Just watched Blade Runner Final Cut, what does Sup Forums think of it?

Just watched Blade Runner Final Cut, what does Sup Forums think of it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=R2r0FZMvNEc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

what did you think of it?

...

Good movie. Love the somber atmosphere and of course Vangelis' majestic score.

Masterpiece film, but once you figure out what the book really is about, you'll get some serious feels.

it's the best cut

Masterpiece that final monologue by the villian is one of the greatest in cinema.

Kind of sad to think about one day all our memories will cease to exist. Things that have happened forever lost in time...

It's the perfect Sci-Fi movie, and I'd kill to live in that world.

A film I never liked anyway made even worse by revisionist color-grading which will age like milk and probably be silently corrected on a later release.

I'm not the biggest fan of the screenplay, but I love the production and set design; ford takes me a little out of it though, just seen him in too many too different movies.

Like cum in a milkshake...

I can't put it better than this comment from MySpleen:

Sorry about this essay, but the whole "Deckard's a replicant" argument has always seemed kind of dumb to me because it was obviously not their intent while originally making the film, no matter how Ridley Scott likes to spin it now. In fact I'd say that if it is true it completely destroys the movie. The point of Blade Runner is the question "what really makes us human?", and it looks at that question through the lens of whether an artificial human could be made that is so indistinguishable from a real human that they are capable of feeling emotion so close to ours that a real person could actually fall in love with one. If so then is there any real difference between it and a real human? The interplay between Deckard, a real human, and Rachel, the artificial human that he falls in love with, is KEY to this concept. I won't argue that there was always a sense of ambiguity in the film, but that was a part of the point as well. The ambiguity wasn't really there to make us think that Deckard was a replicant, but to help us see the replicants more as real people. Deckard seeing the humanity in Roy at the end is his final realization that the Nexus-6's are in fact "alive" and have real human emotions, and that his love of Rachel is real. [1/2]

But if he too is a Nexus-6 then the entire story is just about a bunch of fake humans expressing fake programmed emotions to each other. It either renders the entire film pointless, or worse delivers the exact opposite message than the one the story is obviously trying to get across. Removing the connection we have to real humanity (Deckard) from the situation gives us nothing to compare the replicant emotions to (within the film that is), so for all we know they are still just going through an artificial and totally manipulated programmed existence. Roy just becomes a fake human with flawed programming, and his rebellion is just him following an extension/corruption of his built in sense of self preservation (which would obviously be a necessary part of a replicant soldier to keep them fighting as long as possible), but he is just in search of continued existence, as per his programming, not looking for actual life. Rachel is just an advanced artificial intelligence programmed to express itself by imitating human emotions, and the unexpected information it receives about it's true existence causes it to act as it thinks a human would in that scenario. [actually, make that 2/3]

this and alien are two of Riddley Scotts best films and have pretty much perfect atmosphere and set design, props, lighting, editing, etc. its a real standout of what could be achieved with practical effects. 9/10 desu.

Did not read one word from the latest posts. Anyone else have opinions?

This all could still work with the theme of the film if Deckard is actually a real human, because then we get to actually see a real human being convinced of the sincerity of these emotions, and we question whether it matters what causes the artificial emotion when the results are the same as a real human's emotions. Or it could be argued that real human emotions are pretty much also generated by our similar instinctual "programming", such as for self preservation, so what's the difference? But if Deckard's humanity is removed that all becomes meaningless, and Deckard's recognition of the real "humanity" in Roy is pointless, because Deckard is just the same kind of fake human with the same flawed programming as him. And all the real human characters are just sitting in the background and pulling the strings, and letting these stupid fake humans deal with each other. Deckard is our real human connection to the story, and without his humanity it all crumbles. [3/3]

Good setting but boring as fuck.

It's a pretty shitty world to live in, user. The air is shit, plants and animals are rare, space exploration is done by non-humans mostly. It's an awesome setting for a movie, but to live there...

Yeah, but the neon lights and constant rain is pretty dope.

youtube.com/watch?v=R2r0FZMvNEc

It's my all time favourite movie.