6/10

File: 1181.jpg (53KB, 322x433px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 322x433px

>>87529913
14/88

agree. I never understand the dick sucking of this flick
>DUDE THIS CHARACTER IS SAD THAT HE'S DYING LOL IM SO MATURE

>>87529913
Nice baseless statement. Now back it up.
>>87530286
>if I generalize the film in one shitpost, I can discredit the entire film and its value
>using "mature" as an fallacy when the film was made before you were born
Try again, pleb. Bladerunner holds up on technical aspects alone - there's nothing like it in scifi besides a few films like 2001. Even if you don't find value in its explicit narrative, the world building and technical aspects offer significant artistic merit on their own.

>>87529913
fair score.
i rate movies silimar way

story 3 points max:
>1 for new idea
>2 for hole-less
>3 for all above + narrating
visuals (max 3)
>1 sets/decorations
>2 special effects/cgi
>3 cinematography/editing

audio(2 max)
>1 effects/sounds
>2 music

acting (2 max)
>1 performance
>2 acting feelings

Blade runner, in my book gets 8/10
1+3+2+2
as i find story so messy, they had to release few versions, each one got bit diffrent plot points

>>87530530
Fuck off Ridley, you should have killed yourself and Tony should still be alive.

>>87530568
Who the fuck is Tony?
And Scott's films directly match Kubrick
>Bladerunner = 2001
>The Duelists = Barry Lyndon

>>87530530
>dick sucking
>6/10
I'm saying the film is overrated by 'geeks' who constantly quote the tears in the rain scene as if it was a deeply spiritual transformation for them. The story it's almost a template and had potential to explore the implications of that world but it didnt.
>using "mature" as an fallacy
do you know what fallacy means?

>>87530530
>Now back it up.
no

>>87530531
nowadays I'm just rating movies on like/didnt like and if someone cares I explain why. It's too tiresome to try to keep ratings consistent. Quantifying it is true autism

>>87530704
>doesn't know who Tony Scott is
>thinks he can compare Ridley to Stanley fucking Kubrick

Yeah the movies are the same genres, if you're going to tell me fucking Bladerunner is as technically impressive as 2001 well just lol

>>87530740
>The story it's almost a template
Name one single film that fits the supposed template of Blade Runner. You can't. The only thing that is template is the traditional structure of the story and the predictable climax. Which is why I think Scott tried to change it so Deckard is a replicant, which is less in line with anything definite and predictable.
>had potential to explore the implications of that world but it didnt
You can't offer explicit exposition for everything. A lot is explored through the landscape and setting. If you want more, read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". Otherwise, you're basically criticizing what Blade Runner left out, rather than what the film includes and is.
>do you know what fallacy means?
Yes, and you literally created and attacked a strawman. I can do that too:
>DUDE I DON'T LIKE BLADE RUNNER BECAUSE I'M A PLEB AND TOO YOUNG TO APPRECIATE IT
Wow, I guess anyone who dislikes Blade Runner is tasteless child

>>87530800
well, for me 3-3-2-2 system is easy way i rate. there are great looking movies with shitty plot (latest example mummy) and shitty looking movies with good plot (mostly low-budget 'deep' movies) or shitty movies with nonsene plot and afful visuals (king arthur legend of sword, transformers)

people seems to expect god-knows how deep story, ignoring that movies are also containing visuals and audio. what is more, movies are primary focusing on visuals. want good story? read book. movie is about 70% audio-visuals, 30% storywise. it was always like that, and it will

>>87529913
agreed. the film is overrated for sure. somehow I've watched it a dozen of times and I'm always about to fall asleep at the end.

Would recommend the book though.

File: modern_hollywood_filmmaking.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>87530821
>tony scott
I've not seen even one of his films. His filmography looks entirely unimpressive, just some Tom Cruise and genre films, and too many black male leads.

And Blade Runner is technically impressive. It doesn't need to be a contest when it stands on its own merits. And of course a film made decades prior with techniques impressive still to this day is the more competent film. But the fact is there are few films like that overall, especially now when everything is CGI

>>87531298
>Name one single film that fits the supposed template of Blade Runner
it's the future and humans created other beings like them, dystopia etc etc
>If you want more, read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
classic scottfag

>>87529913
I unironically fell asleep in the theater for only the second time ever (first one was Inland empire)