Blade Runner, Lost in Adaptation ~ The Dom
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep Vs Blade Runner. Did it get Lost in Adaptation?
Spaceship animation by f r a g o m a t i k: • Nautilus-X - A Real Sp...
His channel: / fragomatik
Support the show on Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Dom on Facebook: www.facebook.c...
Dom on Twitter: / dominic__noble
Buy Lost in Adaptation Teeshirts: www.teepublic....
Contact me: lostinadaptationrequests@gmail.com
Intro music by: / djilneige
Royalty Free Music: incompetech.com/
Mail stuff to Dom:
225 Simi Village Dr
PO Box 941750
Simi Valley, CA
93094
to the mind of the book's author, Philip K. Dick, the real question was whether Rachel was really a human who lacked empathy, not whether Deckard was an android
If that's the case, why does he go to such lengths to make clear that she is definitely an Android?
@caitlyncarvalho7637 No. Most likely they cut it out because even though its amazingly philosophical world building, it doesnt take anything away from the plot and, since Deckard doesn't have a wife in the movie, who is a member of the cult, theres no point in having it
You get a like just for saying Deckard isn't a Replicant just because Ridley says so, good sir.
imo he clearly isn't in the film (during when it was made, when it was released and a short period after). Ridley Scott seems to have gotten it in his head that he is one even though it has no relevance to the story at all and wouldn't change anything in the movie. Funnily enough it isn't really mentioned or referred to in the sequel, so it very much feels like post-release Scott saw some cool fan theories and wished he'd put it in the movie.
@@HiddenGhul , I will say it's a matter of version above opinion. Dom choose to go by "the final cut" version of the movie. I would accept arguments against Deckard as a Replicant in other versions but this one is clear :
Deckard is a replicant. Some many elements, again in "the final cut", would make absolutely no sense if Deckard was human (the glowing eyes, the Unicorn dream…).
@@nolastname But here's the thing. A major theme of the movie is humanity divorced from the human origin and corpus. Whether he's born or manufactured is immaterial. He is, and is human. To obsess over the question of his origin is fixating on the facts but missing the truth. Now, from a practical, in-universe point of view, whether he and Rachael were going to be shot by another Bladerunner, or had an expiration date is of course a concern. But they are clearly running to have as long as possible whatever the consequences anyway. So really it just eliminates the ambiguity for the audience which makes it a lame twist instead of an interesting question.
Yeah, what does he know about his own movie, that hack /s
I like the ambiguity but I mainly lean towards him being human does make more sense especially the point in this video
You know what's one thing that stuck out to me about this comparison? The movie is much more black and white than the book. Don't get me wrong, the film is far from simplistic, but it's more focused on the question of what makes someone "human" and tries to put the viewer in an almost dream-like state of questioning reality. Kind of like the Voight-Kampff test itself. It's kind of the grandfather to Inception that way. Nevertheless, the replicants are depicted as being tragic monsters at worse and retiring them is meant to be viewed as unambiguously wrong unless they are directly attacking you. (Even then, that's more out of self-defense.)
Whereas in the book, humans and Andies both seem to have a kind of saving grace and damning vice. The humans are now societally much more peaceful and gentle to their neighboring life forms, but the religion emphasizes that LIFE is precious and anything imitating life is a perversion or simply worthless by comparison. So the andies are ostracized by a society that, otherwise, is quite harmonious. On the flip side, the andies are indeed a persecuted sub-species that simply want their freedom and not to be owned or hunted. Which is understandable and sympathetic. However, they are, by their nature, complete sociopaths that are incapable of empathy as illustrated by the mutilation of a spider. (Something that, as established before, a human being in this world would consider a heinous and unforgivable act. Hell I think that's pretty fucked up just as a present day animal lover.)
Overall, good comparison The Dom and it definitely illustrated that both versions are complex works on their own. Neither could be called an unintelligent piece but they do say different things.
+Anthony Clay (Steel Accord) I agree, but that's the Phillip K. Dick formula, his books weren't straight forward, his books have the reader asking questions. With the book it discussed the dangers of artificial intelligence, the hypocrisy of others, and questioning the purpose of religion as a part of reality.
The danger of artificial intelligence: they have a mind of their own, they become self aware, like the andies desire to have lives, disregarding religion, and killing animals. They don't have human emotions, they understand the preciousness of organic life, because they never were part of it. They don't care about lives of others, because they never were programmed to learn that way. Considering the state the world was like in the book, humanity is trying to preserve what ever is left of life on earth, and the andies will just stomp all over it because they don't have morals or ethics like a human
Religion: This is kind of why I think religion should stay as a part of human life. (I am a Unitarian Universalist). Mercerism gave humans a reason to respect eachother, to respect life as a whole. Every living creature is a precious gift of God. Wilbur Mercer is a perfect example of man making revealed religion, when we find out he was a fraud, it comes off as disappointing but not entirely devastating. It gives the true purpose of religion, or at least what it should be (in my opinion), religion is about having morals and ethics, and reasons to follow them, man made or not. Dick managed to explain it in away that didn't encourage or discourage people for or against religion. Deckard didn't exactly go out into the desert and proclaimed himself as Jesus, but more of a diciple of Wilber Mercer.
But like you said, this ncvel wasn't black and white, this was my interpretation of the book
The most interesting thing is that Mercerism exists and yet it is pro-Mercerist factions that sanction killing of Andies. It's just such a cool book. You can go back and forth about a lot of the things it discusses about good vs. evil and right vs. wrong.
Now I don't have to write out a comment! I totally agree. I was surprised when Dom said that the movie is more morally ambiguous.
I haven't read the book, and maybe what I'm about to say is explained within but
How do you reconcile a society based on performative empathy to the point where people buy artificial animals if they can't afford real ones, with the cruelty inflicted on Andies? Obviously I get the theme of hypocrisy that Dick was going for, but if people as a whole were conditioned to abhor violence done to any living thing it seems odd that they'd be able to fully throw that out for something that presents as a thinking, feeling human.
@@mattrobson3603 I haven't read it either, but I believe the main thing is that the Andes/Replicants don't feel any emotion right. He went over this in the video, but they are completely sociopathic enough to mutilate and give horrible pain to a creature just to see if it will survive or walk optimally at that point.
To the humans in-universe, that is both a person to natural life- but also against the basis of Mercerism. It's not a tasteful mimicry of life, because it can't even feel emotion and it tortures those who do.
PKD had some extraordinary experiences. I read where:
He was home listening to the Beatles (Strawberry Fields) and a voice said to him, "Your son's life is in danger. The hydroseal has popped in his scrotum, and if you don't take him to the hospital now, he'll die."
He listened to the voice. His son lived.
Fascinating.
_"hydroseal"??_
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman That's the word that was used, idk.
@@theScytheofGod >>> My ex-wife is an R.N. I'll ask her about it.
"Hydroseal" sounds like the name of a component meant to keep water out of a mechanical or electronic device.
@@theScytheofGod >>> My ex got back to me right away on this. She said it is like a cyst, and she thinks it is spelled _"hydrocelle"._
She also said her current husband actually had this problem a few months ago....
I vaguely remember him having some stuff like this with The Man in the High Castle, he started believing that the book was the real reality and his own reality was being imagined by the book, or something mental like that.
Vangelis, that's the name of the Greek movie score composer of Bladerunner.
Fun Fact: He is also the one who did the iconic movie song, Chariots of Fire.
and the Columbus Movie (1492 - conquest of paradise) which is probably for most people his best known piece of music
M.D. Webster thanks, I was looking for that information
M.D. Webster FULL name Evángelos Odysséas Papathanassíou. Friends call him Bud.
@@Questron71 Really? I dont know anyone who ever talks about that movie. It was a pretty big flop financially and critically. Id say his work in Blade Runner is far more well known
@@DeadManSinging1 Blade Runner is the far more well-known film, but the Conquest of Paradise music is what most people will think of when they hear "Vangelis"; personally I had no idea he did Blade Runner as well. The Conquest of Paradise soundtrack kind of took on a New Age-y life of its own.
I like what Dom said at the end: "Most directors want to inherit the fan base of a book to boost box office sales but don't want to be held accountable for creating a faithful adaptation." So true. I think the same extends to remakes, re-imaginings and reboots. If we just remember that these studios are just trying to financially strip mine preexisting fans maybe we'd stop being fooled by them or feel like our childhood was raped.
yeah, people are too stupid for this, just look at the gaming industry where whatever scam a company is pulling, there are enough people that buy from them anyway
Facts
SudoProxy Expecting a film to faithfully replicate your read of a book is pretty naive and childish, and so was Dom’s statement. Very few books have significant enough fan base to co-opt. It’s usually the film adaptation that raises awareness of and sells the book.
Yeah, how dare people develop things, being inspired by things. /s
@@beageler that is not really the point.
"Most directors want to inherit the fan base of a book to boost box office sales but don't want to be held accountable for creating a faithful adaptation" *AHEM! Death note...*
In this comment's case, boosting box office sales is instead boosting Netflix watch hours
On the other hand, if it wasn't for the adaptations, I never would have heard of the original book...so it works both ways. They both hope to roll in a pre-established fan base, and bring more awareness from a broad audience to a book that may be more niche.
Blade runner probably holds up better than most because it wasn't trying to be a faithful adaptation. It stands on it's own merits, which must have made it pretty fun to compare against the book.
True. Also there are many ideas in the book that just wont work in a film and the movie is a better movie for it. Both are good and its weird when i see people argue about it since both are great, and the game
@@jonathansoko1085exactly, mercerism would’ve ruined the movie. Honestly there’s a few dozen ideas in the book that would make good movies on their own, but to shove them all into one would be a mess. Like the mood organ, or replicant animal ethics, etc…
Isodore didn't have healing powers taken away by the government. That was Mercer, the messiah of the new religion. Isodore was a chickenhead, a human so mutated that he wasn't allowed to "start a new life in the off-world colonies" for fear of infecting the healthy population with his degenerate genes. Therefore he was forced to be left behind on a empty Earth slowly dying from the after-effects of world war whatever and people leaving the scarred planet behind for less irradiated planets, hence living in an abandoned appartment building
Just read the book for the first time and I can see where the confusion comes from.
When using the device described at the end of the video the user experiences everything from Mercer's point of view. The book doesn't make that clear at that point and so I had the same impression at that point - that it is not something that happened to Mercer but to the POV character himself.
10:27
Wait, you're saying I can literally inject determination into things? Does it work on flowers?
The Garunixking Apparently, yes.
That's weird, the Rose company becoming the Tyrell company when in Game of Thrones the Tyrell's symbol is a rose 👀
Maybe a Nod from a Fan..? xD
Rosie Bellwood: It's actually "Rosen" in the book. Scott may changed the name to avoid the anti-Semitic connotations of having a supporting antagonist with a Jewish last name.
Let me explain to you how time works...
@@billyweed835
George would be the fan in this case.
PSNSMANIACALMIND1st Maybe just me but I could absolutely see Martin being a fan of both the Androids book and Blade Runner. Blade Runner being out in 82 and the first GOT book being out in 96 gives plenty of time, however the link’s vague enough to be a coincidence but enough that it could be a thing - I would say it’s more of a coincidence if Martin wasn’t demonstrably so good at tying things together 🤔
That Make-A-Drug thing would result in Rapture from Bioshock.
Yeah but it's like, the people are too simple minded and docile to even think of that.
Imagine 1984 if the government wasn't a totalitarian hellscape and just wanted to have the time to rebuild humanity
And the Chems in Fallout...
more people should watch theses, i dont think there are many people doing videos of Book vs movie like this.
sure there are written stuff, but ah its different
+Digger318 check "book was better" on YT. Guy has some good stuff.
bigevilworldwide1 yeah but it doesn't feel the same
Nerds of the Lost Cinema what about the book was better?
KrimsonRouge does it too. (He need more views in my opinion)
I think the closest one is probably Krimson Rogue and even then I do prefer the Dom better (though Krimson's bad book breakdowns are pretty awesome)
They might have changed it to "Tyrell" to avoid the potential for an anti-Semitic reading...
I know this is 3 years late, but what reading is this? I'm curious
I'm confused. What are you talking about?
@@TheIntimateAvenger He is talking about how the name in the book sounds Jewish and one of the FALSE claims made about Jews is that they control the world through corporation. Thus if in the movie still had the name Rosen some would say that the movie is counting that myth. I do not think this was the case. I think the name was changed because Ridley was building his own world.
When I heard Dom say _"Rosen",_ I briefly thought the same thing.
As someone who has read the book and watched the movie I say both works compliment each other without trying to step on each others toes. Dicks writing is still ahead of its time while Ridleys film laid the ground work for sci fi visuals to follow. If only Cyberpunk 2077 can be released already!
It's worth noting that Decard wants the bounty money to buy the real live sheep he has always dreamed of owning (which explains the title of the book).
And doesn't he have a recurring Dream sequence about that sheep?
Don't recall that part. He wants to buy any real animal, it doesn't matter which. He even thinks of buying an austrich, and then the goat he buys. He even burst in joy when he thinks he has found a real toad. What you said doesn't explain the book title, neither is Decard an android. The title could be translated to: do the androids have aspirations? Its said that they have, but, do they dream of having empathy (represented by animals in the book) and therefore, considered humans?
@@DeadManSinging1No, he does not. The electric sheep is in fact pretty much ignored at some point in the novel
Fun fact: a lot of the extra elements from the book like everyone's desire to own an animal (and the market for artificial animals that creates) and the radioactive fallout from the war and even the kipple are included in Westwood's 90s adventure game based on the movie... though mostly in passing reference only.
Wow, how the heck did I miss this one?
It's like finding an extra christmas present... five years later. ^_^
One I've been wanting you to do for some time. =) Phillip K. Dick is my favourite classic sci-fi author, and admittedly the first time I saw this movie... I hated it. I felt bad becuase my wife had talked about it for EONS (It's her favourite movie) and my reaction was more or less "Dafuq did they do to the book? It looked nice and I want the soundtrack... but seriously WTF.." but I found myself compelled to see it again and it rather grew on me. I feel that, in the end, it is a great movie. There's no denying it's well made and well acted, not to mention ambitious as hell. But I still feel that Dick has rarely been done justice on screen. Minority Report got it... fairly right, some frustrating changes not withstanding and A Scanner Darkly was actually relatively accurate.
The whole mood drug thing is actually a very big plot thread in the syfy miniseries Alice
Apparently Ridley Scott never finished reading "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and Philip K. Dick never bothered to see "Blade Runner". Makes sense.
So the whole power to bring animals back from the dead was when he was merged with Mercer while holding the empathy box, he was reliving Mercer’s “life”
One thing left out... Blade Runner snagged the legal rights to use a title from a completely unrelated book. The original blade runners were smugglers of medical supplies to illegal street medics. I will be forever salty that Blade Runner (a movie) by William Burroughs didn't get a movie, and the title got stuck on something else.
I have never seen / read this, but have heard a lot of critique. I think yours is very comprehensive. Well done.
Well, that was your best opening yet. Also, good review, convinced me to track down the novel, and I am now seriously considering Mercerism.
That machine that programs the moods of people could be seen as showing how humans have become far more machine like. They can be re-written and coded to do things, while the machines wish to have free will.
I first saw Blade Runner when I was about eighteen years old, then read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep a couple of years later when I was in college. Strangely, reading the novel was my first really big step out of my fucked up fundamentalist upbringing.
It's good to see The Dom in my sub box
My dad was a huge fan of the film, and hearing that Vangelis soundtrack was like a time machine transporting me back to about 1988
I admit, I was a bit skeptical seeing this come up in my feed, and possibly still am. I believe this film even opes with "Inspired By" instead of "based on" which is an important distinction to make. It was also something that impressed me, as films are often touting based on when they are literally in name only. I hadn't thought of director's doing this for a hijacked boosted fanbase, but that isn't a bad theory.
Both are classics for different reasons, and I respect that
Hold on... if androids have no emotions or empathy... why would they care about being owned, and why would Rachel care about taking revenge?
This is a problem I always had with the whole "emotionless nemesis" that so many robot stories end up using: if you have no emotions nor instincts, why do you care about anything?
Loved the book, loved the movie. Nailed it.
Your comparison left out one of most striking aspects of the movie: the homage to film noir.
More glaring than that is the omission of Moebius. He invented the visual look of cyberpunk in comics that Ridley then translated into cinema. Ridley himself says that Moebius is 'the father of it all'. It all comes from The Long Tomorrow (1976), a story by Dan O'Bannon (of Alien fame) and illustrated by Moebius, which was like the first grimy, gritty sci-fi comic with a noir-type storyline. That's what Ridley was going for. He even asked Moebius to do the design of Blade Runner but he was politely turned down, not sure why. Moebius is very complimentary of him though. The fact that he asked him shows that Ridley was 100% going after Moebius's style with Blade Runner. And as an aside, Moebius also basically created Star Wars. George Lucas was just copying his stuff into cinema.
I got to check the book out now sounds like a good read
Calling Deckard a Human in the cut that specifically makes it obvious he's a replicant is a bold move.
An ex-boyfriend of mine actually had a university class that was largely about book-to-movie adaptations. However, he didn't want to read the books, so he'd just ask me about them. I really wish your show had been around then. It would have saved me a lot of time.
Sir, those 7 first words, those first 44 characters , with the music ,gave me goosebumps. Thanks for that
The reason that Mercer tells him it's alright to kill the androids is more or less the Buddhists idea of all life being sorrowful but we still must play our parts in it. Joseph Campbell summed it up best in The Power of Myth: "I will participate in the game. It’s a wonderful, wonderful opera, except that it hurts. And that wonderful Irish saying, you know, “Is this a private fight, or can anybody get into it?” This is the way life is, and the hero is the one who can participate in it decently, in the way of nature, not in the way of personal rancor, revenge or anything of the kind."
Got to agree about the soundtrack. Superb.
i read the book first, the movie adaptations bring it to life. its the harrison ford character realising he is also a replicant. i'm watching again on a wet cold bank holiday monday
Only recently read the book, but I absolutely loved it. And you weren't kidding about the spider scene. I thought I was starting to see the side of the Andies and voice my concern for their lack of rights and then...yeah, empathy is kinda necessary after all. Kinda scary though, to think that people with mental illnesses could just as easily be ousted and killed for having similar thought patterns to Andies. When you get around to "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" it should be a pretty short episode considering the length of the story. And also perhaps the first instance where the movie has more added in than taken out.
When it comes to this film, I really enjoyed the performance of Rutdger Hauer (Whose name I still misspell more often than not and likely did so here) especially, even over others, although I think this movie had a great cast who gave it their all from what I remember. I've only seen the film once, but it was Hauer's portrayal of his character and his believability during his monologue towards the end.
I get the feeling that his character isn't truly a villain, only labeled as one. Whether it's accurate or not for me to say so, I like to think that it was the society he found himself in that drove him into an antagonistic role as to how he would go about achieving his own ends. Sure, he wasn't spotless, but I think it's fair to say that his goal, that being a desire to live more than just a few years after all of his suffering and turmoil that he experienced at the hands of his creators. The ends don't always justify the means, but I like to look at it this way:
If you were living on borrowed time in a world where you have been kicked around and abused, spit upon, and just all around treated as less than even a beast of burden with no real value, wouldn't you want to be the master of your own fate? Is there anything wrong with wanting to have the right to live? I don't excuse how his character would use others for his purposes, but I can understand why he did it.
If there is one thing I can appreciate about Hauer's character even though I only saw the movie once and I have yet to read the book, it's that he really seemed to have an appreciation for life, maybe even more so than some of the regular humans in the film did. I like to think he probably saw life as a beautiful thing to be cherished, even in the wake of the society that cast him down from day one. You could argue that perhaps he more so feared for his life and was frightened of mortality, and maybe that's true. Something about his final monologue indicated sorrow and yet also the aforementioned appreciation for the life he fought to extend more so than fear of dying to my mind anyway.
In my opinion, I feel that Decker and Hauer's character (I can't remember his character's actual name sadly) are in some ways parallels of one another, and not just by way of one being a naturally-born human and the other a Replicant. Decker is feeling depressed, he drinks heavily, and he lacks motivation to do much in the film. Also he doesn't seem to be in his physical prime, quite possibly to his life choices. (i.e. the drinking) He probably has succumb at least somewhat to the harshness of his environment. At this point, he seems to be in a low place and probably didn't see a way out, settling for simply continuing to exist and ride it out so to speak.
Then there is Hauer. He has spent so long being used as a forced laborer because he was viewed as a tool to be used until it is broken, only to be replaced shortly thereafter with no thought to it otherwise. Despite that as well as his short lifespan and the precious little time he has left, he is vastly physically superior to many humans, and performs in peak condition, as well as being fiercely intelligent, even showing clear signs of possessing a healthy amount of guile from time to time. In the end, he has hopes for a better, longer, and more prosperous future, choosing to see life as something to be valued and held close to one's heart, metaphorically speaking.
In the end, his goal was noble, but his methods were far less so, and I think that by the end, even he knew that.
I'm so used to the newer, more soothing delivery of the newer episodes that going back to the more enthusiastic and energetic deliver of the older videos is both endearing and jarring
7:21 If by "Ridley Scott creativity" you mean "he happened to see AKIRA one day and decided to throw this into the movie", then yes, that is "creative".
What the hell are you on about? Blade Runner came out in '82, Akira the Movie came out in '88, and the manga wasn't even released in the US until after the movie came out.
Hell, both Akira the manga and Blade Runner came out in the same year and both began development way before that at different times so idk how its possible to copy someone's work when there's no internet, they're on opposites side of the world, and speak a different languages.
When I read it I thought the novel was about humans being less human than androids, and the emotion drugs were there to emphasize how we program ourselves.
Also, in the book it's Toads that are holiest and not Owls. There's a bit of weird symbolism where he thinks he's found one and it gives him a real boost in faith and confidence but by the time it's pointed out he's just got a really good replicant he's already questioning reality. Like I say, weird symbolism.
I read the book and I've seen the movie - here's the thing. I can't for the life of me remember half the stuff in the book, but I remember all the different cuts of the film. That movie is memorable, even the changes are memorable. The book... yeah, it's gone from my head completely.
I like how by distancing Blade Runner from the book means you can enjoy both without being critical on what was changed. Sadly the book doesn't feature a soundtrack by Vangelis.
Have you considered doing 2001: A Space Odyssey?
You should also at least mention William S. Burroughs' 1979 book "Blade Runner (a movie)", for the title (which makes no sense for the film).
In Burroughs' book, because of institutionalized healthcare, doctors are restricted in performing their profession, and if they are caught with tools of their trade they are prosecuted. So they have "blade runners" who carry their scalpels and other medical instruments for them.
I thought that the ability to resurrect animals described through Isidore's perspective was part of the lore of Wilbur Mercer...
+The Dom for a 50th or 100 episode special, you should review Gone with the Wind or to kill a mocking bird
watching this again in the hype of Blade Runner 2049.
You know, that movie is good and all, but I actually think that it'd be cool if someone made an adaptation of Dick's novel extremely close to the text
As a Canadian, the thought of having a Deity called Mercer is especially funny and scary.
That's a Ric move Dick.
Huh, well that's neat that Ridley Scott did his own thing with an adaptation but was entirely up-front about it and also made a really good story, wish that'd happen more often. Not sure if I'll try the book now, but I really should re-watch the film sometime...
Your LIA series just gets better and better. I share them with people that were either soured by the film or the book. I can tell at some point you may end up pissing off some peoples cherished memories, just stay honest and keep telling it like it is. Cheers.
She saw, around her, a desolate expanse. The air smelled of harsh blossoms; this was the desert, and there was no rain.
A man stood before her, a sorrowful light in his gray, pain-drenched eyes. "I am your friend," he said, "but you must go on as if I did not exist. Can you understand that?" He spread empty hands.
"No," she said, "I can't understand that."
"How can I save you," the man said, "if I can't save myself?" He smiled: "Don't you see? There is no salvation."
"Then what's it all for?" she asked.
"To show you," Wilbur Mercer said, "that you aren't alone. I am here with you and always will be. Go back and face them. And tell them that."
She released the handles.
It's ambiguous to a degree, but Deckard is definitely a Replicant. In the sequel, he is living in the most radioactive place on earth. And it wouldn't be special if it still takes a human male to impregnate a female replicant, the miraculous thing is that Tyrell created 2 Replicants that could reproduce.
Yep, that soundtrack.
Yep, I don't like it.
Sorry.
I *LOVE* the soundtrack....
Does anyone know the one in the “what they changed” section
Loved the book. Loved the movie. Didnt mind at all the changes they made. Theyre both cool.
I'm really, really loving these videos. This is my favorite movie, and the book is one of my favorites, too. This is a really fantastic comparison of the two, and the videos in general seem to be getting better and better! Thank you so much for making this series!
You are one of my favourite UA-camrs I cant wait til you have a massive collection of vids like teh Nostalgia Critic and I can watch them all the time
Roy killing Sebastien also kills the movie.
Like why should I care about Roy and his pretentious speech about tears in the rain.
What about Sebastien's tears in the rain?......you know the innocent man you manipulated then killed out of spite.
I just power read Alex Garland's "THE BEACH" on a plane home from jersey. walked in my front door, set my bag down and Netflix-ed the film with Tilda and Leo. This is a must do! book film combo. the book and film both have their own interesting merits and faults, as well as being a quick read and relatively short/watchable film. Love to see you do this one.
I honestly can't imagine how Blade Runner came from Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep.
Omg that close up of the spider was terrifying
wow 7 cuts.
imagine if they did a delux box set which included all the different versions, plus the makings they still have (maybe some extra commentarys for the versions that dnt have exsisting ones, even if they are just spot the difference), plus maybe a digital copy of the original book. would be amazing, bet would sell to.
As for the issue of Deckard being a replicant, I just rewatched the movie (to prepare myself for the sequel) and realized: Deckard had only recently started feeling guilt for killing androids. If Deckard was a replicant with no termination date, he could have recently developed emotions, leading him to feel guilt about his job, quit that job, and begun trying to drown his guilt in alcohol. When he was forced to fight the androids, the feelings of guilt, and the alcohol he has been drinking, affect his hand-to-hand combat skills.
awesome coat! Looking forward to Total Recall and Minority Report!
I read the abbreviated novel before watching the movie. And I agree that the novel contain too many ideas and surrealism make it confusing at times.
Screenwriter Hampton Fancher was the original visionary behind the film adaptation.
"...all of these moments... will be lost... in adaptation..."
Rest in peace Rutger Hauer.
I thought Rachel and Pris were the same android in a book. When she introduced herself the first time ( to izador ) she referred to herself as Rachel and then as Pris .
I can hardly wait till you get around to doing some other PKD-based movies.
great video as usual, I must say I prefer the book by a bit though, it's just more my thing I guess
Been waiting a long time for this one. It didn't disappoint.
Cap doffed, Dom.
Do Androids dream of electric sheep, if it’s good enough name for my son it’s good enough for a movie 😂
He also invited Philip K. Dick to a private screening and he came out he loved it, it was one of the last thing he did in his life
Fantastic work Dom! Another quality video from you. It's well edited, superbly written, thoroughly researched, and very entertaining. I'm positive we will see you climb to the top of popularity at Channel Awesome due to all this quality and effort and love put into all your videos. Keep up the great videos. Also, the channel could use some new series, just to spice things up every now and again, maybe some more stuff on videogames? Not just reviews on them, the great thing about this series is that it is more than just a review, and brings new ideas to the table, which always makes it more interesting to watch. No pressure though, loving the series, keep it up.
Man, the 'tears in rain' line is so iconic, but I've never seen a single instance of it being copied (seriously or jokingly) that wasn't cringey. 😒
They way I took it, the Androids were like the spider. The Spider doesn't feel empathy, yet we feel sorry for it when it's being killed. I think Dick was making the point that even though these androids can't feel empathy, they shouldn't be hunted. Otherwise, humans like Deckard could loose their humanity. I think there's a quote of Dick saying this book was inspired by Nazi behavior.
I can't wait for those later reviews.
I struggle so much to understand whats going on in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep and why. Half-way through I thought you explanations were going to make it finally clear to me at last - and then we got to the end and the story was just as random, disjointed and confusing as it always is when I try and read it.
Don't take that as a diss, I only mean that I temporarily believed you may have superhuman powers of explanation then to discover that you're also merely mortal. Maybe one day I'll dream I understand the book
I'll tell you what really got lost in adaptation. "The Bladerunner". Ridley-Scott optioned the novel just to snag the title, and that's a crying shame because because _that_ novel's plot: Poor people have almost entirely been cut off from legal health care unless they agree to be sterilized, so our hero works as a "bladerunner", a smuggler of medical supplies into poor neighborhoods and must save the entire city by distributing a vaccine, evading death squads along the way...
Well with a few tweaks that would make a first rate sf action movie. And the term "bladerunner" actually makes sense. He smuggles, among other things, scalpels. By looting the title and doing nothing else with the property Ridley-Scott pretty much precluded the possibility. Breaks my heart.
BEST INTRO EVER!!!
The movie and book started my love for the 80's in their music, alternative fashion, the dark and punk movement. The movie is absolutely crazy violent, but it has some kind of magic...
Also, the worst scene is when Rachel yeets his new goat off a building, imagine that... And second that with him bonking Rachel in the book
Excellent review. Your introduction was genius.
I must have seen something other than the final cut, because the two times I've seen this thing I remember being utterly confused and having basically no idea what was going on.
Now I really wanna see you do "The Adjustment Bureau"! as yet another adapt loosely-based on Dick's "Adjustment Team"
This movie is one of my absolute favorites. It got me to read sci-fi that wasn't Azimov or Niven. But, I don't remember about half the stuff you mention being not in the movie. Actually wondering if my copy was abridged. So, I'm getting a new copy and rereading it. Still going to put Vangelis on my headphones when reading though.
There's second book that wasn't written by Philip K. Dick. I only read it once but what I remember is it was mostly a sequel to the movie and less the book.
In addition to being married, Deckard in the book is also middle-aged. And were the empathy boxes also in A Maze of Death?
oh my! You seriously scared me with that spider.I almost through away my cellphone,. Ha,I would had appreciated a warning of any kind. A part from that your review is, as always, really well made (but still shame on you for that spider).
the "Deckard was an replicant" in the movie is fine if you consider that they wanted someone specific for whatever reason who could do the job, that someone was no longer able to do it, but they used his memories to make a throwaway replicant that would not stick out so which explains why he sucks physically and with those memories who wouldn't be an alcoholic. this also explains why the donor know where Decker would be or what he was thinking or even dreaming. the donor being Gaff. So this is still not perfect, but explains more than Deckard being human and Gaff being the mystical spaniard.
A better explanation is that Gaff is just a figment of Deckard's fucked up mind.
I'm with you 99.9% on this one great job. By the way the name of the movie and it's esthetics come from a novel "Blade Runner" a story about a man with a club foot that smuggles medical supplies to be people who don't have insurance. The giant cog buildings are original art on the cover. Deckard is human!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4:38 I'd argue that the Tyrell Corporation is LESS cool than the Rosen Corporation, but that's just me. ;P
I was hoping you would cover this movie and book
Great Episode Dom!
They lack human rights because they lack human empathy. They're all sociopaths, able and willing to kill without remorse.