In many ways 2049 is the Blade Runner for those who couldn't quite connect with the original. It has that key element, many of them felt, they were missing with the first one; an actually engaging narrative.
K, the lead character of 2049, is a very likeable dude. He gets to be a proper hero against some truly despicable villains, things get quite personal for this guy. It's not about an assigned job anymore. It's about his own salvation. He gets to have a love interest with whom he has an actual chemistry. Overall the film has a very strong emotional core with proper set up and a rousing conclusion.
Not only that, the film even manages to give more depth to Deckard, the previous lead character, turning him into someone that audience can truly care about and root for.
Blade Runner on the other hand was basically centered around this classic noir narrative, in which this world weary character gets sucked into a situation, where at some point the contrast between what you consider as the right and the wrong side, starts to to gradually fade away. You'd hardly get to care a whole lot about any of it. The entire thing worked thoroughly in a visceral sense.
Of course 2049 is also a visual feast and has a lot of personality, and I'm in no way trying to imply that it is very clearly inferior to Blade Runner in terms of spellbinding combination of imagery and sound. That area gets quite subjective, and ultimately it depends on your own preference, but the point that I'm trying to make here is that for many, the power of storytelling is always more immediately winsome than cinematic artistry.
Maybe not a perfect example, but I think there is a reason for why Interstellar is more popular than Gravity or Dunkirk. Titanic would have never resonated so highly with audience just because of those amazingly crafted sinking segments. People went to see it again and again because of that love story.
Personally my priorities are completely the other way around, but I can perfectly see why it's not the case for so many others.£
Cause he doesn't like BR2049. I assume it'd be like how I'd feel if someone made a thread this soon asking whether Empire Strikes Back or The Last Jedi was better.
In many ways 2049 is the Blade Runner for those who couldn't quite connect with the original. It has that key element, many of them felt, they were missing with the first one; an actually engaging narrative.
K, the lead character of 2049, is a very likeable dude. He gets to be a proper hero against some truly despicable villains, things get quite personal for this guy. It's not about an assigned job anymore. It's about his own salvation. He gets to have a love interest with whom he has an actual chemistry. Overall the film has a very strong emotional core with proper set up and a rousing conclusion.
Not only that, the film even manages to give more depth to Deckard, the previous lead character, turning him into someone that audience can truly care about and root for.
Blade Runner on the other hand was basically centered around this classic noir narrative, in which this world weary character gets sucked into a situation, where at some point the contrast between what you consider as the right and the wrong side, starts to to gradually fade away. You'd hardly get to care a whole lot about any of it. The entire thing worked thoroughly in a visceral sense.
Of course 2049 is also a visual feast and has a lot of personality, and I'm in no way trying to imply that it is very clearly inferior to Blade Runner in terms of spellbinding combination of imagery and sound. That area gets quite subjective, and ultimately it depends on your own preference, but the point that I'm trying to make here is that for many, the power of storytelling is always more immediately winsome than cinematic artistry.
Maybe not a perfect example, but I think there is a reason for why Interstellar is more popular than Gravity or Dunkirk. Titanic would have never resonated so highly with audience just because of those amazingly crafted sinking segments. People went to see it again and again because of that love story.
Personally my priorities are completely the other way around, but I can perfectly see why it's not the case for so many others.£
I meant that since I’ve never had the opportunity to see the original theatrically I wouldn’t know if I would have had the same response to it like 2049. Thats why I dislike comparing them. I find both work to be largely visual and atmospheric experience. I agree with Cilogy, I don’t think the original works as an actual film. Deckard's task of finding replicants and killing them felt drawn out and between the first and final act there wasn’t much that stood out to me. 2049 does a better job at telling a story I think but I still primarily view it as a experiential storytelling.
Watching it on the big screen and seeing the world and being immersed by the sound system was breathtaking. The way the light and colours infused together to emit radiant landscapes it was like I was watching a dance. The way the sound filled the auditorium I felt overwhelmed, dread and desolation at various points. I loved that. I loved the way it captivated the magnitude of its universe and used it to communicate underlying emotions. I don’t really care how a film tells its story, whether its through visuals, characters or however, as long as its effective. The cinematic experience is what was memorable to me.
