It's too bad she won't live!

>It's too bad she won't live!
*short silence*
>but then again who does?

Attached: toobad.jpg (1081x720, 136.04K)

Other urls found in this thread:

>al those... moments will be lost in time... like...
>tears... in the rain
> :)

Attached: rutger_hauer_blade_runner.jpg (1280x720, 51.5K)

Absolute kino

A five year old could have written this shit
He had a schizophrenic episode and Ridley kept the camera rolling


Deckard can't possibly be a replicant. In the first movie, Eldon Tyrell explained in great detail how it's impossible to give a replicant a humanlike lifespan. In 2049, we find that Deckard is still alive 30 years later. The Nexus-7 had already existed by the time Eldon gave his explanation. Deckard can't possibly be a replicant.
>inb4 he lied
A foolish excuse to hold onto a decades-old fan theory. If the entire lynchpin of the deckard-replicant theory is a lie Eldon told for no reason, it's a bad theory and not worth serious consideration.
>inb4 Scott says he's a replicant
Artistic intent means absolutely nothing. Only the art matters.

we truly live in a society

>You ever see stars n shit my nigga?
>Sad af , on 100

>A five year old could have written this shit
T. Jealous dogshit writer

Edward James Olmos...
good actor...

He's not a replicant in the novel.
But what are replicants anyway?
They're not androids because they have to go through some empathy test to be identified (I think the book also says they can be identified with their spinal fluid).
But they're not clones either.

>everyone umm... le dies ok???
Lmao Cuck Runner has less intellectual value than The Land Before Time

>A five year old could have written this shit
But could a 5 year old write this?

"The Tiger," by Nael, age 6
The tiger
He destroyed his cage
The tiger is out

Out of curiosity, post a movie that has a good intellectual value for your IQ caliber

Sounds like kino is on the menu...

Blade Runner 2049

>Eldon Tyrell explained in great detail how it's impossible to give a replicant a humanlike lifespan.
Existing ones.
Maybe Deckard is from a more modern line with longer life.

Jujutsu Kaisen 0

>Artistic intent means absolutely nothing. Only the art matters.
You're so autistic you're literally incapable of rational thought.

As for Ridley - he purposefully changed the movie to fit the sequel. It's on record - he retconned it for 2049. So now it's canon - but before that, Deckard as a replicant didn't make sense - one, a replicant couldn't be a cop - and Deckard is referenced as an ex-LAPD cop, and two, Rachel was the first successful experiment to make a replicant that believes they're human. Deckard would have to be a better experiment than Rachel - which is impossible without time travel. Ridley retconned all of that for the sequel. Which has a right to do, but until he purposefully added the unicorn shit to pave the way for 2049, Deckard was human. Ridley didn't have any expectations of sequels in the early 80's so wrote an amiguous stand alone story that worked, until it didn't when the lure of sequel money popped up. Then he had to explain shit he never had any intention of explaining, and now we have plotholes and things that don't add up. Like why they would make a replicant with sexual organs, unless it's a pleasure model like Tris - but even then, there's no need for a womb. Or testicles for Deckard.
Both films are fine, as it is - but Ridley had to do a lot of hand waving with squeaky toys to distract from the plot holes his retcons left.

Come on man I'm serious
I don't know what that is

this scene would have made a lot more sense if there was a voice over, explaining what the fuck he was talking about

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

This was the best quote in the movie solely because of the way rutger hauer delivers it

Maybe they've made two.
Male and female.
Like Adam and Eve.
And paired them together to observe them and their interactions.
Makes perfect sense.

>You have less than 24 hours to live son, there's nothing i can d o for you, but the fire light twice as bright
Did he expect him to say thanks, dad?

Attached: 1 mnGznttRmdUXSZL81OldDw.png (633x237, 125.19K)

They're engineered humans

That makes no fucking sense. Deckard has been around, ostentiably for years, as he has a past with the LAPD. How could a better replicant version exist, when newer versions still have the limitations for long life. The replicants he's hired to track down are only a couple of years old. Roy literally ages out on screen, meaning he's 4 years old.
You'd need time travel for Deckard to be a better, more feature rich replicant than Roy, Pris, and Rachel. There's nothing in the movie to indicate this is so - and you'd have to mangle common sense to accept that characters like Bryant pretending to a replicant that they used to be a cop. Why would they even do that? It serves no purpose.
Again - Ridley wrote a movie in the early 80's and made it a JJ Abrams-esque mystery box to play into the theater of the mind with the audience, which worked. But when he smelled money from a sequel, he had to explain shit he never intended to with the original. He left too many clues to Deckard being human in the original for there not to be massive plot holes.

You have to reject the idea that Rachel is the pinnacle of replicant tech at the time the movie is set in, and her life is bio-engineered to be short, because of the reasons Tyrell tells Deckard. How could a better model even exist, for Deckard to have a longer life span? The script doesn't support it - but Ridley retconned the shit out of it to make 2049 work.

Makes no sense. They can make replicants in a factory, without needing actual sex. If they have that level of technology, then actual sexual organs make no sense - and make no sense in that they only live 4 years.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 133.18K)

it's too bad she's GOT A GREAT ASS!!!!!

Attached: 1509450197057.jpg (1280x720, 85.14K)

>As for Ridley - he purposefully changed the movie to fit the sequel. It's on record - he retconned it for 2049
Have fun with your celeb-obsessed hollywood politics tripe
PR shit that the director says in an interview years after the release of a film has nothing to do with the content of the film. Sorry, you're just wrong.

>Scott says he's a replicant
Scott believing this while directing adds to the ambiguity and tensionbut it doesn't mean for one second that Deckard is a replicant.

>As for Ridley - he purposefully changed the movie to fit the sequel. It's on record - he retconned it for 2049.
The man is senile.

Autist, learn some coping skills. Scott said specifically he added the unicorn sequence to the director's cut, to pave the way for 2049. Try to cope with being wrong, yet again.

>A five year old could have written this shit
But would they?

These are good posts. In order for Deckard to be a replicant, everything we are told about the world & about replicants in the OG BR would have to be false; there would have to have been secret models with normal human lifespan made BEFORE the nexus-6 types came on the market.

>he has a past with the LAPD.

I.e. it's possible that Deckard is like a month or a week old.

>"Don't you have some Cylons to kill you smug turd?"

Which would require Bryant and everyone involved to pretend he's not, which makes no sense. Why? Why would they bother? Because a replicant wouldn't kill another replicant, if they knew they were a replicant? And why the whole charade of him being dragged into the office against his will to get hired to hunt the replicants? Because he might say no, otherwise? And give him a plush apartment to live in? Why would they do any of that, including implanting memories of being a replicant hunting cop? What does it bring to the story?
Just accept that in 1981, when he was adapting the book, he made choices to make it a mystery box, to make it more intriguing for the audience. That's all. And he had to retcon the fuck out of it for a sequel decades later, which he also never imagined doing when he made the first one.

Again - both are good films. They have enough shared DNA with retcons to be fine. But the "Deckard as replicant" doesn't stand with the OG film, it's not written to do that, it was written to make you wonder, but falls apart when it's decisively stated he was a replicant. But he couldn't go back and rewrite all of Blade Runner, to support it.

>Hollywood people tell the truth when they're trying to sell you something
Other than the fact that you seem to believe this for some reason, Deckard being a replicant simply does not jive with the facts of the world as presented in the movie. One 10 second clip doesn't change that. If you think this theory holds any water just because the director made profit-motivated decisions years after the fact, you are a fool. Sorry. Try focusing a little more on the art and a little less on economics.

>A mexican playing an hungarian

He's saying that in terms of living, we all don't live long. Whether it's 4 years or 80, it goes by quick.

screenwriters should go through every line of dialog in their script and ask if this sounds like something the person would say, or like something written for them to say?

hungarians are not whites so it's ok

>I saw some pretty lasers in space
>This totally justifies the murder, assault, and property damage my fellow escapees and I committed

And who are you to tell them how to write? What have you done?

imagine being this shallow brainlet

We get it, autist, your autism forbids you from being wrong, so you'll keep posting nonsense all day to support your bizarre autsistic points.

Just stop. Go whinge in another thread, you're done here.

Are you that little jew from NYC?
also checkem

Attached: check1.png (467x890, 286.83K)

Some government program - i.e. they're paid to pretend.
Why they're going through all the charade?
To develop a replicant blade runner replacement - development requires testing.
Human replacements is the entire point of replicants existing in the first place.

What does it add to the story?
Well, the movie isn't really about Deckard, it's about what is human, what is humanity about, and from that standpoint it enhances the story - it reiterates the point of the movie - that replicants by that point were indeed human.

the best written part of Blade Runner is when Deckard is pretending to be a stooge for the cabaret union trying to find peepholes as an excuse to snoop around the replicant's dressing room

>Artistic intent means absolutely
Exactly correct. That's literally the first thing they teach you in film school.

Art is a collaborative process that can involve thousands of people from the lowliest assistants all the way up to the studio heads and executive producers. The audience is also part of that process. Their interpretation of the messaging is an essential component of the creative process. Ridley Scott does not have the ability to unilaterally change the meaning of his works before or after the fact.

Attached: 1644169456019.webm (640x800, 2.18M)

Film school fart huffers are irrelevant.

Ridley made it, he can do whatever he wants to it. The best boy has no fucking say at any point in the process, neither does the audience.

But huff those film school fumes, eventually you'll huff yourself so retarded you'll be incapable of typing, and we won't have to endure your autism.

>no further argument or contribution
Cope at your own leisure then, carry on

2049 completely misses the point of the first film. It is known. I assume we can blame it on retarded producers who felt Harrison needed to be in it so normies would watch it

>this buttmad about one of the most foundational concepts in art/media
idk if this is the board for you lmao

he had some spazzy meltdown on the set of BSG over having to act without anybody else around in one scene or something

cringe dialogue, scripted
kino dialogue, unscripted

the only kino in this movie was a total fluke

What was he alluding to here?

>2049 completely misses the point of the first film.
BR 2049 has a completely different take on the nature of humanity than BR 2019 because they were made in very different times.