3 ms·

I went into reading this letter thinking that it would be another 'they destroyed my vision!' example. I'm pleasantly surprised as I have a fondness for the mov

by Aron 17y ago

I went into reading this letter thinking that it would be another 'they destroyed my vision!' example. I'm pleasantly surprised as I have a fondness for the movie. I'm not an expert though, I just do eyes! Just eyes!

jvdh 17y ago
I went in the same way. Near the end my jaw just dropped, and all I could think was "Wow." (which is also a very short summary of what Philip K. Dick wrote).
stcredzero 17y ago
Ridley Scott shouldn't be underestimated as a director. Blade runner works not only as a narrative, but also as a sequence of images designed to evoke raw emotions and reflection about the future and technological progress. It's the visual analogue of a tone poem. You can turn the volume down to O and appreciate the film on this level. The 1st Alien has the exact same thing going on.
ilamont 17y ago
I was expecting a rant as well. And I am actually a little skeptical about this letter, and not just because it lacks a signature. He never saw the final cut, yet is willing to make a grand, sweeping pronouncement about how important the movie will be. The letter also says "My life and creative work are justified and completed by BLADE RUNNER". I doubt many respected authors would make such a pronouncement about a Hollywood adaptation and their own artistic legacy without seeing the final product, but this is even more unusual considering the adaptation barely followed the narrative in the original book.
- qjz 17y ago
  To be fair, nobody can claim to have seen the final cut and the continuing proliferation of versions supports the notion of it being a very important (if perennially unfinished) film. You're right that the book is very different from the film, but even here it's much different than most adaptations, as key dialog is lifted almost verbatim from the book. I think if this letter is legitimate, Dick was probably more excited about the portrayal of the universe his stories took place in, rather than the faithfulness of the script to a single one of his works.
  - mst 17y ago
    If you look at Phil Dick's published work, he isn't faithful to his own scripts at all - the short stories and novellas weave and re-weave each others' ideas, characters and settings, and the ending and message of a story can be very different from version to version. I could comfortably imagine him reworking the DADOES plot into something just as far away from the original as Blade Runner - in fact, if anything, I find Blade Runner less radically different from the source material than some of his own reworkings. Memory is saying the two versions of Second Variety are a good example, as are the various forms of Ubik, but my books aren't currently on the same continent as me so alas I have no citations.

by Aron 17y ago

jvdh 17y ago

I went in the same way. Near the end my jaw just dropped, and all I could think was "Wow." (which is also a very short summary of what Philip K. Dick wrote).

stcredzero 17y ago

Ridley Scott shouldn't be underestimated as a director. Blade runner works not only as a narrative, but also as a sequence of images designed to evoke raw emotions and reflection about the future and technological progress. It's the visual analogue of a tone poem. You can turn the volume down to O and appreciate the film on this level. The 1st Alien has the exact same thing going on.

ilamont 17y ago

I was expecting a rant as well. And I am actually a little skeptical about this letter, and not just because it lacks a signature. He never saw the final cut, yet is willing to make a grand, sweeping pronouncement about how important the movie will be. The letter also says "My life and creative work are justified and completed by BLADE RUNNER". I doubt many respected authors would make such a pronouncement about a Hollywood adaptation and their own artistic legacy without seeing the final product, but this is even more unusual considering the adaptation barely followed the narrative in the original book.

qjz 17y ago
To be fair, nobody can claim to have seen the final cut and the continuing proliferation of versions supports the notion of it being a very important (if perennially unfinished) film. You're right that the book is very different from the film, but even here it's much different than most adaptations, as key dialog is lifted almost verbatim from the book. I think if this letter is legitimate, Dick was probably more excited about the portrayal of the universe his stories took place in, rather than the faithfulness of the script to a single one of his works.
- mst 17y ago
  If you look at Phil Dick's published work, he isn't faithful to his own scripts at all - the short stories and novellas weave and re-weave each others' ideas, characters and settings, and the ending and message of a story can be very different from version to version. I could comfortably imagine him reworking the DADOES plot into something just as far away from the original as Blade Runner - in fact, if anything, I find Blade Runner less radically different from the source material than some of his own reworkings. Memory is saying the two versions of Second Variety are a good example, as are the various forms of Ubik, but my books aren't currently on the same continent as me so alas I have no citations.