The reason I talk to fast is because this was for a college "Literature to Film" class. For the final we had to read a book and make a presentation on the differences made to the adaption. Obviously there was a time limit and I couldn't spend 30 mins of the 45 min class to explain in a well paced voice. I hope this clears up some things for future viewers.
Man I am a high school student and I have to read the book and watch the movie just like you had to do. This video is very helpful at the moment so thanks for sharing. I hated Rachelle in the book. The idea of making sex with humans to manipulate them is just wrong in my opinion.
Well since this was for a college class, I should point out that Blade Runner is not influenced by "Chinese culture"it is a Japanese influence. This would have been obvious to even a second grade child watching this in 1982. Also, there are two words in the English language that are pronounced the same but spelled differently, this is called a homonym and the word "to"and the word "too" have two different meanings which become important if you write. Not being able to distinguish between these two words is a huge indicator that your parents didn't get their tax dollar's worth. When the government was supposed to be educating you somebody was absent. Either you or your teacher.
Reading the book right now for the first time, there are a lot of differences deckard seems more like a hardened classic bad ass bounty Hunter in the movie and in the book Rick deckard seems more like a underdog not having a real animal and only now getting his first serious case he also seems to show a lot more emotion.
A couple of further facts: 1. The tie-in with the book was not coincidental. It is from the first screenwriter, Hampton Fancher, who did read it. The book is what started him writhing the screenplay. 2. The end monologue was not 100% improvised. Most of it was scripted or modified from the script. His line about tears in rain was improvised, and Hauer cut a lot of the 300 word monologue, with Scott's final acquiescence. Enjoyed your comparo, esp. after escaping from the Lost Orphan's one, which had some kind of horrible voice-under and other annoying touches.
Funny is that the best Blade Runner story for me is from the 1996 game. So amazing to have a game that feel and look as well expand the universe of Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Eletric Sheep
1300l The game was brilliant, deserves some sort of remake. My only problem was the voice acting. And the weird giant rats that you have to kill - didnt seem to fit. But the expansion of the world was great and I thought it was a good cross between the book and film.
I have read about half of the book and have all three versions of the movie. I like most of the changes they made but it would have been nice to see a sequel that was very close to the book.
There are *five* versions of the movie, not three. Original Theatrical Cut, International Cut, Director's Cut, Workprint Cut, and Final Cut. All were included when the Final Cut was released (I got the Collector's Edition, of course). I also have the Deluxe Edition of the Director's Cut, used to have the VHS of the Director's Cut, the faux soundtrack, the Vangelis Soundtrack, the Vangelis 25th Anniversary 3-Disk Soundtrack, the Blade Runner video game, Retrofitting Blade Runner (which contains a paper by a woman I used to date), the original fan magazine and the Marvel Super Special adaptation of the movie (both of which I bought new off the shelf), and the book. And before you ask, yes. Yes, I want a cookie.
Well . . . Retrofitting Blade Runner was given to me as a gift by the girlfriend . . . but I did buy the Final Cut twice (the Collector's Edition I bought on DVD, because I didn't have a Blu-Ray player. When I got one, I bought the regular edition on Blu-Ray.
In the book they have laser tubes as weapons. I much prefer the movie, it tells a better story and has one of the best visual styles and moods in any sci-fi movie. The book was a bit depressing, Deckards wife was the worst imo, I also think he killed the andies too easily, they didn't really put up much of a fight, then the books just ends with him going to bed.
The movie actually has Japanese look not Chinese. They're references to Japanese Geisha. And at the start the old guy who Deckard buys noodles from is speaking Japanese.
It's kind of both influences, and the Geisha stuff I can see and never thought about. It's like the whole world they live in is a huge mishmash of all the cultures of the world, so you could probably find influences from everywhere in the movie.
Yeah in the movie they do say (on my cut version anyway) that the spoken language is a mixture of Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, Spanish and others... cant remember
Also, Taffy Lewis' club is in "First Sector, Chinatown". This mismash is not an unreasonable imagining of what Los Angeles would be like in the future, from a 1982 perspective.
Yeah, I think this was an intentional hodgepodge, just with a strong Japanese bent. Look at Firefly, for another example. There are myriad cultural influences, but Chinese is most prevalent without _dominating._
I agree that Hampton Fancher did a good job of loosely adapting the book, but I would still liked to have seen the android police department and Phil Riesch.
Play the video game. The android police department is in it. The game, by the way, is one of those unicorns of gaming. It's a game based on a movie, but *both* are good. It features voice work by several of the original stars (plus a pre-fame Lisa Edelstein), and takes place at the same time as the movie. In fact, if you do the right thing at the right time, you can catch a glimpse of Deckard in a photo as you run it through the Esper. If you don't, he's missing.
"An android," he said, "doesn't care what happens to another android. That's one of the indications we look for." "Then," Miss Luft said, "you must be an android." That stopped him; he stared at her.
IMHO: In the book Deckard's main motivation for killed Andies was wanting to get enough money to buy a major animal, like the ultimate status symbol in a world that had few animals left. The wife is shrewish at the start.
No discussion on the frog in the end? It was kind of a big deal! I enjoyed this video, but for future notes - slowing down would be better - I spent more than 5 minutes backing up the track to try to understand what you'd just said, so you didn't really save any time for me. 20 minutes would have been fine!
+Maddy James Sorry, I was also making this for a school project and didn't want to make it super long for that. Thank you for the feedback though, the next one I work on I will keep that in mind.
According to the book there are two main differences between a toad and a frog. Frogs stay near water but toads can hop off and live in a desert. Secondly, toads can not jump nearly as well as frogs.
I'm pretty sure that when deckard takes the test in the book it's to test whether he has empathy for androids (especially female ones) not whether or not he's human
I feel like it innately proves both answers though, in showing he has empathy for androids, it shows he is human because androids don't truly feel for each other
@@RadRogue1 Well, it's raining fellas. This November. Dubai has just experienced heavy rainfall. It rained so bad that buildings such as Dubai Mall started to flood.
@@ivanrosario247 So obviously the police department would have the replicant that acts completely human and gets its ass kicked constantly. Because no problem with the police having a replicant in violation of law. Just like Deckard having no problem with replicants being on Earth as long as they're not a "hazard," even though he's a cop and the opening crawl says he's under orders to terminate any replicant on detection, as long as she isn't Rachel. I mean, seriously, you give a director 10+ years to revise and re-edit a film and clearly he'll end up being a "genius."
The book is much better. It has a sort of religious/philosophical angle. Ishidores a brilliant character in the book. He turns it into a comedy, especially when he tries to repair a real cat.
For me the most disturbing thing I ever read would be in David Alexanders Dark Messiah, when a contam... basically a zombie... but this one has been enhanced into a massive monster, smashes someones head open and skull fucks em until they're dead, maybe that, or how an ex prostitute has a habit of distracting guards by letting them fuck her in the arse (to me that's totally screwed up)... David alexander describes damaged tissue as food "he covered his eye's before the nuclear blast turned his eyes into beef burgers", every wound is described with surgical pricision, right down to piss spraying onto internal organs from the bladder and other gory details. But yeah, the spider bit was pretty bad, how the androids laugh and joke, but Ishidore freaks out and tries to protect it. Books are fucked up sometimes.
Isidore translates to Isis, goddess known for generosity. She has a son, Horus, also the name of the cat that dies. Horus is equivalent to Jesus Christ, hence we have a resurrection, but interestingly with electric, Android replacement.
IMHO In the movie, having Deckard be human is essential to the plot (inhumane humans persecuting humane replicants). Also Deckard is too weak to be a replicant. All the replicants he fights with are able to whup him in a fight if Deck has no gun. Rachael never has a physical contest or fight with him; she is enamored of him. Nothwithstanding, The Director says he is a replicant; Harrison Ford says he is not (much as I argue on plot); original screen writer says it is ambiguous. So have it your way.
1st- Dick wrote Deckard as a human so that settles it. Its HIS story. Love ya Ridley but bad idea to change the story cannon in that way. 2nd- From seeing this at the theater in 82 as a 16 year old kid until today with all of the different “versions” of the film i NEVER believed Deckard to be a Replicant of any generation. Why? The fight with Leon. I never bought the “Deckard was a previous generation replicant” argument. If he was such an inferior “replicant” who got his ass kicked so easy (it was like Pee Wee Herman fighting Mike Tyson) he had no business being a Bladerunner in the first place. I think since Dick died during filming Ridley knew he could make Deckard a replicant and no one would stop him, although Harrison did try. Thank you Mr Ford for that.
Dude you know the Author of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" said before he died that Decker and all life that was still planet side was actually android life, the point of Decker taking the test on himself and find himself to be a human is part of the message (likewise the test isn't ever considered as 100%); If you can't tell the difference between X and Y, between a human and a replicant, then is there any real difference at all and after that Decker questions what it means to be human. Furthermore at the end of the book Decker needs to use a machine to put himself to sleep because he was too stressed, and at the beginning of the story Decker is obsessed with getting a real animal because his synthetic sheep sucks. Though it's not as for sure as it is in the movie at the end of the book you as the reader as suppose to question Decker's Humanity while Decker questions what it means to be human.
Ridley Scott knew next to nothing about Philip K. Dick and didn't care what his views were. He had the legal rights to use the basic material in Dick's book and proceeded to make a movie that expressed views that were actually opposed to those of Philip K. Dick. Blade Runner expresses Ridley Scott's views starting from a basic premise created by Dick. Scott and Dick have nearly nothing in common. Just seeing Blade Runner will tell you very little about Philip K. Dick. The movie is not about Philip K. Dick, it's about Ridley Scott. Philip K. Dick did not believe for a moment that an android could ever become human or could ever be a meaningful substitute for a human. What he believed is that humans have the capacity to resist and deny what makes them human. And this is the root of evil in the human. For Dick, the creation of androids expresses the human fear of the deep challenges that arise in being consciously human. It is an attempt to escape reality and it will lead to nihilism and destruction. This does not mean that Dick had no vision of further human evolution as positive. But the creation of androids does not express this human evolution, but rather a resistance in fear to this evolution. In the movie Scott says that Deckard might as well have a 'love' relationship with the android Rachel because it's ultimately not different from a relationship with a human. But in the book, Rachel is a meaningless monster that Deckard is tempted by, but finally sees through.
In the book it is suggested that groups like the Nazis could use Mercerism to... It trails off. The meaning, I think, is that horrible people use God to justify horrible deeds.
In case it would be so, it would be a very tragical dilemma for humans whether to feel compassion for robots. Because humans cannot turn off they empathy, on the fear of becoming inhuman; but robots have none to begin with. Kinda like in "Ex Machina" movie.
@@feameldo Yes, but this notion of Rick's is continually challenged to the point where we may realize that androids are capable of this empathic exchange, even more so than humans.
the movie and the book asked different questions they are similar but in many ways very different. the movie asks are androids human?. the book asks am i an android?. this is why our favorite chicken head is not a prominent figure in the movie but is one of the most important characters in the book.
Well..... Scott had to of got some clues from someone who read the book because there are Easter Eggs from the book, that I always thought were there for those that read the book, that someone that had not read the book would not notice. Just to name one: the Asian girl ad on the building taking the pill and smiling. If you have not read the book you probably didn't think anything of that. But in the book they live in a drugged culture, much Ike in the movie TXH-1138. So I don't think that was random. And there are others. The character name changes are immaterial. However, The J.F. Sebastian character is not the same in the book. His was the biggest character change. Other small detail like Decard is still married in the book might have been a P.C. choice? Because in the book he still has an affair with Rachel. However, in the book she is a "pleasure" model as well, just like Priss. In the movie Decard is free to run off into the sunset and live happily ever after. Hard-core book people often criticize a movie for departing from the book. However, movies are movies and books are books. A lot of what is in the book would not translate well on film. A lot of the intricate details that are interesting in a book would be boring on film. One of the earliest sci-fi books I read was 2001. The opening scene with the apes takes up about 1/3rd to nearly 1/2 of the book. Yet it is maybe 3 or 4 minutes of the film. This is O.K. because 45 minutes of Moon-watcher staring at the moon in amazement, although interesting in the book, may be a little boring on film. (Moon-watcher is the name of the ape that kills the other ape) SO...... again, movies are movies and books are books.
I listened to an interview from Philip K. Dick on RUclips two years ago, of which I'm sadly unable to find anymore (although a similar discussion is in the book "The Last Interview: And Other Conversations"), where he mentioned how he came to the story of "Do Androids Dream..." by studying the Nazi's, and a Nazi's private journal in particular. He was fascinated about their lack of empathy, and considered them emotionally deficient humans, like an android would be. On the converse side he also wondered about how those who fought the Nazi's would have to put aside their empathy and feelings in order to fight psychopaths, and how they might end up becoming the very evil they were fighting, which was Deckard. In this way, he stated the screenplay differed slightly from his book, because Roy Batty and the replicants were painted in a more sympathetic light, with Roy Batty becoming more human (when it was originally only Rachel becoming more human), but Deckard was still rightly painted as less empathetic than he originally was because he had to sacrifice some of his humanity. This theme of sympathizing with artificial intelligence and machines has been prevalent in the entertainment industry over the past thirty years or so, and it is a shame. Humans are ternary beings in that they have thoughts, feelings, and actions, while psychopaths and machines are binary beings, having mostly thoughts and actions, and being what Dick called "emotionally deficient". His book was a reflective look at the dynamics of psychopathy, but the movie was a sympathetic look at psychopathy.
Psychopaths are still humans. And not every psychopath is a criminal far from it. So having a sympathetic look at psychopaths is nothing I'd describe as a shame. The only thing I'd describe as a shame is the lack of material featuring viewpoints opposed to that.
the book androids were true psychopaths. they knew how long they lived and didn't care, they didn't care of about humans, they didn't care about each other, and they behaved in ways that reflected this. they weren't particularly superhuman, but they could be dangerous because of this psychology and the ways it allowed them to behave. the movie androids were far more emotional by comparison, and roy's behavior, for example, showed a deep level of concern for his companions, that the book androids never had. and the movie androids were made into superhuman baddies as well, just to make the movie more flashy i'm sure. the main thing with the book androids was their complete lack of empathy. aside from just wanting to live their lives in freedom, they were also a bit obsessed with this difference between themselves and humans, and throughout the book some of them waged a media campaign to convince the world that they, the androids, were better than humans exactly because of this trait. that's what "buster friendly" was really up to. that's what his big story, about revealing mercerism to be a fraud, was all about. he was convinced human empathy was a fraud too, and that the humans were no better than he was, and so on. i've also heard that dick's androids were probably based on his experiences with drug addicts, but that's just something i've heard.
one thing i remember really well was that the androids in the book had 0 sense of self preservation and essentially gave up the moment death had grazed them, meanwhile the replicants are fighting for survival, racing their lifespan clocks
Dicks androids were based on the journals of SS officers at death camps he read while researching man in the high castle. An SS officer wrote "the screams of children keep me up at night" but not in a way of feeling their suffering, but of annoyance at the loud noise. The androids are supposed to be an allegory for people who are dehumanized or completely lack empathy whether through not ever having it or being conditioned.
I wouldn’t necessarily call all of the androids psychopaths in fact from what I’ve listened to from an audio book reading the androids are far more sociopathic then psychopathic sure you had your expectations like Pris Stratton, Ermgard Baty, and Roy Baty but, in the case of Rachael Rosen, Polokov, Luba Luft, Garland, and Buster Friendly they seem to act unnervingly calm but you can still tell there’s something off about them. And as for androids not caring about one another at all, you are almost completely right but, there was one example of an android showing empathy towards another android and that was when Ermgard Baty got retired/killed and Roy cries in anguish before getting retired itself/himself.
@@hotrod0331 I think the book is telling that empathy is something aquired with the right combination of experiences, the product of conciousness in colective, not something born with, that's why Roy cried at the end, because it learned, at the beggining it doesn't care at all, meanwhile Rick who doesn't care at the beggining, starts to feel bad about retiring andies and question's even the legitimacy of life
Wow, you are all disregarding key characters, events and meaning in your remarks on the book, almost like you read but didn't understand it. For instance, Luba Luft, Rick's admission that he is indeed the form destroyer, the example set by Isidore. Again, like you didn't read the book. Highly disappointing. Welcome to you tube chat!
"But in the book he is definitely human. He took the void kampf test on himself and shown no sign of being a replicant." A replicant who was built to be indistinct from a human being must himself successfully pass the test as a human being. The running theme of the movie was the Tyrell building the next version of a replicant who isn't aware that they are.
For the movie that doesn't work, the entire conflict between Roy and Rick, man and machine, the reversal of empathy between the organic and the artificial, it all turns into a glorified, high tech Robot Wars episode. In DADOES I thought the point was supposed to be that it doesn't matter, but I read it imagining Rick as a human, the story just works better with that contrast.
But he never took the Boneli Reflex-Arc Test, which (from the description) sounds simpler and more reliable than than Voigt-Kampff Empathy Test everything2.com/title/Boneli+Reflex-Arc+Test
It works better off you can't be sure if either is human, a bit like the Turing test, except where the tester may or may not be human, is their test of the artificial intelligence valid of they also are not human?.
well, in the book, it was a theme that the void kanpf test might actually not work on the nexus-6 generation of andys. This is the reason he sometimes seems to doubt himself. It could possibly be that he slipped through the test. This would not be able with the bournelli-test, but he took the void-kampf test. The only thing that makes it clear that he is in fact human and not an andy is that he is able to connect to mercer and the andys can't do that, no matter how hatd they try.
In the book it clearly says that nexus 7 will be able to pass the test. It is also stated that Androids would be perfect for hunting other Androids. So Decker can be nexus 7.
Username Hype, perhaps i can solve a mystery of the book and film, not that one. In 1982 i saw the film as a fifteen year old. i went and bought the book and read it. i enjoyed the book but couldn't equate the book and the film but felt strangely that both were masterpieces. over the years i went and read everything that PKD wrote. over the years i discovered that Hampton fancher was not only a close friend of PKD for decades when he was alive, but had managed to play homage to nearly half of the books PKD had written. for instance, the leader Roy Batty is based on the look of the assassin robot in 'Solar Lottery'. the City in Blade Runner is closer to the underground Metropolis described in detail in 'The Penultimate Truth'. The flying cars are closer to the Flying police cars in 'Counter Clock World'. many of the characters that PKD wrote were re-used throughout other novels that he wrote. that is the genius of Hampton Fancher in playing homage to his friend PKD. my conclusion is that Blade runner introduces a first time reader of PKD unconciously to nearly every book PKD has ever written in one easter egg filled movie, Literally (literally).
IMHO: HAMPTON FANCHER is the original screen writer. He stated that after his 3rd re-write (or so) he stopped using material from the Electric Sheep novel. So I doubt that it is true to say that he never read the novel. I don't think it is accurate to call Ridley Scott the screen writer, tho he did put it together & cut out this & that, added the unicorn I believe.
Should I read 'do androids dream of electric sheep?' then watch bladerunner then watch bladerunner 2049 then not bother reading bladerunner (Which I assume is the same as Do Androids Dream. Sorry)
The good thing about the book and movie being radically different is that its easy to enjoy both without comparing. I saw the movies first and then read the book and loved all 3. Usually I will only enjoy the one I experience first
IMHO: The Replicants of the movie are not all that sinister, they act humane vs inhumane humans who only exploit & murder them. All their killings can be seen as self-defense vs murderous humans. The replicant Rachael saves Deckard's life & kills another REplicant to save him. She teaches the unloving Deckard to love. The replicant Roy saves Deckard's life, pulling him up from falling off a building (with a Christlike nail in his hand) at a time when Deckard is trying to kill Roy. The Replicants per story are instruments of teaching Deckard to be humane again, if he ever had been humane.
must be talking about the cityscape.. because the book was totally different. J.F persona it totally different from the book..he is not a chicken head in the movie.. he doesn't listen to buster friendly all day and Mercerisum is nonexistent .. Well you made my point the movie was nothing like the book.
Good video but you talk too fast. Almost gave me indigestion lol also for me the film is light years ahead of the book which I found odd. No wonder so much was cut.
“More life,” means children. They came as pairs. Rachael had no life span yet she would die. Roy knew she could have off spring but it would not be with Deckard. Figure that one out!!!
You forgot Hampton Fancher, the other screen that actually sat down with Philip K. Dick and co-wrote the screenplay for the first and second Blade Runner.
His inablity to take care of animals always struck me - in the book. But whether he's a replicant or not isn't the central theme, it's about what makes a human, human. Lots of kids pull legs off spiders, does that mean they're not human? Or maybe it's about a developing humanity in the replicants, like now they're acting like spoilt kids, but there are plenty of signs they're developing a true human conciousness. - just being existentially challenged, as some of the protaganists seem to be, should be a clue. Anyway, the title of the book and the fact Deckard seems happy with an electronic toad at the end gives food for thought, especially in this age of increasingly sophisticated sex robots. Personally, I think conciousness is an unexplained mystery, and I have my doubts as to whether anything mechanical can replicate it, as opposed to giving a simulation. And, at the end of the day, that is what all this is about. As a thought experiment I sometimes ponder what would happen if you tied up some living creature, an amoeba say, to give an extreme example, to a bunch of neurological links. After all we started out as something similar.
Ridely should have claimed a close spiritual feel to Philip's work. Pride and prejudice is systemic in driving artistic license, but it works and ... the universe expands.
IMHO: I don't remember in the book Deckard doing sex w/ Rachael in order to get her out of his system before murdering Pris, as if doing sex w/ a woman wud make it easier to kill her -- only if you are a monster.
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.
basically there are too many to call these like the same work. same for amazons new electric dreams thing. nothing like.. the story.. sadly... why does no-one wanna make this great story about fake animals? does no-one draw the proper parallels?
Too Bad I couldn't keep listening... Escape ------eSSSSSSSSSSSScape not x-cape, twice. once is an honest mistake twice is a habit that predicts more annoying ones later, END
Wow you missed the point of the story. Had me until your opinion. The book makes you think of a cliche moral tale then slams us with reality. Computers are computers. Basic rule of tech is input output, true AI is impossible. Deckard has sex with a really attractive toaster. But at the end of the day it is still a toaster. After reading the book it killed the movie for me. Visual master piece but basic story in the movie. Good review.
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.
How the hell did Gullivers Travels try to pawn itself off as the book? I don't think ANYONE was under the misguided belief that it would be anything like the book.
IMHO: In the movie it shud not be thot that he starts to have affection for Rachael only after he has sex w/ her; before that, she killed Leon the Replicant who was about to kill Deckard, saving him. Before that, he called her & asked her to meet him for a date. The narrative voice over is consistent w/ him having affection for her by that point.
I thought the movie was alright, then I read the book, and now I hate the movie. They're like two completely different stories that are only very vaguely based in the same universe!!
...he patted her bare, pale shoulder."Get your crude cop's hand away." Iran said."I'm not a cop." He felt irritable, now, although he hadn't dialed for it."You're worse," his wife said, her eyes still shut. "You're a murderer hired by the cops."
You actually did job explaining the movie the best than other people reviews.I've never read the book but i want to.I like the movie Somehow the movie might had been teaching that life and love is more stronger than what people are on the outward appearance.Just I came up with after seeing this.
The androids are reeeaaaallly dumb in the book. Definitely like the movie better, but definitely wished they'd kept some moments in the book, like the spider scene.
i think blade runner is kind of one of those pieces of media that i personally like to call "untouchables". Another example would be harry potter or the star wars movies. These concepts are verry cool concepts and many people wish there would be similar stories, similar worlds, but the problem is that if people attemped to do this, make a similar story/world, maybe not even directly thinking about the franchise they are similar to, people would accuse them of copying this because it had such a great impact on society and is such a highly rated and loved thing that it is put onto a pedestral and the similar movie would be hated because it is a bad and unoriginal and stealing etc. (even if it was not really a copy). Therefore, there can not really be movies similar to bladerunner, sadly (or at least nobody dares to do so). This is why there is so little cyberpunk media, which i find sad because i LOVE cyberpunk. If you want a cyberpunky story, you could read snowcrash or ready player 1&2 (way deeper than the movie). Both are really good books, I read them myself. You could also read the neuromancer trilogy, i have, however, not yet read them myself but they are THE example for cyberpunk fiction if you look it up on google. For movies, there would be minority report, total recall and ghost in the shell (an anime). For the topic of empathy & androids etc. there is also the movie ex machina, it is however TOTALLY NOT CYBERPUNK. It is clean, modern 2010th style scifi. But a verry verry good movie. I am sure there are more movies (I am actually not certain about more books, sadly), but these are the ones i could think of.
Can some1 explain the Replicate near the end putting the nail thru his hand? Is he being a Christ figure? Then there is the dove; is that by any chance allegorical for the Holy Spirit? Then was it Tarrel called "Father"?
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.
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All those moments will be lost. Yeah, except that memories can be transferred so no "moments" ever need be lost. But, hey, it's great we should all feel sympathy for the guy who slotted 23 people before hijacking a shuttle. And if Roy's incept date is 2016 why is he "expiring" in 2019? Oh, right, the math and continuity problem again. Ridley is such a genius.
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.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
The reason I talk to fast is because this was for a college "Literature to Film" class.
For the final we had to read a book and make a presentation on the differences made to the adaption.
Obviously there was a time limit and I couldn't spend 30 mins of the 45 min class to explain in a well paced voice.
I hope this clears up some things for future viewers.
Man I am a high school student and I have to read the book and watch the movie just like you had to do. This video is very helpful at the moment so thanks for sharing. I hated Rachelle in the book. The idea of making sex with humans to manipulate them is just wrong in my opinion.
It's not because I'm listening at 1.75x speed? 😂
I, for one, appreciated the fast pace
🗣🗣🗣
Well since this was for a college class, I should point out that Blade Runner is not influenced by "Chinese culture"it is a Japanese influence. This would have been obvious to even a second grade child watching this in 1982. Also, there are two words in the English language that are pronounced the same but spelled differently, this is called a homonym and the word "to"and the word "too" have two different meanings which become important if you write. Not being able to distinguish between these two words is a huge indicator that your parents didn't get their tax dollar's worth. When the government was supposed to be educating you somebody was absent. Either you or your teacher.
Reading the book right now for the first time, there are a lot of differences deckard seems more like a hardened classic bad ass bounty Hunter in the movie and in the book Rick deckard seems more like a underdog not having a real animal and only now getting his first serious case he also seems to show a lot more emotion.
A couple of further facts:
1. The tie-in with the book was not coincidental. It is from the first screenwriter, Hampton Fancher, who did read it. The book is what started him writhing the screenplay.
2. The end monologue was not 100% improvised. Most of it was scripted or modified from the script. His line about tears in rain was improvised, and Hauer cut a lot of the 300 word monologue, with Scott's final acquiescence.
Enjoyed your comparo, esp. after escaping from the Lost Orphan's one, which had some kind of horrible voice-under and other annoying touches.
Sorry if this has already been stated, but at 1:07 you talk about the Chinese look, that is in fact Japanese.
Funny is that the best Blade Runner story for me is from the 1996 game.
So amazing to have a game that feel and look as well expand the universe of Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Eletric Sheep
1300l The game was brilliant, deserves some sort of remake. My only problem was the voice acting. And the weird giant rats that you have to kill - didnt seem to fit. But the expansion of the world was great and I thought it was a good cross between the book and film.
I have read about half of the book and have all three versions of the movie. I like most of the changes they made but it would have been nice to see a sequel that was very close to the book.
There are *five* versions of the movie, not three. Original Theatrical Cut, International Cut, Director's Cut, Workprint Cut, and Final Cut. All were included when the Final Cut was released (I got the Collector's Edition, of course). I also have the Deluxe Edition of the Director's Cut, used to have the VHS of the Director's Cut, the faux soundtrack, the Vangelis Soundtrack, the Vangelis 25th Anniversary 3-Disk Soundtrack, the Blade Runner video game, Retrofitting Blade Runner (which contains a paper by a woman I used to date), the original fan magazine and the Marvel Super Special adaptation of the movie (both of which I bought new off the shelf), and the book. And before you ask, yes. Yes, I want a cookie.
WakenerOne
You deserve one
Sounds like you spent a lot of money
Well . . . Retrofitting Blade Runner was given to me as a gift by the girlfriend . . . but I did buy the Final Cut twice (the Collector's Edition I bought on DVD, because I didn't have a Blu-Ray player. When I got one, I bought the regular edition on Blu-Ray.
the movie is clearly and obviously inferior
In the book they have laser tubes as weapons.
I much prefer the movie, it tells a better story and has one of the best visual styles and moods in any sci-fi movie.
The book was a bit depressing, Deckards wife was the worst imo, I also think he killed the andies too easily, they didn't really put up much of a fight, then the books just ends with him going to bed.
The main reason you know Deckard's not an android is that he can fuse with Mercier. Androids can't do that.
If he is a Android he is bad fighter
But his eyes are red for 2 seconds
Wilbur
@@josecortez5213 Bill Bur Mercer
The movie actually has Japanese look not Chinese. They're references to Japanese Geisha. And at the start the old guy who Deckard buys noodles from is speaking Japanese.
It's kind of both influences, and the Geisha stuff I can see and never thought about. It's like the whole world they live in is a huge mishmash of all the cultures of the world, so you could probably find influences from everywhere in the movie.
Yeah in the movie they do say (on my cut version anyway) that the spoken language is a mixture of Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, Spanish and others... cant remember
Also, Taffy Lewis' club is in "First Sector, Chinatown". This mismash is not an unreasonable imagining of what Los Angeles would be like in the future, from a 1982 perspective.
He does order four bowls of Japanese noodles "Futatsu wa juubun desu yo!" but later gets a bottle of Tsingtao after killing Zhora.
Yeah, I think this was an intentional hodgepodge, just with a strong Japanese bent. Look at Firefly, for another example. There are myriad cultural influences, but Chinese is most prevalent without _dominating._
I agree that Hampton Fancher did a good job of loosely adapting the book, but I would still liked to have seen the android police department and Phil Riesch.
Play the video game. The android police department is in it.
The game, by the way, is one of those unicorns of gaming. It's a game based on a movie, but *both* are good. It features voice work by several of the original stars (plus a pre-fame Lisa Edelstein), and takes place at the same time as the movie. In fact, if you do the right thing at the right time, you can catch a glimpse of Deckard in a photo as you run it through the Esper. If you don't, he's missing.
the Replicant cops plotline is AWESOME!!! It shoulda been in 2049....
I pictured Phil resch as that sleazy guy from aliens
@@deadlandplacebo1695 good shout man. paul reiser would have been good for that role.
"An android," he said, "doesn't care what happens to another android. That's one of the indications we look for."
"Then," Miss Luft said, "you must be an android."
That stopped him; he stared at her.
@Luke Avedon For just a second I have a suspicione about me.I feel a relief when I realize how much care about...Others
IMHO: In the book Deckard's main motivation for killed Andies was wanting to get enough money to buy a major animal, like the ultimate status symbol in a world that had few animals left. The wife is shrewish at the start.
No discussion on the frog in the end? It was kind of a big deal!
I enjoyed this video, but for future notes - slowing down would be better - I spent more than 5 minutes backing up the track to try to understand what you'd just said, so you didn't really save any time for me. 20 minutes would have been fine!
+Maddy James Sorry, I was also making this for a school project and didn't want to make it super long for that. Thank you for the feedback though, the next one I work on I will keep that in mind.
Username Hype Ah, that makes sense. Well, it was still an enjoyable video and it wasn't meant as nasty criticism, I promise. :D
Thank you for the correction. It's been a while since I've read it.
You mean toad. Agreed.
According to the book there are two main differences between a toad and a frog. Frogs stay near water but toads can hop off and live in a desert. Secondly, toads can not jump nearly as well as frogs.
I'm pretty sure that when deckard takes the test in the book it's to test whether he has empathy for androids (especially female ones) not whether or not he's human
I feel like it innately proves both answers though, in showing he has empathy for androids, it shows he is human because androids don't truly feel for each other
He took the test before the story starts. That’s what he’s referencing.
@@Fleury4In the book there is implied that you can get Android version of a person and substitute for real. So Decker in the book can be Android.
@@mwontif that had happened he wouldn’t have passed the test he took after retiring Luba luft
Read the book. Never watched the movie. Book is amazing
Watch the film. The book is amazing, but so is the Director's Cut of Blade Runner.
Yusef Endure i much preferred the final cut
EvilEyebrowBoy Read the book and just finished the movie. Love the book more but they’re still amazing.
Its way better.
You wierdo
Another huge difference between the book and the films is that the story is set in San Francisco; not L.A.
And Deckard meets Rachael at the Rosen Association headquarters (Tyrell Corporation in the film), located in Seattle!
blade runner month in november in 2019.
Brian Kent Pirrie yep
I can hardly wait. I hope it rains.
yep right now bby
@@RadRogue1 Well, it's raining fellas. This November. Dubai has just experienced heavy rainfall. It rained so bad that buildings such as Dubai Mall started to flood.
In Sweden the cinemas are showing Blade Runner in December 2020.
It's hard to imagine how Deckard could be a replicant when every replicant in the film, except Rachel, kicked his ass.
There were different kinds of replicants.
@@ivanrosario247 So obviously the police department would have the replicant that acts completely human and gets its ass kicked constantly. Because no problem with the police having a replicant in violation of law. Just like Deckard having no problem with replicants being on Earth as long as they're not a "hazard," even though he's a cop and the opening crawl says he's under orders to terminate any replicant on detection, as long as she isn't Rachel. I mean, seriously, you give a director 10+ years to revise and re-edit a film and clearly he'll end up being a "genius."
@@Cryptonymicushe’s a Nexus 7.
The book is much better. It has a sort of religious/philosophical angle. Ishidores a brilliant character in the book. He turns it into a comedy, especially when he tries to repair a real cat.
For me the most disturbing thing I ever read would be in David Alexanders Dark Messiah, when a contam... basically a zombie... but this one has been enhanced into a massive monster, smashes someones head open and skull fucks em until they're dead, maybe that, or how an ex prostitute has a habit of distracting guards by letting them fuck her in the arse (to me that's totally screwed up)... David alexander describes damaged tissue as food "he covered his eye's before the nuclear blast turned his eyes into beef burgers", every wound is described with surgical pricision, right down to piss spraying onto internal organs from the bladder and other gory details. But yeah, the spider bit was pretty bad, how the androids laugh and joke, but Ishidore freaks out and tries to protect it. Books are fucked up sometimes.
The spider had eight legs slowly cut down to none, there where eight androids slowly cut down to none.
Isidore translates to Isis, goddess known for generosity. She has a son, Horus, also the name of the cat that dies. Horus is equivalent to Jesus Christ, hence we have a resurrection, but interestingly with electric, Android replacement.
@@Resentius may I recommend metamorphosis by Franz Kafka?
IMHO In the movie, having Deckard be human is essential to the plot (inhumane humans persecuting humane replicants). Also Deckard is too weak to be a replicant. All the replicants he fights with are able to whup him in a fight if Deck has no gun. Rachael never has a physical contest or fight with him; she is enamored of him. Nothwithstanding, The Director says he is a replicant; Harrison Ford says he is not (much as I argue on plot); original screen writer says it is ambiguous. So have it your way.
1st- Dick wrote Deckard as a human so that settles it. Its HIS story. Love ya Ridley but bad idea to change the story cannon in that way.
2nd- From seeing this at the theater in 82 as a 16 year old kid until today with all of the different “versions” of the film i NEVER believed Deckard to be a Replicant of any generation. Why? The fight with Leon. I never bought the “Deckard was a previous generation replicant” argument. If he was such an inferior “replicant” who got his ass kicked so easy (it was like Pee Wee Herman fighting Mike Tyson) he had no business being a Bladerunner in the first place. I think since Dick died during filming Ridley knew he could make Deckard a replicant and no one would stop him, although Harrison did try. Thank you Mr Ford for that.
Dude you know the Author of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" said before he died that Decker and all life that was still planet side was actually android life, the point of Decker taking the test on himself and find himself to be a human is part of the message (likewise the test isn't ever considered as 100%); If you can't tell the difference between X and Y, between a human and a replicant, then is there any real difference at all and after that Decker questions what it means to be human. Furthermore at the end of the book Decker needs to use a machine to put himself to sleep because he was too stressed, and at the beginning of the story Decker is obsessed with getting a real animal because his synthetic sheep sucks.
Though it's not as for sure as it is in the movie at the end of the book you as the reader as suppose to question Decker's Humanity while Decker questions what it means to be human.
Verde_Manzana Gareth he doesn’t use the machine to sleep at the end, his wife intended to use it on him but he fell asleep before she used it
Ridley Scott knew next to nothing about Philip K. Dick and didn't care what his views were. He had the legal rights to use the basic material in Dick's book and proceeded to make a movie that expressed views that were actually opposed to those of Philip K. Dick. Blade Runner expresses Ridley Scott's views starting from a basic premise created by Dick. Scott and Dick have nearly nothing in common. Just seeing Blade Runner will tell you very little about Philip K. Dick. The movie is not about Philip K. Dick, it's about Ridley Scott.
Philip K. Dick did not believe for a moment that an android could ever become human or could ever be a meaningful substitute for a human. What he believed is that humans have the capacity to resist and deny what makes them human. And this is the root of evil in the human. For Dick, the creation of androids expresses the human fear of the deep challenges that arise in being consciously human. It is an attempt to escape reality and it will lead to nihilism and destruction. This does not mean that Dick had no vision of further human evolution as positive. But the creation of androids does not express this human evolution, but rather a resistance in fear to this evolution.
In the movie Scott says that Deckard might as well have a 'love' relationship with the android Rachel because it's ultimately not different from a relationship with a human. But in the book, Rachel is a meaningless monster that Deckard is tempted by, but finally sees through.
it IS ok to like BOTH.. never understood why people insist you have to like one or the other better.. love bladerunner.. RIP Rutger Hauer
Best scene of the movie, completely improvised by Rutger Hauer.
I thought the whole point of the book and Mercerism was that only humans have empathy, and that machines can never make a moral choice.
In the book it is suggested that groups like the Nazis could use Mercerism to...
It trails off. The meaning, I think, is that horrible people use God to justify horrible deeds.
In case it would be so, it would be a very tragical dilemma for humans whether to feel compassion for robots. Because humans cannot turn off they empathy, on the fear of becoming inhuman; but robots have none to begin with.
Kinda like in "Ex Machina" movie.
@@feameldo Yes, but this notion of Rick's is continually challenged to the point where we may realize that androids are capable of this empathic exchange, even more so than humans.
I think the mood wheel is a cool allusion to humans being android themselves.
Question. What the hell does a laser tube look like?
The book is definitely better than Scott's movie. A cinematic adaptation faithful to Dick's text would be interesting.
the movie and the book asked different questions they are similar but in many ways very different. the movie asks are androids human?. the book asks am i an android?. this is why our favorite chicken head is not a prominent figure in the movie but is one of the most important characters in the book.
of course they knew the book, as you point out so many similarities.
ione
i’d ..example is that some of the andies kept their names
Not paying the author you stole your ideas from?
Well..... Scott had to of got some clues from someone who read the book because there are Easter Eggs from the book, that I always thought were there for those that read the book, that someone that had not read the book would not notice. Just to name one: the Asian girl ad on the building taking the pill and smiling. If you have not read the book you probably didn't think anything of that. But in the book they live in a drugged culture, much Ike in the movie TXH-1138. So I don't think that was random. And there are others. The character name changes are immaterial. However, The J.F. Sebastian character is not the same in the book. His was the biggest character change. Other small detail like Decard is still married in the book might have been a P.C. choice? Because in the book he still has an affair with Rachel. However, in the book she is a "pleasure" model as well, just like Priss. In the movie Decard is free to run off into the sunset and live happily ever after.
Hard-core book people often criticize a movie for departing from the book. However, movies are movies and books are books. A lot of what is in the book would not translate well on film. A lot of the intricate details that are interesting in a book would be boring on film. One of the earliest sci-fi books I read was 2001. The opening scene with the apes takes up about 1/3rd to nearly 1/2 of the book. Yet it is maybe 3 or 4 minutes of the film. This is O.K. because 45 minutes of Moon-watcher staring at the moon in amazement, although interesting in the book, may be a little boring on film. (Moon-watcher is the name of the ape that kills the other ape) SO...... again, movies are movies and books are books.
I listened to an interview from Philip K. Dick on RUclips two years ago, of which I'm sadly unable to find anymore (although a similar discussion is in the book "The Last Interview: And Other Conversations"), where he mentioned how he came to the story of "Do Androids Dream..." by studying the Nazi's, and a Nazi's private journal in particular. He was fascinated about their lack of empathy, and considered them emotionally deficient humans, like an android would be. On the converse side he also wondered about how those who fought the Nazi's would have to put aside their empathy and feelings in order to fight psychopaths, and how they might end up becoming the very evil they were fighting, which was Deckard. In this way, he stated the screenplay differed slightly from his book, because Roy Batty and the replicants were painted in a more sympathetic light, with Roy Batty becoming more human (when it was originally only Rachel becoming more human), but Deckard was still rightly painted as less empathetic than he originally was because he had to sacrifice some of his humanity.
This theme of sympathizing with artificial intelligence and machines has been prevalent in the entertainment industry over the past thirty years or so, and it is a shame. Humans are ternary beings in that they have thoughts, feelings, and actions, while psychopaths and machines are binary beings, having mostly thoughts and actions, and being what Dick called "emotionally deficient". His book was a reflective look at the dynamics of psychopathy, but the movie was a sympathetic look at psychopathy.
Psychopaths aren't human?
Alpha Zalgo
Humans who lack emotions.
I am gona read the book again
Do you mean this? ruclips.net/video/3d7XMnmPgUk/видео.html
Psychopaths are still humans. And not every psychopath is a criminal far from it. So having a sympathetic look at psychopaths is nothing I'd describe as a shame. The only thing I'd describe as a shame is the lack of material featuring viewpoints opposed to that.
the book androids were true psychopaths. they knew how long they lived and didn't care, they didn't care of about humans, they didn't care about each other, and they behaved in ways that reflected this. they weren't particularly superhuman, but they could be dangerous because of this psychology and the ways it allowed them to behave. the movie androids were far more emotional by comparison, and roy's behavior, for example, showed a deep level of concern for his companions, that the book androids never had. and the movie androids were made into superhuman baddies as well, just to make the movie more flashy i'm sure. the main thing with the book androids was their complete lack of empathy. aside from just wanting to live their lives in freedom, they were also a bit obsessed with this difference between themselves and humans, and throughout the book some of them waged a media campaign to convince the world that they, the androids, were better than humans exactly because of this trait. that's what "buster friendly" was really up to. that's what his big story, about revealing mercerism to be a fraud, was all about. he was convinced human empathy was a fraud too, and that the humans were no better than he was, and so on. i've also heard that dick's androids were probably based on his experiences with drug addicts, but that's just something i've heard.
one thing i remember really well was that the androids in the book had 0 sense of self preservation and essentially gave up the moment death had grazed them, meanwhile the replicants are fighting for survival, racing their lifespan clocks
Dicks androids were based on the journals of SS officers at death camps he read while researching man in the high castle.
An SS officer wrote "the screams of children keep me up at night" but not in a way of feeling their suffering, but of annoyance at the loud noise.
The androids are supposed to be an allegory for people who are dehumanized or completely lack empathy whether through not ever having it or being conditioned.
I wouldn’t necessarily call all of the androids psychopaths in fact from what I’ve listened to from an audio book reading the androids are far more sociopathic then psychopathic sure you had your expectations like Pris Stratton, Ermgard Baty, and Roy Baty but, in the case of Rachael Rosen, Polokov, Luba Luft, Garland, and Buster Friendly they seem to act unnervingly calm but you can still tell there’s something off about them. And as for androids not caring about one another at all, you are almost completely right but, there was one example of an android showing empathy towards another android and that was when Ermgard Baty got retired/killed and Roy cries in anguish before getting retired itself/himself.
@@hotrod0331 I think the book is telling that empathy is something aquired with the right combination of experiences, the product of conciousness in colective, not something born with, that's why Roy cried at the end, because it learned, at the beggining it doesn't care at all, meanwhile Rick who doesn't care at the beggining, starts to feel bad about retiring andies and question's even the legitimacy of life
Wow, you are all disregarding key characters, events and meaning in your remarks on the book, almost like you read but didn't understand it. For instance, Luba Luft, Rick's admission that he is indeed the form destroyer, the example set by Isidore. Again, like you didn't read the book. Highly disappointing. Welcome to you tube chat!
The difference is one has a question mark at the end of its title, the other does not.
Morphology, Longevity, Incept dates¿ A concise and in-depth comparison great work and intuitive video to this iconic Film
"But in the book he is definitely human. He took the void kampf test on himself and shown no sign of being a replicant."
A replicant who was built to be indistinct from a human being must himself successfully pass the test as a human being. The running theme of the movie was the Tyrell building the next version of a replicant who isn't aware that they are.
For the movie that doesn't work, the entire conflict between Roy and Rick, man and machine, the reversal of empathy between the organic and the artificial, it all turns into a glorified, high tech Robot Wars episode. In DADOES I thought the point was supposed to be that it doesn't matter, but I read it imagining Rick as a human, the story just works better with that contrast.
But he never took the Boneli Reflex-Arc Test, which (from the description) sounds simpler and more reliable than than Voigt-Kampff Empathy Test
everything2.com/title/Boneli+Reflex-Arc+Test
It works better off you can't be sure if either is human, a bit like the Turing test, except where the tester may or may not be human, is their test of the artificial intelligence valid of they also are not human?.
well, in the book, it was a theme that the void kanpf test might actually not work on the nexus-6 generation of andys. This is the reason he sometimes seems to doubt himself. It could possibly be that he slipped through the test. This would not be able with the bournelli-test, but he took the void-kampf test. The only thing that makes it clear that he is in fact human and not an andy is that he is able to connect to mercer and the andys can't do that, no matter how hatd they try.
In the book it clearly says that nexus 7 will be able to pass the test. It is also stated that Androids would be perfect for hunting other Androids. So Decker can be nexus 7.
Username Hype, perhaps i can solve a mystery of the book and film, not that one. In 1982 i saw the film as a fifteen year old. i went and bought the book and read it. i enjoyed the book but couldn't equate the book and the film but felt strangely that both were masterpieces. over the years i went and read everything that PKD wrote. over the years i discovered that Hampton fancher was not only a close friend of PKD for decades when he was alive, but had managed to play homage to nearly half of the books PKD had written. for instance, the leader Roy Batty is based on the look of the assassin robot in 'Solar Lottery'. the City in Blade Runner is closer to the underground Metropolis described in detail in 'The Penultimate Truth'. The flying cars are closer to the Flying police cars in 'Counter Clock World'. many of the characters that PKD wrote were re-used throughout other novels that he wrote. that is the genius of Hampton Fancher in playing homage to his friend PKD. my conclusion is that Blade runner introduces a first time reader of PKD unconciously to nearly every book PKD has ever written in one easter egg filled movie, Literally (literally).
excellent analysis.
IMHO: HAMPTON FANCHER is the original screen writer. He stated that after his 3rd re-write (or so) he stopped using material from the Electric Sheep novel. So I doubt that it is true to say that he never read the novel. I don't think it is accurate to call Ridley Scott the screen writer, tho he did put it together & cut out this & that, added the unicorn I believe.
Should I read 'do androids dream of electric sheep?' then watch bladerunner then watch bladerunner 2049 then not bother reading bladerunner (Which I assume is the same as Do Androids Dream. Sorry)
The good thing about the book and movie being radically different is that its easy to enjoy both without comparing. I saw the movies first and then read the book and loved all 3. Usually I will only enjoy the one I experience first
I am unable to keep up with the narrator's fast talk. Sorry, it started out interesting butallthewordsjustsortasoundedallthesametome.
IMHO: The Replicants of the movie are not all that sinister, they act humane vs inhumane humans who only exploit & murder them. All their killings can be seen as self-defense vs murderous humans. The replicant Rachael saves Deckard's life & kills another REplicant to save him. She teaches the unloving Deckard to love. The replicant Roy saves Deckard's life, pulling him up from falling off a building (with a Christlike nail in his hand) at a time when Deckard is trying to kill Roy. The Replicants per story are instruments of teaching Deckard to be humane again, if he ever had been humane.
I thought they both sucked. The film just lacks real characterization to motivate anything that goes on. The book is a typical Dick mess.
must be talking about the cityscape.. because the book was totally different. J.F persona it totally different from the book..he is not a chicken head in the movie.. he doesn't listen to buster friendly all day and Mercerisum is nonexistent .. Well you made my point the movie was nothing like the book.
Good video but you talk too fast. Almost gave me indigestion lol also for me the film is light years ahead of the book which I found odd. No wonder so much was cut.
“More life,” means children. They came as pairs. Rachael had no life span yet she would die. Roy knew she could have off spring but it would not be with Deckard. Figure that one out!!!
Yeah! That mood organ would be a trip in real life! Lol
I'd burn mine up trying to stay in a good mood.
2 words: MOOD ORGAN ..... the movie was disappointing after reading DADOES
Thank you for this.
Blade Runner is my favourite movie ;-) Thank you !!
"If our memories could be stored and transfered to others. Are you willing to expose your deepest secrets to others?"
where is this line from?
In the book the Andes had a 4 year life cycle but that was a manufacturing limitation not a designed one.
In the movie replicants and animals are NOT electronic but organic genetic replicants.
You forgot Hampton Fancher, the other screen that actually sat down with Philip K. Dick and co-wrote the screenplay for the first and second Blade Runner.
His inablity to take care of animals always struck me - in the book. But whether he's a replicant or not isn't the central theme, it's about what makes a human, human. Lots of kids pull legs off spiders, does that mean they're not human? Or maybe it's about a developing humanity in the replicants, like now they're acting like spoilt kids, but there are plenty of signs they're developing a true human conciousness. - just being existentially challenged, as some of the protaganists seem to be, should be a clue. Anyway, the title of the book and the fact Deckard seems happy with an electronic toad at the end gives food for thought, especially in this age of increasingly sophisticated sex robots. Personally, I think conciousness is an unexplained mystery, and I have my doubts as to whether anything mechanical can replicate it, as opposed to giving a simulation. And, at the end of the day, that is what all this is about. As a thought experiment I sometimes ponder what would happen if you tied up some living creature, an amoeba say, to give an extreme example, to a bunch of neurological links. After all we started out as something similar.
I would Definitely pick the movie, but I loved the book too !!
Ridely should have claimed a close spiritual feel to Philip's work. Pride and prejudice is systemic in driving artistic license, but it works and ... the universe expands.
IMHO: I don't remember in the book Deckard doing sex w/ Rachael in order to get her out of his system before murdering Pris, as if doing sex w/ a woman wud make it easier to kill her -- only if you are a monster.
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.
I see the comparison of Androids to Replicants, with the commonly known today Android with Asimov's Humaniform Robot.
I hope a film more true to the novel is made. Maybe an animated film??
November 2019.
basically there are too many to call these like the same work. same for amazons new electric dreams thing. nothing like.. the story.. sadly... why does no-one wanna make this great story about fake animals? does no-one draw the proper parallels?
You narrate WAY TOO FAST! Slow down.
Too Bad I couldn't keep listening...
Escape ------eSSSSSSSSSSSScape
not x-cape, twice. once is an honest mistake twice is a habit that predicts more annoying ones later, END
Awesome comparison dude, love the film and I've always been interested in the book, now i think ill give it a read.
+Michael “Eyebrows” Murphy thank you
Wow you missed the point of the story. Had me until your opinion. The book makes you think of a cliche moral tale then slams us with reality. Computers are computers. Basic rule of tech is input output, true AI is impossible. Deckard has sex with a really attractive toaster. But at the end of the day it is still a toaster. After reading the book it killed the movie for me. Visual master piece but basic story in the movie. Good review.
even worse, it's a toaster that will sell you out to its toaster buddies
Hey great video!
However great the book is, the movie will always have the dvantage of the unforgettable visuals and music.
dvantage - a Freudian typo if I've ever seen one
@@resonant.interval
I don't see how one missing letter, "a", is a freudian slip?
How can you claim to have based the movie you just wrote on a book that you haven't read?
Lies so they wouldn't have to pay Philip K Dick the money they should have. They also ripped off Judarowski so it's not surprise.
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.
How the hell did Gullivers Travels try to pawn itself off as the book? I don't think ANYONE was under the misguided belief that it would be anything like the book.
IMHO: In the movie it shud not be thot that he starts to have affection for Rachael only after he has sex w/ her; before that, she killed Leon the Replicant who was about to kill Deckard, saving him. Before that, he called her & asked her to meet him for a date. The narrative voice over is consistent w/ him having affection for her by that point.
I thought the movie was alright, then I read the book, and now I hate the movie. They're like two completely different stories that are only very vaguely based in the same universe!!
The 80s saxophone music was hot!
Look up Vangelis
This is fantastic. I hope you got A+ in your course
his wife was super against him being a bounty hunter though, I thought? I seem to remember a scene where she called him "a filthy murderer for cops"
...he patted her bare, pale shoulder."Get your crude cop's hand away." Iran said."I'm not a cop." He felt irritable, now, although he hadn't dialed for it."You're worse," his wife said, her eyes still shut. "You're a murderer hired by the cops."
Remember that in the original movie (the one Philip liked) only one Android was killed going through the Grid at Tyrell Corporation.
You actually did job explaining the movie the best than other people reviews.I've never read the book but i want to.I like the movie
Somehow the movie might had been teaching that life and love is more stronger than what people are on the outward appearance.Just I came up with after seeing this.
What are you talking so fast for?
The androids are reeeaaaallly dumb in the book. Definitely like the movie better, but definitely wished they'd kept some moments in the book, like the spider scene.
The details in blade runner are amazing, lots of thing from the book are in it...
Excellent video. Thank you.
Wish there were more movies set in the Blade Runner world
There’s this movie called Mute. Imo the movie sucks, but the aesthetics somewhat remind me of Blade Runner
i think blade runner is kind of one of those pieces of media that i personally like to call "untouchables". Another example would be harry potter or the star wars movies. These concepts are verry cool concepts and many people wish there would be similar stories, similar worlds, but the problem is that if people attemped to do this, make a similar story/world, maybe not even directly thinking about the franchise they are similar to, people would accuse them of copying this because it had such a great impact on society and is such a highly rated and loved thing that it is put onto a pedestral and the similar movie would be hated because it is a bad and unoriginal and stealing etc. (even if it was not really a copy). Therefore, there can not really be movies similar to bladerunner, sadly (or at least nobody dares to do so). This is why there is so little cyberpunk media, which i find sad because i LOVE cyberpunk. If you want a cyberpunky story, you could read snowcrash or ready player 1&2 (way deeper than the movie). Both are really good books, I read them myself. You could also read the neuromancer trilogy, i have, however, not yet read them myself but they are THE example for cyberpunk fiction if you look it up on google. For movies, there would be minority report, total recall and ghost in the shell (an anime). For the topic of empathy & androids etc. there is also the movie ex machina, it is however TOTALLY NOT CYBERPUNK. It is clean, modern 2010th style scifi. But a verry verry good movie. I am sure there are more movies (I am actually not certain about more books, sadly), but these are the ones i could think of.
The empathy machine.
Can some1 explain the Replicate near the end putting the nail thru his hand? Is he being a Christ figure? Then there is the dove; is that by any chance allegorical for the Holy Spirit? Then was it Tarrel called "Father"?
I think somehow he knew that it might allow his dying body (and the hand spasms) to continue, it's probably an electronic thing...
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.
I’m waiting for the movie version of The Three Sigmata of Eldritch Palmer!
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 !!!
Well now with Blade Runner 2049 he’s definitely human just lost empathy and Ridley probably screwing with people who miss that
Chinese?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All those moments will be lost. Yeah, except that memories can be transferred so no "moments" ever need be lost. But, hey, it's great we should all feel sympathy for the guy who slotted 23 people before hijacking a shuttle. And if Roy's incept date is 2016 why is he "expiring" in 2019? Oh, right, the math and continuity problem again. Ridley is such a genius.
Chinese or Japanese?
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.