Blade Runner 2049

[Anonymous No.10291839]

what's with all the references to Nabokov's 'Pale Fire'?

copies of the book laying about, and the Baseline Test:

> Cells interlinked within cells interlinked
> Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct
> Against the dark, a tall white fountain played

[Anonymous No.10291841]

For the same reason Joyce put Odyssey references in Ulysses. Intelligentia miracle points.

[Anonymous No.10291860]

Biggest cinematic disappointment of my life tubehonest m8s

[Anonymous No.10291869]

>>10291860

it was 10/10 kino litfag

[Anonymous No.10291870]

>>10291860
>t.pleb

[Anonymous No.10291886]

>>10291860
>T. visual brainlet, needs everything told to him

[Anonymous No.10291892]

>>10291869
>10/10
>kino
Andrei Rublev is 10/10 kino watching harrison ford pretend to be drunk at his age is just fucking said. Also Jared Leto's character added nothing to the story or atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.10291893]

>>10291860

the key to happiness is reasonable expectations ;)

[Anonymous No.10291894]

>>10291869
>>10291870
>>10291886
The hollow men, the soy boys

[Anonymous No.10291897]

>tfw epic movie moments ruined by 2 obnoxious lowbrow turds
why the fuck you go see a almost 3 hour movie absolute cunts
aids
now I have to wait years before I can see it again

[Anonymous No.10291898]

>>10291892

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

[Anonymous No.10291900]

>>10291860
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.

[Anonymous No.10291901]

>>10291898
The Sacrifice left me feeling a sorrow that I haven't felt from a film since.

[Anonymous No.10291902]

>>10291898
Maybe a 7. It was just the first act anyway, it actually needs sequals. Also Leto fucking sucked.

[Anonymous No.10291903]

>>10291894
>the soy boys
You are the hollow one here, needing a website to guide your insults. Never reply to me again.

[Anonymous No.10291906]

>>10291903
Triggered

[Anonymous No.10291907]

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

[Anonymous No.10291909]

>>10291894
Please bring your stuff underage american autism somewhere else

[Anonymous No.10291910]

>>10291906
Trolled

[Anonymous No.10291912]

>>10291900
I will watch it again I did enjoy it but it was not a complete film. Are they making sequals??

[Anonymous No.10291913]

>>10291893
she is so ugly

[Anonymous No.10291915]

>>10291913
How so?

[Anonymous No.10291916]

>>10291913
Delet this

[Anonymous No.10291918]

>>10291913
wtf

[Anonymous No.10291928]

>>10291913

0/10 would not bang

[Anonymous No.10291935]

>>10291912
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.

[Anonymous No.10291939]

>>10291913
so tRIGGED rn

[Anonymous No.10291954]

>>10291913
All I ever waaaanted
All I ever neeeeded
It's you
In my eyes

[Anonymous No.10291969]

>>10291894
I think you confuse spiritualism with symbolism or simple pure A E S T H E T I C
>Watching movies for the plot

[Anonymous No.10291978]

>>10291969
>disregarding story, acting
The absolute state of pseuds

[Anonymous No.10291981]

>>10291978
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.

[Anonymous No.10291992]

>>10291981
>good acting is visual

[Anonymous No.10291995]

>>10291869
>>10291870
>>10291886
>tfw the /v/ part of /tv/ is invading my board
Please, leave immediately and neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.10292000]

>>10291992
Are you saying this isn't visually and audibly A E S T H E T I C?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4DQ1_PCBs0

[Anonymous No.10292004]

>>10292000
That movie is so facile.

[Anonymous No.10292006]

>>10292004
Indeed, less is more.

[Anonymous No.10292151]

>>10291886
And pray tell, anon, what exactly is this image of ryan gosling walking in an empty orange desert trying to convey?

[Anonymous No.10292153]

>>10291898
bottom looks so much better. The fire in BR is painfully fake CGI

[Anonymous No.10292161]

>>10292151
How an alt right loser self represents his narcissism

[Anonymous No.10292165]

>>10291886
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292169]

>>10292153
>The fire in BR is painfully fake CGI
It literally isn't, they used practical effects for the movie.
Pseud.

[Anonymous No.10292170]

>>10292165
>good cinematography
Not even. It's above average cgi.

[Anonymous No.10292174]

>>10292170
Once more, they didn't use CGI for those shots, they used practical effects. Your ignorance is showing youngun

[Anonymous No.10292180]

>>10292170
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.

[Anonymous No.10292183]

>>10292174
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.

[Anonymous No.10292184]

>>10292169
Source pls, because I literally cannot believe an authentic house fire would have that little smoke

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10292188]

>>10291860
I liked it a lot more the second time. It's pretty close to kino

[Anonymous No.10292194]

>>10291892
Leto's character was central to the story, even if his performance sucked. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.10292200]

>>10292194
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

[Anonymous No.10292202]

>>10292184
I hope you never see your home on fire anon.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10292203]

>>10292165
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292210]

>>10292200
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.

[Anonymous No.10292234]

>>10292170
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.

[Anonymous No.10292252]

>>10292203
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292261]

>>10291907
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.

[Anonymous No.10292263]

>>10291928
What an ugly bitch.

[Anonymous No.10292273]

>>10292151
nothing
that's the point
pure beauty

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10292274]

>>10292252
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.

[Anonymous No.10292280]

>>10291892
It was 10/10 kino untill ford appeared. After that 6/10 hollywood flick.

[Anonymous No.10292285]

>>10292280
This. Denis had his hands tied by being forced to include Ford. Still, the first two hours are good enough to sustain the movie.

[Anonymous No.10292294]

>>10292261
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

[Anonymous No.10292299]

>>10292263
Whatever you say, man. I'm gonna go fap to that face.

[Anonymous No.10292318]

>>10291913
jealous rostie detected

[Anonymous No.10292323]

>>10291839
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.

>>10291898
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.

>>10291969
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.

[Anonymous No.10292327]

>>10292294
this makes sense! Thanks

[Anonymous No.10292337]

>>10292274
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292366]

>>10291839
>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.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10292416]

>>10292337
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292432]

>>10292366
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292536]

>>10292416
>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.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10292607]

>>10292536
>"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.

[Anonymous No.10292623]

>>10292607
>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.
>>10292536
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292694]

>>10292607
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292718]

Where the fuck is the HD rip..

[Anonymous No.10292728]

>>10292273
>what's this scene trying to convey?
>nothin its pertty
If I wanted pretty pictures I'd go to the gallery

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10292759]

>>10292694
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292807]

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

[Anonymous No.10292815]

>>10292323
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292831]

>>10292807
Wrong.
This is the correct power ranking:
Poetry>Music>Painting>Film>Prose>Sculpture>Architecture>Photography

[Anonymous No.10292835]

>>10292831
Prose before film, there is a reason photography is at the end. I agree with Poetry and Music though

[Anonymous No.10292852]

>>10292831
Wrong.
it's like this:
Videogames>stand-up comedy>literature (only historically accurate works and/or biographies)>>>>>>>>>>>>>bourgeois high-society circlejerk trash

[Anonymous No.10292857]

>>10292759
>Because people can <yadda yadda digression into non-pertinent topic to autistically have the last word>
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.

[Anonymous No.10292868]

>>10292831
Wrong.
Anime>Poetry>Music>Painting>Film>Prose>Sculpture>Architecture>Photography

[Anonymous No.10292881]

>>10291860
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

[Anonymous No.10292885]

>>10292881
Shitty opinions general?

[Anonymous No.10292886]

>>10292857
You realize everything but plot points are technically filler.

[Anonymous No.10292888]

>>10292881
There was no plot twist. You didn't understand the movie

[Anonymous No.10292891]

>>10292881
plot twist wasn't central to the movie
movie's main event was the protagonist thinking he was the child.

[Anonymous No.10292929]

>>10292323
>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.

[Anonymous No.10292939]

OC mobile pape

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10292941]

>>10292857
>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

[Anonymous No.10292965]

>>10292881
>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)

[Anonymous No.10292982]

>>10292941
>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.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10293041]

>>10292982
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.

[Anonymous No.10293096]

>>10293041
>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.

[Anonymous No.10293111]

>>10292831
terrible

[Anonymous No.10293135]

>>10291900
>better than the original

you're out of your mind

[Anonymous No.10293158]

>>10291969
>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

[Anonymous No.10293170]

>>10292210
yeah, and it's dumb, and his ramblings are too

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10293180]

>>10293096
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

[Anonymous No.10293184]

>>10292273
>guy walking in muh desert
>visual in those scenes slightly ripped off from the last mad max movie
>muh beuty

americans are imbeciles

[Anonymous No.10293195]

>>10293184
Orange and teal predates Mad Max by decades. And the scene is quite beautiful within the context of the movie

[Anonymous No.10293206]

>>10292274
>Literally any thematic point in any work of fiction can be boiled down in a sarcastic greentext. Doesn't mean it isn't interesting
1
no it's not interiesting. it's just """"subverting"""" expectations. "you know those movies for normies where a random guy discovers that he's a 'chosen one' like in matrix? well, here the guy thinks he is, but at the end he's not!"

also all muh revolt, with the cabalistic overtones to look more spiritual, was just so cringey

[Anonymous No.10293271]

>>10292885
i want to find what all the brainlets that liked this movie have in common in the shape of their craniums. Lombroso docet

[Anonymous No.10293277]

>>10293180
>A theme of the film was the blurred distinctions between artificial and "real" people
Woah, thanks for the fantastic insight. You seem to be stuck on /tv/tardian "b-but you just didn't understand it". Let me reiterate for umpteenth time: the problem is with execution, not with the fact that the evergreen scifi topics are 2deep4plebs. It's shallow, hamfisted and boring in its exploration and execution.
>It makes you look disconnected; like you're on the spectrum
Yeah. It's being emotionally composed and stable that puts one on the spectrum, not identifying with *generic dystopian protagonist* played by the Wooden Goose on the basis of >tfw so sad and spamming 20 holowaifu threads a second. Come on now.

[Anonymous No.10293312]

I thought it had a lot of of plot threads that didn't really go anywhere like the resistance or Jared Leto. Decker's daughter being that important to the plot while only getting like 10 mins. of screen time was also weird

And I still can't tell if Joi was supposed to be conscious or not. If she was then the pink hologram scene becomes less poignant imo

[Anonymous No.10293314]

>>10292965
they actually showed the city quite a few times. it looked like shit though.

>
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.

this was what the original movie's point was though.
>inb4 it was dying, it wasn't dead

the point is that the world was hopeless, doomed and yes dead (not even a tree showed in the movie, all animals are dead, only artificial ones exists), same thing with the final monologue. it conceived this idea of futileness and doom way better than in the new one becuase in 2049 there is literally a message of hope in there. same with the characters: in 2049 the have hopes and ideals, in the original they merely want money or simply survive

[Anonymous No.10293320]

>>10293041
btw, if they can program such complicated AIs, why do they bother creating replicants?

here's one plothole

[Anonymous No.10293375]

>>10293195
you just it was pretty becuase it was pretty, now you're talking about context? aren't you the same anon?

[Anonymous No.10293409]

>ryan gosling is named K
>takes the name Joe
>Joseph K

[Anonymous No.10293450]

>>10291907
Pale Fire is prolly my favorite book. Basic outline:
Pale Fire is a poem by a guy named John Shade. Apparently he was killed right after finishing it, but luckily his best friend Charles Kinbote got the manuscript and editor rights, so he releases the poem with his own commentary explaining the allusions and the work. All of this commentary takes up like 3/4 the book. Instead of being relevant to the poem, you start to get the feeling that Kinbote is a monarch from a country called Zembla on the run from a coup that wants him dead. Finally, you find out that the man who killed John Shade was actually an assassin looking for Kinbote... But something still isn't right. You realize that Kinbote is a madass motherfucker with like straight up schizophrenic delusions, and the poem was really about John Shade's daughter who committed suicide, and you basically ignored that shit so you could listen to a mega autist talk about shota.

That's a preettttyyy rough overview, but the connections I see are delusions of grandeur in a person damaging those around him and preventing a father and daughter from having closure.

Kinda gay, desu.

>tfw Goose thread
>tfw I DRIVE

[Anonymous No.10293474]

>>10293409
no way jose

[Anonymous No.10293484]

>>10292815
>Joseph K

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10293513]

>>10293277
You argue like a real piece of shit. Affecting an air of detached cynicism for a midcult Hollywood blockbuster betrays insecurity on your part more than anything else. You're not really saying anything. Simplistic non-analyses like "execution was terrible" and "the themes were obvious" aren't the same as an actual discussion of the merits and pitfalls of the movie.

You keep vacillating between claiming to understand the themes and calling them obvious, and suggesting that anyone who connects those themes to how they're articulated within the plot of the film simple-minded. You're arguing just to not lose.

[Anonymous No.10293704]

>>10293513
>adhom on adhom
Stop the histrionics, tripshit. I don't care for your incredible psychoanalytic superpowers of projection.
>Simplistic non-analyses
These are characteristic descriptions, they're not supposed to be analytic. What little actual analysis we touched was indicative of you having little more to offer than spouting verbose insults.
>using a magical tech that creates illusion of X is not a ridiculously banal way to incite discussion of X as a concept
>being different implies quality
I mean you're just a tard in denial about his own irrational predilection.
>You keep vacillating between
I specifically expressed precisely what I don't like about the movie.
>suggesting that anyone who connects those themes to how they're articulated within the plot of the film simple-minded
No, I suggested anyone who praises the way this themes are handled in the film are simple-minded, not people who merely understand what the film is about. There's no need to resort to shitty strawmanning.

[Anonymous No.10293878]

>>10293450
>That's a preettttyyy rough overview, but the connections I see are delusions of grandeur in a person damaging those around him and preventing a father and daughter from having closure

so goose was the villain

[Anonymous No.10293883]

>>10291913
hello and fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10293897]

>>10293375
no

[Anonymous No.10293906]

>>10292323
>You're like the people who listen to music for the lyrics.
>listening to music WITH lyrics AT ALL
Absolutely disgusting
Real men listen to instrumental music, industrial hardcore, and classical. No "singing" in my shit.

[Anonymous No.10293915]

>>10293906
>in my shit
How very post-ironic of you.

[Anonymous No.10293917]

why did my Batman comic book thread get deleted but this stays up?

[Anonymous No.10293927]

>>10291841
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10293937]

>>10293917
If you have to ask, you'll never know.

[Anonymous No.10293944]

>>10293915
Are you saying this isn't fantastic shit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSzJJ2jCJIQ

[Anonymous No.10293994]

>>10293944
It's shit, alright.

[Anonymous No.10294170]

>>10293450
I'd say that the Kinbote would represent the head of the company that makes the humans, seeking to find the art of humanity without its lecherous inconsistencies and weight of freedoms

[Anonymous No.10294214]

>>10294170
continuing this, it would follow the imperfect basis would be our interpretation of humanity (Pale Fire) as the image of God, ergo, the perverse christian overtones, when Christianity is a fixation on the imperfect humans being in the image of god as desiring perfection when failing it entirely, and that striving is both madness but entirely possible that it's fixated upon itself, that stopping at striving and satisfaction with that is the imperfection
escaping those that would usurp our ideals and also treasuring our own humanity

[Anonymous No.10294264]

>>10293170
So we take out the entire element that makes the plot make any sense at all?

[Anonymous No.10294318]

>>10292965
>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)
I noticed. I also disagreed with the decision. The transition from dying to dead makes the frame, the world, and the characters all less interesting. And the dialog of 2049 was indefensible ass. "This breaks the world" is a shitty, overstated line in any context. Every character (except Deckard) spoke like they were rattling off one-liners for the trailer, rather than having actual, human conversations. They even took cityspeak, a combination of Japanese and Spanish, and put it exclusively in the mouth of the "I'm the captain now" guy, which undermined the sense of it having an etymology. The philosophy was shallow, the details were underthought, and the script needed revision. Yes, the visuals were good, but if all I cared about were visuals, I'd look at a painting. If I pay for writing, the writing better be good too.

[Anonymous No.10294358]

>>10291913
Take your (You)

[Anonymous No.10294362]

>>10292939
I was not prepared!

[Anonymous No.10294392]

The contrarian opinion of this movie is that it is good.

[Anonymous No.10294645]

>>10293878
Kinda. He was a narcissist who actually muddied the waters more than cleaned them. I didn't like the movie that much, it didn't balance the noir quite right, and the themes of the movie weren't great for a noir.

[Anonymous No.10294649]

>>10294170
Man you could pick coconuts with that kinda reach.

[Anonymous No.10294678]

>>10293513
>midcult
Nigger, you as a fan of Malick aka Coelho of cinema suck the dick of the biggest midcult shitter there is.

[Anonymous No.10294754]

>>10291913
and youre gay

[Anonymous No.10294778]

>>10291860
From the trailer it looks like a generic "sci fi" action movie. I don't normally watch reboots, sequels, etc because they always suck.

[Anonymous No.10295241]

>>10292261
>>10292294

so it's not the hand you're dealt it's how you play it

[Anonymous No.10295398]

>>10293135
The original is not that good

[Anonymous No.10295733]

>>10291839
The protagonist of "Pale Fire" mistakenly believes himself to be a king on the basis of delusional memories. That was my read on why it was relevant, anyway.

[Anonymous No.10295748]

>>10291839
I'm a massive brainlet so take this with a pinch of salt:

I think a lot of pieces that reference preceding pieces are either used for critique or adoration - both are independent but integral parts of the produced text/film and while not necessary, it must always be the desire of the author that you either know the preceding pieces he/she references, or that you will go out afterwards and familiarize yourself with them. Villeneuve obviously adores Pale Fire and it would give him great joy for BR2049 fans to go out and read it after seeing the film, if they haven't already.

Personally, Moby Dick made go read the Bible, I like to think an effect like that would have touched Melville's inner-teacher, it's a beautiful thing I'm sure.

[Anonymous No.10295938]

>>10291839

The fact no one has noticed that K. is a reference to Kafka's The Trial amazes me.
Fucking amateurs, all of you.

[Anonymous No.10295984]

>>10294264
What about write another plot (a more focused and better one) instead of this?

[Anonymous No.10296022]

>>10292536
>It's an utter box office bomb with exclusive following by underage /v/tards and waifu-fags.
conveniently ignoring the fact that it was almost universally praised by critics, anon?

[Anonymous No.10296047]

>>10291839
Because the plot is a subversion of the one in pale fire, and is asking the same question as pale fire, just from the other end of the issue. Rather than misunderstanding the fountain/mountain issue, K has the exact same memory as someone else.

Is K's memory any less meaningful if it's manufactured? Is the beautiful image of the fountain any less meaningful if it's "wrong"? That's the question that each piece is asking.

[Anonymous No.10296057]

>>10291894
You've really made me take notice, it's hard to avoid soy even as a vegan. Are you a whole food vegan or just having us on? Are you a master gardener? How does one achieve the soyfree state in USA?

[Anonymous No.10296075]

>>10295398

All your shitty opinions will be lost, in time, like tears in rain.

[Anonymous No.10296128]

>>10293135
Sorry to disappoint, anon. It's very good, don't get me wrong, but I feel 2049 has the edge over it. It's the pseudo-father-son aspect that just does it for me.

>>10293184
> implying it doesn't all stem from Lawrence of Arabia

[Anonymous No.10296149]

I like Leto generally, but he detracts here. i swore this would be the last bigscreen movie I'd attend. Hopefully the last small screen too. Hollywood has nothing to offer anyone.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10296221]

>>10293704
>you absolute dunce.
>mental midgets like you
>dimwit
>retard
^^^all you during that conversation. If you insult someone constantly you can't then feign shock that they'd result to ad hominems. You prodded until you got that reaction. Don't whine about people treating you identically to how you treat them.

>using a magical tech that creates illusion of X is not a ridiculously banal way to incite discussion of X as a concept
The entire purpose of sci-fi is to create advanced technological states (often times portraying impossible technology) in order to have a convenient conduit through which to grapple with certain moral and ethical questions. That's like 90% of the genre right there. If genre fiction rubs you the wrong way per se, then fine, but that's not a problem inherent to Blade Runner 2049.

>I suggested anyone who praises the way this themes are handled in the film are simple-minded
No, initially you complained about the themes themselves being simple. Once I started talking about how much I enjoyed how those themes were expressed through the plot of the film, then you went to on the deride how the themes were handled rather than which particular themes were handled. It's like you disliked the film on an unconscious level and are now trying to construct an actual articulable critique of it through debate. That's what most people do when they talk about movies online, but all it suggests is that you haven't thought about it very much. Why would you, if you didn't like the movie?

[Anonymous No.10296435]

>>10292831

Poetry is identical to music, but with an enormous capacity for emotional valence cut out.

[Anonymous No.10296955]

>>10291913
FIGHT ME FAGGOT!!!

[Anonymous No.10297774]

>>10294678
Malick is a Harvard-graduating Rhodes Scholar who translated Heidegger into English. He's patrish as fuck

[Anonymous No.10298218]

>>10295938
not realizing the author is phillip K dick...fuck outta here

[Anonymous No.10298261]

>>10291860
dude a e s t h e t i c s lmao
movies are made for people to post stills on imageboards

[Anonymous No.10298285]

>>10298261
People who think cinematography shouldn't be some beautiful artistry are literal plebs.

[Anonymous No.10298332]

>>10298285
a fancy shot isn't beautiful artistry

[Anonymous No.10298348]

>>10298332
>Shot
You're a fucking idiot. Do you not think lightning, sequence, perspective, camera movement, etc. is involved? Do you hate paintings and photography? A part of why you have "fancy shots" is that they evoke something, especially in a sequence of shots e.g. close-up shows emotion, then a wide shot shows distance.

[Anonymous No.10298353]

>>10298348
I'm just saying blade runner 2048 is a bad movie with fancy visuals

[Anonymous No.10298361]

>>10297774
>Bachelor's
>in philosophy
>patrish

[Anonymous No.10298735]

>>10293906
The voice is an instrument of wit as well as of tone, pick up the phone, bitch, yo' ass is grown.

[Anonymous No.10298894]

>>10296435
It's the other way around actually

[Anonymous No.10299987]

>>10298361
He also taught at MIT, one of the best schools in the world. He's the closest to Hollywood ever got to real intellectual

[Anonymous No.10300006]

>>10298353
If by fancy visuals you mean good and aesthetically interesting, then it's not really a bad film by definition. Something that's part of a visual medium having excellent visuals suggests quality. By the way, did you watch a shitty camrip of the movie? The early pirated version of the movie looked bad and didn't include every scene.

[Anonymous No.10300077]

>>10291841
i think you misunderstand the point of joyce's references to the odyssey. joyce was a hack but he wasn't that much of a hack.
you're spot on about that piece of garbage blade runner though

[Anonymous No.10300080]

>>10291900
>I would rate it higher than the original.
jesus christ you're an idiot. 2049 dwelt too much on meaningless transhumanist crap, meant to appeal to the left.

[Anonymous No.10300101]

>>10300077
Blade Runner is more interesting than half of Joyce's oeuvre

[Anonymous No.10300110]

>>10300080
It doesn't focus on transhumanism any more than the original did. What are you talking about? The film is conservative if anything, particularly when it comes to the importance it places on breeding and its portrayal of a multicultural society.

[Anonymous No.10301049]

So I just got to Canto Three in Pale Fire, so maybe a little late to be asking this, but do you all recommend reading straight through or bouncing between the notes and the cantos? I've heard of people doing both. It seems to me that I might get the most out of it by reading through once then going back again either after having read the notes, or using them as a guide while going back through.

[Anonymous No.10301085]

>>10301049
has nabokov explained if joi really loved k

[Anonymous No.10301088]

>>10301085
Not yet

[Anonymous No.10301098]

>>10301088

[Anonymous No.10301107]

This fucking board

[Anonymous No.10301228]

>>10291839
Welcome to 2 months ago faggot.

[Anonymous No.10302661]

>>10292203
>edited like a haneke movie
what in the fuck?
have you seen a haneke movie?