attracting contrarian hipsters
>>67039151
Oh look, one of these threads.
>>67039151
Kill yourself.
>>67039151
DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Millennials cant understand science fiction kino
>friend says he thought it was eh
>ask him why
>"it was underwhelming"
>wtf do you even mean?
>"Ford's performance was underwhelming"
How do plebs like this really exist? As if one performance being underwhelming is enough to detract from the perfection that is the setting, dialogue, themes etc. Even then his performance is good, very subtle for Harrison Ford and he isn't just throwing one-liners around constantly
>>67039151
Ignore memers, OP. Blade Runner is fucking terrible; its merit is contrived at worst and ham-handed at best.
Barely passable in 82, aged like milk, unwatchable trash. The only people who defend this film are le sky feye afficionados who lament the loss of anachronisms out of the desperate need to be correct
>>67039362
this is a really good post, very impressive
here, as a token, a gift, is a +1 on my personal scale
what scaling? you might ask and here it is in this instance a scale from goose to gull
from the swarthy waddler clumping up roads from side to side to the salt gargling fish getter treating the wind in a mobile fashion
congratulations
Mute it on mute and play the score instead
>>67039151
>>67039187
>>67039362
You need to be 18+ to post here. Please direct yourselves to something more age appropriate, like a coloring book or skate park.
>>67039550
>>67039623
>Butthurt underage plebs
Protip: protagonist narration isn't a hallmark of pulp fiction of its own accord. Structuring the film around it aesthetically doesn't make it noir. This is something Blade Runner and the both of you wildly fail to grasp. I bet you both go quiet with your critical acclaim when the unforgivable gymnastic fight scenes come up, too, don't you? Or are those visionary?
There are so many fucking problems with this flick
>>67039731
>he watches the theatrical version
wew lad back to highschool now, come on now off with ya scamp!
>>67039355
Holy fuck that guy would piss me off. Does he not understand that the character is literally INTENDED to be a quiet, reserved detective from film noir? That's the whole point of the character! That guy probably defines good acting by how well an actor can yell or pretend to be angry
>>67039731
pris was stupid and a pleasurebot, so she tried to kill him in a dumb sexualized way. i can't believe im falling for this shit (again) but most of the "problems" are clearly intentional and thematically appropriate you colossal fucking idiot
>>67039799
He recognizes subtlety I'll give him that, his taste isn't just total shit. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that it was so hyped up for him that he was expecting something more. He probably also watched the theatrical version with that horrible voice over.
>>67039822
>so she tried to kill him in a dumb sexualized way
Is this really how people interpret that part? I interpreted it as a dominance thing in the sense that she was expressing her perfect athletic ability and form in taking his life as a last sort of "we're superior to you".
>>67039795
>He thinks any amount of alternate content can take Blade Runner from prole to kino
absolutekek. still dont understand why protag narration works in some places and not others, eh? still don't understand why Ford's performance was garbage? no idea what constitutes bad dialogue? cardboard characters? when are expositive sequences excusable?
>muh worldbuilding
>>67039899
Alright friend I'll indulge you. Explain your reasoning behind thinking these things, maybe we can have an actual film discussion.
>inb4 you just describe certain scenes and say it's dumb or bad
>>67039822
>Making it this way was INTENTIONAL. it was THE IDEA to do it a certain way.
No, no I understand why it was done and how it was done. That doesn't make it a good thing to have done, you mongoloid. You have A and B, then line drawn for you, and just because the film connects two things you cry kino? Do you have any idea what craftsmanship means?
People love cheesy scifi, most will never admit it. Put that concept on a backdrop of cyber punk and you get an enjoyable watch
>>67039930
I'll drop the /tv/ defensive contrarian bit if you will.
The reason protag narration is useful and ended up characterizing the pulp style is because of the intrigue of the deductive process in detective themed shit. The point being, there's a puzzle to solve and it's made interesting by being criminal or primal in some way. Crimes of passion, murder, yadda yadda. Okay Blade Runner is there, good, the writers can make a plot. Wonderful. The point of protag narration is involving the audience DIRECTLY in the deductive process, to show you how complex the puzzle is to solve while he's solving it.
In Blade Runner, Harrison Ford just exposits for no reason. HE NEVER DEDUCES ANYTHING. Every single lead he has in the entire film is handed to him by another character. He doesn't solve anything. He doesn't realize anything that isn't spelled out for him. Because of this, having him narrate in a pulp fashion becomes a fixture of style and not substance. The writers WILDLY miss the point; miss the reason why that style of storytelling was so integral to the pulp genre. This is an unforgivable misunderstanding in my opinion, and betrays the film as the weak product of aesthetics. At this point, it's just a collection of tropes. the Femme Fatale is there just because. The cinematography is dark and gritty just because they're going for a noir "look." It's cheap. Blade Runner is a quintessential example of mistaking style for methodology.
Should I continue shitting on the film more specifically or..?
>>67039731
How's Film Studies 101 treating you? Does the professor know you're a dangerous retard yet?
>>67040137
>muh keenoh
>>67040131
What does Jack Nicholson deduce in Chinatown? He gets his ass kicked a bunch and every lead gets tossed to him by somebody else. The detective can be a moron sometimes. See also: Big Lebowski
>>67040238
>Nicholson in chinatown
>Big Lebowski
Both of which are films populated by characters. Blade Runner is populated by poorly written cardboard cutouts who exist to move the plot from A to B, which means that failings in the formula aren't character driven.
Again, betrays Blade Runner as being a xerox of the effects of other films at best.
>>67040131
>HE NEVER DEDUCES ANYTHING.
Did you just conveniently forget about everything surrounding the scale? He figures that out on his own, granted the machine helps him, but you can't honestly sit here and say the machine gave him the answer.
After he finds the source of the scale everything falls into place. He doesn't have to find Leon because Leon comes to him and then Roy takes out Tyrell leading Ford to Sebastian's.
If you're talking about individual lines in the voiceover and how they don't convey the problem/solution well to the audience then I can't say much on that as I've only seen the theatrical version once and immediately dismissed the voiceover. If you're then dismissing the final cut on the basis that it's a noir film without the characteristic voice over then I see why you'd think it fails in the genre, but quite frankly I'm not interested in the film for its genre.
>>67040541
He doesn't do shit with the scale though.
>Scale, huh. Fish scale probably. I'll go ask the fish lady at the noodle shop form three scenes ago because the audience will recognize it, and that makes it less contrived
>Fish lady takes the scale and puts it into her magic plot machine, which spits out the answer
>Snake scale, idiot. Oh look the makers signature It was made by that guy over there
>Right I'll go talk to that guy then
>That guy sends him somewhere else
There's no deduction involved He's a silhouette bounced around the plot by other people. He doesn't rail against anything the entire film except for his own contrived >muh killing shit which is never written well. It's just... there.
I'm mostly using this misconception as a way to illustrate what I think is the pervasive problem with the film, and that is everything it tries to do is aesthetic, not substantive. Underneath the weak 'noir' cover it's just another bad sci-fi film that is made of poor screenwriting mistakes, and the 'noir' mask isn't even a good cover because they misunderstood it entirely. At this point I feel like a broken record but the point I'm trying to make is the difference between style and method.
>show a gay dude blade runner
>he doesn't like it
>says it's pretentious 2deep4you shit
>he watches 15 anime per season and also is gay
Not to mention basic kids like this >>67039896 who make embarrassing first order interpretations out to be some sort of metonymical screenwriting masterstroke
>>67039608
>Mute it on mute
What did he mean by this?
>>67040828
Holy fuck i had that book your picture is from as a kid.
>>67040897
It is from a thread on /an/ go check it out
>>67040723
He uses the macine to find the picture of that girl and then using that as well as the leads given him by the scale he manages to find her, anyway you look at it that is deduction. He deduced from the picture and the scale where she would be.
He then gives her a semi-Voight Kamf test when he goes to see her. I know his whole nerdy guy act is a big meme here and people are always "what was he doing lol" but if you pay attention to the questions he's asking her then it's obvious he's going for some kind of emotional response, otherwise what else could he have done? His other option was to shoot her and risk her being a human or somehow convince that guy that she needed to be subject to a test.
Also, I think it's important to keep in mind that every other noir film is about a detective trying to solve a crim made by humans. There is a motivational aspect that is constantly present and while the motivation is never 100% clear it is still within grasp as the protagonist is dealing with humans. In Bladerunner we are not dealing with humans, we are dealing with androids trying to be humans, it is assumed throughout the film that they don't have emotions and this would undoubtedly make finding them a ridiculous task.
I mean your entitled to your opinion and if you're some big noir film buff then I can understand why you think this film sort of just uses the style for the sake of calling itself noir or something, but honestly I think it's important to keep in mind that it's sci-fi noir and not just in the sense that it's set in the future, but that the characters are also scientific/manufactured examples of noir characters and do not fall into the typical expected conventions.
>>67040835
What are you trying to imply here? If you want to discuss the scene then feel free to. It's an anonymous imageboard afterall you can say whatever you want.
>>67041072
At this point it sounds like apologetics to me honestly.
I'm not here to try and force you to dislike the movie I'm just trying to articulate myself. Thanks for the talk anon, nice to have an exchange
>>67041224
Yes having discussions without just spouting memes is usually pretty good, if only more people realized this.
>mfw that soundtrack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RScZrvTebeA
>>67040862
underrated post
>>67041323
A mix of nostalgia and existential crisis. Just beautiful.
>>67039151
I've read the opinion that it is very simple in it's themes compared to the book. The replicants in the movie are basically human and have their own emotions, it is not surprising they would not enjoy a life of slavery and their eventual death. Compared to the book the replicants in the movie are much more relatable.
Personally I understand where this is coming from, if you really liked the book and the themes within it, but the movie has amazing visuals and >>67041323 a great score by Vangelis. The story itself, the characters, and the acting is also very good. Personally I like it a lot, after all film is a visual medium and Ridley Scott created a beautiful movie and no matter how much people criticize it, that won't change.
