Are we alive?
Are we real?
>Blade Runner thread
Shoulda made a practical effects thread, faggot.
>>64157368
That is pretty fucking amazing.
>>64157368
Blade Runner is objectively the best movie of all time.
>>64159221
I agree
>my dad watched it and said it was stupid
>he watched the monologue version
>>64159221
Blade Runner
>MFW Jason Voorhees strippers
>MFW Deckard modifies his voice ridiculously for no reason, since the person he talks to with it never heard his voice before
>MFW replicants have a greenish glow in their eyes which enables easy identification, yet they use high tech Voight-Kampff machines to recognise a replicant because this is almost impossible otherwise
>MFW Deckard makes a move on Rachel, she refuses, he keeps her from leaving, he forces her to say "kiss me" and "I want you" and virtually rapes her
>MFW unicorn out of fucking nowhere for no fucking reason - unless you ask Google, unless that final origami is supposed to be a clue
>MFW Harrison Ford's Funny Face Festival as Leon attacks him
>MFW Deckard's family photos date from the 1800's
>MFW "Tyrell" has two pronunciations within the same movie and his own "niece" can't pronounce it correctly either
>MFW replicants on earth are illegal but Tyrell can do it, have a blade runner over to test it, and nobody minds; Tyrell goes free
>>64159257
Nice copy paste friend
>>64159257
>MFW unicorn out of fucking nowhere for no fucking reason - unless you ask Google, unless that final origami is supposed to be a clue
this alone suggests you need to rewatch the movie senpai.
you missed the entire fucking point
>>64159257
>>MFW Deckard makes a move on Rachel, she refuses, he keeps her from leaving, he forces her to say "kiss me" and "I want you" and virtually rapes her
How is this a criticism? Do you not see how retarded you are for pointing this out as if its a failure to render the universe they intend to describe accurately?
>>64159002
I don't get it, both create 2 very different images and reactions from the audience. Or are we doing muh CGI is bad in all circumstances meme
>>64159312
it is, but it's MINE.
>>64159320
No, I didn't, cunt. The original cut didn't have it. The director's cut has it, but it makes no sense unless you ask Google, AS I CLEARLY STATED IN MY PASTA. Faggot.
I read the novel too, so don't run your stupid mouth.
>>64159257
hey dumbass, deckard is a replicant, created to detect other replicants. the unicorn and origami is a means to suggest this to the audience. deckards partner knows the entire time that he is a replicant, ever wonder how they know EXACTLY where to find him at the end on the roof? just in time? he dreamt the unicorn. his partner made him a unicorn origami just to show him who he really is.
>>64159327
>How is this a criticism?
It isn't, cunt. It's a MFW. Are you silly willy? It's very out of character though and says nothing of the universe they live in.
Back in 1982, it didn't seem weird either. That's how normal sex happens: bitch pretends not to want it to save face and man virtually rapes bitch, which she wants.
>trying to pass this off as universe-related
Oh my baby millennial boy! You are so fucking cute.
>>64159416
The original cut didn't have it because it's not pertinent to the plot, rather important to the message attempting to be sent to the viewer by the director. Of course they removed it in the original cut, the original cut also had a stupid fucking monologue over most of the scenes to explain everything to the audience. I don't even see what point you're trying to make here.
Came across this today while looking up Gosling movies.
>get hype
>>64159002
>Left
Looks "real" in the sense that it's an obvious puppet with repetitive movement using basic machinery and jiggly strings. But it exists.
>Right
Doesn't look as real, but isn't limited in movement and ultimately provides more possibilities.
>>64159448
Yes, and you read this all on the Internet. When Lucas changes shit, you reject it, but when Didley Ridley does the same, it becomes gospel.
Decard wasn't a replicant in the novel, and he wasn't in the original cut of the movie. Sorry to piss on your parade.
>>64159482
>my baby millennial boy!
Not that guy, but unless you're like over 40 years old, you are a millennial.
>>64159482
You are fucking STUPID. He does that to her because he knows she's a replicant and, in his quest to find these missing replicants grows frustrated and angry towards them. So, knowing she's "not real" as a way to take out the frustration he takes advantage of her. It's a way of showing Deckards own struggles with the situation and that he himself is not as morally pure as one might think.
This blood trick was Harrison's idea
>>64159502
You just know any Blade Runner they make now will be full of shittily made CGI and just look fucking terrible.
>>64159539
>Decard wasn't a replicant in the novel
Now you're talking out of your ass, it's left ambiguous in the novel as well.
>>64159560
Yeah thats how i saw it too.
Replicants are considered slaves and treated like subhumans.
Why would deckard even be worried about "rape"?
>>64159573
I never noticed this, explain?
You are probably correct but I want to believe otherwise.
>>64159500
>rather important to the message attempting to be sent to the viewer by the director.
I choked.
>the original cut also had a stupid fucking monologue over most of the scenes to explain everything to the audience.
I vomitted.
So neo-noir shouldn't use noir devices? Funny ignorant post, nigga.
>>64159560
You're retarded, he does that to her because she's a woman who has come to his apartment for answers and he's a 1940s film noir detective treating romance like a 1940s film noir detective would.
>>64159825
If you're implying in any way that the original cut is better than the directors cut, you're simply just a tasteless hack. There's a reason the monologue/original cut is universally despised, even by Ridley and Harrison themselves.
>>64159684
He has the blood in his mouth before he sips the drink
it's not complicated
>>64159533
THE CHANCE TO BEGIN AGAIN IN A GOLDEN LAND OF OPPORTUNITY AND ADVENTURE
>>64159932
I mean why
>>64159546
>Not that guy, but unless you're like over 40 years old, you are a millennial.
Unless you know my age, you should shut the fuck up about it. Fucking millennial pieces of shit.
>>64159560
>So, knowing she's "not real" as a way to take out the frustration he takes advantage of her.
You are le stupid. Being a replicant doesn't remove your consciousness, they're not robots. You didn't get that from the movie? You're a top tier PLEB.
>>64159966
Because he previously got punched in the face
why do you think
>>64159981
You're over 40 (half your life is already gone) and you're arguing on 4chan. Let that sink in.
>>64159646
>Now you're talking out of your ass, it's left ambiguous in the novel as well.
Isn't at all. Not much is ambiguous with Dick. YOu just want to feel deep and muh edgelord.
I have faith in Villeneuve.
>>64160012
Of course, but in the movie they're not treated as such. Which is why Decard has no problem killing them.
If he can kill one, he can rape one.
You didn't get THAT from the movie?
>>64159430
Shit poster
>>64159679
>Replicants are considered slaves and treated like subhumans.
Oh OK, then it's fine and normal. My bad!
>>64159829
But it isn't the 1940s. Is this quentin tarantino posting? Exploiting a preexisting aesthetic is not the same as create an anachronistic smorgasbord of elements from different genres.
Blade Runner uses the hard broiled narrative to serve its message about a cyber punk future. The script doesn't have things happen because 'thats how it would go in a 40s noir'
>>64160047
>Dick
>Not much ambiguous
Read The Unteleported Man and then come back and tell me Dick is a man of full explanation and precision.
>>64160083
I'm not saying it was OK.
But considering that Deckard violently murders them why would he be worried about raping a replicant?
>got new tv
>last time I watched this was on my 24" monitor
>Notice that the movie looks a lot smoother than I remember
>Find out that my based tv was interpolating some extra frames to make the picture smoother
>Watched Blade runner in smooth 60fps
brb rewatching all my old movies at a higher frame rate.
>>64160212
i'm gonna vomit
I'm going to Siena next year to pick up 6 of these whiskey glasses Deckard used.
>>64159897
>If you're implying in any way that the original cut is better than the directors cut, you're simply just a tasteless hack.
Oh, I am, very specifically for the eye shit. If anyone can see who the hell is a Replicant because their eyes glow fucking green, it does two things:
>makes the special test USELESS
>makes Deckard a human, because he doesn't have the glow
Are you OK with the VoydKampff shit being useless and ridiculous, and with Deckard not being a Replicant, faggot? The same cut insists he IS a Replicant.
You are a sheep and only prefer the DC because you were told to. Make your own opinion, homo.
>>64159533
Why the fuck hasn't any film since then attempted future world building at this scale?
I mean, many films have pilfered Blade Runner and its visuals with varying degree of success, but none have so actively strived to achieve a sense of place and time and with such purpose. Hell, if you look at the history of cinema, it's Metropolis, then Blade Runner, then?
>>64160028
>You're over 40
Like I said, you should shut up about things you can't know.
Unlike you, I'm fine with how I choose to spend my free evening. You insecure pussy.
>>64160055
>Which is why Decard has no problem killing them.
Not very insightful of you...
>If he can kill one, he can rape one.
But he doesn't. The same sort of scene always happened in noir movies of old. You're a bit uneducated in cinema.
>You didn't get THAT from the movie?
No, because that's not what it is LMAO.
>>64160329
>he's 40 years old and argues with virgins on 4chan
top kek
>>64160284
Minority Report had a fucking thinktank of futurists designing everything
>>64160096
>The script doesn't have things happen because 'thats how it would go in a 40s noir'
It does, on many, many counts. How dumb are you?
>>64160144
No time to waste on druggies' fanfiction.
>>64160367
At this point I think you're just b8ing because you're not making any points at all, instead just trying to make ties to noir simply because Blade Runner shares the aesthetic. Watch the directors cut a few more times, I think the monologue went to your head a little bit. I know you need everything explained to you but it gets easier grandpa I promise!
>>64160209
>But considering that Deckard violently murders them why would he be worried about raping a replicant?
Because his job is to kill them, not murder them, for one, and killing someone lawfully isn't the same as raping someone unlawfully. Are you 15?
The point is, that's hardboiled detective stuff. Watch Chinatown and you get the same shit. It's what a hardboiled detective does with women, because he knows they want the Dick.
>>64160284
The Force Awakens
>>64160370
>he still thinks he knows my age
>he thinks it's an argument
>he thinks he hurts my feelings with it
>>64160458
>Because his job is to kill them, not murder them, for one, and killing someone lawfully
>killing someone lawfully
I see. I'm arguing with a retard that didn't understand the movie.
Deckard was a murderer my friend.
>>64160437
>>64160493
>The Force Awakens
I hope you are trolling nigger.
>>64160560
You don't know the definition of murder then. It's killing unlawfully.
Deckard kills because that's his job.
>nooo, muh american psycho version of BR
>it's all in his head
I hate little faggots like you. Back to Reddit.
>>64160244
>he still watches movies in 24fps
Are people really trying to claim Deckard raper Rachel?
>>64160212
Watch.Outland. You'll really notice hoe cheap the sets are. But yeah, watching movies in Soap Opera mode makes for a different experience.
>>64160649
Yeah, the Redditors here want to think Deckard is both a psychopathic murderer and a rapist.
They're fucking insane.
>>64160284
yea it makes me sad man
I have a feeling its down to
>not going with the more radical ideas artists come up with, sticking to the more safe and easy to produce
> not willing to put budget towards the more radical ideas
I mean Blade Runners future world was heavily based off what Moebius created for 'The Long Tomorrow' when he made the comic with O'Bannon and Syd Mead put his rendering and mood on top. And this was because Ridley was such a big fan of Moebius that he could get it to happen, nowadays that just doesnt happen
Im still waiting for the next big idea when it comes to future visuals
>>64160614
With malice aforethought, either express or implied.
You tried, I guess. I mean, there was an attempt.
>>64159002
It worked for this guy.
The director is pretty good. Even better than Scott is at the moment.
>>64160653
Outland is vastly superior to Blade Runner in both mood and sets.
Even the plot was more sophisticated in Outland.
>>64160267
>eyes glow fucking green
Are people color blind? They glow Red.
If Decard kills a replicant, but it is not a replicant, that makes him a murderer.
>>64160680
Too bad Moebius was a piece of shit.
>>64160689
Makes no difference, since it's lawful, since it's Deckard's explicit purpose. Which part of that did you not get during the movie?
>>64160370
Just think, when 4chan was created, people in their 40's were 30. Let that sink in. ;)
>>64160716
I am colour-blind. Fuck you.
>If Decard kills a replicant, but it is not a replicant, that makes him a murderer.
Which humans does he kill again?
>>64160716
>amber
>>64159966
Because it adds a lot to the shot
also checked you bastard
The Friday the 13th self insert was in poor taste.
>>64160667
>psychopathic murderer and a rapist.
He was both, my friend. The problem is he didn't see the replicants as human, neither did the society that he lived in. That was the entire fucking point of the movie you dipshit.
Did you really watch the movie? How old are you?
>>64160715
One cannot like both? Basically talking about production values that are revealed in SOE mode. Star Wars looks hilarious in 60 fps after watching it so many times in 24 fps. Tron: Legacy looks amazing.
>>64160753
screw you buddy ;(
>>64160753
>Too bad Moebius was a piece of shit.
Young People. baka.
>>64160869
That mask didn't appear in Friday the 13th until part 3. That came out in August 13, 1982.
Blade Runner came out in June 25, 1982. So if anything, Friday the 13th made a Blade Runner reference.
>>64160906
>He was both, my friend.
You are deluded.
> The problem is he didn't see the replicants as human,
They aren't human, that's why.
>neither did the society that he lived in. That was the entire fucking point of the movie you dipshit.
It wasn't. Stop trying to turn every film into SJW bullshit with a leftard message, you bleeding heart piece of shit.
Deckard is a cop/hunter/killer. He was neither a psychopath nor a rapist lmfao.
Guys, can you tell him?
>>64161016
>>64160869
>>64159257
they're not friday the 13th masks, they're actual hockey masks you dumb shits
>>64161016
Then they're just using hockey masks, which is just as retarded.
Why do they need a high tech test when all you need to do is to look at the colour of their eyes to see if they're Replicants or not?
>>64161109
It's just for the audience, people in the movie can't see it.
>>64161109
I'm pretty sure the amber hue to their pupils was added in the latter releases.
>>64161067
The director told the prop guy "I don't want fucking hockey masks! I WANT FRIDAY THE 13TH MASKS!"
>>64161191
No you dumb fuck, it's a real effect. It's a camera trick. It was not added in post.
>>64161033
The SJWs kinda get it but go overboard. It was a question of what makes a person a person. Biology or Humanity? Deckard has less emotion than the Replicants he's hunting who are fighting tooth and nail for every second of life.
Roy was batshit crazy though. Pardon the pun.
>>64161156
>It's just for the audience, people in the movie can't see it.
That's extremely retarded.
>>64160793
no.
>>64161191
It was added in the Director's Cut, yes. It didn't appear in the original cut.
Brilliant idea, Ridley. It's poetry, I guess. Same with the meaningless MLP scene. Only makes sense if you know why Ridley did it. But it's not in the movie.
>>64161033
>Guys, can you tell him?
Hi, reddit!
>It wasn't. Stop trying to turn every film into SJW bullshit with a leftard message, you bleeding heart piece of shit.
Are you seriously telling me that the point of Blade Runner wasn't that replicants were very much like humans? And even perhaps more human in some cases? (the book makes that point more clear)
I'm going to ask again did you even watched the movie you stupid fucking nigger?
>>64160047
>Not much is ambiguous with Dick
I can't resist this delicious bait
>>64161211
Sadly for you, it's not. Ridley added it digitally for his cut.
>>64161211
It's not in the original earlier releases. Best clue yourself up before you lose your temper, you edgy little shit.
>>64161255
>Biology or Humanity?
No difference.
> Deckard has less emotion than the Replicants he's hunting who are fighting tooth and nail for every second of life.
Not showing emotion doesn't mean none exist, that's a woman's point of view. Man up. Deckard is shown as very emotional, don't be a pleb.
Besides, Deckard fights for his life just as much if not more, even Roy comments on it, it's also why he saves him.
>>64161271
Depends on which version of the film you're talking about. In the original theatrical release, it didn't matter because everyone knew who the replicants were, Deckard is/was human.
>>64161295
Yes. It's not red.
>>64161336
>Are you seriously telling me that the point of Blade Runner wasn't that replicants were very much like humans?
They ARE humans, dipshit. They're artificially made, but they are human, they're not robots, not even cyborgs.
>did you even watched
You'll ask questions when you can speak English.
>>64161336
>>64160374
Most who should have been fired tbqh.
>>64161398
>>Biology or Humanity?
>No difference.
Really? 4 year life span? False implanted memories? Made a commodity product? Are you really who you think you are?
movie was f*cking beautiful though
>>64159430
that is fucking awesome, where can i buy it?
>>64161426
>Yes. It's not red.
I guess your blood is amber colored. Color me wrong.
>>64161584
>Really? 4 year life span? False implanted memories? Made a commodity product? Are you really who you think you are?
All these questions you can ask yourself right now, champ. It's called philosophy, or, in Dick terms, doing so much fucking drugs that you can't even put your shoes on alone anymore.
Literally every single one of these points is a question we can ask ourselves right now.
You clearly didn't GET the movie, you idiot. You are unworthy of /tv/ and are totally not a patrician. You are a pleb and should stick to Transformers, the sort of movies you understand and pretend not to like, but really, you love them.
AHAHAHAHAHA
>>64161448
>They ARE humans, dipshit. They're artificially made, but they are human, they're not robots, not even cyborgs.
So the scenes where the chick replicant at the end spazzes out and goes haywire? She's a human? That's a totally natural and human response right?
And all of their robot-like strength, that's human?
How fucking stupid are you?
To be fair, Blade Runner is almost only visual. The plot isn't much, the acting isn't much. The music and the visuals are its only saving graces.
Rewatch it as an adult and you'll realise it's a bit overrated.
>>64161748
>So the scenes where the chick replicant at the end spazzes out and goes haywire? She's a human?
Yes. I've seen women do weirder stuff when going hysterical.
>That's a totally natural and human response right?
For a woman, yes, totally. I've seen stranger acts by human women, trust me.
>And all of their robot-like strength, that's human?
It's not robot-like, since their strength comes from their muscles. They're made to be stronger, but not a single part of them is mechanic or even bionic.
>How fucking stupid are you?
Much less than you, it seems!
>>64161702
It's not blood, you fucking fruit.
>>64161859
https://youtu.be/e9t5ikxjAQ4?t=107
Sorry, but you seem to have a base inability to watch a movie besides at its most basic and simple. Have you ever put any actual thought into what you see? Or does your brain think that because they look and sound human, they must actually be human. If they truly WERE human, explain the point of how over the top this entire fight scene is. Explain the noises and the spazzing out. None of it would make sense or matter if they were human. Ridley is a smarter director than that. It's like this for a reason friend.
>>64161706
I do like Blade Runner. The fact that someone can get something different from the film means that you don't understand Art.
But the question the film presents is a moral dilemma for the people in the film or whenever a real AI comes into being in RL. Would deleting a real AI on a HDD somewhere be murder? Would it be murder if it had limbs and a head? If those limbs were made of metal or genetically engineered organic tissue?
>>64161942
Literally nothing edgy about that post you fucking fatso lmao.
>>64161990
>Explain the noises and the spazzing out. None of it would make sense or matter if they were human.
You seem confused. Beyond your misguided impressions, what arguments do you actually have for suggesting that they are not humans?
I'm not saying that they are not Replicants, and that was obvious enough from the beginning, they are artificial humans, but humans all the same. Waiting for your arguments.
>>64161993
>The fact that someone can get something different from the film means that you don't understand Art.
That doesn't even make sense.
>But the question the film presents is a moral dilemma for the people in the film or whenever a real AI comes into being in RL.
You imbecile, there's no AI in BR. They aren't robots. They're made genetically, did you even watch the movie? Every cell in them is organic. There's no mechanic, they're not cyborgs. They're truly sentient. They're simply genetically modified humans. Oh my God, how fucking stupid are you?
>>64161898
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eye_effect
>>64161993
Cringe, the post.
Fedora tier fake intellectualism. You're literally trying hard to sound smart and thereby fail to understand the most basic facts about this simple movie. Fucking KEK.
>>64162118
Are you autistic?
Look at pic related - you may think it looks like a person holding a deck of cards. I may think it looks like two people holding hands.
We look at the same thing and take away two different meanings and interpretations.
>>64162123
But it's was a digital effect added in post-prod deliberately you fucking half-wit. And it's not red, it's amber.
>>64162118
>They aren't robots.
They are biomechanoids. They are alive, but they aren't human.
>>64162191
The fact that Replicants have organic brains isn't up for interpretation. Same with the rest of their bodies. There's a whole scene where you see how their eyes are made, did you miss it?
Same with the snake scale. None of these artificial pets or humans are mechanic, none involves AI. You are stupid.
>>64162257
>They are biomechanoids.
They're not. There's nothing mechanic about them. They're as organic as any humans. The only difference is they're made artificially, but that's genetics, not mechanics.
Please watch the fucking movie before you talk.
>thinks he's watching fucking AI by Spielberg
The movie is very clear about them being sentient, and machines cannot be sentient, didn't you know? American education?
>>64162271
You don't know that.
Their brains might be mechanic and require some programming on some level.
Didn't Tyrell said the he designed their brains?
>>64162271
They have organic eyes for the sake of looking human.
You can clearly see, whenever a replicant is killed, that they do not have internal organs.
>>64162257
You're thicker than sticky pig shit.
>>64162330
>Didn't Tyrell said the he designed their brains?
Yes, the same way the other guy does the eyes. It's fully organic. These guys are playing with human genetics, not mechanics, not even AI.
It's absolutely clear in everything that ever used BR, movies, novel, even games.
>>64162322
>machines cannot be sentient
This makes no sense, this is what the entire movie is about. What do you mean by this? It's fucking science fiction you retard.
>>64162336
>You can clearly see, whenever a replicant is killed, that they do not have internal organs.
All the replicants killed were by a gun shot. What the fuck are you talking about you ignorant cunt?
>>64162336
>They have organic eyes for the sake of looking human.
No, that's for the sake of seeing.
>You can clearly see, whenever a replicant is killed, that they do not have internal organs.
They do. Just because you don't get to see their intestines doesn't mean they don't have them. For fuck's sake, guys, watch the fucking kino already.
>>64162322
>They're as organic as any humans.
They are simulacra. Meatbots made in the image of humans. They can't pass a VK, they're not human. Artificial.
>>64162118
>>The fact that someone can get something different from the film means that you don't understand Art.
>That doesn't even make sense.
TY for making my point.
>Every cell in them is organic
Organic yes. Natural? No. They are grown in a vat, mass produced at a factory somewhere with limited life experience software embedded into them for whatever task they were designed for. They also have a known expiration date of 4 years from time of activation.
I we were to produce a human clone, but with no brain function, what rights would it have. What about a genetically engineered liver for a replacement part? What about a fertilized embryo? Human? Not Human?
>>64162404
You can clearly see when Pris is killed, there is white fluid and non-organ internals inside of her.
>>64162371
>This makes no sense, this is what the entire movie is about.
It's not. You've literally gotten it all wrong you dumbshit. This isn't "AI" by Spielberg. None of the Replicants is mechanic or computerised. They're 100% organic. Tyrell literally builds them up organically. No computers or mechanic involved.
The movie never questions whether they're sentient or not. This is always taken for granted, because they're human, precisely. The questions are of another kind.
Science fiction doesn't mean "anything goes", especially not for PKD. He never wondered whether Replicants were sentient, they are, he merely wondered what defined humanity. Not that it matters.
>>64162438
>they're not human. Artificial.
Artificial humans, yes, but not robots, not cyborgs. I repeat: there isn't a single piece of mechanics in them, nor of computerised anything.
Tyrell is another level, and this is clearly stated. He's a geneticists, like Sebastian. They're not mechanics.
>>64162467
You cannot "clearly see" at all. She's shot and covered in blood. There's no "white fluid" either.
Stupid bastard
>>64162459
>software embedded into them for whatever task they were designed for.
That's where you're a moron. There's no software in them, they have a fucking BRAIN. Tyrell is in charge of the fucking BRAIN. Are you stupid? Tyrell literally makes human brains, not SOFTWARE.
My God... I thought BR was entry level, I was wrong.
>>64162494
>This is always taken for granted, because they're human, precisely.
No. It does nothing of the sort. Empathy denotes humanity and even lower mammals have it. Replicants don't which is why the VK tests for it.
>>64162369
>It's absolutely clear in everything that ever used BR, movies, novel, even games.
Nonsense.
The book very much alludes to the mechanical aspects of the replicants.
The sheep that deckard has is part organic and part mechanical, same with the replicants in the book.
>>64162467
>You can clearly see when Pris is killed, there is white fluid and non-organ internals inside of her.
Right...
>>64162271
>Same with the snake scale. None of these artificial pets or humans are mechanic, none involves AI.
Something has to make the artificial snake move? Or does it learn that from its early years as a baby snake? Are its behaviors programmed into it?
You miss the point made in the film too. Real/Natural Animals are in a different class than your Artificial Snake, both in monetary and aesthetic value.
>>64160493
TFA had the worst worldbuilding of any Star Wars. Even the prequels introduced worlds that were important settings that were explored.
>>64162575
>Replicants don't which is why the VK tests for it.
So you're gonna tell me that Roy is not a Replicant now? He showed empathy to Deckard.
So which is it, faggot?
>>64162539
No. Robot evolution advanced in to the Nexus stage. The implication is meatbots.
>He's a geneticists, like Sebastian. They're not mechanics
Funny you mention Sebastian since he since stated the biomechanics is not his speciality which implies mechanics are involved in the creation of a replicant.
>>64159002
and look at the ridiculous shit they can pull off nowadays
https://youtu.be/fBzpT7VmSaU
>>64162623
>The book very much alludes to the mechanical aspects of the replicants.
The book isn't the movie. Mercerism is big in the book and doesn't even feature in the movie. The book is called ANDROIDS BLABLA so are you surprised? Dick wasn't a great author, the movie is far superior to the novel.
Replicants in the movie, however, are fully organic.
If one part needed to be a computer, it'd be the brain, and as we know, it's not, since Tyrell the GENETICIST makes those brains. How thick are ya.
>>64162663
Lower mammals show empathy too. Doesn't mean your dog is a human.
>>64162625
>Something has to make the artificial snake move? Or does it learn that from its early years as a baby snake? Are its behaviors programmed into it?
Its constitution is the same as a real snake. Moves for the same reasons. it has a snake brain.
Why does Harrison Ford always get the coolest real/prop weapons?
>>64162675
There are mechanical aspects of our body.
Bones and joints and muscles.
>>64162675
>Funny you mention Sebastian since he since stated the biomechanics is not his speciality which implies mechanics are involved in the creation of a replicant.
He can create entire beings on his own, which proves that biomechanism isn't necessary to build a Replicant. Seb did it. I highly doubt that "biomechanics" means the same as what you think in this context.
>Dick wasn't a great author, the movie is far superior to the novel.
Debatable. I do like them both though.
>Replicants in the movie, however, are fully organic.
There is nothing to absolutely confirm that, and considering the movie was based on the book i wouldn't be so sure (despite the fact that the movie cuts several things from the book).
>>64162819
His blaster in SW is fag-tier.
>>64162724
>Lower mammals show empathy too. Doesn't mean your dog is a human.
Moving goalposts. You weren't arguing Roy was a dog, you were arguing Roy was a Replicant and Replicants can't have empathy. You're necessarily wrong.
Roy is a Replicant, and he shows empathy because he HAS it.
Replicants aren't robots or cyborgs. Fact.
>>64162856
meant to
>>64162722
>>64162893
>Replicants aren't robots or cyborgs. Fact.
They're meatbots.
>>64162856
>There is nothing to absolutely confirm that,
I find more evidence for this than the opposite.
>eye-maker: 100% organic
>brain-maker: 100% organic
Which part would be machine if none of these two? At what point are we shown some cables or electricity?
Are we shown, instead, blood, and short lifespans?
If they were machines, don't you think they'd design a way to turn them off by remote control instead of having to hire Blade Runners to kill them?
That point is going to be difficult to argue, good luck.
>>64162624
>Yes, this dark shot where you can barely see her stomach will prove him wrong!
>>64162574
Are you telling me that memories are embedded in DNA, or is it a set of stored chemicals that actually makes up memory, written into the Brain/HHD through life experience? Replicants only live 4 years, but walk around like Human Adults, how did they get their knowledge?
Certainly Replicants can feel and have emotions, but surely they could be "programmed" out of them by their makers by tweaking the chemical makeup of their brains.
>>64162962
>They're meatbots.
They're not. They're fully organic. There would be no need to give them short lifespans if they were bots of any sort: they'd install a device to turn them off automatically whenever the designer wanted. This doesn't happen and is the reason why Blade Runners exist.
You literally cannot argue they're machines without cancelling the very raison d'être of Deckard.
>>64162984
He said there's no blood and white fluid instead.
You can clearly see blood there and no white fluid. It ain't bishop.
Get rekt.
>>64162973
>eye-maker: 100% organic
>brain-maker: 100% organic
There's no evidence of either. If anything it implies the opposite as they've been reduced to components. Like parts of a machine.
>>64162973
>If they were machines, don't you think they'd design a way to turn them off by remote control instead of having to hire Blade Runners to kill them?
Except some of them are used for wars and other things besides being hunted by blade runners, having something like that i imagine, would be a severe design flaw for a replicant.
It is highly implied, based off the way the replicants operate, walk, run, fight, etc, that they are not confined to the bounds of a real and organic body. If you don't see this you're an autistic retard who can't read visual clues.
Yes, I get there's a brain and eye designer, doesn't mean the bones, muscles, etc are all organ. That's highly inefficient and improbable for how strong they all are.
>>64163017
>Are you telling me that memories are embedded in DNA,
Dude, it's in their BRAIN. Are you guys even listening?
>Replicants only live 4 years, but walk around like Human Adults, how did they get their knowledge?
It's put in their brains! Tyrell talks about it to Deckard, about Rachel. Are you paying attention?
>Certainly Replicants can feel and have emotions, but surely they could be "programmed" out of them by their makers by tweaking the chemical makeup of their brains.
Whatever it is, it's not a computer or a machine, it's literally a brain.
>>64163096
Chew's lab is literally full of organic eyes, you retard!
>>64163031
>There would be no need to give them short lifespans if they were bots of any sort
Profit. Planned obsolescence like your average smartphone.
>>64163096
>There's no evidence of either.
But there is. Both Tyrell and the Asian guy are geneticists. Every part of the Replicants is made by a different geneticist, and then put together. There's no mechanical part anywhere.
> Like parts of a machine.
Not even a nice try. Like a machine doesn't mean they're a machine, they're not.
>>64163138
There's no evidence that they are 100% organic though.
>>64163112
Their muscles might not be necessarily be made of the same organic materials as ours, but that doensn't it wasn't made of some other organic material.
>>64163122
I'm with this anon, they're lab grown humans like in The Island with more and more advanced memory imprints for each generation and obviously lacking that whole genetic memory thing.
>>64163211
*doesn't mean
Hey people who think they're human - how come they can't feel pain?
How come they can reach their hands into the boiling water just fine?
And in the eye design scene, none of them are wearing jackets or are afraid of the insanely cold temperatures. That's not very human. In fact, one of them reaches into some super cooled vat and the Asian guy looks at him like he's crazy, then realizes what he is.
Explain this.
>>64163110
>Except some of them are used for wars and other things besides being hunted by blade runners, having something like that i imagine, would be a severe design flaw for a replicant.
Weak argument. Even in a war, you'd need a self-destruct option, in case they get caught and tortured for info, for instance. But even so, those were miners, not soldiers. And BR exist because Replicants are not allowed on earth due to their strength, so they must be retired by law. If they could have a self-destruct device, they would have implemented it, and if they were machines in ANY WAY, they would have implemented it.
It's because they're fully organic that they don't implants bombs in them, or some shut down mechanism. Their short lifespans is the best they could do to approach this, which shows they would have done it if they could, but they can't because Replicants are organic.
You literally cannot argue against this.
>>64160716
>>64160793
>>64161295
>>64161426
>>64161702
They do glow amber.
>>64163238
>I'm with this anon, they're lab grown humans like in The Island
Lol, there's even less evidence of that.
>>64163112
>that they are not confined to the bounds of a real and organic body.
That's like saying Superman must be mechanical because he is stronger. Weak argument.
>
Yes, I get there's a brain and eye designer, doesn't mean the bones, muscles, etc are all organ. That's highly inefficient and improbable for how strong they all are.
It doesn't matter at all you fucking arrogant idiot: my dad has metal bones in his body, do you think he's a fucking Replicant or a machine? If the brain isn't a machine, then the being isn't a machine, period. No other organ matters when it comes to what they are and whether they're sentient.
My God the fucking imbecility...
>>64163259
>being super human
>isn't human
Think about it you spastic
>>64163150
>Profit. Planned obsolescence like your average smartphone.
The point is that if they could implant self-destruct, they would not need that. Fucking pay attention. Tyrell Replicants work for Tyrell already.
>>64163353
it's not human at all.
it's distinctly un-human.
Someone up asked why no one other film attempted world building like this , could be because the film failed at the box office and was only called a classic years later , those other films that ripped from it probably were more accessible
>>64163263
Lots of assumptions there mate.
>But even so, those were miners, not soldiers
What? Roy was a combat model. What the fuck are you talking about?
>And BR exist because Replicants are not allowed on earth due to their strength
You don't know that.
We also don't know much about this universe to make any kinds of assumptions about how effective it would be implant bombs and other kinds of self-destruct mechanisms on robots or humans.
>>64163259
>Hey people who think they're human - how come they can't feel pain?
They are designed that way. Did you know regular humans sometimes can't feel pain either? Go look it up. If you were to design Replicants, you may want to consider changing their reaction to pain, though not too much.
Absolutely possible to make them painless, the same way normal, actual humans, can be painless. It's a real condition.
>
How come they can reach their hands into the boiling water just fine?
So can the people I just mentioned.
>And in the eye design scene, none of them are wearing jackets or are afraid of the insanely cold temperatures.
Same. They are designed for extreme conditions. Lifeforms can also survive in extreme conditions.
>Explain this.
I did. They're genetically modified to be more efficient than natural humans. That doesn't make them machines.
>>64163394
So dwarves aren't human and Arnold isn't human, and the tallest human isn't human either.
Being abnormal doesn't remove your humanity, fuckhead.
>>64163465
Thought Rachel was the only one who thought she was human , the others knew they were synthethics if I remember
>>64163122
>Whatever it is, it's not a computer or a machine, it's literally a brain.
I seriously thinking you're missing the point that the film blurs organic and mechanical. Chew, Sebastian, and Tyrell deal with organics like a hardware/software PC engineer would deal with steel and silicon. They are in fact mass producing organic robots, "gifting"/uploading them with programming and selling them. Human or Machine (organic or not)? Who is more Human? That is the debate in the film.
>>64163394
It's advanced genetic sciences. They create organic life forms on a whim and can end it just as easily. They create super human abilities as so they're capable of performing the off-world work fragile natural humans cannot.
>>64163504
elves were made to be raped though.
>>64163449
>What? Roy was a combat model. What the fuck are you talking about?
A combat model would be the main type to get a SD device, in case he turns against us, which HE DOES. Doesn't that prove the whole thing to you? They know Replicants can and will turn, because they have free will like regular humans. That's why BR exist.
>You don't know that.
That's the actual reason stated in the movie, yes. They're dangerous and unpredictable, like humans, because they're not robots.
>
We also don't know much about this universe to make any kinds of assumptions about how effective it would be implant bombs and other kinds of self-destruct mechanisms on robots or humans.
Yes, we can. All based on their decisions.
>have a force to kill Replicants
>shows that if they could have a SD implant, they would, if they don't, it's because they can't, and that's because they're not robots, but organic, as everything proves.
>>64163532
Yes. It's the very reason the four came to Earth in pursuit of extending their lives. There's reason though to believe Rachel is an advance Nexus model, even Nexus 6.5.
>>64159430
I absolutely hate this modern simplistic "art" Try making real art outside of Photoshop for once.
>>64163286
Got it. It's all Amber Eye. Color me wrong.
>>64160212
Interpolation fucking sucks. Makes the movie look like a soap opera. I hate that it's on by default and people can't even see the difference even when i compare it in front of them
>>64163532
>Thought Rachel was the only one who thought she was human , the others knew they were synthethics if I remember
Yes, because Rachel is more advanced. Makes no difference though.
> seriously thinking you're missing the point that the film blurs organic and mechanical.
You're wrong. Absolutely no one ever thought Replicants were machines. Absolutely nothing even hints at that in the movie.
>Chew, Sebastian, and Tyrell deal with organics like a hardware/software PC engineer would deal with steel and silicon.
That's a COMPARISON, faggot. I can deal with my legos like a geneticist and that doesnt' make them organic; same thing here: dealing with animals like they're machines doesn't make them machines.
>They are in fact mass producing organic robots,
Now you're trying to fuck me sideways. Organic robots aren't robots. A robot is a machine. Replicants are organic and have no mechanical parts in them. Same with the artificial animals, the snake for instance. It's 100% artificial, but organic.
> "gifting"/uploading them with programming and selling them.
Bullshit. There's no software used anywhere in the movie. Tyrell works on their brains, but they're brains, not computers. The movie is very clear about that.
>Human or Machine (organic or not)? Who is more Human? That is the debate in the film.
It's not. There's no debate over this in the film.
>>64163609
>A combat model would be the main type to get a SD device, in case he turns against us, which HE DOES. Doesn't that prove the whole thing to you? They know Replicants can and will turn, because they have free will like regular humans. That's why BR exist.
But Pris was a "pleasure model" and she still had a short lifespan.
>They're dangerous and unpredictable, like humans, because they're not robots.
Well, shit, so are humans. In fact wasn't one of the points this movie was trying to make that replicants are no more dangerous than humans are?
After all Roy shows empathy towards Deckard that he doesn't show towards his fellow replicants.
>>64163764
>Yes, because Rachel is more advanced. Makes no difference though.
It wasnt because she was more advanced. It was because she was implanted with false memories.
>>64163770
>But Pris was a "pleasure model" and she still had a short lifespan.
Yes, they all have because more time would make them all realise what they are, and since they're like humans, they'd get fucking mad and go bonkers, which is also why they're banned on earth.
Roy and his team got to that point earlier, before they died, because they're more advanced. But that's why their lives are designed to be short.
It ALL confirms the idea that they are organic fully and not machines. You'd NEVER get this shit with actual machines.
>>64163770
>Well, shit, so are humans. In fact wasn't one of the points this movie was trying to make that replicants are no more dangerous than humans are?
That's what I'm telling you, for fuck's sake: Replicants are artificial humans, not machines.
>>64163833
>It wasnt because she was more advanced. It was because she was implanted with false memories.
Pretty sure Tyrell explains she's the latest model.
>>64162884
Nah, can't hate the Broomhandle, senpai.
>>64163918
No, Tyrell explains she's an experiment.
>nothing more, nothing less.
>>64163673
Not even Photoshop, Illustrator.
It's what happens when Designers can't find work.
In college a designer had put up a tearsheet in the stairwell asking for an illustrator to draw him a blender for a project. Truly pathetic.
>>64163770
>But Pris was a "pleasure model" and she still had a short lifespan.
Nobody likes a slut with high dick mileage.
>>64164008
She is, and she passes the test, which no other Replicant can do.
That makes her more advanced and the latest model too.
I was right on both counts, nothing more, nothing less.
>>64163918
I took it to mean that he was refering to the Nexus 6 model, their "latest model".
But either way she was implanted with false memories.
>there are "people" who don't like Blade Runner
seriously wtf
>>64164011
I don't get it.. designers are supposed to be able to draw and the ones that couldnt were second class ( unless they made up by being twice as good doing models)
>>64164030
She didn't pass the test, it just took the VK machine longer to determine that she was a skin job than it normally does.
Tyrell does not explain she is the latest model, he calls her an experiment.
Watch the fucking film, cuck.
>>64164157
>She didn't pass the test, it just took the VK machine longer to determine that she was a skin job than it normally does.
Haven't seen the movie in a while. No matter, my points stand: she's more advanced, thus not an old model.
Suck my dick.
>>64159002
The one on the right made $2.7 Billion, so it's therefore better.
>>64164229
She's Nexus 6 with memory implants to deal with the issue of "emotional inexperience". Again; an experiment as Tyrell states not as you claimed "the latest model".
Your point is one of ignorance because you can't even follow an entry level picture. Now fuck off back to /v/
>>64164348
It stands to reason that if she can resist the test for longer than all other models, and that if she's an experiment, and that if Tyrell wants her tested by Deckard, it stands to reason that she's the latest model, though.
Unless you're fucking stupid, you'll understand this.
>>64163764
>You're wrong. Absolutely no one ever thought Replicants were machines. Absolutely nothing even hints at that in the movie.
They are a commodity. Rachel even says so. Tyrell certainly doesn't think of them as Real Humans.
>I can deal with my legos like a geneticist and that doesnt' make them organic
You are correct. It wouldn't make you a Geneticist. It'd make you a Legologist, a real occupation, mind you.
The rest of your post is debating whether they're organic/mechanical, to which I've stated that they're organic, but the engineers who designed and built them treat them in a mechanical sense. Hence the comparisons to computer/robotic engineers. Science in the film has advanced so far that organic tissue and DNA is as malleable as gold, and programmable as PC software.
>The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established. - Tyrell
Anyone arguing they aren't organic should reach for the rope.
>>64164437
an experiment does not equate to the latest model.
unless YOU are stupid then, you'll understand this.
>>64164447
>They are a commodity. Rachel even says so. Tyrell certainly doesn't think of them as Real Humans.
Doesn't change the fact that they are organic.
> but the engineers who designed and built them treat them in a mechanical sense.
I never even argued about that. That's even why the Replicants feel anger towards their creator. The movie is more about God and us than AI and robots.
>When Roy kisses Tyrell
>when he pushes his eyes deep down his fucking head
That's one of the best scenes in history.
>Hence the comparisons to computer/robotic engineers.
A comparison isn't what I was debating. Clearly.
The rest I agree with, but the anon from before was arguing that they were literally machine as in robots.
>>64164437
She's not "the latest model", she's an experiment. These are Tyrell's own fucking words, words that confuse you.
>>64164607
>an experiment does not equate to the latest model.
Why would Tyrell make an even more advanced model and not test that one instead?
You're anal, sir, very anal. The point really is that Rachel is more advanced, that's the only reason why I said she was the latest model.
>>64164682
Pretty sure she's the latest model all the same, though, since she's the most advanced. Logic is magic!
>>64164144
Designers in school aren't specifically taught to draw or illustrate (at least at my school). Their focus is on the space and layout of a project, to dynamically arrange shapes, colors, text, and images in a space to be pleasing to the viewer.
On the other hand, Illustrators' projects also deal with shapes and colors and some design, but focus more on technique and media to render images suitable for clients.
>>64164783
>Why would Tyrell make an even more advanced model and not test that one instead?
Watch the fucking film. He explains that with the Nexus 6 there is a strange obsession within them due being emotionally inexperienced as they have but a few years to form memories.
He gave Rachel a past as part of an experiment to combat this issue.
>>64164877
That wasn't the point lmao.
>>64164817
Yes, you've already stated what you think and already been shown to be wrong.
Stick to capeshit, son.
>hurr durr she's the latest model
No, she's just an experiment
>hurr durr she's the latest model
No, Tyrell never claims this, he claims she's an experiment
>hurr durr she's the latest model
Watch the film, bud.
>hurr durr she's the latest model
She's Nexus 6 with memory implants is all.
>hurr durr she's the latest model
>hurr durr she's the latest model
>hurr durr she's the latest model
>hurr durr she's the latest model
>hurr durr she's the latest model
>hurr durr she's the latest model
>>64164877
More like it would be if you were diagnosed to be terminal, given 4 years, but you feel great. You too might feel you got the short end of the stick.
>>64164930
But I ain't wrong. She's more advanced than all other models, and I'm pretty damn sure she was made afterwards.
>>64165045
First batch of Nexus 6 don't have memory implants, she does, so she was made more recently, this being the latest model.
You guys are autistic fucks.
>>64160775
>Just think, You started to used 4chan when you were a teen, now you are 30.
>Let that sink in.
Majority of you.
>>64165120
>Majority of you.
Noob detected. Back to Facebook, young idiot.
There is nothing more overrated than this piece of shit ass nigger movie.. Kill yourselfs.actually i love it, one my favorites.
What are other cyberpunk-esq films with similar atmosphere/visuals? I've seen GitS already
>>64164628
Nope, clearly you're arguing semantics. Organic though does not equal Human. If I were to clone you, grow an exact copy of you in a vat that would take a few months, and "gift" that clone with your memories, could you honestly say there is no difference between you and the clone?
>>64165204
>anime
Way to trash yourself weeb faggot, back into the basement
Just ended watching Natural City. Awesome.
>>64165204
The creator of this image uses "Cyberpunk" in the loosest of terms.
Closest to the definition of Cyberpunk was Johnny Mneumnoic, and that was garbage.
>>64165236
>could you honestly say there is no difference between you and the clone?
Doesn't matter, since that's not the question; the question is: is it human? And the is answer is yes.
I am awesome, and right, and you're a pathetic faggot.
>>64165303
Most cyberpunk anime is far, far superior to Blade Runner.
You're ignorant.
>>64165096
I think the purpose was to prevent the very exact situation we see in the film whereby Replicants are aware of their obsolescence, as oppose the Rachel who was blissfully ignorant.
>>64165098
>But I ain't wrong.
You are. Go to bed.
>>64165420
>I am awesome, and right, and you're a pathetic faggot.
Namecalling tells me otherwise. Thanks for playing.
Doesn't it? To be Human then it gets all the rights you do. What if it wants the right to be John Q. Anon (you) and take your place?
Most of these are pretty good, anon. Don't be biased, grown ups can watch cartoons made for grown ups too, u know.
>>64165471
>Replicants are aware of their obsolescence, as oppose the Rachel who was blissfully ignorant.
This, which proves Rachel came after the regular Nexus, thus she is the latest model. Experiments tend to be the latest in any industry.
>>64165512
But I am, and you are mad.
>>64165554
where is da fuckn quote >>64165303
>>64165410
Well considering that Cyberpunk is a very loose and ill-defined genre I see no problem with anything in that image. Several of the works shown heavily features concepts often presented in Cyberpunk literature.
>>64165547
>Namecalling tells me otherwise. Thanks for playing.
Thanks for ignoring the actually good point right above the namecalling, cunt.
>Doesn't it? To be Human then it gets all the rights you do. What if it wants the right to be John Q. Anon (you) and take your place?
That's fucking retarded, like you. Should my twin brother have the right to impersonate me? No. Problem solved, faggot. Fake ass argument is so fucking fake.
>>64165471
Agreed. Pesky Tyrell for showing off too much.
