Ridley Scott was a retard for hinting Deckard was a replicant...

He’s most definitely not based. I’m also pretty sure he’s a closeted fag

a "man is the real monster" character, and him being a replicant ruins that.

good. this a jewish idea and doesn't belong in the movie.

Deckard isn't a replicant because he isn't a replicant in the novel. Ridley Scott's fanfiction will never change that fact.

the point of the movie is this thing i made up

wait the movie has scenes that directly contradict that idea? well the movie is wrong about itself and i'm right

it's actually about "[white] man bad"

the novel is awful and deserves to be forgotten in favor of the movie

imagine being this assblasted about some rando's thought on a movie kwab

Book Deckard is as real as movie Deckard which is not at all.
You can write a fanfic in which Deckard is a furry and this Deckard will be just as real.

Didnt he alter it to push the idea more
Novel actually has a few kino moments that wouldve translated well to film but is fundamentally not doing the same thing as Blade Runner at all, psycho androids vs more humane replicants

Kek is this gladiator 2?

he's a good actor when he tries it's just that most of the time he doesn't

be Deckard

regular dude, no super human strength

hired to chase replicants with super human strength

"oh by the way, Deckard is a replicant lmao he just doesn't have super human strength"

This is what Ridleytards will defend.

He said that when they shot the movie the light in the eye thing was just meant to make you go 'hmm what if.. nah'.
But decades later in the re-cut he thought about the possibility of a sequel and that's why he changed it. He admits to 'changing it' in the later version not 'clarifying it' or whatever. So just pick your version. You can have it however you want

It would have made the movie way too long but I wish they had kept the plot line from the book that he would go to the police department and find out all his coworkers were replicants. That part of the book was awesome.

He's not. He got popular because of his looks. He has a good scene presence and makes characters look good, but his actual acting is B grade. Like the kind you see in direct to video movies with a $500 budget.

Post hand

It became one of the most popular pop culture questions. It will never be answered because the question is better.

Uh? There's no literally 0 (zero) doubt he's a replicant in the director's cut

For me its Roy torturing the spider Izador brings up to his apartment, and Pris looking just like Rachel has the most obvious kino potential
I meant based as in he doesnt give a fuck which is part of why hes a bad actor which makes him a good actor to me just works for my autism I guess
So you think hes good looking and earlier you wondered if hes gay, maybe he just evokes some feelings in you that you cant face up to and have to project

why do people always treat ridley scott as the authority on these movies? he didn't even fucking write the script. not only is it not his story - it's from a novel - but 'his' version isn't even 'his' version.
same with alien. a whole lot of talented people worked on alien, and the least important person by far was ridley scott. it wasn't his story, nor did he write the script, nor did he design anything on screen. he pointed the camera at some actors reading someone else's lines on someone else's set in someone else's story. so why the fuck is alien "his" franchise? why is it always ridley scott announcing new alien projects, as if he had a single fucking thing to do with why that movie is a classic?

from the mind who brought the mind behind Alien some coffee once...

Must have been the net level replicant, for being sloppy, drunken and not having any muscle against them. But then again they were banned and hunted on Earth. Makes it even less likely, public hysteria if a corp has a few around unsupervised from the government.

holy lol. I watched this knowing it'd be shit but this is laughable. Is it because jeet CGI, or would any CGI not be any better?

Blade Runner 2049 he was.

youtube.com/watch?v=wL8DVHuWI7Y

Ridley Scott was a retard

Everyone knows this. The wrong Scott died.

Agreed. The movie’s themes of ‘what makes a human human’ make zero sense if Deckard’s a replicant. Ridley Scott’s been a hack for at least 20’years yet he still keeps getting projects despite either completely misunderstanding or being outright disdainful towards the source material.

I don't care, his face fits the part better than anyone elses.

Can't believe they made Ad Astra: Rome, bros...

there is already a replicant in the movie with human memories and human strength, retard. that's the actual plot of the film: the introduction of a new generation of replicants that are controlled by making them think they're people.

whiter than yours, pedro. now explain why you shill for the kike agenda

Movie is too different from the book.

Yeah the scene of him and Resch retiring the opera singer would have been kino.
Instead we got Ford pretending to be a faggot at a strip joint

But Deckard's girlfriend was a replicant. So the settings were more relaxed in society to allow it.

it's not in the novel

That of course doesn't matter, but it's also not true. The point of all PKD's work, in his own words, is "what is real?" and "what is human?", and if you can construct both, how do you tell the difference? It's frequently hinted at in the novel, particularly when he's arrested.

Suggesting Deckard is a replicant is the most salient expression of the film's theme and anyone who doesn't grasp this is a fucking mongoloid.

it's a really pretty film and it's a decent book, but it's not a good adaptation. it wasn't 'cyberpunk'.

i want a Time Out of Joint adaptation. don't modernise it, do a period piece, for extra mindfuckery.

movie stars don't have to be good actors.

This is kinda cool. But I feel like any man would get ripped apart trying to fight a hungry ape in a pit.

and the least important person by far was ridley scott

why do you resentful bugmen always try to do this shit to successful people? "uhhm george lucas didn't make star wars actually, it was his wife." the original dan obannon script for alien was nothing like the movie, there was no android spy, the monster was nothing like the final alien, all the crewmembers were intentionally vague genderless figures and so on. scott is the one that invented the actual characters that you see on screen, he storyboarded the whole movie, he's the guy that made the thing happen. it's incredibly jewy to try to rewrite history and take a man's achievements from him because it made you mad that le biologist petted le snake in prometheus. commie behavior.

it's always white men for some reason, too. nobody insists spielberg didn't really make jurassic park, but you always want to take things away from lucas, scott, tarantino, lynch and so on. what's up with that?

Because we have this myth about film directors being auteurs. Ridley got exposed these last two decades as a hack. His bother was better in everyway. R.I.P

I think it makes sense in the context, it makes his relationship with Rachel less jarring and helps to explain why he's such a grumpy loner. Also the book is so different it's not even worth mentioning in any serious discussion of the movie

but it's not a good adaptation. it wasn't 'cyberpunk'.

i'm not sure what you're even trying to say, that the movie wasn't "cyberpunk" enough or that it was too "cyberpunk." nether the book or the movie are really "cyberpunk" except in the vague sense of being a future dystopia, cyberpunk is a specific thing that didn't really crystalize until neuromancer etc, like 15 years after the book.

I like the part when it turned out everyone on the plane was a replicant. He'd been living on replicant planet all along! what a twist!

In the book, this question is raised. At the fake police station, Deckard is confronted with information that he and Resch, another bladerunner, are both replicants. This question is never resolved because Resch kills the guy that confronts them. It's appropriate that Ridley proposes this ambiguity for the film, as it's a major theme in the book.

this is such transparent horseshit. if the other one lived and ridley died you would be saying what a hack tony is for making [hypothetical 2025 tony scott movie]. you are motivated by envy, and the only people you no longer envy are the dead.

Don't waste your latin, tv wants simple and easy to digest media with no ambiguity of any kind, and they'll refuse to have anything else

I'm not a ridley scott fan I'm sorry. He's a workman director which is fine but he's also annoying and grumpy adding nonsense to the scripts. His brother made mid budget thrillers for men. He seemed unpretentious. If Ridley died I wouldn't give a shit because I don't watch his films. Who the fuck is envious of ridley scott. kek

If I remember correctly Deckard is human but Resch tests himself after they kill all the other replicants. Turns out Resch was one too and I think he kills himself, or made Deckard do it.
That book was awesome.

He was a retard for taking the plot and themes and most of the characters out of the story to make room for more pew pew action bullshit. It is NOT a "what if, like, robots are people too, man" story
He was also a retard for using the title of an unrelated novel as the title for this movie because, shocker, the title of an unrelated story doesn't make any fucking sense as the title for this story

i don't even watch ridley scott films, who even is ridley scott??? never heard of him

btw here's my list of complaints about his script changes and his conduct in interviews, i have an elaborate lifelong vendetta against this guy that i totally don't care about

sure bro

There is a recording of Dick explaining Scott the plot because he never got it.

The point was to plant a seed of doubt and see replicants as not so different from humans.

Hinting he *might* be a Replicant is good because it fits with the wider theme that whether or not someone is a born human or a Replicant is irrelevant because their experiences in the world are equally real and important. But the shit with the origami unicorn at the end is pants on head retarded because it confirms without a doubt he is one, which defeats the entire point.

Pretty sure they were both human after the tests. Its been over 10 years, but iirc Resch being an inhuman human was a major point to contrast with the very human seeming replicants.

Seriously have you ever wondered why Blade Runner sounds like the title of a story about weapon or medical supply smuggling and not the title of a story about a bounty hunter for androids? It's because it IS the title of a book about medical supply smuggling, the dumbasses who made this movie just used it as the title for this movie for no reason. Shit, when even the title is completely meaningless you know a movie is shit from the word go

bladerunner

replicants

These are terms made up by the retards who made the movie. Your opinion means nothing
And it was never a question, he immediately calls them out. Hell, he has an empathy box, he can't be an android

Who the fuck is envious of ridley scott.

all the bugmen who thought they would be creatives of some stripe when they were kids and then it didn't happen. see also: rlm-type butthurt about george lucas. when you obsess over how other people's achievements "don't count," that's textbook envy. star wars "was saved in editing," ridley "ruined blade runner," tarantino "just stole from older movies" and so on.

That might be the point of the movie but that is retarded. "A robot learns to love" stories are stupid and is the complete opposite of what Do Androids Dream...? is. The androids represent what a man could become if he doesn't fully experience and process his emotions, the androids are completely inhuman psychotic monsters

the dumbasses who made this movie just used it as the title for this movie for no reason

this is exactly the kind of chad move creatives make while autists seethe because "it makes no sense." it makes no sense, but it works. it's a million times better than actually calling it "do androids dream of electric sheep" lmao

By the time Deckard administers the test to the opera singer, it's clear that replicants have already come up with ways to defeat the test. The opera singer defeats the test by claiming esl, something the test is not designed to overcome. This is a major recurring theme in the book.

Ahh thank you now I remember why I liked that part so much. Despite killing all the cops and questioning whether they could also be replicants too it was a great mind fuck moment because they didn't know who to trust. Only to find out that they both were human but he supposedly lacked the humanity or empathy he should have after committing murder.

I thought she got away from Deckard and the test by claiming she was being sexually harassed to the fake cops before the test ended and got him arrested.

it's like when people give David Lynch credit for the Elephant man when he just directed it

a title that has nothing to do with the story is better than a title that gets at the themes because well uh

They did have to change the title because they took all them out of the movie. Without the focus on animal husbandry the title doesn't make sense. But the focus on animal husbandry is a key part of the story, that's why it is in the title

Anyone recall a part of the book with a soviet(?) briefly working with Deckard who turns out to be an android and takes advantage of the gun jamming system meant to regulate cops I guess, but Deck illegally carries a normal gun that couldnt be remotely jammed like that?

you just have autism, that's okay. they're just not the same story, all the fake religion stuff was cut and that's for the best. they decided they were making chinatown in the future, not a drama about pkd's neuroses.

b-but it's DIFFERENT than the BOOK

good. the book was already there.

That's after Deckard administers the test and realizes it's inconclusive because she pretends not to understand certain English words. Deckard is suspicious and realizes that the test is being defeated by her technique. She has Deckard arrested by the fake cops shortly after the test.

Ambiguity does not automatically make something good. And generally just leads to idiot autists like you endlessly fighting. Pointless twists that destroy the original meaning to a story also do not automatically enhance it. Deckard being a human is a fantastic story and why Blade Runner had an audience. Deckard being a replicant is idiotic and why Scott changed to it only decades after the fact when no one could stop him and he could just say everyone always liked it!

Ambiguity does not automatically make something good

No one said it did. Not even going to read the rest.

making bad movie is good actually!

Wow, very insightful

they're just not the same story

Yes, that is the problem

all the fake religion stuff was cut and that's for the best.

Yeah, themes suck, all movie needs is pew pew action bullshit. And a stupid "love story" where they fly off into the sunset

Deckard being a human is a fantastic story and why Blade Runner had an audience. Deckard being a replicant is idiotic and why Scott changed to it only decades after the fact

blade runner was not a particularly successful film on release and was largely praised for visuals/atmosphere, not story. all the hints about deckard being a replicant were in the original cut before studio jews removed them for the theatrical release. this is all very well documented and i'm tired of hearing this type of reddit fanfiction. you can go watch the making-of documentary and the actual editor of the film says plainly that they made him cut things like the unicorn dream because they didn't get what it was supposed to mean. i want to see the real movie the filmmakers made, not jew runner: circumcised edition.

blade runner was not a particularly successful film on release a

Makes sense, it is shit

was largely praised for visuals/atmosphere

I don't believe you, it looks like shit

Yes, that is the problem

it's not a problem at all. the book exists already, go read it again. the modern trend of making "adaptations" that are just a copypaste of the book for the illiterate, like all those ya dystopias, is cancer. all good adaptations end up changing things and making something new.

Yeah, themes suck, all movie needs is pew pew action bullshit.

you're just being retarded now. chinatown is a pew pew action movie with no "themes"? they decided the way the movie would work is by marrying certain parts of the book to the cinematic tradition of noir/neonoir, which was an inspired choice. the religion stuff didn't fit, it had to go. the protag being a neurotic feminized bitch didn't fit, had to go. those were all good decisions. go cry about how you wanted an actor to read the book into a camera, nobody cares. filmmakers make films.

Blade Runner is carried by the music, visuals and atmosphere. The characters are nothing, the action and dialogue are goofy as hell, the romance blows, the acting is overdone except for Ford who is half asleep for most of it.

somebody is having his grumpy dumpies i see

retard take. characters are distinct and have a pathos about them, the dialogue is very memorable and i don't know what you wanted from the "romance" other than rachel being hot as shit. am i talking to a woman? these feel like woman complaints of the "it's just men on a boat" variety

he has a job that requires having little empathy (to be able to shoot a naked scared unarmed "woman" in the back), but the replicants are emotionally so real that he begins to doubt how human is he, inferior to them even, coupled with how he has no relevant connections to mankind to reassure him as human

it's a nice "is he, isn't he" added factor for the viewer to think a bit and discuss later with other people, not a big deal.

Agreed. It would mean that everyone Deckard works with is "in" on it. And seeing as how replicants mistakenly believing themselves human due to memory implants was a relatively recent invention, there's no way in hell to make that work for Deckard, who has (had) a steady job and a regular life in LA.
The original script by Fancher and Peoples has the normal ending of Deckard and Rachel driving off together. Deckard does find a unicorn at his apartment, but it's just portrayed as a taunt by Gaff. There was no daydream sequence earlier. My guess is that Scott haphazardly added that in for his dumb twist.

Yeah the dialogue is great and very subtle

you better get it up, or I'm gonna have to kill you!

I want.....life......father....

The romance was shit was because Harrison Ford and what's her face had no chemistry. They were clearly going for a Humphrey Bogart/Lauren Becall thing, but the chemistry and dynamic just wasn't there.

you're not beating the woman allegations, anon. chemistry? nobody with a penis cares.

Please take Ridley Scott's dick out of your ass, you nigger tranny. 'Noir' people are obsessed with that garbage. It's why there's always some forbidden love in those shit films. The Ford/robot chick relationship is a crux of the story, and it's shit, simple as.

his argument is retarded so now he'll resort to increasingly retarded copes

good adaptations are not adaptations at all

This is the level you have to sink to to defend this movie. Yes, some things will be lost or added in the change in medium but the plot and characters and theme need to stay

the religion stuff didn't fit, it had to go

If a main part of the story doesn't fit in the movie that is a problem with the movie and they are making the movie wrong and need to change what they're doing not change the story to fit what they've already decided to do

Blade Runner is carried by the music, visuals and atmosphere

But the music and visuals are bad? It is one of the ugliest movies ever made

memory implants was a relatively recent invention

Yep, everyone wants to play pretend like this wasn't explicitly stated. Rachel was the fucking first with implants. She hadn't even been up against the VK test yet to see how well she'd do. And you want us to believe Tyrell was lying for no reason, released another memory implant replicant into the city unmonitored to do whatever he wanted for no reason no benefit and a lot of risk, let him get beat up and almost killed half a dozen times. Wow yeah, that's totally the story and so great.

But the music and visuals are bad? It is one of the ugliest movies ever made

Objectively untrue. It's literally famous for them and set the aesthetic for all follow-on scifi cyberpunk. Contrarian retard.

good adaptations are not adaptations at all

to "adapt" is to change to fit new conditions. they did it, the made it work as a movie, overshadowing the source material for good. objectively one of the most successful adaptations of all time.

that is a problem with the movie and they are making the movie wrong and need to change what they're doing

see, this is what i mean by autism. you have some fake rule in your head and you get into a retarded meltdown that the world doesn't obey it.

no this subplot MUST be in the movie they are not ALLOWED to remove it they are not ALLOWED

they demonstrably are allowed, and they did it, and it worked, and the movie's a classic, and the book is now a footnote to the movie. they made the right choice. you're just going to have to live with it instead of having an autistic meltie

Harrison Fords bad acting makes him more relatable to me as an autistic freak so I think hes perfectly cast

The point that always landed with me regardless of which cut was that there's no real difference between Deckard and the replicants: we're just as inconsequential, as programmed, as underdeveloped and confused, and our lives are just as fleeting. It's like a mockery of our hubris regarding what we've actually accomplished as a species, positing that our future, servile, not-real-person, artificial slaves appreciate and value existence as a lesson learned through living as opposed to our taking it for granted. For all our advances, we continue to neglect what most needs tending to. We try to bypass and escape our ontology, and the very implements toward that goal are what belies its folly.

You don't even capitalize, your opinions on anything mean nothing

this subplot MUST be in the movie

It isn't a subplot, it is central to everything. Wilbur Mercer/Buster Friendly is THE conflict within the story. Mercerism and Buster are constantly referenced and influence every move made by every character. His big reveal are what the androids are waiting for. Without Mercer/Friendly it all falls apart, that's why the movie is a barely taped together mess

expecting an adaptation to have any resemblance to the work it is adapting is autism

You saying this just shows the movie is bad

It's not bad acting. Deckard is purposefully meant to be a depressed, jaded, alcoholic loser. He's an irritable loner that's sick of life and police work. That's the entire point and why it's important that he's a real human. His interactions with these replicants reignites his passion for living his life instead of just waiting to die. He's acting exactly likehe's meant to. He doesn't need to be jumping around, energetically laughing and making constant quips for it to be good acting. You dorks have no idea which acting is good or bad.

You don't even capitalize, your opinions on anything mean nothing

of course they don't, but since when do yours? you're sitting there seething about how "the movie is ugly" when it's objectively so successful in its aesthetics that half of science fiction that followed was aping it, they're aping it to this day. it's one of the most aesthetically influential movies of all time, objectively, so what is you posting "no it's ugly" over and over going to achieve? it's mental illness at that point. my opinions don't "mean" anything either, but mine are aligned with reality and yours are delusions.

Wilbur Mercer/Buster Friendly is THE conflict within the story.

you're trapped in an autism loop. there is no "the story." the movie has a different story, built out of elements of the book.

but it MUST be the same as the book

but it isn't.

but it MUST be

but it isn't. they broke your fake rule and still won. you can either rethink the rule or seethe forever. you're gong to seethe forever, because your brain is faulty and gets stuck on things. it is what it is.

Jamie, pull up that video of the chimp.

Why do you start screeching about sheenies out of nowhere? The only retard pushing agendas here is you. Stop being fat.

I said I liked his performance sheesh

this board always shills for the jewish theatrical cut of blade runner instead of the real thing and i find that deplorable. sorry you're upset, moshe.

make cut decades after the movie is successful that changes the entire point by removing/adding scenes

hey guys this is totally the REAL movie!

see, again with the lies. the newer cut reverts changes made by studio execs, restoring the original movie, as confirmed by the literal editor of the film. but kikes gotta kike.

hey guys this is totally the REAL movie!

yes. what the white director and white editor turned in is the real movie, not what chaim shekelblumberg did with it afterwards. get gassed