This movie was fricking shit

I love the original and was excited to see 2049 because of the praise it received, but it was extremely boring, visually ugly, and uninteresting. I honestly believe people only enjoy because of those moronic "literally me" memes. 2049 lacks the soul of the original. It doesn't even have good fricking visuals, one of the main things that made the original great. 2049 is boring as hell too. I'm not even trying to be a fricking contrarian, 2049 literally sucks. The film is fricking ugly. The original objectively has better visuals. Even somebody who likes 2049 should have to admit this. Also, the film is boring, "le short attention span" isn't a argument when I don't even have a short attention span. The soundtrack is awful. It's forgettable, generic, and doesn't even compare to the original.
The original is a meditation on Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein, and overtly so. It opens with Also Spake Zarathustra. Batty simultaneously kisses the creator, his mother, kills him, his father, and overcomes them both by pushing out the creators eyes rather than his own. This scene opens with him calling Tyrell "Father." The film is full of this stuff. BR2049 has a character called Jerk Off Instructions. What a joke.
>inb4 "y-you are a newbie, my virtual friends here liked it better than the original when it came out!"
I’m in my 50’s and I have never for one second thought that the boring, derivative, unimaginative, soulless, badly scripted, badly acted, product-placement filled pretentious rectal wart that in BR2049 was ‘better’ than the original in any way.

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    BR2049 is better because JOI makes my dick hard.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >it's bad because i personally didn't like it
    ok boomer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's objectively shit
      >Horrid visuals
      >Horrid music
      >Horrid acting
      >Horrid writing
      original is better.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        bait

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He's right though, its shit

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Still bait.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The revving sound was awesome.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That shit was so fricking loud in theaters
          I should have gone to see it twice 🙁

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        subjective opinion

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >objectively
        >proceeds to list off things you subjectively disliked
        ok boomer

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Those things describe BOTH these shit movies

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Agreed, not sure why zoomies love Ryan Gosling with his literally me bullshit. He cant act to save his life.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          what's bad about his acting in 2049

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He didnt.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Everything

              >still with the vague non-answers
              ok if you cant elaborate you're trolling

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Everything

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because they're cuckbrain defeatists that feel a strong connection to the perpetual loser characters that Gosling plays. In 2049 for example, he thinks he is the hero who is going to save the world only to get b***hslapped with the reality that he's a replicant and a nobody and everything he believed about himself was a lie. And he only exists to be an agent in someone else's journey to heroism. Zoomers see themselves in that because they're a generation of feckless losers that think the world is out to get them. A generation without balls

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >original is better.
        unironically true
        this place is delusional about this film

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You don't know what objectivity means

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >directors cut
    >let's just spell out in big bold text why Deckard is a replicant
    Ridley Scott doesn't even understand what made his own film good. Blade Runner is a fluke.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm starting to believe that Ridley Scott's entire career is a fluke.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm starting to believe that Ridley Scott's entire career is a fluke.

      Ridley Scott is only good when he has zero creative input beyond directing. otherwise he's shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you forgot the most important addition

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Villneuve actually did most of his city stuff in the bluish style of Final Cut. Scott actually shot it more naturally in the 80s and you can find rips of the movie the way it should look.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Deckard being a replicant ruins the first movie. The dichotomy between Deckard and Roy Batty is what the film explores, how "real" a replicant is, and the movie shows us that everything Roy Batty felt and experienced was arguably more real than what Deckard did, he was more human than human.

      If Deckard also is a replicant than you lose that element.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Literally nothing happens

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I honestly believe people only enjoy because of those moronic "literally me" memes.
    Doesn't everyone know this?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    2049 is better than the original, cope and seethe

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    so much better than the original it hurt my soul

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      2049 is better than the original, cope and seethe

      Lmao, ok

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's shit because it's 40 years later sequael nobody asked for to a movies that already ended for good.
    And obviously the main course: Villememe is a hack and he can't make movies, particularly sci fi

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I honestly believe people only enjoy because of those moronic "literally me" memes.
      Doesn't everyone know this?

      Literally nothing happens

      He's right though, its shit

      https://i.imgur.com/ZMVftBv.png

      I love the original and was excited to see 2049 because of the praise it received, but it was extremely boring, visually ugly, and uninteresting. I honestly believe people only enjoy because of those moronic "literally me" memes. 2049 lacks the soul of the original. It doesn't even have good fricking visuals, one of the main things that made the original great. 2049 is boring as hell too. I'm not even trying to be a fricking contrarian, 2049 literally sucks. The film is fricking ugly. The original objectively has better visuals. Even somebody who likes 2049 should have to admit this. Also, the film is boring, "le short attention span" isn't a argument when I don't even have a short attention span. The soundtrack is awful. It's forgettable, generic, and doesn't even compare to the original.
      The original is a meditation on Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein, and overtly so. It opens with Also Spake Zarathustra. Batty simultaneously kisses the creator, his mother, kills him, his father, and overcomes them both by pushing out the creators eyes rather than his own. This scene opens with him calling Tyrell "Father." The film is full of this stuff. BR2049 has a character called Jerk Off Instructions. What a joke.
      >inb4 "y-you are a newbie, my virtual friends here liked it better than the original when it came out!"
      I’m in my 50’s and I have never for one second thought that the boring, derivative, unimaginative, soulless, badly scripted, badly acted, product-placement filled pretentious rectal wart that in BR2049 was ‘better’ than the original in any way.

      It's objectively shit
      >Horrid visuals
      >Horrid music
      >Horrid acting
      >Horrid writing
      original is better.

      Actually filtered by villeneuve of all directors kek

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, it filters people with standards

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, the people with standards appreciate 2049 for the kino it is and 1982 for the dogshit it is kek

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's full of bad scenes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Rachael getting shot in the head was hotter than they probably intended

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i haven't rewatched it since it came out, but i'm pretty sure there's not a single good with harrison ford in that movie, while some of the K ones work fine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The visual aesthetic is so empty and such a lifeless void.

      I hated it.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You go girl, or I’m so sorry for your loss? I dunno I didn’t read

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine giant hologram ana de armas stepping on you? Can't wait for the future bros.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't read.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >can't read
      typical 2049 villanova fan.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weird dudes just like Ryan gosling even though he acts like a cuck in most of his roles. It wasn't that good.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Dude is horribly miscast so often. He's only good in romcom shit. He's not believable as a masculine thriller/action/adventure protag at all.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This movie is a good litmus test. It has mediocre visuals but pseuds praise it to high heavens.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, right is much better.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, the people with standards appreciate 2049 for the kino it is and 1982 for the dogshit it is kek

        lmao ok Villememe. Go to bed, now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It paints a picture of the ultra urbanized super dense future that is somehow also empty and lonely

      I guess you can't see anything even when lampshaded

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stop making the same thread every fricking day you fricking Black person

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, it's fricking shit.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It takes 6 minutes and 30 seconds of screen time for Ryan Gosling to get from his car to seeing Deckard coming out of the shadows in Vegas, 6 and a half minutes and they still have a chase scene and a fist fight before they can sit down and talk. Later in the movie, a Wallace vehicle shoots the window and lands in the building in about 10 seconds. All that meaningless time spent in this orange place instead of back in LA doing Blade Runner shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Also the scene in the old orphanage when he's looking for the wooden horse feels like it goes on for 10 minutes of him just wandering around that factory. Movie has some major pacing issues.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >lighting = monochromatic
        >scene = long
        >music = droning
        >pseuds = creaming their diapers
        I

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Also the scene in the old orphanage when he's looking for the wooden horse feels like it goes on for 10 minutes of him just wandering around that factory. Movie has some major pacing issues.

      >lighting = monochromatic
      >scene = long
      >music = droning
      >pseuds = creaming their diapers
      I

      You do not understand film, stick to videogames

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >you do not understand the film made with gamer aesthetics about gamer problems like not realizing your waifu is fake
        >go play some video games

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Let me explain it to you. When you have dessert or steak or something nice, do you just shove it in your mouth and swallow? No, sometimes you take time to savour the flavour. (This is just an analogy to explain something basic to your dense brain).
      Similarly, in those scenes you mentioned from BR2049, you are meant to take time to savour and in a sense 'drench' yourself in the experience and atmosphere. It's not about hyping up to the next action scene to satiate your ADHD needs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Except the world is garbage and doesn't feel alive in the slightest. You're a sad moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >instead of back in LA doing Blade Runner shit.
      >I-I just want the same thing! I don't want to see what is happening outside the city! Please just give me a resequel!
      kys

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Villeneuve made two good movies and none of them were scifi.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its breddy gud

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >shitting on BR2049
    this isn't even good enough to qualify as bait at this point

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >immediately concludes she was both pregnant AND died in childbirth because of one fracture which could've been caused by anything
    Why did they get Fancher for this movie when he was fired on the first one and wrote nothign else of note after?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A good question when it was David Peoples who knocked Fancher’s draft into workable shape. People like to blame Scott for everything, but he was also responsible for cutting back on some of Peoples’ more extreme contributions like directly spelling out in the closing monologue that Deckard was a replicant.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's a lot of words just to tell us you're gay.
    Good luck with that, homosexual.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >BR2049 has a character called Jerk Off Instructions. What a joke.
    I didn't understand the virtual girlfriend and hooker stuff at all. It makes no sense. "you don't like real girls" what does that even mean? If the character is gay, why does he have a computer girlfriend? Is he not allowed to frick because he's a replicant? Like he's programmed not to even though he wants to? I don't get it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      She meant he likes AI girls instead of flesh and blood ones.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So he's gay but not allowed to frick men?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No like he's a waifugay and cant deal with a real woman who might not be completely unquestioningly in love with him like ana de armas is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hs personality is all implanted because he's a replicant. He's not allowed to breed due to his programming. They made him gay but he's frustrated that he's gay and tries to cope with jerk of girlfriend computer but that doesn't work and he's still sad. The entire point of the movie is that his creators made him gay but he doesn't want to be gay.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              If he was gay why wasnt joi played by tîmóthèéêe chalamet?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because the entire point is that he's attempting to resist his programming. He's trying to train himself to be straight by using a computer girlfriend but it doesn't work and he can't get hard for women.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm still unconvinced.
                He seems to spend a lot of time thinking about grills and having his penis in their veganas and is never shown doing the same for /with men.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He doesn't know he's gay anon... that's the whole point. He thinks he's not and is frustrated because he doesn't know why he can't get hard for women. He spends all his free time trying as hard as he can to be attracted to women but he just can't.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bullshit, he's a metaphor for young kids who grow up watching porn. The implication is that he is too into sex with his artificial girlfriend that he isn't into actual sex. Then at the end he goes on nofap.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >doesn't frick women
                >isn't gay
                You can only pick one anon... anything besides fricking real women is gay. It doesn't matter if you are jacking it to female cartoons... if you aren't seeking out human vegana irl you are gay. BR2049 is literally a movie about the struggles of being a gay man.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That's not correct at all you just think this because Ryan Gosling looks and acts gay. If the character was played by Russell Crowe you wouldn't be saying this. The film is very good at it's core but it suffers from poor casting in almost every role.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >They made him gay but he's frustrated that he's gay and tries to cope with jerk of girlfriend computer but that doesn't work and he's still sad.
              This. It's why the climax of the movie is him finding out his implanted memories are from a little girl so he's been fighting his subconcious programming the entire time thinking he was a normal guy and not a robo-clone that was groomed to be gay with deeply implanted female memories to prevent him from breeding more replicants.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's a trans coded movie, just look at the cover ffs it's literally the troony flag.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I was at day one midnight release for this, I liked enemy & enjoyed the goose so I had high expectations but left the theater unfulfilled. Villeneuve now seems mid

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl+f
    >0 matches for "dishonest"
    You had 1 job OP

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I love the original
    Your taste is shit and you should be ashamed.
    >it was extremely boring, visually ugly, and uninteresting
    So just like the old one
    >2049 lacks the soul of the original.
    It didn't have any soul you moron. It's an ugly boring generic action movie. It has nothing going on, it has no theme, it's a completely empty picture
    >It doesn't even have good fricking visuals, one of the main things that made the original great
    Again, neither did the old one. It looks like shit. Everything about Blade Runner is shit

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The soundtrack is awful. It's forgettable, generic, a
    Yes, that is a description of Blade Runner
    >doesn't even compare to the original.
    They're exactly the same sort of vapid brainless garbage
    >The original is a meditation on Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein, and overtly
    What?

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >this breaks the world, K!
    >*5 seconds later*
    >so like, do replicants have memories, K?
    Shouldn't she be worried about the world breaking?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you have the weeb edit?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's a masterpiece for the simple fact it came out in ~~*current era*~~ and is actually watchable

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The original Blade Runner was genuinely a shitty movie
    It had Jawas and robot clowns, and nobody in it can act

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    villeneuve - like he always does - stripped a rich existing universe of all life, grit and humanity in favor of an uber-stylized yet ultimately clean, sterile and lifeless aesthetic.

    2049 is for the people who read every page of the hotline miami wiki but have no idea who neal stephenson or william gibson are. 2049 is for the people who loved drive but hated only god forgives because they hadn't watched any refn films before. 2049 is for the people who thought cyberpunk 2077 should've had a synthwave soundtrack and didn't understand why refused were on it instead. 2049 is villeneuve treating his movies like stripped down stageplays where only two characters are allowed to appear and talk to each other at the same time. 2049 is sterile, its characters are alone, not lonely, gone are the little dirty sidestreets and run down places people in the universe would avoid. but worst of all: 2049 wasn't needed in the first place.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >2049 is for the people who thought cyberpunk 2077 should've had a synthwave soundtrack
      I modded in Vice City radio stations, b***h

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >uber-stylized yet ultimately clean, sterile and lifeless aesthetic.
      counterpoint: that is kind of the natural evolution of what the BR society would have become maybe

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lol, nah. 2049 is lifeless because villeneuve doesn't know how to create believable worlds, he only knows how to construct beautiful and grandiouse frames, stages of beautiful flat cardboards.
        no matter how the "society of BR would've naturally evolved", there'd still be places the people of that future would avoid, shitty little side streets and run down places. even though 2049 takes place in the future, it would still be gross and full of shitty people. even as technology propels everyone forward, people really don't change that much.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      brutal but true

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ive read gibson and liked only god forgives
      2049 is still breddy gud

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ...then that OP's comment propably wasn't meant for you. Based OGF chad though, way too few on this board.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    IT'S SHIT

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP I completely agree and find it bizarre to see everyone sucking its dick. When it first came out people were lukewarm about it, but everyone forgot and decided its genius

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >visually ugly, and uninteresting.
    nice bait here is your (you)

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pinocchio remake

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >20 anti-2049 threads out of nowhere
    hmm

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thanks for reminding me to rewatch a second time the original bro. It realy was a treat.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    other than goose, it's definitely a 4/10 flick

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    kek how fricking stupid do you have to be to think this wasn't literal slop

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Wallace wants to make Replicants that can breed by themselves so he can have infinite slaves
    >revolutionaries want Replicants that can by breed themselves because then they won't be slaves
    Why were the revolutionaries not aiding Wallace in finding the child and dissecting it to find out how Rachel could breed? It seems like a straight shot for them to freedom according to their assumptions. Either they or Wallace are moronic about what breeding Replicants will lead to. Yet the revolutionary woman was worried Wallace would want to kill her when they both want the same thing. This script is nuts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Obviously Wallace wants to make them as 100% obedient slaves, while the revolutionaries want replicants to have their own will. Really not that complicated

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why do the revolutionaries assume that Rachel's pregnancy is some spontaneous thing that means any of them could potentially get pregnant and not the product of unique engineering?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They call it a miracle, not as something any replicant can experience. And they want to keep the child so replicants can reproduce on their own, not as factory export obedient slaves from Wallace.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do they intend to achieve that with one female? The only sensible decision for revolution woman would have been to study Stelline the same way Wallace intends to and find out the secret, yet what she did instead was hide her away.

            The only other way is to use Stelline as a propaganda tool to sway human opinion, yet Wallace making breedable replicants should have the same effect because in both cases replicants are breeding.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >How do they intend to achieve that with one female?
              The same way that child was born, by having sex.
              >yet Wallace making breedable replicants should have the same effect?
              With the huge difference where Wallace makes replicants as emotionless perfectly obedient replaceable work slaves, which the revolution obviously isn't fond of.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How is Stelline popping out a few babies in her lifetime going to help any of the other replicants or produce enough people to kick start a new race in this millennium? They're trying to change the slave status of the currently living replicants, how is that supposed to happen with this one person?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Reproduction allows for exponential growth with time. In fact reproduction would allow for far more replicants to exist later on than just creating them one by one, which is also why Wallace wants to crack the replicant reproduction code. Every (female) replicant become a mobile replicant factory.

                It's basically like having a female of an endangered species, you don't kill that last specimen but reproduce.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't explain how this is going to get the current replicants their freedom and why they're planning an imminent uprising if they're actually banking on the distant progeny of Stelline. Who are the children of Stelline supposed to breed with, other replicant men? This movie flip flops on Deckard being a replicant, so how can you say any of the male replicants currently living will be able to breed with Stelline's bloodline?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That doesn't explain how this is going to get the current replicants their freedom
                Reproducing on their own means freedom. Withotu it they just die forever and only obedient Wallace slaves remain. Pretty simple.
                >why they're planning an imminent uprising
                A couple dozen replicants doesn't seem that imminent, they are just banding together since Stelline is such a valuable replicant.
                >Who are the children of Stelline supposed to breed with, other replicant men?
                Now we enter speculation territory, obviously Deckard's state is supposed to be ambiguous so no one knows.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Reproducing on their own means freedom
                No it doesn't, only humans taking their boot off the replicants means freedom. Stelline creating her own bloodline means nothing for any of the replicants that are currently living or will be manufactured in the future. The only way this makes any sense is if they're counting on the revelation of a replicant birth influencing human opinion enough to change the policy and allow the current replicants freedom from slavery and being retired.
                >Deckard's state is supposed to be ambiguous so no one knows
                Then why are they acting towards a certain goal if they have no information? The real reason is that this plot is just undercooked and they didn't think any of this through. Stelline's bloodline securing a racial future for replicants depends on replicant men being able to give viable sperm, which isn't even explored or suggested at any point. Otherwise her children have to inbreed or rely on humans, in which case there's basically no reason to call any of the living replicants a part of that new human race made from Stelline + humans and thus no reason to free them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >only humans taking their boot off the replicants means freedom
                And how can they achieve that? By reproducing by themselves, not being created in Wallace factories.
                >Stelline creating her own bloodline means nothing for any of the replicants that are currently living or will be manufactured in the future
                Yes, that's why they want to reproduce on their own. How don't you get it by now.
                >Then why are they acting towards a certain goal if they have no information?
                We don't have that information as a viewer, because Deckard state is meant to stay ambiguous to the viewer obviously.
                >The real reason is that this plot is just undercooked and they didn't think any of this through
                Seems like you are the one who didn't think it through. Everything makes perfect sense, watch the movie again. You are just entering the "but what are their taxes" territory , obviously we can only speculate about damn replicant sperm quality lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >By reproducing by themselves
                They're not going to reproduce, Stelline is the only one that can. Stelline reproducing is not going set any of the factory made replicants free. They'll still get made in factories, envslaved and hunted down unless humans change the policy. If they are aiming to change the human policy by suggesting that a fertile replicant makes them human, then Wallace would be risking the same policy change when he makes his fertile replicants.
                >obviously we can only speculate about damn replicant sperm quality lmao
                It's essential to your interpretation which almost certainly has nothing to do with what Fancher intended. Stelline's bloodline will have to inbreed or breed with humans if there are no viable replicant men, in which case why would any of the factory replicants give a frick that one model will be pulled into the genetic fold of humanity?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They're not going to reproduce, Stelline is the only one that can
                Yes, that's the entire damn point. The rebellion leader Freysa literally says that none of them matter when compared to Stelline.
                >Stelline reproducing is not going set any of the factory made replicants free
                They don't want Wallace made factory replicants, they want to have their own agency. How is this a difficult concept to comprehend?
                >Wallace would be risking the same policy change when he makes his fertile replicants.
                His replicants would still be completely obedient emotionless slaves, not something acting like an individual human being with its own agency.
                >in which case why would any of the factory replicants give a frick that one model will be pulled into the genetic fold of humanity
                Obviously it depends on does Stelline give birth to replicants or to humans? Did Rachael give birth to a replicant or a human? They certainly believe she gave birth to a replicant.
                And again the question of the difference between them, certainly legitimizing replicants as more human in the process.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Raising them from childbirth would require far more time and resources than manufacturing them on an assembly line. It also requires creating replicants capable of raising children.

                The entire concept of replicants makes less and less sense the longer you think about it. Everything they do could've been done by just bringing back the slave caste system of ancient Rome, it would take much less time and effort to construct and maintain.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Exponential growth, read about it. And money is clearly not the issue with Wallace, he wants to conquer the entire damn galaxy not "just nine 9 planets". And again, a replicant being a mobile replicant factory on its own makes it way easier for Wallace as well, not to create them one by one and then have to ship them Off-World,
                >Everything they do could've been done by just bringing back the slave caste system of ancient Rome
                The point is that Wallace Nexus-9 replicants should be perfectly obedient, besides the superhuman abilities part.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Except it's not a "factory". Each newborn replicant would take nine months to gestate and at least 15 years to reach a usable age. In that amount of time a factory could've built millions of them. And that isn't even accounting for the amount of resources that go into growing and raising a child to adulthood. It's probably the least-efficient way to go about it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Except it's not a "factory". Each newborn replicant would take nine months to gestate and at least 15 years to reach a usable age. In that amount of time a factory could've built millions of them
                Yet again, learn about exponential growth.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He can achieve even better exponential growth if he just instructs replicants to build more factories wherever they go.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Now learn about industrialization, you can only scale up your factories a certain amount, not true exponential growth. He'd probably do both though until reproducing is in late stage where factories become inefficient in comparison.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                5000 replicant factories could produce more replicants in a year than 5,000,000 replicant females could over their entire lifetime. "Exponential growth" is not a cheatcode

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bullshit. Making full grown replicants with a short turn around who can make more factories that make more replicants is going to work way faster than raising them, which cheats Wallace out of 16 or so years of work per replicant child, plus half of those of the mother.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Both Blade Runner films are extremely good and if you think either one of them is bad you're a certified mental midget.

    Fact.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Performances: BR > BR2049 (certainly not because of Deckard though)
    Soundtrack: BR > BR2049
    Cinematography: Tie
    Sound Design/Mixing: BR2049 > BR
    Set Design: BR > BR2049
    Production Design: BR2049 > BR
    Visual Effects: Tie.
    Editing: Tie.
    Writing: BR2049 > BR (Fancher was and is a hack though)

    BR: 3
    BR2049: 3
    So about the same.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I thought it was fine. Of everything you said I'd disagree particularly on it lacking visually. I thought that part was done quite well throughout the film, however you feel about the rest

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Oh christ, it was made by the DUNC guy?

    I thought I was going to see DUNC sometime, but I think the guys praising it must be the same midwits that praise 2049. What a boring waste of time that movie was.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      BR2049 is great, one of the better Villeneuve films alongside Sicario and Incendies.

      DUNC is sub par though, wouldn't recommend

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's actually good

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    visually it was great but I'd lie if I said that I understood most of the story lmao

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But the original's boring ass story about some homosexual fricking a replicant sure was more intriguing!

      Frick boomers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Absolute kino.
      The OG can't compare.
      Reminder that the cult line was in just because of based Rutger and no one else, lmao.

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Le
    >Le
    This Black person said he's in his 50s and is typing out shit like this

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think pic related is a great scene, but yeah, the original pisses on it. The best part of the score by far is the callback to the original tears in rain cue that only lasts a few seconds. Jared Leto sucks. Deckard probably should not have been in it at all, let alone a major plot point. I like Blade Runner more every time I see it and liked 2049 less.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People that didn’t have nostalgia goggles surgically grafted into their skull have seen both movies, and nobody but boomers pretend the original is better. You can feel differently, but don’t think you are right in feeling the way you do anon. Original movie is really boring, did you care about any of the characters? I didn’t, it was so bland. The setting/background is what is cool, if you took that away from the original, and just set it in a modern day place, you wouldn’t even enjoy the movie.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What a dumb fricking post, if you took the Blade Runner setting away from 2049 it would have nothing to offer, and you know what, they did. They send him off to a garbage dump, then a cheeto dust city, and every minute they spend out of LA blows, which ends up being probably more than half the film.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and every minute they spend out of LA blows
        not really, Sea Wall fight scene was great

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Reddit.

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >objectively
    >objectively
    >objectively
    work on that ego before posting again little guy.

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The more time passes the more I dislike Villeneuve.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >2049
    >boring

    sounds like you have ADHD, bud.

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    lmfao my Dad was 59 when we saw this together and thought the same thing. "It's decent, but not as good as the original". I kinda disagreed at the time, but now yeah I can't deny the facts. Sometimes the boomer knows what's best.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, 2049 is better.

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not made for you, oldy

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      These are all extreme stretches cherrypicking very specific things, when they're all based on coponcepts that have been part of sci-fi since forever. the ME!ME!ME comparison especially is braindead and I don't know how you can possibly come to that conclusion.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >virtual pink girl with blue hair that a loser is in love with
        >twas a mere coincidence don't ask any questions!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What, is Steins;Gate a reference to Spiderman because a main loser character falls in love with a red haired american woman?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >very specific things
        These are all hugely important concepts to the story or some of the most memorable visual aspects of the film, and they're lifted from relatively recent works.
        >coponcepts that have been part of sci-fi since forever
        Name some more instances of the Children of Men plot in sci-fi, where a lone wolf character is roped into a chase to protect a miracle baby that can save a barren race. Name some more Pinocchio allegories in sci-fi. Name some more sci-fi where an AI girl without a body hires a prostitute so she can have sex with her human boyfriend.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's funny how BR2049 made a ten times more genuinely emotionally engaging romantic story in just a side story of the film compared to Spike Jonze's Her where that's the entire film.

      The the exact same concept of the threesome between an AI, a prostitute and a man in Her and literally no one ever talks about it because the execution of the scene is like any standard rom com flick, the AI part being completely secondary and not used. Not to mention that in Her the prostitute/surrogate is entirely meaningless in the act itself, while in BR2049 all it's a very character involving scene for all three characters, not just literally but in narrative terms also. It's a physical manifestation of K's character development, while in Her it's just "teehee so quirky" and that's it.

      In short, Spike Jonze didn't know how to approach the concept of a man falling in love with a computer in a serious way so he had to make it extremely le quirky to have an excuse for most scenes, while in BR2049 it's executed completely direct and tasteful with zero pretense at all.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >no one ever talks about it
        Good appeal to authority, but a ripoff is a ripoff.
        >Spike Jonze didn't know how to approach the concept of a man falling in love with a computer in a serious way
        You waifugays are too much.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What are you trying to prove with this picture exactly?
      That if you put 10 different works together, you can make 2049?
      You know that you are saying that the movie is actually unique, right? kek

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >BR2049 has a character called Jerk Off Instructions
    It's telling that you saw JOI and thought Jerk off Instructions

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This movie is trash that only appeals to incels. The original Blade Runner is a timeless story of a man losing touch with his humanity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Blade Runner is a moronic adaptation of a great book. 2049 actually brought more of the book into the film, therefore it is objectively superior.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The book is trotskyist propaganda and the writer should've been gassed.

  60. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Original >>>>>>>>>>>> 2049

  61. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You now remember the awful Jared Leto as new Tyrell, the lazy Harrison Ford and his casual outfit, the shitty CGI Rachel.

  62. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It also lacked the gritty Noir feel of the original.
    This is the main issue I had with it.

  63. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    BUT the real shit is having your unencrypted data harvested by hackers, corporations, and governments.

  64. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I believe there's a 50% chance that this thread was made by Sharktalegay

  65. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So am I the only person who unironically likes the original Bladerunner but hates 2049?

  66. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s just Blade Runner: incel edition. Once you realize that it becomes crystal clear why zoomers coom over it so much.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I am 33 (thirty three) years old and I think BR2049 is a great movie

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >incel edition
      Why do pseuds think this movie is "incel" when there's fricking replicant brothels readily available? K doesn't crave sex, he craves companionship, which Joi really appeases.

      The movie is about letting go of that easy appeasement, you fricking turbo pleb.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is literally what incels say, they don't want sex, they want companionship and find a ''trad'' wife. This is why 4chinners love this movie

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >dat projection

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        there are brothels in the real world too and we still have incels

  67. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was bad because Villeneuve didn't cast Sarah Gadon as JOI

  68. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Completely true. Can't believe the morons here ever liked this movie outside of the memes.

  69. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Both Bladerunner films can't be good because...they just can't okay?
    They are both good

  70. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah it's shit, it's also hilariously grimdark, like every character is a variant of the same grimdark type, there isn't a single genuine conversation in the movie, they all speak to each other like they have a stick up their ass, there is also no coherent setting, they didn't bother sketching one, just film a couple of brutalist buildings with yellow leds and call it a day. It only appeals to redditors and superficial infantile minds

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >there isn't a single genuine conversation in the movie,
      lol. What a hilariously gay complaint.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        For a hilariously gay movie

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's cinema. Your feeble complaints make it clear you want it to be cliche and gay. Go back to capeshit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Blade Runner 2049?
            >Not cliche'

            AHAHA, manchild detected

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              2049 is capeshit by any other name.

              >cliche
              >capeshit
              Criticism is far more potent when you understand the meaning of words and terminology and don't just fling them aimlessly like monkey poo, you dumb ape. The real issue is that movies like this make you feel dumb (you are) so your frustration turns to bitterness. Common pathology.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >crying about your own buzzwords
                Get a grip.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It truly is capeshit but for midwits who think they are above capeshit lol

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's nothing deep about this movie, it is extremely cliche', only some fedora midwit could think that you don't ''get it'' a Villeneuve movie

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So describe the subtext and your issues with it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There is no subtext midwit, it's not fricking Antonioni, it's a movie made for basedfacing redditors who will basedface at the pretty led lights, the hazy brutalist buildings and Goslin running through walls like a super sayan, so fricking EPIC bro. If you think an infantile mind like Villeneuve is capable of ''subtexts'' worth of being analysed you are beyond salvation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            2049 is capeshit by any other name.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Was this also your post

            >there isn't a single genuine conversation in the movie,
            lol. What a hilariously gay complaint.

            ?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Bump
              You have the gall to call people capeshitters when you're a zack sneeder capeshitter and star wars pleb homosexual? No surprise you like trash like 2049 lel

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Frick Star Wars. Stopped caring after the Special Editions. Explain to me where the BR2049 subtext fails.

  71. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like both movies. *shug*

  72. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i've never wanted to like a movie more than the original blade runner.I've probably watched that movie 25 times at this point. I've tried every cut I could find and it never really clicked. It's just too fricking boring.
    That being said I think it's the best looking movie ever with a really good soundtrack, which is why I've watched it so many times trying to actually enjoy the plot/story itself. I like the book/story okay but don't think I've been negatively influenced by having read the book.
    The movie got kipple in there without ever having to name it.

    2049 is nowhere near as impressive visually or musically, but i find it a more enjoyable story; as corny as it is. there is just no fricking with what the original cinematography.
    Plus the original has peak Sean Young, which is probably top ten cutest b***h all time

  73. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >tasteless pleb homosexual thinks he can still reply to me
    Hilarious. The gall of these fricking cinelets

  74. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This whole child flashback twist is ripped right out of TDKR. The scenes even look Nolan as frick.
    >legend has it there was once a child that was a boy
    >he was stuck in this horrible place
    >actually it was girl tee hee
    >actually it was that woman you already know
    >Zimmer: BRRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMM

  75. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s funny, I liked the film but didn’t consider it in the same league as the original. When I bought up how empty the shot compositions were, morons accused me of “not getting it” and proceeding to explain how Villeneuve was actually a genius representing the isolation of the protagonist through the visuals. Two Dune films of astonishing visual paucity later and it seems that wasn’t such a genius intentional choice after all. The man has an imagination that only stretches to “brutalist Apple store” and not much else. Works fine for his own films like Enemy and Prisoners but I don’t want to see him touch something like Blade Runner or Dune ever again.

  76. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >buzzwords
    Opinion discarded.

  77. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't worry I didn't like it either, OP. Denis V. is astroturfed.

  78. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The first movie is my favourite of all time, I never understood how people find it boring. The sequel has no reason to exist and is nowhere near as good. I watched it and it did not resonate with me at all. I really dislike the soundtrack and the uninspired visuals. Shot composition is okay but nothing remarkable.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *