Submitted by Zachary O. Ray
After much anticipation and technical difficulties on the part of my local projectionist, I finally managed to view Blade Runner 2049 opening night. As most critics are saying, it is a particularly excellent film and will undoubtedly receive many accolades during Oscar season.
The film includes stunning cinematography (every frame is a well blocked and composed moving painting), set design (in particular the Wallace office, which shares a striking resemblance to the angular modernist Casa Malaparte of Jean-Luc Godard’s Contempt), and intricate crime mystery plotting (which, do not worry, I will not spoil here). To avoid parroting the well-deserved praise from virtually every other critic writing about this film, I will instead delve into a larger subliminal criticism.
In his review of the film, Trevor Lynch aptly notes “the script lacks the poetry and mythic dimension of the original.” I would go further. The entire film lacks it.
Even the cinematography of the original, with its persistent use of fog and distorted artificial lighting, lends itself toward the unconscious weightiness of Jungian archetypal psychology- with Roy embodying the devil, hero, child, trickster, and perhaps even god all wrapped into one.
In this film, our replicants are either Kill Bill-styled action she-men or emotionally and clinically dispassionate robots. They are shallow. They often come across as less human than human, unlike the supermen of the first. In fact, all characters in this film are emotional dwarfs to their counterparts of the original film. M. Emmet Walsh’s sleazy and pushy Harry Bryant is far more memorable and enjoyable than Robin Wright slugging straight whiskey in a forced attempt to look like a battle-hardened police lieutenant from a hard-boiled novel. Harrison Ford, per usual these days, is reaching an age of unsightliness to watch.
Structurally the plot of the sequel lacks the pyramidal pacing of the original. In Blade Runner we witness Roy rise from the gutters of the decadent multicultural slums of 2019’s Los Angeles, and through his own superior cunning (both in the game of chess as well as brutish trickery), manages to meet his maker Tyrell, both physically and through proving his competitive intellectualism. Having killed his creator (accompanied by a soft, but haunting, Gregorian chant) Roy, like Milton’s Lucifer, descends back into the urban hell to tragically embrace with all his life the death that awaits him.
Without even saying it, we can sense a certain grandeur – a grandeur lacking in this new film, which, although beautiful in its own right, displays the world of its story in harder literalism, with a more substantive use of harsher, as well as natural, lighting. This is fine and beautiful, but less romantic than the original.
To illustrate, let us contrast the opening eyeshot of the original and new films respectively.
In the original, we not only look at an eye but into it. We see the beautifully hellish industrial cityscape of the Blade Runner world, but also a representation of the soul- whether human or replicant we do not know nor does it seem to matter. The soul, like the city, being both painful and beautiful. Tragic, but Nietzschean. Inward and outward. In the new film, however, the shot is certainly beautiful, but ultimately empty and two dimensional. It’s just an eye.
I don’t doubt attentive audience members, after multiple viewings, will find deeper and more fruitful themes in this new film than I have after one viewing from the masterful Denis Villeneuve, director of popular films like prisoners, Sicario, and Arrival, however I believe these themes will lend themselves to the penchant for realism most 21st century films have than the mythic larger-than-life transcendentalism of the original film.
All criticisms aside, however, this is likely one of three best films this year (the other two being Baby Driver and Dunkirk). If you haven’t already, I suggest going out to see it on the big screen.
dunkirk? are you serious? worst film ever.
Planning to see it on Saturday. At least it won’t be as bad as Alien: Covenant…
The original move is rife with masonic/illuminati symbolism and biblical references as are most ridley scott movies. Im still trying to decipher all the dialogue from jared leto in this one. He makes mention of the angels and the firmament. Perhaps the date in the horse is in reference to a bible verse. Any way I dont like how altright articles on several pages fail to mention these critical details. This is supposed to be the ” woke” community. Lets talk about what these elitist are truly trying to communicate through these films
Dude… Baby Driver? Fucking Baby Driver? The movie aimed at getting you to like a criminal Jew? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c8fabb7caad7606e584c8a9d1da91aca0839b9cc8a1a95b91321f377f41e7c87.jpg
You should not cover media, you have no tact for it.
Anyone see this other than the writer? Did the
movie stay true to the synth soundtrack from the previous? Is it still a tech Noir? Those are my favorite but I love Neo Noir as well if anyone has recommendations!
the soundtrack is awesome! Tech noir? yeah I guess so if that mean a tech type neo noir…like ghost in the shell or something..
The more I think about this article the more pissed off I am. THIS MOVIE IS OUR MOVIE! ITS ABOUT A WHITE GUY FIGHTING FOR HIS RACE! HE REALIZES HIS WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE! HE REALIZES THE SYSTEM HATES HIM! urf, I don’t usually write in caps, but seriously we have to take these good propaganda pieces when they are given to us….
At least we can ditch that communist Bane now….
I Make up to $250 an hour working from my home. Mʏ sᴛᴏʀʏ ɪs ᴛʜᴀᴛ I ǫᴜɪᴛ working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $85h to $160h.. Yᴏᴜ Cᴀɴ Aʟsᴏ ᴀᴠᴀɪʟ ᴛʜɪs Oᴘᴘᴏʀᴛᴜɴɪᴛᴇ….>>>>
This is how i started……… http://hyperurl.co/zo5fn8?IQid=gniiidg8
I tried to get through the 1982 original and I just couldn’t.. it’s so boring. I felt like nothing happened the entire movie, I guess it’s more film noir than sci-fi or cyberpunk. The only cool thing about it were the glimpses of urban sprawl scapes and giant building sized Holo-ads. That shit was ahead of its time
The 1982 original was brilliant. I don’t understand how you could be bored with it. I guess some people can’t be happy with a movie unless there’s a sufficiently fast paced sequence of car chases and gun fights.
Summary of today’s review: The new Blade Runner sucks compared to the original, but it’s still one of the best movies of the year. That sums up 2017 in a nutshell.
Yeah no.. people have this bias towards old movies like they’re automatically better because they’re old, a classical fallacy. You don’t have to have a lot of people dying to keep up the tension and pacing and not have these long drawn out shots or scenes (the part where he spent literally 5 minutes using his photo analyzing device to try to zoom in and enhance on one clue in a Polaroid or something was particularly painful.. ironically pointing out how voice commands were always so hyped but are often less practical than a keyboard and mouse lol).
anyway, there’s a reason old movies seem corny or full of cliches.. as we get used to better production values and more choices of films, we expect more novelty, realism and suspension of disbelief. Besides like I already said, a big part of the original Blade Runner’s cult appeal were the visuals which made a cool looking future world despite 1980s technological limitations, all of which can be objectively done better today
The only problem with that scene is that he didn’t anticipate flat screens. Voice command stuff was probably best given the keyboards they have back then. The world Scott portrays is a post nuclear war environment as per the book btw.
Now showing keyboards much, It’s why Kubricks 2001 voice inaction is better than Roy scheider’s 2010. Kubrick envisioned a future the sequel botched it.
I haven’t read the book, but logically if this society is capable of creating true AI (or close enough you can’t tell the difference) then you should at least be able just tell your VI assistant in the computer to take a look at the picture, and let you know what it finds
But the point is the pacing.. in a modern movie the clue in the photo would catch his eye and we would promptly move to the next scene , instead of unnecessarily dragging this out for several minutes. It’s just one example. There IS such thing as a boring/slow movie or part of a movie, it doesn’t automatically mean that you have ADD.
Apparently Ryan Gosling plays a Blade Runnercel. He can’t get a real girlfriend, so he has to settle for an AI which project an unbangable, Hispanic-looking waifu.
Last Friday, I decided to check out Counter-Currents.com……
Saw a review for Blade Runner…….
Strangely, remember it from somewhere in the Past……..
Decided to buy it on a Movie App on a Smart TV…….
There’s never anything that I want to buy from Hollywood now……
But, I still long for some Fiction I can Escape into…….
So, I tried watching the 1982………Final Cut…….2007?? Version…….
Fell asleep about 5 Times……..
Finally, Sunday Night I finished it……..
The Only Implications for the Alt-Right as I can tell………from the Original Version……
Why is it always Raining?? A Prelude to our Sad Genocide??
In a Mud Pool of Brazilian/Tokyo/New Delhi Vomit…….
And Harrison Ford only Targets and Kills the White Alpha Female and Male Synth-Humans…….
While he Falls in Love with the Forbidden…….
If the Mystery is………..another Poetic/Artistic Reiteration of the Turing Test…….
I’d rather Interpret it as an Alt-Rightist…………
In a Non-White Mass Metropolitan Urban Jungle……….
A White Man is assigned as an Assassin to take down the Last Remaining Alpha Whites…….
The Lost and Disconnected White Assassin SUCCEEDS….
Until, his Ancient Embryonic Spinal Life Center is STRUCK……..
…….with the LIGHTNING of LOVE……..
My feeling from the first BR is that “the assassin” feels the whole time something is very wrong with his (((mission)))
Dunkirk, a good movie? I’m not sure I can trust your judgement after this..
a real human bean
Why are you all getting so triggered ,bladerunner is a masterpiece tbh ,and i see many points there furthering our message ,
A lot of people get carried away with this “Jews control Holloywood” mentality, and feel that they should never watch another movie again. Like anything else, there are more bad films than good films. There are a handful of movies made each year that are worth watching. This is probably one of them.
It’s not carried away or over exaggerated. By spending money on movies you are giving succor the enemies of God and humanity.
I bet some Jew is making money from your internet access, so cancel it and stop posting plz
Angry little Jew aren’t you?
Dude ,Alt-Right isn’t about been smart, it’s about being STREET smart.
Yeah thats true, and most new movies aren’t worth your money anyways. I torrent almost everything I watch since netflix selection is trash and barely ever watch anything made after the 80’s. Still going out to the movies a couple times a year to watch one of the rare movies that are worth it isn’t the end of the world. The last movie I saw in theatres was Hacksaw Ridge. I had to support based Mel Gibson.
I like Mel Gibson and respect his work with the Passion of Christ, he really showed us what those demons did to Jesus and that is a very courageous thing for him to have done.
I bet those are “former” evangelicuck simps larping as Alt-Right because they realized Conservatism sucks, they just didn’t get why.. and they promote the same simp mentality here
Original Blade Runner was a real accomplishment for filmmaking
The first Blade Runner was leftist, dystopian garbage and so is the remake. That this unrealistic view of America a mere 30 years from now is portrayed by the film reviewer as “stunning” in any sort of way is disappointing, and is indicative that someone else, perhaps, should handle all future film reviews.
For starters: American technology (or the world) will not have developed “androids” of the sophistication portrayed in this liberal film over the next three decades. Nor the flying vehicles of the same level of sophistication, when our own auto industry is struggling as it is. The depiction of American cities (as shown in the film) as ghetto-like, sprawling pestholes permeated with super-advanced technology has always been a Cultural Marxist wet dream, but the real world we can expect 30 years from now will more or less look like today’s – except much, much “browner”.
The best and most realistic depiction of a dystopian future set in the mid-21st century is Ward Kendall’s thought-provoking novel, The Towers of Eden, a tale with far more substance and likelihood to come about.
Damn. This movie really got you mad. Just relax and enjoy.
This is the way science fiction ends.
This is the way Sci-Fi ends.
This is the way fiction ends,
Not with a ! but a whimper.
I googled it and it has pretty bad reviews.
I don’t like it when sci fi movies become outdated either, but the film follows the originals time line I guess. Humanity went from powered flight to the moon in a few decades so you can understand why script writers in the 70s and 80s might overestimate things – but that’s just how it is. Our ideas of the future will probably turn out similarity retarded when our coffee-colored, VI enhanced descendants dig up an copy of one of our contemporary near-future sci fi flicks.
“Dem Fort dey cud escape us Nogs. Hehehe us shows Dem.”
Jews and SJW’s absolutely hate this movie.
Because it’s implicitly White movie about multicultural dystopia.
Crash (2004) got pretty good reviews but it made multiculturalism look pretty bad .. although it did have a “let’s all just get along” message.
It was multikulti trash. Horrible movie. Critics (jews) always have such bad taste in movies.
It was cool. Edgy.
Using “edgy” unironically…. You sound like a 13 year old faggot. No offense.
Hate which movie? I want to watch it!
Blade Runner 2049 .. obviously lol
I’ve read it, its garbage. The thought it provoked is that the communists are right, everything is about class.
It seems Hollywood is incapable of showing us a future worth working towards. It’s always some flavor of dystopia. Perhaps they are preparing the masses
They use science fiction such as Planet of the Apes to condition Whites for slavery under blacks, the Alien movies to promote feminism and Freudianism, The Matrix to promote Marxist terrorism, Robocop to promote transhumanism, Star Trek to promote globalism, etc. Sci fi is an inherently pozzed product of 20th Century subversion. There was no sci-fi genre before the modern age.
That’s just not true. Sci-fi used to be a bastion of right-wingers.
There was no sci-fi before the modern age because sci-fi is all about predicting technological advances and their role on society lol.
Where the fuck do you even comment usually? No one on DS or TRS or even 4/pol/ is such a walking breathing stereotype of luddite neo-nazi.
I’ve never seen a ‘right wing’ sci-fi novel or movie. Never heard of one either.
I remember Starship Troopers being accused of being fascist some 20 years ago or so. Even the author Robert Heinlein was seen by the left as some kind of fascist himself.
Really….I got more of a communist vibe from it personally. One world government, humanity united, gender equality, etc.
I didn’t refer to my personal view but to MSM coverage of it.
Ok, whatever, doesn’t change the facts. The movie clearly shows a one world government, humanity divided in spite of race, all races and cultures speaking the same language, 100% gender equality in all positions, people randomly having sex like the Jews promote, the whole movie is exceedingly pozzed.
As for Heinlein –
“Heinlein’s fiction of the 1940s and 1950s, however, began to espouse conservative views. After 1945, he came to believe that a strong world government was the only way to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation. His 1949 novel Space Cadet describes a future scenario where a military-controlled global government enforces world peace. Heinlein ceased considering himself a Democrat in 1954.”
“Heinlein grew up in the era of racial segregation in the United States and wrote some of his most influential fiction at the height of the civil rights movement. His early novels were very much ahead of their time both in their explicit rejection of racism and in their inclusion of protagonists of color—in the context of science fiction before the 1960s, the mere existence of characters of color was a remarkable novelty, with green occurring more often than brown. For example, his 1948 novel Space Cadet explicitly uses aliens as a metaphor for minorities.”
“In a number of his stories, Heinlein challenges his readers’ possible racial preconceptions by introducing a strong, sympathetic character, only to reveal much later that he or she is of African or other ancestry; in several cases, the covers of the books show characters as being light-skinned, when in fact the text states, or at least implies, that they are dark-skinned or of African ancestry. Heinlein repeatedly denounced racism in his non-fiction works, including numerous examples in Expanded Universe.”
“For Heinlein, personal liberation included sexual liberation, and free love was a major subject of his writing starting in 1939, with For Us, The Living. During his early period, Heinlein’s writing for younger readers needed to take account of both editorial perceptions of sexuality in his novels, and potential perceptions among the buying public; as critic William H. Patterson has put it, his dilemma was “to sort out what was really objectionable from what was only excessive over-sensitivity to imaginary librarians”. By his middle period, sexual freedom and the elimination of sexual jealousy were a major theme of Stranger in a Strange Land (1961), in which the progressively minded but sexually conservative reporter, Ben Caxton, acts as a dramatic foil for the less parochial characters, Jubal Harshaw and Valentine Michael Smith (Mike). Another of the main characters, Jill, is homophobic.”
“In books written as early as 1956, Heinlein dealt with incest and the sexual nature of children. Many of his books including Time for the Stars, Glory Road, Time Enough for Love, and The Number of the Beast dealt explicitly or implicitly with incest, sexual feelings and relations between adults and children, or both. The treatment of these themes include the romantic relationship and eventual marriage, once the girl becomes an adult via time-travel, of a 30-year-old engineer and an 11-year-old girl in The Door into Summer or the more overt intra-familial incest in To Sail Beyond the Sunset and Farnham’s Freehold. Peers such as L. Sprague de Camp and Damon Knight have commented critically on Heinlein’s portrayal of incest and pedophilia in a lighthearted and even approving manner.”
“There is also evidence from Heinlein’s biograpgher of him claiming to be half-Jewish himself and breaking off all further contact with anti-semites.”
Yes, so fashy, such a shitlord, what a nazi, oy vey.
Starship Troopers is the classic fascist novel.
Lefties seriously hate Card, so I`d look in his books.
Niven and Pournelle’s THE MOTE IN GOD’S EYE is redpilled as fuck. It’s set a thousand years from now, when democracy has been as thoroughly discredited as communism has in our day, and a type of more-or-less enlightened aristocratic rule maintains the peace among various human-colonized worlds.
For the first time, we encounter another intelligent species, and at first things go very well. The aliens are friendly, curious, and roughly as technologically advanced as we are except that they do not possess the secret of interstellar travel. But there is something they are not telling us: If they don’t get pregnant on a regular basis, they sicken and die. This means that they are locked in a permanent Malthusian crisis, and if they get loose into the rest of the galaxy it means that likely extinction for humans.
The book came out in 1974. People who read it at the time did not realize that they were reading an allegory about Third World overpopulation.
Alt-righters talk a lot about DUNE by Frank Herbert, and rightly so. It too is very redpilled. But THE MOTE IN GOD’S EYE deserves to be much better known in our circles than it is.
Big fan! Anything you recommend? I’m actually writing a dystopian novel, got the idea when I was driving and took the HOV lane. I’d love some ideas on how to create the whole story. Your book was amazing by the way.
Thanks a lot. Working on the second.
How patrician do you want to get? There’s some bizarre Soviet and pre-Soviet russian sci-fi out there which I got into a couple years ago.
you are kind of right but sci fi is still cool
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate
all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity,
and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction,have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
Theosophists have guessed at the awesome grandeur of the cosmic cycle wherein our world and human race form transient incidents. They have hinted at strange survivals in terms which would freeze the blood if not masked by a bland optimism. But it is not from them that there came the single glimpse of forbidden aeons which chills me when I think of it and maddens me when I dream of it.”
Well dystopian science fiction stories were originally written as warnings to guide us away from potentially disastrous futures. Unfortunately they’ve instead been used as instruction manuals.
“The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” – Adolf Hitler
I’m sorry, my Autism has been triggered, I can’t help it
Since Hitler and crew tended to deal with people categorically thus denying the value of personality I call bullshit. Since Communism produced its share of bright personalities I’m not sure that it’s even an accurate charge.
Also, correctly organized masses will inevitably triumph over a handful of aristocrats. As Napoleon said, “God is on the side of the big battalions”.
Now you’ve activated my tism card.
Dealing with people categorically does not deny the value of personality, it merely acknowledges the indisputable fact that WHAT you are (race) and WHO you choose to be (personality) are both important factors, yet the inherent invariably effects the acquired in greater proportion than the reverse.
Napoleon lost Waterloo to a handful of aristocrats with correctly organized masses beneath them. He was also a disgusting manlet cuckold who likely lost Waterloo because his hemorrhoids wouldn’t let him sit on a horse properly. He died fat and alone.
and to the Nazis categories superseded individual circumstances, so the critique of Marxism sounds hollow. Also the circumstances of Napoleon Bonaparte’s demise make humble no less right.
Except when they try to create fictional white supremacist dystopias to bash Europeans. Those ironically all end up looking utopian.
I concur. The modern left hates all that is good and beautiful
Hollywood uses future science fiction as both a warning and a directive. keep following the path of right wing ideologies you get an oppressive destructive ugly society, but follow the the liberal path it’s all beautiful clean and multicultural utopian.
if we dont take what we should be doing to stop this from a thought to an action, we most certainly will inherit this future….. it seems all there futuristic societies are rich in misery and hopelessness,Is there any amongst us who sees a truly utopian future in their fantasies? … that dream has been put on hold lately.
These people are hedging everything on our inaction.. If we could parlay our intentions into a courageous act of motion, maybe then we will stop this absolute guarantee of gloom thats going to crest the hill… If anyone thinks that those who run hollywood love to entertain, they re fools…
Until we as a group, unite with other like minded in our communities, this snake is going to keep coming. Its not my mind they want. They cant have it, but theres many more that are too easy to impress…. and believe me, I wish i was wrong about where were heading…. peace
I think the two dimensionality of the second movie was intentional. The robots were made to be two dimensional to be more safe for humans. They are, however, evolving and becoming, again, three dimensional (won’t be surprised to see a sequel). The older Nexxus 8s in the new movie had a lot of depth. even for their short roles in the movie. The newer models were more two dimensional.
For any Blade Runner fans, justify the movie’s message. Why should anyone sympathize with the androids and their “no justice, no peace” bullshit? The first scene is literally “fuck da police,” where the droid murders a police officer who’s interrogating him.
Later on, Harrison Ford chases down and shoots a female droid. The scene is done in slow mo, focusing on the pain she’s experiencing. This bitch literally tried to strangle him to death two minutes earlier. Why should we feel anything but relief to see her get wasted?
The other female droid also tries to kill Ford, and not only that, but she’s an accomplice in the murder of the kid who risked his life in sheltering her. We’re supposed to care when she gets what she deserves? We’re supposed to feel bad or question the motives of Ford’s Blade Runner? Why? Because “muh oppression.”
Then there’s the lead android Roy, who basically kills everyone he meets. He’s a stand-in for Satan and his rebellion against God, and we’re supposed to side with him from an emotional standpoint? Why, because he has a nice poetic line when he dies? Ford should have just kicked the bastard off the roof.
Blade Runner is pure subversion by Hollywood. The oppressed are good even when they’re heartless killers, the oppressors are bad even though they’re trying to protect people. What makes the movie even more galling is that the oppressed murders aren’t even human! Their emotions are simulations. The nerve of the filmmakers to demand we shed tears for these monsters just pisses me off, though not as much as supposed “right wingers” who defend these demoralizing mindfuck movies.
Is this the original or new one you are talking about? I don’t plan to watch but would like to know.
I’m talking about the original, which I liked before I became redpilled.
Thanks. It seems I remember that the author had these drug induced visions that we were but mechanical beings. Was a Red Ice interview a while back.
Roy is a literal Aryan Superman- a fascist ideal- a revolutionary titan, superior in every way, revolting against the gods of the modern world. He’s a right wing ideal.
A “right wing ideal” is a fake human with false memories built by a jewish CEO for slave labor?
Shit like this is what I’m starting to question the Spencerist wing of the alt right.
Deckard chases white People around all film and kills them.
“false memories” represent ZOG brainwashing of population
But he’s not. Hes a tool struggling against the imposed obsolescence of his creator, who cares not for him in the least, and in the end, he dies to his inferior, on his knees, because of the restrictions placed upon him at creation, all his accomplishments meaning nothing, fading into the ether like tears in rain.
If this is your idea of a ‘right wing ideal, an ‘Aryan Superman’, then its no wonder the alt-right is such a fucking mess of degeneracy and failure.
Hes…struggling against the imposed obsolescence of his creator, who cares not for him in the least…he dies…all his accomplishments meaning nothing…” You’re literally describing the summation of Nietzsche’s superman ethos. You’re only making my case for me.
Kek at getting so butthurt over a movie review btw. They sell cream for that.
What about the moral dilemma the movie questions? Making fake humans for slave labor. In the original novel they are called androids. But this was changed in the movie to replicants. Thus hinting at a more genetically engineered sort of human, than an actual roboy or even a cyborg. Engineered with a limited lifespan to avoid rebellion. The movie with this also hints at more human replicants than in the novel. If I had been engineered like them with a 4-5 year long lifespan and only used as slave labor, it would actually rationalize their hatred towards their makers, wouldn’t it? It’s human cynism as it’s worst.
The moral dilemma is fake because the plot is fake. There are no artificial humans. It’s all just a “what if” with little actual relevance.
The last whites might very well be some sort of replicant.
I don’t know what you don’t understand. The novels androids are obviously mechanical humanoids. The movies replicants are different as the eye-maker indicates. They are more than just mechanical beings. Genetical manipulation has been going on for decades. So the sheep Dolly from the 90’s are not an artificial sheep but just sheep? It’s fine with me if you don’t like the book, the movie, the author or whatever. But calling it fake is a little bit over the top. Besides that, all science fiction could be shrugged off as “what if” scenarios. It is exactly the what if factor that makes it science fiction and thus as relevant as it gets.
The droids are all whites though
No, they’re replicants. They’re just played by White actors.
But they are played by white actors in a sea of Mud people.
Do you realize that for (((them))) we are all androids?
I don’t care what (((they))) think at all. Nothing but lies flow from them.
Yet you embrace those lies if they look pretty enough.
What a simp.
That’s the point of course. The lovely looking Daryll Hannah is a sexbot and Batty is a soldier.
First of all, nobody in the alt right or WN’ism should be paying to see (((Hollywood))) movies which are the products of old jewish rapists of White women.
Secondly, the original Blade Runner was cultural Marxist crap where mass-murdering escaped slaves (i.e. niggers) are portrayed as innocent victims while the oppressor cop is a bad guy. From what I hear, the original novel by Philip K. Dick had the opposite message.
Hollywood has only ever produced one sci-fi movie that actually had cultural relevance, and that was They Live. Everything else is used to push (((the narrative))), from Blade Runner to Star Trek to Star Wars to Alien.
Red Ice has an interesting interview about Philip K. Dick. Weird stuff.
LOL that isn’t how I analyzed the original film at all. Wouldn’t they make the replicants black if that was there intended message?
Dude do you know how the most effective propaganda works? It’s in the subtext, not the imagery.
Besides, it was 1982. Back then putting blacks into sci-fi movies was unheard of.
The principle characters are. Beautiful whites in a literal sea of darkies.
Was Frankenstein about the Blacks too?
“The Riflemen ” is much better
I never saw the first and I won’t go and see this one in a theater either. Out of principle I refuse to give a single red cent to the Satanic scum who are brainwashing the masses and pumping sewage into our homes.
Best free streaming I could find.
The original was really good though. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is also a really good Sci-fi novel. I probably won’t see it in theatres, but I will watch it eventually. Denis Villeneuve is generally a good a director and his films are always worth watching.
I’ve never been big on reading novels but I will be sure to check it out.
As for the filth on Talmudvision and in the theaters? I don’t waste my time on that stuff anymore. The only movies I’ve ever liked were historical pieces about heroes and warriors who fought anti-Aryan scum, like Charlton Heston’s El Cid and Day of the Siege, things like that, and those movies are very rare today, for obvious reasons. Now I spend most of my free time watching and listening to university lectures and training in tactics and strategy.
When ever we get control of our nations back we need to make it a priority to make our own ‘hollywood’ and use it to produce historical epics and promote Aryan ideals. One person I’d like to see a movie about is Otto Skorzeny and maybe Garibaldi as well.
seek a psychiatric professional.
Maybe that is what you should do, seeing as around 50% of your (((tribe))) suffers from serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Don’t forget sexual addiction… Tony Weiner, Harvey Weinstein.. etc.
I used to be a big Euro-Horror fanatic and spent way too much time watching movies. I still enjoy watching the classics every now and again, but in general don’t watch that many movies anymore. There are definetly way better things you can be doing with your time, but sometimes you just want to unwind and relax and not have to think too hard.
You should check out some of the university lectures people post on youtube. I’ve been listening to a series of Yale lectures on the Peloponnesian and Persian wars. I usually listen to things like that while working on various projects.
I spend way more time reading books than watching movies nowadays. Mostly History and Philosophy.
It was and is highly overrated.
>Implying one must pay money to see a movie at the movie theatre. If you aren’t paying the reverse tax you are a cuck.
article did specify to go c on big screen
>>Implying one must *pay money* to see a movie at the movie theatre.
I won’t sneak in either. I won’t waste my time watching Jewified rich people play pretend.
Where I live we have a bad ass drive in, where, ironically, you can have all the IPA.
Did you notice there is not a single SJW/negro character in the movie?
This movie is as White as can be.
And they are annihilating each other. Again.
He visits a somalian dr for info in the movie. The dystopian future in the film is multi kulti labyrinth. Thats one of the main concepts