Watched Blade Runner for the first time yesterday, what did I

>>82597016
kill yourself

You thought it was visually astounding and had an impressive atmosphere, but also that you'll have to rewatch it a couple times to truly understand the events and themes

>>82597016
Purest kino in history
>vangelis soundtrack
Stroke of genius

One of the rare occasions when the movie is better than the book.

>>82597205
If I remember right it didn't really have anything in common with the book apart from character names and general themes. Isn't Deckard married in the novel? Wouldn't have worked in the film at all

>>82597248
Yeah, you're right. The movie is more or less "inspired" by the book, but the movie is still better in every way. iirc anyway.

>>82597248
Yeah it's pretty good.
Would rather see a different adaption than a sequel, like John Carpenter did with The Thing.

File: blade-runner_55553.jpg (338KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1920x1080px

>>82597016

I really hope the new one captures the aesthetic of the old.

I want to see them still using 80s computer monitors and stuff too

>>82598577
They better keep the Asthetic in tact, otherwise it's dead on arrival.

Sadly I don't think films will ever be visually impressive again. The set design, props, miniatures and matte paintings of Blade Runner might not have been perfect, but it was impressive, just seeing it you knew how much effort had gone into making it, as well as filming around it.

Modern movies you know it's cgi, even if it looks better it's not as cinematically impressive. With enough time you can make anything in CG. Most of its done after filming, so it just doesn't feel the same.

>>82597016
Literally just watched it. It was pretty great but now I desperately don't want sequel. Even though denis villenueve is directing, why ruin the deckard is an android meme?

>>82598577
>>I really hope the new one captures the aesthetic of the old.

But, it doesn't just looking at the trailers.

>>82597016

Compare it to other movies made around that time and you will realise how damn impressive that movie is. It's fucking 35 years old and you can hardly tell that.

>>82597269
The Voigt-Kampff test in the book is a way better scene.

They're completely different beats. The point of the movie is that robots are more human then the humans that chase them. Empathy and all that. In the book, no such conclusion is reached. Hell, Rachel even kills an innocent animal cause the height of her emotional spectrum is spite. The book is more about Deckard having a mid-life crisis and really wanting a real-life goat.

>>82599945
There was also that weird religion in the book, where everybody put on VR headsets and experienced the point of view of some guy getting pelted with stones or something. I remember thinking that was pretty weird, maybe I just didn't get it

>>82599945
>>82600059
Philip K.Dick books were always better for lifting ideas than their actual worth.

>>82597016
you thought it was a big vagina

File: VALIS(1stEd).jpg (49KB, 250x427px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 250x427px

>>82600115
Speaking of Phillip K. Dick, what the actual fuck was this book about

it's superior kino, but since that's a popular opinion most people choose to see it as flawed so they don't come off as too casual

>>82600059
Also, I just remembered that the sky was a matte painting. It was like a big reveal on that talk show everybody was watching.

The move simplified the plot a lot. There was that whole fake police station run by replicants, but with a human bounty hunter, making Deckard believe he might be a replicant. His wife being a bitch that used some kind of mood control machine to be permanently depressed. And the whole religion about that mountain climbing guy and the status symbol of owning a real animal. Deckard himself was like a middle-aged accountant with a secretary.

The movie basically took the name Deckard and the idea of robot chasing bounty hunters and added the whole bit about them actually being more human.
But, I really like the book as well. It's just that people shouldn't go in expecting any ters in rain speeches.

I never understood the people that call it boring. I'm the biggest movie pleb with the shortest attention span, but I found it very engaging and interesting the whole way through.

What the fuck was up with the newest trailer for 2049?

Everything is all clean and pristine. I haven't seen Blade Runner for a year maybe, but I remember it being alot darker, grungy, trash on the streets. There wasn't a whole lot of Asian influence with the costumes or neon signs either. The only thing that seems to carry over is Vangelis and Deckards' pistol.

>>82602589
>Everything is all clean and pristine. I haven't seen Blade Runner for a year maybe, but I remember it being alot darker, grungy, trash on the streets.

Maybe shit changed between 2019 and 2049? Shit was also different back in 1987 compared to today.

is Blade Runner set in the same universe as Battlestar Galactica?
or why was young Commander Adama chasing those proto-Cylons?

>>82597016

it was pretty good and had a nice atmosphere but whether or not ford was a replicant is irrelevant to the plot and so the whole debate isn't really interesting, also the tears in the rain monologue is highly overrated.