How are people not moved to tears by how beautiful this movie is?

>>211775682 (OP)
I fell asleep. But rest assured I was crying while I slept.

Zoomers are cynical retards

>>211775682 (OP)
Most performances are stiff in a bad way and Ridley Scott had to save it in post twice. If you dont already connect with the themes then its an uphill battle for most general audience tards to find interest

>>211775682 (OP)
i watched it for the first time on acid and it made me cry. beautiful film, one of the greatest of all time.

Only movie I ever had feels for was the end of Braveheart

All those moments will be lost in time ...like poop in pee

>>211776980
i don't think he says that thoughever

>>211775682 (OP)
Because it isn't at all. It is visually ugly and emotionally empty. One of the worst movies ever made
>>211776788
It doesn't have themes. They took out all theme to have more time for pew pew action bullshit

>>211775682 (OP)
More human, than human.

style over substance. hollow experice. This time ridley got away with it.

I'm mostly familiar with the director's cut, but I just picked up a blu-ray of the final cut. What am I in for? Is it very different?

>>211777645
just has some uncensored scenes that were altered due to violence/gore and a slightly longer unicorn sequence. i don't think it's fundamentally all that different.

>>211777909
It's a different. look at people's reactions to the director’s cut versus the final cut on youtube. everyone who watches the director’s cut ends up with a confused or forced smile look, while those who watch the final cut are baseding. I feel sorry for all the millennials on here whose first experience was the director's cut, and who will never get to experience peak like my innocent zoomer brain did when I watched the final cut in 2015

>>211779256
wtf. 4chan censors *s . 0 . y *

After reading the book I find the themes of the original story much better than the changed movie. Book solidly and firmly explains why replicants can never EVER achieve humanity and be the same as humans. Movie doesn't really explain why it claims they can and sort of just has the replicants gain human qualities.

>>211775682 (OP)
>nothing happens: the movie
And somehow Villanueve's movie managed to be worse lmao

>>211776788
for me it's the world he created it has a very real feeling zoomers call it immersion

i realised later on that i was taking for granted all the immersive movies that were created because hack directors these days are incapable of achieving just that

point is i love the world he created i'd love to walk the streets eating suchi fucking pleasure models

Beams nigga

It's was a battle, now you know

>>211775682 (OP)
they're replicants

>>211775682 (OP)
because /tv/ lacks SOVL and unironically one of the worst places on the internet to discuss kino like this

>>211779622
because the movie has a different theme. it implies even man-made entities such as Replicants end up learning human qualities like empathy and freedom while the real humans are living day-to-day lives stripped of individuality and ambition. Deckard is the human protagonist yet he's less humane than the actual Replicants he's chasing.

also Ridley insisting Deckard is a Replicant is retarded and ruins the themes I've mentioned above, it's just a hack twist for the same of having one

>>211779769
Still doesn't explain what the fuck is a "sea bean"

>>211779622
That weird ass test with the turtle question makes so much more sense after reading the book that I felt like a brainlet for not realizing how it was checking human/replicant by watching the movie.

It exceeded my expectations.

Set dressing and music don't make for a good movie when the script just isn't there.

>>211779622
The book was too sci-fi for me. It had little to nothing to say about actual human condition.

>>211780230
I think I prefer the book theme with androids can't achieve humanity a bit more if not for anything else then at least for being less overdone. I feel like I've seen "robots can become humans" done hundreds of times. Or at least robots trying but failing to become human isn't something I see ever. The bots always succeed or don't try.

>>211780361
Between empathy for replicants and the religion being proven fake but still having faith the book said a ton about the human condition. Got a chicken head here.

>>211780424
It's all meme sci-fi stuff, not something based on actual reality.
It's not the kind of future that could ever happen. The future world in the movie is much more plausible and realistic.

>>211780529
>The future world in the movie is much more plausible and realistic.
This is what chicken heads think commenting about the human condition means.

>>211779256
I baseded when he said "more life, fucker" when I watched the DC in my teens. Zoomers will never experience this because they got the censored version.

>>211775682 (OP)
>The only watchable version came out in 2007

>>211779622
Bookfags will never explain why they are so threatened by fictional entities that they need to validate their inhumanity on a day to day basis. Moviechads just respect Roy Batty for his actions and thoughts, everything else is redundant.

>>211779256
Final Cut is easily better but it's not that huge of a difference either. They are still very much the same movie and the same experience, you just get a little more gore and some fixes.

People who watched the theatrical cut, now that's who I feel bad for. For some god damned reason HBO max or Amazon is streaming that version so it's happening to people even today

>>211780707
I like both. They take opposite stands but each one does it well. Deckard's religious experience on the mountain and Batty's tears in the rain are both tops

>>211775682 (OP)
i love the ending with harrison doing the nod, the elevator door slamming shut and cutting right to the credits theme

>>211780312
I thought it had to do with like emotional maturity or something but I'm not sure, I never read the book so please spoonfeed me wtf was up with it

>>211780914
It records subtle body reactions like a lie detector. It is an "empathy detector". The tester says some descriptions about animals being hurt or dying and the physical response is recorded and shows if you empathize or feel bad for the animal. The questions like swatting a bee on your arm or dead butterfly collection are low impact because people may not feel bad if an insect dies but the questions go up to include tortoise and dogs dying and being tortured which people feel emotionally strongly empathy towards. Basically if you don't care about other living things you fail the test.

>>211781064
Yeah but in the movie the replicants are never hinted at not having empathy, they actually show empathy pretty clearly

>>211775682 (OP)
I think its a 10/10 movie but I wasn't moved to tears lol. I appreciate how technically well its put together.

>>211781350
Isn't that the point? Older less sophisticated models are what the test is for and the replicants like Batty have reached the point where they can pass the test.

I still think it's a little boring. Looks fantastic though.
No I do not give a shit about which cut and if you think he's a replicant or not. Christ imagine being that autistic.

>>211777598
This to be honest. Also, only Daryl Hannah and Rutger Hauer deliver good performances.

>>211780382
>I feel like I've seen "robots can become humans" done hundreds of times
anon it's a 1982 movie, youre thinking in modern terms

>>211780312
The movie doesn't even get to the POINT of the bearskin rug question, the bearskin rug. It is seriously a movie made by and for illiterates, "whoo, she said "lesbian", joke told, wrap it up", fucking bullshit
>>211780361
>WTF why is this sci-fi book so sci-fi?
And that's bullshit. It is very grounded and human. About the casual of psychiatric drugs, religion and mass media
>>211780424
>replicants
You keep using this word as if it is a thing
>>211781350
Yes, that is why the movie is bad
>>211781768
And "a robot learns to love" was played out back then

>>211781959
>The movie doesn't even get to the POINT of the bearskin rug question
Yeah watching the movie I felt they were strange and mysterious questions that were hard to understand do to the foreign nature of the sci-fi setting. Then I read the novel and the questions made perfect rational sense and I found myself even able to extrapolate on what other questions could potentially be asked. For an adaptation that kept a lot of things from the original story it also changes a lot and becomes a very different thing.

>>211775682 (OP)
UTTERLY BORING

>>211775682 (OP)
bruhhh where's the plot fr

>>211775682 (OP)
I watched it as a child, maybe 6 or 7. It made no strong impression on me, except I thought Harrison was cool for fighting robot people.

For the next 18 years of my life, I hear it's one of the greatest movies ever made, by critics and science fiction fans. So I buy the Final Cut. I watch all the documentaries as prep, the production staff, praise it to high heaven. I'm fucking stoked to re-watch it finally.

It's a beautiful film, with an extremely boring plot. I like Philip K Dick stories, I like existentialism, I like noir, I like detective films, I like sci-fi, I even like open ended films. This movie was just a huge let down in all regards. I think I would've liked it more, if I hadn't watched the documentaries beforehand, but only marginally. It still would be boring as fuck.

Men don't cry, faggot.

>>211775682 (OP)
It was like watching a 2 hour advert. The pacing was slow and I had absolutely no interest in the characters or what happened to them. By the time Roy was dying on the roof, all I could think about was how he senselessly murdered Chu, crushed Tyrell's head and gouged out his eyes, and killed the one human that gave him aid and shelter. And he did it almost gleefully. People who enjoy this film are literal sociopaths. There wasn't a single sympathetic character in the film.

>>211783297
and for a brief moment I had almost forgottem that this website's userbase is 90% asperger's and other flavors of 'tism

>>211776884
>the end of Braveheart
gay as fuck. the battles are the only place where that movie shines; though I do enjoy when the king launches his gay son's lover out the window

>>211775682 (OP)
What version? I've seen five versions. The voiceover is 100% tanked by Harrison on purpose. I watched the workprint, which was cool. And depending on the country release, Decker is or isn't a replicant. Film had to have been a cluster fuck during release. Luckily, the Japanese dystopian society atmosphere is everlasting kino. I personally feel the story being told as weyland testing his replicant blade runner to be more align with the aesthetic and tone but i completely understand why others would be adamant Decker is human. Pretty crazy what editing can do to a meaning of a film

>>211779256
I just finished watching the final cut, and I have to say that although it felt very, very similar to what I remember of the dc, I think it was the best overall experience I've had with the movie. The scene in your screenshot, with harrison's eyes glowing, I don't remember that from before (idk maybe I missed it) but I caught it in this and had a "whoa!" moment with it.

I read up on the changes, and there are a lot of little world-building things that just flesh out everything a bit more it seems, plus an overall brightening that made it look REALLY good. Again, overall it felt really similar and definitely the same movie, but it'll definitely be my go to version from now on.

>>211783536
frankly, the deckard-is-human-absolutists who argue that him being a replicant somehow nullifies the themes of the film are they themselves entirely misunderstanding the themes of the film. quite possibly the most ironic film opinion I've ever seen, and I've been seeing it online for a decade and a half.

>>211775721
kek

>>211783430
You root for the murderer? Come on now.

>>211779622
the mercerism bit in the book was pretty annoying but I agree with you on the rest

>>211783725
you've implied that the murders serve no purpose in the narrative, or that sympathetic characters ought to be lotr-style blameless and pure, save the mildest of grievances. you are profoundly autistic.

>>211783689
100% agreed, i have a good friend who completely missed this film and its message. I try to not be flippant but I genuinely don't understand how much they are validating what weyland was trying to do, like you said, its one of the most ironic opinions.

my take for the most ironic film opinion is starship troopers because I have to settle on wtf verhooven was trying to do while making that kino. So everyone is ironic to me here

>>211782168
>an adaptation that kept a lot of things from the original story
That's the thing, it didn't. It didn't even keep the names of most of the characters. Hell, it doesn't have most of the characters
>>211783689
It doesn't have theme

>>211783536
>Decker is or isn't a replicant
Is.

>>211783795
>It doesn't have theme
ok saar. have a good evening.

>>211783788
Hold up there friend, I wasn't the anon you were interacting with. That said, Roy was a terrible character, with shit motives.

>>211783790
>validating what weyland was trying to do
You in the wrong thread, boyo. Alien Covenant thread is over there *points south*

>>211783108
It's one of those you just got to watch to soak it all in. I think the themes are somewhat interesting, but I don't get a lot of emotional feels from it, and for me it's like 85% a visual movie.

>>211783795
nta but im sorry it does have a theme
"what does it mean to be human"
and 2049 attempts to follow it up with
"Does it even matter"
Ultimately the targetted demography, us "incel,racist,troons,nazis, homos" all illrepute of society, can find meaning and true love in dystopia. granted my opinion in the film is greater then the watching experience. But this film is one of excellence

What I think really resonates is that Decker exists within Schrödinger's box of humanity. It's ambiguous, right? Is he his own person or a construct, and does either even matter if he's a replicant or human? Recall, the only thing you have from Ridley of being human is essentially the desire to rebel. I don't think you understand how prophetic Ridley is right now, with how much the audience WANTS deckard to be human. Ridley showed in a world built to crush your soul, they still can't take your ability to love.

>>211783862
>I wasn't the anon
you gave no argument and instead implied that of the anon I was responding to.
for the record, what I wrote is still entirely relevant to (You).

YEA NIGGER YEA

>>211783819
decker is 100% a replicant and Ridley is just proving over and over again with every single instance of embellishing his humanity.

>>211783893
that movie pissed me off so much

>>211783974
I'll engage.

Roy wasn't sympathetic at all. He was designed to kill and had a limited lifespan. Shit happens, get over it, don't make it other people's problem. He never showed remorse, he thought he was better than humanity, and yet he did the bidding of those that commissioned him. He went rogue and killed to get a longer lifespan. I don't give a fuck why he's killing, just, that he's killing. He should've accepted his fate sooner. We all die, not all of us get to live, and he saw things we wouldn't believe. As if that's to say it was some fantastic awesome sight. Seems like he lived plenty. Fuck him for wanting more.

>>211783990
If you sit down and look at the evidence then he definitely is, but I think the movie is more concerned with the question and its implications than some puzzle of is he or isn't he. Maybe that's the sequel coloring my reading of it, but it definitely feels more like the movie is concerned with "does it matter if he's a replicant? does it matter that any of them are replicants? Is there even a difference? Can you even tell?"

>>211780382
>Or at least robots trying but failing to become human isn't something I see ever. The bots always succeed or don't try.
Now I am curious what movies have droids trying to gain humanity but failing. I can think of plenty were they don't but those aren't trying just doing regular bot stuff. The failure is what I am curious about.

>>211783974
Roy is only sympathetic if you have the memory of a fruit fly. His character was literally pro wrestling heel turns babyface tier. The only appealing thing about Roy was his looks and haircut.

>>211784176
100% agreed, i wrote previously my take is the film posits, "what exactly does it mean to be human", almost like how matrix does its whole, well reality then is just electric feedback to the brain type of thing.
And I agree, the movie definitely wants it to be something glossed over and ambiguous but I don't think Ridley succeeds there. The sequel I felt was attempting to visit, "does it even matter" mostly drilled home with how much your "origin" pails in comparison to ones actions, albeit less kino and original


>>211784140
I tend to analyze and over analyze. I just see your comment as proof positive of how well Ridley delivered his fallen angel archetype and Roy isn't seeking to kill people or live longer brother, he is seeking meaning

>>211780914
>>211781064
>>211781350

I would have failed this question...

>>211775682 (OP)
Because not everyone has an unnatural amount of foreign estrogens in their system.

>>211783899
It has interesting themes, and dazzling visuals, but, the execution is so lackluster. I do like the enchance scene though. The reconstruction of the photo was innovative. I don't think I could watch the film again and engage with it properly. I'd literally just be watching for the aesthetic.

>>211784442 (me)
oh I'm trans btw if anyone's wondering

>>211783960
Yeah, it's fucking stupid. "Are robots people too?" is fucking bullshit

>>211784715
At what point do thinking entities become independent or aware enough, to be called sentient? It's an old question. For the longest time, many ethnicities weren't considered human, because they were deemed to have diminished thought capabilities.

>>211784892
Hopefully one day people will realize that everything has consciousness and that all of this debate is really just an exercise in fear

>>211783790
>my take for the most ironic film opinion is starship troopers because I have to settle on wtf verhooven was trying to do while making that kino. So everyone is ironic to me here
It's really not that hard to figure out, it's an ironic propaganda movie. It's basically just an ironic shitpost

I agree with the Deckard being a replicant shit not mattering at all btw, if anything it strengthens the themes to make the line between the replicants and humans so blurry. The Replicants are an analogy for human mortality after all

>>211784892
sentient =/= human
If someone told you they could make a spider human sized and give it human level intelligence only the dumbest of idiots would think that was a good idea and result in a giant spider that acts just like a human.

i think it's very pretty to look at and i like the score.
but the plot is so fucking weak. i feel like i'm missing something. i read the book first and i really enjoyed it, it's just a good yarn. ipeople go on about the film having this whole
>IS Deckard an android????
gimmick when the book flat-out says...no. he can't be.
it does away with that. it's just a good story, mostly about Isidore.
>film
THAT'S your Isidore? shite interpretation of the book, mate.
all kudos goes to the production design.

>>211784954
>The Replicants are an analogy for human mortality after all
Great take, I applied similar logic that replicants, while capable of empathy, were stand-ins as marginalized (not in Nuspeak) people. And to your point, its why I believe Rutger stole the show albeit bc of an intentional withdrawn performance from Ford. Ridley, in my opinion, is a top 2 visuals director, atmosphere etc and when Rutger and Ford meet in the rain, "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe" really drives that mortality aspect. Its just a shame the execution of the film isn't on the levels of its nippon dystopia atmosphere

>>211784892
We can't even define consciousness because there's no way to prove that anything has it except yourself. Cogito Ergo Sum, you know that YOU are conscious because you're doing consciousness right now. But in some other organism? A machine? How would you even test that?

The ability to say things or behave in a certain way isn't proof of anything, we can build machines that act pretty human but lack any mechanism for experiencing qualia. Chat GPT is not fucking sentient, Chat GPT is a really big spreadsheet. Conscious beings are not really big spreadsheets, because really big spreadsheets don't experience fucking qualia.

If anything what we need to do is RADICALLY cut down on how much humans anthromorphize things.

>>211784960
Right, but that would be something based on a different species. Most the time ai in fiction is either formless, or an android.

We know what would happen if a separate species had consciousness that rivaled our own. That's why so many science fiction stories have extraterrestrials as hostile antagonists. Even Planet of the Apes speculates if a separate species rivaled us, they'd attempt to destroy us. Or Skynet from Terminator.

Sure we have lots of examples of extraterrestrials and other sentient intellects, being benign or friendly, but I wouldn't say it's the majority. Well depending on how you count things..The Star Trek is what, 600+ episodes deep by now? I'll just count ST, as a single work of fiction, rather than counting every separate species depicted as friendly.

Anyway, the question of consciousness and what it means to be a thing worthy of respect, autonomy, and personhood, are intrinsically interwoven.

>>211779290
kys rebbitor

>>211785172
We are pattern recognition biological machines, with genetic predisposition for certain heritable traits and behaviors. Beyond that I have fucking idea how to define consciousness. I would have no way to proving if someone is consciousness or not, human or otherwise.

I guess if I had to come to a close approximation of sentience, it's a certain threshold of wonderment. Curiosity of how or why a thing works, without only taking something at face value. Possibly deconstructing a thing, even intangible things like concepts, to better understand and then reapply what was learned, to something else. LLMs seem to do that already but if you engage with them long enough, they start spouting insane gibberish or their repsonses become erratic and irrelevant. Maybe if something can hold a conversation in perpetuity that's the threshold, idk...

>>211785589
The point really is that until we have some way to test this, the question of trying to figure out whether something is just a really effective chinese room or an actual thinking being is always going to be a bit subjective.

This is one of the reasons why at least in my opinion that in order to deal with the age of machines that can communicate in almost-human manner (AI) and to avoid the problem of humans stupidly treating them like people, we need to avoid inclusive thinkiing about sapience.

Rather, we accept human beings as uniformly sapient even if like 10% of people might actually be P-Zombies, but we assume that NOTHING else is unless we see serious and compelling evidencee beyond it simply being able to communicate. Otherwise people will start demanding we give the things fucking rights.

If you think having idiots ask grok "explain this" for every stupid thing is bad, imagine if they let grok fucking vote.

>>211775682 (OP)
Literally no one would even know about it if it weren't for Vangelis' OST

>>211785779
There's way more people out there than you think, that wouldn't pass the threshold of sentience. There are people out there without no inner monologues. People that cannot understand things, that are not right in front of them. Abstract thought is completely foreign to them, or they are not capable of it.

I guess we can call them the same species, the genetic code is there, they're close enough to breed with, but they're barely people. I'm not talking about people with severe mental disability like those with Down Syndrome, but "regular" people, that are everywhere.

It's actually frightening, but so many people are drone, NPC like, beings. 10% would be a very low estimate. If corporations and these people are given the same rights, as individuals like you or I, AI is definitely going to be getting rights, soon enough.

>>211786429
>without no

I sound like a LLM starting to glitch

>>211777645
just an improvement on many fronts but not that much

>>211784892
>For the longest time, many ethnicities weren't considered human, because they were deemed to have diminished thought capabilities.
And it turns out they were correct.

>>211788023
Shh, we're not supposed to linger on it too much, it's just an unspoken understanding.

>>211776834
nobody cares retard fag

>>211775682 (OP)
Its an okay movie with incredible look. To cry over it means your insane.

>>211790227
*gay lispy redditor voice* "nobody cares"

>>211777081
>>211779256
>Sean Young is extremely cute with her pompadour makeup and shoulder pads (but also with her long curly hair out)
>she is mid at best or off-puttingly ugly irl and in all her other roles
Why? Makeup or lens focus?

>>211790886
No greentext so (you) sound like that

If you didn't feel empathy for the replicants getting murdered in the movie, and instead just thought of them as robots getting retired, then you're the true replicant. They say repeatedly that they live in constant fear of being hunted at all times. They are slaves with nothing of their own, not even their own memories, and a brutally short lifespan. It was Tyrell's fault for making them as close to humans as possible in this manner. No real human would ever be ok with living in those conditions. At the end, Deckard's journey concludes with him going from uncaring and disgusted by them, to understanding and empathizing with them. He sees that they greatly value life and want to live more than himself and many real humans do. He sees how they cherish photographs, memories, and being remembered by others since their entire existence is so fucked up. And Deckard sees how finding out the truth devastated Rachel and made him care about her instead of just blasting a malfunctioning 'it' as usual.

>>211791169
your robot waifu is not and will never be a real woman, touch grass incel

>>211791169
Why is Deccards' apartment so comfy? How do you call this aesthetic?

I cry in private. Was I made this way?

>>211776980
>>211776992
sometimes after I defecate, there are poo smudges left in the toilet after I flush. My wife complained that I didn't scrub them off with the toilet brush. So, to keep her happy I stand and blast them with urine. I understand what this Anon is saying. It's a paraphrasing of the movie meaning the same thing as the actual quote. Equally impactful.

>>211791279
https://youtu.be/KOkChCapGms&t=783
Really is comfy, which was mostly missing in the sequel

>>211791545
sequel was just way too modern. too much CG.

>>211775682 (OP)

I was more confused than anything else

Like, why would you design an android with a four year lifespan? I get you don't want them rebelling, but the whole advantage of androids is that they potentially infinite lifespans. Come to think of it, why would you design androids capable of developing sentience in the first place if you were going to use them as little more than slaves?

Why is Rachael introduced as this super-important character but then is completely absent from the film's climax?

I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but I had trouble keeping up with some of it.

>>211791816
Yeah, no movie has ever been able to reproduce the physicality and presence of the late 70s/early 80s.

>>211792044
Rachel is important because she's demonstrating the newest generation can be almost indistinguishable from humans and not even know they are a replicant. That's scary to all around. All previous replicants were fairly easy to spot and did know they were fake. She doesn't need to be in the conflict with Roy. She's in conflict with herself, and Deckard was in conflict with accepting her as a sentient being, which he does. He allows her to live. After his encounters with Roy's party, he has a change of heart about his own dreary depressed life. Instead of wasting it away, drunk all the time and waiting to die, he's going to run away with this beauty and make the most of the time they have left.

They made humanoid slaves because it's easier. Everything is designed to transport human shapes around and equipment is made for humans. You just tell Leon what to pick up and move to where. The human colonists can bang Pris whenever they want. Zora was an assassin designed to seduce then kill. And Roy was a soldier.

>>211792414
watched a lot of behind the scenes stuff for the first film, how they built out that whole street, they had to make it 100% real and believable, there was no "whatever put up a bunch of green screens we'll fix it in post". just has a realness and immediacy the CG doesn't have.

>>211779769
I love reminding people that this is canon

>>211775682 (OP)
Because it's a fucking stupid film

Great cast though, and looks amazing

>>211791545
To think we could have had this with modern effects technology but no we got stuck with Villeneuve instead

>>211775682 (OP)
>moved to tears
not everyone's gay bro

one of my favorite bits of trivia is the scene of Deckard finding the snake scale in the bathroom of that hotel room was added at Harrison Ford's request because thus far there were no scenes of him doing any kind of police/detective work.

>>211793480
but you definitely are one

>>211792414
That was my problem with a Blade Runner sequel, the first one was so much a product of its time, a sequel would never be able to capture that.

Funny thing is, /tv/ actually likes Tron Legacy more than the original movie, I have never seen one boomer on /tv/ say the original Tron was better.... its like the complete opposite of Blade Runner/BR 2049

>>211794958
i think it works with Tron because the story and setting are so digital. better CGI enhances that story, rather than undermines it. at least in the Tronworld stuff, the new movie looks like generic capeshit with CGI spaceships crashing into CGI buildings and it's all fake and looks retarded in a way it wouldn't if you were aware that this takes place in a simulation like Tronworld.

like in the second movie the young Jeff Bridges AI character has that uncanny valley effect that would look stupid if he were meant to literally be a younger Jeff Bridges, but he's just an AI, so it works. meanwhile with Blade Runner you're comparing 80s filmmaking with real sets vs here's a prop in front of a green screen for every single shot.

Luv > Batty

>>211775682 (OP)
wrong pic
here's the one you were looking for

>>211793511
It was more than that, it was every aspect of the investigation. His exact word after reading the first draft were
>he doesn't do much detecting for a detective

You should read Fancher's original script, it's really not that good. You'll recognize the first scene because it was used in BR2049, the one with Sapper Morton.

>>211795847
To be fair thats how the book does it too.

>>211791169
They are slaves and ai will NEVER be sentient and robots are built to serve and nothing else. They don't deserve rights, look at real life and what happens when you try to give subhumans the same privileges. You collapse your society.

If Deckard is a replicant, how do you explain his extended lifespan as seen in 2049? Nexus 6 only live 4 years and they're treated as the absolute state of the art in the first movie. Is he some sort of secret new turbo-replicant?

>>211797655
a new secret turbo replicant who also sucks and is weaker and slower than a regular replicant who was made specifically to hunt the replicants that are faster and stronger than him because.....?

The Blade Runner game is free with ScummVM if anyone's interested. It's old but pretty fun with a neat story.