Phillip K Dick's First Response to Seeing Blade Runner Clips

[roo_ster]

PKD wrote the story BR was based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'"

http://www.philipkdick.com/new_letters-laddcompany.html



I am mostly in agreement with PKD. 

No other scifi flick has stood the test of time the way BR has.

[HankB]

No other scifi flick has stood the test of time the way BR has.

BR was pretty good.

But I'd still vote for Forbidden Planet or The Day The Earth Stood Still.

(Note that Forbidden Planet was inspired by The Tempest - I'd call that standing up to the test of time pretty well.  )

[roo_ster]

BR was pretty good.

But I'd still vote for Forbidden Planet or The Day The Earth Stood Still.

(Note that Forbidden Planet was inspired by The Tempest - I'd call that standing up to the test of time pretty well.   )

It seems very few plots were not already hashed out by the Greeks and then Shakespeare.

[HankB]

It seems very few plots were not already hashed out by the Greeks and then Shakespeare.

If being original was easy, we wouldn't have so many Hollywood remakes.

[Perd Hapley]

Speaking of Shakespeare, if originality was the key to good entertainment, we wouldn't know Shakespeare's name. He adapted a lot of stuff.

[zahc]

I wouldn't give Blade Runner, by itself, that much credit. Neuromancer was coming out about the same time. The whole cyberpunk thing's time had come, and was anticipated by earlier works like "True Names". Blade runner is great; I just don't see Blade Runner as being so pivotal, more "inevitable".

I suspect PKD's reaction is partly "ooo shiny special effects". It happens to the best.

[SADShooter]

I wouldn't give Blade Runner, by itself, that much credit. Neuromancer was coming out about the same time. The whole cyberpunk thing's time had come, and was anticipated by earlier works like "True Names". Blade runner is great; I just don't see Blade Runner as being so pivotal, more "inevitable".

I suspect PKD's reaction is partly "ooo shiny special effects". It happens to the best.

Substitute Blade Runner with Avatar in that letter for the equivalent contemporary reaction.

[AJ Dual]

To those saying "Blade Runner = Whee! Special Effects!" are doing a huge disservice to the movie.

"L.A. 2019" as a set piece was as much a character as any of the actors in the film. It's design and execution was a labor of love  that rarely, if ever gets put to screen. Every detail in that movie looks as if it's trying to tell a story. The "Dirty Future" dystopian Sci-Fi setting seems like an obvious trope now. But back then, nobody had managed to do it. The best anyone seemed to be able to do was shoot in the desert, and leave some junk laying around. (Star Wars, Tatooine/Tunisia etc.)

The lighting, the design, the dirt, everything was done in phenomenal detail right down to even designing light poles and construction barricades. And just seven years shy, the future obviously looks nothing like what was depicted in Blade Runner, but it was a realistic cogent vision, that had a great depth of understanding. Seems obvious in hindsight, but someone (Syd Mead, others...) had the genius to realize that looking at our cities "now" (1982), that buildings from 37 years ago were still standing, even ones from 100 years ago, and that the future would be no different, and worked that in.

Movies that had access to technology we couldn't even dream of in 1982 (CGI), or much larger budgets like "The Fifth Element", and the Star Wars Prequels tried to render futuristic cityscapes, and none have come even close to what was created in Blade Runner.

[mtnbkr]

Yup.  I don't care much for the story, but the scenery components are fantastic.  The colors, textures, etc are rich.

Chris

[Nick1911]

Huh.  I'll have to watch this at some point.

[Ron]

Theatrical release or directors cut?

I own the directors cut on DVD and it is what think of when it is discussed. I did see it in the theater when it first came out though, so my initial reaction was formed from the version with Ford's monolog.

Anyone have preferences?

[BlueStarLizzard]

.

[TommyGunn]

bluestarlizzard, I am not getting what you're saying.

[zahc]

Theatrical release or directors cut?

There are 3 cuts now: Theatrical, 1992 Director's cut (the one I have) and the ultimate, 2000-whatever director's cut, which is supposed to be best.

[Ron]

There are 3 cuts now: Theatrical, 1992 Director's cut (the one I have) and the ultimate, 2000-whatever director's cut, which is supposed to be best.

Then I have the '92, haven't watched it in well over a decade.

[AJ Dual]

I find value in both versions, voiceover, and directors cut.

I don't find Ford's 1940's Film Noir private-eye voiceover to be as utterly awful as most seem to. (and IIRC, as did Ford and Scott...) I thought it had some value as contrast when played against the futuristic proto-cyberpunk dystopian future.

Granted, I certainly see the criticism of the voiceover too. The Vangelis synth-saxophone score, ceiling fans and smoky rooms in the initial "Let me tell you about my mother" interview of Leon... and the, ties, hats, suspenders and retro-40's styling trench coats of the Blade Runners, and the hair and clothes Sean Young/Rachel were more than hitting you over the head with the detective movie parallels already.  

Although the "Rachel was a special model" and the happy trees ending of the theatrical release... yeah, could have done without those spoon fed parts.

[lee n. field]

I find my normal, present-day "reality" pallid by comparison

Interesting, that coming from Dick.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I prefered the orginal, but then I don't like voiceovers in general as a narrative device in movies. I didn't mind the voiceover when I saw it.

I have no clue which directers cut we have. I saw the orginal many, many years ago on VHS (BR is one of those movies that was part of my Dads list of "must see" movies for any child of his) and barely remember it, other then the absense of that darn voiceover.

I do agree that bladerunner is a pinicle in the sci-fi movie genre, as was PKD for the literary side of things. He and Gibson (and gibson coined "cyberpunk" fyi)  brought a new and dirty vision to the future, in which mankind is battling the same internal demons, just with more toys and vices to do so. What's more, we would not have the range of books and movies that we do today without them.
And the arguement of "somebody else did this and this first" is generally moot, if they did not bring real recongnition as well. As much as I loath Tolkin, even I will admit he brought more people to the fantasy genre then several of the earlier (and INHO, better) authers did.

[Perd Hapley]

I suspect PKD's reaction is partly "ooo shiny special effects". It happens to the best.

I suspect some people have a hard time believing that an esteemed writer would deviate from the books-are-always-better-than-movies - movies-are-just-fluff-for-the-masses dicta.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I suspect some people have a hard time believing that an esteemed writer would deviate from the books-are-always-better-than-movies - movies-are-just-fluff-for-the-masses dicta.

Movies always deviate from the book to some degree - and authors rarely appreciate that. They think it was just fine as it was.

[gunsmith]

I prefer the original voice over version, I saw it a bagillion times n the early 80's - at the same NYC movie theater that started the rocky horror phenom. You could buy a midnight movie ticket on monday and you get a free ticket for the next days midnight movie , some summers I went to every midnight movie for months at a time Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, Warriors, Mommy Dearest, A Boy And His Dog and a few others - seen over so many times even now I still remember lines, yrs later.

Sci Fi changed after this movie, I loved it but was initially disappointed as I had been a big fan of PKD for a long time - since like 1973 or something. Its different then the book but still great.