Blade Runner 2049

ok, if we're setting Rublev as 10/10 benchmark, then BR2049 is a solid 8

Watch it again. Let it sink in.

It's no Criterion-core but for a mainstream blockbuster film it's very impressive. I would rate it higher than the original.

The Sacrifice left me feeling a sorrow that I haven't felt from a film since.

Maybe a 7. It was just the first act anyway, it actually needs sequals. Also Leto fucking sucked.

>the soy boys
You are the hollow one here, needing a website to guide your insults. Never reply to me again.

Triggered

can anyone here who actually read Nabokov's 'Pale Fire' and seen BR2049 link the two?

Please bring your stuff underage american autism somewhere else

Trolled

I will watch it again I did enjoy it but it was not a complete film. Are they making sequals??

she is so ugly

How so?

Delet this

wtf

0/10 would not bang

I don't think it was their intention to make a sequel after 2049, plus it raked in a small fraction of its budget. Bladerunner is a money pit in a way.

so tRIGGED rn

All I ever waaaanted
All I ever neeeeded
It's you
In my eyes

I think you confuse spiritualism with symbolism or simple pure A E S T H E T I C
>Watching movies for the plot

>disregarding story, acting
The absolute state of pseuds

Good acting is part of visuals, obviously, as seen with upper and bottom left pic.
Sound design comes after the visuals, which also includes the voice of the actor.

>good acting is visual

>tfw the /v/ part of /tv/ is invading my board
Please, leave immediately and neck yourself.

Are you saying this isn't visually and audibly A E S T H E T I C?
youtube.com/watch?v=U4DQ1_PCBs0

That movie is so facile.

Indeed, less is more.

And pray tell, user, what exactly is this image of ryan gosling walking in an empty orange desert trying to convey?

bottom looks so much better. The fire in BR is painfully fake CGI

How an alt right loser self represents his narcissism

>he thinks anyone is disappointed with lack of explicitness in this literal spoonfeed-fest custom tailored for slobbering retards
The movie is trite, banal and has literally nothing to offer except for good cinematography.

>The fire in BR is painfully fake CGI
It literally isn't, they used practical effects for the movie.
Pseud.

>good cinematography
Not even. It's above average cgi.

Once more, they didn't use CGI for those shots, they used practical effects. Your ignorance is showing youngun

Special effects is but a small part of cinematography. Camera work and visual direction is very competent and there are plenty of great shots. No need to be excessively contrarian.

I was talking about the other parts that were cgi. The fire scene is gay because it has Goslinger walking away from a fire without looking back.

Source pls, because I literally cannot believe an authentic house fire would have that little smoke

I liked it a lot more the second time. It's pretty close to kino

Leto's character was central to the story, even if his performance sucked. What are you talking about?

I don't think the character added anything. He wasnt an antagonist, more like a vehicle for the impotent "philosophy" and Leto's commercial appeal. Compare his rambling farces to Tyrell in the original.
>SEVEN WORLDS

I hope you never see your home on fire user.

>the "banality" of a $150 million blockbuster that's 3 hours long, has relatively little action, and is edited like a Michael Haneke movie
>the "triteness" of a modern film where the 'you're special' trope gets trotted out then subverted in favor of something that's realistic without being nihilistic
No, it's good. It might be the only good movie in its budget range.

His function as an antagonist is irrelevant, that was that chick's job. His character is vital to the story. His attempt to find ways of getting replicants to procreate is why the entire plot takes place.

A lot of the effects were practical. Most of the good shots were the result of on-set lighting rigs rather than post-processing work. Those orange shots, for example, were the result of a camera filter, not of digital color correction.

>production cost and length somehow relevant to material quality
>"he thought he was special, but he's not - omg just like me crying_wojak.jpg so deep"
Being more sophisticated than your average capeshit blockbuster isn't synonymous with being good in the grand scheme of things. The movie lacked in virtually every department that matters. It's not outright bad, but it's little more than average scifi.

as far as I understood it, it was about the character/writer in Pale Fire, who had this weird feeling of being connected to a woman who had a poem published in which there was a certain image "fountain/mountain" which was similar to what he had experienced and written about. In the end the similarity was only a spelling mistake made by her editor, tho.
I think in the movie the character has a similar experience with his memory, but which in the end is also kinda misleading? I dunno, sry. I should take the time to really investigate this topic further, but maybe someone can make sense of it.

What an ugly bitch.

nothing
that's the point
pure beauty

Production cost is relevant in one sense, and it's that the sort of money required to make a sci-fi epic look and feel convincing is synonymous with obnoxious studio meddling. This being an exception is notable enough to elicit praise. It has the benefits of a high budget with some of the sensibilities of an art film.

>"he thought he was special, but he's not - omg just like me crying_wojak.jpg so deep"
Literally any thematic point in any work of fiction can be boiled down in a sarcastic greentext. Doesn't mean it isn't interesting.

Your critiques aren't any more substantive than "it sucked because it sucked." You're not really saying much.

It was 10/10 kino untill ford appeared. After that 6/10 hollywood flick.

This. Denis had his hands tied by being forced to include Ford. Still, the first two hours are good enough to sustain the movie.

I think it ties in with Gosling getting something from the memory, even if it wasn't his, that was meaningful. Just because it's 'fake' or implanted doesn't mean anything, it gains a meaning and reality through his experience of it, just like the fountain/mountain mistake giving meaning to Shade even if based on a false premise

Whatever you say, man. I'm gonna go fap to that face.

jealous rostie detected

I haven't read Nabby yet but I doubt there's a lot of meaning in the reference. Keep in mind, this is a movie where characters are named Joi, Luv and K., who, because he is so special, gets renamed into Joe (how ironic!! am I a genius yet mom?).
I'd guess the quote is supposed to be ironic as well. It feels like an extremely vivid metaphorical description of the human being, but it is repeated to the point of meaninglessness and used as a test to see wether a being is human or not.

What BR's visuals clearly lack is the contrast. Everything is equally grayish in there, while the lower pic has both the bright sky and shining water and the darker ground, making the shot much more dramatic than BR's equivalent (which is also, I'm pretty sure, mirrored, not the original).
And, fuck, I don't know if that's because I rarely watch new movies, but everything looked like CGI. Everything was super smooth and crisp and just felt weird.

You're like the people who listen to music for the lyrics. They should get themselves a collection of poetry and you should go to a gallery.

this makes sense! Thanks

>This being an exception is notable enough to elicit praise.
Being different alone is not enough for adoration.
>It has the benefits of a high budget with some of the sensibilities of an art film.
Yes, it's neither as viscerally fun as your "pure" action-blockbusters nor does it excel in any artistic endeavors, be it exploration of the raised themes or the medium itself.
>Literally any thematic point in any work of fiction can be boiled down in a sarcastic greentext. Doesn't mean it isn't interesting.
True. This one deserves a ridicule entirely. Poor execution, proverbial spoonfeeding, ridiculous plot-twist aplomb - it's all there.
>Your critiques aren't any more substantive than "it sucked because it sucked."
It's been discussed to death already and I don't feel like writing another wall exclusively for some contrarian tripfaggot. Acting is ranging from okay to shit, plot has more than a few holes, non sequiturs and inconsistencies, writing is nothing but a boring retread of "eternal scifi questions" with no original takes on either the answers or the questions themselves, direction is just fucking abysmal in so many ways: progression, pacing, heaps of timewaste that's not even good for worldbuilding or "muh aesthetic feels" - a trainwreck. Overall this would have been a fine above average scifi if it didn't try to be a sequel to Bladerunner and Villenolan didn't think himself Kim Ki Duk, but what's done is done.

>ITT: how to literally overthink everything
Merely symbolic frame.
You definetively should not consider the content of Pale Fire. Just consider the book as itself, his position and his title.

>Being different alone is not enough for adoration.
Yeah, it sort of is actually. Originality is the answer to your banality criticism.

>ridiculous plot-twist aplomb
The plot twist being that there is no plot twist, or that the previous plot twist was just wishful thinking, is interesting and fairy original in terms of execution.

>for some contrarian tripfaggot
Liking this movie is like the most conventional opinion i have. Where have your views been "discussed to death" and get treated as obvious? Certainly not here, and certainly not on any board where faggy cinephiles post their mediocre takes on. You're the contrarian, if anything.

>plot has more than a few holes, non sequiturs and inconsistencies,
No, not really. A vagary isn't the same as a plothole. By the way, criticizing a film for its plot is like exclusively referring to the lyrics in your review of opera. It's not why you're there.

>writing is nothing but a boring retread of "eternal scifi questions" with no original takes on either the answers or the questions themselves
The themes are sci-fi tropes, but the method of executing them is interesting. The way Joi's interaction with the protagonist and their arc's eventual payoff becomes a representation of the film's theme made that theme more emotionally relatable to the viewer. Hence all the incels over on /tv/ talking about how depressed they got after seeing the movie.

>progression, pacing, heaps of timewaste that's not even good for worldbuilding or "muh aesthetic feels" - a trainwreck.
Fuck off, it was meditative in ways that movies need to learn how to be again. The pacing of its editing is the one aesthetic aspect of the film, above everything else, that made it visually interesting to me. I felt like I could actually breath and collect my thoughts watching it.

>You definetively should not consider the content of Pale Fire.
The content of Pale Fire relates heavily to Blade Runner 2049. The film is literally about someone discovering that something they've inserted so much meaning into turned out to be bullshit. That plot outline is directly lifted from Nabokov.

>Yeah, it sort of is actually. Originality is the answer to your banality criticism.
It isn't an answer to anything. "At least it's original" is not a counterargument to "it's qualitatively shit". Leave the sophistry back at your preteen board.
>The plot twist is interesting and fairy original in terms of execution.
It is interesting in concept, but the execution was hot garbage with spoonfed foreshadowing that ruined the very point of having a plot twist.
>Liking this movie is like the most conventional opinion i have.
It's an utter box office bomb with exclusive following by underage /v/tards and waifu-fags. Try again.
>certainly not on any board where faggy cinephiles post their mediocre takes on
Nice to see even /tv/ managed to rustle your dimwit jimmies.
>A vagary isn't the same as a plothole
That's why explicitly said plotholes, retard.
>criticizing a film for its plot is like exclusively referring to the lyrics in your review of opera
It's not. That's why you needed to add "exclusively", sophist cretin. Plot is as essential as everything else and it's both pedestrian and flawed in 2049.
>The way Joi's interaction with the protagonist and their arc's eventual payoff becomes a representation of the film's theme made that theme more emotionally relatable to the viewer
Telling that you would bring up probably the worst subplot in the film on par with Han Solo homage. The only interesting aspect about it is that modern young audiences have been drowned in Hollywood shit to the point where an incredibly unsubtle hamfisted allegories are considered great.
>fuck off, I lieked it
Who the fuck cares? The film can objectively use some heavy editing, your fee-fees and mental deficiencies don't matter one bit.

>"At least it's original" is not a counterargument to "it's qualitatively shit".
Quality and originality are inexorably linked. The entire job of an artist is to ride the line between following the established forms of your particular craft, while also attempting to avoid every cliché you possibly can.

>spoonfed foreshadowing that ruined the very point of having a plot twist.
The twist that ended up being foreshadowed wasn't an actual twist. You can't ruin a surprise no one's attempting to make.

>It's an utter box office bomb with exclusive following by underage /v/tards and waifu-fags. Try again.
It's one of the most critically-acclaimed films of the year. When did how many people saw a movie become synonymous with how many people who saw the movie ended up liking it? A movie that isn't seen can't be disliked.

>Nice to see even /tv/ managed to rustle your dimwit jimmies.
I wasn't referring to /tv/ there mong

>That's why explicitly said plotholes, retard.
Like which, for example?

>Plot is as essential as everything else
Except that it absolutely isn't. The purpose of plot is to reveal character and articulate theme, both of which the movie does of good job of achieving. Plot as a thing in itself (as in not in service of other elements) is an indication of popcult garbage.

>Telling that you would bring up probably the worst subplot in the film
The entire thematic point of the film (the artificial invention of meaning and purpose, as opposed to its existence per se) is represented in the relationship with Joi. That's literally the whole emotional core of the movie. Appreciating and identifying with it is subjective, but if you didn't then you can't possibly enjoy the movie. So we should just stop with this circuitous bullshit; you didn't like the movie because the relationship between K and Joi didn't interest you. That's it.

>The film can objectively use some heavy editing
There's nothing less objective about the film that than how one feels about the aesthetic choices made in its editing. Don't use words you don't understand.

>Quality and originality are inexorably linked. The entire job of an artist is to ride the line between following the established forms of your particular craft, while also attempting to avoid every cliché you possibly can.
>It's an utter box office bomb with exclusive following by underage /v/tards and waifu-fags. Try again.

Pro tip: you're both idiots.

>Quality and originality are inexorably linked.
They're not linked in the slightest, you absolute dunce.
>The entire job of an artist is to ride the line between following the established forms of your particular craft, while also attempting to avoid every cliché you possibly can.
No, that's what mental midgets like you want to see artists do - something formulaic and familiar, but not quite different and scary enough to actually induce any real thought process or, god forbid, change. I.e. core Villeneuve viewership.
>Plot as a thing in itself (as in not in service of other elements) is an indication of popcult garbage.
We *are* talking about popcult entertainment. Plot is absolutely important here. And it did suck. Had it been some high cinema with superb character exposition and deep introspective analysis this wouldn't have mattered. But for a dystopian blockbuster with a faint veneer of artsy feels it definitely matters a lot.
>So we should just stop with this circuitous bullshit; you didn't like the movie because the relationship between K and Joi didn't interest you.
I didn't like it because it brought nothing to the table. The existential themes it touches have been done to death, and the way it approaches them is rather shallow, superficial and banal. It's basically anime-tier love story which is why it speaks to all the autistic manchildren.
>There's nothing less objective
Everything is objective about getting rid of useless filler that serves no artistic or technical purpose.

Where the fuck is the HD rip..

>what's this scene trying to convey?
>nothin its pertty
If I wanted pretty pictures I'd go to the gallery

>something formulaic and familiar, but not quite different and scary enough to actually induce any real thought process or, god forbid, change.
Because people can just sit down and write a book without the slightest knowledge of how character arcs work, what themes are, and how to structure a basic sentence. Anyone can just write a song on a piano without knowing how to play one by just sitting down and emoting. Craft is an absolute necessary part of any medium, you complete moron.

>We *are* talking about popcult entertainment.
The movie transcended that. And even the most crowd-pleasing popcult doesn't need plot, as financial hits like the last Mad Max and Gravity demonstrated.

>The existential themes it touches have been done to death, and the way it approaches them is rather shallow, superficial and banal.
The lack of specificity in your criticisms betray a lack of thought put into them. Referring the way the themes are articulated as "banal" is the Family Guy "shallow and pedantic" meme used straight-facedly. If you can actually explain why using the corporate manipulation of K through Joi in order to tell a story about how meaning and purpose are constructed is "banal" then i'd be satisfied in calling this a genuine disagreement and moving on. Otherwise you sound like a complete fucking moron who had a visceral dislike of the movie and is trying to come up with reasons to explain his dislike of it post hoc.

>Everything is objective about getting rid of useless filler
Explain to me how "useless filler" is an objective assessment, and show me the criteria you used to come up with it.

Literature is a superior medium, I almost feel bad for all the /tv/ brainlets who can't into, but then I don't have to deal with them

>I haven't read Nabby yet but I doubt there's a lot of meaning in the reference. Keep in mind, this is a movie where characters are named Joi, Luv and K., who, because he is so special, gets renamed into Joe (how ironic!! am I a genius yet mom?).
Way to miss the entire point of their names being exactly what they are, which gets laid out for you pretty explicitly in the giant neon Joi scene.
>I'd guess the quote is supposed to be ironic as well. It feels like an extremely vivid metaphorical description of the human being, but it is repeated to the point of meaninglessness and used as a test to see wether a being is human or not.
You'd guess blatantly wrong. A cursory read of the wikipedia summary for Pale Fire would've been enough for you to figure out why this is a complete misunderstanding of both Nabokov and the movie.

Wrong.
This is the correct power ranking:
Poetry>Music>Painting>Film>Prose>Sculpture>Architecture>Photography

Prose before film, there is a reason photography is at the end. I agree with Poetry and Music though

Wrong.
it's like this:
Videogames>stand-up comedy>literature (only historically accurate works and/or biographies)>>>>>>>>>>>>>bourgeois high-society circlejerk trash

>Because people can
The initial point stands and isn't really debatable unless you're terminally retarded. Originality is in no way correlated with quality.
>The movie transcended that.
It didn't. Again, it's still a basic bitch scifi blockbuster, no matter how much quasi-artsy larp material Villanova put into it.
>Mad Max and Gravity
Good you brought those up. 2049 really belongs here as a roll of pretty shots with no actual substance. Minus the adrenaline of course.
>explain how using a "device designed specifically to provide illusions of meaning and purpose" to tell about constructing meaning and purpose is banal
We're getting dangerously close to "explain the deep symbolism in this anime picture".
>Explain to me how "useless filler" is an objective assessment
I already did. Material that serves no actual purpose. Criteria is simple: neither the narrative itself nor the aesthetic gestalt lose anything by removing it.

Wrong.
Anime>Poetry>Music>Painting>Film>Prose>Sculpture>Architecture>Photography

This. The script was awful.
>characters plainly state their motivations
>every philosophical point beat to death with a mediocre speech
>generic, unmemorable fight scenes
>jared leto
>almost all of the sets are bare and uninteresting
>retroactively ruins the mystery and themes of the original film
>plot """twist""" is obvious if you think about it for more than 3 seconds
I liked the Joi bits, which were genuinely interesting and added depth, but the rest of the film was hot trash.
>lacks the senses of life and grime that made the original worth watching in the first place

Shitty opinions general?

You realize everything but plot points are technically filler.

There was no plot twist. You didn't understand the movie

plot twist wasn't central to the movie
movie's main event was the protagonist thinking he was the child.

>everything was super smooth and crisp
For a good reason. The world of BR49 is a dead world, I think that's why you get that kind of sterile ambiance, like in a bright hospital room.

OC mobile pape

>nuh uh: the post
I guess we exhausted the conversation. I still don't understand what about the Joi story lacks the sort of depth and authenticity you're suggesting it does. The fact that the audience isn't fully aware that her responses were specifically designed to create an illusion of meaning until the end creates an empathetic link between the viewer and K, who goes through a similar process with his realization that he isn't immaculately concepted

>Lacks the sense of life that made the original worth watching in the first place
Every time. Every time I see some people here shit on the movie using only greentexts and subjective terms, they show they didn't understand the movie at all because they only have a surface understanding of it.
It lacks the sense of life of the first BR because the world is DEAD, it was on purpose. Nothing that happened on Earth is ultimately relevant because the life is on the colonies.
Damn brainlets, I bet you haven't noticed that 2049 went for horizontality (huge empty landscapes) to contrast with the OG blade runner which was a vertical world (big ass towers, claustrophobic world and the colonies somewhere up there)

>audience isn't fully aware that her responses were specifically designed to create an illusion of meaning until the end
That's an inherent fucking property of a personal hologram girlfriend. Guess that's the kernel of our disagreement: you're a brainlet or at least take audience for brainlets. The giant hologram scene wasn't a grand reveal - it was a rubbing in of the obvious. Much like about half of this "oeuvre". Is it visually great? Absolutely. Is it painfully repetitive and boring? Beyond any doubt.

The fact that she's a product suggests that she's programmed to please him, and the first scene with her makes it seem obvious that she's a high tech realdoll, but the question of whether or not any sort of free will was written into her programming becomes a thing as the film goes on and her responses start to appear more human. The ending affected people because it dispelled that illusion in a really cruel and shocking way.

>The ending affected people because it dispelled that illusion.
But there is no illusion for the audience. We start out with full understanding that she's a realdoll, as you say, and proceed to witness Goosling, the delusional addict, to feed his addiction further and further. Empathizing with his redemption story is one thing, but to actually let yourself be deluded with him would in my opinion require one to be rather emotionally unhealthy.

terrible

>better than the original

you're out of your mind

>not watching movies for the plot

i'm okay with it, in facts

>Blade Runner:_ simple, straight forward story, innuendo at the end (full lenght version) that reminds of the book

>BR 2049: convulted story, horrible charecters (especially Jared Leto), matrix-like shlock, plot twist at the end

and by the way, the visuals were better in the original. just look at the interns. just look at sebastian's home in the original and any other house in 2049

yeah, and it's dumb, and his ramblings are too

A theme of the film was the blurred distinctions between artificial and "real" people. Having the audience question when, how, where those distinctions are drawn was intended, and being above that doesn't make you any cooler or smarter than the average person who watched the film. It makes you look disconnected; like you're on the spectrum