ArmandFancypants wrote:

Now Where Was I ? wrote:Absolutely extraordinary, more detailed thoughts tomorrow.

The Rachael CGI was mindblowing, like totally seamless. Rogue One team should be ashamed lol.

It's a completely different process lol

If the sausage tastes good, I'm indifferent to how it was made.

Most films nowadays are too fast paced.

cannot stop listening to the score



fuck my ass Hans

BlairCo wrote:

ArmandFancypants wrote:

Now Where Was I ? wrote:Absolutely extraordinary, more detailed thoughts tomorrow.

The Rachael CGI was mindblowing, like totally seamless. Rogue One team should be ashamed lol.

It's a completely different process lol

If the sausage tastes good, I'm indifferent to how it was made.

Congrats, that's missing the point entirely.

ArmandFancypants wrote:

Vader182 wrote:2049 is idiosyncratic enough that, like Dunkirk really, I totally sympathize with the hyperbolic praise as much as I do the air of disappointment.

It's a weird movie.


-Vader

Interesting. My problem with it is that it isn't. It puts its cards on the table and then decides to spend half an hour telling you what the card is even though you already know.

What cards would you say are those?

I ask because I have a very specific reading of the movie, and I think it's one of the most sophisticated and intelligent explorations of agency and freedom maybe ever, and the way it unfurls this exploration through story is transportive and enveloping. I think a lot of this is, as you say, fairly obvious. Some of the subtext IS the actual text, and some of it isn't and left ambiguous. But I could write a lot (maybe I will later) about what I think 2049 is 'doing' and it'd be a hard thing to do seamlessly because of how intricately put together I think it is.

However, tons and tons of people have very different readings of some things, obvious though some of these ideas are. And what's more, some of those readings specifically are how scattershot and how disjointed a lot of the thematic/metaphysical elements turn out to be in their eyes. I think they're (mostly) totally cohesive.

So in a way, my own feeling is that 2049 is both more obvious and more subtle than the original was. And I think a lot of people are catching a lot of the obvious stuff (putting the cards on the table), which is basically the text of the story, and calling it a day, but then they aren't looking deeper into what's going on at the core of the movie or how some of these ideas (disjointed or otherwise) make sense as part of a whole more than they might make sense on their own.

Tbh a lot of that doesn't matter, since it's all about what it meant to you as a viewer during your experience watching, whether you intellectualize this stuff or not. For me, 2049 plunged very deeply into a lot of profound ideas very few movies ever have.


-Vader

I was thoroughly engaged in the second and third acts.The pacing in the first act was a little too slow for me but it picked up.The cinematography and set design are outstanding .As much as i want Dunkirk to take cinematography i wont be too upset if Deakins wins.I totally hated the original but this was a massive improvement for me.8/10

If Villeneuve had any balls, he would have continued what was sure to be the strangest Alas, he's no Kubrick.






Oh, and put me down for a 9.5, if you please, Virgo.

CoolwhipSpecial wrote:If Villeneuve had any balls, he would have continued what was sure to be the strangest

threesome in cinema history.

Alas, he's no Kubrick.

I believe Vader is onto something here. The grand story is taking backstage to much more intimate revelations throughout the movie. What you're seeing in the third act is very much part of the (more typical) script, but thanks to Villeneuve's mastery intimacy of the whole story is never lost to us, the audience. It becomes part of the world building, rather than plot building, because the broad strokes of a larger story never really go anywhere do they, just hints here and there. That is why his only narrative 'misstep', so to speak, might be that decision...
And even that is more important on a human level, rather than the grand scheming one.

CoolwhipSpecial wrote:If Villeneuve had any balls, he would have continued what was sure to be the strangest

threesome in cinema history.

Alas, he's no Kubrick.

Villeneuve stopped at the exact right time, and showed exactly how much was needed.

That's what I feel about the pacing of the movie. It's not fast, it's not slow, it's perfectly timed.