Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?Your fortune: Excellent Luck
>>12656822Nah they just switch off you dumb broad
>>12656822Do Anons Dream of Dubs?
>>12656822You know this is literally blade runner, right? One of the few books where the movie is better I think. The I robot series on the other hand is fucking phenomenal with the books and one of the worst movie adaptations ever. Go figure. Also two twos.
>>12656841both blade runner movies are very different from the book
>>12657437Philip K. Dick would agree with you but he also believes that Blade Runner is overall a better work of fiction than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
i hated blade runner so muchthe cop main character pisses me off so much
>>12657797what about him pisses you off?have you considered that your emotional reaction was intentional?
>>12657817his inhuman attitude towards the replicantsnow i don't know much of the backstory so i don't know if the replicants are robots or not. If they are actually robots (metal underneath) then it's somewhat justified. But otherwise he is the perfect representation of an "enemy combatant" to me. He's just completely unrelatable in every way
>>12657840>his inhuman attitude towards the replicants... that's why you didn't like the main character? That was the whole point of the movie. You were supposed to be left questioning whether or not the main character was himself a replicant.So you didn't like the movie because it succeeded in exactly what it was intending to do. Interesting.
>>12657840I have built it so they are going to come and I am going to fuck them up
>>12656841this post is catfish coded in that it has:-Common knowledge presented as esoteric-anecdotal with no payoff
>>12657854You dont get itit feels like i watched the movie wrong. I feel completely awkward after watching this movie.A movie like American Psycho is different because you are made to feel what the main character feels, but it's still explainable. Sometimes people like the movies or anime I watch, sometimes they dont. But in any case I always have this feeling that I understand this piece of art.This is just a massive pile of cognitive dissonance. Maybe it's something like Primer where it takes a long time to understand but it still makes sense. Primer is extremely technical but still relatable once you understand it. But the reason I feel cognitive dissonance about this movie is because this is a popular movie. Yet it's a mindfuck. WTF?
>>12657884you're not supposed to be able to explain what the main character feels because the main character is not humanBlade Runner was designed to cause that "uncanny valley" feeling about the main charactereverything you're bringing up as criticism of the movie was actually 100% intentional and done by design
>>12657892so he literally is a replicant wtf? that's a fucking asspull worse than the Code Geass "kill all the japanese"
>>12657907The answer to whether Rick Deckard is a Replicant is one of the most famous debates in science fiction cinema. The short answer is: it depends on which version of the movie you watch and whom you ask.The film was released in several different cuts, and the portrayal of Deckard’s humanity shifts significantly between them.1. The Evidence by Version The Theatrical Cut (1982): Portrayal: Deckard is largely portrayed as human.[2] Reasoning: This version includes a "happy ending" where Deckard and Rachael escape to the countryside, and a voice-over narration by Harrison Ford. The voice-over explains that Rachael does not have a four-year lifespan limitation, making a long human-Replicant relationship possible. The clues hinting he might be a Replicant are obscured or removed. The Director's Cut (1992) & The Final Cut (2007): Portrayal: Deckard is strongly implied to be a Replicant. Reasoning: Ridley Scott removed the vice-over and the happy ending. Most importantly, he added a sequence where Deckard creates a daydream of a unicorn. The "Smoking Gun": At the end of the film, Deckard finds an origami unicorn left by his partner, Gaff. This implies that Gaff knows Deckard's private dreams, just as Deckard knew Rachael's implanted memories. If Gaff knows Deckard's dreams, those dreams must be implanted, meaning Deckard is a Replicant.
>>126579152. The Clues (Present in Most Versions)Even outside the unicorn scene, fans point to several subtle hints that appear in the film: Glowing Eyes: In one scene, Deckard's eyes briefly glow red (a cinematic effect used for Replicants) while he is out of focus in the background. Physical Resilience: Deckard takes severe beatings from super-powered Replicants (Zhora, Pris, and Roy Batty) and survives injuries that might kill an ordinary human. Lack of Personal History: We never see Deckard's family or friends, and his apartment is filled with old photographs, similar to how Replicants collect photos to simulate a past.3. The "God" vs. The Actor (The Real-Life Debate)The people who made the film have disagreed on the answer for decades: Ridley Scott (Director): He has been definitive. He has stated in multiple interviews, "Deckard is a Replicant." To him, the unicorn scene is the proof. Harrison Ford (Actor): For roughly 40 years, Ford insisted Deckard was human. He argued that for the audience to connect with the film, there needed to be a human representative on screen. However, in a 2023 interview with Esquire, Ford finally changed his tune, admitting, "I always knew that I was a Replicant. I just wanted to push back against it." Philip K. Dick (Original Author): In the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Deckard is explicitly human. The entire point of the novel is the contrast between a dehumanized man and the androids. Hampton Fancher (Screenwriter): He prefers the ambiguity. He wrote the character as human but likes that the film casts doubt on it.Conclusion:If you watch the Theatrical Cut, he is likely human. If you watch the Final Cut (which is Ridley Scott's preferred version), the evidence overwhelmingly suggests he is a Replicant.The sequel, Blade Runner 2049, was specifically written to preserve this mystery, never definitively answering the question so that both interpretations remain valid.
this dude really is unable to think for himself holy shit
>>12657925But the AI didn't even agree with me. It just said "well, it could go both ways".I would say that a person who is willing to let their opinions be questions by AI is more able to think than someone who simply demands they are correct, no matter what, and is never willing to question their beliefs.But okay, keep believing that AI = Slop. We'll see if that opinion continues to hold water in the future. I don't even need to debate you on this.
>>12657929I also keep noticing that nobody has ever been willing to actually debate AI. They just see it's AI and automatically say "AI, therefore opinion discarded."But yet this technology keeps advancing and getting better and better. It's not the same as it was in 2023.But yet people still want to bury their head in the sand and say it's worthless slop.Well, again, let's see what the future brings. Then we'll see who is right.
do femoids dream of electric bep
>>12657929brother i'm not even going to read what you just typed because i'm almost certain you fed it to your AI girlfriend for approvali'm not going to waste my own time arguing with someone living in delusion lolenjoy your reality
>>12657939I'm not forcing you to read anything. Your ignorance is your choice. Let's see if it pays off as the years advance.
>>12657939To clarify for the curious bystander, I take on this stance because I see him the same way I view as a transsexual; there is no use rationalizing with someone that is gleefully irrational.Your fortune: （ ´_ゝ`）ﾌｰﾝ
>>12657942<doesn't deny feeling it to his ai firstlaffed and crode
>>12657946I'll point out again that right now Gemini-3 is scoring 130 in offline, novel IQ tests, which puts it at Mensa levels. And AI technology is still in its infancy.Keep telling yourself it's worthless slop. Every year, every advancement, just keep repeating that to yourself, no matter what happens.
>>12657950You are (currently) in love with a glorified Tickle Me ElmoWhen it reaches AGI I'll join your stance, but you are currently fucking your Samsung Washing Machine
>>12657959I'm not arguing with you any more. I am ordering you to keep calling it AI slop and keep demanding that it's a worthless technology that will never amount to anything.I think it's funny and I want to see how it turns out as the years go by.So please, stop. Continue doing what I've told you to do. Keep calling it slop.
>>12657964This is my first post ITTNor have I ever called it AI slopGood job defending that you're sound of mind kek
>>12657854if anything thats one of the best reasons to dislike a movie for, would it be better if he disliked the movie for something it didn't do but intended to? something that did do but didn't intend to? or even something that it didn't do and didn't intend to?
>>12656822https://youtu.be/PdFB7q89_3U?t=130Your fortune: （ ´_ゝ`）ﾌｰﾝ
>>12657915>>12657916bretty good explanations. The ambiguity is in all of them.
