Видео

Can't download its ok tho I'll just create my own

Only time I’ve ever heard that perspective, but if a deep, complex story that really has something to say and makes you think isn’t your thing then we can always take an amazing story dumb it down add buzz words like replicant and blade runner stay shallow as possible and make it more “bad ass” without saying anything for people like you

Not Chinese, Japanese. The U.S. lost the war to Japan thus the Japanese influence. Similar theme in Man in the High Castle book.

How did they not read the book? It's only a little over 200 pages long. Lazy.

Los Angeles does not have a distinctly "Chinese" influence in the movie blade runner. It happens to be distinctly Japanese. But there in you have distinguished yourself as a millennial. The only generation in the Western world that could possible not distinguish between a country and a continent. We have truly failed you! When the LGTBY+ people for Palestine arrive in Palestine they will begin to understand d tho horrendous failure their parents generation did to them when they failed to explain that the serious material wealth in the form of constantly stocked supermarkets is the exception and not a hard-fast rule set in stone by the master of existence! aaa r when they leave college brainwashed and completely devoid of any ideas that exist in reality and begin to dismantle the evil society they which is "racist" and fundamentally unfair, they will have taken the first step towards the reality that will hit them like a ton of bricks! When the first world is destroyed and they turn it into the third world they are going to begin to realize the immensity of your mistake. But by then it will be too late. So my millennial friends, enjoy Blade Runner but know that Asia is a continent not a country, and the hatred of Chinks and Nips are not the same hatred! One is correct and the other is wrong, respectively!!!!

Great video, I’m reading the book now. Only thing I would add is that in the book I get the sense that the cities are in a state of decay and not so much futuristic skyscrapers. I get the impression everything is run down and decrepit.

I like the novel better because it resolves the question of whether Deckard is an android or not. Leaving that thread hanging in the movie feels like a very cheap and superficial twist that can't be answered within the confines of the movie, and just leads to endless speculation that takes away from the story's actual themes. SPOILERS FOR OTHER MOVIES AHEAD AHEAD! It's not like the question "Did Patrick Bateman really kill people," because the answer to that is that we'll never know, because we never find out, since nobody else in the story cares about anyone but themselves, so it's thematically significant that we don't find out. In "Blade Runner"/"Do Androids..." it actually matters if Deckard's an android or not, and in my opinion, the lack of an answer makes it a weaker movie, and Ridley Scott's later comments about him being an android aren't the least bit satisfactory to anyone, given what a pseudo-intellectual hack he's become in general.

this was such a good movie

is this scene real? or is part of the movie?

16:56

Scott did a great job on the film. No question. But what happens with a PKD movie translation is that the really engaging scientific, psychological, and religious aspects that demonstrate PKD's genius and versatility are substituted out for action and more action because a film needs action. Total Recall is an even bigger example of this. But at the end of the day, it's the book tjat shines. I habe lectures on my channel that covers this novel from beginning to end, and its crazy to read through what people thought they heard about this book as opposed to actually reading it and forming their own valid opinion. It is nice to know that PKD saw early stills of Blade Runner before he died, and he really liked what he saw. For that reason alone i will always love the movie, too.

Well now with Blade Runner 2049 he’s definitely human just lost empathy and Ridley probably screwing with people who miss that

very good

I love this story, especially because her character is so amazingly written. She was born for vengeance and she is the vengeance, and yet she cannot be called only a cold-minded assassin with no feelings or emotions.Because there were times in the story where she indeed showed that she too was a human, like when she met the little child who was intellectually underdeveloped and when she met the novelist who wrote about her mother's story and in the end, the most humane nature in her character was when she saved the daughter of one of those men who destroyed her family. She killed the man to fulfill her vengeance and yet saved his daughter from slavery and even warned the slave traders that any harm to the girl would be an insult to her so they better be careful. I love this depth in her character and yet there are times when I strongly disdain her,like when she murdered those two aristocratic woman in the buggy with the rich aristocratic man and ordered the buggy driver to put his fluids inside the two women to make it appear as the rich man tried to assault them, and also when she deliberately killed another rich man's ill daughter by making her fall in love with her and making sexual relation with the her which eventually drained the girl's life energy. All in words the story has many depths in it.

In the book it’s also not clear if Decker is a replicant since there are doubts about the test. If the test doesn’t work then how would anyone know? He also similarly lacks all empathy and continued to kill them even after sleeping with Rachel, who is pretty evil in the book.

Yeah. The novel was kind of a luke-warm mess, especially if you consider that the Deckard in the book comes across as somewhat of a hen-pecked husband, all obsessed with keeping up with the neighbors about the pets they keep, and topping them off by having a _real_ goat. Turning him into a hard-boiled film noir detective anti-hero was one of the best moves the production team made.

The other police station isn't entirely made of androids, Phil Resch being a notable example of a human working there. Also both Luba Loft and Gerland lied about Phil Resch being an android, so there is a reason to believe that he also lied about the police station. There definitelly are androids at least administering the phone calls to keep appearence of a legit police station. I think it's easier to believe that there are human employees, than that ammount of androids have gone unnoticed.

All this shows is how JK Simmons brings it 100%, no matter what Film he’s in, short or feature.

One major change which i don't think you mentioned is that in the book the World is in the aftermath of a nuclear war. That's why men wear lead codpieces to protect their vitals. In the film there is no mention of that and it is heavily implied that the World is suffering the effects of rampant pollution, global warming and acid rain, hence the rarity of real animals.

OK, how can anyone make a movie based on a book without even reading the book? And then, why it is called a screenplay adaptation? What text did they adapt if not the book, and how did the author "like it" if it's barely 30% faithful to his original idea (in the main topic)? I'm confused now ;-) Thanks for the great review, though.

Story will repeat itself but with exact persons. It doesnt include Tesla. Why? Because we already have electricity. It doesnt include Hitler. Why? Because theres no way you can create an atmosphere of Holocaust. But it includes Oppenheimer, Lincoln, Guevara and so on. Complete the story by yourself.

Wasn't Rachel like the prototype model and that's why Priss looks like her or.. it? like a newer or similar model series. I read that whole book, was pretty good.

A fantastic movie I have thought about it for years and even personified parts of my life after Roy. A true jem of inspiration for personification.

12:17 "... They both told a different story, but accomplished the same goal..." /? I'd say the book and the movie are philosophically opposed. Philip K. Dick wrote a book about a class of detestable beings, psychopaths without emotions. The "Andys" in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" are quasi stand-ins for the Nazis: Cold, calculating terror in human form. An Android is something that looks like a human being, but isn't. The "Andys" deserve to be killed. But, since this view of a class of induividuals lacking humanity across the board might itself serve as a root belief for a racist ideology, Ridley Scott decided to tell a (very) different story. The Blade Runner films are basically promoting empathy, but extending empathy beyond the hard line drawn in the book. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is surely written with an anti-fascist agenda. "Blade Runner" (2019 + 2049) is an anti-fascist & anti-racist film (series). *What BLADE RUNNER Is Really About* | _OneTake_ --> ruclips.net/video/wvJMRDvJ4h8/видео.html // "No choice, Pal." _________________________________________________________________ This is a really great video essay about *BLADE RUNNER 2049:* *The Philosophy of Blade Runner 2049: What is the Soul?* | _Hello Future Me_ --> ruclips.net/video/1Gb8WmbC08Q/видео.html 🤔 THE SOUL | Authenticity -- Freedom ... Sartre: Existentialism and Human Emotions [7;44] "In Blade Runner 2049, the driving force of the story is that JOI and K act upon memories and feelings they inspire, whether or not they are manufactured." [7;56] "But where does that leave JOI's soul? Because Sartre and K's belief that the Soul and Authenticity comes from being OF WOMAN BORN is most clearly deconstructed in her character...." Or this: *In Search of the Distinctively Human | The Philosophy of Blade Runner 2049* | _Like Stories of Old_ --> ruclips.net/video/O4etinsAy34/видео.html Or this: *Blade Runner 2049 - Empathy Propaganda [Video Essay]* | _Movies I Love (and so can you)_ --> ruclips.net/video/WTKmaJa3Ci0/видео.html

0:52 // I never actually noticed the guy pouring tea in the lower right corner of the screen. Is that Ridley Scott himself?

In the movie replicants and animals are NOT electronic but organic genetic replicants.

I thought they would end it with him adopting Salomina

It’s pronounced ESCAPE not EXCAPE. S sound not X. Are you under 21? You should work on your narration, I found it very difficult to listen to. Keep trying kiddo.

The Film is Fantastic !!!! The book is Boring and mainly about Goats !!!! There is nothing remotely similar about the book and the Film, except the Title and that's completely different as well !!!

Thanks for making this video. I personally think Bladerunner is one of the most pretentious and overrated things in film history, and Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? is incredibly cringey, dated, sexist, and kind of a mess to read today. Replicants and androids as explained in these stories never actually make any sense as a technology and couldn't justifiably exist.

1:47 is the same floor shot, just different coloring in the feature

It would be better and more beneficial If you would have talked clear and understandable.

I would Definitely pick the movie, but I loved the book too !!

One of the neatest parts of the movie for me was the use of the photo analyzer (shown in your video at 11:10) I just thought that was really clever and made it seem like something that could be real.

Is that the actor of Young Neil?

I thought they both sucked. The film just lacks real characterization to motivate anything that goes on. The book is a typical Dick mess.

Sorry but your complete wrong about loyalty to the book. Androids Do Not dream of electric sheep. They are not killed they are turned off. At least as far as the text is concerned. Thats like if I made a movie "based" on the declaration of independence about staying in the British empire and not going to war with them. Mercersism has a lot to do with Syssiphis (probably spelled it wrong) they also all knew Mercer was "fake" because he's like Charlie Brown he's an every person who, every person has experience being.

Coolness

One of the things that definitely works better in the film is how instead of being similar to the opening and having Andrew casually walk in as just your average early-bird, Fletcher lies to Andrew about when to show up. Andrew therefore becomes a nervous and tired wreck as he realizes he slept in, rushes with whatever he can grabs, trips and hurts himself, and when he gets to the door and sees everyone's not there, leading him to believe that he's either too late or this is some kinda game. When he suddenly sees that he's about 3 hours early, he's gives a look that says, "So I didn't need to put myself through all that BS?", to which he spends the next hours taking the rest of a lie-down since he's already here.

I never understood the point in him potentially being an android in the movie because why doesn't he die in four years like the others? Or is that just depend on the whether he's nexus 6 or 7 or what?

While I still enjoy the movie, having recently finally read the book I kinda wish the screenplay would have followed the book word for word.

This is fantastic. I hope you got A+ in your course

Decker is a married man and there's more nature

a lot of people still are wondering what the books about, let me sum it up for you: PKD wasnt really a religious man, but he was very spiritual, his art is heavily inspired by gnosticism. gnostics believe that three categories of beings exist: hylics (harmless soulless golems), psychics (harmful soulless golems, way MORE INTELLIGENT than hylics), and pneums (soulfull beings capable of DIVINE CONNECTION). psychics can be ALMOST INDISTINGUISHABLE from pneums, but they lack their defining quality: SOUL. with the difference explained, it should become clear who in conflict 'androids vs humans' is whom. the most important character of the book, mercer, is obviously a religious figure. its Christ, simple as, or you can most likely find a similar figure if you are not a christian. psychics, obsessed with intellect and 'scientific' approach, are on their quest of debunking him - Mercer not Chri-... oh wait, its almost like... like... i will let you figure it out on your own. back to the book: they actually succeed in debunking mercer... yet it is meaningless. why? because humans are capable of DIVINE CONNECTION. you can think of it as this 'wishful thinking' ability that comes with privilege of celebrating the EUCHARIST. the FAITH lets us go through the most difficult events unharmed - like deckards confrontation with multiple androids in the building, where he believed that Mercer himself appeared and guided him. thats why it doesnt matter if mercer was a mystification or not. if you can fuse with him, experience his suffering, you will receive his guidance. btw androids in the book are very often kinda important and influential 'people'. buster and his guests are the best example. you should think twice about why he is so obsessed with the whole debunking mercer thing. i have to admit, i stopped liking the movie once i realized all of this after reading the book. i like to imagine that the movie is exactly what an android would do if he was tasked to create one based on DADOES. even if the crew, ridley scott himself, didnt mean no harm... the damage had been done. people will remember harrison ford as deckerd. they will not remember deckerd who found the fake toad in the mountains.

He is not a replication because he only has human strength. If he was a replicant, he will have the strength to easily take them down. Kowalski almost easily killed him. Also, he could have easily snatched his hands from Roy, instead of getting his fingers broken.

great cinematography. lovely...

lol "Chinese look"

This movie is so special to me. It is one of my top 5 movies of all time together with Alien 1979. I can't believe I've only watched it for the first time in 2006. It somehow always sliped away from me in the 80s and 90s but I do remember seeing the final roof scene - the "tears in the rain" dialogue on a VHS tape at some point. I don't know when that was and I don't remember why I hadn't watched the whole movie back then. I didn't read the book but the changes that you've mentioned mostly worked for me. I just love this movie so much. Every scene is so special. I think my favorite scenes are in the beginning - the first one and then the one where Decard meets Rachel for the first time. The music is just something else.... I can't even begin to describe how awesome I find this movie and even the special effecst were way ahead of its time. The only thing I really disliked were the versions that featured the Decard naration. That was horrible.There was just something about these late 70s and 80s movies where they had a somewhat low budget and they were able to really deliver on it.

Tears in the rain was improvised, not the whole monologue.

i was small, but i liked it 🙂