Blade Runner

Can we all agree this is objectively the best Sci-Fi movie ever?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

such a snoozefest, tried watching it like 5 times already and it always comes to me closing it after 30-40 minutes
next!

Everything about it is perfect except the story, so no

I was so excited to see this movie since it's so hyped and revered, but it was boring as shit.

le ebin detective noir San FranTokyo

Nothing but a series of dark rooms with light shining in. Plus the director made like 8 different endings and they all suck.

Tried to watch this about 20 times, but can never get past the first two minutes. I always fall asleep.

I've tried to watch this every day for the last three years and I always fall asleep during the part where I have to read. I'm watching a movie because I DON'T like reading!

>same universe as Alien

Scott is a fucking hack

P L E B S

Watched it today. Great stuff.
youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU

I will be honest.
I love the movie for it's technical artistic audio visual and philosophical perfection

but it is true that it is a very slow movie and the story is nothing mindblowing.


but it's a great movie

Ex machina, 2001, Star Trek tmp, moon, and many more, are better for various reasons

Being completly honest, I think this movie didn't show us good enough why the characters did what they did, why did they take that decisions?
Also, why is the villain so bad, one of the worst villains ever

the villain is Decker

No, there are many superior sci-fi movies.

It's alright. I much prefer the book though.

literally just watched it with my mum 1 hour ago

every bit as good as its hyped up to be, its probably my favourite film now

It's a great experience. Not a character study. Not a critique either.

How is the villain bad you fucking pleb. His story was possibly even more interesting than Deckards

>Born a slave working offworld in hellish conditions
>physically and mentaly superhuman but struggling with the emotional intelligence of a small child
>Rescue a sex slave, an ammunition loader, and some others
>instead of just living safely on their own, choose to risk coming to Earth to try to extend your friends lives
>kill 23 people and hijack a shuttle
>finally meet your maker, basically a God
>learn from him that there is no hope to extend your or anyone else life and that all the evil things you have done have been for nothing
>in a rage kill your own father
>get home
>find the woman you were doing it all for lying dead on the floor
>chase the man responsible through an abandoned apartment building
>in your last breaths finally emotionally mature and realise the true value of human life
>spare his life before dying noble and alone

Now if you dont think thats the tightest shit then get out of my face

watched as a kid, felt nothing.
Re-watched recently and it hit me hard.

Also, now I know how much stuff was influenced by it. It was a shock to see how much Cowboy Bebop borrowed from it.

but user, come one. Zero quipping.
Sup Forums is bored.

These two are written like Trump tweets.

I had the exact same experience. Watched it age 12, found it dull, confusing and too slow

Watched it age 19 and found it totally captivating and emotionally devastating.

I think you have to have a certain level of maturity to appreciate it, something which possible is unusual amongst scifi as a genre. People go into it wanting a cool scifi action flick, so they just dont "get" it i think

Saw the failing Ridley Scotts "Blade Runner" today. Totally overrated - very boring! Sad!

>>Born a slave working offworld in hellish conditions
>>physically and mentaly superhuman but struggling with the emotional intelligence of a small child
>>Rescue a sex slave, an ammunition loader, and some others
>>instead of just living safely on their own, choose to risk coming to Earth to try to extend your friends lives
>>kill 23 people and hijack a shuttle
happened off screen so how am I supposed to feel any connection to it

...

so you are mocking a retard by acting like a retard? what exactly did you try to achieve with your post?

>>Born a slave working offworld in hellish conditions
>>physically and mentaly superhuman but struggling with the emotional intelligence of a small child
>>Rescue a sex slave, an ammunition loader, and some others
>>instead of just living safely on their own, choose to risk coming to Earth to try to extend your friends lives
>>kill 23 people and hijack a shuttle

this is one of the many reasons why i just don't really like this movie. this all happened before the movie begins, we're just told that's what happened.

i dont know if that happens in the book or not, but PKD is a pretty shitty character writer and he does stuff like that all the time. he just jumps into a characters life and uses the story to cover up how weak they are as characters.

I watched it first as 12 and I thought it was the greatest shit ever made

Now I am 18 and I still think it is one of the greatest shits ever made

You learn their story through their actions. Are you a moron?

Are there any other films that would be suggested for greatest sci-fi?

Just tried reading @8286314s post - very rude and insulting! Lots of people agree!

But thats how things work. The story is so complex there is no real 'beginning' point you can start at and have literally everythibf be neatly explained onscreen. Just like real people's stories, the characters have hugely complex motivations and backstories that are partially revealed by their actions rather than exposition.

he was just joking, le quotemaster

GUYS, was it rape?

>Can we all agree
no

>objectively
no

Next question

what are you talking about, almost all of it is revealed through exposition

it's all tell no show.

>Watched it age 19 and found it totally captivating and emotionally devastating.
>I think you have to have a certain level of maturity to appreciate it, something which possible is unusual amongst scifi as a genre. People go into it wanting a cool scifi action flick, so they just dont "get" it i think
See, this just proves my idea that the people who like this movie are just stroking their egos. You think you're so cool and mature and hip because you "get" this flick, man, not like all those other pleb normies who could never understand. They're not as mature as you, right? I mean, you're 19 and 19 year olds are known for their maturity, right?

There's like a bandwagon effect with this movie. Everyone says it's good, therefore everyone else nods their heads because they don't want to see like the odd one out.

None of that changes the fact that the movie is dull. The plot is simplistic, but told in an overly complicated way. The characters are forgettable. If this movie wasn't a sci-fi, would anyone give a shit about it? If this movie was just a straightforward detective movie, no one would give a shit about it. It's the sci-fi window dressing on an otherwise boring detective flick that gets everyone talking about how deep it is. Oh wow, another dark room with light shining through the blinds. Big fucking deal.

>The characters are forgettable
Like Tears In Rain, right, user?

I know that the idea of "you have to be mature to get it" is almost always just pretentious elitism, but I think this time it is actually true.

Its a very slowpaced film that forces you to think about and reason through events that are only mentioned - i think it really is true that this film does require a higher level of effort to appreciate than most.

i hope you can understand that.

i dont agree so im an idiot, right, great job refuting my point

You learn their story through a written exposition dump at the beginning of the movie

>If this movie wasn't a sci-fi, would anyone give a shit about it?
>What if x thing isn't y?

This is such a dumb question. Blade Runner is a science fiction story which can only be told as a science fiction story.

...

>You learn their story through a written exposition dump at the beginning of the movie
So?

yea i agree. im 30 and have watched this movie 4 times, each time hoping i'd like it, but it just never happens. it's uninteresting crap that has nice visuals and good electronic music. that's it. the story is boring as fucking hell and harrison ford is absolute shit in it.

Deckard was the dream of an electric unicorn.

While I don't disagree that a lot of fans of the film are pretentious chucklefucks, that doesn't make the film itself a bad one.

The film clicks with certain people, you're not wrong when you say that the plot is simplistic but told in a complicated way and that the characters are pretty one-note. It's a comfortable film to watch, with some nice visuals and performances behind it. I watched it with my girlfriend a few years ago, she'd not seen it before or heard of it. Halfway through she said "Is Deckard a replicant?" and then said it felt like an obvious twist, but at the time it wasn't. A lot of films have done what Bladerunner did since then, some better and a lot worse, but the original still stands today. I'm not a cinema critic or anything, but I very much doubt that the film is still widely acclaimed is just bandwagoning. Different strokes for different folks

>not solaris
>not 2001: a space odyssey
>not the congress (why the fuck doesn't anybody ever talk about this one?!?!)
>not ex-machina
>not dark city
and many many more

James Cameron will never be beat for the 2 best sci-fi movies of all time. Avatar and T2

>The story is so complex there is no real 'beginning' point you can start at and have literally everythibf be neatly explained onscreen.
Sure you could have

you could have shown the replicants being created at the beginning with some scientists talking about how long they live

then they could have cut to some offworld location where the replicants are slaves but then they revolt

why could they have not shown this and how is this not the beginning?

A villain shouldn't be a tragic hero. That's a very adolescent thing to want, which figures, Blade Runner is an adolescent's idea of a great film, but the rest of us, I'm afraid, are going to want something less overwrought and self-pitying from our villains. It's all a bit too "O Creator, did I solicit thee from darkness to promote me" for adult palates. Seymour from Rude Dog and the Dweebs is unironically a superior villain.

2001 is a slow sci fi movie dont right. blade runner isn't. it's just boring with absolutely nothing under the surface

>quiping
this isnt reddit you faggot, Sup Forums is a DC stronghold

Objectively, the best Sci-Fi movie of all time is The Fifth Element.

Because the point is that your perception of them changes throughout the film in the same way Deckards does. The rogue replicants are dehumanized for most of the first half of the film - the pacing is designed so that you only see them as really human when Deckard does (the disturbing death of the snake lady, Roy's childish mood swings, etc). Then you retroactively think back to the textdump and it hits you with a much harder emotional punch than being aware of their humanity the whole time would have.

It exactly mirrors Deckards experience.

>A villain shouldnt be a tragic hero
Why not?

>>You learn their story through a written exposition dump at the beginning of the movie
>So?
So, you said you learn their story through their actions here but that's not through, you learn their story through a wall of text at the beginning of the movie

Yeh, because DUDE, LES ALIENS MADE US UNINTENTIONALLY is a beetter plot. Seriously, you could had as well made it God as the builder of the monoliths

if Kubrick and Clarke actually had brains, they would have made the Monoliths having been created by future regular humans, who sent them to track notice of Human progress and history, unintentionally creating themselves. But no! It had to be the fucking aliens!

not him but heres my opinion:
you learn their character through their actions, you learn their factual background from exposition

>Why not?
Because that's not his role. Dramaturgy 101.

>You learn the Empire are the bad guys because the title crawl said they are.

Did you not pay attention to the movie in the slightest? The Replicants talk about it quite a bit.

It is the case study for pacing issues. It is slow, sure, but that ain't a problem. The pacing though, is absolute shit and wildly inconsistant.

I never wrote And you learn their true motivations through their actions

So, comfy as that might be in classic serials or when Star Wars does it, it's not good storytelling. The best sci-fi movie in over 120 years of cinema is going to have to do better than that.

>what is Macbeth
Fuck off with your "all plots should be the same" bullshit

Is it? can you give examples? i thought the pacing was slow, but i didnt think it was inconsistent. it generally matches Deckard's perception perfectly i think

>MUH TIME TRAVEL

Yeah, this meme that using narration or writting stuff on screen to set the film is a bad thing needs to stop.

and it's still infinitely better than DUDE ANDROIDS LMAO

Blade Runner is a great movie. I, for one, prefer the version with the voice-over from Decker

The text dump the audience reads is the exact same way Deckards learns about the replicant's past. Its perfectly fitting and is really extremely brief. None of the textdumped information is essential to the film anyway.

It's so non-obvious, it wasn't actually the case until the guys who did the "Director's Cut" (which wasn't) added it as an implication with editing in order to try to save a failed investment. Blade Runner as originally released works its noir gimmick pretty single-mindedly, the Deckard replicant shit clearly isn't part of the intention - and indeed, it makes a nonsense of the ethical point of the film.

Best sci-fi ever? That's very debatable. Best ski-fi film noir? yes, definitely this movie

But Macbeth isn't a tragic hero. He's a villain. He's really obviously a villain, we don't even mind what happens to him. Don't try to pull high cultural references unless you're really sure that you're talking to one of your fellow mouthbreathing Wikibluffers.

>it makes a nonsense of the ethical point of the film

COMPLETELY wrong

Alien, The Thing and Predator are better, but it's close man, real close

that's why there are so many different versions. this movie seems like one of those editing room disaster movies where they had all this footage and didn't know what the fuck to do with any of it

yes

Not if this is the best of all time, which it isn't.

If it's inessential, then that just strengthens the argument for it not being the greatest.

Completely right. The point of the film is that a human and a replicant can fall in love. Making them both replicants just proves that two bots can talk to each other, which isn't surprising or high-stakes.

Macbeth isnt a high cultural reference. i used it because its probably the most universally known 'great literature' and so i *wouldnt* seem pretentious

and macbeth is a war hero who is loved by his people and genuinely wants to be loyal and improve his country's lot in life

he is corrupted by his wife and the witches, who deliberately conspire to trick him into murdering the king which once done irreversibly marks his doom

he is obviously a tragic hero

It's curious how a lot of people in this site say things like that about classics when they are trending. It's almost as if you only watched it because it is trending. You're just blown away by a good classic movie, OP. It's not the best, and it is not Sci-Fi either.

It is, the way they managed to create the meme of it being this mishandled masterpiece is the most admirable piece of pure speculative fiction involved.

Arguably yes. It's the best noir film tho, make of that what you will.

>tragic hero
He's the protagonist but he's certainly not heroic.

1) that isnt the point of the film

2) if the point is, like you say, that replicants (they arent robots) can experience love then a robot/robot pairing is just as meaningful as a robot/human one

>>it makes a nonsense of the ethical point of the film
>COMPLETELY wrong
How is it wrong though? He's right, Decker was never intended to be a replicant, it was just a little wink wink to the audience added after the fact. It's never outright stated either, just left up to interpretation, which means it's not canon, which means it detracts from the main point of the film.

What is simplistic? We are not even sure if Deckard is a replicant, why the love scene worked in that way.
We are not even sure who was the villain.

This has got to be bait

>macbeth

Nigga no, Macbeth is in a category of his own

he is literally a war hero and all of his brave deeds and lives saved are mentioned in dialogue during the play

Its the opposite. Threads about Blade Runner in the past have always been pretty much unanimously agreed its a great film.

Because its trending now though there are all these contrarians ITT going "DUDE ANDROIDS LMAO" and trying to pretend its shit

fuck off ive hated this movie way before it was cool to do so

get on my level of hatred

Moon is great, but not as good aa Blade Runner. Almost as good tho.

The director said he intended deckars to be a replicant and that he deliberately filmed it to hint that

>Because its trending now though there are all these contrarians ITT going "DUDE ANDROIDS LMAO" and trying to pretend its shit
Wrong faggot, I genuinely dislike the film. It's not some hipster conspiracy.

No, you used it to try and seem less of a pleb, and failed. Macbeth is not a hero at any point of the narrative. Read the play instead of Wikipedia. He's not Richard III but we never get told enough to give a shit about Macbeth's "fall", he's just a reasonably successful thug in a feudalist society who got tempted by ambition. "His people" that count amount to a fellow lord and the King. It's not set in a democracy, he isn't beloved of the population, he's useful to the King and the lords allied to the King, that's it.

Considering that a major point of the film is the question of whether it matters if you do or dont know youre a replicant, i think its pretty laughable to try and argue that the ambiguity over Deckards identity somehow detracts from the films ideas/message

The best is RoboCop

Exactly.

Nope. It's set in a warrior society. He's good at his job. You don't understand Europe and pre-democratic societies enough to get the point of what you're reading.

its literally mentioned in the second scene you asswipe

SERGEANT
The merciless Macdonwald--
Worthy to be a rebel, for to that
The multiplying villanies of nature
Do swarm upon him--from the western isles
Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied;
And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
Show'd like a rebel's whore: but all's too weak:
For brave Macbeth--well he deserves that name--
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion carved out his passage
Till he faced the slave;
Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements.
DUNCAN
O valiant cousin! worthy gentleman!
...
They smack of honour both.

Have you ever seen an interrogation scene in a film noir?

I live in Europe and have an English Lit degree you cunt

at the time Shakespeare was writing martial honour was absolutely considered to be a positive thing both by Shakespeare (think Henry V) and his audience

dont ever reply to me ever again

You don't understand the point of what you're reading.

awww, u brade runnah, huh?