In 1982, when Ridley Scott brought replicants, or artificial humans, to the big screen in Blade Runner, I'm sure there were many people who thought it was an impossible scenario, but today I believe the balance has changed considerably.
The distance traveled by something that was dreamed of years ago should be a source of pride for those who dreamed of it and then scripted it and brought it to the big screen. Whether you call it a replicant, an artificial human or an android, it has sometimes frightening but at the same time awe-inspiring developments.
When you watch the 1982 film Blade Runner and its sequel, 2017's Blade Runner 2049, one after the other, you get a better understanding of the latest technological advances in cinema. The technology used in movies has improved tremendously and I can say that this improvement is mostly reflected in the image quality.
The fact that most of the movies still use the editing of the past, while there are huge improvements even in creating things that don't exist, may not be proof that there are difficulties in writing scripts and creating new fictions in the industry, but it may be the truth. It is true that technology is developing in every field, but since my topic is cinema, I will stick to my topic as much as possible.
The long journey between 1982 and 2017 has its advantages and disadvantages, which I take for granted. Blade Runner 2049 completely preserved its sequel quality. While the story continued from where it left off, it was pleasing for the audience that it provided new developments and became more gripping with new elements added to the story.
The first movie, Blade Runner, has an excellent script, and you understand this detail better in the sequel. I can say that the first movie is the substructure of the second movie, but I would like it to be known that I say this purely in terms of story. The visual and satisfying effects of the excellent story are reflected tremendously in the second movie.
When I compared the visuals of the first movie with the visuals of the second movie, it wasn't hard to understand that there was a huge difference between the two. The reason for this was, of course, the many years that had passed and the utilization of the last points reached in this process, both in terms of material and experience, as much as possible.
But despite everything and every advantage, the first movie was more satisfying in terms of script and acting. I can easily say that Harrison Ford, who plays Rick Deckard in both movies, is a superior actor, but I liked him more in the first movie. He successfully reflects the ebb and flow of his character with his appearance of having difficulties in making sense of what is happening.
My expectation was that he would be more successful in the second movie due to experience, but the opposite happened. This may be due to beginner's luck or it may be because he was overshadowed by the character of Officer K played by Ryan Gosling in the second movie. I also assume that some changes in the story that transformed the main character of the first movie into the shadow character of the second movie were effective.
For example, in Top Gun Maverick, the sequel to Top Gun, Tom Cruise's performance was the same because he was the main character in both movies. I think this example makes my point clearer. I am sure those who have seen both sequels will understand better.
In older movies, the actors' gestures and facial expressions on the character are more effective. While Harrison Ford did it better in the first movie, Ryan Gosling took the wheel in the second movie. Actually, as a viewer, I like to make this comparison in sequels.
Although we are just getting acquainted with the replicants in Blade Runner, we have the chance to examine detailed information and images about them in Blade Runner 2049. Although the replicants were kept a bit mysterious in the first movie, they were staged in crazy and anomalous scenes. In the second movie, they look completely human and are about to be given fertility, which is presented as the last stage of artificial humanity.
I liked the second movie very much in terms of visuals, both the appearance of the sexy replicants and the action scenes directly appeal to the eye. In terms of actor performances, Ryan Gosling does an excellent job. As he fulfills his mission, he evolves with every clue he finds. I was very curious about the reason for such an active character's love for the reflection while watching the movie, but I found it a shortcoming that the answer was not given at any moment of the movie. I tried to understand the reason for his love for the reflection until the last moment.
I highly recommend you to watch both movies, start with Blade Runner in 1982 and then move on to Blade Runner 2049. This way you will enjoy the series more and you will have the chance to compare both movies like I did. It's worth saying again, think of the first movie as the substructure of the second movie, because while the first movie is insufficient in terms of visuals and informativeness, you find the answers to the question marks in the second movie. Also, the first movie deserves to be watched a little more carefully as the beginning of the script and editing.
Thank you for being here and reading. I hope you enjoy the review and the movie. I wish everyone who will watch it a good time.
Blade Runner Fragman
Blade Runner 2049 Fragman
Hi @foryoubtc, great news! Your content was selected by curators @nalexadre, @ten-years-before to receive a special curation from BeBlurt 🎉 Don't hesitate to upvote this comment as the curators will receive 80% of the rewards for their involvement.
👉 What can you expect for 2024 on Blurt?
Win 85% rewards with myDelegation