I hated that movie the first to I saw it. I was bored with it.
Now I love it. I really enjoy how much time they spend establishing the atmosphere and characters. It all feels very real and has depth.
I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere and then hurries along with their paper characters and so on. So much sci fi I encounter now feels little more than a long trailer with no idea how to end.
Now that I think about it, the first time I watched it, I was a little bored with it, too. It was hyped up so much that I think I was expecting something very plot-heavy that moved quickly and was mind-blowing that way.
Since that first viewing, some 20 years ago, I've watched it a few more times without those initial expectations and really love it. I love slow-paced films where you can really soak up the atmosphere. That kind of thing isn't for everyone, though, so I can see why others wouldn't enjoy it.
> I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere and then hurries along with their paper characters and so on.
Post-Blade-Runner movies can spend less time developing their aesthetic and setting specifically because they can "import" the Blade Runner vibe "by reference", as it were, while Blade Runner had to build up the whole thing from scratch.
To fair, importing a setting this way isn't necessarily lazy: doing so allows the derivative film maker to spend more time on the things that make his film unique. There's only so long an audience will tolerate.
This is also a film that most people probably have to watch 2–3 times to really understand the whole plot (much less notice all of the symbolism, etc.).
I tend to recommend to people who've not seen it, to watch the Theatrical Cut first. Then watch The Final Cut, and keeping watching The Final Cut, and never re-watch the Theatrical.
The Theatrical Cut obviously adds the narration, which for first-timers helps with the comprehension. However once you know the story. The Final Cut is just pure bliss and I never tire of it.
The Final Cut of the movie ruins the original look of the film. I'm amazed more people haven't commented on this. For example, compare the shot of the outside of Chew's lab:
I'm the other way around. I loved the atmosphere and the slow pace when I first saw it. But ever since I read the book I can't enjoy it the same way. I feel it just doesn't do it justice.
I love the movie. And I enjoyed the book many years later. But they are completely different. The book has an atmosphere of 1950 dry, dusty, empty suburbia and deals a lot with the status of owning real pets and what real really means.
The movie is literary much darker and takes place in a claustrophobic decaying chaos of a enormous city. I has the slow pace of a 1940th film noir and while the theme of what real really entails is central, it just one part in the whole vision.
I'm another way around: I read the book then watch the movie not long after. I slept.
And everytime I try to watch it I get bored quick.
I think I would have much more apreciate it, the atmosphere et all, if I hadn't read the book before. And I realy regret it because I know it's a good movie.
The book has a level emotional depth of that is not matched in the film. The first dialogue between Deckhart and his wife (yes he is married in the book) is really clever and meta. I was extremely disappointed by the film (I first saw it 2 years ago) and it feels very dated and has that 80s men-women cringe-portrayal. I agree, read the book it is awesome!
I watched it the other day, along with its recent 2049 sequel, and felt much teh same thing about its portrayal of women. Really ... dated. There is so much stuff that is emotionally more intelligent these dayson Netflix or Amazon.
I still enjoyed both films but that aspect of them (both) really sucked.
He's one of my favorite authors. While he wrote a lot of great science fiction my favorite of his works is "The Man in the High Castle". It's quite different. No space travel or aliens. It follows a few different characters in an alternate history world where the axis won WW2.
I've tried to watch the movie multiple times, always get bored in the beginning and abort early. Once tried to watching with a friend and we were both bored fairly quickly.
To be fair I don't watch movies / TV shows often because I have a low attention span for this stuff, but this is a movie I really wanted to like because I love the genre, but it's too slow paced for me. I do know that pacing was generally slower in older movies (eg. I recently watched "Roman Holiday" because so many older people love that one, and found it incredibly slow).
Obviously not a mind blowing suggestion and cinemaphiles will recoil at the idea but have you tried watching it at 1.5 speed?
I watch some stuff like this because while the Directors vision might require 3 breaths to get the point across I am happy to accept the premise being suggested in 3 seconds. Cinema is a communication medium, not a recreation or simulation of events.
Spot on. Not a movie to watch for the plot. True to the source in this. With Philip K. Dick's novels, reading for the "story" alone is totally missing the point.
Same for the Prime TV series, The Man in the High Castle. Again, true to the source in that the plot is moth-eaten lacework, but who cares? The world-building is great.
It is possible, of course, that you saw an inferior cut of the film. It's notorious for having been recut several times over the years. The Final Cut is the one to watch.
I just saw the movie for the first time and had quite some expectations. It was the directors cut. And while the overall setting was interesting and there were quite good scenes in it, for me it was just too long and I found it quite boring. Mainly the awfully stretched fight at the end put me off.
Not sure if I should or want to revisit it after some time. As I also did not really find the sequel that convincing.
But it got me thinking in what people see in these movies which I can’t.
I accidentally started rewatching a different cut after having only ever watched the final cut. When that noir style voice over started going, I was so confused. It was so bad I was sure it couldn’t have been part of the film I had previously enjoyed. Researching it after lead me to the same conclusion as you.
Same for me- I also found it boring the first time. Or rather, I found it amazing, but the final battle comes a bit too late. After rewatching I kind of learned where the lulls are, and tend to break it up around those.
I saw it on opening day in 1982. I was pretty disappointed in it. But the original theatrical release was actually not good, and really did need the re-edits. Maybe not six re-edits, but still.
There are three things that are important to the movie.
- Pacing so you don't get bored.
- Thematic depth
- Atmosphere
A lot of pretentious people like to ignore pacing as if their brains are made up of pure IQ and anything related excitement is beneath them. Make no mistake, we are all human and we all get bored. Pacing is important and it takes a lot of effort (and intelligence) for a director to maintain that level of momentum for a movie.
Let's face it, Blade runner really screwed up with pacing. Ultra slow pacing is understandably sort of required for the atmosphere but while it scores very very very highly in the other areas; there is absolute truth to the statement when someone says that movie is in general quite slow and boring. If your brain is too big to comprehend why Blade runner even has the possibility of being boring then I'm likely too stupid to be communicating with you, you should go read other comments of higher intelligence.
The MCU scores highly in pacing and probably is the greatest paced franchise of all time, with 10 years of momentum and a payoff unlike anything ever seen before in cinema. But because of pretension, in general a certain crowd looks at the entire franchise with disdain; even though it's actually much harder and challenging to create good pacing then many of the more serious thematically deep movies I've seen out there.
Inception would be movie that on average has the best high balance on all three pillars. Good pacing, thematically deep, well established professional/corporate atmosphere. Though I would say in terms of theme and atmosphere, while quite high, it's not quite high enough to get past certain pretentious attitudes. I would even argue that sometimes if the pacing is too good, the movie becomes too popular and thus "not good" to the elite crowd.
At the same time, sometimes if the pacing is too good, the themes and atmosphere get copied by dozens of other movies. The audience sees too much of it and becomes more sophisticated. Now the stuff that use to be high concept to the general audience becomes quite boring. Directors and movies producers are always playing catch up to increase sophistication and bring you stuff you've never seen before.
@duxup, I think this is what's happening to you. Bladerunner is so boring that it wasn't copied too much. But the other sci-fi stuff get copied to hell and now the cookie cutter sameness doesn't do it for you anymore. So you turn to the thing that's most different.
"Let's face it" - anyone who brings their preferences to the table as indisputable truths held by all reasonable, i.e. non "pretentious", folk, could probably do with some long expository chats with other film fans in a good cafe around the corner from a good cinema.
There are things that are general truths though. Opinions held by such a high majority of people that such opinions are very close to the truth in the sense that often people talk about such opinions without using "speculative" adjectives.
I would say the things that I talk about in my post belong to those "general truths." I would also say fans of Blade Runner don't belong to the majority crowd. Their opinions are well outside mainstream and they <often> view that sort of opinion as superior. I personally view that sort of opinion as "alternative" and I despise people who view it as "superior."
Not saying you are such a person, nor many of the people on HN. But you have to admit; such a crowd does exist.
So to summarize: you despise fans of the original Blade Runner because they so often view their own opinions as superior. And you see no irony in this. Got it.
That's very closed minded of you to say that. Because I never said this.
Probably a better way to put it is this. If you like Blade Runner AND the MCU, or at least understand why from a mainstream perspective the MCU is a work of art that stands on the same level as blade runner, then I don't despise you.
If you like Blade runner and you hate all forms of movies that are mainstream blockbusters like star wars, MCU, or all the other stuff and think those things are beneath you... then yes... in that case I despise you. I actually think you don't have the sophistication to see why mainstream cinema is just as great if not often greater then the obscure stuff.
It's easy to hate the mainstream. It's enlightenment to like the mainstream after hating it. Those elitest people are just at level 2. They don't realize there's a third level that brings you back full circle.
I would know I watched hundreds and hundreds of movies. More then your average person and I started at a very young age.
> A quality that makes a film commercially successful is not automatically a quality which makes a film great art.
Agreed? Why are you telling me something I completely agree with?
>Popular is popular. Art is art.
The problem here is that for people like you, most of the time:
"Popular is NOT art",
it's this elitist attitude that "art" is above what is "popular" that I hate. We divide wealth into classes and now we have to divide tastes. Looks like your part of the 1%.
>Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
May I ask why you decided to write some stuff in French for no fucking reason? Pretty low likelihood that I'm French or readers on HN are French so what's your goal here with putting some French here?
It's like a cartoon. You're not trying to sound elitist but your genius French kinda shows the world how elitist your headspace is. Wow French!, we're dealing with a true art critic here folks.
I'm not art critic enough to know even half of what's been written about the meaning of this painting, but I know that it's considered significant, and I immediately recognized the reference.
Can't speak for him, but I guess the reason for including it may have been as an example of a work that was decidedly not Popular but (after much discussion) very much Art.
The other thing it could be used for is as a reminder to not mistake the map for the territory, but I don't see that fitting into this discussion so it's probably not that.
The Treachery of Images, as I understand it, is a visual/linguistic joke on the multiple definitions of being.
By distilling language down to a most basic, simplified statement, the artist (Magritte) is seducing the viewer into a first impression ("This is a pipe") and then contradicting it, on the basis that a picture of a pipe cannot be used for anything which a pipe can (e.g. smoking).
So yes, similar lines to the Borges map fable.
I included it because at a base level, parent seems to be stubborn about the definition of terms, on which it seemed to opine.
See this here with more French when I obviously called you on it is called trolling.
Nobody look up that French or ask about it... it's a trap so he can lord it over you with an authoritative expose and explanation of his expansive knowledge of French wisdom while eating a croissant.
Try to stop assuming that everybody here shares your exact experiences and background. English has acquired many loan words and phrases from French and many people from British and Commonwealth backgrounds learned some French at school, to the extent that Franglais is both a joke in itself and used to make jokes. Saying "I don't speak French" in French is that sort of absurdist/wry joke, not the least because often that is the about only thing a traveller learns of a foreign tongue - how to apologise for not speaking it and to ask whether they speak English.
So although I'm a monoglot Kiwi I'm neither baffled nor insulted by a snippet of French, and although I know little of the history of art the fame of that surrealist painting precedes it. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" has passed from being a painting to a concise reference to an idea, and like all jargon its succinctness is both useful for those familiar with the field and can be forbidding for those who don't.
Most people don't know about this painting nor do most people know French... I'm sure you and him are aware of that.
It could be that whatever the painting represents fits his point. But you have to look deeper then that because he is fully aware that most people on this site don't know about that painting nor do they know French. So why post it at all? His intent definitely wasn't communicating anything understandable to anyone here.
I'm Chinese, so if quoted some famous quote from Confucius, and to top if off I wrote that quote in Chinese, then of course my intention isn't communication. I know most people on HN can't read Chinese, so then why would I include the quote?
I would have included it to make myself look intelligent, educated and well versed in Chinese philosophy. This is basically the gist of what's going on here.
The alternative is he just didn't have the brains to realize this is an English site and most people don't speak french nor do they have an understanding of French paintings.
I would say the former reason is much more likely then the later.
That's why I said it's almost like a cartoon. I'm talking about elitism in movie tastes and here someone tries to counter that claim with a carbon copy circus act of exactly the snobbery I'm talking about. I don't think he picked up on it, and hopefully this explanation helps you realize what I'm talking about.
I've been following this thread, and you seem sincere and not trolling, so I will share with you that I think most people reading this thread can tell you are missing something big. It's OK not to understand everything, but to say you despise people who claim to understand something you don't us... actually despicable.
This site is for people to discuss and learn, and curiosity is basically a core value of it. It's OK to be young and immature if you are also curious.
BTW, if you share a Chinese saying that people can Google and be educated and delighted by, I think it would be welcomed. Even in Chinese.
Lol we both know the intention here was snobbery. Just reference the painting in English instead of communicating with terminology everyone has to Google.
Your very narrow minded to assume that just because someone has a different opinion then you it's from a person younger then you.
In fact talking to someone in such a patronizing tone isnt itself exactly the overly polite tone dang seems to ask for from users on HN. I offer hard controversial opinions with no cushion, you treat me like a child lol. We are both bending the rules here.
If you ever raised a child past his teens, you will know treating a teen like a child, patronizing him is not only a surefire way of making that person your enemy, but it's also wrong and in itself very immature. Shit like "it's ok to be curious and immature when your young" is raw venom cleverly disguised as advice. I will tell you the truth. By saying shit like this you display both immaturity and you show that you are manipulative. Immaturity can be "fixed", manipulation cannot. Don't fuck with me bro.
>BTW, if you share a Chinese saying that people can Google and be educated and delighted by, I think it would be welcomed. Even in Chinese.
The proper way to do this would be to share it in English, and explain it. Thats proper communication. Leaving it in Chinese and expecting you to Google it is a very unnatural thing to do by someone who's intention is to communicate. So obviously there's a secondary intention here.
What this person is doing raw snobbery. You just happen to likely agree with this persons initial opinions on blade runner and the MCU, so during your little team up here your supporting his every move his every tactic, however obviously snobbish.
My tip for you is to always stay neutral. This is the internet so unique to the internet you can take a position where you Have no allies and have no enemies and only offer your raw opinions for everyone to agree and disagree with. At times everyone can disagree with you, at other times everyone agrees with you.
If you find that everyone is agreeing with you all the time... then you're just not a very original person and your not learning anything.
When I offer a controversial opinion occasionally I'm flipped. I'm changed. The other side convinces me and my entire outlook on a topic moves to another dimension. That's what I live for and that's why I offer hard hitting opinions. Because I want people to offer them back.
I will actually apologize for being patronizing. I was annoyed by your tone, and after careful consideration, I hit enter on a post that I knew would annoy you back. I shouldn't have.
Hard and controversial opinions with no cushion are fun in person with a friend. That's not what this place is. We need more nuance in our discussions, not less. It's not as fun, but it is more constructive, and it helps us see other people's points of view instead of making it into a contest.
I will say, I have no idea how old you are, and you have no idea how old I am. But whether I am 15 or 50, my words speak for themselves, as do yours.
Hum. The reality is that almost every big budget movie today is targeted at a international teenage audience. And goes for the lowest common denominator across the US, Europe and Asia. That doesn’t leave much for originality and atmosphere. Superheros with cartoonish SFX and violence, violence and violence. And some occasional fart jokes. That’s pretty much it.
No the reality is many big budget films are targeted towards AS MANY PEOPLE AS possible. It doesn't make business sense to target one demographic. Business people target qualities that hit as many demographics as possible.
In short you could say that the mainstream general audience is what the big budget move is target-ted towards.
Something like the MCU which is over a decade old doesn't fit your thinking. If the first movie IRON MAN, which "targetted teens" is a decade old then most of those teens who watched END GAME that another movie that targeted the people who watched the first iron man are no longer teens. They aged out. If iron man targetted teens then end game didn't. So most likely all these super hero blockbusters are just targeting all demographics. Don't be so shallow in thinking that only teens are "dumb" enough to like super hero movies. Plenty of other demographics and "smart" people appreciate blockbuster entertainment.
End game had clear nostalgia references to people who watched the first iron man and his death only had emotional meaning to those who followed him for over a decade. Younger people in fact tend to think of the MCU as stupid, because iron man came out when they were too young to be interested. I've found people in their early 20s have this attitude and I'm guessing that's you. To me someone in their 20s is practically a teen.
Older people appreciate the MCU because their memory stretches back further. They don't see the MCU as a decade of cookie cutter copies because that decade only takes up a tiny fraction of their own cinematic life time. They see that everything that came before the MCU was different and the MCU is unique. Meanwhile young people who've seen the MCU all their lives see it as stupid because that's all they've seen their entire short lives.
Maybe. The problem is the majority of the population has the exact same taste I'm talking about. Everyone loves summer blockbusters while Bladerunner is a niche.
So am I rationalizing something or am I trying to explain something to a stubborn elitist minority?
I think we're both intelligent enough to know that the later reason is the actual reality and that I'm not the one actually rationalizing things.
Top Gun just crossed a billion dollars, and while I haven't seen it, I'm sure the pacing is frenetic as fuck. Nobody needs to rationalize a billion dollars, but somebody definitely needs to justify a niche movie like blade runner.
Top Gun Maverick’s pacing, while nowhere as meandering as its ‘80s predecessor, was actually not frenetic until perhaps the terminal velocity climax. It’s a very character-based film, not only a special effects extravaganza. It harkens to a slightly older type of action flick.
I'm just reusing the other guys' terminology. In general I'm just talking about the pacing of blockbusters, and the guy said I'm rationalizing really bad movies with "frenetic" pacing.
I think your definition of frenetic is different from his. When he's talking about frenetic, he's talking about the new Top Gun and MCU blockbusters and such and such. He thinks that level of momentum is bad and too way too quick, which is a deviant opinion from most of the general audience who loves these blockbusters.
I get what you're saying (I worked in fiom and tv for eons before switching out), but you can't really do it like that. Comparison needs to include both what the movie was built on, leading to it, and then also to consider directors own body of work leading to it. That takes into account period of work and release as well. What came after (not immediately) is not relevant to the work itself since it's out of period (in future). To even start talking in this direction you'd have to invoke, serially, works like Clockwork Orange, American Graffiti, Taxi Driver, and then Midnight Express to even start outlining the silhouette of what is to come.with Blade Runner.. and that's just a start since Ridley Scott's path is a bit unusual, and that movie's genesis especially so (see Legend he did sonce it's close to the period). That only covers the basics of the basics of discussing of what and specifically why this particular work is the way it is and why emulating the moves later (2049) didn't yield the same.
Edit: typing on mobile. Screw it, I hope it's at least somewhat readable.
Excellent comment. Makes me feel "less guilty" for being bored to bits by Blade Runner (and 2001, similarly). I "feel guilty" because I consider myself a big sci fi fan, and while they are visually brilliant movies, they just drag ass. I have see why they are widely acclaimed in concept, but also felt like I was not not "getting" something.
The new Dune is long, dense, cerebral, visually brilliant, but is paced way better in my opinion. There's a continuous forward drive.
De-emphasizing pacing is just as bad as de-emphasizing any other important facet of cinema. But we have this dichotomy that action is "cheap" and not as "smart", because it has wider appeal.
I think neurotype plays a lot into this. I have ADHD, and the snobby cousin comment about "digital detox" is exactly the elitist garbage that rubs me the wrong way. It attaches value to "not being bored" as if that's something I have control over.
Remember, it's "elitist" because the people who think this way are in the minority. Your and my preferences are actually the norm, just not in this thread. Most people will get bored and that is completely normal.
Although I will say that I can empathize with why people like blade runner. The good parts are good, but the mainstream audience just places a higher bar on pacing.
I also suspect that many people in the "elitist" group also get bored. They just don't admit it.
I agree with some of this, including that there is value in a pacy story.
But there are some stories that simply take time to be told. And if you keep trying to hit plot points or make every moment superficially entertaining, you won't be able to tell certain types of stories.
Nowadays, when a movie is critically acclaimed and I am bored watching it, I actually get excited. What is it about this movie, that I'm bored by right now, has gotten so many people so excited??? This attitude has gotten me into many movies that I love that I don't think I would have had the patience for as a child or young adult.
The same attitude has led me to spend most of my reading time on classic literature, which has also been a blessing.
I'm sure this comes off as pretentious, but I assure you it is not.
"Pretentious- attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."
I care about other people and want them to share in the beauty of the world. When the importance actually exists, it's not pretentious.
What I find pretentious is when you love the slower stuff but hate all the popular stuff and dismiss pacing as even a relevant factor.
Many many people have this attitude and they actually dismiss MCU stuff as raw garbage, too base level for their intellectual tastes.
I repeat. Your post is not pretentious to me at all. It's what I come here for. Thank you.
I agree with you there are movies that require a huge slow as hell build up in order to deliver a huge pay off. I agree and I like those movies despite the slow pacing. But those movies imo would benefit from better pacing regardless. I've seen people quit watching before the payoff and forever have their opinion of that movie forever tainted.
> comprehend why Blade runner even has the possibility of being boring then I'm likely too stupid to be communicating with you
Step away from the sugar drinks and try a digital detox. :-)
People paid to see Vangelis sound and light shows, when there wasn’t even a movie rolling. Surely with a movie attached, the sound and light isn’t that dull?
Buried in that thread is a pushback to your premise about MCU, a video that actually excerpts from Inception while taking down those “MCU scores” (pun intended) in particular.
Nobody can hum from Marvel movies because they play it safe (aka boring)!
I appreciated a quote from that discussion, tying back to your hypothesis: “People do not remember safe choices. Only bold, original music.”
Blade Runner wasn’t safe, though they almost ruined it with the release voice overs trying to make it safer…
Interestingly if you go down the rabbit hole, a reply video to that one points out the Star Wars theme everyone remembers was “copied to hell” from countless old movies before it. That response goes on to say the problem is, roughly, digital production sameness.
> there is absolute truth to the statement when someone says that movie is in general quite slow and boring
Well, no. Boredom comes from within. When you have too many thoughts, or too few, to focus, boredom happens.
Blade Runner is an experience, the pacing makes room to take it in. If you don’t open your mind to take it in, if your mind wanders off, or loses the plot, you will miss the excitement that builds from an authentic experience.
> Bladerunner is so boring that it wasn't copied too much. But the other sci-fi stuff get copied to hell
This line suddenly makes me wonder if you were just messing with us. Hmm.
Instead of engaging, here’s a bite sized listicle: How to Be Less Boring and Less Bored.
TL;DR: Lay off virtual sugar, digitally detox, open the mind…
- appreciate interestingness
- hang out with geeks
- enjoy quietude
- get out of a rut
- read long form
- try three things you’d never, three times each
- regain a sense of wonder
> Well, no. Boredom comes from within. When you have too many thoughts, or too few, to focus, boredom happens.
> TL;DR: Lay off virtual sugar, digitally detox, open the mind…
- appreciate interestingness
- hang out with geeks
- enjoy quietude
- get out of a rut
- read long form
- try three things you’d never, three times each
- regain a sense of wonder
> And remember, “Boring is as boring does!”
This is all rather patronizing and has some major wowthanksimcured vibes. Yes, I can overcome the nonlinearity of the response of my dopamine receptors by simply laying off "virtual sugar" and doing a "digital detox".
Bottom line: different people have different neurotypes, and folks are allowed to be bored or stimulated to various degrees by whatever media, without attaching value to how easily one is entertained, or not.
>TL;DR: Lay off virtual sugar, digitally detox, open the mind…
Probably hit a nerve here as I think you're one of THOSE elite-st people.
You missed the point. I understand the elitist crowd and where they come from and why they like what they like.
What I am saying is that they are too dismissive of mainstream opinions. There is no logical rule that says just because something is mainstream it sucks and just because something is not mainstream it's great.
>> Bladerunner is so boring that it wasn't copied too much. But the other sci-fi stuff get copied to hell
>This line suddenly makes me wonder if you were just messing with us. Hmm.
The contemplative tone in bladerunner is rarely copied, because the pacing is so slow. If you're talking about superficial aesthetics like the setting. Well I didn't realize you were so mainstream and that razzle & dazzle special effects mattered so much to you. Go watch the MCU for that sort of stuff. Yes those things have been copied to hell, but superficial aesthetics should be the least important thing according to your group think, no?
> - hang out with geeks
I'm the geek of geeks. I'm one level and one dimension above you. You can't comprehend the way I think because you haven't nerded out enough. I actually have a zero sugar diet. Z.E.R.O. Once you hit that level of discipline you reach enlightenment. I don't hang out with geeks, I'm what the geek worships and aspires to be.
> Probably a better way to put it is this. If you like Blade Runner AND the MCU, or at least understand why from a mainstream perspective the MCU is a work of art that stands on the same level as blade runner, then I don't despise you.
> If you like Blade runner and you hate all forms of movies that are mainstream blockbusters like star wars, MCU, or all the other stuff and think those things are beneath you... then yes... in that case I despise you.
Lovely.
> Go watch the MCU
FWIW, I own _and enjoyed in theater_ all the MCU films, and all the BR releases.
Great. Then you're not the elitist group I'm referring too. I'm basically talking about the difference between MCU style blockbusters and br. The pacing is a huge delta.
Now I love it. I really enjoy how much time they spend establishing the atmosphere and characters. It all feels very real and has depth.
I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere and then hurries along with their paper characters and so on. So much sci fi I encounter now feels little more than a long trailer with no idea how to end.