Whoooosh.

Know what that was?

That was this discussion flying over my head.

I say that Genghis Khan is a better example of Empire building, or were you referring to yourself in third person?

Genghis Khan is also awesome.

Refering to myself in the third person... Maybe.

Case and Point;

Bladerunner

Or, as the book was called, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

The author, Philip K. Dick, died shortly before it was released in the cinemas, and he had expressed great worries about how holywoodised the film was...

In a way, it was good that he died before it hit the screens, that was a travesty - I don't even know why they said it was based on the book, because it had a few things in common, but otherwise slaughtered the novel.

So no...no no no.

Any book of any depth will undoubtedly be shat on all over by the film.

Qayin:
Case and Point;

Bladerunner

It's interesting that the best films come from Short Stories rather than long stories. Probably because the plot can be encapsulated easier and a lot of nice effects can go in.

And if you say Bladerunner is a bad film, we might have to have a fight. ;)

Qayin:
The author, Philip K. Dick, died shortly before it was released in the cinemas, and he had expressed great worries about how holywoodised the film was...

... And then they rewrote it based on his criticism. Dick supposedly LIKED the new script and was pleased with the special effects demos they showed him.

And it ended up being a good movie.

-- Alex

Qayin:
Case and Point;

Bladerunner

Or, as the book was called, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

The author, Philip K. Dick, died shortly before it was released in the cinemas, and he had expressed great worries about how holywoodised the film was...

In a way, it was good that he died before it hit the screens, that was a travesty - I don't even know why they said it was based on the book, because it had a few things in common, but otherwise slaughtered the novel.

So no...no no no.

Any book of any depth will undoubtedly be shat on all over by the film.

Whoa there, cowpoke. I think you need to do a bit more background research on the film and, if you haven't already, actually watch it.

1. Alex, what have you been reading? Because what I just said was from a documentary on him, and from the back of the book (it was a paperback, part of that re-release of his books).

2.Root...I'm not saying it was a BAD film...I'm saying that in comparison to the book that it violated that it was a sack of holywoodised shite than needed to be inserted into the people who made it...

The film was good, but it was nothing like the book it was apparently 'based' on, even going so far as to utterly change the plot from the halfway point.

3.Seriously Alex, wtf, I have never read anything suggesting that Dick was satisfied with any versions of the film.

4. Saevus, read the book, many times, watched the film twice - they turned it into a holywood action film, which the book was not in the slightest. I found it very difficult to see the philosophical themes presented in the book, although some of them COULD have been there, and have YOU read the book? Half of the plot was missing - there was nothing to do with the animals, Deckard's wife...you know what, Wikipedia has done all this for me;

Differences between the film and the book

I am a very big fan of this guy, I'm not spouting crap here, I know what I'm on about.

Part of an Essay on The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick;

In Part Four, we find an essay from Dick called "Notes on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", which he wrote in 1968, soon after the novel's publication. It's fascinating to see Dick looking for the centre of interest in the book, examining different choices for the main character, considering casting possibilities, and so on. He spends most of the essay talking about sex (and, as it turns out, the movie Blade Runner is almost diametrically opposed to his choices on every point). A number of his essays from Part Six, like "The Android and the Human" and "Man, Android, and Machine," have philosophical relevance to the book and movie, if only tangentially. Then in a short article written in 1981 called "Universe Makers... and Breakers," Dick describes his reaction to the first draft of the movie: "What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison." (104). These somewhat sarcastic remarks would be tempered by his reaction to the second draft of the film and a reel of special effects that he was shown only a few months before his death.

You know what? It is not the actual questioning that has majorly pissed me off, but the patronising tone in which it has been presented. Dick was never happy with the film, even after the second draft - he was never impressed with what they had done to his book, and he was not so stupid as to be 'wowed' by special effects - give the man a bit more credit than that.

Yes, he liked the second draft more than the first - was he ever happy with the film? No.

Qayin:
1. Alex, what have you been reading? Because what I just said was from a documentary on him, and from the back of the book (it was a paperback, part of that re-release of his books).

2.Root...I'm not saying it was a BAD film...I'm saying that in comparison to the book that it violated that it was a sack of holywoodised shite than needed to be inserted into the people who made it...

The film was good, but it was nothing like the book it was apparently 'based' on, even going so far as to utterly change the plot from the halfway point.

3.Seriously Alex, wtf, I have never read anything suggesting that Dick was satisfied with any versions of the film.

4. Saevus, read the book, many times - they turned it into a holywood action film, which the book was not in the slightest. I found it very difficult to see the philosophical themes presented in the book, although some of them COULD have been there, and have YOU read the book? Half of the plot was missing - there was nothing to do with the animals, Deckard's wife...you know what, Wikipedia has done all this for me;

Differences between the film and the book

I didn't ask if you read the book, but if you'd watched the film. And I am well-acquainted with the fact that, like nearly every Hollywood adaptation, Blade Runner is utterly different from Dick's novel - but since they didn't call the film Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, I think that declaring it a travesty is taking things a touch too far, hm?

Also, similarly on Wikipedia:

Philip K. Dick became concerned that no one had informed him about the film's production, which added to his distrust of Hollywood.[18] After Dick criticized an early version of Hampton Fancher's script in an article written for the Los Angeles Select TV Guide, the studio sent Dick the David Peoples rewrite.[19] Although Dick died shortly before the film's release, he was pleased with the rewritten script, and with a twenty-minute special effects test reel that was screened for him when he was invited to the studio. Dick enthused after the screening to Ridley Scott that the world created for the film looked exactly as he had imagined it.[20] The motion picture was dedicated to Dick.

Not insinuating you don't know what you're talking about in terms of the author, but you seem to be expecting a bit much from a completely different art form/Hollywood in general. The film is never as good as the book, and the reverse situation is also true.

I have already edited that bit - I realised it as I posted.

And did you even read what I posted? Yes, he liked the special effects, yes he liked the second script - did he ever feel his book had been properly represented, however? No, not at all -

"What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison."

Sound familiar? It should, he's basically described what the second script still was, albeit he didn't mention an android becoming a love-interest, instead of a morbid affair.

I don't expect the film to be as good as the book - that is stupid to even hope for. But I expect a film to at least seem like the writers read the book in the first place - it is like the writers skimmed through, and thought; needs moar android boobs and violence.

I can't think of another film adaptation I've seen where half way through the plot is thrown out the window - even the bloody Harry Potter films seem to stay on track with the plot.

Qayin:
I have already edited that bit - I realised it as I posted.

And did you even read what I posted? Yes, he liked the special effects, yes he liked the second script - did he ever feel his book had been properly represented, however? No, not at all -

"What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison."

Sound familiar? It should, he's basically described what the second script still was, albeit he didn't mention an android becoming a love-interest, instead of a morbid affair.

I don't expect the film to be as good as the book - that is stupid to even expect. But I expect a film to at least seem like the writers read the book in the first place - it is like the writers skimmed through, and thought; needs moar android boobs and violence.

Erm... Maybe I've misinterpreted you there, but...

Then in a short article written in 1981 called "Universe Makers... and Breakers," Dick describes his reaction to the first draft of the movie: "What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison." (104). These somewhat sarcastic remarks would be tempered by his reaction to the second draft of the film and a reel of special effects that he was shown only a few months before his death.

Now, it seems that you're saying his comments on the first draft still apply to the end product - but the fact that he didn't have a similar reaction to the second draft insinuates otherwise.

And at least they thought of android boobs instead of 'mutant triple-tits'. Other than that, it was something of a spectacle.

I meant that his initial comment still applied to the second draft...because to be honest it does...

Look, I am not saying Blade Runner is a bad film, if that's why you're arguing this point so incessantly, then don't bother - I think as a stand alone film it would have been very good.

However, it was not a stand-alone film, it claimed to be an adaptation, and in that aspect it was terrible.

All I can find is that Dick liked the special effects and the world presented in the second draft, I cannot find any details on what he actually liked about the script, meaning that the against argument has one up, as whilst the evidence is not directly linked, at least it is there.

So wait. Was Decker a replicant, or not? That's all I really want to know.

I vote no to the movie because that means I'd actually have to finish this book. I could never get past the fact that it was almost like I was watching a play and from time to time some crappy voiceover would come on and start blabbering off her philosophy.

Archon:
So wait. Was Decker a replicant, or not? That's all I really want to know.

If he was, he was the most advanced one created - he's so utterly convinced in his own humanity, he passes the Voight-Kampff test, meaning he has empathy - which the replicants did not, and he holds the same view of replicant animals etc. as humans do.

So I would say no, he was not a replicant.

Saevus:
Also, similarly on Wikipedia:

Philip K. Dick became concerned that no one had informed him about the film's production, which added to his distrust of Hollywood.[18] After Dick criticized an early version of Hampton Fancher's script in an article written for the Los Angeles Select TV Guide, the studio sent Dick the David Peoples rewrite.[19] Although Dick died shortly before the film's release, he was pleased with the rewritten script, and with a twenty-minute special effects test reel that was screened for him when he was invited to the studio. Dick enthused after the screening to Ridley Scott that the world created for the film looked exactly as he had imagined it.[20] The motion picture was dedicated to Dick.

References 19 and 20 point to this book, by the way:

Sammon, Paul M. (1996). Future Noir: the Making of Blade Runner. London: Orion Media, pp. xvi-xviii. ISBN 0-06-105314-7.

Pages 67-69, 284.
 

Also, here is an interview thing you can read:
http://www.philipkdick.com/media_twilightzone.html

Check out this quote:

-- Alex

Did we just have an End Note in our forums? That should be a badge.

Qayin:

Archon:
So wait. Was Decker a replicant, or not? That's all I really want to know.

If he was, he was the most advanced one created - he's so utterly convinced in his own humanity, he passes the Voight-Kampff test, meaning he has empathy - which the replicants did not, and he holds the same view of replicant animals etc. as humans do.

So I would say no, he was not a replicant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Deckard:_human_or_replicant.3F

I'd personally be inclined to say no, given all I've read. Even though Ridley Scott says otherwise.

Saevus:
I'd personally be inclined to say no, given all I've read. Even though Ridley Scott says otherwise.

Though that's partly just to annoy fans. ;)

-- Alex

Archon:
Did we just have an End Note in our forums? That should be a badge.

Can I get one for most use of   too?
>.>

(I like the way it spaces out my posts.)

-- Alex

The_Logician19:
Yeah...I've always thought of Ayn Rand being to capitalism what Osama bin Laden is to Islam (An extrimest militant). Not only that, but the subject matter is far to deep for a general moviegoing populus to understand; I'm not saying people are stupid, I'm saying that film is a different form of media than the written word, and one doesn't translate well into the other(look at Harry Potter or Eragon).

In so many words, no, I'm opposed to an Atlas Shrugged movie.

Apologies to anyone offended that I would compare Osama bin Laden to Ayn Rand: Of couse, in the book, they do shoot down boats shipping vital supplies to Germany, who is in the middle fo a famine. Their logic; those Germans should be able to grow their own food. Yeah, I wanted to punch Ayn in the face at that point.

I really wondered if Ayn Rand was not subtlely hinting at the KKK imagery of the noble White Man facing the N***r, the Jew, etc. (see storm front or google Bix Nood for illustration of what I'm talking about).

Qayin:

Archon:
So wait. Was Decker a replicant, or not? That's all I really want to know.

If he was, he was the most advanced one created - he's so utterly convinced in his own humanity, he passes the Voight-Kampff test, meaning he has empathy - which the replicants did not, and he holds the same view of replicant animals etc. as humans do.

So I would say no, he was not a replicant.

Has anyone read the K.W. Jeter spinoff novels? In the novels, not only is Deckard a replicant, but the Replicants discovered a way to extend their lives.

BallPtPenTheif:

Colton Caramihalis:
Angelina jolie would make a terrable Mis. taggart

is there any role she would be good in?

She's actually quite good in 'Girl, Interrupted' - And no, I didn't believe that before watching it, either.

Archon:
And to whom do you look for your ethical guidance, Doctorpus?

I don't. People are far too complex to subscribe to one theory on the way we should live. Lots of people try but they always fail.

That being said if there's one author that influenced me above all others it would be Robert Tressell.

This movie would require the following:

- An ending where all the characters launch themselves into orbit by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps
- At least one backing song with the vocals: "fuck you I got mine", +5 if it's a aforementioned musical
- A copious amount of rape and Randian self-hating misogyny to stay true to the original
- A Ron Paul guest appearance. Bonus points if he is clothed in armor made out of pure gold

In short, it would be unintentionally hilarious.

Oh great, now thousands of impressionable morons who stopped drinking merlot because sideways told them to are gonna start acting like self serving dick holes. I've seen this book turn the smartest men I know into egoists. Now you're telling me the whole American public is gonna act this way? I think I'll be the only altruist left on the planet.

Well you know it could be the one thing needed to justify me making my dream a reality, I just need the flamethrower...

Slightly more on topic; The Antagonists of Atlas Shrugged are going to need a rewrite. I mean their all stupid jerks. Audiences these days, while sheep like will not tolerate nemsisi that un-threatening....

Gapperjack:

BallPtPenTheif:

Colton Caramihalis:
Angelina jolie would make a terrable Mis. taggart

is there any role she would be good in?

She's actually quite good in 'Girl, Interrupted' - And no, I didn't believe that before watching it, either.

I didn't believe that after watching it.

Well.. I read Atlas Shrugged in high school and thought it was an okay book but looking back on it i really disagree with the ideals presented in it. The gist of the story is that there are only a few people in society who actually do anything of value(inventors, corporation heads, etc.) and everyone else is total moron whose sole existence is based on leeching off the "smart" people. so the "smart" guys leave to form their own utopia and they live happily ever after. It's a textbook example of conservative ideology and nothing you havnt heard Before.

What i liked about the game Bioshock was that it took this idea and said "what if this were the real world where Trickle down economics is really just bullshit and chips?" and so they produced rapture, a pleasingly demented alternative to Ayn Rand's novel.

I don't like the ideas presented in the book so i wont like the movie, and neither will most people unless they strip out all the ideology but then it isnt Atlas Shrugged is it?

It would be Atlas Facepalmed...

I'd like to add in here that I'm tired of Movies based on something else - for example Books and OTHER MOVIES.

No more Remakes, no more cartoon/book/video game to Movie adaptations. Please.

I can see it now:

"Who is John Galt?"
*smirk*
"Google John Galt."

wiredk:
No more Remakes, no more cartoon/book/video game to Movie adaptations. Please.

I think we've had enough of remakes, but some book-to-movie adaptations are good. In some cases, they give books a new dimension.