IT IS ABOUT WHAT IS TO BE A HUMAN FUCKING REDDIT GO WATCH SOME FUCKING COP BUDDY MOVIE FUVKING CHRIST

Shouldn't you be outside playing with the other kids?
Read the book, its more thought provoking, you can write a report on it for school :^)

Your evaluation is solid, OP. The emphasis people place on Blade Runner's story is retarded. The studio were out to produce a science fiction movie, with many different scripts selected until they finally settled on that one. The story, for the genre, was secondary to the genre. For Ridley Scott, his main focus is undoubtedly the visuals, with the science fiction noir atmosphere, and if you look at his filmography, it's true of most of his films that the plot is only an appendage to the visuals, scene and atmosphere. It doesn't, however, detract at all from Blade Runner that the plot is a flimsy piece of crap. People who watch movies for plot are literally plebs.

>>69243300
The "bad" guys aren't so much bad as they are looking to escape "retirement" (which is a term they use for killing replicants). They simply want to live but simply because they live they are outlaws. You are meant to think when you watch this film, I am not surprised that you didn't like it.

>>69243490
I think the visuals were really cool in Alien, but Alien was also legitimately interesting. Things happen, you are intrigued by events/characters. No character in Blade Runner gets any kind of fair treatment in making them well established enough to make the plot interesting, nothing in the plot is interesting or clever.

>>69243300
I think the plot is great. It's minimalist. Interesting enough to keep you hooked, but not overbearing. You're not so involved in the story that you don't have time to focus on the visuals. People say that it's visual focussed, while not necessarily untrue I'd say it's really just well balanced and I wish more movies were like it.

>>69243592
Read the book, the movie leaves a lot of stuff out.

Was Deckard the replicant that 'got fried in an electrical field' when trying to break into the Tyrell corporation and they reprogrammed him to be a hitman?
Are replicants just basically biologically the same as humans with more strength and intellect or are they like robots or some shit?

>>69243592
The plot aspects are probably better executed in Alien, to be honest, but it seems obvious beyond doubt to me that both Alien and Blade Runner's stories are just excuses for the visuals in those movies. Blade Runner belongs to science fiction noir, though, and its plot necessarily has to incorporate the archetypes of the genre, which are far more difficult to execute effectively.

>>69243661
You're getting into the core of the principal of the book, it begs the question "If something that is fake is so close to the real thing that you can't tell, does it matter?"

>>69243710
>and its plot necessarily has to incorporate the archetypes of the genre, which are far more difficult to execute effectively.

how so? Seems like it would be much easier if you had a road map already laid out, just make the plot have some interesting points? Deckards detective work is: putting a picture into a computer thingy that gets a picture of the stripper replicant, finding a scale that came from a genetic snake. Thats it really. He shoots her, then Rachel shoots Leon, then he goes to Sebastians appartment after his body is found. No ah ha moment, no interesting interactions with characters on his quest to find the replicants (besides Rachel). Its a long movie and not much happens really. Awesome music and setting/visuals.

>>69243350
>>69243633
>>69243661
>read the book
>read the book
>book book book
Literally fuck off to /lit/. We're on /tv/ - Television and Film, a board for the discussion of television and film, visual mediums, and we want to discuss a film on its merits as a film, not as an adaptation of a piece of literature. For one thing, Ridley Scott did not give a fuck about the source material. He told a separate story different in medium and not dependent on the fucking book. Nobody cares about your fucking hard-on, faggot.

Was Deckard a replicant?

>>69243300
read the book; the movie is not great

all the fucking neckbeard fedora hipster etc who say this is the best sci fi are retards

and harrison ford is a shitty actor

>>69243995
it is the /a/ mentality
forgive those plebs

>>69243882
I've read people who've argued the lack of interaction is intentional to emphasize a feeling of isolation, of being a robot in a robot world. It's a pretty neat theory, to be honest. My point, however, was that noir is harder to execute, and you demonstrate that. It's necessarily a case of intrigue, and intrigue is more difficult than an unknown monster attacking someone. It's the lack of proper intrigue that lets Blade Runner down most, and what intrigue there is has instead ended up as confusion, with so many fucking dubious fan theories.

I see theres a book called Blade Runner, but then Wiki says its based on a PK Dick book 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'
Which is it, is it both?

I read a PK Dick book called Ubik, it was kinda boring.

Was Deckard a replicant?

>>69243300

reminder deckard isn't a replicant, and even if he was it does nothing for the plot

it had some really good scenes, the pacing was a bit weird though

>>69243300
Moron.

>>69244301

The "sheep" one is the influence for the movie.

>>69244426
>>69244475

Ridley Scott says Deckerd was indeed a replicant.

>>69243300
this movie also has several instances of weird dialogue combined with awkward line delivery, but yeah, visually it's top notch. it's like a snyder movie with more effort and no cgi to use as a crutch, and yet it's better.

Gaffe was the replicant.

Was Childs the Thing?