FAQ  •  Login

Is DADOES actually better than the movie Blade Runner?

<<

SushiBar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 2

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:44 pm

Post Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:46 pm

Is DADOES actually better than the movie Blade Runner?

I understand BR is not a straight adaptation of the novel. So how do they compare?
<<

Kipple

User avatar

Honorary Member

Posts: 1266

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Satellite 2

Post Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:15 pm

So much can be said. I'll start with this...

Both DADoES and Blade Runner, I find, compliment each other... along with the different script/screenplay versions. It really opens up ones perspectives of the other. One not "better" than the other, but "part" of the another.

As far as the Deckard charater in both mediums, they do have a different mentality and nature. In my minds eye I see the actor, Matthew Broderick, playing the role of DADoES' Rick Deckard. A far cry from Harrison Ford!

Rutger Hauer's role of Roy Batty differs from the books' "Baty" too. Besides not having as prominent a role in DADoES, Baty is not chasing down anyone...no "hunting" down Deckard. He is the hunted.

The movie captured the ambience/atmosphere/environment of the book, as PKD had concurred at the time of the filming.

Welcome to the forums!
Image
<<

Kipple

User avatar

Honorary Member

Posts: 1266

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Satellite 2

Post Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:31 pm

This is from Wikipedia:

Differences between the novel and film

The plot and characterizations of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? are different from that of its movie adaptation, Blade Runner, in a number of ways. The key few differences are:

?The film takes place in the year 2019, replacing the novel's 1999 (2021 in a later edition).

?The film takes place in Los Angeles, replacing the novel's San Francisco.

?The Penfield Mood Organ, Empathy box, Buster Friendly, and Mercerism are all important aspects of the novel not mentioned in the film.

?In the original theatrical version of the film, Deckard is divorced, not married. His relationship with Rachael is more intensely romantic, and the two enjoy a ?happily ever after? ending. In the Director's Cut, he and Rachael also share a romance, but no mention is made of a divorce or wife for Deckard.

?The atmosphere lacks dust from Nuclear fallout in the film while in the novel, dust is a constant presence. The dust is radioactive, and male characters in the novel wear lead codpieces to avoid becoming sterile.

?Deckard is retired from bounty hunting in the film. He is active in the novel.

?Bounty hunters are called ?Blade Runners? in the film. This phrase does not appear in the novel.

?An android is called a replicant in the movie, but an andy in the novel.

?In the film, Luba Luft is not an opera singer but a showgirl named Zhora. In the novel, Deckard admires her voice and is tormented that it must be silenced. She is killed by Phil Resch in the novel, a character that doesn't exist in the film. Deckard's anguish is implied by slow-motion, music, and a look of exhaustion in the film.

?In the novel the androids seem to "give up" when certain of their imminent death; the film versions are much more retaliatory. In addition, the androids in the novel are much less skilled in combat than in the film, where the fight scenes are highly climactic.

?In the novel, androids are entirely unable to have emotions, instead imitating them with predefined responses. In the film, replicants appear to be able to develop rudimentary emotions due to their implanted memories, as explained by Bryant. This can be observed in Roy's relationship with Pris.

?Moreover, Roy, the leader of the rogue androids, does not force a murderous confrontation with his creator in the book. He remains in Isidore's apartment until Rick hunts him down.

?In the novel, Rachael and Pris are identical. In the film they are not; they are played by two distinctly different actresses, Sean Young and Daryl Hannah.

?In the novel, J.R. Isidore is a "chickenhead," a person of borderline intelligence who is thus not allowed to emigrate. In the film, he is renamed Sebastian, and is a brilliant young android designer who cannot emigrate due to a hormone disorder ("Methuselah syndrome") that causes him to age at an accelerated rate.

?The film leaves lingering the question of whether or not Deckard is an android. In the novel, Deckard appears more certain not to be an android. Reference is made to him having passed the Voight-Kampff test before the events of the novel, although the test is not assuredly accurate. Also Deckard appears to have human empathic reactions, and is able to use an empathy box (an ability which androids lack).

?In the novel, the androids live a maximum of roughly four years because their cells cannot be replaced as they deteriorate. In the film the four-year lifespan is a safety feature, deliberately included so that the android beings could not grow into fuller humanity.

?In the film, the androids have come to earth to find a "cure" for the safety mechanism that limits their lifespan to four years. In the book, the limited lifespan of the androids plays a much less prominent role, and is only mentioned in passing. Instead, the androids have come to earth to escape a life of isolation and servitude on Mars.

?In the film, the Rosen family is instead called the Tyrell family.
Image
<<

deleted

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1191

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm

Location: The banks of chaos in my mind

Post Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:20 am

Welcome to BladeZone SushiBar!

Kipple nailed it, nicely. As for which is better, that is a matter of personal preference.
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:33 am

One is a book, the other is a movie.

A simple answer for a simple question.
Image
<<

SushiBar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 2

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:44 pm

Post Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:04 pm

Thanks for the info.

I always thought BR was a loose adaptation of the novel, but from your description it looks quite similar overall with a few minor differences.

So the book still has that seedy, dark and desolate atmosphere? I think that is the most important part for me and what makes BR such a great movie. I thought Gibsons Neuromancer captured this perfectly as well.
<<

kornula

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 21

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:17 pm

Location: Santa Rosa, California

Post Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:44 pm

Blade runner is an amazing representation of "Do Androids Dream of Electric sheep" The script writers were able to condense the essence of the book and translate it to the screen flawlessly. Adapting a complex, subtle and emotionally entangled story such as "DADOES" if adapted note for note onto the screen, would take at least three or even 4 3 hour films each to capture the whole story and all the emotional resonances.

What everyone involved in the film did was to caputure the mood and essiental story into just 2 hours. Upon 25 years of reflection (and re reading the book recently) I have noticed the film generated representations of the characters and story rather than a literal translation. JF Sebeastian is not a total moron that he is in the book, but he does help bridge the story and the essence of what was conveyed in the book. Lumping the whole story to take place in just one city gave it the dark, oppressive tone the film needed. I could gush on and on the character adaptations which I find necessary translations to film...but lets move on shall we?

The story; while they leave out the "dial-a-mood" device and Mercerisim, converting all that to the search for life itself I strongly feel, comes close to hitting that mark. While I would have loved to seen religion exposed for the fraud it is - which is the main plot of the book, there is NO way in hell any Hollywood producer, would ever touch that story. Gene Roddenberry tried many times to convey "the death of god" via Star Trek, but would get shot down by friends (watch "Who Mourns for Adonis and Return of the Achrons for this)

To this very day, Blade Runner is the only successful adaptation of Phillp K Dicks work (granted, I have not seen Scanner Darkly yet... hesitant to do so since I find every one of Richard Linkateers films to be unwatchable) Adapting a film to book is not an easy task. Blade Runner, while it does not wholly follow the book 100%.. nor even 90%... the film encapsulates the book, making it a great compendium.
<<

BR1661

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 26

Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:09 am

Post Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:55 am

Re: Is DADOES actually better than the movie Blade Runner?

What you guys also have to remember is the difference in atmopshere and environment.

In the movie L.A 2019 is a crowded pool of people of many ethnicities. The streets are loud and busy. However, in the book Philip portrayed the city as desolate forgotten land. The radioactive dust killed most, while the rest fled to the stars. The city in the book remembled more of an "escape from New York" vibe; quiet, bleak and mysterious.

Return to Philip K Dick

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron