Can someone explain why it's "cool" to shit on Blade Runner?
>>82595380
It's cool to shit on popular, critically acclaimed cult films OP.
Didn't you get the memo faggot.
Because it's popular
>>82595380
It took me 33 viewings to get through. I kept falling asleep.
there are no opinions other than the popular opinion didn't you guys hear? everyone is a contrarian unless they like capeshit and hollywood trash!
because rlm did
>>82595397
Apparently not
>>82595441
People say that a lot, but I don't know why
straight from the first scene I thought it was great
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umc9ezAyJv0
I don't know how you can watch this scene and say "wow this sucks I need to take a nap"
>>82595441
is that a hint about blade runners masonic imagery / actual plot? i guarantee 99.9% don't even have a vague idea what it is about
>>82595633
>masonic
>confusing a ziggurat with a pyramid
lmao
>>82595380
>tfw I would leave this world to be in the blade runner world
>>82595380
Because it's supposed to be a classic and its too popular to be just a cult movie. So we rebel. Unless a film is really obscure or so bad its good then we will come together and call it kino. Beside the only real last good movie made was the first 5 minutes of DKRs. Everything else since then has been shit.
>>82595804
can't you just enjoy a movie if you like it?
>>82595804
>He doesn't know about Thing threads
>>82595875
On /tv/? HA
because it's not a very good movie that people overhype originally because of muh harrison ford and now because of nostalgia
>>82595380
>it has a cult following
>the plot is more heavy on themes than dialogue and exposition
>it's a slow burn
>very devoted fanbase gets triggered easily, making it a prime target for underage shits
>trailer for unnecessary sequel thirty years too late encourages more underage shitposters/normies to watch it and get bored/confused
>film has like four different versions, most of which actually are shitty clusterfucks that deserve ridicule
>Netflix only had the theatrical cut available for a long time (still might)
>>82595911
>not a very good movie
care to explain beyond calling it "boring"
Disney marketing.
>>82595877
It ain't Fuchs.
It ain't Fuchs.
>>82595911
When I first saw it I thought it was nothing special, but on second viewing it became my favorite movie.
>>82595380
Same reason it has become cool to pretend Guardians of the Galaxy isn't a piece of shit: shills
>>82595957
>Netflix only had the theatrical cut available for a long time (still might)
I understand not liking the version with the narration. I saw the directors cut with no narration first, so it was weird seeing one with narration on Netflix.
But besides that I can't think of any problems with it.
Also the original version I saw didn't have the horse scenes in it.
>>82595960
it's an adaptation of a slightly above mediocre novel that skimps on plot details, pacing, and depth in favor of special effects
harrison ford's acting is utterly shameful and i can't even watch his scenes without feeling my skin crawl
>>82595380
I love sci-fi and that flick is as boring as the godfather movies.
>>82596075
>skimps on plot details, pacing, and depth
Anything specific? I never thought there were anyvproblems with pacing or depth
What plot details were "missing" in your opinion?
>harrison ford's acting is utterly shameful
Is this a joke? I thought he was fine for his character.
>>82596102
It's time to get some taste kid
>>82596180
>he keeps replying to an edgelord who uses generic criticisms applicable to virtually anything
>>82595957
>the plot is more heavy on X than dialogue and exposition
What does that even mean?
How could a plot possibly be heavy on dialogue? Or exposition?
Quit throwing words together thinking you have an opinion
>>82596577
It means that major story beats are delivered through visuals rather than somebody sitting down and explaining what's going on. That's why they added the horrible narration to the theatrical cut.
What I said made perfect sense. You might want to consult a dictionary because it's possible you don't know what those words mean.
>>82595957
Sums it up perfectly
>>82596695
I understand what you meant now.
You meant "the plot progression is driven heavily by X rather than dialogue and exposition"
You worded it incorrectly though, saying "the plot has a lot of dialogue" is incoherent, "dialogue" can't be:
"the main events of a play, novel, film, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence." (definition)
What you need isn't consulting a dictionary though, what you need is to get a basic grasp on film terminology before you go on film forums, or atleast refrain from using said terminology.
>>82595804
>So we rebel
>insert Rogue One joke
>>82595380
cause its shit and literally "pretend-kino" tier just to hangout with the "cool-guys"
the entire movie had terrible writing and horrible chronology
>>82595474
Saying "I didn't like it because it is not to my taste" about something that is nearly universally acclaimed and regarded among the greats of the entire body of entertainment media is one thing.
Saying "This is actually bad and here's why you didn't know it" about something that is nearly universally acclaimed and regarded among the greats of the entire body of entertainment media is vapidness incarnate and a sure sign of a contrarian.
because out with the old, in with the newits marketing
>>82595972
I ain't going with Windows
I ain't going with him
>>82595380
because RLM