From: eichler2@comcastsucks.net   
      
   On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:18:08 -0400, mimus99  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:58:54 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 4/29/2019 1:38 PM, mimus99 wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:51:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 4/22/2019 4:34 PM, mimus99 wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> _ Blade Runner _ is one of my favorite movies of all time, with only two   
   >>>>> acts of mercy in the whole film, one by mistake (Gaff letting Rachel   
   live,   
   >>>>> thinking she was lifespan-limited).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So I finally sat down with the DVD of _ Blade Runner 2049 _, and I tried,   
   >>>>> Ubiq knows I tried, to watch it, but I gave up after an hour and a half   
   >>>>> (into about 2:40).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In that time, and being as charitable as possible, there might've been a   
   >>>>> half-hour's worth of plot.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The eye-candy and score were both inferior to the original.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And everybody kept talking in these flat, hushed monotones all through,   
   >>>>> like they were in a fucking cathedral or something (and not one on fire).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> A treatment like this would've made even my suggested sequel, based on   
   >>>>> Cordwainer Smith's "The Dead Lady of Clown Town", dull.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I watched it last weekend also.  Total drivel.  There was no plot and I   
   >>>> did not understand the ending whatsoever.   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, one can always watch _ Alien Opponent _ (2010) again.   
   >>   
   >> I liked 'Blade Runner 2049'.  I didn't have any problem following the story.   
      
   Yeah, same here.  I thought it was a little longer and slower than it   
   needed to be (OK, a LOT longer and slower than it needed to be), but   
   the plot made sense and they did a nice job of capturing the look and   
   feel of the first film.   
      
      
   >I had no problem following the story, I was just bored, where not repelled   
   >by, say, the pathetic holographic relationship, and the casual and   
   >senseless knifing of a new replicant by our arch-villain (Tyrell II or   
   >wotever).   
      
   Yeah, the pointless killing just to show "this guy's really evil" was   
   a bit over the top.   
      
      
   >umpteen years later (which is what suggested TDLoCT to me as a good   
   >candidate for a basis for a sequel):   
   >   
   >Replicant rights!   
      
   Well, that's pretty much what the ending was pointing towards.  I   
   imagine that will be the main plot element of a third movie, if one   
   ever gets made.   
      
     -- Bob   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)