/tv/ - Television and Movies

>>934432

Deckard as a replicant ruins it, and makes the story pointless. What it proves is how someone can make a movie and still not understand it.

>>934438

>Deckard as a replicant ruins it, and makes the story pointless. What it proves is how someone can make a movie and still not understand it.

That's the story of cuckley scott in a nutshell. I laughed at how fanboys thought that he was the only person who could redeem the alien franchise but all he did was prove he can't handle the material he is using.

IQ:

85 - Cares whether Deckard is a Replicant or not

90 - Thinks Deckard is a Replicant

95 - Thinks Deckard isn't a Replicant

120+ - The fact of the matter is contextually irrelevant, which only leads to the question itself becoming more…FORGET IT, YOU NORMIES WOULDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND

>>934432

What is the moral dilemma when a robot simulates sex with another robot? Or simulates love with another robot? Or kills another robot? Answer: there is none.

The story is about a man hunting down machines in a world completely dehumanized to the point of him questioning his very own humanity. That speech-scene is very telling of the question Deckard asks himself, is Roy Batty more human than himself, even though he's a robot.

Or if you're not a fucking faggot, it's a story about a detective hunting down robots. Nothing more matters because it's a stupid fucking fictional story.

>>934432

Let me ruin it for everyone ITT: how do you know YOU aren't a replicant, dumbass?

>>935284

oh no

Deckard was always a replicant, the first cut of the original blade runner was nearly 4 hours long. Studio and test audiences back then didn't understand the first one either, it was chopped to shit and the narration was added. There's over 45 minutes of alternate and deleted scenes that don't appear in any of the four official cuts in this youtube video alone.

>>938225

>Deckard was always a replicant

Only for Retard Ridley

>>938270

IIRC the first draft had Deckard be human and the second version made him a replicant. I also think I recall the final version being a mishmash of the two. It could be either way tbh.

>>938225

>the first cut of the original blade runner was nearly 4 hours long. Studio and test audiences back then didn't understand the first one either

Probably because their bladders weren't letting them think. What a fucking madman.

>>934846

Why is there a moral dilema in the first place. The movie is about robots that get to dream their own pictures about love and etc. Is not irrelevant he is a replicant but it adds layers to the question of what it means to be a human being. there's just human history and not a static human essence and thats way Deckard falls in love but is hard for him to love

>>938297

>Probably because their bladders weren't letting them think. What a fucking madman.

I think that four hour figure comes from the "assembly cut" composite of the movie with some seconds of padding entering and exiting each scene for the editor to play with, and usually contained all the alternate versions of similar scenes, so the scenes would be repetitive and often contradictive; it's simply a tool for the film makers to see the work blown up and projected before deciding on further edits. Whittled down to the final product, it might have been 2.5 to 3 hours more likely.

>>934476

IQ:

150+ - Doesn't bother flaunting IQ due to depression brought about by pseudo-intellectuals just below you being such tryhards

>>938487

>his obligation to Thelma & Louise

His excuse is that he had to work on a complete piece of shit? Does he think this is a good fucking excuse!?

It really makes you think.

Replicant or not doesn't matter.

It works in different ways.

>>934432

Sense to the real dumbass scenes in the movie that felt out of place.

The entire movie is shit. The novel is fucking shit. Total Recall was better.

>>938543

explain it then

>>938587

Total Recall is fun but more in a schlocky action movie way, not as good as Blade Kino.

Because one of the brilliant points about the movie is that it questions not only the meaning of humanity, but the meaning of machine, and tech as a whole Most people are totally comfortable with just ending the replicant's lives according to their will, and don't even think about what that could mean. They see technology as a mere commodity, not a bridge into a new perception of the world, much like social media normalfags nowadays.

Decker doesn't want to hunt them, it's a big point in the movie. He already mentions in the beginning, when he's recruited back, and it all gets worse when he starts to fall in love with Rachael. But for some reason he keeps doing it, we don't even know why and apparently neither does he. A lot of scenes have their entire tension built around this dilemma. Making him question his humanity just adds that much more to the entire personal conflict, and since we empathized with him through the entire movie, we see the killing of replicants as even more dramatic than the tears in the rain scene already delivers.

Blade Runner sucked tho

>>947248

no, it's good

I don't know why there's confusion to begin with. The biggest way to differentiate a human & replicant is from their physical abilities. Deckard got beaten up a lot and easily by replicants, meanwhile K in Blade Runner 2049 got beaten up far worse, put through concrete walls and still got up to finish the job, no sweat.

>>948882

Though the concept of the replicant is that it's scalable, the narrative version of the original even mentions that Leon "has had his pain thresholds jacked up so high, you'd have to kill him for him to feel it, even then, he probably wouldn't."

>>938449

the only problem with that addition is how bad it looks.

>>949867

>the only problem with that addition is how bad it looks.

I thought it was with "how did he get in there?"