So I saw Blade Runner 2049 and I thought it was pretty cool. It managed to strike
a balance of staying true to the 1982 original, while telling a new story and
finding its own identity. It's probably the smartest mainstream film to be
released all year. Even though the film wasn't a huge box-office success it was
a hit with critics, and it was well received by its audience. Well I guess
not everyone in the audience liked it. You see it doesn't matter how good or
acclaimed a movie is, there will always be some contrarian asshole out there,
who's more than willing to tell you why a great movie is actually a pile of shit.
Which brings us to my main man Razorfist. Maybe you can't tell by looking at
him, but he's the kind of guy who tries really hard to be different. Razor's the
type of dude who would corner you at a party, then talk your ear off all night
about how Final Fantasy 7 is actually overrated garbage, then in his next
breath proceeded to tell you how these Star Wars prequels are secretly great
movies. So obviously after Blade Runner 2049 received almost universal praise,
old Razor couldn't help himself. He had to take to the Internet, and make a video
telling everybody why they were wrong for liking it. So let's go through that
video, and see if he's really making some good arguments, or just spitting out
pointless drivel. Let's rap about Gosling for a beat shall we. I mean it was all
well and good in my first rant about the trailer for this movie, to cut a few Yuk
Yuk's at his expense. Talking about his wonky ass eyeballs, or how Hollywood
seemingly flipped the switch at random, and decided the bitch from Breaker High
was suddenly leading man material. When his actual acting talent is outstripped
by the average underwear model turned actor on the C fucking W. Look. You're a
producer. You're casting a sequel to the definitive future noir, something this
movie also lacks in spades, but we'll get to that in a fuckin minute. You have your
choice of a gravel gargling downbeat protagonist. Maybe a hard-ass, a wiseass, a
lesser actor with Marlboro Man good look... You know, fuck it. Let's go with the
wall-eyed chameleon looking fuck. Who regularly confuses acting, with looking
like you're holding in a shit, and whose Canadian accent is thicker than
freeze-dried marmalade. Cuz that's what I need to hear tumbling from the maw of my
world weary cyber cop lead an Ned fucking Flanders accent.
I find the opening of this video
baffling. Danny Boy is literally complaining about the looks of the lead
actor. He has a problem with Ryan Gosling's eye, and He bemoans the fact they
cast Gosling, instead of a quote graveling gargling hard-ass with Marlboro
Man good looks. I don't know about you but I'm like Razor fist I'm not going to
the movies to ogle hunky guys. I go to the movies because I want to see a good
story with good acting, and Gosling's a good actor. He shows a lot of vulnerability in
Half-Nelson. He has great comedic range in The Nice Guys, and in Drive he did
that less is more thing with a very understated performance. Actually
Gosling's performance in Blade Runner 2049 is very similar to his performance
in Drive. Granted Gosling's character K isn't as reserved as The Driver, but he
does play the role with an unflinching calmness, which is an excellent choice.
The thing we have to remember about the style of the original Blade Runner, is
the art direction and set design was responsible for setting a lot of the
atmosphere. Blade Runner 20:49 continues this approach. Gosling's
acting choices are very subtle and very deliberate, because he's allowing the
atmosphere to inform his performance. The demeanor of Gosling's character Officer
K, is very consistent with the tone of the film, and he feels like a character
who was born in this world. In the hands of a different actor, like say Leonardo
DiCaprio, you would run the risk of the character being too intense. If you were
to put someone like DiCaprio on the role of Officer K you would risk the
possibility of the performance being too flashy and distracting from the movie. So
Gosling's performance serves the character and story well, and when he
does explode with emotion, you can't help but take notice. Because by downplaying
certain scenes he's made the emotional outburst that much more important. Really
that's what this film suffers from in its entirety, the complete absence of a
compelling antagonist. Stevie Blunder over there doesn't have a dickish
thought till the third fucking act of the film, and yoga pants mc-resting
bitchface murders half that county, and is still
only mildly annoying. Rutger Hauer stole the entire goddamn movie. Jared Leto
couldn't steal an episode of Captain Kangaroo.
Stevie Wonder and Captain Kangaroo? How old is this motherfucker? Okay I get he's trying
to be irreverent, but maybe he should try to keep his references, consistent with
the century he's living in. All right so I do have to agree with Grandpa-Fist
that neither Jared Leto's Wallace or Sylvia Hawks love live up to Rutger
Hauer's portrayal of Roy batty. But let's be honest with the exception of Hauer, all
the other replicant characters in the original Blade Runner, were completely
forgettable. Leon and Pris were just plot devices, and Zora didn't have a purpose
at all, she just got dressed ran down the street and got shot. Rather than make the
mistake of trying to create a new Roy Batty type character, Blade Runner 2049
rather wisely takes the two sides of baddies personality the tough brute, and
introspective philosopher, and splits them into two characters. Which is
actually more in line with classic film noir. Most film noir 's have the boss
character and the enforcer. Out Of The Past had Whit and Joe. The Big combo had
Mr. Brown and Fante. The Maltese Falcon had Guttman and Wilmer, so following that
tradition Blade Runner 2049 has Wallace and Luv.
Leto's Walace character is actually similar to Guttman in The Maltese Falcon.
They both play their roles with them unwavering assertiveness, that make them
the focal point of their respective scenes. Now recently hating on Jared Leto
has become the cool thing to do, which is understandable, I mean he was like the
worst Joker ever. And believe me, I'm no fan of Leto myself, but I do think he
does a good job as Wallace. You most certainly could accuse him of overdoing
it, and calling too much attention to his performance, but I think his choices
worked. Because in contrast to Gosling's performances K the character of Wallace
lends itself to a more flashy acting style. Leto's Wallace is a billionaire who has cornered the market in Replicant
production. In order for Wallace to have achieved his status as the head of a
multinational corporation, he would need to have a commanding personality.
If Leto played the character with more subtlety, you would run the risk of the
Wallace character coming off as flat. Also Wallace doesn't have a lot of screen time,
so the fact that Leto makes very bold acting choices allows his character to
stand out. Making Wallace's presence felt
throughout the entire film, even though he only appears in a handful of scenes.
And quite frankly even if you hate Leto you have to respect the fact that he
never phones it in, he's consistently trying to give an interesting
performance. Some people might think I'm crazy for saying this, but even though
Rutger Hauer gives the better performance as Roy Batty, I think Sylvia
Hoeks' Luv is a better character. Here's why. Some people might describe Luv as
the true antagonist of 2049, but that wouldn't be accurate. Luv isn't K's
adversary, she's his foil. Luv and K are basically
the same character, and another interesting nuance, is Gosling and Hoeks
are playing these characters almost exactly the same. Both of them have an
inhuman calmness, and will occasionally explode with bursts of anger. They are
also both Replicants following orders from an overbearing master. While K
begins to question his orders, Luv consistently remains loyal. When Razor
says the biggest problem with the film is it lacks a solid antagonist, it shows
how he doesn't understand Blade Runner 2049, or the original film. Roy Batty
wasn't the antagonist of Blade Runner, the movie wasn't building to some final
showdown of Deckard and Roy facing off. The antagonist of Blade Runner is the
characters own limitations. In the original film every character had a flaw
they had to deal with. The Replicants wanted to extend their life expectancy.
JF Sebastian couldn't live on the outer colonies because of his condition .Rachel
didn't want to be defined by the fact she was a Replicant. Deckard basically
lost interest in society and became an alcoholic. The resolution of the film
isn't Deckard and Roy overcoming each other,
the resolution is the characters overcoming their personal demons. Roy
learns to accept his inevitable death, and Deckard learns to stop drinking
himself to death, and lives out the rest of his days with Rachel. So keeping with
the themes of the original film, the antagonist of Blade Runner 2049 isn't
Wallace or Luv, the antagonist of Blade Runner 2049 is "freedom." Or rather "the
lack of freedom." K and Luv are trapped by being controlled by their superiors.
Deckard is trapped because he must remain in hiding to keep his daughter
safe. Officer K over the course of the film,
manages to take control of his own life setting Deckard free, and in a way
freeing himself. Luv on the other hand shuns her freedom and continues to obey
Wallace, which is what leads to her death. The fact that love is the antithesis of
K is what makes her a strong character. Rutger Hauer had a lot of charisma as
Roy Batty, but the character himself was poorly handled in the story. Roy and
Deckard relate to each other tangentially, even Roy's meeting with
Tyrell is anticlimactic. They should have a father-son bond, but it's non-existent.
Roy learns to accept his death, but we don't know why, he just does. This is why
I think Luv is a better character than Roy. As a pure foil for K it makes the
character's journey more logical, and it makes her motivations more interesting.
That's your masterful motherfuckin writing? That's what you no tastes havin',
anime-loving dipshits weaned as you all were on the latent inferiority a
Blade Runner as interpreted by the Japanese, are Spurgin the fuck out at me
on Twitter about? That shit? Are you on this earth? Hey. You've been getting on
fine without one. What's that Madam? A soul.
Greatest sequel of all time ladies and gentlemen. This is just intellectual
dishonesty. He's just playing clips out of context. I
can do that too. The scene with K and the Captain is actually a really great
moment, and it actually marks the starting point of K's character arc. Fuck on the nose this
dialogue is up it. We break company with the plot no less than four times over
the course of this film. So Sped Flanders can chat up and often
ancillary character and explain the story to that fucking point. Which would
be merely annoying in any other film, but in a sequel to Blade Runner? Perhaps the
most pronounced example in contemporary cinema of show don't tell storytelling. A
movie were the strongest evidence for Deckard's replicantastic subtext came
in the form of a fuzzy out-of-focus background shot. 90% of the audience
blinked and fucking missed. This dialogue is a fucking affront to the Blade Runner
legacy. Can we retire this show don't tell bullshit? Is there some clause in
the YouTube Terms of Service, that states at some point every hack reviewer, has to
yell "show don't tell" into the camera? Okay Daniel-san, the reason none of the
characters comment on that blurry shot that hints Deckard might be a Replicant,
is because as you said it's subtext. Do you not know the difference between plot
and subtext? Plot describes the narrative and subtext describes the ideas. If the
characters talked about Deckard being a Replicant it would stop being subtext,
and it would become part of the plot. The reason there isn't a lot of exposition
in the original Blade Runner is because there isn't a need for any. It's the
biggest failing of the original and it's the core problem every fan, myself
included, has with the original film. The story sucks.
The reason the subtext of the original film stands out is because there isn't a
narrative to get in the way. Bryant tells Deckard he has to hunt down and retire
the rogue Replicants and that's it, nothing else happens. There are no twists
and there are no turns. It's just a guy walking around till Replicants show up. In
the absence of a traditional story all you can do is sit back, listen to the
music, and take in the scenery. People describe the original Blade Runner as
being a film noir, but it's actually only half a film noir. See there are two
defining aspects of film noir. One of them is the aesthetic, using shadows and
smoke to create atmosphere, which is an aspect Blade Runner captures very well.
The other signature aspect of noir, and arguably the most important aspect is
that it's a mystery story. This is why noir transcends film and there are noir
books. Because a key tenant of a noir story is that it's a gritty urban based
mystery. This was the problem with the original Blade Runner, there was no
mystery to solve. Harrison Ford criticized his own
characters lack of detective abilities. Saying, "I was a detective who did not
have any detecting to do." Blade Runner 2049 follows the template of a film noir
more so than its predecessor. Judging from Razorfists comments I think it's
safe to say he's never actually seen a film noir, nor does he even know what
defines film noir. The protagonist trying to solve a mystery, then learning they're
a pawn in a greater puzzle, all while trying to evade an enigmatic adversary,
is the core of most noir stories. In The Big Combo, Lieutenant Diamond is trying
to find out the identity of a woman known as Alicia, all while trying to
elude the villainous Mr. Brown. In Out Of The Past P.I. Jeff Bailey is trying to
find the whereabouts of the mysterious Kathy Moffatt, while being pursued by the
powerful Whit Sterling. So K's search to solve the mystery of Deckard's child,
while being targeted by the Wallace corporation is very much an archetype of
classic film noir. The foundation of Blade Runner 2049 is built upon a
mystery, so understandably the film requires the characters to engage in
expository dialogue. On K's journey to find Deckard's offspring he finds clues
and discusses his findings with the other characters. There's even a twist
where K thinks he might be the child of Deckard and Rachel. If the characters
didn't discuss the meaning of K's findings, the audience wouldn't know what
the fuck was going on. This is mystery writing 101, characters discuss events in
the plot to move the plot forward. There is no mystery in the original Blade
Runner, every detail you need to know about the plot happens in the first 20
minutes. By the end of the film nothing you knew about the narrative has changed.
The characters don't need to explain anything because everything is still the
same. If Razörfist ever watched a film noir
he would have noticed that noir films are just a series of conversations.
The Maltese Falcon one of the prototypes of the film noir genre, is just people
walking into rooms lighting up a cigarette, and saying where the fuck is
the Maltese Falcon? And if Anita was pissed about Deckard force fucking a dishwasher, one could only speculate as to the
cyclopean shit bitch she'll throw when she ultimately catches wind of Special K
and his portable pocket pussy. Who between the Latin ancestry and the omnipresent expository dialogue strikes me less as a fully fleshed out character
and more as Denis Villeneuve waifu wish fulfillment. Cah fucking Rindge. Well
firstly I don't give a shit what Anita Sarkeesian thinks, and shame on you for
bringing that person up. The reason Joi doesn't strike you as a fleshed out
character, is because she's not meant to be a fleshed out character. Joi is
representative of the movies theme of freedom. The audience is meant to
question the motive behind Joy's love for K, does she love him because she
chooses to, or does she love him because she's programmed to. It's actually as far
as I'm concerned, one of the most interesting parts of the film. But I
guess you know, Razörfist missed that because it's subtext. You know it's one
thing to understand subtext when the director explains it in the audio
commentary, it's another thing to figure it out for yourself. These are the CGI
visuals Screen Rant and the rest of you Va-JJ's are shrieking from the
mountaintops quote, "never once look fake." Where's the grit? Where's the night time?
Where's the texture you tits? I mean he crash-lands in a garbage dump
and it still looks too sleek, and here's a fucking query, isn't lack of texture not
attribute fucking one on the list of characteristics that define a shitty CGI.
It's shit! Shut up and admitted it, it looks like a fucking video game in places. One
that's often way too antiseptic and ass blast the atmosphere texture and tone of
the original in the process. This is when it becomes a laughably clear Razorfist
is an idiot. He shows two clips to evidence what he perceives a shitty CGI.
One of them is a practical set, the other one is a miniature, neither of them are
CGI. The garbage dump Razor claims that lacks texture was shot using a
combination of miniatures and practical sets. The shots of the LAPD headquarters,
The Wallace Building, and K's apartment were all miniatures. The entire cityscape
was a miniature set. This isn't even a CGI shot, this is a composite shot
of two actors. Maybe I'm getting nitpicky with the
language, but CGI refers to "computer-generated imagery." There are CGI
flourishes to this shot, like the digital matte painting in the background, but the
last time I checked Ryan Gosling and Ana de Armas were real people. In an
effort to pay tribute to the original film, the effects team even used the same
VFX techniques that were used in the original movie. Such as using a
motion-control camera to create multiple lighting passes of the miniature sets. I
guess it's not surprising Razörfist can't tell the difference between CGI
and practical effects, he is a guy who after all, doesn't realize might be a
good idea to turn off the auto focus on his camera. Seriously, as soon as Stinkfist
here starts harping on the movie's effects, we should just disregard
everything he says. Whether you like the movie or not, you have to agree the VFX
are outstanding. Razorfist's video is just contrarian bullshit. He can't say
anything positive about the movie, he has to find fault with everything. Back when
the trailer came out he praised the visuals. For the rain-drenched future
escapes of cyberpunk L.A. to the withered deserts of the Kipple beyond, they've
certainly mastered the visual lexicon if nothing else. But that was back when
there was still a question mark as to whether the film would be good or not.
After the movie came out and was well received, Danny Boy couldn't help himself,
he had a hate everything about the movie. It really isn't fair to bitch about the
effects in Blade Runner 2049 not being as innovative as the original. We live in
an age where every movie has great effects, there really isn't room for
improvement. Back in 1982 motion controllers and elaborate miniatures
were the cutting edge of VFX technology. On top of that no one had
ever seen a cyberpunk cityscape in a movie before. Now, 30 plus years later
we've seen everything. From detailed miniatures to realistic CGI, there's
nothing left to surprise us, we take it all for granted. It's like Jurassic Park.
In 1993 the effects blew everyone away, because they were new, and nobody had
ever seen digital dinosaurs before. Now it doesn't matter how realistic you make
a dinosaur, we're used to it. The novelty has worn off. Compare
Tyrell's bedchamber. Opulent, yes. Spacious as well, but cluttered, stacked to the
gills with a relevant minutia. Now compare that to Wallace HQ. Where
Villeneuve overcompensates a sparse set design, by ear fucking the
aquatic lighting effect Ridley Scott uses exactly one scene of the original.
Until it lapses from odd but visually stimulating, to hey Aquaman shut your
fucking nightlight off. I can't help but wonder if Razörfist is just being
willfully ignorant or he's just stupid. He's comparing Tyrell's bedroom in the
original film, with the hallways and offices of 2049.
hH actually wonders why there aren't any knickknacks in the Wallace building's
hallway. Maybe because it's a fucking hallway. What do you expect to see in the
hallway, goddamn jungle gym? Actually a better parallel for Tyrell's bedroom
isn't Wallace's office, it's the hotel Deckard made his home.
The reason the hotel is full of old Vegas show equipment, is because it
symbolizes Deckard's present state. The same way Tyrell was just as opulent and
frivolous as the trinkets that adorned his room ,the artifacts in the hotel show
Dekker to be a washed-up relic of the past.
Really? Even Grand Moff Rachel over here. That bitch was doing somersaults at the
base of the uncanny valley. Again, more contrarian bullshit. The
Rachel scene had some of the best face replacement effects I've ever seen. Villeneuve may I
politely inquire, what prompted your twenty kilometres pulsating erection for
holograms exactly? The original film of which features nary a fucking one. But at
least every under welling micro second of the film in question will be
scored by the Vangelis volume. I'm sorry
Hans Zimmer, but who couldn't have guessed that fact when the film is
festooned with French horn farts. He doesn't like the movie now because it
has Holograms in it. This is just becoming nonsensical. He's literally
making the point, movie bad because Holograms. Actually when you think about
it, given the futuristic technology of the original film, that movie should have
had Holograms in it too. I think the Holograms in 2049 are pretty cool, and by
using the Holograms Villeneuve manages to reference the original billboards
without directly copying them. I do have to agree with Razörfist though on the
issue of the soundtrack. The soundtrack for Blade Runner 2049 fucking blows ass.
The best part of the score is when the original Blade Runner theme kicks in. So
wait. You got the soundtrack wrong, you got the show don't tell storytelling
wrong, got the aesthetic wrong. Fuck! Thanks to the outright removal of any
and all noir elements, in what is ostensibly a future fucking noir. You got
the goddamn genre wrong, but greatest sequel ever, am I right? Absent those
attributes, what do you have left, fanservice. And may I advance the radical
suggestion that we could have done with considerably fucking less. It's hard
enough watching Deckard bowlegs about like a leathery penguin, wowing us with a
world-class wardrobe job of jeans and a fucking t-shirt, but I think we all could
have done without the crushing depression brought about by retirement
home Gaff. This is the part of the video where if you were a robot trying to
follow Razorfist's logic, your head would explode. For the past five minutes
Daniel-san has been bitching about Blade Runner 2049 being too different from the
original. Every argument he makes is basically Blade Runner 2049 sucks
because they didn't do it the same way they did it in the original.
The only criticism he can make about the Holograms in 2049, is that the
original movie didn't have Holograms in it. So like a good little fanboy he's
outraged that the new movie is too different from the original. Then he
makes the claim that the core problem with 2049 is that it's nothing but
fanservice. That logic doesn't make any sense at all.
Harrison Ford doesn't show up till like the last third of the film.
You could probably boil down his whole appearance to like four or five scenes. I
don't understand why he has a problem with Gaff in a retirement home either
Where the hell else should it be, he's a fucking old man. Honestly this is a
no-win scenario with Razörfist. If they didn't put Gaff in the film he would be
complaining, "Oh, so Harrison Ford gets a cameo but Edward James Olmos gets
snubbed." And if Gaff wasn't in a retirement home, and he was still working
on the police force he would bitch, "Why do they let a 70 year old man still
serve on the police force? Shouldn't he be in a retirement home?" Quite frankly
Razörfist should welcome the sight of a retirement home. Those are the only
people that are going to get his Captain Kangaroo references. If Razor keeps using
that logic he might do something stupid, like fall for one of those pyramid
schemes. Or even worse he might do something crazy. Like I don't know, go to
his friends house and record himself masticating.
And could we go ahead and stop blatantly lying, and saying this film doesn't even
vaguely address the question of Deckard's humanity. It not only addresses
but answers that question, and does so pretty emphatically. Look if the core
plot revolves around robots fucking other robots, and pinching out robot
babies, not humans and robots mind you. No one would be freaking out if that were
the case, because all you'd have to do is keep them segregated. Not horses and
Replicants, Ann Coulter could do with a good pipe cleaning. The only way it's
dangerous and the only way this film has a plot is if it's Replicants and other
Replicants. Having accepted this fact someone's gonna need to explain the fuck
to me, how the same film flipping the fuck out because Deckard fucked the shit
out of Rachel and made a fisher-price robo, is not basically shouting from the
goddamn mountain tops that Deckard is a goddamn Replicant. Why I'd be happy to
explain it you. It doesn't matter if two Replicants fucked, or a human fucked a
Replicant. What matters is that there's a child. Rachel is undeniably a Replicant.
The miracle, is even though she was designed to be infertile, she was somehow
was able to get pregnant. A human and a Replicant having a child, isn't any less
incredible than two Replicants having a child. Evidenced by the fact that a
Replicant has never given birth in this world before. Put simply in the universe
of Blade Runner, there's a lot of Replicant fucking going on. Replicants
are fucking humans, Replicants are fucking other Replicants,
none of them are getting pregnant. One Replicant with the ability to give birth
is the key to all Replicants having the ability to give birth. A Replicant that
could reproduce would be able to reproduce with the human. Also you can
take the Replicant with the ability to give birth, and reverse-engineer it, to
give other replicants the ability to give birth. Rachel was the only Replicant
ever to get pregnant. That's what's important, that's why her child is so
sought-after. Whether the father was a Replicant or
not doesn't matter. That's why Deckard's Humanity is still
ambiguous, and the mere fact that you and I are disagreeing on how to interpret
the film, proves that it's still ambiguous. Congrats on ripping off the
plot to Children Of Men by the way, which was itself more than a
bit of a Blade Runner ripoff. Which is probably what I find most disappointing
about this film in general. Instead of paving a new path ala the original, it is
inspired and blatantly so, by movies that were themselves inspired by Blade Runner.
I mean you ever cringe when for example Dokken cut a record that was basically a
bargain-basement Audioslave rip off, or when Metallica cuts a fucking radio
rock record. Well you're repressing a dry heave for the exact same reason I
consider Blade Runner 2049 a repugnant fucking insult. From short films by
anime aficionados who've been but fucking the Blade Runner'brand for
their entire career. It is pretty hilarious that a guy who
stole his persona from Dennis Miller and dresses like Sum 41's parody of a
metal band, is ranting about people ripping off other people. First let me
dispel this myth Blade Runner invented the urban cyberpunk aesthetic. If you
watched my video on Blade Runner blackout 2022, you'll remember I
mentioned Ridley Scott was heavily influenced by French comic book artist
Mobius. And by influence I mean he unabashedly ripped off every detail from
Mobius as comics. Ridley Scott handed his art department copies of heavy metal
magazine and told them I want the sets to look like this. The futuristic
cityscapes everyone associates with Blade Runner, is actually an invention of
Mobius. Blade Runner isn't even the first movie to create a realistic Sci-Fi
cityscape, that honor would go to Metropolis. Everytime Razörfist
says Akira is a ripoff of Blade Runner, I can't help but feel embarrassed for him.
The first issue of Akira was published in Weekly Young Magazine on December 6
1982. Blade Runner was released in Japan July 3rd of the same year. If Weekly
Young Magazine went on sale December 6, that means the magazine had to have gone
to the printer sometime in November. So given that timeline, in order for
Katsuhiro Otomo to rip off Blade Runner, He would have had to have seen the movie
in July. Then he would have had to come up with the idea of Akira, plot out the
story, pitch it to a publisher, write the first issue, illustrate the first issue,
then have it approved by the publisher all in a three-month time span.
Like Ridley Scott, Katsuhiro Otomo was influenced by Moebius' comic The
Long Tomorrow. Blade Runner most certainly popularized the cyberpunk
aesthetic, and in many ways defined it, but it didn't invent it. Like the original
film, Blade Runner 2049 deals with similar themes about humanity and its
relationship with technology. Being a heavy-metal poser... Being a heavy metal
fan, Razörfist likes to use music analogies, so allow me to use one of my
own. There are only 12 notes in music. Every song you hear is a different
combination of those twelve notes. When you write a new song, you can't invent
new notes, you could only rearrange the ones that already exist. Similarly any
Lit Major can tell you every story is a variation of the Five Major Conflicts.
Like a musician, writers can't invent ideas and themes, they have to work with
the ones that already exist. Sure, Blade Runner 2049 explores themes
that have appeared in other sci-fi films, but it takes existing ideas and presents
them in a way that's unique to the story they're telling. That's all you could
expect fiction to do. Children Of Men didn't invent the Sci-Fi exploration of
pregnancy and infertility, those subjects have been discussed in other Sci-Fi
stories. Like Twilight Of Briareus and Greybeard. The original Blade Runner may
have been the first to bring the modern cyberpunk style to film, but it didn't
invent the style, that style was a creation of Mobius. Even the story of
Blade Runner wasn't an original screenplay, it was an adaptation of
Philip K Dick's So Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
And even though Philip K Dick was a creative and prolific writer, his work
was informed by the science fiction stories of HG Wells, and the analytical
psychology of Carl Jung. Every work of art you see is derived from something
else. Quentin Tarantino's whole career is based off ripping off ideas from other
filmmakers. But that's fine because even though Tarantino is borrowing ideas from
other filmmakers, he's representing those ideas in a fashion that unique to his
film. Hey! Do you think Juliette ripped off the aviators and leather jacket from
Razörfist? They do kind of dress the same. No
Juliette got her punk rock look, from watching too much GG Allin. You know now
that you mention it, GG and Razorfist are kind of similar. They
both produce shit and throw it at their audience, but at least GG did it in an
interesting way. The circle-jerk a johnny-come-lately's
descend for there fart huff and ho down to condescend to my ass but the legacy
of the original film, and the merits of this sequel is a follow up one more time,
I'll open fucking fire folks. Well sure, Razor's see the movie hundreds
of times. Sure he's repeatedly expressed the sentiment that it's been his
favorite film, since he had a favorite fucking film. Sure he's got signed copies
of the script, the criterion and director's cut laserdisc, the original 82
spinner. Sure he bought props from the film, and yeah he once claimed there was
an entire year where every day after class he throw on the film. Meaning in
one year alone he saw it well in excess of 300 titty-fucking times. Sure he wrote
a thesis on the subject, but hey I just saw the final cut on Netflix five days
ago, better hip check this fucker into my whirlpool of wisdom. And that ain't me
flexing my fanboy cock folks, it's me establishing that I know Blade Runner.
This is the part of the video where Danny goes from being a man ranting
about a film to a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum. He's doing
that thing a seven-year-old we do, I have more Pokemon toys so I'm a bigger fan.
Homeboy here bought a signed copy of the script and he's gonna talk to you like
he wrote the fucking thing. Hey if you want to be like Razor you can go to
Amazon right now and buy a copy of the script signed by Rutger Hauer. It'll set you back four
hundred dollars though. I don't know if that would make you an expert in the Blade
Runner, or a fucking idiot who pisses money away. Did you also notice he
said he "claims" to have watched the movie every day for a year?
He once claimed there was an entire year where every day after class he throw on
the film. If he watched the movie every day for a year why didn't he just say
that? Why does he preface it with "claim?" That
Seems suspicious to me. It's like a Freudian slip, he's having a hard time of
convincing himself of his own bullshit. Razörfist also mentions that while in
college, he wrote a thesis on Blade Runner. A thesis that's conveniently
nowhere to be found on the Internet. I contacted Razor on Twitter and I asked
him if I could read his thesis to which he just ignored me, he didn't provide me
with any links. If Razor is such a huge Blade Runner fan who knows the film so
well, why wouldn't he enlighten us all by letting us read his thought provoking
analysis? Probably because if his thesis does in fact exist,
it's an illegible pile of shit. Really the biggest problem with Razor's
video is he's incapable of reviewing Blade Runner 2049 on its own terms. Every
criticism he makes towards the film relates back to the original movie. He
doesn't like Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto because he thinks Harrison Ford and
Rutger Hauer were better. He doesn't like the art direction because he thinks the
art direction in the original movie was better. He doesn't even like the fact
that the movie exists because in his mind a sequel to Blade Runner is
unnecessary. None of these issues relate to Blade Runner 2049 as a standalone
movie. Sure, Blade Runner 2049 is a continuation of the Blade Runner story
but it's its own film and should be judged as such. Hey! That's not fair
Rev Paul. Razörfist is a self-proclaimed Blade Runner expert, he
knows how to make a good Blade Runner movie. Well for shits and giggles let's
run down Razor's criteria that makes him a Blade Runner expert. First he bought
some movie memorabilia. In his own words he c"laims" to have watched the film every
day for a year. And he wrote a thesis about Blade Runner, that nobody else but
him has seen, and we should just all take his word for it that it's awesome. These
are the qualifications that make Razörfist a Blade Runner expert. Hell,
you want to know what, I could play this game too. You see I was a production
artist for some comic books. I worked on some video games, and I wrote and
illustrated some comic strips. Now in the real world all that amounts to as a
pilot shit, but using Razors logic that makes me an expert in visual design and
storytelling. So in my expert opinion Razorfist is wrong and Blade Runner
2049 is actually a really great movie. People will argue over which film is
superior, Ridley Scott's 1982 original or Denny
Villeneuve's 2017 sequel. Honestly from a pure storytelling aspect I think
Villanova's Blade Runner 2049 greatly surpasses Scott's original film. However
one cannot overlook the influence Blade Runner 1982 had on the landscape of
filmmaking, and Ridley Scott's use of the atmosphere and tone will forever be
unmatched. But the beauty of being a fan is you
don't have to choose, you can elect them both. One doesn't have to be better than
the other. Both films offer something unique to the audience and you're really
only spy ting yourself if you have to play favorites.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét