I always thought the first film was just ok. Slow and plodding and not much story. But great effects and atmosphere.
The sequel is better paced. The story is better paced and honors what came before and builds on it...
Very refreshing after all the endless Superhero films...
Agree. This one makes the original look like a way to long introduction and delivers a more complex story.
shareI really love both movies. I felt this film was a perfect sequel where it built on the world of the original without just making it about a nostalgic re-tread. It was a good extension of the original.
And, yes, it is refreshing to get to see something outside of the superhero genre these days.
It was a perfect sequel if you are OK with the whole plot of the first film now being just to get two replicants to bang.
It was a perfect sequel if you believe that Tyrell corporation whose goal was commerce according to the man himself, would sell you a product that would make more of itself FOR FREE.
This film is what happens when you don't bring someone in to fix a Hampton Fancher script.
It's been too long since I've seen 2049 to get into the weeds on those arguments, but I don't remember it reducing the plot of the first film. Most of the first film was, in my opinion, a character journey more than a full plot. The plot was fairly straightforward: replicants want to live longer (Roy's "quest") and Deckard has to track them down and terminate them. The best part of the original film was watching Deckard beginning to question his assumptions about the replicants and what humanity even is. That existential theme is far more interesting than whatever specific details are going on from plot point 1 to 2 to 3 and so on.
If you have specific points that bothered you, feel free to jog my memory and we can talk about them.
I'd have to think about the Tyrell Corporation's goals before responding to your second point. I didn't really contemplate that angle while watching 2049.
Hahahahahahha !!!! You crazy dawg!
share