Why is it so good?

i didn't like it, especially the stupid part where he inspects a picture by somehow entering it and looking around, that was so bad
but what can you expect from a fuck up of a movie that has 4 versions? obviously it was just trying to be popular instead of good

It's not, the saving grace is the cyberpunk setting

not really good, just influential in it's visuals and fx. like Star Wars (although obviously not nearly as bad and stupid as Star Wars)

You ever notice in all the new Hollywood Blockbusters, no one ever shuts the fuck up?
Well, both blade runners have people who shut the fuck up. They let the audience watch and experience.
They don't have to be funny. They don't have to explain anything. Sorkin ruined writing.

The worst part of 2049 was the rebellion scene. They should cut that scene.

>What is 3D photography

this.
the movies let you just enjoy the visuals and action instead of telling you stupid shit to evolve their """personalities"".
Every evolving relationship in a 2 hour movie is unrealistic af.
Just enjoy the plot and go with the flow

Because it's a rare Hollywood film that doesn't treat the audience like drooling retards. It doesn't even ask much more than that, but by not tripping over that bar it's elevated above like 90% of other films.

>sorkin ruined writing
Very much so. That facebook movie is unwatchable and plebs thinks it's clever.

youtube.com/watch?v=wQMwfoXg5JE

True
Simply remove the few seconds of the Replicants emerging from the shadows and the film is now much better.

>Ambiguous

Attached: 1509663917367.jpg (1920x1080, 718K)

>ywn watch sea breams glitter in the dark near the tannhauser gate

Attached: sea breams.png (1280x532, 642K)

That's the thing - the red eyes are never acknowledged in-universe. Otherwise they would be better than the V-K test.
They are visual narrative, they suggest, not state. They ask the same question.

>They let the audience watch and experience.
That's the cinema I love. I know became a meme here included stalker-baneposting, but thing about Tarkovsky. He takes his sweet time, linger on scenes and music, eventually mesmerizing you and granting a perfect immersion.

>The worst part of 2049 was the rebellion scene. They should cut that scene.
Is an important part, it guides the action of Mariette.
I understand why people don't like the replicant squad walking in, it has indeed a slight Matrix vibe. But then again, this was supposed to be cyberpunk.

>cinematography
>soundtrack
>light use
>production design
>worldbuilding
>themes
retard

>know became a meme here included stalker-baneposting, but thing about Tarkovsky
holly Ænglish

>Dr. Professor, I am Stalker

>Now what's the next step of your master plan?
>Bombing this Room - with no survivors

>If you will not find your inspiration, will you die?
>It will be extremely painful

>*throws metal nut*
>it didn't fly so good!

It was clearly "think about".

>>themes
nice 8th grade book report

Where to begin? For starters the aesthetic is beautiful but it also has substance, it has deep, it´s not just stylistic noir illumination just for the sake of it looking cool but rather an extension of the world and the characters. Something that completes them and helps to express how they feel and what they know or don´t know in a world that literally hides the truth from them. It´s not just the light and visuals in general either, the sets, the wordrobe, the makeup and off course the music. All fits perfectly to create the world.

The pacing of the narration is also brilliant not to mention Roy is a great and sympathetic character. (i don´t call him antagonist because in truth this is not a struggle between a human and replicants but of replicants against the system) His motives are completly justified. He just wanted to live, how is that wrong? Specially when the film shows that there is no real difference between human and replicant. This is what 10/10 film making looks like.

>Very

Attached: incelinked.png (885x811, 849K)

Not an argument. Themes by themselves are not pedestrian, but how they are developed.

not an argument is not an argument

>it´s not just stylistic noir illumination just for the sake of it looking cool but rather an extension of the world and the characters.
This is true. Just a simple example - the lights constantly intruding into people's apartments. That's a great way to visually describe the type of world and society.

>dude lasers and shiet
lmao, it's fucking trash

>i don´t call him antagonist
Deckard is the Villain. Roy is the edgy anti-hero.
The story is told from the Villain's perspective and both found their redemption.
This alone puts BR above many, many other stories.

You can just bump without blatant baiting.
>not an argument is not an argument
In fact I then explained why you are wrong, retard-san.

Brainlet
Based.

The duality of man.

I didn't get the hype when I finally got around to seeing it. I barely even remember it either.

i don't know it certainly is kind of a slow movie and so is the new one, but i actually enjoy that.
i mean just look at what hollywood did to ghost in the shell, GITS isn't supposed to be an action movie(and the sequel is even less of an action movie) and they made it one,

and dear god i don't want them to ever lay a finger on akira.

>In fact I then explained why you are wrong, retard-san.
>Themes by themselves are not pedestrian, but how they are developed.
not english

Try again, next time with some substance, you utter coward.

Sad!

>the only good scene of the entire movie wasn't on the script

It isn't, people were just blown away from its look a at the time, but the film is pretentious and boring. I've never liked it and I even hate it.

Unlike 2049, it was a very honest film and the quality reflects that

is the final cut the best version of this?

Bot.
>that's the only good scene

>>>/capeshit/

reminder that is was actually rape

There isn't a fucking remake.

I read the book before seeing the movie and I thought the movie sucked. It's baffling that nerd retards feel some obligation to call it one of the best sci fi movies ever. I'm not expecting a book to reach the same level of depth as the book but it should at least present the same message effectively, which the movie does not. It's glorified for its visuals only. 2049 is unironically better but also not great

>cyberpunk
It's neon noir, cyberpunk didn't exist yet

I suppose Solaris and Stalker suck too, because they are not like the book.
You are the worst kind of retard.

>I'm not expecting a book to reach the same level of depth as the book
based and breadpilled

Yes, although some will disagree to look different and special

movies can be better than the books they are based on.... I don't think it's bad because it's "not like" the book. I think it's bad because the characters, acting, and plot are weak and rely heavily on style

Right on, user.

>I see cooler things than you
>but I die first
>But Dr, I am Aristotle

very deep

Attached: lasers.jpg (620x413, 35K)

This how I read it too.

It's a forefather of an entire genre.

back to redd*t you fagcuck.

In the sense that Deckard represents the system i think you could call him the villain but he is still the protagonist because he is the one transformed by the events of the film. Roy could be called an antagonist though because his actions are the ones that force Deckard to action but as you say this does not mean he is a villain. And yet i am not convinced Roy is even the antagonist, sure, his actions push Deckard but once it is revealed in the end of the film that Deckard is also a replicant Roy´s role changes too, he becomes more like a mentor figure.

I think one of the reasons why this film is so great is that it reaches a resolution that blurs the distinction between human and replicant in a high contrast world of extremes. The noir aesthetic really means something for this plot and these characters.

Good points. One could say the blurring is between roles as well as human/replicant, true.
POTTERY