>My dad and I love Blade Runner>He tells me it's based on a book called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?">Think that's a great name for book>Read book>There are actual electric sheep in the bookWhat a crock of shit. Thank God pkd actually wrote some proper books before he died. He was wasted on this sci fi bullshitAlso, what other books were fixed by their film adaptations? The Shining is another that jumps to mind
The film differs from the book because the director believed the book was too intellectual for mass audiences. You are literally retarded
>>24840299Go watch star wars and play with your toys fag
>>24840309film is for midwits so go ahead.
>>24840310>film is for midwitsWrong
>>24840269Thats nothing "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" now thats a fucking book tittle
>>24840318That's a short story though, not a book. Got turned into Total Recall, which took even more creative liberty than BR did.
>>24840299fpbp, OP confirmed for brainlet doofus
>>24840269I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep before I watched Blade Runner and felt disappointed with the film. I was expecting more from it, all that it is good for is the aesthetic of its visuals and the score. Rachel's song for example is beautiful. I also felt let down by Stalker having read Roadside Picnic first, I was left wanting more of the book in film form, all that the film is good for is Atmosphere and aesthetics of visuals.
>>24840299Kek, and somehow the film has more intellectual merit than a sci-fi pot boiler.Pottery.
>>24841153scifi fags are so cringe man good god
>>24841318>generic 80s shlock>intellectualreally?
>>24841153blade runner is one of the most visually beautiful movies ever made but the story is mediocre if you're familiar sci-fi that has been made since, and the acting from harrison ford is pretty terrible. it has like 3 versions because at first ridley scott believed americans would be too stupid to understand Deckard as a character, forcing harrison ford to do a voice-over of his thoughts in the movie which he half-assed on purpose, then other versions later put in dream sequences that imply that deckard could be a replicant. its a bit of a mess.
>>24841534The film objectively has more to say than the book.>film: what does it mean to be human?>book: what does it mean to have empathy?The book spells it out with the whole Mercerism thing and has a literal retard lecture the readers about what empathy is. The movie treats the subject with more nuance.
>>24841629Filtered.
I've only read it once but it seemed like an introspective dive into what empathy is as a uniquely human emotion in a setting where most outlets for empathy are now gone (animals, other humans, etc) which is why it draws such a hard line between the androids and humans. The best the movie can come up with is a shallow sci-fi slop idea like WELL, WHAT IF ANDROIDS WERE JUST HUMANS? And try and make you doubt whether deckard/what's her face was human or android. It's schlock.
>>24841507You are retarded. Go back to watching bright pretty color slop movies without substance.
>>24842471Nigga you literally read books about spaceships and laser guns. Grow up mate
>>24841629the film also asks 'what does it mean to have empathy?'and, obliquely, 'to what extent is violence justified to escape slavery?', 'to what extent are we all slaves, by virtue of systems that precede us, delimit our options, and predict us?', and, as a subsection of 'what does it mean to be human', there's 'to what extent does memory form the basis of identity?'>>24841632that would be youif you can't grasp the depths of the film, you surely don't understand the basics of literature either
>>24841153based>>24840269confirmed of never having experienced a visual passion. confirmed digital hylicTO ALL I AM CONFIRMING THAT SOFLTY WEEP MY TEARS THE POLICMEAN SAID IS PKD BEST BOOK, OR WHATEVER ITS CALLED. ALSO I HATE AMERICAN AIRPORTS REEEEEEEEE. fuck Mexican sports tv, literally 12 sport tv screens within my vision and married engineers in under armour hoodies making video calls next to me
>>24840269>sci-fi movies GOOD>sci-fi books BADMake this make sense to me.
>>24842679HAHAHAHA I JUST PAID A DOLLAR TO LITTLE FOR MY 10$ AIRPORT BEER AND JUST WALKED AWAY. ONCE I AM IN THE AIRPLANE THEY CANT GET TO ME. I DIDNT EVEN TIP EITHER. OHHHHH WHAT A RUSH. desu waiting 2 minutes for the cátcpha kinda killed this buzz
>>24842685There's only one good sci-fi book and that's A Voyage to Arcturus. Everything else is slop. Simple as.
>>24842685I don't make the rules
>>24841153the movie utterly mogs the book in terms of aesthetics, influence and message. the book only has a few funny observations like deckard's wife strategizing her drug combinations for mood going for it. its campy and not really well written compared to his later work like Scanner Darkly or Timothy Archer.
>>24840299I genuinely found the book to be life-affirming. The irony behind the book is that you have to step into Deckard's shoes in order to really understand what the fuck the point of the whole story is. That either requires living a life similar to Deckard, or literally having a strong enough sense of empathy. Deckard lacks stronger emotional connections and a sense of meaning in his life. He isn't really living, he's just clocking in and clocking out, allowing the daily grind to eat away at him, all while he covets what he does not have. He is not grateful. He thinks if he gets a real animal, he will feel whole.But he wouldn't. That's the whole point of the fake police station with the Replicants running the place. At a certain point, copies are no longer distinguishable from the originals, so any hemming and hawing over the latter being more valuable is pointless. Granted, the copies will be stunted/lacking (hence the androids being shown as acting akin to children - little to no empathy to things outside themselves), but it matters little if the originals are decaying/hollow themselves.I found the ending to be beautiful. It's very Gnostic/Buddhist. Deckard sees through the illusion and returns back to where he started but with understanding, renewed hope, and love as his guiding forces.
>>24841507I am that anon and I am not a sci-fi fag. Those are the two broadly sci-fi books have read and loved.
>>24840269>shitty pretentious book>shitty pretentious movie>10/10 based and goated videogamethird time lucky
>>24840269The book is far more concerned with what the movie fans pretend to care about; the inhumanity or humanity of artificial life. That the world is almost devoid of life to the point people fetischize facsimiles is barely touched on in the movie, the sequel actually comes closer to showing it. But none of them have a scene as strong as the casual killing of an animal by the replicant. The movie wants you to empathize with them as “people too”! In the way all onions media treats artificial life. The whole point in the book is realizing they aren’t human, on a visceral level. Imitation doesn’t replicate basic human feeling. The Voight-Kampff is in the movie but people don’t get why because it betrays the whole point by humanizing the replicants. So they refer to the script like a meme. You come across an overturned tortoise but you don’t flip it over. Why?You need the book to understand the empathy test which is hilarious. The movie has great aesthetics and that’s why it gives people a boner and they think the book is “dull”. Dude! Is he or isn’t he a replicant? So complex! It’s artifice. The whole of cyberpunk aesthetic worship is actually a breakdown of intent and reception since people loooove the soulless corporate future and dream of living in their cuckshed eating bugs as long as they get a VR girlfriend. People think Cyberpunk’s Silverhand is a cool guy because he’s heckin wholesome Keanu! He’s a delusional and self contradictory “rebel” killing for hypocritical reasons he can’t even explain, a literal brain virus in your character and you get a nice achievement for letting him incarnate in your body. What the hell are we doing?
>>24843640>book is far more concerned with what the movie fans pretend to care about; the inhumanity or humanity of artificial lifeyeah you didn't get the movie, and you only talked to movie "fans" that are stupid and don't get it either. the movie is absolutely NOT concerned with "humanity or inhumanity of artificial life." the replicants are simply piecemeal human clones and any failure on their part to have empathy has been induced into them on purpose to justify their use as slaves, like the epsilons in brave new world being given intentional brain damage. of course they're destructive and resentful, they are a purposefully bred slave caste.the movie uses select parts of the book to do its own thing, ie a pessimistic neonoir about navigating a world of vast sin and injustice, a scifi chinatown. the people making it had simply correctly realized that all this "can a robot... have feelings???" turing test chinese room crap is boring nerd shit and dropped the issue completely to instead do a story about how a future society uses this fake idea of "artificial life" as a smokescreen for reintroducing human slavery by having objectively human beings have no rights by the loophole of them having never technically been born, thus justifying their use as slaves, including what effectively amounts to child sex slaves trapped in adult bodies. "more human than human is our motto," says the sleazy pimp that's about to sell infinite clones of his own niece to be raped until they die. "look, if you stare at her pupils through a machine for three hours you can detect microscopic variations compared to what a non-cloned eye would do, therefore it's okay to use her for our giant demonic ritual of human sacrifice. don't be sóy about it."
Read UBIK if you haven't before. Do it right now. I recommend the audiobook, the narrator does a fantastic job.
>>24840269I perfer the Compaq. I am the gl0ve
Rachel and Pris were the same character. Prove me wrong.
