Jarvis Cool But that isn't really a fault of the movie is it. It isn't culturally signifcant because the first movie did it first. It will still be praised and talked about for years to come and sets the standard for Sci-fi films. That is amazing in its own right.
Francisco Martinez I’d say that original Blade Runner wins both. I’m not talking about face values here. Blade Runner’s visual was revolutionary for its time. 2049 is much more gorgeous, but for a 2017 standard, it’s not as groundbreaking as Blade Runner back in 1982.
agreed! They didn't even mention Hans Zimmer's soundtrack. The original soundtrack was so unique but I do think 2049's soundtrack is as good as the the original in it's own way. Call me a Zimmer fan
Al Levine take this segment with a grain of salt, they ALWAYS kae it where they tie two for two and then have a random one that clearly goes to the original.
Cultural impact is very fair. There is no way BR 2049 will have a cultural impact even remotely as big as the original. The reason is simple - the movie is derivative. It's just a continuation of everything established in the original. It evolved and smoothed out details, but the aesthetics, visuals, costumes, the overall design and vibe is pretty much a copy. As such, BR 2049 can't have much of a cultural impact, because the film itself is a direct product of the cultural impact of the original BR. It's like comparing the cultural impact of A New Hope and Force awakens when it comes to Star Wars. There's nothing to compare.
Yeah me too. I love that him being a replicant, takes us as the viewer on an emotional ride. We get feelings for someone most people within the universe doesnt care about.
@@jcp1984again Sorry, K cannot hold my attention for more than 5 min unless he's doing something interesting but then that will mean that its the plot events that interests me more than Ryan Gosling's portrayal ...
Deckard is more interesting to me because he's a more complex character than K. You see, K is this almost "Molly Sue" type character as he's this sympathetic character almost without flaws, even when he's retiring other replicants we're told its because he's been conditioned by humans to behave that way. And even when Luv is shown being really powerful, she has to somehow lose her fight to K inexplicably in the end when she suddenly become so weak she could not lose K's single handed grip with both of her hands ... I hate this type of unabashedly "perfect" heroic portrayals. Deckard, on the other hand, gets beaten up by other replicants and had to struggle badly with the help of some luck and from Rachel to overcome the replicants. He kills Zhora but does not puff up in some sort of dignified posture the way K does ...in fact he's shown to be rather disturbed at the sight of Zhora's death with her tear runing down her face. He's forced to come back unwillingly to his hunter job which he's always wanting be done with .... Yes, he's rather violent with Rachel in love making but thats because he's only had experiences dealing with violent replicants in the past, not with a gentle delicate one like Rachel. You see, Deckard is far from perfect, he's full of flaws but its his humanity that makes me root for him even though the replicants are sympathetic too in their short life span predicament. Deckard feels more naturalistic as someone you see in your daily life, trying to survive and make good despite all their character flaws, he feels real ... someone real like your dad, or brother, or friend ... K feels like someone almost too sympathetic, too perfectly righteous and without flaws and ALWAYS WINS FIGHTS ALL BY HIMSELF. He's the type I loath to meet in real life because I will think that its unnatural and that the gods are being unair to favor this guy so much. I'll admit its jealousy but really, K is a Molly Sue that should irk you because it remind us that life favors some people way too much to be fair...
@@88feji I found K way more interesting because of his more inward conflict with himself in comparison to Deckards more outward conflict with sympathizing with replicants. K wanting to be real and to exist and be human. Versus Deckard where his conflicts isnt as compelling to me (even though it had a satisfying destination). Also I think K gets beaten up in the film a lot physically and emotionally. Literally the first time he encounters Luv, she destroys his escape ship and outsmarted him. The second time, she literally causes him to die. The only reason why he won was because he was able to hit a sneak attack on her while she was distracted and unarmed. And you make a fair point about Deckard feeling like a more naturalistic character but that's because he has more of a soul. His emotions have already been fully realized (although mainly suppressed). K is a literal replicant so ofc hes not gonna be as expressive. He has been trained to hunt down his own kind and to never defy orders. He is quite literally treated as a dog of the police. Which...rests around his arc. He begins to claim his humanity and as he does we see him more expressive. Showing his anger, his fears, his despair, his doubts, his realizations, his happiness amd contentment. So theres way more to K under the surface than I think you are giving him credit for
Nah, I’ll give the blade runner category to 2049. I really felt K’s pain when he thought he was the child, when his joi girlfriend got killed, and I felt even more pain when he found out he wasn’t the child. I was rooting for him the whole movie and the way he died made me incrediblysad. It felt unceremonious, he got no reward for all his hard work.
The iconic Roy's monologue (message) when he's powered down is one of the most spectacular-poetic-out of this world scenes in the history of films.. Pure art. Blade runner best Sci fi movie and soundtrack of all times IMHO. Blade runner 2049 great movie too off course!
Lets be honest, it's like deciding whether Godfather part 1 or 2 is best. We all have our preferences but at the end of the day they're both amazing films that a pretty equal in terms of quality.
Love them both but 2049 was everything a perfect sequel should be. Not trying to top the amazing antagonist or protagonists of the first but having a world already built and challenging it pushing it even further with a new message. It's a solid FILM. And it is it's own.
Blade Runner gets mad props for introducing the world, atmosphere, and sci fi themes, but 2049 turned each of those aspects up to 11 and introduced compelling characters injected with more emotion.
even though he does change in the story, Deckard is pretty much a fully developed person from the moment you meet him. K is just a robot at first, and you watch him discover his own potential and turn into a unique individual by the end of the film. It doesn't matter he isn't the "chosen one", he has discovered there is more to himself than can be qualified by 4 letters.
2049 looks washed out compared to the greatness of the first Blade Runner ... the first movie had many great memorable scenes (tears in rain rooftop scene, the chase between Deckard and Roy through the rundown building, Zhora's anguished death in the crowded lowlife buzzing streets, Pris's horrific death, Tyrell's biblical meeting with his creation Roy, the hellish opening cityscape etc) ... but in 2049, not a single scene is anywhere even remotely as memorable at all ...
Although I think the original is better than 2049, there were many memorable scenes in the sequel. (E.g., the fight between K and Sapper Morton, the flight to LAPD, the Mesa crash scene, K’s breakdown at the memory lab, the AI threesome, the casino fight between K and Deckard, the attack at the casino, K’s visceral character arc, the sea wall spinner chase, and the incredibly tense fight between K and Luv.
Hm, my favorite is Blade Runner 2049. Music is better in Blade Runner. Loved Vangelis work, however visuals and cinemetography is clearly best in Blade Runner 2049 (which is obvious) I found K to be a much more interesting protagonist than Deckard. Seeing him struggle throughout the film, questioning himself as who he really is and fighting for something good in the end is what made me love him. The performances were overall better in Blade Runner 2049 but I still prefer the villains in the first Blade Runner. Especially Roy Batty, but Luv is a close one. I do like Wallace as a character too but he is more a godhead like Tyrell. Roy Batty absolutely wins for the better villain and not even Sylvia Hoeks can match his performance. As it goes with plot and story I agree with Watchmojo that Blade Runner 2049 has the better plot. I felt more immersed in the detective part of the story more than I did in the first Blade Runner. 2049 for me felt more like a complete story where the protagonist had a clear arc such as K developing and it pays off in the end. Pacing was better in 2049 than in the first Blade Runner. Love story and love interest was quiet unique and complex in 2049 so I prefer that. I wasn't quiet as interested in Deckard and Rachels's relationship. I didn't quite feel the charisma between them. The Blade Runner feeling is better potrayed in the original than in 2049 since Deckard is more committed to the job in the original than K ever was in 2049. Overall, I loved Blade Runner 2049 more but I still think the original one is a masterpiece.
I watched both movies just last week and I think I like the original more.. yeah, the pacing and the overall plot maybe are better in the new one, but I don't like how black and white all the characters in 2049 are - in the original every character - apart from maybe Racheal - are not the bad guys, but not the good guys either.. and the overall themes of the movie are more deep, more ambiguous which I loved.. and even though 2049 has great cinematography and visuals, I probably liked the more dark, more dirty, more "rainy" look of the original movie more.. music was more memorable for me in the original too and the ending of 2049 has more of a "sequel hook" feel than the one in the original.. if BR 82' is for me a 9/10 movie, than 2049 is probably a 7,5/10
Blade Runner is one of my all time favorite movies. But I seriously, after tonnes of rewatching, think that Blade Runner 2049 surpassed it, at least for me. The thing about first Blade Runner is that I don't think overall mystery was that interesting and I didn't really get emotionally connected with characters, instead movie stood up for its world, subtle narrative, philosophical themes, acting, directing, dialogues, etc. I love Ridley's dry and cold way of storytelling, but I do think it kinda hurts connection to the story. One of the things it does better than 2049, is that it actually keeps consistent subtlety, while 2049 at times gives some expositions, they are fortunately rare, but they are still there and it took me off couple of times. Blade Runner 2049 on the other hand I think had truly interesting mystery, I was really interested in how every single piece of evidence revealed not only something about mystery, but how it impacts K's personality too. I don't agree that K wasn't as good as Deckard. K's development is one of my favorite character arcs I've seen in a long time. We are introduced to him as this perfect replicant, who is fantastic at his job, but throughout the journey he constantly starts questioning himself, develops more human side, and the fact that movie made me care about his romance with freaking hologram is fucking commendable. And in the end I got truly emotional, and that's another thing worth praising about character development in the movie. I also love how Luv is actually very similar to K - they both clearly question their masters, they both are quite calm and collective, but get really emotional during specific situation. The difference is that K decided to follow his own path in the end, he chose his own way, while Luv remained loyal. Another thing worth praising is that it doesn't just expand philosophical themes of the original, but gives them more emotional context, so that it sticks with viewer's mind even more. All in all, both movies are phenomenal, and both deserve lot more than they initially got. I will forever rewatch these two brilliant accomplishments in art. And please don't attack me, it's all my personal opinion, art is subjective.
100% agreed that 2049 is the superior film of the two and that’s coming from someone who spent $75.00 on a special edition of the original Blade Runner.
The new film is nothing groundbreaking, albeit impressively made, and suffers from an overly slow pace at times, a lack of elucidation to certain subplots, and some questionable actions from some of the characters.
Plot - Blade Runner 2049 Visuals - Blade Runner 2049 Music - Blade Runner(as good as 2049's music is, it can't beat the legendary Vangelis) Villains - Blade Runner Protagonist - Blade Runner 2049 I think K is more relatable than Deckard, in a way that he questions whether his whole life was a lie and what is going on, while you never get that with Deckard. Throughout the movie you get some implications that he is a replicant, and that is the key - it's you who questions it, not him. Also, when he picks up the unicorn, he just kinda smiles and that's it, but throughout K's journey, he really gets emotional about it. Even though it's 3/2 for BR 2049, it is very hard to pick a winner, but 2049 edges it a bit for me. Both films are masterpieces and should not be missed. BR 2049 will eventually get cult status as did Blade Runner after some time. Both these movies are in my top 10 deservedly so.
Rekv1n I never include visuals for sequel comparisons myself. 30ish year gap it's a no brainier unless some messes up royally. But ty for including the baddies in comparison, most ppl forget when comparing the two how bleh Luv is and how amazing Roy is.
I'd give 2049 some time to see if it catches on more with audiences and leaves a legacy similar to the last. Both weren't huge box office hits, but both are very groundbreaking in terms of visuals and subtle storytelling. May be the best 1-2 punch in cinema.
I'll agree on antagonists, but personally even though the original film is a masterpiece, there is absolutely more heart in 2049. And I feel both films are pretty deep for their themes
That's pure bullshit about more heart in 2049, I've seen these statements from critics many times and I haven't seen a single argument why. 2049 can't have more heart because Tears in Rain scene in the original alone has much more heart and soul than the whole 2049, which doesn't have a single scene even close to this level, only bland soulless rip-off of it in the end of the movie. It was the most personal movie Ridley ever made and 2049 objectively can't have more heart because of these 2 reasons.
will i get retired if i say i liked Blade runner 2049 more? What pissed me off though is when the narrator said K lacked the humanity that deckard had? ARE YOU KIDDING ME, K dies in peace knowing he finally did a good deed on his own behalf by reuniting Deckard with his daughter, even though he thought all this time he was Deckards son. It's a selfless act he did.... more human than human. In the end K dies knowing he's not human, but has still found his humanity.
It its weird how people were unrelated with K's character while me I was so emphatic over him. I guess is more of open the mind. On the other hand I while Deckard is good I couldn't care less about him
Bladerunner 2049 is an absolute amazing movie with one of the best uses of cinematography I have seen in a long time... This is one of the few times a sequel after decades does the original right and its destined to be a modern classic. The original is still a legendary movie which has influenced a lot of movies, games and music.
Blade Runner is just amazing, but Blade Runner 2049 touched me a lot more of how gorgeous and gripping that film was compared to the first. I'd say Blade Runner is a cult masterpiece while 2049 served as a technical masterpiece for a sequel like this. No wonder why Denis Villeneuve is the right director for the job! (Can't wait to see what he will do to Dune in the coming year!)
Blade runner clearly wins on 2049. It s better in everything, and giving the point for music to 2049 is quite an insult. Vangelis themes were far better than 2049s, a bad copy of them. Personally, I have downloaded and still listen to them. Blade runner RULES.
davide olgiati how is it a copy, they’re in the same universe, it’s a direct sequel to the original. There’s no competition, they’re the same story split up in two.
davide olgiati No it ain't, lol. 2049 is better in evert aspect besides music. Better visuals, better acting, story, characters, relationship, pacing, etc.
@@reneepeck8094 maaaan, please. Avoid saying the false, 'cause thy God is watching upon ye. 2049 is ahead in visuals cause it's ahead in real life of 35 years of technology. And even with that, Blade Runner still got a point for the superb use of lights and shadows. Then there is the story. A story much more complex and deep(digging at the roots of identity and human nature) in the first movie, rather than the second. The pacing it's similar, but neither the character nor the relationships are comparable. Blade Runner RULES.
davide olgiati both are equally good imo. 2049 builds upon the original in meaningful and enriching ways, and can stand tall on its own. It’s the mark of a perfect sequel.
davide olgiati Please. The relationship was incredibly rushed. They met once, then talked on communications, and then she saved him, and then they fucked and had a relationship. Like what kind of rushed relationship is that? At least the sequel already established the relationship which gives the film more time to show us how they talk to each other. The pacing sucks in the original. It goes to fast paced in the first act, slow as hell in the second, and fast paced in the last act. Hell even the story is kind of weird. Like it’s about hunting these replicants, but the story keeps deviating from the plot to other stuff that aren’t really that important like that dude who competed against Tyrell at Chess. The acting is better in the sequel. The characters are also way more better and interesting in the sequel. the only actually good characters in the original are Gaff, Tyrell, and Roy. Everyone else were bland and boring. The sequel has a plethora of interesting characters like Wallace, Joi, Luv, Marietta, Sapper, etc. True they aren’t the greatest, but each have a sense of intrigue unlike the original. The main character is WAY better than the original as well. K actually goes through development. He firsts just does his job, then realized that he could be the special child, but he realize he isn’t and then tries to find Deckard. After all that, the Revolution proposes for him to kill Deckard, but instead he escorts him to his daughter who is the special one. He’s not a superhero or anything like that, he’s just a regular Joe that anyone can relate to. Everyone wants to be special, but in reality that’s a privilege that only a seldom amount actually acquire. This gives him a lot more relatability. Deckard, on the other hand, is just boring and bland. He gives no for thought into any conversation, has no interesting ideas of his own, we barely even see him develop until the very end, kind of a dick, never really does anything besides his mission, etc. Is the original BR movie bad? No. There’s some good parts. Roy Batty is an excellent antagonist, the production is astounding, the audio and sound mix is amazing, and the soundtrack is one of the best in cinema with great presentation. If I would rate the two movies it would be this. BR is a solid 5 or 6/10 while BR 2049 is like a 9/10.
It's a cool universe. 2049 compliments the original, continuing the story really well. Androids dealing with their mortality is an interesting concept. Hopefully they continue the Deckard/ Anna Staline story line further. 2049 was cool IMO because it set Roy's character from the first front and center. Gosling's officer K transformed from having no purpose other than what was created for him- to finding one in choosing to save Deckard. Accepting his own mortality along the way. I always thought Roy's story was the one to tell in the first movie- and they did that in 2049.
I love both films, I'm just bit nostalgic for the older films which would have done amazingly in the box office if it wasn't for the fact star wars out at the same time.
Sofir Uddin huh? So much of what you said doesn't make sense. Star Wars had come out 5 years prior (or at least started with A New Hope anyways). And despite it being a sci-fi as well, Blade Runner lacks the space and pseudo religious elements/themes of Star Wars. You can't make the argument that sci-fi didn't do well due to star wars. Look at Alien (which also took place in deep space). No, it didn't do well because of the initial critical reception it first got. It's considered a classic now because of its cult following.
blade runner original has alot of replay value to it,its the sort of film i'd see on a rainy night with a glass of vodka that can help with the immersion,everything about it just connected the story,music,atmosphere,villains,protagonist,2049 just tried to expand on everything its predecessor did right,a good sequel but not ready to topple the master
How the hell can you fairly compare the two? The first one is from 1982. 2049 is from 2017. A solid 35 years later. Ridley Scott is a visionary and it shows but it was a WHOLE other world in the early 80s and the cultural, social, visual and political impact of Blade Runner was entirely different that 2049 was on our present day audiences. Culture is different now, so the cultural impact can't really be accurately compared. 2049 is a fantastic standalone film and an incredible sequel to an iconic and indescribably amazing movie.
I guess it comes down to at WHEN you saw the original, as with me when it came out and at least once every year after. The sequel is a very good SEQUEL, but even like that or as a stand alone, it can never surpass the original.
I won't call the sequel very good even, its just slightly above average compared to most sci fi movies but its very inferior to the original Blade Runner in every single aspect of film making thematically, acting, cinematography, music, plot etc etc..
the music is better in the original... and (just my opinion) the visuals are more impressive considering the time and that 35 years later it still looks better than a million films from today
Anyone who says the music or visuals are better than the original is probably delusional.. or maybe poor immature taste is to blame for such opinions... not a single aspect of 2049 is remotely close to the greatness of the original..
I don't agree with round 2. 2049 has that glossy, modern look. It takes me out of the story and just feels more like a RUclips movie. The set pieces felt like they came from a time before the original's setting, and were much less memorable. The original Blade Runner has a certain atmosphere which felt real, when shot with the technology of that time. The sequel never captivated me in that way.
Am I the only one that preferred the music in 2049? I don't know why but the music from the first one just didn't stick with me that much. But in this film it did and it might have to do with the fact that it was composed by 2 of my favourite composers. Hans Zimmer did many themes and Benjamin Wallfish did for A Cure for Wellness wich has one of the best scores of the year for me.
Blade Runner 2049 was a complete mess and the acting seemed false and improvised. Not a patch on the orginal infact if it had been its own film it would have been a completely souless pointless generic scifi film...
Maybe Blade runner is a better more polished movie...But still i prefer the original, with all their possible "faults" its feel far more natural and organic....and one of the most great things about it was the music and 2049 doesnt have all that much to say...in fact i dont remember any theme other than the ones that remember the original one.
It's unfair to rate the cultural impact when the sequel had less than a year to sink in. The original fully deserves the cult status, however the sequel has a better plot and is one of those rare cases when the follow-up is even better. Denis Villeneuve killed it, Gosling and Ford were amazing and the cinematography mesmerizing. Congrats to Roger Deakins on winning the Oscar. Hope there will be a 3rd movie - too many unresolved plots.
I think K and Deccard as Blade Runners should have been a draw. K was pushed to the brink wondering if he were human and if everything he knew were a lie... Much like Deccard
I think that while the original may have slightly better art direction. 2049's cinematography elevates it above the original. I mean there is a reason why 2049 is considered to be one of the best technical achievements in film history. With much of its praise also talking about how much more varied it is compared to the original. Art direction is important. But 2049 exhibits a similar enough art direction that it still respects the original. But with its arguably better cinematography with some of the best visuals of all time. Combined with much more intriguing story (to me). Better pacing, better performances and much better chemistry between K and Joi compared to Deckard and Rachael. I feel the same way as YMS does. That 2049 trumps the original by keeping the slow pace but creating a richer narrative with a better sense of progression. Combined with everything I said earlier creates a film that even elevates it above the original. YMS also voices something I felt as well. That the original felt repetitive in it's world and awfully claustrophobic, leaving you wanting to venture out further and just the city streets. Whereas 2049 makes better use of the outstanding world of Blade Runner by expanding it with its locations that make it seem more complete. Some of my points might be why some perfer the original, and that is fair as well. YMS = YourMovieSucks
The thing with deckard and rachael relationship to me is a combination beetween the expectatives of classic romantic love and not understanding the true nature of deckard and rachael.....because above all that relationship is flawed and unorganic...and that's the whole point of it.....Deckard was living his whole life (even in 2049) denying himself from everything and rachel just appears to be a window in wich he can taste something different about the world and the cosmos of his deplorable existence, but nothing more, nothing that comes to the idea that he found somehow his soulmate or something like that...he's totally open to sacrifice himself in order to "play his part" and nothing more, to get back to his existence of loneliness and distance....And rachael on the other hand just wanted to feel human, feel something natural abour herself and deckard was just there to make her feel that sort of things for good or bad reasons....so that relationship was never founded on romantic/organic love but a desperate need of two beings in a dystopic world that doesnt work naturally in the first place...and that's something that the original offers you over the sequel...flawed and all, it offers the space for questions and reinterpreation...2049 is an awesome movie, a well polished perfect movie that tells me a story that i have no space to question or wonder about it....and think about it was the whole motivation on why blade runner is relevant to this day and why the sequel exist in the first place.
They’re both masterpieces so does this really matter? 2049 is my personal fav just bc of the cinematography and I feel as though Ryan Gosling and the rest of the cast gave phenomenal performances.
The review was very good and I agree. 2049 is more than just a fan-service movie, I like the romance with K and Joi a little more, but can't appreciate it at all without the 1st movie. But 2049 kind of complicates the Replicant lore in a way that makes their existence wasteful----without giving away too much, I actually think "The 6th Day" did better with the concept lol
And just watch, Blade Runner 2049 is going to become way more popular over time as one of the best movies of the 2010s and one of best sequels ever made. As Harrison Ford called it, "f@#:ing awesome!"
@@masterbaiter7537 Now that’s just pretentious as hell 💀 My opinion on the first Blade Runner has improved a lot. But still, I feel as though the sequel is the superior film. To each their own however
Unbelievable, the first movie was made more than 3 decades ago but handily beats the sequel visually, musically, acting wise, plotwise, thematically ... thats crazy... So disappointed with the sequel, it feels so hollow emotionally compared to the great wonderful feeling of getting blown away by the first one ...
I read through the comments and there are people voting for both movies. I think just this fact alone proves how exceptional Blade Runner 2049 is. Because let's not forget what it is - a sequel to one of the most beloved, revered pieces of cinema in history. A movie that is not remembered for being good family fun, for being a revolution in VFX in a neat package, etc.. Blade Runner is remembered as a unique piece of art, something that transcends genre and is an influence to this day. It's closer to 2001: A space odyssey than The Matrix. So a sequel to Blade Runner is like a sequel to Space odyssey (and we know how that went). The fact the new movie managed to retain the dreamy atmosphere, the vibe, the feeling of the original and felt like a continuation of it is a pretty amazing achievement. The only false tone IMO is the suggested replicant underground revolution which felt like something out of a video game, or out of some young adult novel like Hunger Games. Personally, I love the original, but I enjoyed the sequel more than I expected. I love its more solemn, desolate atmosphere, the beyond aesthetic visuals and I really enjoyed the character of Joi and her arc. She injected unexpected emotion into the story that I feel the original did not have. So if I'm being objective, the original has to take the cake because it is in fact the original. But subjectively, BR 2049 pulled at my heartstrings more effectively.
When I saw 2049, I felt like I WAS K, and that just doesn’t happen very often. Watching him was like watching a part of myself on the screen (and I don’t mean in an Everyman kind of way). I was thoroughly swept up in Blade Runner 2049, completely immersed, and every dramatic and emotional beat just WORKED for me. I don’t think it’s “perfect,” but I’ve been wanting to make movies for a while now and Blade Runner 2049 convinced me that I MUST make movies. It’s the kind of film I would make. Ultimately, how we experience movies is subjective, and for me, “soulless” is just about the last word I’d use to describe Blade Runner 2049.
2049 has much worse third act, music, antagonists and atmosphere, it ruined the original's storyline with idiotic baby-replicants plot reveals and offered nothing new. That's how.
The guy doing this doesn't have a clue. Roy Choosing to accept his death and saving Decard in the first film. Is exactly the same as Joe (k) choosing to go back for Decard and save him in the sequel. Roy's speech "tears in the rain" about his life's motions and meaning fading away "like tears in the rain" are then imposed on the ending of 2049, as K dies laying down on the stairs of the memory center. While the snow falls around him. Tears in the snow. This was a perfect sequel and continuation of the blade runner series. And Im betting it will take our society another 10 years to figure that out.
Despite being born a long time after the original film Blade Runner (1982) I can say with certainty that it is far superior in all compared to the sequel. I'll explain. Obviously as far as the cultural impact is concerned, the first will remain and has remained a milestone in cinema and society because Ridley Scott introduced something new while this director making the sequel could not help but look at Scott and the real Blade Runner. Blade Runner (1982) is original in the plot, in the setting, in the aesthetic taste, the music is exceptional ethereal but also dark in some places gives the sense of nostalgia of a fallen world or better of the fallen society that loses its humanity and becomes similar to the machines while the machines are almost more human with their cling to life wanting to escape at all costs from death. In addition to the plot, the music, the setting (new! Designed by Scott), we want to forget what has affected the fashion? in the last it is a mere reproduction of the style seen in the original film. Rachel's style? of Pris? but also male like Deckard and Roy! The characters then ?! The actor Joseph Turkel who embodies Dr. Tyrell guessed very well for the fabulous role! Harrison Ford perfect in the "old hunter with his magic" guys but we want to talk seriously? the scene in which Deckard meets Rachel and Tyrell a masterpiece music, lights, jokes not even a mistake! The beginning of the film with the metaphorical eye ???! who introduced it NOT Blade Runner 2049 but the true and original one. It gives me goosebumps the beginning! not to mention the masterpiece combined with great skill as an actor on the scene "Tears in rain"! Wonderful scene acted as if it were reality! The whole movie is alive fantastic and deep! the last one does not have a shred of depth compared! Then to wrap up the last film, how disgustingly is it VOLGARE? !! Blade Runner (1982) provides a sense of sexuality and eroticism without exaggerating! that of 2049 makes sadness with the hologram as a girlfriend makes you think and the scene of forced sex! but come on, but what is your taste for those who prefer it to Scott's masterpiece? Vulgar and expires in the trivial creates the opposite effect after seeing him is sickened by how much bombarded naked and sex. The original gives much more the erotic and sexual sense in a natural way without exaggeration. This will never have the same echo of the first. Not even the same social impact. he has not brought anything new and fantastic. Pure commercial purpose!
I simply do not respect anyone who rates the remake/reboot/sequel (or whatever the hell they're calling it) higher than the original... Hollywood hasn't produced anything notable since about 2001.
Imagine Blade Runner 2019, 2049, Interstellar, Children of Men, and The Expanse universes all combined! That would be the most realistic invision of our futures. A dope one to live in, and a depressing one to live in as well. Someone make a mashup world in media form!
K as a character and Gosling's performance are much better than Deckard and Ford's performance in the first Blade runner. There's just much more character development for K and Gosling gives a layered performance that made me connect with his character easier.
Should have been 5-0 to the original Blade Runner. Everything 2049 did better, it did on the shoulders of the original movie. All the sparkles and visions, the better special effects, even the supposed better storyline, 2049 had an easier time because the audience were already there from the original, it did nothing new, just improved on the groundwork laid by the original.
You do know how much of the set in 2049 was actually build right. They used as less CGI as possible. What Roger Deakins did in this movie is incredible
And like saying Batman Begins is better than the Dark Knight for having come before. Seems like ridiculous logic. Everything 2049 did better but also more competently. BR felt like it posed big questions, but it didn't quite have the answers for them and left it for the audience. 2049 poses questions and answers them, far more satisfyingly then Scott did for my money.
+J Corbett Agree with you ... we really do live in a crazy tasteless world when a slightly above average movie like 2049 is seen as a "masterpiece" ... its such an insult to the word "masterpiece" .. the original Blade Runner is the real deal, not this bland thing called 2049 ..
Ujjwal Uniyal "slow" is the shitties criticism I've ever heard. What's so wrong with slow? Not every movie should be fast paced action set. Actually, slow pacing allows movies to breathe more, give lot more emotional subtle depth to a story, so that when it really comes to action, you would care about these characters. Some of the best movies ever have slow pacing for a reason.
Ujjwal Uniyal There does not exist a fast paced Cyberpunk story. Because Cyberpunk is one of the most thoughtful genres within the entertainment industry. Cyberpunk is not about action, but about what we humans are doing with ourselves creating a modern society. The Blade Runner movies are some of the best examples in the Cyberpunk genre, since they are made with understanding of what cyberpunk makes.
Jarvis Cool What? How is introducing the idea that Replicants can reproduce stupid? And plot reveals, how is that a negative, explaining the story and bringing the plot to a satisfying close is not a negative at all. 2049 is one of the best sequels ever because it stayed true to the original in many ways but introduced many great ideas, or at least IMO it did.
It contradicts the original, that's how. Replicants are not humans, at least in the original for sure. These idiotic twists/plot reveals didn't expand the original's plot, they rewrote the original's storyline and its world in the worst and most absurd way. If you think that twist that Tyrell created Deckard and Rachel as Adam and Eve to make them fall in love with each and make a child is great, then you probably didn't watch the original because it's one of the most idiotic, absurd and nonsense twists I've seen, on the level of worst Shyamalan twists and the most idiotic reveals of Alien: Covenant. The only new idea it offered is a love story with hologram and that's it, everything else is nothing new and cliche. And the ending of 2049 is very lazy and rip-off of one of the greatest scenes of all time, not a homage like many people think for whatever reason, they probably don't know the difference between homage and rip-off.
Jarvis Cool Um yes I have seen the original and think it is fantastic. 2049 having the idea that replicants can reproduce is not a contradiction of the original to me at all, it expands the already existing universe and gives us a very exciting plot twist which we didn't know was possible from the first. I know you don't think so, but me and countless others feel 2049 was an outstanding sequel and that the twist was absolutely fantastic.
We didn't know that "twist" was possible in the first one because it's very stupid and doesn't make any sense, even fan fictions didn't have that shit. And by if you've seen the original at all, I meant the other twist, about Deckard and Rachel, that they were specially created and programmed to fall in love with each other and make a child, which is one of the most idiotic and absurd twists I've ever seen in any movie, I don't know a single sane person who thinks that this twist is good/makes sense because it's objectively very stupid, ruins the original and creates canyon sized plot holes.
Bladerunner will always be remeberd for really getting the whole Cyberpunk genre going, that was an extremely impactful film. I think overall, 2049 is a better movie though.
What is it to be human? Man these movies try and answer that question and it comes across beautifully. Even K's hologram girlfriend is on the table as whether or not she should be treated as human or having a soul. Just a masterpiece of movies. Although I did not need the cursing or nudity.
How do you compare two pieces of gold struck from the same gold bar? Both movies are timeless... both movies have their ups and downs but both movies really can’t be compared to one another.
I even agree with deckard being a better blade runner, I think the first film especially with Harrison brought more of a noir feel to it, however I will say I disagreed with the opinion although respected, that K was bland and had nothing to offer and lost the human connection with people, like said before, I was actually really intrigued by K’s character because of what his story was and ultimately his personality, I thought one of the best things that made the plot so good was the fact that it really pushed the boundaries between what being human really is and gosling portrayed that very well. Needless to say been reading some pkd after this movie
I honestly think both films are equally as amazing. If I was forced to pick than it's the first film from 1982. Ridley Scott's Blade Runner just changed my life. I was hypnotized by its visuals and it has a much more dirtier look to it than the sequel. The sequels visuals are amazing though.
How are you suppose to judge Cultural Impact when 2049 hasn’t been out for a year.
2049 doesn't have anything special/new/revolutionary to make cultural impact.
Jarvis Cool But that isn't really a fault of the movie is it. It isn't culturally signifcant because the first movie did it first. It will still be praised and talked about for years to come and sets the standard for Sci-fi films. That is amazing in its own right.
Squid it won't nearly have as much of an impact as the first. that's pretty much guaranteed
Thank you
2049 is clearly the superior film.
Visual Effects: Blade Runner 2049
Music: Blade Runner
Those 2 points should've been taken separated
i agree
Agreed, absolutely moronic to combine the two.
Francisco Martinez I’d say that original Blade Runner wins both. I’m not talking about face values here. Blade Runner’s visual was revolutionary for its time. 2049 is much more gorgeous, but for a 2017 standard, it’s not as groundbreaking as Blade Runner back in 1982.
that sex scene and rachel is groundbreaking
the original wasent groundbeaking the day it came out it took time as 2049 will take time but less
agreed! They didn't even mention Hans Zimmer's soundtrack. The original soundtrack was so unique but I do think 2049's soundtrack is as good as the the original in it's own way. Call me a Zimmer fan
Cultural impact isn't really fair, Blade Runner 2049 just came out
Al Levine take this segment with a grain of salt, they ALWAYS kae it where they tie two for two and then have a random one that clearly goes to the original.
Al Levine that's exactly what I thought
How about visual effects? The Only thing 2049 is better is visuals, and that's just because its modern
Cultural impact is very fair. There is no way BR 2049 will have a cultural impact even remotely as big as the original. The reason is simple - the movie is derivative. It's just a continuation of everything established in the original.
It evolved and smoothed out details, but the aesthetics, visuals, costumes, the overall design and vibe is pretty much a copy. As such, BR 2049 can't have much of a cultural impact, because the film itself is a direct product of the cultural impact of the original BR.
It's like comparing the cultural impact of A New Hope and Force awakens when it comes to Star Wars. There's nothing to compare.
the point is Blade Runner "1982" to Cyberpunk - Neo Noir genre is like LOTR to fantasy genre
I didn't feel like 2049 had as much impact on me the first one had, but still I'm glad it exists all the same. Definitely one of the best sequels.
The Vangelis soundtrack is absolutely just above and beyond the soundtrack for 2049 (which is also quite good itself, just saying!)
Both were very good, but blade runner will allways be my favorite movie
Even though I loved 'Blade Runner 2049' and I think it's a great sequel, I still preffer the original one.
I think K is a great character.
I like K as a main character more than Deckard in the first film. To me, K is way more interesting as a protagonist.
Yeah me too. I love that him being a replicant, takes us as the viewer on an emotional ride. We get feelings for someone most people within the universe doesnt care about.
@@jcp1984again
Sorry, K cannot hold my attention for more than 5 min unless he's doing something interesting but then that will mean that its the plot events that interests me more than Ryan Gosling's portrayal ...
Deckard is more interesting to me because he's a more complex character than K.
You see, K is this almost "Molly Sue" type character as he's this sympathetic character almost without flaws, even when he's retiring other replicants we're told its because he's been conditioned by humans to behave that way. And even when Luv is shown being really powerful, she has to somehow lose her fight to K inexplicably in the end when she suddenly become so weak she could not lose K's single handed grip with both of her hands ...
I hate this type of unabashedly "perfect" heroic portrayals.
Deckard, on the other hand, gets beaten up by other replicants and had to struggle badly with the help of some luck and from Rachel to overcome the replicants. He kills Zhora but does not puff up in some sort of dignified posture the way K does ...in fact he's shown to be rather disturbed at the sight of Zhora's death with her tear runing down her face. He's forced to come back unwillingly to his hunter job which he's always wanting be done with .... Yes, he's rather violent with Rachel in love making but thats because he's only had experiences dealing with violent replicants in the past, not with a gentle delicate one like Rachel.
You see, Deckard is far from perfect, he's full of flaws but its his humanity that makes me root for him even though the replicants are sympathetic too in their short life span predicament.
Deckard feels more naturalistic as someone you see in your daily life, trying to survive and make good despite all their character flaws, he feels real ... someone real like your dad, or brother, or friend ... K feels like someone almost too sympathetic, too perfectly righteous and without flaws and ALWAYS WINS FIGHTS ALL BY HIMSELF. He's the type I loath to meet in real life because I will think that its unnatural and that the gods are being unair to favor this guy so much. I'll admit its jealousy but really, K is a Molly Sue that should irk you because it remind us that life favors some people way too much to be fair...
@@88feji I found K way more interesting because of his more inward conflict with himself in comparison to Deckards more outward conflict with sympathizing with replicants. K wanting to be real and to exist and be human. Versus Deckard where his conflicts isnt as compelling to me (even though it had a satisfying destination). Also I think K gets beaten up in the film a lot physically and emotionally. Literally the first time he encounters Luv, she destroys his escape ship and outsmarted him. The second time, she literally causes him to die. The only reason why he won was because he was able to hit a sneak attack on her while she was distracted and unarmed.
And you make a fair point about Deckard feeling like a more naturalistic character but that's because he has more of a soul. His emotions have already been fully realized (although mainly suppressed). K is a literal replicant so ofc hes not gonna be as expressive. He has been trained to hunt down his own kind and to never defy orders. He is quite literally treated as a dog of the police. Which...rests around his arc. He begins to claim his humanity and as he does we see him more expressive. Showing his anger, his fears, his despair, his doubts, his realizations, his happiness amd contentment. So theres way more to K under the surface than I think you are giving him credit for
Nah, I’ll give the blade runner category to 2049. I really felt K’s pain when he thought he was the child, when his joi girlfriend got killed, and I felt even more pain when he found out he wasn’t the child. I was rooting for him the whole movie and the way he died made me incrediblysad. It felt unceremonious, he got no reward for all his hard work.
The iconic Roy's monologue (message) when he's powered down is one of the most spectacular-poetic-out of this world scenes in the history of films.. Pure art. Blade runner best Sci fi movie and soundtrack of all times IMHO. Blade runner 2049 great movie too off course!
Ok Blade Runner is better, but 2049 is one of the best sequel ever made!!
Naaah.
samuele True
Right up there with Terminator 2 🌹💯
yeah. its hard to pull a sequel.
@@janxh01 especially after 35 years
I liked 2049 better. Both great movies but 2049 was super immersive and left me thinking long after it was over.
Lets be honest, it's like deciding whether Godfather part 1 or 2 is best. We all have our preferences but at the end of the day they're both amazing films that a pretty equal in terms of quality.
Or terminator
Godfather 2 was better and first blade runner... see it was easy
@@gonzaortellado1743 terminator 2
Godfather 1
@@HeNnEsSy_HiCcUpS 2049
i made a huge mistake of watching 2049 without watching previous one. Was so lost 😅
INVESTING HUSTLER - Stocks and money making videos it's like watching Empire without A New Hope Lmao
i did that as well we made a huge mistake
Me too
I did the same, but had no issues whatsoever. A 10/10 movie for me
they all are
2049 was amazing. Really incredible. I got so sucked into the movie that it blew me away, absolutely grand.
1982 movie better
Blade Runner is superior in story, Blade Runner 2049 is more flash without substance a counterfeit.
Love them both but 2049 was everything a perfect sequel should be. Not trying to top the amazing antagonist or protagonists of the first but having a world already built and challenging it pushing it even further with a new message. It's a solid FILM. And it is it's own.
Blade Runner gets mad props for introducing the world, atmosphere, and sci fi themes, but 2049 turned each of those aspects up to 11 and introduced compelling characters injected with more emotion.
Can't have 2049 without the original.
and cant have the dark knight rises without batman begins
v cxv cxvxcv u dum
that doesnt mean the og is alway better
like The Godfather and The Godfather 2
@@sentryward8744 It's all down to personal opinion
@@sentryward8744 godfather is better than godfather 2.
even though he does change in the story, Deckard is pretty much a fully developed person from the moment you meet him. K is just a robot at first, and you watch him discover his own potential and turn into a unique individual by the end of the film. It doesn't matter he isn't the "chosen one", he has discovered there is more to himself than can be qualified by 4 letters.
2049 is the best film of this decade. And better than Blade Runner. It should've won the last category.
I AGREE!
You're entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
DISAGREE.
2049 looks washed out compared to the greatness of the first Blade Runner ... the first movie had many great memorable scenes (tears in rain rooftop scene, the chase between Deckard and Roy through the rundown building, Zhora's anguished death in the crowded lowlife buzzing streets, Pris's horrific death, Tyrell's biblical meeting with his creation Roy, the hellish opening cityscape etc) ... but in 2049, not a single scene is anywhere even remotely as memorable at all ...
Although I think the original is better than 2049, there were many memorable scenes in the sequel. (E.g., the fight between K and Sapper Morton, the flight to LAPD, the Mesa crash scene, K’s breakdown at the memory lab, the AI threesome, the casino fight between K and Deckard, the attack at the casino, K’s visceral character arc, the sea wall spinner chase, and the incredibly tense fight between K and Luv.
Hm, my favorite is Blade Runner 2049.
Music is better in Blade Runner. Loved Vangelis work, however visuals and cinemetography is clearly best in Blade Runner 2049 (which is obvious)
I found K to be a much more interesting protagonist than Deckard. Seeing him struggle throughout the film, questioning himself as who he really is and fighting for something good in the end is what made me love him.
The performances were overall better in Blade Runner 2049 but I still prefer the villains in the first Blade Runner. Especially Roy Batty, but Luv is a close one. I do like Wallace as a character too but he is more a godhead like Tyrell. Roy Batty absolutely wins for the better villain and not even Sylvia Hoeks can match his performance.
As it goes with plot and story I agree with Watchmojo that Blade Runner 2049 has the better plot. I felt more immersed in the detective part of the story more than I did in the first Blade Runner. 2049 for me felt more like a complete story where the protagonist had a clear arc such as K developing and it pays off in the end. Pacing was better in 2049 than in the first Blade Runner.
Love story and love interest was quiet unique and complex in 2049 so I prefer that. I wasn't quiet as interested in Deckard and Rachels's relationship. I didn't quite feel the charisma between them.
The Blade Runner feeling is better potrayed in the original than in 2049 since Deckard is more committed to the job in the original than K ever was in 2049.
Overall, I loved Blade Runner 2049 more but I still think the original one is a masterpiece.
ViPeZz couldn't agree more
ViPeZz lmao nah visuals better in original. 2049 is more flat and lacks the depth of the original
Disagree.
I watched both movies just last week and I think I like the original more.. yeah, the pacing and the overall plot maybe are better in the new one, but I don't like how black and white all the characters in 2049 are - in the original every character - apart from maybe Racheal - are not the bad guys, but not the good guys either.. and the overall themes of the movie are more deep, more ambiguous which I loved.. and even though 2049 has great cinematography and visuals, I probably liked the more dark, more dirty, more "rainy" look of the original movie more.. music was more memorable for me in the original too and the ending of 2049 has more of a "sequel hook" feel than the one in the original.. if BR 82' is for me a 9/10 movie, than 2049 is probably a 7,5/10
Blade Runner effects are practical.
Blade Runner 2049 effects are CG.
Of course the original is better.
Blade Runner is one of my all time favorite movies. But I seriously, after tonnes of rewatching, think that Blade Runner 2049 surpassed it, at least for me.
The thing about first Blade Runner is that I don't think overall mystery was that interesting and I didn't really get emotionally connected with characters, instead movie stood up for its world, subtle narrative, philosophical themes, acting, directing, dialogues, etc. I love Ridley's dry and cold way of storytelling, but I do think it kinda hurts connection to the story. One of the things it does better than 2049, is that it actually keeps consistent subtlety, while 2049 at times gives some expositions, they are fortunately rare, but they are still there and it took me off couple of times.
Blade Runner 2049 on the other hand I think had truly interesting mystery, I was really interested in how every single piece of evidence revealed not only something about mystery, but how it impacts K's personality too. I don't agree that K wasn't as good as Deckard. K's development is one of my favorite character arcs I've seen in a long time. We are introduced to him as this perfect replicant, who is fantastic at his job, but throughout the journey he constantly starts questioning himself, develops more human side, and the fact that movie made me care about his romance with freaking hologram is fucking commendable. And in the end I got truly emotional, and that's another thing worth praising about character development in the movie. I also love how Luv is actually very similar to K - they both clearly question their masters, they both are quite calm and collective, but get really emotional during specific situation. The difference is that K decided to follow his own path in the end, he chose his own way, while Luv remained loyal. Another thing worth praising is that it doesn't just expand philosophical themes of the original, but gives them more emotional context, so that it sticks with viewer's mind even more.
All in all, both movies are phenomenal, and both deserve lot more than they initially got. I will forever rewatch these two brilliant accomplishments in art. And please don't attack me, it's all my personal opinion, art is subjective.
I feel exactly the same way! :)
I totally agree.
PS try and imagine the expression I had on my face when I expanded the comment.😂
100% agreed that 2049 is the superior film of the two and that’s coming from someone who spent $75.00 on a special edition of the original Blade Runner.
You hit it on the nail 👌
I love 2049, but I lost my tear for the first Blade Runner.
I think we can all agree both films were great and 2049 was a worthy successor.
I agree! :)
2049 is almost great but not quite. It's held back by its poor plot and lack of inventiveness.
Lack of inventiveness? Wait what?
The new film is nothing groundbreaking, albeit impressively made, and suffers from an overly slow pace at times, a lack of elucidation to certain subplots, and some questionable actions from some of the characters.
Like what? I mean, I can't identify the things you're trying to say.
Plot - Blade Runner 2049
Visuals - Blade Runner 2049
Music - Blade Runner(as good as 2049's music is, it can't beat the legendary Vangelis)
Villains - Blade Runner
Protagonist - Blade Runner 2049
I think K is more relatable than Deckard, in a way that he questions whether his whole life was a lie and what is going on, while you never get that with Deckard. Throughout the movie you get some implications that he is a replicant, and that is the key - it's you who questions it, not him. Also, when he picks up the unicorn, he just kinda smiles and that's it, but throughout K's journey, he really gets emotional about it. Even though it's 3/2 for BR 2049, it is very hard to pick a winner, but 2049 edges it a bit for me. Both films are masterpieces and should not be missed. BR 2049 will eventually get cult status as did Blade Runner after some time. Both these movies are in my top 10 deservedly so.
Rekv1n I never include visuals for sequel comparisons myself. 30ish year gap it's a no brainier unless some messes up royally. But ty for including the baddies in comparison, most ppl forget when comparing the two how bleh Luv is and how amazing Roy is.
Great breakdown, wouldn't have changed anything.
Totally agree
visuals in the original are actually better
I'd give 2049 some time to see if it catches on more with audiences and leaves a legacy similar to the last. Both weren't huge box office hits, but both are very groundbreaking in terms of visuals and subtle storytelling. May be the best 1-2 punch in cinema.
The original is far superior. It's deeper, has much better third act, music, antagonists, soul and heart.
Agree 100%. I have watched the original several times. I have no desire to ever see 2049 again.
I'll agree on antagonists, but personally even though the original film is a masterpiece, there is absolutely more heart in 2049. And I feel both films are pretty deep for their themes
That's pure bullshit about more heart in 2049, I've seen these statements from critics many times and I haven't seen a single argument why. 2049 can't have more heart because Tears in Rain scene in the original alone has much more heart and soul than the whole 2049, which doesn't have a single scene even close to this level, only bland soulless rip-off of it in the end of the movie. It was the most personal movie Ridley ever made and 2049 objectively can't have more heart because of these 2 reasons.
Jarvis Cool how is it objective if those two reasons are based off of your subjectivity?
I hate it when people say they are objectively right. It shows how stupid and narrow minded they are.
will i get retired if i say i liked Blade runner 2049 more? What pissed me off though is when the narrator said K lacked the humanity that deckard had? ARE YOU KIDDING ME, K dies in peace knowing he finally did a good deed on his own behalf by reuniting Deckard with his daughter, even though he thought all this time he was Deckards son. It's a selfless act he did.... more human than human. In the end K dies knowing he's not human, but has still found his humanity.
It its weird how people were unrelated with K's character while me I was so emphatic over him. I guess is more of open the mind. On the other hand I while Deckard is good I couldn't care less about him
Bladerunner 2049 is an absolute amazing movie with one of the best uses of cinematography I have seen in a long time...
This is one of the few times a sequel after decades does the original right and its destined to be a modern classic.
The original is still a legendary movie which has influenced a lot of movies, games and music.
Blade Runner is just amazing, but Blade Runner 2049 touched me a lot more of how gorgeous and gripping that film was compared to the first. I'd say Blade Runner is a cult masterpiece while 2049 served as a technical masterpiece for a sequel like this. No wonder why Denis Villeneuve is the right director for the job! (Can't wait to see what he will do to Dune in the coming year!)
2049's plot is inferior to the original's.
Both movies are a masterpiece
both movies are masterpieces, not 'a masterpiece' you changed from plural to singular mid-sentence.
Blade runner clearly wins on 2049.
It s better in everything, and giving the point for music to 2049 is quite an insult. Vangelis themes were far better than 2049s, a bad copy of them. Personally, I have downloaded and still listen to them.
Blade runner RULES.
davide olgiati how is it a copy, they’re in the same universe, it’s a direct sequel to the original. There’s no competition, they’re the same story split up in two.
davide olgiati No it ain't, lol. 2049 is better in evert aspect besides music. Better visuals, better acting, story, characters, relationship, pacing, etc.
@@reneepeck8094 maaaan, please. Avoid saying the false, 'cause thy God is watching upon ye.
2049 is ahead in visuals cause it's ahead in real life of 35 years of technology. And even with that, Blade Runner still got a point for the superb use of lights and shadows. Then there is the story. A story much more complex and deep(digging at the roots of identity and human nature) in the first movie, rather than the second. The pacing it's similar, but neither the character nor the relationships are comparable.
Blade Runner RULES.
davide olgiati both are equally good imo. 2049 builds upon the original in meaningful and enriching ways, and can stand tall on its own. It’s the mark of a perfect sequel.
davide olgiati Please. The relationship was incredibly rushed. They met once, then talked on communications, and then she saved him, and then they fucked and had a relationship. Like what kind of rushed relationship is that? At least the sequel already established the relationship which gives the film more time to show us how they talk to each other. The pacing sucks in the original. It goes to fast paced in the first act, slow as hell in the second, and fast paced in the last act. Hell even the story is kind of weird. Like it’s about hunting these replicants, but the story keeps deviating from the plot to other stuff that aren’t really that important like that dude who competed against Tyrell at Chess. The acting is better in the sequel. The characters are also way more better and interesting in the sequel. the only actually good characters in the original are Gaff, Tyrell, and Roy. Everyone else were bland and boring. The sequel has a plethora of interesting characters like Wallace, Joi, Luv, Marietta, Sapper, etc. True they aren’t the greatest, but each have a sense of intrigue unlike the original. The main character is WAY better than the original as well. K actually goes through development. He firsts just does his job, then realized that he could be the special child, but he realize he isn’t and then tries to find Deckard. After all that, the Revolution proposes for him to kill Deckard, but instead he escorts him to his daughter who is the special one. He’s not a superhero or anything like that, he’s just a regular Joe that anyone can relate to. Everyone wants to be special, but in reality that’s a privilege that only a seldom amount actually acquire. This gives him a lot more relatability. Deckard, on the other hand, is just boring and bland. He gives no for thought into any conversation, has no interesting ideas of his own, we barely even see him develop until the very end, kind of a dick, never really does anything besides his mission, etc. Is the original BR movie bad? No. There’s some good parts. Roy Batty is an excellent antagonist, the production is astounding, the audio and sound mix is amazing, and the soundtrack is one of the best in cinema with great presentation. If I would rate the two movies it would be this. BR is a solid 5 or 6/10 while BR 2049 is like a 9/10.
not ashamed to admit that blade runner 2049 is one of the best films ive ever seen.
It's a cool universe.
2049 compliments the original, continuing the story really well.
Androids dealing with their mortality is an interesting concept. Hopefully they continue the Deckard/ Anna Staline story line further.
2049 was cool IMO because it set Roy's character from the first front and center. Gosling's officer K transformed from having no purpose other than what was created for him- to finding one in choosing to save Deckard. Accepting his own mortality along the way. I always thought Roy's story was the one to tell in the first movie- and they did that in 2049.
Blade Runner 1982, the best cyberpunk film ever
Blade runner is my favorite sci-fi movie good job ridley Scott 🖒
I love both films, I'm just bit nostalgic for the older films which would have done amazingly in the box office if it wasn't for the fact star wars out at the same time.
Sofir Uddin huh? So much of what you said doesn't make sense. Star Wars had come out 5 years prior (or at least started with A New Hope anyways). And despite it being a sci-fi as well, Blade Runner lacks the space and pseudo religious elements/themes of Star Wars. You can't make the argument that sci-fi didn't do well due to star wars. Look at Alien (which also took place in deep space). No, it didn't do well because of the initial critical reception it first got. It's considered a classic now because of its cult following.
Star Wars (I assume you're talking about Return of the Jedi) came out in 1983…not in 1982 when Blade Runner came out
blade runner original has alot of replay value to it,its the sort of film i'd see on a rainy night with a glass of vodka that can help with the immersion,everything about it just connected the story,music,atmosphere,villains,protagonist,2049 just tried to expand on everything its predecessor did right,a good sequel but not ready to topple the master
How the hell can you fairly compare the two? The first one is from 1982. 2049 is from 2017. A solid 35 years later. Ridley Scott is a visionary and it shows but it was a WHOLE other world in the early 80s and the cultural, social, visual and political impact of Blade Runner was entirely different that 2049 was on our present day audiences. Culture is different now, so the cultural impact can't really be accurately compared. 2049 is a fantastic standalone film and an incredible sequel to an iconic and indescribably amazing movie.
I guess it comes down to at WHEN you saw the original, as with me when it came out and at least once every year after.
The sequel is a very good SEQUEL, but even like that or as a stand alone, it can never surpass the original.
I won't call the sequel very good even, its just slightly above average compared to most sci fi movies but its very inferior to the original Blade Runner in every single aspect of film making thematically, acting, cinematography, music, plot etc etc..
@@88feji Agreed.
I think blade runner was bland, and the sequel is a masterpiece
@@hood6089 Let me guess, you're from this century.
@@peet4921 nope, guess again pal.
I love the first Blade Runner. ❤
the music is better in the original... and (just my opinion) the visuals are more impressive considering the time and that 35 years later it still looks better than a million films from today
Anyone who says the music or visuals are better than the original is probably delusional.. or maybe poor immature taste is to blame for such opinions... not a single aspect of 2049 is remotely close to the greatness of the original..
I don't agree with round 2. 2049 has that glossy, modern look. It takes me out of the story and just feels more like a RUclips movie. The set pieces felt like they came from a time before the original's setting, and were much less memorable. The original Blade Runner has a certain atmosphere which felt real, when shot with the technology of that time. The sequel never captivated me in that way.
Am I the only one that preferred the music in 2049? I don't know why but the music from the first one just didn't stick with me that much. But in this film it did and it might have to do with the fact that it was composed by 2 of my favourite composers. Hans Zimmer did many themes and Benjamin Wallfish did for A Cure for Wellness wich has one of the best scores of the year for me.
Blade Runner 2049 was a complete mess and the acting seemed false and improvised. Not a patch on the orginal infact if it had been its own film it would have been a completely souless pointless generic scifi film...
Maybe Blade runner is a better more polished movie...But still i prefer the original, with all their possible "faults" its feel far more natural and organic....and one of the most great things about it was the music and 2049 doesnt have all that much to say...in fact i dont remember any theme other than the ones that remember the original one.
I like animals especially birds. There are goldfinch bird lovers here
The 80s weren´t even prepared for the emotional impact that the original had.
I feel Blade Runner 2049 its allmost so good as Blade Runner.
2049 was alright but otherwise meh, while the original was awesome in just about every way.
It's unfair to rate the cultural impact when the sequel had less than a year to sink in. The original fully deserves the cult status, however the sequel has a better plot and is one of those rare cases when the follow-up is even better. Denis Villeneuve killed it, Gosling and Ford were amazing and the cinematography mesmerizing. Congrats to Roger Deakins on winning the Oscar. Hope there will be a 3rd movie - too many unresolved plots.
I think K and Deccard as Blade Runners should have been a draw. K was pushed to the brink wondering if he were human and if everything he knew were a lie... Much like Deccard
I think that while the original may have slightly better art direction. 2049's cinematography elevates it above the original. I mean there is a reason why 2049 is considered to be one of the best technical achievements in film history. With much of its praise also talking about how much more varied it is compared to the original. Art direction is important. But 2049 exhibits a similar enough art direction that it still respects the original. But with its arguably better cinematography with some of the best visuals of all time. Combined with much more intriguing story (to me). Better pacing, better performances and much better chemistry between K and Joi compared to Deckard and Rachael. I feel the same way as YMS does. That 2049 trumps the original by keeping the slow pace but creating a richer narrative with a better sense of progression. Combined with everything I said earlier creates a film that even elevates it above the original. YMS also voices something I felt as well. That the original felt repetitive in it's world and awfully claustrophobic, leaving you wanting to venture out further and just the city streets. Whereas 2049 makes better use of the outstanding world of Blade Runner by expanding it with its locations that make it seem more complete. Some of my points might be why some perfer the original, and that is fair as well.
YMS = YourMovieSucks
The thing with deckard and rachael relationship to me is a combination beetween the expectatives of classic romantic love and not understanding the true nature of deckard and rachael.....because above all that relationship is flawed and unorganic...and that's the whole point of it.....Deckard was living his whole life (even in 2049) denying himself from everything and rachel just appears to be a window in wich he can taste something different about the world and the cosmos of his deplorable existence, but nothing more, nothing that comes to the idea that he found somehow his soulmate or something like that...he's totally open to sacrifice himself in order to "play his part" and nothing more, to get back to his existence of loneliness and distance....And rachael on the other hand just wanted to feel human, feel something natural abour herself and deckard was just there to make her feel that sort of things for good or bad reasons....so that relationship was never founded on romantic/organic love but a desperate need of two beings in a dystopic world that doesnt work naturally in the first place...and that's something that the original offers you over the sequel...flawed and all, it offers the space for questions and reinterpreation...2049 is an awesome movie, a well polished perfect movie that tells me a story that i have no space to question or wonder about it....and think about it was the whole motivation on why blade runner is relevant to this day and why the sequel exist in the first place.
They’re both masterpieces so does this really matter? 2049 is my personal fav just bc of the cinematography and I feel as though Ryan Gosling and the rest of the cast gave phenomenal performances.
Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies, but Blade Runner 2049 surpassed it. Somehow it surpasses a masterpiece.
Ryan Gosling was like a robot, I think I fell asleep like 30 minutes in
Watchmojo: Visual effects
Gee I wonder who will win.
Kept you waiting huh?
0:43 HAVE YOU SEEN 2001. IT CAME OUT IN 1968! WHAT ABOUT SILENT RUNNING OR ALIEN OR CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. SUPER SLOW-PACED
The review was very good and I agree. 2049 is more than just a fan-service movie, I like the romance with K and Joi a little more, but can't appreciate it at all without the 1st movie. But 2049 kind of complicates the Replicant lore in a way that makes their existence wasteful----without giving away too much, I actually think "The 6th Day" did better with the concept lol
If blade runner is batman begins
Blade runner 2049 is the Dark knight
And just watch, Blade Runner 2049 is going to become way more popular over time as one of the best movies of the 2010s and one of best sequels ever made. As Harrison Ford called it, "f@#:ing awesome!"
My good sir, 5-0 to Blade Runner. No. 5000 - 0.
Two greatest films of all time.
Only the first one ... the second one is rather forgettable..
@@88feji I disagree, the first one was boring as fuck and the second one is one of the best sequels of all time
@@hood6089 Nah the second one is liked by a bunch of incels while the first one is for true film lovers
@@masterbaiter7537 Now that’s just pretentious as hell 💀
My opinion on the first Blade Runner has improved a lot. But still, I feel as though the sequel is the superior film. To each their own however
@@masterbaiter7537 Im guessing you hate American Psycho, Taxi Driver, and Fight Club for the same reason, what a deep and thoughtful opinion...
I actually think the first one looked better. Way more stylish
Unbelievable, the first movie was made more than 3 decades ago but handily beats the sequel visually, musically, acting wise, plotwise, thematically ... thats crazy...
So disappointed with the sequel, it feels so hollow emotionally compared to the great wonderful feeling of getting blown away by the first one ...
I read through the comments and there are people voting for both movies. I think just this fact alone proves how exceptional Blade Runner 2049 is.
Because let's not forget what it is - a sequel to one of the most beloved, revered pieces of cinema in history. A movie that is not remembered for being good family fun, for being a revolution in VFX in a neat package, etc.. Blade Runner is remembered as a unique piece of art, something that transcends genre and is an influence to this day. It's closer to 2001: A space odyssey than The Matrix.
So a sequel to Blade Runner is like a sequel to Space odyssey (and we know how that went). The fact the new movie managed to retain the dreamy atmosphere, the vibe, the feeling of the original and felt like a continuation of it is a pretty amazing achievement. The only false tone IMO is the suggested replicant underground revolution which felt like something out of a video game, or out of some young adult novel like Hunger Games.
Personally, I love the original, but I enjoyed the sequel more than I expected. I love its more solemn, desolate atmosphere, the beyond aesthetic visuals and I really enjoyed the character of Joi and her arc. She injected unexpected emotion into the story that I feel the original did not have. So if I'm being objective, the original has to take the cake because it is in fact the original. But subjectively, BR 2049 pulled at my heartstrings more effectively.
1982 is a fuckin MASTERPIECE. The best sci-fi movie of all time.
2049 is great but that's It.
2049. Loved it.
When I saw 2049, I felt like I WAS K, and that just doesn’t happen very often. Watching him was like watching a part of myself on the screen (and I don’t mean in an Everyman kind of way). I was thoroughly swept up in Blade Runner 2049, completely immersed, and every dramatic and emotional beat just WORKED for me. I don’t think it’s “perfect,” but I’ve been wanting to make movies for a while now and Blade Runner 2049 convinced me that I MUST make movies. It’s the kind of film I would make.
Ultimately, how we experience movies is subjective, and for me, “soulless” is just about the last word I’d use to describe Blade Runner 2049.
Original Blade Runner is better than 2049
I love both, but I still think 2049 has surpassed the original.
How?
2049 is worse than the original in many ways.
Jarvis Cool
HOW?!
2049 has much worse third act, music, antagonists and atmosphere, it ruined the original's storyline with idiotic baby-replicants plot reveals and offered nothing new. That's how.
I have to say I prefer K to Deckard his journey to humanity was so much more interesting to me.
"Say it. Kiss me."
"Say it. K's a better character than Deckard."
The original blade runner is more complex, cryptic and understated, thus many people find the sequel easier to follow
The guy doing this doesn't have a clue.
Roy Choosing to accept his death and saving Decard in the first film. Is exactly the same as Joe (k) choosing to go back for Decard and save him in the sequel.
Roy's speech "tears in the rain" about his life's motions and meaning fading away "like tears in the rain" are then imposed on the ending of 2049, as K dies laying down on the stairs of the memory center. While the snow falls around him. Tears in the snow.
This was a perfect sequel and continuation of the blade runner series. And Im betting it will take our society another 10 years to figure that out.
Despite being born a long time after the original film Blade Runner (1982) I can say with certainty that it is far superior in all compared to the sequel. I'll explain. Obviously as far as the cultural impact is concerned, the first will remain and has remained a milestone in cinema and society because Ridley Scott introduced something new while this director making the sequel could not help but look at Scott and the real Blade Runner. Blade Runner (1982) is original in the plot, in the setting, in the aesthetic taste, the music is exceptional ethereal but also dark in some places gives the sense of nostalgia of a fallen world or better of the fallen society that loses its humanity and becomes similar to the machines while the machines are almost more human with their cling to life wanting to escape at all costs from death. In addition to the plot, the music, the setting (new! Designed by Scott), we want to forget what has affected the fashion? in the last it is a mere reproduction of the style seen in the original film. Rachel's style? of Pris? but also male like Deckard and Roy! The characters then ?! The actor Joseph Turkel who embodies Dr. Tyrell guessed very well for the fabulous role! Harrison Ford perfect in the "old hunter with his magic" guys but we want to talk seriously? the scene in which Deckard meets Rachel and Tyrell a masterpiece music, lights, jokes not even a mistake! The beginning of the film with the metaphorical eye ???! who introduced it NOT Blade Runner 2049 but the true and original one. It gives me goosebumps the beginning! not to mention the masterpiece combined with great skill as an actor on the scene "Tears in rain"! Wonderful scene acted as if it were reality! The whole movie is alive fantastic and deep! the last one does not have a shred of depth compared! Then to wrap up the last film, how disgustingly is it VOLGARE? !! Blade Runner (1982) provides a sense of sexuality and eroticism without exaggerating! that of 2049 makes sadness with the hologram as a girlfriend makes you think and the scene of forced sex! but come on, but what is your taste for those who prefer it to Scott's masterpiece? Vulgar and expires in the trivial creates the opposite effect after seeing him is sickened by how much bombarded naked and sex. The original gives much more the erotic and sexual sense in a natural way without exaggeration. This will never have the same echo of the first. Not even the same social impact. he has not brought anything new and fantastic. Pure commercial purpose!
I simply do not respect anyone who rates the remake/reboot/sequel (or whatever the hell they're calling it) higher than the original...
Hollywood hasn't produced anything notable since about 2001.
are you serious? ever heard of a movie called Dark Knight? 300? There Will Be Blood? Inception?
Imagine Blade Runner 2019, 2049, Interstellar, Children of Men, and The Expanse universes all combined! That would be the most realistic invision of our futures. A dope one to live in, and a depressing one to live in as well. Someone make a mashup world in media form!
K as a character and Gosling's performance are much better than Deckard and Ford's performance in the first Blade runner. There's just much more character development for K and Gosling gives a layered performance that made me connect with his character easier.
i disagree with the last point.
Gosling's character was better written .
Also it was more relatable
The best acting we’ve seen (I say ever) from Ford was in 2049.
Waiting for the Blade runner events November 2019.
The two are very different films despite being equally as similar. I would not pit one against the other, there just isn't reason to.
NAH 👎Blade Runner & Blade Runner 2049 are both equally amazing masterpieces of filmmaking itself. PERIOD
I was 5 when the first movie came out, 41 when the second came out. Third movie, I'll be 76 :)
Should have been 5-0 to the original Blade Runner. Everything 2049 did better, it did on the shoulders of the original movie. All the sparkles and visions, the better special effects, even the supposed better storyline, 2049 had an easier time because the audience were already there from the original, it did nothing new, just improved on the groundwork laid by the original.
You do know how much of the set in 2049 was actually build right. They used as less CGI as possible. What Roger Deakins did in this movie is incredible
That's like saying Empire Strikes Back isn't a better Star Wars movie because the first film set it all up. Your argument is a bit flawed
And like saying Batman Begins is better than the Dark Knight for having come before. Seems like ridiculous logic. Everything 2049 did better but also more competently. BR felt like it posed big questions, but it didn't quite have the answers for them and left it for the audience. 2049 poses questions and answers them, far more satisfyingly then Scott did for my money.
That's like saying Babbage's computer is better than the i9 GTX Titan setups we have today because "it was the original".
+J Corbett
Agree with you ... we really do live in a crazy tasteless world when a slightly above average movie like 2049 is seen as a "masterpiece" ... its such an insult to the word "masterpiece" .. the original Blade Runner is the real deal, not this bland thing called 2049 ..
*Both are slow, but still Blade Runner 2049 is better than the original if we compare the pace of the movies*
Ujjwal Uniyal "slow" is the shitties criticism I've ever heard. What's so wrong with slow? Not every movie should be fast paced action set. Actually, slow pacing allows movies to breathe more, give lot more emotional subtle depth to a story, so that when it really comes to action, you would care about these characters. Some of the best movies ever have slow pacing for a reason.
The first worked perfectly fine as a slow burn. The sequel was bloated.
Ujjwal Uniyal
There does not exist a fast paced Cyberpunk story. Because Cyberpunk is one of the most thoughtful genres within the entertainment industry. Cyberpunk is not about action, but about what we humans are doing with ourselves creating a modern society. The Blade Runner movies are some of the best examples in the Cyberpunk genre, since they are made with understanding of what cyberpunk makes.
OMFG, "pace of the movies" xD Then I guess Run, Lola, Run would be the movie of the eternity because it has so great pace :D
The sequel ruined Rachel.
You kidding me? Deckard was much less relatable than K. If anything, K goes through more shit than any character in either film so far.
You know what they say, you can't beat the classics.
I prefer 2049. It's just as visually brilliant, but the pacing is much better, and it also expands and improves the original's universe
No, it destroyed the original's universe with its idiotic twists and plot reveals.
Jarvis Cool What? How is introducing the idea that Replicants can reproduce stupid? And plot reveals, how is that a negative, explaining the story and bringing the plot to a satisfying close is not a negative at all. 2049 is one of the best sequels ever because it stayed true to the original in many ways but introduced many great ideas, or at least IMO it did.
It contradicts the original, that's how. Replicants are not humans, at least in the original for sure. These idiotic twists/plot reveals didn't expand the original's plot, they rewrote the original's storyline and its world in the worst and most absurd way. If you think that twist that Tyrell created Deckard and Rachel as Adam and Eve to make them fall in love with each and make a child is great, then you probably didn't watch the original because it's one of the most idiotic, absurd and nonsense twists I've seen, on the level of worst Shyamalan twists and the most idiotic reveals of Alien: Covenant. The only new idea it offered is a love story with hologram and that's it, everything else is nothing new and cliche. And the ending of 2049 is very lazy and rip-off of one of the greatest scenes of all time, not a homage like many people think for whatever reason, they probably don't know the difference between homage and rip-off.
Jarvis Cool Um yes I have seen the original and think it is fantastic. 2049 having the idea that replicants can reproduce is not a contradiction of the original to me at all, it expands the already existing universe and gives us a very exciting plot twist which we didn't know was possible from the first. I know you don't think so, but me and countless others feel 2049 was an outstanding sequel and that the twist was absolutely fantastic.
We didn't know that "twist" was possible in the first one because it's very stupid and doesn't make any sense, even fan fictions didn't have that shit. And by if you've seen the original at all, I meant the other twist, about Deckard and Rachel, that they were specially created and programmed to fall in love with each other and make a child, which is one of the most idiotic and absurd twists I've ever seen in any movie, I don't know a single sane person who thinks that this twist is good/makes sense because it's objectively very stupid, ruins the original and creates canyon sized plot holes.
I rate orginal Blade Runner in all catergories.
Bladerunner will always be remeberd for really getting the whole Cyberpunk genre going, that was an extremely impactful film. I think overall, 2049 is a better movie though.
What is it to be human? Man these movies try and answer that question and it comes across beautifully. Even K's hologram girlfriend is on the table as whether or not she should be treated as human or having a soul. Just a masterpiece of movies. Although I did not need the cursing or nudity.
How do you compare two pieces of gold struck from the same gold bar? Both movies are timeless... both movies have their ups and downs but both movies really can’t be compared to one another.
Rewatched Blade runner again before I watched Blade runner 2049. Made me love both movies even more. I rate 2049 the 2nd best movie of 2018.
redpanda416 *2017
I even agree with deckard being a better blade runner, I think the first film especially with Harrison brought more of a noir feel to it, however I will say I disagreed with the opinion although respected, that K was bland and had nothing to offer and lost the human connection with people, like said before, I was actually really intrigued by K’s character because of what his story was and ultimately his personality, I thought one of the best things that made the plot so good was the fact that it really pushed the boundaries between what being human really is and gosling portrayed that very well. Needless to say been reading some pkd after this movie
The original wins for me.
Music and visuals are two very different things though!
I honestly think both films are equally as amazing. If I was forced to pick than it's the first film from 1982. Ridley Scott's Blade Runner just changed my life. I was hypnotized by its visuals and it has a much more dirtier look to it than the sequel. The sequels visuals are amazing though.
this is the best watchmojo I have seen yet, Blade Runner is a marvelous work of story telling