>unlikable protagonist
>ass kicked every scene
>effects aged like milk
>it's set three years in the future and looks fucking ridiculous
>BORING
>BORING
>BORING
So tell me again why you nerds like this trash?
>the characters were not likeable
>muh effects
>literally nothing happens
>not knowing the source book was written many years before the film
All typical complaints from the worst kind of pleb. We need a purge on this place.
>>71286164
You had my attention here since I actually think Blade Runner is overhyped but unfortunately like everyone else here you just came to shitpost.
>>71286309
So because I posted an opinion you agree with that makes me a troll????????
I still have no idea what happened, I even watched a fucking explanation of the movie.
>>71286164
>effects aged like milk
So like a vintage cheese? You just complimented it nigger.
>>71287214
vintage cheese that turned into rotten shit. I don't remember milk ageing well
>literally the best special effects ever put on film
>"aged like milk"
This says more about what a fucking retard you are than it does about the movie.
>>71286164
To be honest, I just like cyberpunk and since this is one of the few cyberpunk movies that doesn't completely suck I like it
>>71286164
Why does this Blade Runner guy drop his guard in every encounter? I thought he was supposed to be the best?
>>71287549
I thought so to, until he started behaving like a faggot
UGH look at these garbage effects that look SOOOOO fake and ridiculous
>>71287733
You think this looks good!?
>>71286164
>effects aged like milk
Nigger, are you for real?
Everything else you said I can understand but this is objectively wrong.
>>71287968
Man, I love that videogame.
Also:
>>>/v/
>>71287549
Read the book. Deckard isn't "the best" or even that competent. Like all PKD protagonists, he's flawed as hell and actually a piece of shit.
His importance in the movie, and the chief sucking him off, is because he's a replicant and the chief is part of the plan or paid off by Tyrell Corp.
Also yeah I know Ford is in the new one, indicating he is not a replicant. But the Final Cut, Ridley Scott's ultimate vision, heavily implies he was meant to be.
idk overrated is vague but Bullitt.
>>71287968
Better than the prequels.
>>71288175
You could probably provide a really good explanation as to why he was such a dull on screen presence, wouldn't change my opinion.It's a fine afterthought, but it doesn't make for a good film.
They also should've cast someone different if that's what they were going for. Getting Harrison Ford to play a betamax is stupid imo
>>71286164
>I can't into a great movie
>I'm not the problem, the movie is
More capeshit for you kiddo.
>>71286164
it's not trash, but it's not amazing as some say. Still, I like the movie. How are the effects bad? Everything looks good. What exactly looks ridiculous in your opinion?
>>71288619
Didn't say bad I said milk
>cyberpunk
>those monitors
>that crummy shot over Tyrell corp
>>71286164
>Deckard empties his gun at a flailing replicant on the street in the middle of broad nighttime and misses half his shots
>No mood machine to distract you from the fact your wife could be a replicant
>>71289426
>cyberpunk
So you hate the entire cyberpunk genre? Why the fuck did you watch this movie then?
>those monitors
That's a shallow complaint and you know it. Practically EVERY old futuristic sci-fi movie has outdated monitors. If they trigger your autism then you shouldn't watch any futuristic sci-fi that was made in the 20th century.
>that crummy shot over Tyrell corp
That shot is fucking amazing.
>>71286164
>unlikable protagonist
Pleb tier complaint.
>ass kicked every scene
>BORING
What? You think there's too much action and it's boring? You aren't making any sense.
>effects aged like milk
This complaint is objectively fucking wrong. Around 90% of the effects have aged flawlessly
>it's set three years in the future and looks fucking ridiculous
It was made in 1982, they thought that by 2019 we would be living in a cyberpunk shithole. Complaining "THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT THE FUTURE!" is childish.
>>71290483
In the book people like Deckard because he reacts to his situations logically.
in the movie, he reacts slowly, Harrison Ford obviously hates the script, he doesn't use the Nexus-6 test regularly, he is a generally unlikeable character compared to his book counterpart.
hell even deckard is too boring for roy baty so he just says fuck it and turns himself off like a faggot
>>71287202
Then you're honestly kinda dumb
>>71286164
you're literally objectively wrong about everything but the BORING part, because fuck me that film really is boring as shit. especially the director's cut
>>71287202
It's not that complicated. Frank woke up Donnie which caused a new timeline to be created and the whole universe started to self destruct because that timeline was a paradox, so Donnie went back in time and stayed in bed.
>>71286164
heads up. a film is not boring. when a viewer opines that a film is boring, it's more telling about the viewer than the film. same as when a person dislikes a movie. some people dislike The Godfather. just dropping some knowledge on you ignorant fucks who think every opinion your fuckwit cockwobbled brain churns out is fact.
>>71287202
I enjoyed it even though it took watching a 20 minute explanation on YouTube afterwards. Personally I thought it was cooler when I was wrong and thought Frank was the time traveler manipulating Donnie to set things right (until I noticed how wrong that theory was because of a couple scenes).
>>71286278
>>71288175
>>71290725
I love Blade Runner and the book it's based on, but you're doing a horrible job defending it. The film and the book are not the same, and PKD actually wouldn't let them use the original script because it followed the book exactly. He only gave his approval once the film became its own entity and he loved the working version he saw before he died.
Deckard in the book is a heartless individual because leading a normal life and fitting in is what makes him human. It's ironic because following social norms makes humans more robotic than the androids who are murdered for wanting to live. Deckard in the book is the protagonist, but not the hero.
Deckard in the film is a much better person. The reason his presence is often icy is to perpetuate the mystery of whether he is human or replicant, which was only briefly mentioned and resolved in the book. Making this mystery an integral part of the story meant Deckard had to act more inhumane at times so he contradicts himself. The question is now whether the flawed creature is "real" or not.
Often the greatest films based on novels are the ones that deviate and set their own rules. Straight translations exist only for milking plebs.
>>71290829
So why did Frank wake up Donnie? I'm unsure of it had a specific meaning or if it was just meant to be lolrandumb, which is fine, I just don't know.
Also why would he randomly go back in time
>>71291059
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM-o8Wm4s8Y
I used this video (it's very long; sorry). Apparently there is a ton of stuff from the original cut that was removed from the theatrical that explains how time travel works in the film. If you want to figure it out for yourself WITHOUT the director's cut, the special features on the theatrical DVD has scans from The Philosophy of Time Travel that you can piece together and relate to the film.
you niggers need to stop posting in obvious bait threads
sage
>>71286164
>protagonist well not the best is quiet, reserved, and has well-built and defined character and motivation
>protagonist isn't a Mary Sue, and therefore actually struggles with beating his enemies, which adds more tension and realism to the film.
>Effects that are still perfect over 30 years later. (Seriously dude there better than most of he stuff that comes out today.)
>are you really complaining about the fact that it's set in the near future? You know that the book that it's based off of was written in the 60s right?
>one of the most entertaining films ever made.
Do you have any actual complaints?
>disgusting shaky cam even during simple dialog heavy scenes
>horribly boring and uninteresting plots
>muh realism
>muh BWEE
>shitty action
>forgettable characters
>forgettable Villians
>pointless sequel after sequel
put it in the fucking garbage.
>rip-off of French and Japanese new wave films.
>pointless pretentiousdialogue that doesn't build the characters are move the story foward.
>only told out of order so it seems more intelligent and interesting than it actually is.
>one likeable character
Why is this movie considered to be so great again?
>>71291314
It's the first film to do what it did and also be hugely popular.
plus it was cool.
Still holds up to this day as well.
>>71291363
>the first film to do what it did
What did it do that no other film had done before?
There are tons of way "cooler movies" than pulp fiction.
What do you mean it holds up? It came out like 20 years ago why the hell wouldn't it hold up? It's not an effects driven film, so saying that it's til holds up isn't really any achievement.
>>71291461
It's the first to do it AND be popular. Read my post. It was a big hit with people, it came out at the perfect time. basically the Nirvana of film, without the shotgun to the head.
Subjective.
Dialog and editing and pacing all hold up very well. Good sets, props, and overall a well made and entertaining film. It aged like wine.
>>71291314
it's basically one of those movies nu-males will never understand.
>>71291707
Except it's the exact movie all nu-males love
>>71291588
What did it do and be popular at?
And that's not a good argument for the film because your basically just saying its an unoriginal rip-off that just got more popular than the original. Which is what it is, it's also watered down so general audiences can enjoy it.
Same could be said for you when you said it was "cool"
It's only been 20 years why wouldn't the pacing editing and dialogue hold up? That's not impressive or worth mentioning.
>>71291033
>I love Blade Runner and the book it's based on, but you're doing a horrible job defending it.
>i came here to insult plebs and to laugh at you for suggesting the film and book are not the same
film still sucks, and thats money spent on a film the world will never get back.
>>71286164
You probably think marvel movies are great
>>71291707
You realize that pulp fiction is the favorite film by most nu-males right?
Also get out of here with your shitty /mu/ memes.
>>71291314
>rip-off of French and Japanese new wave films
wait, what? how so?
>>71292102
The style and characters and even some scenes and just just straight lifted form those films.
>>71286164
>effects aged like milk
What? I get that maybe the flying car kind looks slightly off but the effects are almost fucking perfect son.
![Blade.Runner.FINAL.CUT.1982.BluRay.1080p.TrueHD.VC1.Remux-HiFi.mkv_snapshot_00.17.01_[2016.06.26_19.33.33].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5FGIXXQ.jpg "Blade.Runner.FINAL.CUT.1982.BluRay.1080p.TrueHD.VC1.Remux-HiFi.mkv_snapshot_00.17.01_[2016.06.26_19.33.33].jpg")
>>71287968
Yes
>>71286164
>>71290483
>they thought that by 2019 we would be living in a cyberpunk shithole.
Go to Beijing or Shanghai. It looks terrifyingly like what you see in Blade Runner. Crowded cities, heavy industry, pollution destroying every single piece of nature, smog so think you literally can't see past your hand, asian ladies on giant billboards, etc.
The only thing they haven't got is flying cars.
Just look at Shangai, 1980 vs 2010. 30 years and it's basically went from quaint Chinese port to a fucking cyberpunk theme park.
Thanks OP. I got tired of making the same thread and getting shitted on
>>71291314
>>pointless pretentiousdialogue that doesn't build the characters are move the story foward.
The dialog is hardly pretentious. Pointless yes but hardly pretentious.
>>71286164
>>it's set three years in the future and looks fucking ridiculous
Where did everything go so wrong?
Was it the liberals?
>>71292618
>>71287968
I'm surprised how good that game still looks for 1997
Completely agree, i was going into it expecting great things but came out feeling a bit empty.
Sure, the "tears in rain" part was good and some of the visual design was great but it's a hollow experience for me. Ford delivers a flat, boring performance(which you might say was the point but it's still boring to watch him). The soundrack was borderline god awful, archaic 80's yamaha synthesizers that sound harsh and underwhelming, the soundtract deserved more variety.
It's not a bad movie, and it's certainly one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made, but that's a fairly short list because most sci-fi films are garbage by default
not trash but
>Number of ghosts busted on screen not counting Gozer (who isn't really a ghost anyways): 1
>Ernie Hudson does literally nothing in the entire movie
>>71292714
People started caring about the environment. Thankfully China is on track on fucking that shit up. Hell they'll be running out of drinking water in some areas by the end of the next decade.
>there are people who actually think Deckard was a replicant, despite no evidence to support it
>>71286164
>effects aged like milk
>blade runner
>effects aged like milk
>effects
>aged
>like
>milk
>>71292881
unicorn_origami.jpeg
>>71286164
There is not a single valid criticism in that post.
>>71292881
>despite ridley scott explicitly stating he was in one of the cuts, with the unicorn scenes
