Because I'm too lazy to properly italicise them. :-)
Uh... Define "recently". Last time I rewatched it must have been... I don't know, six, seven months ago?
Printable View
All that time spent on the clown and the scientist and it just comes to fucking NOTHING oh I HATE it.
And yes I know, 2049 could probably stand to have Gosling spend less time looking at craps tables but at least that's VISUALLY fantastic and not annoying.
Ironically for as much as I liked 2049 it was also the first time I've ever been fighting sleep in the THEATER. I'm fat and just got off a 13 hour shift hmm yes let's go sit in the dark for 3 hours, drink whiskey and beer, and watch something that is 75% dialogue free with soft string music
What do you find better in both story and dialogue?
Additionally, we can talk more about performance, but, are you going to prefer Wallace over Tyrell?
- - - Updated - - -
ok now I sincerely never would have described 2049 as 'soft string music', if anything I'd have described it as the original music with all the inhumanity and none of the poetry. it plays well to the industrial sort of strength of summer but it's not soothing!
I wouldn't compare the two, they're going for entirely different characters despite their superficially similar positions.
- - - Updated - - -
Man I don't remember what it was I just know that I was praying for someone to talk so my friend would stop periodically punching my arm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NujlXgBmUoU
This is extremely appropriate. I love it to death, it's an evolution on BR's music in the same way the visuals evolved, it's quite possibly Zimmer's best work! But the only part that's comfortable is the Tears in Rain remix.
- - - Updated - - -
I think Luv can come close, but ironically, she would probably come closer if Wallace wasn't present on screen.
I found the story more engaging tho that's probably in part because I like to see more of the world outside of just the city. The dialogue felt a bit more natural to me but I could stand to rewatch the first one sometime.
Wallace wasn't in enough of the film for my liking, no.
I just can't back that, the characters are probably the part where BR1 is the weakest. Like, surely you aren't going to argue that Ford and Young are a stronger leading pair than Gosling and Armas?
Charlie Holloway: David, why are you wearing a suit, man?
David: I beg your pardon?
Charlie Holloway: You don't breathe, remember? So why wear a suit?
David: I was designed like this because you are more comfortable interacting with your own kind. If I didn't wear a suit, it would defeat the purpose.
Charlie Holloway: They're making you guys pretty close, huh?
David: Not too close, I hope.
Yes it does help to remember sometimes, that while Blade Runner has problems, there are indeed far worse Ridley Scott Sci-Fi movies
Yes and also there's deep commentary involved with the human performance as being less natural than the Replicants yada yada
But ALSO it's a weird 80's film with some bad parts of the script
Ange bitte
I am simply saying that there are three levels of evaluation here
^ Actually same.
I prefer the original, because I felt it was visually stronger than 2049, although Vegas and the junkyard were impressive too. I would agree with Rodyle about characters. A problem for me is that the original did not sell Rachel/Deckard well enough for it being such an important part of 2049. I'd have preferred if Wallace wasn't even in the movie tho, make him a background presence instead of a corporate asshole #65457.
Harrison Ford was pretty good at playing pure sleaze back then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMk0-pZfx5Q