/lit/ - Literature

>>16336567
Not all of it's sequels are crap milking of the franchise Anon.

>>16336567
I disagree with your criticism anon, Herbert takes excruciatingly long to arrive at a point he might as well have laid bare in the first 150 pages. I enjoyed the ending, although it has too much of the “and then EVERYONE IN THE BOOK is in ONE PLACE” which makes the climax feel distant and impersonal

that’s a taste thing, though. I generally dislike rapid perspective switching in fiction

Yikes.

Is there a bigger enemy to cinema than this man? All of his “films” are bombarded with pseudo imitations of other directors: Prisoners is a blatant remake of David Fincher’s Zodiac. Enemy borrows elements from Alfonso Cuaron’s Prisoner of Azkaban, and Arrival, the biggest offender of all, plagiarizes the moody peril that comfortably resided in Christopher Nolan’s Insomnia. Don’t forget about Sicario either, which is a shamelessly nuanced attempt to hijack the cinematic language of Michael Bay’s Bad Boys 2.

Denis Villeneuve doesn’t contain a single original thought. Blade Runner 2049 was a culmination of hackery and evident of the intellectual dullness of his previous films. The man is simply a proficient illusionist. He knows who to surround himself with. For instance, he employs the likes of Roger Deakins to photograph his movies with IMDBlike sensibilities in order to hijack the approval of impressionable film buffs looking for the next piece of “cinema” to fawn over. Then he calls up Ryan Gosling, still enjoying the indie spoils of his Drive fame, in order to drown 2049 in arthouse approval.

And Dune is next on the menu.

Denis’s Dune will receive the same cultural reception as George Lucas’ Star Wars prequels, Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides having a strikingly similar casting notion as Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker. The prequels can be forgiven as misguided art though. Dune will be the anti-thesis of that, a film crafted by a hack at the peak of his illusionist abilities.

Villeneuve is a miserable hack whose movies are propped up entirely by Deakins meme cinematography which gets the r/movies and IMDB pleb crowd all hot and bothered. It is the death knell of Cinema. One of the biggest trashmasters working today, a hack's hack. This is hot pocket the director. Cheeto dust: the man.

His flicks are a bad joke; an insult to the filmic medium; a gob of spit aimed at all that is good and great about filmmaking. Another polished post-fincher gritty popcorn director.

>>16336567
>>Story seems to quickly jump to the last act to rap up the story
>>Book still ends abruptly and story feels unfinished
read dune messiah for closure

>>16336595
the biggest sin he did was turning kynes into a nigress

>>16336595
this isn’t >>>/tv/ but film really isn’t suited to tell stories in the first place, or at least in the 100+ years of film theory, it’s still very bad at telling stories. film is primarily photography, and yeah as long as Villenoov’s got Deakins I don’t really give a shit. Pretty pictures go brr

>>16336616
Blade Runner 2049 is a standard shitty scifi flick that imitates arthouse aesthetics. It's the $20 Patek Phillipe imitation, the Chrysler 300 with Bentley badge, Ready Player One wrapped in Ulysses dust cover. A film by fedora for fedoras. It's the quintessential pseud movie. A pedestrian easily accessible scifi story covered in several coats of artistic cinematography and featuring just enough quasi-philosophical meandering to turn away both the ones looking for a fun flick and those looking for serious kino - it has become the Holy Grail of pseuds. Quite obviously more mentally stimulating than capeshit, yet never as much as to take the viewer out of the comfort zone of the usual evergreen scifi questions and babby's first existential crisis - it's the perfect cultural artifact to attach to for someone desperately longing for the image of "thinking man" or "cinephile", while not actually being interested in challenging their own thoughts or developing authentic taste. It's a movie for smart-but-lazy dropouts, for young adults who sincerely use the word "normie", for men with "So it goes" tattoos rereading Hitchhiker's Guide for the third time, for community college freshmen that write posts starting with "as an engineer", for "I love Nietzsche! Nihilism, fuck yeah!" people, for those that have buried themselves so deep in irony so they can't even be honest with themselves anymore. The sort who will make fun of ham-fisted Black Mirror VR episodes in one thread and expunge upon "deep" connotations of holographic waifu in 8000 character multiposts in another, the sort who get off on reddit gold received for their standard issue incoherent teenage "philosophizing" dreck spiced with 'human condition' and 'Hegelian dialectic', the enlightened-by-their-own-intelligence crowd. The painful kind of self-aware capeshit swine that constantly whines about the death of cinema while watching nothing but Hollywood and dismissing everything else as "pretentious".

Villeneuve manufactures films for the low-brow audience who favor cheap ideals of entertainment over artistic merit. His films have just enough stylized gimmickry (the putrid, flat digital, the piss-filters aka grading, the hot-topic cinematographers, etc) to pass off as something above-average to the average moviegoer, from which such people can pat themselves on the back for having sat through their idea of cinema.

Every frame in Blade Runner 2049 encapsulates the utter definition of dishonesty that I’ve almost come to the conclusion that the movie is a stealth parody film. The other day I tried to rewatch it in order to get a better grasp of the thing and I had to turn it off because I started vomiting profusely, the aura of faux-craftsmanship becoming a concoction of dishonesty my stomach could no longer bear.

>>16336616
films can tell good stories.
it's just modern cinema is too expensive and to make profit you need to appeal to literally everyone adults, children, minorities, so films lose focus and quality. they become bland massproduced consumer good

>>16336627
in some respects, I agree. Dick is my favorite sci-fi author, and the source material for this “Blade Runner” franchise is failed by its complete dereliction of many of Dick’s core themes (the importance of empathy, the immorality of police as a weapon wielded by the state) so it can tell a story about doom and coom.

but cmon, there are giant tiddy statues. it’s pedestrian no doubt, but if you consider that as something other than unequivocal garbage, the images are still novel in their own extremely crass and sensually offensive character. calling it “$20 Patek” hits the nail on the head, but one can appreciate the effort, however slight, put toward creating the fakery

>>16336653
The main theme; the works of Villenueve as participant as poet in Blade Gunner 2059. The subject is interpolated into a dishonestitarian resituationism that includes reality as a videogamed spline. In this thought corpus, the main concept fugilates the distinction between feminine and masculine. The neodialectic paradigm of postmillennial subaffectation perpetuating as a faux-nihilist praxis beats to the tune of a stylized drum. It is expression to denote not theory, but posttheory. In a sense, if /tv/'s consensus reading holds, we will have to choose between the opportunity of a post-masturbatory realism and the neotextual paracrime of Blade Gunner the basedquel, which unfortunately is all that the neo-ur-machine hypothesized in the new unchemized Materix projected onto an endlessly receding, almost no longer 'there' screen of quasi-80s fantasism can offer de jure.

Blade Runner 2049 failed in every aspect of its being. The film is so forgotten, so virtually void to the cinephile psyche that the peak of its contemporary existence is being used as a relatable meme for the wannabe incel culture that now plagues the internet. Denis Villeneuve’s dishonest antics behind the camera are masked by the “LOOK I’M SHOOTING COLORS” cinematography of Roger Deakins and the indie-arthouse clout possesed by Ryan Gosling. Blade Runner 2049 isn’t so much a film but a masterful assembly of what is perceived to be a “good film” by a proficient illusionist that has learned to incorporate the real virtues of film into a mask meant to entrance wannabe enthusiasts of cinema.

This film is a betrayal to the entire essence of the artform and its continued attempts at being solidified with the greats of cinema by nu-IMDB posers is a cancer that must be extinguished.

Did anyone else feel lied to watching 2049? How much longer will simulation physics rendered as proto bioshock aesthetic be praised as affecting art? (Especially when the only audience responding to 2049 are the neurotic vilenueve sycophants high on neo imdb idoltry?)
Vileneuve vandalises art to peddle pseudo avant garde video game hysteria, it appeals to the emasculated neuroticism of vileneuve sycophants, whilst 'pulling a fast one' on its aesthetic authenticity, result in a garish makeup of style over video game subterfuge.

Denis Villeneuve doesn’t contain a single original thought. Blade Runner 2049 was a culmination of hackery and evident of the intellectual dullness of his previous films. The man is simply a proficient illusionist. He knows who to surround himself with. For instance, he employs the likes of Roger Deakins to photograph his movies with IMDBlike sensibilities in order to hijack the approval of impressionable film buffs looking for the next piece of “cinema” to fawn over. Then he calls up Ryan Gosling, still enjoying the indie spoils of his Drive fame in order to drown 2049 in arthouse approval.

>>16336627
you are actually the pseud for thinking anything in BR2049 is remotely “artistic” or even trying to be. it’s a blockbuster film and better than another capeshit movie.

>>16336567
I haven't read the books myself, but according to this chart, the 2nd book serves as an epilogue to the first, and it's not too long.