So is it genius or not?

So is it genius or not?

Blade Runner is perhaps the worst film adaption of a novel ever made. To say that Blade Runner is an adaption of Phillip K Dick's inspiring novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is not only a lie, but it is an insult to both Phillip K. Dick and any movie that has been adapted to film with even a marginal degree of success. It is most generous and honest to say that Blade Runner is inspired by "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".

Blade Runner presents, at best, a surface-level representation of a select few of the novel's characters; these representations are devoid of the depth that made them captivating. Likewise, there are many great (and well-developed) characters who were excluded from the film.

The subplots, entire segments of the plot, the greater part of its ethos, and major aspects of the novel's theme are also expunged from this film. In short, the elements of the novel that have moral, narrative, effusive, or dramatic merit are conspicuously absent from this film.

Instead of being a narrative that re-affirms greater truths about humanity, Blade Runner exists only as a testament to sloppy adaptation by screenwriters who have such little respect for literature that they would cinematically re-hash a novel's spark notes.

I believe that, were the novel by which Blade Runner is inspired more widely read, society would recognize Blade Runner as the fecal insult to great literature that it is.

Nah it's pretty bad

what are some genius thigns

If you're a brainlet

it was good.
more style over substance though, and people love to talk about what a deep movie it is but it only has the veneer of complexity, one question to quickly consider and that is all. Its visuals and atmosphere are top tier and the main draw of the movie.

>I've seen...
>A spaceship...
>nigga...

>WAAAAH ITS NOT EXACTLY LIKE MY BOOK
lel fucking kill yourself, booktard.

I found it extremely disappointed, and was really looking forward to it.
The story seems to go nowhere, then suddenly the whole focus changes on that other character, and eventually it all just boils down to some fedora-tier existentialist dialogue that's pretentious af.

Haven't read the book, but it seemed the classic case of a story that's difficult to bring to the screen and they fucked up the adaptation.

not an argument

>this level of strawmanning

It's so simple that people try to read into it so much they delude themselves into thinking it was so deep and then when they explain it to you and you are not impressed, because it's so obvious to you, they call you a [buzzword]

not an argument is not an argument either

>I have no argument, so I'll just call it a strawman

the argument is that your post was a strawman, dipshit.

Or maybe people just like the story and visuals you insufferable faggot.

The soundtrack? Yes, it was.

That's a minority of the fans on this board, most of them actually think it was so deep and call people brainlets if they dont like it because they mistake them for people that didn't "get it"

You're confusing this movie with the sequel.

They both have nice visuals and same issues

>fail
Blade runner is inspired by Chandler's Marlowe
see you kiddo

>ridley scott is a hack: decides that Deckard is a replicant
>denis villenueve is a hack: claims K has a holo-waifu because the world of Blade Runner is "hard on women"
Like pottery.

no

No. Boring shit.
Literally fell asleep in the part when the detective (can't even remember his name) went to the abandoned house or something

very good but not great

>Boring
Opinion disgarded

boring and faux deep, but at least they made soldier

>soldier
kys

Based. Saved this for future BR threads, but agree completely.

>Unironically being a copypastafag
kys

It's not genius, well it is but not in the writing department. Riddley Scot has a really good eye and he was full of energy and creativity when he was younger. Also the effects crew were top notch, and Vangelis was at the top of his game. That was the genius

I don't agree with this since there are a lot, a lot worse adaptations of novels.And yes a lot of interesting parts the book don't make it in and the adaptation could have been better, but I'm still very glad it was made

phillip k dick sucks, the movie was more interesting than the book

@90738194
>People are actually replying to bait THIS poor
What the fuck happened?