Indiana Jones 4
Star Wars (Force Awakens)
and now Blade Runner 2049
He's not dynamic enough, the scenes and plot with Dekard wasted too much film and space.
The film should of revolved around the other lead characters more dynamically.
It was slow and plodding enough. The dynamics should of evolved with other characters, the hologram, jared leto ,etc.....oh well......
has nothing to do with him.
indiana jones was garbage because of spielberg who hasn't made a good movie since AI
Star wars was garbage because of jar jar abrahms that that ridiculous script. it was made for new fans and to make money.
blade runner failed because people dont appreciate good kino anymore. its all about superhero bullshit.
No, harrison had his day in the sun with the first blade runner movie. He didn't have a senior citizen co-star did he???
Why is he even in this movie? Sean young wasn't in this movie...and neither should have harrison.
The strange, complex , weird journey... of K .....what could have been.......
Um, Sean Young was in this. She was the photo double for the Rachel clone Wallace made to seduce Deckard. Harrison was in this film to connect the two and it was Rachel that Agent K was investigating and the child she had with....wait for it.... RICK DECKARD. With K having found Rachel's remains, there was only one person who knew about the baby girl she had.... Her father the aforementioned RICK DECKARD. Oh, and Edward James Olmos who played Gaff was also in this. So there's facts ya know. K's journey was to become a real boy via his search for the child of Deckard and Rachel. So there's that.
share2049 failed because it was just a "sequel cash-in" for the wrong demographic (i.e fans of the original who aren't uncynical 15 year olds who would just throw money at the screen) and the kids just want to see CGI superhero crap so they go see that instead of this being their first BR experience.
It was not something unique or beautiful or interesting.
Let's see how this film fares 30 years from now.
"fans of the original who aren't uncynical 15 year olds who would just throw money at the screen) "
wait , so you need to be cynical?
2049 failed because it was just a "sequel cash-in" for the wrong demographic (i.e fans of the original who aren't uncynical 15 year olds who would just throw money at the screen) and the kids just want to see CGI superhero crap so they go see that instead of this being their first BR experience.
It won't fare well in 30 years... the real problem is it had a huge plot hole that simply made no sense. The underlying plot is to find the hybrid human replicant... Why? well because the Leto character can't build enough replicants so he wants to find out how to make his replicant have baby replicants and the hybrid will be the key... Okay... that makes absolutely no sense at all. We already see that he can churn out replicants in a factory very quickly, but he thinks the key to make more replicants is going to be replicants that can get pregnant? Seriously? He thinks a 9 month gestation period is going to make more sense than simply building more factories that create them quicker? Makes no sense and seems to be some contrived plot device to give the character a reason to be interested in the hybrid.
shareIt wasn't that Wallace couldn't build more replicants. It was because they were flawed, hence his reason for knifing the one he "birthed". He needed a more economical method of creating them. Using his own methods as well as Tyrell's of being able to create a special "model". However, he needed Deckard to be able to bridge that gap. What Wallace wanted was perfection. That's one of the reasons Deckard rejected the fake Wallace created. It was not Rachel, and he knew it. The lie about her eye colour was to keep protecting Dr. Ana Stelline, his daughter. What Wallace wanted was the ability to perfect his creations. Being able to do what Tyrell did in creating a replicant that could gestate another life would be that perfection. The one thing that man cannot do is give birth. That is the ultimate in power, which is why largely those on the political right want to control a woman's reproductive rights. Therefore the woman is always "under his eye". Wallace being able to create a replicant that could give birth like Tyrell was able to do with Rachel would mean he could control creation. Unfortunately all he can do is create a facsimile. All that information was lost with The Blackout and the Tyrell taking his secrets to death. The reason K was "interested" in the hybrid is because due to Stelline's falsifying the "birth" records making the girl a boy, he believed he was that boy. It was as much his journey as it was hers. In effect Peter Pan becoming a real boy. As far as the film holding up well, I think history will be kind to this masterpiece. You do know what you said is exactly what was said of Stanley Kubrick when he created "2001: A Space Odyssey"? Critics when the film came out castigated the film and Kubrick. And look fifty years later it holds up very well and the interest is still growing. So there's that. I spoke to Keir Dullea when I met he and Gary Lockwood at a recent fan event. They both said the film is as monumental today as it was in 1968 when it was released.
shareThe plot hole remains though. If he created a replicant that could give birth then he would basically be out of business as soon as he created and sold the first one. He has his business because no one else as the ability to create replicants but if you sell replicants that can self replicate you are out of business in the future as your factories are now obsolete. If the entirety of the movie had been based on that fact and he was simply hellbent on finding the replicant that could self-replicate and destroy it to protect his company then it would have made sense. But seeking to put himself out of business simply made no logical sense.
As for 2001... I didn't really like it when it first came out, no so much because of the story but because of the pacing and too many long lingering shots that really served no purpose beyond the director saying "hey look at the special effect I have here"... Today after years of watching movies and shows that use a much faster pacing and shorter shots, 2001 is even worse to me as it become a much more tedious movie to watch. Possibly if I watched it on a computer where I could speed up the playback by 50 percent it might be better than when it came out... but for me the pacing of it has killed it for me. I tried to watch it a few year ago with my daughter and I couldn't do it... it was just too slow.
It isn't even remotely a plot hole. You're completely missing the entire premise of the business, he isn't just selling any product, he's selling slaves, he owns them and their offspring. With a slave that can give birth he has a self sustaining population, a cheaper way to produce them, and a perpetually multiplying and evolving capital.
Even so, he can shape it and design it further as he saw fit, possibly the largest God complex of any character ever written, striving further towards that goal no matter the cost.
In regards to 2001, the special effects weren't designed to be there for the sake of it, they were purposefully crafted to impress upon an audience not only the beauty and awe of space, but to also show a relatively realistic design philosophy that could instil a sense of believably, possibly one of the most important aspects to science fiction in order to keep an audience engaged. It's been a staple of any science fiction ever since, that wishes to keep towards the realms of realism rather than fantasy.
If you sell slaves the new owner owns the babies born to those slaves, that is the other problem with the movie. If the person that buys your replicant can now start growing their own then at some point they dont need to buy them anymore.
Look at the slave trade to the US, it was declining in the number brought from Africa because plantation owners were also raising their own slaves. If the early slave traders had a clue they would have sterilized all the slaves they sold so the buyers couldn't raise their own.
I am a bit late with this but...you nailed it.
shareI think this plot hole is right on the money.
But you forgot something that makes it even bigger:
instead of lots of factories to churn out FINISHED replicants he dreams of pregnant replicants, who take 9 month +20 years to have a ready product.
Awesome writing.
Pauline Kael said almost the same thing in January 1968 when she reviewed "2001: A Space Odyssey". She saw it again a year later and retracted her first review with a glowing review for the film and Stanley Kubrick. This film was not a cash grab. It was definitely a love letter to the original Blade Runner fans. This was not a film for kids. It was rated R for a reason. "Blade Runner 2049" was unique. It didn't have to be "beautiful" to make a point. It was bleaker than the first film. Society had regressed more since the first to the point society was dying. It was in decay in the first one, this time it was dying, truly dying. That grinding sound throughout the film was the wheels begining to fail. And why was it? Perhaps pitting the real humans against the manufactured ones. Ana Stelline was to bridge that gap. That's why she was important and Agent K was that helper to see to it she was able to fulfill her mission in fulfilling dreams...that dream of repairing what was utterly breaking down.
As for the "super hero crap" you speak of, I love all the Marvel films because they are different reiterations of the monomyth, the trail of the hero. Joseph Campbell spoke to the fact there are several stories depicting that trail. The tales of Gilgamesh, Achilles, and many others from classic literature hold to the same circle seen here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Heroesjourney.svg
Tony Stark was about a man who didn't give a crap, finally giving a crap when his own weapons are being used against him.
Steve Rogers, a weak man wanting to do his duty despite his severe illness and his obvious shortcomings.
Natasha Romanoff, a former Russian spy wanting to do good after a questionable past.
Bruce Banner, a scientist who created a monster in himself, wanting to use that beast to do good.
The Gardians, a bunch of misfits in space who come together to save the galaxy.
Stephen Strange, doctor who was once a narcissistic ass, finally understanding what being a true lifegiver is after losing his "gift" and hubris.
Scott Lang, a man with a heart of gold being able to make a difference no matter his size.
T'Challa, a king wanting nothing more than to better the lives of his people by connecting to the world and sharing his country's wealth.
Thor, a god with unlimited powers understanding with his status he can do much.
Peter Parker, a scrawny kid from Queens realizing "with great power, comes great responsibility" after he's bitten by a spider.
But they're all part of the monomythical universe. So saying they're "superhero crap" is sort of shortchanging their ability to inform and transform.
I didn't say "superhero crap". I said "CGI superhero crap".
shareSpielberg hasn't made a good movie since AI ????
If these movies " Minority Report (2002) , Catch Me If You Can (2002) , Munich (2005) ,The Adventures of Tintin (2011),
Lincoln (2012) ,Bridge of Spies (2015), Post (2017) " are not good enough then what movie you consider good movies.
Damn i havent seen any of those! I think i tried MR and fell asleep , i ubderstand CMIYC was quite well received,
They havent been the world shaiking cultural influences that Indiana jones or Star watrs were thought have they?
You're right the post 2000 Spielberg movies have been OK but nothing really special.
shareMunich was awesome
sharepeople are shallow as fck,this movie is deep.
shareIt was just poorly brought. Jared Leto scenes are cringe worthy. Whole pregnancy thing is artificial (swidt?)
shareHasn't pregnancy become artificial though? With the advent of invitro fertilization ergo The Test Tube Baby, hasn't creation become artificial? Growing limbs from stem cells on rats, isn't that artificial? Isn't the ability to create things via 3D printing, isn't that artificial? They're beginning to use that 3D printing for limbs to replace amputated limbs. Artificial I'd say. As for Jared Leto's character, obviously Wallace's wanting to play god eluded you I see. Aren't most geniuses quirky, glitchy? Nicola Tesla would eat nothing but vegetables and fruits during his life. In the last months of his life he would only eat fruit. He wasted away. Marie Curie exposed herself to the x-rays that killed her in order to advance science. Some would say she was also "touched by fire". Most poets like Coleridge, Shelley, Byron were also touched by fire. Touched by fire meaning they're Prometheus the god who created fire. Wallace was in that tradition. He was no different than Tyrell who was very austere in his presentation. Back when "Blade Runner" came out what you said about Leto is what was said about Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty. That "tears in rain" speech was derided. Now it's a part of a different pantheon. "Blade Runner 2049" is representational of the world we're living in now. Artificial and those "gods" living in self-built pyramids looking down on the unwashed masses clamouring for something "better".
shareTurkel was believable. Leto is not. Has little to do with what you like or not about the script. But I'll give you 30 years to find out that it's a crap movie since you seem to need that.
Your name suggests you are suffering from late stage Scott, so good luck with that.
My name refers to the mother of science fiction in the year Mary Shelley conceived and wrote her outline to "Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus". From your lack of understanding even that basic fact shows you have no inclination to understand true science fiction. You thinking that was in relation to Ridley Scott's film proves you have not one iota of understanding of the true nature of story telling and in 30 years, "Blade Runner 2049" will be considered as much of a work of art as it's predecessor was.
Oh, and Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1816 along Lake Geneva, Switzerland where she was with her husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. The two were staying with Lord Byron and Henry Polidori. All of them were challenged by Byron to write a horror story based on the fact Europe was choking in cold and rain due to the nature of four volcanoes having gone off the previous year, with Tambora having gone off earlier that year. It was a dreary time and they passed their days writing poetry and telling stories.
Byron wrote the beginnings for what Polidori would later expand into "The Vampyre" the forunner to Stoker's "Dracula". As for Mary, she conceived her creation that "Year Without A Summer". So unless you actually know stuff, shut your yap. Oh, and "Prometheus" was a good film. You just didn't understand it just like you didn't understand "Blade Runner 2049". I'm sure Shelley's works would have you balled up in abject terror trying to figure out her themes and narratives.
What are you? Six?
I suggest you look up "seems" in a dictionary before you spill your wiki next time. Have you considered that literature might be wasted on you? But I applaud your efforts!
"Prometheus was a good film"
...snigger
I'm sorry. I forgot I was talking to a moron. I'll try to remember that next time and use monosyllabic grunts a la the Dawn of Man sequence from "2001: A Space Odyssey".
As for "spilling my wiki", I've read tons of science fiction. Shelley, Sawyer, Heinlein, PK Dick, Seimson, Clarke, and more.
Prometheus was a good film. Your stupidity didn't understand it....apparently.
"indiana jones was garbage because of spielberg who hasn't made a good movie since AI"
Sure he has. Munich was great, one of the best movies he has made and Bridge of Spies was good. With a better ending it would have been great too. But those movies are for mature audience. In kiddie movies, like Indiana Jones, he hasn't faired well in recent years. I think he grew up finally.
normie pleb confirmed
shareThis...
shareThere is literally nothing dynamic about Ryan Gosling or Jared Leto or the very ugly bitches that pass for eye candy nowadays that were featured in this film.
shareExactly, and that was what was MISSING from the film.
Theyr'e actors, and ensemble that was put to good use, but not great.
Directors have a duty to create the films DYNAMICS.....which was greatly missing.....
Oh well, when the old actors and directors are dead...there will finally be a new vision.
why can't we just settle with the original Blade Runner? I don't understand.
shareProbably because the original was an awful movie. At least, the Final Cut was. Haven't seen the other versions.
sharewhat did you think was awful about it?
shareThe "romance" was forced. The investigation bits were not interesting/practically non-existent.
Calling the pacing slow is an understatement.
The acting leaves much to be desired.
The audio was awful, especially trying to make out any words on the 4k version. Maybe the visuals were "stunning" when it released, but it's a far cry from the "timeless" classic it's often touted to be.
It definitely doesn't stand the test of time.
Well charlatan Ridley Scott used digital coloring and made the final cut a teal and orange mess so it looks exactly like any other garbage film made today but the original film had great photography, and also one of the greatest lines, 'I want more life, fucker', I recommend the director's cut, which did NOT have the involvement of Scott thank god, but it removes the happy ending so it works better than the theatrical or european version.
shareand yes, the rape romance is insanely gross, it's the type of thing creeps like Scott find sexy and it's all over movies before last year.
shareThat's why they wrote for Rachel to say "Put your hands on me" unprompted by Deckard I suppose. If you miss that line sure, it would seem rapey...but I suspect that's not what Tyalt meant by "forced".
Definitely no more "forced" than the whole replicants-having-babies thing of 2049.
Harrison Ford is unnecessary in this movie, but, like the voice-over and happy ending in the studio cut of the first movie, I don't let it bother me.
shareHe just looks like he can't be bothered these days.
Compare today's can't-be-bothered performances with his cocky, devil-may-care charismatic days. He was special because of that vibe he had, now he doesn't have it any more...he's...no longer special.
Rick Deckard wasn't the life of the party even in the original film. Take thirty more years of life, stir in the loss of Rachael and the fact he had to give away his own daughter, and Deckard is obviously going to be embittered.
shareThey should have just casted Rich Evans as K and it would have been 9000% more entertaining that we got, roflmao!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZOLKwSsFik
Nobody can beat my main man, Rich Evans!
I agree that he's quite bad in all his latest movies. He is slow, acts like an old geezer, and his acting is one dimentional and full of the same repeated gimmicks.
But I don't agree that he ruined those movies: they are terrible works in their own merits, he just collaborated in the mess, making them even worse, but he didn't "ruin" them, they would still be terrible without him (maybe even worse - how do you do Indiana Jones or Han Solo without him?)
"He is slow, acts like an old geezer,"
I'd like to think the parts he is taking on are slow , old geezer characters , e.g. Han solo 30 years later , or Rick Deckard 30 years later.
Yeah ok, they are older, but if you think about either one, you know we are talking about exceptional people, including Indy. Why on earth would we want to think of them, even in their 70s, in that way? I don't think it's really part of the characters, it's more part of the actor who is not fit to play that roles anymore.
It's like saying, Gandalf is super old, we got an actor who craps his pants and is unable to walk up a hill. The character is NOT like that, so it the actor is unable to hide that it's not fit. That's a shortcoming of the actor, like Harrison Ford is for these roles.
He tried to ruin Working Girl too.
shareI'm not going to argue with you with the first two but I really liked Blade Runner 2049.
share