doing nothing. I wasn't really saying that she needed to change, in fact, I'm fine with the point of her character being that she didn't change, but her last bit of screen time was spent being choked out by Gosling--the execution was off.

And yeah, Wallace was terrible. I'm not even sure Bowie could have salvaged the role.

>I just saw lines like 'I'm the best' and whatever (stuff that was a little on the nose) as the film struggling to pull things together for this character's final moment
Another user here. That line is crucial. Luv is acting like a child desperately trying to get daddy's (Wallace's) love all to herself. That's where she goes
>nah nah nah nah nah, I win and you lose HAH!

Replicants are in some sense very innocent, and Luv illustrates that. She is childlike in almost every single scene.

Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with this:
>When K fights her at the end of the film, he's fighting someone that thinks exactly like he did only few days before, that's what makes her death tragic, and in my opinion, that's what makes the final encounter so compelling

Joe is a good boy. He never wanted to be special. Madam's trust in him suggests that he had exhibited exemplary behaviour up to that point.

Luv on the other hand, doesn't follow her orders dutifully. She obeys because she believes that will make daddy notice her. She is shown to disobey orders before (for example her justifying killing Madam by telling Wallace she had attacked first suggests that she was not ordered to kill her, and that it he would not have been happy with the outcome; therefore it's something she does on her own, something she was not ordered to do.)

...

This wasn't me, but I think this user makes an interesting point that draws out some of what I was trying to get at in my criticism's of her scene at the end. Luv's extreme aggression seems to manifest from the self she represses in obeying Wallace; it comes out as she acts out her orders. This aggression is what I found most interesting about her character. In her final scene, however, we really only get more of this; she doesn't change and the film doesn't seem to particularly care. All I was trying to get at (if I wasn't making myself clear) was that this scene has so much potential but flops on execution.

*had so much potential to highlight her paralysis-- her aggression being her only outlet--but flopped on execution

would he approve the shoutout?

WTF? Let's be honest... I really enjoyed the first one but the story definitely wasn't as cohesive or even as good as this one. Sure the original had better visuals and overall was more aesthetic but you can't honestly say it had a better story.

Is Veeky Forums getting some of the other BR shills pouring in from other boards or do you all not watch film much? I'll admit the new one was better than most shit coming out in theaters now but regardless it's nothing remotely remarkable.

i did and this was better

>literally one samefag on /tv/ saying it was bad or people just saying they loved it with just a few posts of actual analysis
>i know, i'll go to Veeky Forums, it might have some high-brow discussion about it and they will appreciate the pace of the movie because they like books and aren't used to boom boom big explosion marvel shit
>Veeky Forums calls it boring

It's a million times better than the original, in fact I'm sad it isn't a standalone movie. I don't see how the story is bad. It doesn't have its own payoff, it's made this way to explore the character of K.

Explain why it's better than the original and how K's character is explored.

>write an interpretive essay on two movies

It expands on the world imagery of the first movie and features a main character that has actual development. Deckard was absolutely bland, his only character growth came after listening to Roy's speech. Any turmoil he might have had before this is lost to the viewer. I understand this is sort of the point so you can ask yourself what exactly is human then, but it just doesn't work for me. The new one takes K on a feel ride, him being a replicant just drives the point of 'not special' home even harder but in the end this realization and his own actions is what makes him more human, through his experiences, which is what he searched for, which wouldn't really be this believable or possible if the plot wasn't structured this way. At an absolutely basic level it's the same concept, I just find it better executed.

I'm not a shill, I watch plenty of film, and I liked the movie. None of that is relevant in regards to BR2049 being a good film. What the hell is your metric for measuring "remotely remarkable?"

She's the brainwashed prole who thinks the path to virtue involves being the most productive worker.

Okay, did anyone else think that backstory with the twins was a PKD reference?

PKD was a twin, but his twin sister died a few weeks after being born. In BR2049, the birth of Deckard and Rachael's daughter is obfuscated by the falsified records claiming that twins were born, and the son survived while the daughter died.

...

That was sort of outside the book looking in.

The original Blade Runner was a shitty adaptation. RIdley Scott didn''t even fucking read the book in the first place and Peoples and Fancher wasn't interested in the branch stories and the world so they changed it.
Watch Dangerous Days and you'll realize BR is a very, very, poor adaptation.
As a movie, that's a different thing tho, moviewise is ok.
BUT Ridley Scott is a hack.

Rather than make another thread I'll ask this here.

I spent yesterday reading about China's growing power, and yesternight I watched BR2049.

BR2049 is very much about what it means to be human, and reflecting on the film afterward I had a sudden realisation that I can't think of any Chinese media that is similarly concerned with the human condition. Everything Chinese I've read or watched is either about China itself or about romance.

Of course there must be Chinese literature/cinema about the human condition, but what?

Here's my recommendations about Chinese cinema in no particular order:
In the Heat of the Sun
Devils on the Doorstep
Yellow Earth
Spring in a Small Town
The Story of Qiu Jiu
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
House of Flying Daggers
Red Sorghum
2046
The Time To Live and the Time To Die
As for my literature recommendations, start with the four books and five classics, then read 300 Tang Poems and the Four Great Classical Novels.

forgot one great one: The Goddess

Xiu Xiu: The Sent-Down Girl

Hong Kong =/= China.

oh I'm sorry then take out literally one suggestion from that list

Thanks. I've seen most of those but they're not exactly what I'm after.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm after something that literally asks "what is (a) human?"

that's very different than human condition, user. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
I would argue it isn't as big of a question in East Asia because at least from a religious standpoint humanity has always been a loose definition, and humanity can be allotted on a variety of venerable objects, concepts, ect, through the inclusion of various deities. Humanity can also be lost by man through depravity. In the West there is a much stricter sense of what is a human and what isn't, which leads speculative fiction to try to push this hard line for philosophical and entertainment value.
Just comparing the genre of cyberpunk, for instance, you see in the West there's a huge anxiety over granting androids humanity, or humans replacing themselves with robots. This theme is played time and time again. There's a sense that there's a loss of humanity here. In the East, the technical aspect of cyberpunk this anxiety is non-existent and human augmentation and substitution is largely taken for granted.
I think it could also be partly explained by the rise of East Asian economies with the rise of electronic technologies, and Western paranoia surrounding this.

What about Ghost in the Shell though?

I didn't see Ghost in the shell as being particularly anxious over technology because augmentation and consciousness uploading are seen as normal and beneficial from the very beginning of the film. Kusanagi is the only character who is angsty about her identity because it is drawn into question by the plot of the film; the other characters are at first surprised by a fully digital ghost but they get over it very quickly. You're right, it was an exploration of the topic, but it ultimately affirms a positive image in a way a western film wouldn't imo - it shows the continuation or betterment of humanity through embracing technology, and eventually merging with technology to achieve a sort of psuedo-religious transcendence from biology. I'm drawing that last claim from the angel vision in that museum scene. I am downloading the complete series and OVAs so I will look further into it.
In my knowledge of Western science fiction, a film might potray an android in a sympathetic or human light, but it is always an almost apocalyptic message where it technology ultimately replaces humanity. In the original Bladerunner, the advanced technology has blurred the lines of humanity to the point where human life is expendable; that is why the twist is the ambiguity as towards Deckards humanity.
That's my take on it, anyways.
Didn't see the recent american ghost in the shell film and don't plan to, so I don't know how they treated the subject.

So it's like the new GitS movie?

This has turned into a /tv/ talk-about-movies thread that has but slight or no relevance to Veeky Forums.

Stick to the interesting but somewhat rarified question posed by the OP, or kindly fuck off.

>one suggestion
>one
Sorry buddy, Hong Kong =/= China.

You've basically just outlined what the first film did with Roy. I'm not even sure I would characterize Gosling's progression as being entirely similar though, as a sort of spiritual rot--a hollowness which plagues humanity (, Christianity?)--seeps into him by the end, whereas Roy seems to take on the "more human than human" mantra at the end of the first film when he waxes poetic; Roy comes close to a sort of transcendence where K just bleeds out in silence.

>trailer makes you think the movie is about K hunting Deckard because he's a replicant
>Deckard is only in the last third of the movie and is barely present, him being a replicant is irrelevant to the plot and unexplained
>bunch of plot holes and sloppy exposition
>shitty twists with purposefully convoluted plot points just so they can get explained later for a big reveal
>predictable reveals that are hammered home for almost an entire hour. it's his memory? nah a coincidence. oh wait, it was real. but it wasn't his memory!!
>shitty fake conflict between Deckard and K. "How about I stop fake punching you and we can drink whiskey instead? hehe"
>flash-backs to earlier scenes to really make sure the audience understands plot twists
>he's a replicant, oh wait he's half human. nope, he's just a replicant
>muh AI threesome sex scene, raunchy!
>Jared Leto's character is evil! he filmed his scenes blind and is inspired by real silicon valley entrepreneurs, method acting ftw!

worst of all, they introduce some shitty "revolution" side-plot that's completely irrelevant to the story just to set up a sequel.

the only nice parts of the movie were the scenes it copy and pasted from the original, namely the big oppressive ziggurat architecture shots and the rainy mega-cities with holo-advertisements. They handled the whole "are replicants alive" moral theme in a completely hamfisted and unsubtle fashion, when it was already well done in the original.
Last time I'm falling for viral marketing and metacritic scores. all paid for by the studio which only care about selling tickets.

>You've basically just outlined what the first film did with Roy.
Exactly. I just like the bleeding out in silence more than the transcendence.

Villeneuve is literally incapable of producing anything but middle-brow glossy """movie buff""" bait. What a fucking shit show

so basically a canadian nolan?

Sicario was a great adaption of Blood Meridian.