Is it a nostalgia thing? Do you just say you like this movie

>>81768669
Opinion noted. Opinion discarded.

"Move on. Move on. Move on."

>>81768669
Tone and aesthetic. It's one of the best looking movies ever made.

I also didn't like it and thought it was boring

effects looked good though, sexbot was hot and it had it's moments

>I didn't like this film, why do other people like this film?

good post OP

>>81768669
I bought then watched the movie on DVD because Bailey Jay said it was one of her favourite movies.
Watched the movie
It was shit
Bailey Jay has shit taste in movies

>>81768965
>>81769027
>>81769063
It's not that people just "like" it. The film gets mentioned in every top 10 sci-fi list ever made, usually as No.2 behind 2001: ASO. Why ffs? It has nothing.

I couldn't believe how bad it was desu.

>>81769106
Your opininon is ecxactly what I was expecting from a faggot. shit

>>81768669
You aren't entirely wrong but if there's one place where the movie shines it's effects. The story makes a mess of Dick's original and the general tone is 'The Hard Goodbye' with lots of neon and steam.

People bother with it because it got the sci-fi aesthetic down better than anybody else had before in terms of scale and detail and back then nerds were arguably more starved for good (or even passable) science-fiction on the big screen than they are now.

This autist writes a nice quick rundown on the movie's cult status and the differences between the different cuts alongside an assessment of the movie's developing reputation and how this affected the direction later cuts took the story: http://www.cosmoetica.com/B790-DES644.htm

I preferred the book. Books are always better.

It is overrated though, having to hear females who are majoring in film discuss how great it is makes me feel ill. I just said I like the film and then they have to go on and on how great its to try and impress me their knowledge, I DON'T FUCKING CARE!

>>81769152
>top 10 sci-fi list
There's the trouble. Name 10 better science-fiction movies that normal people will hear of at some point in their lives.

>>81769177
The book is stealth Catholicism-kino.

>>81769152
Maybe there is a reason behind it that you can't see or are unable to see.

Maybe you lack the capacity of awe... the opening shot still looks fantastic to this day.

What films do you like and we can see where you are coming from?

>>81768669
then you're a woman, or you're a fag, or you're either of those two in one, or you're a nu-male with shit taste

>>81769153
The fact that you know who Bailey Jay is is funny

I never once felt bored with Blade Runner, it was enthralling from start to finish. I feel like this is one retards opinion that has just echoed throughout /tv/.

File: p27945_p_v8_ai.jpg (254KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 960x1440px

>>81769231
Dude, I like all movies. I like sci-fi. It's not about my taste, and me naming random unrelated films isn't going to give you any insight into my mind. So stop with the autism.

It's a badly made boring movie apart from about 5 shots.

A.I was better ffs.

>>81768669
You probably didn't watch the Directors Cut. the original is kinda stupid

>>81769272
tell me why

Blade Runner is shit, I went in wanting proper sci-fi like Star Trek and Star Wars and instead got this android shit. The guns don't even shoot lasers and somehow it ends up in peoples top 10s? HAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>81769312
You clearly don't like all movies for starters. Calling me autistic for calling your taste in movies out just shows how insecure you are about it.

A.I. was "better" how? Your assertion means fuck all. Present some actual substance... it's not that hard to do.

>>81768669
Yep, I agree. It's pretty much shit-eaters and duckling effect in action. It's fucking terrible, and if not for Rutger Hauer it would've been a 1/10. With him it's 2-3/10

>>81769027
>Tone and aesthetic.

Aye

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fu7jN2_2pE

>>81769325
He said he watched the Final Cut. Can't you read?

>>81769331
You say that OP is stupid but nobody has said anything intelligent in response. Let's go through everyone who disagrees.

>>81768965
>You aren't worth listening to
>>81769027
>it looks good
>>81769063
>non-post
>>81769153
>non-post
>>81769231
>it looks good you can't appreciate good things
>>81769291
>I was 'enthralled' (like anybody who would sincerely use the word is capable of the feeling)
>>81769325
>5 seconds of unicorn makes it kino
>>81769425
YOU POST SUBSTANCE, YOU CAN'T ASSERT A POSITIVE CLAIM BY ASKING QUESTIONS BUT HE CAN BECAUSE HE'S MAKING A NEGATIVE CLAIM. IT'S MUCH HARDER TO DEFEND A MOVIE THAN IT IS TO CRITICIZE. IF YOU'RE SO SMART WHY DON'T YOU DO IT? HE CAN GET AWAY WITH JUST DEFLECTING QUESTIONS BACK FROM HIS POSITION BUT YOU CAN'T. YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY BLADE RUNNER IS GOOD WITHOUT RELYING ON MEMES OR GLIB NON-ARGUMENTS.

>>81769439
Rutger Hauer isn't even that good in the movie.
>dude Sea Beams lmao

Even the people who don't like this film cannot deny the fact that it has a GOAT OST

>>81769506
>non-post

>>81769506
The retard is strong with this one.

File: 1470034853267.png (129KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 399x614px

>>81769538
>>81769561

>>81769506
Op here, thanks for the run-down. I tend to ignore the hurr durr comments desu.

>>81769163
This is the only genuine reply.

>>81769584
>non-post

>>81769506
Without the unicorn you wouldn't be able to understand the deep meaning this film conveys

Didn't care for it the first time I saw it, went over my head and thought it was nothing special, then played the old point and click game, which reuses all the art design and music except it allows you to immerse yourself in it for far longer to the point of intimacy. Then rewatched the movie and was completel hypnotized 10/10 pure atmosphere kino, noticed all the work and details in every single shot. One of the rare instances where the game really enhanced the overall experience for me and allowed me to develop a much deeper connection and therefore appreciation for the world.

>>81768669

Your opinion is shit and you write like a retard. Kill yourself.

>>81769325
Subtle troll post m8

>>81768669
I agree with you but I would rate it 6/10 because it had innovative set design for its time, I agree with everything else you said.

File: slightly amusing.png (8KB, 601x157px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 601x157px

>>81769594
see pic related

@81769538
@81769561
@81769612
with each (you) I grow stronger

>>81769637
I think that this mystique is a big part of Blade Runner's appeal. It's vague enough to let you apply any kind of significance to it and feel intelligent. And when everyone can pull their own conclusion it's easy to dismiss critics who found none (in my opinion those who see the movie clearly) for not viewing the movie intelligently.

>>81769721
Liking Westwood's game more is unironically not that pleb of a move. They were able to recreate the aesthetic (which is widely agreed to be the best part of the movie) very faithfully and the detective format was arguably served better by the video game medium than the movie. A protagonist who doesn't emote like a dead fish also went a long way.

>>81768669
It looks really good and the teary monologue gives people feels.

>>81769818
>@
go back to twitter pls anon

>>81769189
1. 2001
2. The Matrix
3. Day the Earth Stood Still
4. Gattaca
5. The Terminator
6. Alien
7. Moon
8. Minority Report
9. AI
10. Ex Machina

@81769849
Some posters simply don't deserve their fix

>>81769855
Not an awful list but only a few of those really stand head and shoulders above Blade Runner and several of them are very new. Really good mainstream science-fiction is virtually non-existent. 2001 is probably the closest Hollywood has ever come to bridging the gap between nerds and mainstream audiences, and that was largely due to the DUDE WEED crowd.

File: seanyoung.jpg (10KB, 247x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 247x300px

It creates a believable, atmospheric, genre-defining setting. It is aesthetically beautiful, in a dark kind of way. It successfully creates the required feeling of gloom and hopelessness. It raises questions as all good sci fi does - is humanity finished? What is consciousness? What is the morality of creating intelligent self-aware slaves? Is it right to use them, to kill them? What are we but the same stuff? It used the peak of in-camera non-digital effects to create the world, it defined a style that has inspired countless following movies.It really makes you think. Even a non-sci fi fan must recognize this as a cinematic classic.

>>81769818
>see pic related
keep up the good posts

>>81768669
How do I unsubscribe from your shitty opinion?

How can one person even be this wrong?

File: trash.jpg (105KB, 398x503px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 398x503px

>>81768669

>>81769152
I make this point a lot, but to me there are three ways to enjoy a story: you can't enjoy a story because it's thematically interesting, you can enjoy a story because the characters elicit an emotional response from you, or you can enjoy a story because it's presented in a way that's aesthetically pleasurable. Nabokov's Lolita is a good example of the latter. The book's plot is corny as fuck, but it's so well-written that you can't help but enjoy it. Similarly, the characters in Blade Runner are meh, and the themes concerning free will and rebellion are tired, but the film is so well presented that you can't help but be enthralled.

>>81769029
Great post, a real testament to the clear and unrivaled intellectual prowess you must possess.