Well, yeah, it's vapid popcorn trash. Feels like it was written by a woman.
Blade Runner IS the dumbed down memequel tardo
I don't understand why a common criticism of this movie is that it's "boring." It's a neo-noir, and for me the scenes are all pretty memorable from beginning to end, maybe with the exception of the JF Sebastian stuff.
Rutger Hauer is good, Harrison Ford is good, Rachael is a cute, the locations are all cool, the end is great, what did you not like about it? I think it's a way better movie than the sequel.
>I don't understand why a common criticism of this movie is that it's "boring."
It has nothing going on, no emotion, no heart. This movie is basically unedited footage of the ocean, the water moves but who cares. >Rachael is a cute
She's a 40yo woman playing a character described "she's too thin. No real development, especially in the bust. A figure like a child's, flat and tame". And she should be played by the same actress as Pris
cool trips, awful post. The emotion and heart is on display with Rachael and Roy, with Deckard at the end, and even with the snake girl on the run. It's fine if you don't find it compelling, but to say it's not there is to be filtered hard. Sorry.
I don't understand why a common criticism of this movie is that it's "boring." It's a neo-noir, and for me the scenes are all pretty memorable from beginning to end, maybe with the exception of the JF Sebastian stuff.
Rutger Hauer is good, Harrison Ford is good, Rachael is a cute, the locations are all cool, the end is great, what did you not like about it? I think it's a way better movie than the sequel.
> What did you not like about it?
It’s all style over substance bullshit that misses the point of the book. All the people saying it sucks cause it’s boring are wrong, the movie is bad because it’s substanceless slop. Even if you divorce the movie from the book it still doesn’t stand on its own either. The movie is substanceless slop and the fact you people are JUST now surprised Ridley is a hack when he made this trash is baffling. People enable shit like this and wonder why they get mediocre or shitty movies like Napoleon or Alien Covenant.
>people saying it sucks cause it’s boring are wrong, the movie is bad because it’s substanceless slop
it's boring exactly because it's substanceless slop pretending to have substance
Nah, the book sucks ass, the movie is way better.
There's only two cases in history where a movie is better than the original book, one is Blade Runner, the other is pic related. Don't (You) me.
I watched 2049 first and it turned me off from wanting to watch the original. Really glad i did though. It's so much fricking better. 2049 is complete slop, while the original is some of most atmospheric kino i've ever had the pleasure to witness.
The sequels does the whole "What it means to be human" theme a whole lot better. From falling in love with a program(Joi) to questioning his own creation. BR2049 is an existential crisis.
3 months ago
Anonymous
This is the biggest zoomer red flag possible. The original has this while being more suble and doing it 40 years beforehand with actual gritty cinematography
3 months ago
Anonymous
Doing the theme through the main character K is better than through a bunch of random replicants seeking their creator. K goes through a journey throughout the movie and you are right there with him experiencing what he is experiencing. Not knowing where he belongs or what his creation might have come from or mean.
And Joi as a love interest is so much better than Rachel. Falling in love with an AI is again, something you get to experience with K and is a real thing in our lifetime.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>doing it through the main character of le Ryan Gosling is just like me is so better
Please just stop you are cringe, the original is way better than the sequel no matter how good the sequel is
3 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't say the "he's just like me" I said you experience the story along side him rather than a bunch of background characters. You're just trying to be a gay.
you're incredibly wrong.
except I'm not.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The sequel ultimately thematically doesn't differ from the original besides Deckard finding his lost kid. If you think that part of it is interesting, otherwise as good as the movie is it doesn't do any other themes better than the original.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The idea of being born or being created and not knowing which one you were is a pretty great theme. You get this a little bit with Rachel but it's not really explored in depth.
Also again there is Joi. Falling in love with an AI is a pretty great (and soon to be relatable) theme. Especially with a character that may or may not be more or less human throughout the entire movie.
I don't understand why a common criticism of this movie is that it's "boring." It's a neo-noir, and for me the scenes are all pretty memorable from beginning to end, maybe with the exception of the JF Sebastian stuff.
Rutger Hauer is good, Harrison Ford is good, Rachael is a cute, the locations are all cool, the end is great, what did you not like about it? I think it's a way better movie than the sequel.
Probably one of the least boring movies I've seen. I fell in love after watching it for the first time and watched it 7 or 8 times during the next week or so.
I think I've seen three versions. Definitely final cut (a few times), original and probably international cut.
While the final cut is the best in terms of content, they fricked up the colors making everything blue (typical Blu Ray frickery), so the theatrical version actually looks better.
These days everyone has to be entertained every nanosecond by something. People don’t really smell the flowers. Any smelling of the flowers in some fictional world is boring. World building is boring.
>Feels like it was written by a woman >I agree, it's totally overrated. 2049 was overrated too but at least visually pleasing. >It really drags. Could take a half hour off, easy.
Turning a femme fatale seducing a bounty hunter like she's done many times before into whatever that shit was that happened in this movie feels like something a woman would write. Why does that scene even happen? There is no reason for them to meet up
cool trips, awful post. The emotion and heart is on display with Rachael and Roy, with Deckard at the end, and even with the snake girl on the run. It's fine if you don't find it compelling, but to say it's not there is to be filtered hard. Sorry.
>Rachael and Roy
Are androids, they don't have emotions. Why this movie is bad, the idiots involved didn't get it. They wanted to a stupid "a robot learns to love story" completely ruining it. Which is why it's loved by illiterates like you, you don't even realize how hard it misses
>Can you show a quote even implying they do?
How do you explain Roy's speech at the end, or his saving Deckard? How do you explain Rachael's reaction to finding out that she's a replicant? How do you explain the snake dancer replicant, or any of them for that matter, fighting so hard to survive? The replicants are shown to have emotions consistently, throughout the whole movie. Are you moronic?
>Are androids, they don't have emotions.
Sounds like this movie went straight over your head, which is weird because it's not a difficult movie to understand
>Sounds like this movie went straight over your head
I didn't watch this trash all the way through, could barely stand 15 minutes of it.
>quote
?
Bro, this is a movie. There's literally a scene showing Roy mourning Pris.
Oh, yeah, I didn't actually read what you wrote.
Yeah, again, this movie is bad because it misses the point. In the movie they are emotional beings which completely invalidates the entire story.
>Can you show a quote even implying they do?
How do you explain Roy's speech at the end, or his saving Deckard? How do you explain Rachael's reaction to finding out that she's a replicant? How do you explain the snake dancer replicant, or any of them for that matter, fighting so hard to survive? The replicants are shown to have emotions consistently, throughout the whole movie. Are you moronic?
>How do you explain Roy's speech at the end, or his saving Deckard
Bullshit made by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it >How do you explain Rachael's reaction to finding out that she's a replicant?
Bullshit made up by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it. In the actual story she knew the whole time, she's been fricking bounty hunters for years to get them out of the business >How do you explain the snake dancer replicant, or any of them for that matter, fighting so hard to survive?
Bullshit made up by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it. Deckard explicitly says a reason he hates androids is that they don't fight back, they just give up when cornered. They have no concern for any life even their own. >The replicants are shown to have emotions consistently, throughout the whole movie
Yes, this whole time I have been that that is why this is a bad movie. This is not supposed to be an "a robot learns to love" story but that's what idiots making this shit wanted so they did it anyway.
>replicants are like humans but don't have emotions >they clearly show a whole range of emotions
so what's the point
In the movie there is none because they completely ripped out all theme and plot mostly by, as you said, making the androids emotional beings.
But that's not how that scene plays out in the movie at all. It's how it is supposed to go but in the movie he is instigating and even if it was played correctly with her coming onto him there's no reason for him to hesitate. In the movie he doesn't have a wife at home.
>doing it through the main character of le Ryan Gosling is just like me is so better
Please just stop you are cringe, the original is way better than the sequel no matter how good the sequel is
They are equally shit.
This.
[...] > What did you not like about it?
It’s all style over substance bullshit that misses the point of the book. All the people saying it sucks cause it’s boring are wrong, the movie is bad because it’s substanceless slop. Even if you divorce the movie from the book it still doesn’t stand on its own either. The movie is substanceless slop and the fact you people are JUST now surprised Ridley is a hack when he made this trash is baffling. People enable shit like this and wonder why they get mediocre or shitty movies like Napoleon or Alien Covenant.
This, Blade Runner is mindless directionless emotionless trash only liked by illiterates. It is exactly the kind of thing that makes movies hated for dumbing down society
>boring
If anything it's too fast paced. Some scenes should be longer, like the one with Deckard drinking his alcohol looking at the city with the absolutely beautiful Blade Runner Blues in the background.
they exhibit a range of emotions and a drive for survival that exceeds that of mankind and is at least as authentic. They are "more human than human." It's a cautionary tale about mankind being lulled into a technologically-enabled passivity that is tantamount to being stripped of humanity.
>who says they don't have emotions?
The book this shit movie is ostensibly based on. If you take names from a book for a movie that is completely unrecognizable only illiterates will like it
>Sounds like this movie went straight over your head
I didn't watch this trash all the way through, could barely stand 15 minutes of it.
[...]
Oh, yeah, I didn't actually read what you wrote.
Yeah, again, this movie is bad because it misses the point. In the movie they are emotional beings which completely invalidates the entire story.
[...] >How do you explain Roy's speech at the end, or his saving Deckard
Bullshit made by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it >How do you explain Rachael's reaction to finding out that she's a replicant?
Bullshit made up by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it. In the actual story she knew the whole time, she's been fricking bounty hunters for years to get them out of the business >How do you explain the snake dancer replicant, or any of them for that matter, fighting so hard to survive?
Bullshit made up by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it. Deckard explicitly says a reason he hates androids is that they don't fight back, they just give up when cornered. They have no concern for any life even their own. >The replicants are shown to have emotions consistently, throughout the whole movie
Yes, this whole time I have been that that is why this is a bad movie. This is not supposed to be an "a robot learns to love" story but that's what idiots making this shit wanted so they did it anyway.
[...]
In the movie there is none because they completely ripped out all theme and plot mostly by, as you said, making the androids emotional beings.
>The book this shit movie is ostensibly based on. If you take names from a book for a movie that is completely unrecognizable only illiterates will like it
Like Stanley Kubrick movies? Why are you so bitter that sometimes movie adaptations depart from the source material, especially to express the voice of the person making the adaptation?
This.
[...] > What did you not like about it?
It’s all style over substance bullshit that misses the point of the book. All the people saying it sucks cause it’s boring are wrong, the movie is bad because it’s substanceless slop. Even if you divorce the movie from the book it still doesn’t stand on its own either. The movie is substanceless slop and the fact you people are JUST now surprised Ridley is a hack when he made this trash is baffling. People enable shit like this and wonder why they get mediocre or shitty movies like Napoleon or Alien Covenant.
The substance is there pretty clearly, even if it's different from the book. I like how you mention movies he made decades later instead of movies he made around the same time like Alien and The Duelists. Eat shit.
Bladerunner original is a really gorgeous film. It's incredibly boring though. Shit like this just drags on for way too fricking long. And it's ridiculous.
2049 has it's own great visual and a better theme. Also Joi.
>this not even three-minute scene establishing how technology of the future can be used in police work drags on for way too fricking long
shouldn't you be scrolling TikTok?
Blade runner is one of the best filters, if people like neither it's fine, but if they really hate the sequel while claiming to love the original, it's a dead giveaway that they try really hard to be cool and contrarian
Well, my fair moron, that would be because it alters the themes and motives of all the replicants as well as characters from the original movies, as well as having a moronic cartoon villain, obviously.
people aren't interested in talking about television and film here. They're interested in positing their opinion as fact, usually without support, and then attempting to make anybody that disagrees with them out to be either a chud or a leftist (depending on that person's political inclination) so they can cease to interact with them and feel like they've won
>This doesn't just depart from the source, it is completely unrecognizable as the same story. It removes characters and plotlines and the central conflict and every theme it doesn't cut completely it inverts.
This isn't a valid criticism. Plenty of movies are loose adaptations of other material and are great. The Shining, Apocalypse Now, Throne of Blood, etc. This is especially common with sci-fi movies and PKD adapatations: Total Recall, Minority Report, Starship Troopers.
>The movie doesn't have a fricking conflict.
Blade Runner needs to kill replicants.
I was gonna reply to the rest of your mind vomit posts but it's clear you're either being moronic or genuinely have an IQ in the room temperature range so I'll just keep it all under the umbrella of telling you that you got filtered hard
nta but who cares if it's unlike the book, it's called 'Bladerunner', not 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'. It's a different take on the material, big deal.
Also Blade Runner is certainly not a 'generic action movie', if you watched it then you'd know it's far too slow paced and devoid of action to arguably count as one.
>it's called 'Bladerunner', not 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'.
Because the director used a title from a book where it made sense instead of the title that made sense for this story. He was an idiot. Blade Runner sounds like the title of a story about smuggling weapons or medical supplies because IT IS the title of a story about smuggling medical supplies. >Also Blade Runner is certainly not a 'generic action movie
It certainly is.
why'd that anons posts get deleted?
A ban on a different board. It was a personal record, three bans for 1 thread
You hyperfixate on the literal aspect of the different titles and not the actual point, in that they're different and it's no big deal
As I said, it's far too slow paced and devoid of action, but you argue against what I said, you just said 'it is'
>the actual point, in that they're different and it's no big deal
Yes, it is a big deal. If this idiot wanted to make this shitty movie he could have without ripping off names from a book people like and a title with no relation to this story from a different book. If it's going to be an adaptation it should be >it's far too slow paced and devoid of action
Also devoid emotion and plot. It's just a popcorn action movie for idiots to seal clap at
>A ban on a different board. It was a personal record, three bans for 1 thread
are you a janny? how do you know that?
No, I got banned on a different board, I got three bans for 1 thread. Most I've had before is 2.
>If it's going to be an adaptation it should be
Why? He and writers adapted some of it, but also changed quite a bit, and they made a pretty popular original movie out of it that they and the cast gets praised for a lot and is recognized for being hugely influential on scifi following it. So why shouldn't he have done it?
I wonder if you think Ran being so different to King Lear is a big deal to you either >Also devoid emotion and plot. It's just a popcorn action movie for idiots to seal clap at
Once again you didn't explain how it's an action movie.
Blade Runner is a masterpiece and we will probably never see a movie again with such a lived in world. Mostly because modern cinema is so fricking uninspired. The sequel is pretty forgettable if I am being honest. I watched it but it didn't leave the same impression as the original
Go watch the dumbed down memequel with Gosling, its probably more your speed.
Well, yeah, it's vapid popcorn trash. Feels like it was written by a woman.
Blade Runner IS the dumbed down memequel tardo
>I don't understand why a common criticism of this movie is that it's "boring."
It has nothing going on, no emotion, no heart. This movie is basically unedited footage of the ocean, the water moves but who cares.
>Rachael is a cute
She's a 40yo woman playing a character described "she's too thin. No real development, especially in the bust. A figure like a child's, flat and tame". And she should be played by the same actress as Pris
cool trips, awful post. The emotion and heart is on display with Rachael and Roy, with Deckard at the end, and even with the snake girl on the run. It's fine if you don't find it compelling, but to say it's not there is to be filtered hard. Sorry.
>memequel
literally have a nice day.
it's objectively better and has a much greater argument to make than the boomer tier "but what if we le made synthetic humans" self-masturbatory slop.
This board is literally worthless and has top tier shit taste.
Just a handful of really loud homosexuals like OP.
Yeah its slop
It's really not that good
book is better
ridley is a hack
This.
> What did you not like about it?
It’s all style over substance bullshit that misses the point of the book. All the people saying it sucks cause it’s boring are wrong, the movie is bad because it’s substanceless slop. Even if you divorce the movie from the book it still doesn’t stand on its own either. The movie is substanceless slop and the fact you people are JUST now surprised Ridley is a hack when he made this trash is baffling. People enable shit like this and wonder why they get mediocre or shitty movies like Napoleon or Alien Covenant.
>people saying it sucks cause it’s boring are wrong, the movie is bad because it’s substanceless slop
it's boring exactly because it's substanceless slop pretending to have substance
the substance is there, not even hard to see. you either got filtered or are bitter for some totally separate reason
Nah, the book sucks ass, the movie is way better.
There's only two cases in history where a movie is better than the original book, one is Blade Runner, the other is pic related. Don't (You) me.
I watched 2049 first and it turned me off from wanting to watch the original. Really glad i did though. It's so much fricking better. 2049 is complete slop, while the original is some of most atmospheric kino i've ever had the pleasure to witness.
+ the investigation
+ the music
+ sean
I couldn’t have cared less about the miracle girl and that was what the whole movie was about
miracle girl?
I watched it for 40 minutes and noped out once the little toy robots showed up. Slow, boring, meandering trash?
Oh, and guess what? Citizen Kane isn't the greatest movie ever made. It's fine. It's watchable. But there's better. Nyeh.
It doesn't matter what you think
This one movie destroys Christopher Nolan's entire filmography. Saying otherwise is reddit.
>Fart is better than Poop
Ok
Anon nobody was talking about the kind of art you make
Oh yeah because redditors absolutely despise BR
They suck off Nolan to unseen levels.
they think the sequel is better
And they're right
the sequel literally does nothing better than the original besides ana's breasts
The sequels does the whole "What it means to be human" theme a whole lot better. From falling in love with a program(Joi) to questioning his own creation. BR2049 is an existential crisis.
This is the biggest zoomer red flag possible. The original has this while being more suble and doing it 40 years beforehand with actual gritty cinematography
Doing the theme through the main character K is better than through a bunch of random replicants seeking their creator. K goes through a journey throughout the movie and you are right there with him experiencing what he is experiencing. Not knowing where he belongs or what his creation might have come from or mean.
And Joi as a love interest is so much better than Rachel. Falling in love with an AI is again, something you get to experience with K and is a real thing in our lifetime.
>doing it through the main character of le Ryan Gosling is just like me is so better
Please just stop you are cringe, the original is way better than the sequel no matter how good the sequel is
I didn't say the "he's just like me" I said you experience the story along side him rather than a bunch of background characters. You're just trying to be a gay.
except I'm not.
The sequel ultimately thematically doesn't differ from the original besides Deckard finding his lost kid. If you think that part of it is interesting, otherwise as good as the movie is it doesn't do any other themes better than the original.
The idea of being born or being created and not knowing which one you were is a pretty great theme. You get this a little bit with Rachel but it's not really explored in depth.
Also again there is Joi. Falling in love with an AI is a pretty great (and soon to be relatable) theme. Especially with a character that may or may not be more or less human throughout the entire movie.
you're incredibly wrong.
agreed
that isn't saying much
I don't understand why a common criticism of this movie is that it's "boring." It's a neo-noir, and for me the scenes are all pretty memorable from beginning to end, maybe with the exception of the JF Sebastian stuff.
Rutger Hauer is good, Harrison Ford is good, Rachael is a cute, the locations are all cool, the end is great, what did you not like about it? I think it's a way better movie than the sequel.
Its literal hispanics and Black folk im guessing. Noir is impossible to understand for them.
Probably one of the least boring movies I've seen. I fell in love after watching it for the first time and watched it 7 or 8 times during the next week or so.
I think I've seen three versions. Definitely final cut (a few times), original and probably international cut.
While the final cut is the best in terms of content, they fricked up the colors making everything blue (typical Blu Ray frickery), so the theatrical version actually looks better.
>I don't understand why a common criticism of this movie is that it's "boring."
I do, people are fricking plebs.
These days everyone has to be entertained every nanosecond by something. People don’t really smell the flowers. Any smelling of the flowers in some fictional world is boring. World building is boring.
>He say you brade runna
is there a more memorable line in all of cinema?
In history books he's the kind of cop who used to call black men "Black folk."
I agree, it's totally overrated. 2049 was overrated too but at least visually pleasing.
It really drags. Could take a half hour off, easy.
>Feels like it was written by a woman
>I agree, it's totally overrated. 2049 was overrated too but at least visually pleasing.
>It really drags. Could take a half hour off, easy.
Turning a femme fatale seducing a bounty hunter like she's done many times before into whatever that shit was that happened in this movie feels like something a woman would write. Why does that scene even happen? There is no reason for them to meet up
>Rachael and Roy
Are androids, they don't have emotions. Why this movie is bad, the idiots involved didn't get it. They wanted to a stupid "a robot learns to love story" completely ruining it. Which is why it's loved by illiterates like you, you don't even realize how hard it misses
>it's the book autist
The androids in the movie definitely have emotions.
No, they definitely don't, that's the point. Can you show a quote even implying they do?
Why are you so triggered?
>quote
?
Bro, this is a movie. There's literally a scene showing Roy mourning Pris.
>Can you show a quote even implying they do?
How do you explain Roy's speech at the end, or his saving Deckard? How do you explain Rachael's reaction to finding out that she's a replicant? How do you explain the snake dancer replicant, or any of them for that matter, fighting so hard to survive? The replicants are shown to have emotions consistently, throughout the whole movie. Are you moronic?
>Reeeee woman
>Are androids, they don't have emotions.
Sounds like this movie went straight over your head, which is weird because it's not a difficult movie to understand
>Sounds like this movie went straight over your head
I didn't watch this trash all the way through, could barely stand 15 minutes of it.
Oh, yeah, I didn't actually read what you wrote.
Yeah, again, this movie is bad because it misses the point. In the movie they are emotional beings which completely invalidates the entire story.
>How do you explain Roy's speech at the end, or his saving Deckard
Bullshit made by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it
>How do you explain Rachael's reaction to finding out that she's a replicant?
Bullshit made up by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it. In the actual story she knew the whole time, she's been fricking bounty hunters for years to get them out of the business
>How do you explain the snake dancer replicant, or any of them for that matter, fighting so hard to survive?
Bullshit made up by the idiots making this movie because they didn't get it. Deckard explicitly says a reason he hates androids is that they don't fight back, they just give up when cornered. They have no concern for any life even their own.
>The replicants are shown to have emotions consistently, throughout the whole movie
Yes, this whole time I have been that that is why this is a bad movie. This is not supposed to be an "a robot learns to love" story but that's what idiots making this shit wanted so they did it anyway.
In the movie there is none because they completely ripped out all theme and plot mostly by, as you said, making the androids emotional beings.
damn, dude, you got filtered hard. I don't doubt you gobble up ritalin to survive your anxious moronic life.
I'll take you never watched a noir, then I can understand the movie feel like white noise to you
Can you answer that question? Why does that scene happen? What reason in the movie is there for Rachel and Deckard to meet up?
The femme fatale approaching the lone detective, that's the reason. Again the movie is basically a futuristic noir
But that's not how that scene plays out in the movie at all. It's how it is supposed to go but in the movie he is instigating and even if it was played correctly with her coming onto him there's no reason for him to hesitate. In the movie he doesn't have a wife at home.
They are equally shit.
This, Blade Runner is mindless directionless emotionless trash only liked by illiterates. It is exactly the kind of thing that makes movies hated for dumbing down society
>boring
If anything it's too fast paced. Some scenes should be longer, like the one with Deckard drinking his alcohol looking at the city with the absolutely beautiful Blade Runner Blues in the background.
the book is better
the sequel is better
the point n click video game is better
It's good if you're drunk
It really isn't, but that's because we had seen, heard and got bored of all the cyberpunk tropes already before we saw the film.
no movie or show really is. every single thing ever mentioned here is "pretty good" at the very best
>replicants are like humans but don't have emotions
>they clearly show a whole range of emotions
so what's the point
they exhibit a range of emotions and a drive for survival that exceeds that of mankind and is at least as authentic. They are "more human than human." It's a cautionary tale about mankind being lulled into a technologically-enabled passivity that is tantamount to being stripped of humanity.
who says they don't have emotions?
>who says they don't have emotions?
The book this shit movie is ostensibly based on. If you take names from a book for a movie that is completely unrecognizable only illiterates will like it
>The book this shit movie is ostensibly based on. If you take names from a book for a movie that is completely unrecognizable only illiterates will like it
Like Stanley Kubrick movies? Why are you so bitter that sometimes movie adaptations depart from the source material, especially to express the voice of the person making the adaptation?
The substance is there pretty clearly, even if it's different from the book. I like how you mention movies he made decades later instead of movies he made around the same time like Alien and The Duelists. Eat shit.
Bladerunner original is a really gorgeous film. It's incredibly boring though. Shit like this just drags on for way too fricking long. And it's ridiculous.
2049 has it's own great visual and a better theme. Also Joi.
>this not even three-minute scene establishing how technology of the future can be used in police work drags on for way too fricking long
shouldn't you be scrolling TikTok?
>enhance
>enhance
>enhance
Absolutely thrilling scene that defines modern and future police work.
The official soundtrack is pure gold, listening to it in full really makes you appreciate Vangelis' work more
?si=2yEFCnJeRUwC59Aq
Blade runner is one of the best filters, if people like neither it's fine, but if they really hate the sequel while claiming to love the original, it's a dead giveaway that they try really hard to be cool and contrarian
Not really, the sequel really ruins the original, so it's best to pretend it doesn't exist.
This is an even dumber take, how does it 'ruin the original'?
Well, my fair moron, that would be because it alters the themes and motives of all the replicants as well as characters from the original movies, as well as having a moronic cartoon villain, obviously.
You people shouldn't be allowed to watch movies honestly, it gives me second hand embarrassment
I thought the book was pretty shitty. The sci-fi world itself felt incredibly dated. Much more dated than the film world.
t. zoomer
They ruined your movie experience putting all those special effects in flicks. Now you can't distinguish kino from trash.
Do you ever get the feeling that Cinemaphile is full of underage posters and females that use twitter?
Poltards that are twitter and BBC obsessed, but yeah
people aren't interested in talking about television and film here. They're interested in positing their opinion as fact, usually without support, and then attempting to make anybody that disagrees with them out to be either a chud or a leftist (depending on that person's political inclination) so they can cease to interact with them and feel like they've won
Won what?
Obviously it’s not good that’s why critics hated it when it came out
The only good thing is it’s aesthetics
>ITT shitposting of all stripes for (You)s
I don't actually believe people like the book better. The book is scatterbrained, meandering, abortive. Not one of PKD's best books.
>This doesn't just depart from the source, it is completely unrecognizable as the same story. It removes characters and plotlines and the central conflict and every theme it doesn't cut completely it inverts.
This isn't a valid criticism. Plenty of movies are loose adaptations of other material and are great. The Shining, Apocalypse Now, Throne of Blood, etc. This is especially common with sci-fi movies and PKD adapatations: Total Recall, Minority Report, Starship Troopers.
>The movie doesn't have a fricking conflict.
Blade Runner needs to kill replicants.
I was gonna reply to the rest of your mind vomit posts but it's clear you're either being moronic or genuinely have an IQ in the room temperature range so I'll just keep it all under the umbrella of telling you that you got filtered hard
nta but who cares if it's unlike the book, it's called 'Bladerunner', not 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'. It's a different take on the material, big deal.
Also Blade Runner is certainly not a 'generic action movie', if you watched it then you'd know it's far too slow paced and devoid of action to arguably count as one.
>it's called 'Bladerunner', not 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'.
Because the director used a title from a book where it made sense instead of the title that made sense for this story. He was an idiot. Blade Runner sounds like the title of a story about smuggling weapons or medical supplies because IT IS the title of a story about smuggling medical supplies.
>Also Blade Runner is certainly not a 'generic action movie
It certainly is.
A ban on a different board. It was a personal record, three bans for 1 thread
You hyperfixate on the literal aspect of the different titles and not the actual point, in that they're different and it's no big deal
As I said, it's far too slow paced and devoid of action, but you argue against what I said, you just said 'it is'
>but you argue against what I said
I meant to say 'but you DIDN'T argue against what I said'
>the actual point, in that they're different and it's no big deal
Yes, it is a big deal. If this idiot wanted to make this shitty movie he could have without ripping off names from a book people like and a title with no relation to this story from a different book. If it's going to be an adaptation it should be
>it's far too slow paced and devoid of action
Also devoid emotion and plot. It's just a popcorn action movie for idiots to seal clap at
No, I got banned on a different board, I got three bans for 1 thread. Most I've had before is 2.
>If it's going to be an adaptation it should be
Why? He and writers adapted some of it, but also changed quite a bit, and they made a pretty popular original movie out of it that they and the cast gets praised for a lot and is recognized for being hugely influential on scifi following it. So why shouldn't he have done it?
I wonder if you think Ran being so different to King Lear is a big deal to you either
>Also devoid emotion and plot. It's just a popcorn action movie for idiots to seal clap at
Once again you didn't explain how it's an action movie.
>A ban on a different board. It was a personal record, three bans for 1 thread
are you a janny? how do you know that?
it's kino
why'd that anons posts get deleted?
>What if Blade Runner, but good?
Blade Runner is a masterpiece and we will probably never see a movie again with such a lived in world. Mostly because modern cinema is so fricking uninspired. The sequel is pretty forgettable if I am being honest. I watched it but it didn't leave the same impression as the original
Theatrical cut > directors cut
I’m not even joking
2049 is better