It doesn't have the weird philosophical/religious aspects the story is supposed to have. It doesn't even have the conflict of the story in Buster Friendly v Wilbur Mercer/mass media v religion. It is just a vapid action movie
What is Deckard's motivation?
>I'm an idiot with no response
"Motivation" is one of the key parts of a character. In Blade Runner what is Deckard's motivation? As far as I can tell he doesn't have any.
The first one, by a mile. It had one of the greatest production and lighting designs in cinema hisyory. The story is also very good, though they ruined what could have been an all-time great movie by turning the last half into an action movie to appease the ignorant masses. Still very good though.
>The story is also very good
What story? It's typical "a robot learns to love" trash
>what is Deckard's motivation? As far as I can tell he doesn't have any.
why is a man employed to do X doing X? i just can't figure it out. i'm very smart btw
7 months ago
Anonymous
You know that isn't what is meant by "character motivation". In the book Deckard dreams to have enough money to move off-planet and more realistically aspires to owning an animal, the proof he is good enough. In the movie he doesn't seem to want anything.
I dont think a replicant/android could ever be on the same level as a human. That said:
The first was a landmark influential movie but Deckard is a dull rapist (tbh that is the point) and while the replicants have more personality, they are mostly unsympathetic scumbags (like Roy murdrering the talented recluse that sheltered him and his crew). Its a great movie (because of the setting,aesthetic) ,but not a great character story.
The second is a great movie too but not as groundbreaking as the first, but the character story is far superior to the first. K is a superior protagonist than Deckard.
I prefer the novel to both.
>but Deckard is a dull rapist
Oh, shit, that fricking scene. They took "android seduces bounty hunter to get him out of the game like she has done dozens of times before" and turned it into "man forces himself on android for no reason". Why does she even meet up with him in the movie?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>In the book
nobody cares. the movie is a neo-noir fashioned out of select pieces of the novel and the protagonist is a "private detective" type impassionately accepting a new case and then becoming emotionally involved in it. there doesn't need to be a bunch of exposition about how he wants to buy a real sheep with the bounty to impress the neighbors or whatever, this is not a novel where rapport is established with intimate confessions, you "buy" the character by seeing the performance in the context of the noir tradition etc and not via exposition of his interiority. if your every point is just going to be "b-b-but it's not like the book" then you haven't passed the basic moron test: it's not the book, it shouldn't be the book and it's made better by not trying to be the book. watch less youtube
7 months ago
Anonymous
>if your every point is just going to be "b-b-but it's not like the book"
That wasn't the point of the comparison. I asked a simple question "what is this character's motivation?" and gave his motivation in the book as an example of motivation. Motivation is a basic part of character and is why Deckard in the movie is a bad character, he has no motivation.
Apparently the answer to the question is "characters don't need motivation, movies are best when they're emotionally empty dreck".
7 months ago
Anonymous
you didn't read anything i wrote and you're an idiot. i specifically tell you to stop with the youtuber nonsense and you double down on the "HURRR WHERE'S THE ARC" moron bullshit. deckard takes a job because that's what he does and then things happen to him that he responds to emotionally, that's it, nothing's missing. did chinatown stop to explain that jake is only a private detective because he's saving up to move to aruba and learn to play the flute? why not? because it's a stupid waste of time that only an idiot that just watched some "screenwriting 101" youtube video would bother with. you would never even have noticed this fake problem with the movie if you hadn't read the book and felt like a genius for noticing they're not the same thing, same as all your other complaints.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>i specifically tell you to stop with the youtuber nonsense
Characters having motivation is "youtuber nonsense"? It is a basic part of writing. Why the character does things and what they want so that the audience can connect to them. >you would never even have noticed this fake problem with the movie
Okay if Deckard not having motivation is a fake problem then what is his motivation? That was the original question presented to point out it is a vapid empty movie and you're saying "yes, it is vapid and empty and that is what makes it good"
The entire point of the book iirc is that humanity has become an empty decadent mechanical shell of itself, and that the robot animals and replicants (who are mostly shown to be manipulative scum, not in a positive light iirc) are a reflection of the vapidness and hollowness of men. Deckard and his wife have actual personalities and interests like caring for the organic goat (one of the few things with genuine physical and spiritual life on the planet). The post apocalpytic tone is far stronger in the novel too.
Yeah, it's about how if you don't feel the emotions and feelings of a person you could become as inhuman as a machine. If you let yourself slip into being less than a man you will be.
Turning it into an "a robot learns to love story" with Baty as a tortured philosopher ruins it. He is meant to be the pinnacle of an android, a paranoid psychopath, a representation of what a man could become if he doesn't maintain his emotional stability.
Is the movie even post-nuclear war? It doesn't seem like it
>Cinemaphile thinks Blade Runner is an action movie now
It is, it's pure popcorn trash
7 months ago
Anonymous
The entire point of the book iirc is that humanity has become an empty decadent mechanical shell of itself, and that the robot animals and replicants (who are mostly shown to be manipulative scum, not in a positive light iirc) are a reflection of the vapidness and hollowness of men. Deckard and his wife have actual personalities and interests like caring for the organic goat (one of the few things with genuine physical and spiritual life on the planet). The post apocalpytic tone is far stronger in the novel too.
>philosophical/religious aspects >detective hunts criminal >What if detective falls in love with criminal?
Such deep philosophy to come out of the drug-fried brain of Phillip k dick. It's a generic noir story with a sci-fi skin that only a midwit would find thought provoking
>What if detective falls in love with criminal?
Which is not a question brought up in that story. He starts feeling unusually about Rachel which makes him unsure about retiring a duplicate of her. But after learning she's a b***h his resolve is steeled
The first one, by a mile. It had one of the greatest production and lighting designs in cinema hisyory. The story is also very good, though they ruined what could have been an all-time great movie by turning the last half into an action movie to appease the ignorant masses. Still very good though.
I dont think a replicant/android could ever be on the same level as a human. That said:
The first was a landmark influential movie but Deckard is a dull rapist (tbh that is the point) and while the replicants have more personality, they are mostly unsympathetic scumbags (like Roy murdrering the talented recluse that sheltered him and his crew). Its a great movie (because of the setting,aesthetic) ,but not a great character story.
The second is a great movie too but not as groundbreaking as the first, but the character story is far superior to the first. K is a superior protagonist than Deckard.
I prefer the novel to both.
39, married, have a kid and i liked the movie. The original is one of my all time favorites and i was pissed off when they announced a sequel to it, but it turned out to be breddy good.
I watched them back to back for the first time last year (am a millenial) and I preferred the new one. The old one was slow, nothing happened and the love story was forced as frick and the finale was just a random encounter that the hot android lady should have ended in 5 seconds but decided to let him go and do a gymnastic routine until she got shot
I think the original is an all time great because it does so much well at once. Set design, atmosphere, dystopian fiction, sci fi, noir, detective fiction, action, romance, horror, it weaves through all of this so seamlessly its incredible to watch, and that's even if you ignore the existentialist stuff around replicants. Its not a deep movie but its extremely detailed and textured. If you want deep read a book, Blade Runner is exactly what a movie should be.
I like 2049 too but it is vacuous in comparison. Some scenes are stunning, others are lacking. Ford's role is totally flat, dull and pointless and it detracts from the film. Very slow too. When it spends too long on a shot it feels forced whereas in the original it felt natural. Valiant effort but doesn't touch the OG.
2049 obviously builds on the motifs laid down in the ground work or the original, which by its own merit is exceptionally crafted in all departments, not forgetting the music. 2049 however goes in a torridly painful and intimate direction building on the ambiguities of the original yet still retaining its mysteries. This feat itself is exceptional.
Original but both are 5/5s
2049 but Cinemaphile will say original.
They're both shit. Old one is an empty emotionless action movie, pure popcorn trash and the new one stars a homosexual who is only in bad movies
Final Cut
>action movie
lmao Cinemaphile is dead
It doesn't have the weird philosophical/religious aspects the story is supposed to have. It doesn't even have the conflict of the story in Buster Friendly v Wilbur Mercer/mass media v religion. It is just a vapid action movie
What is Deckard's motivation?
>I'm an idiot with no response
"Motivation" is one of the key parts of a character. In Blade Runner what is Deckard's motivation? As far as I can tell he doesn't have any.
>The story is also very good
What story? It's typical "a robot learns to love" trash
>what is Deckard's motivation? As far as I can tell he doesn't have any.
why is a man employed to do X doing X? i just can't figure it out. i'm very smart btw
You know that isn't what is meant by "character motivation". In the book Deckard dreams to have enough money to move off-planet and more realistically aspires to owning an animal, the proof he is good enough. In the movie he doesn't seem to want anything.
>but Deckard is a dull rapist
Oh, shit, that fricking scene. They took "android seduces bounty hunter to get him out of the game like she has done dozens of times before" and turned it into "man forces himself on android for no reason". Why does she even meet up with him in the movie?
>In the book
nobody cares. the movie is a neo-noir fashioned out of select pieces of the novel and the protagonist is a "private detective" type impassionately accepting a new case and then becoming emotionally involved in it. there doesn't need to be a bunch of exposition about how he wants to buy a real sheep with the bounty to impress the neighbors or whatever, this is not a novel where rapport is established with intimate confessions, you "buy" the character by seeing the performance in the context of the noir tradition etc and not via exposition of his interiority. if your every point is just going to be "b-b-but it's not like the book" then you haven't passed the basic moron test: it's not the book, it shouldn't be the book and it's made better by not trying to be the book. watch less youtube
>if your every point is just going to be "b-b-but it's not like the book"
That wasn't the point of the comparison. I asked a simple question "what is this character's motivation?" and gave his motivation in the book as an example of motivation. Motivation is a basic part of character and is why Deckard in the movie is a bad character, he has no motivation.
Apparently the answer to the question is "characters don't need motivation, movies are best when they're emotionally empty dreck".
you didn't read anything i wrote and you're an idiot. i specifically tell you to stop with the youtuber nonsense and you double down on the "HURRR WHERE'S THE ARC" moron bullshit. deckard takes a job because that's what he does and then things happen to him that he responds to emotionally, that's it, nothing's missing. did chinatown stop to explain that jake is only a private detective because he's saving up to move to aruba and learn to play the flute? why not? because it's a stupid waste of time that only an idiot that just watched some "screenwriting 101" youtube video would bother with. you would never even have noticed this fake problem with the movie if you hadn't read the book and felt like a genius for noticing they're not the same thing, same as all your other complaints.
>i specifically tell you to stop with the youtuber nonsense
Characters having motivation is "youtuber nonsense"? It is a basic part of writing. Why the character does things and what they want so that the audience can connect to them.
>you would never even have noticed this fake problem with the movie
Okay if Deckard not having motivation is a fake problem then what is his motivation? That was the original question presented to point out it is a vapid empty movie and you're saying "yes, it is vapid and empty and that is what makes it good"
Yeah, it's about how if you don't feel the emotions and feelings of a person you could become as inhuman as a machine. If you let yourself slip into being less than a man you will be.
Turning it into an "a robot learns to love story" with Baty as a tortured philosopher ruins it. He is meant to be the pinnacle of an android, a paranoid psychopath, a representation of what a man could become if he doesn't maintain his emotional stability.
Is the movie even post-nuclear war? It doesn't seem like it
It is, it's pure popcorn trash
The entire point of the book iirc is that humanity has become an empty decadent mechanical shell of itself, and that the robot animals and replicants (who are mostly shown to be manipulative scum, not in a positive light iirc) are a reflection of the vapidness and hollowness of men. Deckard and his wife have actual personalities and interests like caring for the organic goat (one of the few things with genuine physical and spiritual life on the planet). The post apocalpytic tone is far stronger in the novel too.
>philosophical/religious aspects
>detective hunts criminal
>What if detective falls in love with criminal?
Such deep philosophy to come out of the drug-fried brain of Phillip k dick. It's a generic noir story with a sci-fi skin that only a midwit would find thought provoking
>What if detective falls in love with criminal?
Which is not a question brought up in that story. He starts feeling unusually about Rachel which makes him unsure about retiring a duplicate of her. But after learning she's a b***h his resolve is steeled
Philp K. Dick was a schizo who used amphetamines to churn out stories. That makes him as well as his production based as frick.
2049
First one and it's not even close
I need to revisit 1982, but so far I like 2049 much better. Maybe I have bad taste, I don't know
Both Blade Runner films are extremely good and if you think either one of them is bad you're a certified mental midget. Fact.
2049 is really good but Leto stickd out like a sore thumb.
Original is a masterpiece.
HE SAID YOU SHIT POSTER
The first one, by a mile. It had one of the greatest production and lighting designs in cinema hisyory. The story is also very good, though they ruined what could have been an all-time great movie by turning the last half into an action movie to appease the ignorant masses. Still very good though.
The whole thing is an action movie, shots are fired in the opening minutes. I don't think its trying to be deep.
First but the second one is also good. I just don't like Jared Leto. The atmosphere is also closer to what it is meant to represent in the first one.
I dont think a replicant/android could ever be on the same level as a human. That said:
The first was a landmark influential movie but Deckard is a dull rapist (tbh that is the point) and while the replicants have more personality, they are mostly unsympathetic scumbags (like Roy murdrering the talented recluse that sheltered him and his crew). Its a great movie (because of the setting,aesthetic) ,but not a great character story.
The second is a great movie too but not as groundbreaking as the first, but the character story is far superior to the first. K is a superior protagonist than Deckard.
I prefer the novel to both.
Lonely zoomer incel thread (no one else thinks 2049 was very good).
I am 31, married and I think 2049 is very good
No, you don't.
Whatever makes you feel better.
2049 does not.
39, married, have a kid and i liked the movie. The original is one of my all time favorites and i was pissed off when they announced a sequel to it, but it turned out to be breddy good.
2049 because K is a way more intriguing main character than Deckard and I prefer the way it makes the world feel more expensive.
the original is a 6/10 with a final scene that's a 10 while the new one is an 8/10 all the way through
2049 had more storytelling depth but the original laid the foundation. Both are great but my vote is 2049.
Blade Runner because 2049 is fricking horrible
I watched them back to back for the first time last year (am a millenial) and I preferred the new one. The old one was slow, nothing happened and the love story was forced as frick and the finale was just a random encounter that the hot android lady should have ended in 5 seconds but decided to let him go and do a gymnastic routine until she got shot
Original would have been better with Deckard narrating, as originally planned.
>Cinemaphile thinks Blade Runner is an action movie now
Og, 2048 managed to screw up the entire vibe the first one had and made the entire sci-fi aspect exponentially generic and lost most of the atmosphere
I think the original is an all time great because it does so much well at once. Set design, atmosphere, dystopian fiction, sci fi, noir, detective fiction, action, romance, horror, it weaves through all of this so seamlessly its incredible to watch, and that's even if you ignore the existentialist stuff around replicants. Its not a deep movie but its extremely detailed and textured. If you want deep read a book, Blade Runner is exactly what a movie should be.
I like 2049 too but it is vacuous in comparison. Some scenes are stunning, others are lacking. Ford's role is totally flat, dull and pointless and it detracts from the film. Very slow too. When it spends too long on a shot it feels forced whereas in the original it felt natural. Valiant effort but doesn't touch the OG.
I go with 2049 because the original has different cuts, each flawed in various ways
As good as the final cut is, I don't like how it's so insistent that Deckard is a replicant
2049 obviously builds on the motifs laid down in the ground work or the original, which by its own merit is exceptionally crafted in all departments, not forgetting the music. 2049 however goes in a torridly painful and intimate direction building on the ambiguities of the original yet still retaining its mysteries. This feat itself is exceptional.
Yes.