ercles on 20/12/2007 at 06:52
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Though I doubt it. PKD was pretty messed up and some of his books make for uncomfortable reading.
Heh, understatement of the century here.
Yeah it seemed like very little of the movie drew on the book apart from the basic storyline concept. The "What the shit is this a dream/hallucination/alternate reality?" mindfuck that sort of underpins all of Dick's books is completely missing. Although I love both the book and the film, in this case I honestly don't think you can really say one is superior to the other because they are so different.
The only real thing that I think is a loss in the transition from book to film in this case is the human bonds that are often formed in Dick's books. In many of his books (including do androids dream of electric sheep, now wait for last year, cry my tears the policeman said) the main character is either so fucked up or is surrounded by people who are so fucked up that he (the protagonists are invariably male) is always reaching out for someone else through the acid drenched confusion that make up the stories. It may sound soppy, but it makes for some stark and touching scenes when there is a break from the bizarro stuff and two people actually attempt to have a connection on some level.
It's needless to say that Dick must have been one lonely, lonely guy.
SubJeff on 20/12/2007 at 08:32
Quote Posted by ercles
The "What the shit is this a dream/hallucination/alternate reality?" mindfuck that sort of underpins all of Dick's books is completely missing.
Dude, it's there in both book and film and there is one section of the book that didn't make it into the film that is about exactly this and not much else. It's the one part of the book that I'm surprised was missing from the film, but perhaps that's because it's such a common concept in sci-fi films (and others!) of the mid-90s. You know the bit. Clue that's not a spoiler: police station.
Mr.Duck on 20/12/2007 at 23:49
Quote Posted by ercles
The only real thing that I think is a loss in the transition from book to film in this case is the human bonds that are often formed in Dick's books. In many of his books (including do androids dream of electric sheep, now wait for last year, cry my tears the policeman said) the main character is either so fucked up or is surrounded by people who are so fucked up that he (the protagonists are invariably male) is always reaching out for someone else through the acid drenched confusion that make up the stories. It may sound soppy, but it makes for some stark and touching scenes when there is a break from the bizarro stuff and two people actually attempt to have a connection on some level.
I have never read one of his books, and I'd really love to, but I humbly think that they slightly capture this (as you describe it as such) in the second Deckard-Rachael apartment scene, after Leon's zapped.
Am I the only one who finds Deckard's pad blissfully nostalgic/melancholic in a way you want to cry but stay there regardless?, and that snippet from Memories of Green and Blade Runner Blues does -not- help one bit....ah....great movie, imho....<3
Blue - will have to pick up the novel :D
Speaking of departures from the book...anyone played the PC game?
Harvester on 21/12/2007 at 02:11
Yeah I played the game. Gameplay-wise it wasn't much, but it looked great for its time and it captures the essence and atmosphere of the Blade Runner world very well. And it's got multiple endings so there's a good bit of replay value to it. I'd play it again but one of the discs is scratched.
SubJeff on 21/12/2007 at 02:31
Yes. For a fan of the film the game is great.
Voight-Kampff go go go!
Seriously though, there is so much that is great about it. I've got to dig it out again now.
Angel Dust on 21/12/2007 at 03:28
Quote Posted by BR796164
- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?" If all the main characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is lost.
This is why I don't believe Deckard was a replicant. If he is then the final confrontation and indeed most of the film loses alot of its power.
Truth be told I don't think Scott had any idea really on what he wanted and that's part of the reason why he's been constantly tinkering with it.
The game was good as far as atmosphere and story went. But as an adventure game the gameplay was quite lacking. The best parts as far as gameplay goes were the tests and the picture viewer thing. I liked how events from the film were on the periphery of the game.
Did anyone else who played it find Deckard talking to the snake scale man in one of your photos?
ercles on 21/12/2007 at 03:39
One major issue I have with him "being a replicant" is that he is such a wimp in the film compared to the other known replicants who really take him to town. You would think that when backed into a corner, he would use his full strength, whether or not he knew he had it...
demagogue on 21/12/2007 at 05:32
I thought that was the whole catch ... he was a replicant, but he denied that part of his nature to himself; that was part of who he was. He was the opposite of Roy in that respect ... where Roy wanted to live life to the fullest (the candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as fast), Deckard was the slow, methodical survivor. Anyway, that's an answer to your question that fits the contrasting characterizations. It's a way that sets him up as a foil to Roy.
Fafhrd on 21/12/2007 at 07:03
Or, the more simple explanation: the Deckard model replicant(s) don't HAVE the incredible strength or resiliency of other Nexus-6 replicants.
If the point is to break out a replicant to do blade runner duty when it gets too messy for a human blade runner to do it, it wouldn't make sense to have said replicant even begin to suspect that they are in fact a replicant, which a sudden display of superstrength in a life or death situation would probably cause. Otherwise there's an increased chance of them going rogue like Deckard does at the end of the film.
The_Raven on 21/12/2007 at 18:09
If I'm not mistaken, I don't think Rachel ever displayed superhuman strength either.
