Has anyone seen Blade Runner 2049? How does it compare to the original or Villeneuves other work?
>>718 I havent see it yet, I don't even want to check the rotten tomatoes score or the imdb's one, they will score the movie according to the amount of money they get from the studio anyway. What I did see is the four shorts that connects the original movie with this one, they are free in YouTube, and I must admit, it made me curious about 2049...
>>718 I've seen the original (director's cut, which apparently is the only version you should watch as it shows the proper ending), want to see the new one to compare soon
New one out next year I think - can't wait
>>718 it's much better imo, but I also thought that the "deep" storyline that spans both films is also heavily over thought and in reality the concepts covered are not that important (hurr durr what does it mean to be a human etc etc)
>>718 my wife and i wish we could un-see it.
>>736 Holy crap, why? Was it so bad? I haven't seen it yet, could you tell why you didn't like it without spoilers?
>>729 >hurr durr what does it mean to be a human etc etc This post upset me but I am unable to argue why its important
>>718 I thought it was pretty cringey and tedious. The plot didn't have the same stakes or impact as the original. They're both action movies, but in the original, you feel like Dickard is in genuine danger, because he actually fucking is. In the sequel, Gosling, the man with one expression, is pretty much a superhero who is "nigh invulnerable", which is much less suspenseful and as a result, much less interesting. . . . I dunno, pretty much everything was better about the original, like the villain, and the philosophy, etc. I mean, the movie was never really supposed to have a sequel to begin with, with how ambiguous the ending is. It's supposed to be a question with no answer.