Ripley's a hack, so what's the best cut?

Ripley's a hack, so what's the best cut?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7t2xOH-ZQ2g
rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/tears-of-a-machine-the-humanity-of-luv-in-blade-runner-2049
youtube.com/watch?v=JAwo7DPUFUM
youtube.com/watch?v=05fUpE73VnA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Directors Cut

final cut obviously

directors cut
all the final does is add green filter

Director's Cut but without the retarded unicorn scene

Some people actually like the theatrical cut with the corny voice over baka

Why would I want to watch it without the original filter? That would be like watching the Matrix without filters. It's not accidental.

What makes the Director's Cut better? No voiceover?

what makes this movie good? i recently watched it for the first time and although i enjoyed it, i wasn't really blown away. did it age poorly?

The workprint is the only option. Ridley really fucked it up with all the changes later on.

San Diego sneak preview cut is the patrician choice.

i didn't like it the first time but grew to love it

The 4 hour studio cut is the patrician choice, pleb.

Guys, seriously now.

Theatrical dubbed in french

this

>j'ai vu les baguettes hon hon hon

>what makes this movie good?
The kino sequel has elevated the original

It basically arranged the field for a lot of sci-fi that came after it and if you didn't see it while you were developing your taste it might come off as trite.

Anyone who thinks 2049 is a better movie is a brainlet of the highest order.

Beautiful looking flick, shame about everything else.

Did you know Tyrell was supposed to be a replicant? While the real Tyrell stood frozen in a chamber below his bedroom...

>The Virgin Scott
>The Chad Villeneuve

That would have been worse. It's easy to go overboard with sci-fi tropes and turn grandma into a robot.

The story is more engaging in 2049. The original lays everything out in the first 20 minutes and just feels flat (storywise) for the next hour or so.

I'm going to be honest, I can barely remember that plot of the first one. All I remember is Tyrell gets murdered by Rutger Hauer and then he needs to kill Hauer despite the fact Hauer and all his buddy will be dead in less than a year anyway.

So have we achieved a consensus? Is Director's Cut THE cut?

Director, removes the piss filter

>what makes this movie good?
it was a defining moment for sci-fi at the time

a lot of the people that like it rely on their nostalgia or time context of when it came out to justify why it is so great. if it came out today after the whole number of movies people have seen over the years today, then you wouldn't like it or think it was life changing or a favourite/best ever

I don't blame you. It's a beautiful move with rich atmosphere that has a paper-thin plot.

I like everything about the movie except the movie itself.

I think the story and world the movie created was great. The soundtrack was great. Everyone acted well except maybe Han Solo. Loved the sceneries. The outfits. The atmosphere. Everything is great. Except the movie which was pretty boring until the ending.

hon hon hon
youtube.com/watch?v=7t2xOH-ZQ2g

i think the plot is lacking desu
the premise and story are cool, but the scenes aren't really connected by events in the movie and it was hard to follow what was happening

I don't think it was hard to follow, i actually found it pretty simple, simpler than 2048, just boring.

Foreskin Cut

>hard to follow

i thought it was actually too simple like so surface level
after I finished watching it and heard Roy's lines I felt so underwhelmed people had hyped it up as this amazing movie and DEEP character but it was pretty shit desu.

People will call me a brainlet/pleb but blade runner really isn't that good unless it was one of the first sci-fi movies you ever saw growing up i don't see the big deal.

does hard to follow automatically mean complex to you? this was not what i was trying to say.

You're a pleb and a brainlet because you swallow Sup Forums words like factual truths.

I also watched the movie only because Sup Forums told me to. But I don't judge it based on what Sup Forums memes about because I'm not a fucking idiot.

im not talking about just Sup Forums hyping it, im talking about pretty much everything from film programmes having it in the top lists, to kermode, to IMDB. to forums, to old people, from blogs, to reddit

it was a good movie and i liked the soundtrack and set designs and world of blade runner but it's not amazing or anything

The first movie is a pretty standard thriller with the standard moral dilemma that comes with artificial humanity.
The most memorable part of the movie was literally improvised by the actor.
Meanwhile 2049 expands on many of the themes of morality that the first one scraped the surface of, such as the nature of the child of a replicant and human.
The original BR has an incredible atmosphere but the actual plot isn't exactly complex.

>The most memorable part of the movie was literally improvised by the actor.
Luv was objectively a superior character to Roy, Roy was such a simple wahhhh i can't live longerrr im so saaaaaaad all tell and no show whereas Luv was show don't tell and a much better acting performance

rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/tears-of-a-machine-the-humanity-of-luv-in-blade-runner-2049

>such as the nature of the child of a replicant and human.
Deckard is a replicant, pleb

Fuck off Ridley you're the only one who thinks that and no amount of shitty unicorns will change the fact that he's human.

International Theatrical

Why did Gaff make a stick figure with a boner ridley?

It's practically confirmed in BR2049 in dialogue between Deckard and K, and Deckard and Wallace

citation needed

Wallace said what he did to fuck with Deckard, it didn't mean shit.
If he was a replicant then why does he get his ass kicked so much in the first movie? Are the latent abilities of replicants just nonexistent as long as they don't know it?

>what makes this movie good?
Audio-Visual masterpiece. Its shot so well, and that vangelis score is so good that it elevates the film. Rutger steals the show in the final act.
It's a movie that really grows on you the more you watch it too. Top class VFX too.
Pretty much poison for any plotfags out there.

...

When he's talking to K, Deckard speaks in terms that suggest he is a Replicant. Referring to "us", "our kind" etc.

When he's talking to Wallace, Wallace is more ambiguous about it, but suggests maybe Tyrell "designed Deckard" to "fall for Rachel". It's obvious in retrospect they were built specifically for the purpose of proving Tyrell's procreative Replicant tech. Wallace believes this as well; he speaks of Tyrell's "final trick" lost. His obvious enthusiasm with meeting Deckard reinforces this.

Finally, Luv makes a remark in the Tyrell building about how they were "harder to detect back then." Deckard may be a prototype Nexus-8.

>It's practically confirmed
nope villeneuve made it ambiguous on purpose so you can live with your head canon ridleyfag

i think even the scriptwriters didn't want him to be a replicant and harrison also disagreed with ridley

>I can barely remember that plot of the first one
Deckard is hired to track down some nexus six's. He discovers his humanity along the way - that's it.

Based Denis clearly preferred the Theatrical. That's why he had Rachel die in childbirth and not the other way around.

She was born with no expiration date, a fact only noted in the Theatrical.

Deckard was made purposefully to be as strong as a normal man.

well i will have to rewatch those scenes again. thx for the pointers

You don't need it noted. The movie made it clear she was different.

Your brain is small.

>i thought it was actually too simple like so surface level
Thats Ridley Scott in general though. He's not a director that worries about literal narrative. He's much more interested in telling a story through the way the camera moves and what it focuses on.
I almost wish there was a soundtrack only edit of blade runner. It should also be noted that german impressionism informed A LOT of the original bladerunner.

>trying this hard to be a hipster faggot

Is it Leto's best role?

NO CAN DO

so what version of the OST is better?
Vangelis or the NAO?

youtube.com/watch?v=JAwo7DPUFUM

youtube.com/watch?v=05fUpE73VnA

2049

Strongly agreed but I've watched it like 3 times. I think now would be a great time to dive back into the original.

I think I'm going with the DC.

>Ridley and I had a meeting where he told me, 'I want a bunch of phony orietal commercials where geisha girls are doing unhealthy things. Smoking, taking drugs or whatever. To kind of continue with the oppresive feeling'. So I made a quick decision that they were swallowing birth control pills. It seemed to make sense in an overpopulated future.
David Dryer, FX

>That would be like watching the Matrix without filters. It's not accidental.

So nothing bad can ever be done on purpose

I think you mean the matrix's color grading had a point to separate the look of the real world. But no other movies use color grading like that, all it does is reduce the range of colors in the frame while making it less believable. You want the matrix to be unbelievable because its not real it it's own fiction. But any other sci fi or fantasy world needs to look convincing.

>what makes this movie good?
One of, if not the most, visually impressive movies ever.

Defined cyberpunk

It's atmospheric

That's it. It's a movie to be appreciated but not enjoyed because the story sucks.

>after I finished watching it and heard Roy's lines I felt so underwhelmed people had hyped it up as this amazing movie and DEEP character but it was pretty shit desu.

That's because it's better to watch the roy speech alone, never see blade runner, and pretend the whole movie is like that