All style, no substance.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
All style, no substance.
All style, no substance.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
This movie is meh, but "style over substance" is the ultimate midwit """critique"""
This is film. Style is just as important as substance. If you want nothing but substance, read a book
>All style, no substance.
Why do pseuds love this syntax so much?
>Bah bah, bah bah bah bah
>Bah bah, bah bah bah!
We know
>All style, no substance.
Yea I know, Joi is an hologram.
So what ?
>All style, no substance.
>current day
you expect substance
sip
Actual mongoloid here
NEW THING BAD
No universal rule exist to grant you the existance of good movies in your particular era.
So it's nothing because it doesn't have any style.
If somebody says they like Blade Runner I assume they have a learning disability
Fricking this holy shit, even the one in the 80s is such midwit low iq bullshit
>muh roboslave feels tears in rain
Shut up b***h
That's because they took all the themes from the book and threw them out. Then they stripped every scene that was left of any meaning or, worse, reversed the meaning. They set out to make the most empty vapid popcorn movie they could and morons are it up
ah yes, Blade Runner and BR2049, famous popcorn movies which the masses love am i rite
lmao
Yeah, Blade Runner is a generic action movie and 2049 stars mega homosexual Ryan Gosling. You couldn't design more mainstream trash
yes of course, a generic action movie where 95% of film has no action whatsoever and even with entire 10-15 minute long segments where characters don't even talk, a standard generic popular popcorn action movie am i rite, can't imagine anything more mainstream that BR2049
>can't imagine anything more mainstream that BR2049
Yeah, it is the most boring mainstream shite imaginable. Glad you agree
breasts or gtfo
it's called r3bbitfever
That's every Villanueva flick
>All style, no substance.
So no different than the original?
This. BR's writing is way overrated.
I like it a lot, but I love most of Phillip K Dick's works and themes. I think Gnosticism is a very fascinating belief.
Gnosticism is more reddit than atheism.
It shows up in a lot of sci-fi. I think it's cool.
my favorite gnostic scroll portrayed jesus as a hideous incel who was so ugly that people would recoil in horror at his face but then he'd start talking and birds would land on his shoulders
It's kino until K goes to Vegas. Then you should turn it off.
I said turn it off when K gets to Vegas! Why didn't you listen! Now look at what you're watching! What is he supposed to be? Kool-Aid man????
If this movie started explaining to you how a human man could possibly reproduce with an android, then all the critics, and people here would call it implausibly fake magic.
There isn't really much more to discuss, because the effects of that being even possible is self explanatory. We don't need to be hit over the head with it.
So why bother focusing on it.
Much better to have a character focused story of someone thinking he's special, only to find out he's not.
>Much better to have a character focused story of someone thinking he's special, only to find out he's not.
Except we never get that because he finds out in the most cringiest scene in the movie and then the rest of the movie is Deckerd scenes and then K lays down and dies.
No soul at all. Everything was just bland boring empty CGI worlds with nobody and nothing in them. The design and aesthetic was horrible. Reminded me of the Dune remake more than anything cyberpunk.
>cyberpunk
It unironically has more substance than the original.
Yes, I agree with you. I like this movie but it's still basically dumb, just like the original, because hard sci fi is deeply unpopular.
dumb by what metric? It certainly isn't dumb compared to other blockbuster films, it is arguably the "smartest" blockbuster film released that decade.
>because hard sci fi is deeply unpopular.
It really isn't. It has a strong natural audience. It's just hated by Hollywood, especially on television. Hollywood in general resents making content that people actually like unless it plays to their base tendencies.
>It really isn't.
It really is, if you don't want to split hairs about what popular means. It's hated by Hollywood because it doesn't make money most of the time. It doesn't make money because it isn't popular. Most people don't want to watch hard sci fi. When they do, they think it means Star Trek. (And doing a very quick search now, I see examples of hard sci fi movies listed as Blade Runner, Oblivion, Westworld, Moon, and other dumb shit that isn't hard sci fi. I saw Primer mentioned as well, which is a fair example - but it isn't popular.)
>dumb by what metric?
Dumb by the hard sci fi metric. It's a movie about a robot that wants to be human that shoots other robots that want to be human, with extra emphasis on the shooting. I like that, but the movie's more difficult themes are not the main draw.
>It's hated by Hollywood because it doesn't make money most of the time.
Patently false. Sci-fi on television was caught-up in the rural purge of the late 60's / early 70's. They have no problem canceling tv shows and tanking films / film franchises if they don't align with their social agenda.
It's true that hard sci fi is more concerned with ideas / systems / things and that makes generally for a more difficult sell for *most* sci fi scripts and pitches, but it's not as-if it's some kind of mutually-exclusive concept. We know how to make it. Hollywood just resents the idea of it so they tank it every chance they get.
Gattaca could have been Titanic. The Fountain could have been an epic trilogy with it's original hard sci-fi sub-plot and massive budget and scope. These are also human stories. They just don't want to make these films because they resent them and they resent them because they generally conflict with their vision for the future as an ethnic group.
Frankly I don't count Gattaca as hard sci fi, or the Fountain for that matter. The former is drama with a sci fi backdrop, but I grant it explores the ideas more coherently, and the latter, whatever it is, it isn't sci fi.
It's very easy to argue that hard sci fi would be if it could be. Villeneuve is supposed to direct a version of Rendezvous with Rama. To my knowledge, this will be one of the first attempts of a mainstream American director making a go at something approaching hard sci fi (assuming no major changes, but you know how that goes). Even movies like Hard to be a God, which doesn't quite qualify, get almost no attention despite being a very unique thing in the context of sci fi. Popularity dictates what it dictates.
Even thinking of anime - which I don't watch too much of - I don't think Space Brothers is particularly popular comparatively speaking, or even something like Planetes, compared to the more obvious sci fi anime people love.
I should add, first attempts at a mainstream director blah blah in the last long while. Obviously there used to be the likes of Kubrick and so on, but that's not the case anymore.
And what exactly is hard sci-fi ? Gattaca? 12 Monkeys?
You think they're robots, yet you're calling the movie dumb?
What are they?
>is that... a completely generic bland symmetrical shot like in Netflixslop?!?
>such kino!
*ironically
ITS ALL HAT
NO CATTLE
more substance than the original one
>All style, no substance.
it really insists upon itself
All substance, no style.
I agree a lot of nerds on places like this tend to overrate it, but I don't think it's bad. I rewatched it recently on my new 4k OLED TV and it was way more enjoyable than last time I watched it. It goes so hard on the audiovisuals that a proper setup makes a lot of difference for it. Overall I think it's better than the original, K is a way better character than Deckard, 2049 would probably be even better if he wasn't included in it.
More like no style, no substance
we really need to come to a consensus here, me personally, i thought the movie was 5/10 at best; I hate villeneuve
that said there were scenes that were visually arresting and memorable so I will say the movie sucked but looked great at times
ergo: all style no substance
50% style, 50% substance.
OP here, just realized I posted the wrong pic sorry
My biggest gripe with the movie is the soundtrack. Hans Zimmer is shit, the entire score is just le blaringly loud synths, it's a weak soundtrack even if you don't compare it to the original, but up against the original soundtrack its pathetic.
yeah villeneuve's siren, same with DUNC, blaring screeching ear rape
The movie has subtance, it just happens to be a crappy one
Both Blade Runner movies are extremely good and if you think either one of them is bad you're a certified mental midget. Fact.
This is the kind of insult that attempts to have style yet has no subtance to back itd claim up... Just like the movie
Certified mental midget right here. .
You arent wrong about that tho
I can't connect to anything in the first, movie just feels like a series of scenes poorly strung together. Deckard is incredibly fricking boring.
Every scene with Roy Batty is kino but it feels disconnected from Deckard. There is nothing to care about, not even a noir mystery, its just boring. People give it a pass because its the greatest looking sci-fi movie ever made.
Soundtrack is iconic too. It is indeed all about the aesthetic appeal.
you're right about the soundtrack, I listen to it quite often, its incredible and way better than the hans zimmer shit in the 2nd
I just wish I could like the movie. I've watched it 4 times and every time I hope I change my mind on it, I go in ready to like it but I never do.
No, being mental midget would be liking trash movies because you were told to. You can't think for yourself, you're told shit is good so you clap like a seal
Pure mental midget seethe and cope right here.
comments from a generation alpha.
all about villeneuve br is fake.
go back to the playground kiddo.
31 here, love both BR films. Simple as
all seed
no feed