8 ms·

I've had this book on my shelf for a couple of years. I was put off it because I finally saw the film (and the remake) and didn't like them. Especially the rema

by LandR 6y ago

I've had this book on my shelf for a couple of years. I was put off it because I finally saw the film (and the remake) and didn't like them. Especially the remake, fell asleep trying to get through that film on three seperate occasions before giving up on it. But I need to give the book a chance if it's quite different to the film.

the_af 6y ago
I think instead of "remake" you meant sequel, because there is no remake. If it's any consolation: I'm an absolute fan of Blade Runner but hated the sequel. In my opinion, it fails to capture the neo-noir feel of the original, has no interesting characters, Jared Leto's acting is distracting, and the villains/antiheroes... compare Roy Batty's "tears in rain" dying speech with Luv's "I'm the best!". It makes me cringe.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  I, for one, think that the sequel is as good as the original. Cinematography was stunning and the world was a believable evolution of the world from the previous movie.
  - otachack 6y ago
    I agree and am ecstatic for Villeneuve's Dune!
    - Cactus2018 6y ago
      Dune (2020) Official Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xhJrPXop4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xhJrPXop4
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      As a die-hard Dune (1984) and book fan, I'm not really ecstatic yet. Old movie had some unique qualities, and would be a great movie if it was 7 hours long. Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?!
      - Simon_says 6y ago
        > Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?! Have you been in a coma since 1984?
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        You mean we should not use the j-word for a destructive religious war because it can offend some extremists?
      - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
        > Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?! Do you really have to ask or do you not believe words have associations that aren't their exact dictionary definitions? Dune was written well before the word was associated with religious extremism in modern times, the word didn't have the associations of terrorism and caliphates and 9/11.
        bdefore 6y ago
        Says a lot that the word crusade does not carry such associations and colloquially leans more toward an admirable passion.
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        Thing is, Dune is literally a book about religious extremism, it is one of it's most important themes. So changing this term gets massive thumbs down from me.
      - arethuza 6y ago
        Aren't they describing the attack by Harkonnen and Imperial forces on the Atreides rather than the later jihad by the Fremen - the latter presumably being in the next movie?
    - godelski 6y ago
      And don't forget about The Foundation! It's a good time to be a fan of Space Opera. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804484/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804484/
- holografix 6y ago
  One of the biggest cinematographic disappointments I’ve ever witnessed. Harrison Ford’s involvement in the movie was tragic. He acted lazily, his character had very little to add to the storyline. Inexplicably he was into Elvis can you imagine your grand children, when old, being huge Elvis fans? It was all so lazy. The only saving grace was the concept that creation of life is a continuous, inescapable circle, that creates a hierarchy alongside the risk of oppression and servitude. God created men, men is subservient and inferior. Men create replicants, same thing. Now replicants have “holograms”...
  - reincarnate0x14 6y ago
    The plodding and limp segment in the ruins of Las Vegas really killed the pace and punch of that whole film. Even assuming there was any point in having Deckard in it all, 15 minutes of that could have easily been cut out with almost no impact to the story.
    - lou1306 6y ago
      There was a point in having him: he fathered a replicant-born child (while possibly being a replicant himself), aka the central theme of the movie. Execution could have been better, though. And at least the Vegas section had great cinematography ad times: I take much more issues with the final fight, which I thought was anticlimactic both visually and story-wise.
      - holografix 6y ago
        I know but even there they lacked imagination, finesse, esprit. How much better would it have been for Ryan G’s character to find remnants of Deckard proving he lived there but had been long gone. Some indication that he may or may not have been a replicant. Maybe the replicant child is a cross between humans and replicants. But nooo, Deckard had to be a replicant, obviously given his longevity and strength, and a “tough” guy who wants to have a biff with Ryan G. No nuance, no deeper meaning.
  - bb101 6y ago
- remote_phone 6y ago
  Bladerunner 2049 was completely bifurcated. I thought the first half was magnificent. The scene with Ryan Gosling having the intimate moment with the hologram made me weep, it was so sad because that’s all he could get. The movie became terrible once Harrison Ford was introduced and kept diving. Everything about it was horrible. The scene in the water looked like a sound stage. Absolutely terrible.
  - the_af 6y ago
    Everything with Deckard was awful. I also felt the Rachael clone was both a "fanservice" moment and at the same time terribly disrespectful to the character of Rachael. I hated it, a "we did this with CGI because we can" moment. In my opinion, Deckard and Rachael's story was over at the end of the first film. Let them have their moment, be happy for an instant, and forget them. If the sequel was even necessary at all, it should have moved on without sullying old characters.

by LandR 6y ago

the_af 6y ago

I think instead of "remake" you meant sequel, because there is no remake. If it's any consolation: I'm an absolute fan of Blade Runner but hated the sequel. In my opinion, it fails to capture the neo-noir feel of the original, has no interesting characters, Jared Leto's acting is distracting, and the villains/antiheroes... compare Roy Batty's "tears in rain" dying speech with Luv's "I'm the best!". It makes me cringe.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
I, for one, think that the sequel is as good as the original. Cinematography was stunning and the world was a believable evolution of the world from the previous movie.
- otachack 6y ago
  I agree and am ecstatic for Villeneuve's Dune!
  - Cactus2018 6y ago
    Dune (2020) Official Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xhJrPXop4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xhJrPXop4
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    As a die-hard Dune (1984) and book fan, I'm not really ecstatic yet. Old movie had some unique qualities, and would be a great movie if it was 7 hours long. Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?!
    - Simon_says 6y ago
      > Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?! Have you been in a coma since 1984?
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        You mean we should not use the j-word for a destructive religious war because it can offend some extremists?
    - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
      > Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?! Do you really have to ask or do you not believe words have associations that aren't their exact dictionary definitions? Dune was written well before the word was associated with religious extremism in modern times, the word didn't have the associations of terrorism and caliphates and 9/11.
      - bdefore 6y ago
        Says a lot that the word crusade does not carry such associations and colloquially leans more toward an admirable passion.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        Thing is, Dune is literally a book about religious extremism, it is one of it's most important themes. So changing this term gets massive thumbs down from me.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      Aren't they describing the attack by Harkonnen and Imperial forces on the Atreides rather than the later jihad by the Fremen - the latter presumably being in the next movie?
  - godelski 6y ago
    And don't forget about The Foundation! It's a good time to be a fan of Space Opera. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804484/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804484/
holografix 6y ago
One of the biggest cinematographic disappointments I’ve ever witnessed. Harrison Ford’s involvement in the movie was tragic. He acted lazily, his character had very little to add to the storyline. Inexplicably he was into Elvis can you imagine your grand children, when old, being huge Elvis fans? It was all so lazy. The only saving grace was the concept that creation of life is a continuous, inescapable circle, that creates a hierarchy alongside the risk of oppression and servitude. God created men, men is subservient and inferior. Men create replicants, same thing. Now replicants have “holograms”...
- reincarnate0x14 6y ago
  The plodding and limp segment in the ruins of Las Vegas really killed the pace and punch of that whole film. Even assuming there was any point in having Deckard in it all, 15 minutes of that could have easily been cut out with almost no impact to the story.
  - lou1306 6y ago
    There was a point in having him: he fathered a replicant-born child (while possibly being a replicant himself), aka the central theme of the movie. Execution could have been better, though. And at least the Vegas section had great cinematography ad times: I take much more issues with the final fight, which I thought was anticlimactic both visually and story-wise.
    - holografix 6y ago
      I know but even there they lacked imagination, finesse, esprit. How much better would it have been for Ryan G’s character to find remnants of Deckard proving he lived there but had been long gone. Some indication that he may or may not have been a replicant. Maybe the replicant child is a cross between humans and replicants. But nooo, Deckard had to be a replicant, obviously given his longevity and strength, and a “tough” guy who wants to have a biff with Ryan G. No nuance, no deeper meaning.
- bb101 6y ago
remote_phone 6y ago
Bladerunner 2049 was completely bifurcated. I thought the first half was magnificent. The scene with Ryan Gosling having the intimate moment with the hologram made me weep, it was so sad because that’s all he could get. The movie became terrible once Harrison Ford was introduced and kept diving. Everything about it was horrible. The scene in the water looked like a sound stage. Absolutely terrible.
- the_af 6y ago
  Everything with Deckard was awful. I also felt the Rachael clone was both a "fanservice" moment and at the same time terribly disrespectful to the character of Rachael. I hated it, a "we did this with CGI because we can" moment. In my opinion, Deckard and Rachael's story was over at the end of the first film. Let them have their moment, be happy for an instant, and forget them. If the sequel was even necessary at all, it should have moved on without sullying old characters.