Just finished seeing this (final cut), what exactly is so special about this movie...

Just finished seeing this (final cut), what exactly is so special about this movie? Just looks like some standard edgy wannabe philosophical sci fi thriller. What hype am i missing? Is it that deckard is suppposed to be a replicant this whole time? Is that what this is all about? someone help me figure this shit out

It had good effects for its time

Literally it.

I watched the final cut to prepare for 2049 as well OP and I just did not like it at all. The characters and plot are flat at absolute best, the setting and visuals are the only interesting thing about it. You could cut a whole hour out of the movie with just pointlessly long scenes, i.e. the scene where Deckard looks for something in the picture machine saying enhance and coordinates for almost 6 minutes of screen time. There is very little direction or momentum to the story at all and the only thing good about it is the visual element.

Like all millennial tier retards you lack the proper perspective to enjoy such a work.

This is bait, unless you're 36+ years old.

Just watch a little Rick & Morty and see if you get the subtle jokes.

If you don't, save yourself two hours and don't watch Blade Runner.

Maybe there's a Kardashian marathon on that you'd like.

Mostly atmosphere. There is some good philosophical and allegorical stuff sprinkled here and there.

...

It had some crazy good effects back in the day.

It was an original story for a movie even with the cut out scene of Deckard being non-human.

It holds up better than shit like Jurassic Park that had no story and looks like trash now

Is this just trolling or are kids really this dumb? Blade Runner is a great film. You don't think so? You're wrong. Try again.

So you're saying that blade runner also has subtle jokes and references that I must've missed which make the film great? Enlighten me. All I see is some pseudo psychological/philosophical "what makes humans human" themes that ended up missing the entire point anyways

How does it miss the point?

Just watch 2049. It was made for retards like you

The point blade runner tried to convey was that compassion is what makes humans human ergo that guy saving deckard at the end, when humanity is really defined by the drive that humans output for their own self benefit. That last replicant contradicted all that and sacrificed his survival instinct for something the director thought was "human" when it wasn't. Humanity is defined by survival, not compassion, and especially moreso when those two aren't mutually exclusive

Jurassic Park had more story than this.

It was visually groundbreaking for its time, had great special effects, and an amazing score. The idea of setting a detective film noir was novel for a mainstream movie too. The story and pacing aren't great though.

*tips*
When people criticizing a film start going off on pacing, you know it's amateur hour.

Do you even watch movies with other people? Or are you above such foolishness?

I think it's really just the setting, visual design, and music that were good. Only decent character is played by Rutger Hauer.

Nobody I know complains about pacing, but even if they did, so what? I don't require my friends to be serious about film.

>Only decent character is played by Rutger Hauer
Honestly, did you come up with this on your own or did watching RLM rub off on you? I've never heard this shitty opinion before this week.

It came out in 1982 and looks better than most blockbuster films do today.

>Just looks like some standard edgy wannabe philosophical sci fi thriller

There was nothing standard, edgy, or wannabe about it in 1982.

>OP is mad he will never get a waifu of this caliber
>Makes a shitty thread

Stay mad, OP

Cinematography, special effects, costume design, soundtrack - everything technical is on point.

Story is a solid tale asking what makes humans human, about the differences between living and surviving.

harrison ford was the weakest part of the movie, but he was still pretty adequate.

If you think Deckard being a Replicant or not matters in the slightest, you missed the point.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Bladerunner. The themes are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the quotes will go over a typical viewers head. There's also Deckard's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these lines, to realise that they're not just cool- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Bladerunner truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the depth in Roy's existential line "Like tears in the rain," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenevs Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Ridley Scott's genius wit unfolds itself on their cinema screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

this right here. you bunch of nigger faggots didn't even watch the first one and yet call the second one good. fuck off

Sorry some films are smarter than you and you have to resort to unfunny pasta from a played out meme.

>fucking millennials
The human race will die of retardation by 2040. And a good thing too.

It looked good and had a nice atmosphere.

That's mostly it, some people say that this movie poses SUPER DEEP QUESTIONS such as "WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HUMAN!?" but the film never actually explores this philosophy so i don't see where the fuck people are getting that from.

7/10 for nice aesthetic though

Great effects, great mood, setting, and imagery, haunting soundtrack and the fact that it's basically a futuristic film noir

>but the film never actually explores this philosophy
Yeah it does. I'm not claiming Blade Runner is "SUPER DEEP," but really, what constitutes "deep" for you? For a film, Blade Runner is fairly complex.

I think these bunch of losers just felt shit and thought it was the best because they felt represented by K and his waifu

You realize thread is about the original right?

>forgetting the hunt between Roy and Deckard and tears in rain speech.

Did you watch the movie?

The film still never poses the question what it means to be human? Replicants and Humans are essentially the same, except Replicants are taken out of service after 4 years. This fact doesn't explore the philosophy of what it means to be human whatsoever.

>fell for the Final Cut meme

You didn't get it, genius. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

>Just looks like some standard edgy wannabe philosophical sci fi thriller.
Yeah but it was the OG standard edgy wannabe philosophical sci fi thriller that started them all.

Roy, despite going batshit insane killing Tyrell and Sebastian, losing all his comrades and his chance at extending life; extends mercy to the guy hired to kill him and shares a very intimate moment before his death.

More human than human

I understand empathy is hard to come by in this pit of autists but it wasn't hard to figure out

>good visuals
>good sound
>good setting/atmosphere
>good "villain"
Ford was one of the weakest parts of the movie and there really isn't much story since its all laid out pretty early.

>Replicants and Humans are essentially the same
Watch the scene after Deckard learns Rachel is a skin job. He basically rapes her.

>More human than human

Not true, sample size too low. Can't make this statement based off of just one person. I'm pretty sure somewhere in the world a normal human has engaged in the same kind of act of mercy, except it wasn't documented by the film.

Claiming that replicants are more human than humans, or saying that this in any way asks the question what it means to be human is just plain wrong. Look, this film really has nothing going for it except being a sci-fi film noir with great aesthetic.

Thanks, Jay.

So you also define humanity through compassion and intimacy? Then you also missed the point.

>I understand empathy is hard to come by in this pit of autists but it wasn't hard to figure out
All of my this.

Shit you're right, can't argue with that

>being this retarded

Nice argument.
When it comes to the exploration of such a philosophy you have to look at the human race as a whole, not just the relationship between 2 men. Seriously.

I wasn't making an argument. Just an observation.

Right user. They never turn toward the camera and ask "by the way what means tobe human?"
Is not that yiu can ask such question in a scifi movie through narration and visuals

I guess this proves my point. I am engaging in discussion and you just go "waaah, retard!"

Muh life is all known from a biology book

All the blade runner discussion of late has been great, but then with that comes the plebs like OP and others in this thread also watching it and being retards

Help me understand then

See

ITT millennials and their gen z cousins who don't comprehend noir

What are you implying, that I should pick up a psychology book instead? Emotions don't make people human, they're tools used for survival. That's it

I'm not going to engage in discussion with a retard. What you wrote is hilariously dumb and off the mark. Nobody on either side of aisle is going to agree with what you wrote.
No, don't look at that dumb post. It's so terrible.

COLD FISH

>what exactly is so special about this movie
You're too young to understand what it pioneered or did better than its predecessors, as well as the top to bottom design it had. It copied far less than what copied it.

Could be argued that acting irrational is also human

Did Roy need to kill Tyrell and Seabass to survive? Sure as hell wasn't in self defense

>NO NO NO I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYONE ELSES OPINION!

Why even stay in this thread?

>It was an original story
An original story based off a book.

In a simplistic way sure.
We've grown into a different type of species than the ones who had to hunt and actually "survive"
What it means to be human is not who survives the longest, something that one could argue that Roy believed, until he realized at the end that he lived a far more fulfilling and beautiful life than any other human

That post specifically states
>for a movie
you god damn idiot.

To make fun of you until I see a post worth responding to?

>The point blade runner tried to convey was that compassion is what makes humans human
Literally this, empathy is the core of a number of Philip Dick's works even when synthetic humans are nowhere to be found.

> Humanity is defined by survival, not compassion
That's your opinion and irrelevant to what Dick was trying to get across (and to a lesser extent, Scott).

Damn, you rule!

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand . The themes are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the quotes will go over a typical reader's head. There's also user's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these lines, to realise that they're not just cool- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the depth in user's existential line "humanity id defined by survival, not compassion," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenevs Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as user's genius wit unfolds itself on their greasy computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

>You're too young to understand what it pioneered or did better than its predecessors, as well as the top to bottom design it had.

this is such a shit excuse. Influence is not a marker of quality.

>what is Metropolis

True enough. I don't know why so many people make that argument. Blade Runner is a great film for all time.

What is Metropolis? A movie that isn't anything like Blade Runner. Not that I'm here arguing Blade Runner is good because of its originality and because it was "the first," but saying Metropolis did it before is dumb.

>you'll never watch C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate

It was rusty, but it was a good little story about discovering your individualism, and choosing your path, in world of grand happenings.

I need you to tell me what a good movie is to you first OP. I don´t want to waste my time explaining this to a brick wall or a troll.

OP here. Movies I like - Gertrud, My Darling Clementine, Mouchette, Dust in the Wind, Syndromes and a Century. Your move.

Pretentious as fuck.

Nah Boy

Roy saves deckard because he realizes that he is dying and that if deckard dies too everything roy is will be lost to him.

now he lives on in deckard's memory
he just wants a part of himself to survive, even if it means saving someone that he kinda hates

it's not out of empathy. it's out of selfishness and a fear of death.

>millennials

Shut up, grandpa. Your favorite movie is fucking shit.

...

Okay, so based on that i will presume you know about the importance of pacing in narration, that you know the relationship between western and noir and thus understand enough of the second to not question this movie for being slow, the character hard cop nature, the pyrrhic ending or the overall dark tone and ambience.

So you see... there is nothing, what was that word again? "edgy" about the movie, just generic conventions taken from the noir aesthetics.
The philosophical aspects about what it means to be human are one of the themes of cyberpunk too.

Both of those things are genre conventions. It´s a genre film. As to why is it so great? first of all you have to analize it contextually... i mean, it still looks fantastic and totally holds today just like the godfather or terminator 2 or Alien. Is timeless cinematography. The use of composition, color, tone, music. It´s a work of art and at the time there was nothing like it.

The 60´s and 70´s sci fi was totally different, far more optimistic... Sure, you got stuff like alphaville, Soylent green or farenheit already but this was in another level altogether both technically and narratively.

Should i get going? i am not even halfway trough. Haven´t even started on the cyberpunk aspects of it.

I just finished the first one as well. Incredible movie. You must be a shallow vapid retard to not comprehend how incredible this neo-noir film was.

aha, says the Blade Runner fan.
tldr

Still boring as fuck with terrible acting and dialogue. I can see some of the sets and effects being good fo their time. That's about it. I bet you also find "art" in paintings of 4 circles.

Not boring matte. What did i just explain? It´s a genre convention. That´s how noir pacing is supposed to be, those are the archtypes it´s supposed to have.

Dekard is as iconic as Sam Spades or Vargas... if you can´t see that i can´t help you. You just don´t like noir.

Gotta love how everything has to be explained and spoon fed to them these days. Kudos to you for appreciating Noire.

>That's mostly it, some people say that this movie poses SUPER DEEP QUESTIONS such as "WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HUMAN!?" but the film never actually explores this philosophy so i don't see where the fuck people are getting that from.

if a film has to spoonfeed you its philosophical ideas with dialogue then it is not a truly great film, it is just some screenwriter's manifesto