The Man Who Will Take Down Hollywood

This.

You’re going to confuse people if you do that. That is literally the worst idea.

I really liked 2049. I thought it was going to be atrocious a year ago, but I'm glad I saw it in a cinema. Even if you didn't like the plot, I think most people can agree that technically it was quite good and, failing all else, a good example of what is possible in terms of immersion and believable world construction with modern film technology and cinema setups. I thought it made effective use of the screen space and the large speakers that cinemas typically have to make a compelling and engaging experience. I do think it is going to suck when watched on a regular TV/PC setup, even with good headphones, though.

I also liked how balanced a movie it was. I never felt any particular theme, metaphor or reference lingered for too long. Even though there was clearly commentary about global warming and other ideas, I didn't feel any of it was heavy handed. Given that there's an extra hour of the film on the cutting room floor, I'd say the cutting work was a nightmare.

*le sigh*

...

The biggest concern I had going in is if they would diminish the first film and declare for certain of Deckard was a human or a replicant. Instead they kept just enough ambiguity, raised enough of their own interesting questions, and in my opinion even retroactively made the first film an even more interesting part of the two films as a whole.

I felt that the use of Rachel and Deckard was unnecessary, and weakened the movie as a whole by not allowing it to stand on its own. Surprisingly, I really liked the first half of the movie before Ford was on screen. It felt like it was its own film that only used the Blade Runner setting as a backdrop for its own ideas, but as it got far too heavy-handed with putting Deckard, Rachel and the Dreammaker on a pedestal as some sorts of saviors for replicants. The villain was also way too on the nose with his symbolism and god complex.
In terms of cinematography it was pretty good, but I wasn't a fan of the flatter colors, especially in the city. They gave it a much grayer, brighter look than the deep blacks and bright neons in the original. I would be fine with it if it wasn't a sequel to Blade Runner, but it is.
Ironically the worst parts of the movie come from the fact that it has Blade Runner in the title.

His reviews are pretty /comfy/ tbh.

Deckard was actually pretty well written and made sense. Putting Rachel there besides the bones was very unnecessary though and was the only time the aesthetic and visuals weren't 10/10. CGI people still look uncanny as fuck and I wish they hadn't done that.

Agree pretty much 100%.

Highly agree with this, the weakest parts of the movie were the ones that reminded us this was a direct sequel, instead of spiritual or unrelated one, a "soft/subtle sequel"
The use and continuation of past characters and references de-mystified the original and also turned it from another interesting story inside a big city into the birth of a grand scale revolutionary movement, effectively giving to the tired narrative of Hollywood to make "epic" proportions out of every story

Someone mentioned a 4 hour cut, which would hypothetically explain the bizarre development of the villain, which was too heavy handed on symbolism, maybe as a way to speed up his character traits, which in my opinion backfired as i felt he was unnecessary most of the time and then in some moments felt short due to lack of development
Otherwise i did like the cinematography, it had 2 concepts with order and chaos, half and half of the movie. The flatter, gray colors were pretty nice as i felt it gave daylight scenes a justification: gloomy contamination and the atmosphere of dreaded, bleak dilapidation in advanced structures, something popular some years ago with photographers in eastern europeans countries (Yugo spomenik) or rainy places with lots of brutalist architecture like Bongistan

It also gave place to another narrative justification that the nighttime was the livid scenario for the population like the original was, but i agree it was flat, not in colors but in textures and light play, which is strange because the movie in other scenes, notably when the autist inquires about Rachel, has very notable and planned light sequences, in some cases done as almost masturbatory exercises by the director. It wasn't sterile like the retard bong said in the video, it simply was too illuminated, doesn't help the domestic sets seemed too normal and simple, which i think it was the director's intention to "normalize" the future look, to make it look like everyday stuff, it's worth to point out the kitchen of the autist is the same one as in Deckard's original apartment, but it looks uninteresting and flat thanks to 3 big old LED lights above instead of only the street's illumination going through the curtains

Had this mess excluded completely any past reference, shit actors and focused only in this android (not lab human as the movie tries to retcon) trying to uncover a replicant android mutinity and his personal life, along with more light play in domestic scenes, it would've been a very strong movie, but its flaws kick it down too hard to be forgiven, after all, only God does with hamfisted sequels.

...

P.D. and the city population density by night was shit, nowhere this movie reflected the bloated streets the original had, either with the guy at the cafe next to the whorehouse where everyone had space for walking, sitting and sexually harassing said dude, or with the close-up to the nigger analyzing the android's wood.
No controlled chaos theme exploded either like the street passing fight and the serpent priestess nightclub scenes.

*sigh*

Didn't they make it crystal clear that Deckard is a replicant?

I thought so at first too, but they only outright confirmed that a replicant had a child. Was the child half replicant half normie, or full replicant? It's already a large deviation from what we thought previously possible for a replicant and replicants are already just basically organic machines that function like upgraded versions of humans, with artificially replicated versions of human biological functions.

If one we're to make a replicant that could reproduce, it wouldn't be a vast leap to say it might be capable of reproducing with human sperm. In fact, the female side of the equation would have been the harder part, although only by a little bit.

We get confirmed that Deckard and Rachel falling for each other was a set up and it's plausible with the unicorn that he was also a replicant, but considering how human his model would be, the question remains open.

Instead of doing the idiot move that Scott did by claiming certainty of his being a replicant, they did the smart thing and let it still be slightly open, because the important part is the question. Could he plausibly be both one or the other.

By making the protagonist a relateable (if aspie) replicant, making the psycho villain girl a very inhumane replicant, and blurring the line with replicants who can live longer lives and produce offspring, they hit all the right notes of the first film, where the question is how human or inhuman are any of these people, replicant or otherwise. The fact that technology reached a level of similarity where the line became muddied and you can't just keep looking at them as separate categories, human and replicant.

The folly people make today is only in applying human properties to machines that currently fall far short of deserving it, and we won't see anything close to human cognition in an artificial entity in our lifetimes. But it's worth exploring it in sci-fi, because eventually it may be a fact of life. Roy Batty was more human than Deckard, Luv was less. K seemed to be similarly human as Deckard, just with the added knowledge of his own artificiality.

2049 certainly strengthens the case for Deckard being a replicant, but they could have had a scene in there that made it totally impossible for him to be considered anything else. I just appreciate their dignity and restraint and understanding of the fact that it's better if it's not totally known.

I happen to lean more towards it being better for the story if Deckard was a human, for the purpose of the Roy Batty rooftop interaction and his inner humanity being put up against Roy's. But more important to me than him being human is that he might not be.

I don't generally like open ended interpretations when they are tacked on just for the hell of it, but in this case I think the question being a viable question is far more important than a specific detail of the world being known.

Nope.

I'm gonna go with a "No" on this guy.

THE MAN WHO WILL NOT STOP ME FROM ENJOYING THE GREATEST PIECE OF CINEMA AND ART IN GENERAL OF THE YEAR 2017.

G O O D
L U C K
A N D
G O D
S P E E D
A U T I S T I C
S C R E E C H E R S
M A Y B E
A
G O O D
A N I M E
W I L L
C O M E
O U T
F O R
Y O U
S O O N

the original film established them as test tube people this when roy demanded more lifespan from tyrell