4 ms·

I absolutely loved 2049. Haven't seen the original, yet. hides under desk

technothrasher 5y ago
But have you read the original novella? I enjoyed both films, but "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" has much more depth to its questions about humanity than either of them. It also illustrates Deckard's disfunctional nature better.
- Trasmatta 5y ago
  Mercerism is one of the weirdest things I've read about in any book. It makes sense it wouldn't be included in the movies, it's almost an unfilmable concept, I think. PKD is one of my favorite authors. Nobody before or since has been able to more accurately capture the slippery nature of reality, in my opinion.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    Mercerism is one of the best parts of the story. A lonely religion based on simulated shared Sisyphean suffering is just so symbolic of PKD’s overall view of life, it’s delicious to read. But I agree, it works better in prose than it would on film. Still, I kept hoping they’d Easter egg it into the films somewhere just as a nod to those who have read the story. I very much enjoy PKD’s writing, though he gets hard to follow in his later stuff as he slipped further into drug abuse and mental illness.
craigching 5y ago
The original is a masterpiece, but I wonder how much I’m reminiscing. Sean Young and Rutger Hauer we’re fantastic, though, so I do think there is something timeless about it. I have watched 2049 a couple of times now and still don’t see what everyone else sees as great about it. I’m willing to keep trying though.
- jjulius 5y ago
  I'm 34 and hadn't seen either of them until about two years ago. Fell in love with the original (well, the Final Cut) immediately. I watched 2049 shortly thereafter and, while I'm normally a, "Fuck remakes/sequels/franchises" curmudgeon, I actually thought it was pretty damn good. Now, do I think it needed a sequel? No.
drvdevd 5y ago
The original stands up with 2049. Highly recommended
mhh__ 5y ago
The original is basically worse as a film than 2049. However, it's better, because of the sheer power of the visuals and worldbuilding. Some things in it have not aged well (like the "love" scene), but it is still simply jaw-dropping. It's what Scott is just unmatched at doing. A villeneuve film probably makes more sense, but Ridley Scott does Ridley Scott better than anyone. Give him a good script and watch him fly. They're both excellent, they don't need to compete. Be glad 2049 ever got made (similarly with Dune really).
chii 5y ago
2049 beats the original in cinematography imho - much better atmosphere and backdrops, despite the story being "simpler" (which, i actually prefer tbh). The original was a b-grade movie that was well made even with limited resources. 2049 is a Hollywood level high production value movie that can be enjoyed on the surface level, as well as have some intellectual meat in it.
mackrevinack 5y ago
i prefer 2049, but i only saw the original a year before. i thought there was a lot of cringeworthy stuff that hasn't aged well. some of the soundtrack, dialog etc.

But have you read the original novella? I enjoyed both films, but "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" has much more depth to its questions about humanity than either of them. It also illustrates Deckard's disfunctional nature better.

Trasmatta 5y ago
Mercerism is one of the weirdest things I've read about in any book. It makes sense it wouldn't be included in the movies, it's almost an unfilmable concept, I think. PKD is one of my favorite authors. Nobody before or since has been able to more accurately capture the slippery nature of reality, in my opinion.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  Mercerism is one of the best parts of the story. A lonely religion based on simulated shared Sisyphean suffering is just so symbolic of PKD’s overall view of life, it’s delicious to read. But I agree, it works better in prose than it would on film. Still, I kept hoping they’d Easter egg it into the films somewhere just as a nod to those who have read the story. I very much enjoy PKD’s writing, though he gets hard to follow in his later stuff as he slipped further into drug abuse and mental illness.

craigching 5y ago

The original is a masterpiece, but I wonder how much I’m reminiscing. Sean Young and Rutger Hauer we’re fantastic, though, so I do think there is something timeless about it. I have watched 2049 a couple of times now and still don’t see what everyone else sees as great about it. I’m willing to keep trying though.

jjulius 5y ago
I'm 34 and hadn't seen either of them until about two years ago. Fell in love with the original (well, the Final Cut) immediately. I watched 2049 shortly thereafter and, while I'm normally a, "Fuck remakes/sequels/franchises" curmudgeon, I actually thought it was pretty damn good. Now, do I think it needed a sequel? No.

drvdevd 5y ago

The original stands up with 2049. Highly recommended

mhh__ 5y ago

The original is basically worse as a film than 2049. However, it's better, because of the sheer power of the visuals and worldbuilding. Some things in it have not aged well (like the "love" scene), but it is still simply jaw-dropping. It's what Scott is just unmatched at doing. A villeneuve film probably makes more sense, but Ridley Scott does Ridley Scott better than anyone. Give him a good script and watch him fly. They're both excellent, they don't need to compete. Be glad 2049 ever got made (similarly with Dune really).

chii 5y ago

2049 beats the original in cinematography imho - much better atmosphere and backdrops, despite the story being "simpler" (which, i actually prefer tbh). The original was a b-grade movie that was well made even with limited resources. 2049 is a Hollywood level high production value movie that can be enjoyed on the surface level, as well as have some intellectual meat in it.

mackrevinack 5y ago

i prefer 2049, but i only saw the original a year before. i thought there was a lot of cringeworthy stuff that hasn't aged well. some of the soundtrack, dialog etc.