Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This is on my 1001 list. The first time I watched Blade Runner I was on the fence. Then I watched it with a buddy of mine who loves film and after we discussed it. Now I'm a fan. I'm intrigued by the elements you noticed from Brave New World, I Robot, and Dune--I've read all three.

It has always seemed to me that much of the movie makes no sense without reading the book. Why bother with a Voight-Kampff test when Harrison Ford already has their pictures? What's all this nonsense about animals in a test of emotions and empathy? Why does everyone want owls and snakes so badly? I've often wondered what the non-literati out there make of it all.

Great point, Michael. The film is certainly visually impressive and Scott scored with his pre-cyber punk cinematography. But the book tells so much more and answers so many questions, and yet � also begs so many questions. Does Wilbur Mercer represent or satirize Christianity? Does the need for animal husbandry suggest a loss of humanity? I may need to read this one again, and I likely will once I have read all of Dick's work.

Ha. Now I have to read so I can follow the movie and this conversation. Then of course I'll need to watch the film again

It's been years since I saw the film, maybe I need to refresh my memory on that as well

I'm rereading this at the moment, so I'll come back to read your review after I'm done! :)

Oh my goodness. I haven't seen you in a quite a while. I used to read your blog On either Salon or open Salon. I hope you are well.

Thanks Renae!

Totally agree with your review Lyn. Bladerunner was a visual masterpiece with a powerful storyline, whereas the book was a far deeper and darker mess, filled with philosophical ideas that were completely cut out. Mercerism, artificial and real animal ownership, and Deckard's wife were all missing and added a great deal of depth. In the end, both are works of art that maximize their respective mediums, but diverge substantially. Both are absolute favorites of mine.

Thanks, Stuart, your assessment is a better succinct review than my own, I wholeheartedly agree, and am thinking of revisiting Bladerunner it has been years since I watched

Blade Runner was a great visual feast but the "message" is stronger in the book!

Thanks, Chris, and you're right

Michael> Everything you never wanted to know about Blade Runner. *spoilers* Everybody smokes because everybody is dying, even Dr. Eldon Tyrell, due to radiation from a nuclear holocaust. Radiation killed most of the animals, so they have become a status symbol. Having a fake or replicant type animal, like Zhora, the snake dancer, is almost as good as having a real one, like the owl in Tyrell's office. The city looks overpopulated because all survivors gathered in L.A. Thus the multiculturalism. Colonists are encouraged to leave earth to live longer and have better reproductive odds.

Nexus-6 Replicants are a new phenomena, "More human than human." Dr. Tyrell invested them with everything in his power, yet he could not increase their lifespan, so their capabilities are unknown. Tyrell releases them as an ego trip--to see if they can be detected because Tyrell is also nearing death (a story echo.) The Nexus-6 are superior, so they find each other and hijack a ship back to Earth to demand that Tyrell increase their lifespan. Alas, this he cannot do.

Bryant (the boss cop) knows that the Voight-Kampf test works because Holden, a Blade Runner, detects Leon ( a Nexus-6) working as a sanitation worker at Tyrell Corp, (trying to get to Tyrell.) Leon doesn't like being asked questions about his mother because replicants are emotion deficient. Leon knows he's been detected by the V-K test, so he shoots Holden.

Bryant says of Holden, "He can breathe all right as long as no one unplugs him." Bryant knows that Holden is a replicant either because he has knowledge of the secret replicant cops (Blade Runners) or because Holden's wound has betrayed his replicant status. Either way, Bryant suspects there are more replicants on earth besides the six hijackers. Bryant knows about Pris the Pleasure Model, Roy Baty the soldier, two randoms killed in the escape attempt, and Leon because he kills Holden. Bryant doesn't know the identity of Zhora, the Snake Dancer. Zhora is later discovered by Deckard via Leon's photo's and the snake scale in the tub. Bryant pulls Deckard (Harrison Ford) out of retirement because only a Nexus-6 or better is capable of killing the hijackers, because they are, "Superior to humans in every way," except memories, depth of emotional experience, and shortened lifespan. Deckard was cop-retired because (as a Nexus-6 or better) he's passed his four-year life expectancy, is unreliable, and could drop dead at any moment. Deckard is sent to Tyrell Corp. to test out the other workers and make sure no other Nexus-6 have infiltrated Tyrell Corp (in essence seeking Zhora) unaware that Deckard himself is a replicant. Gaff (Edward James Olmos) tails Deckard in case the replicant gets out of line.

Tyrell asks for a negative test in the form of Rachel. Rachel is a Nexus-6 who believes she is human (Tyrell's niece.) By using the previously effective V-K test, Deckard detects her replicant status, but it takes more questions and a longer duration.
Deckard asks, "How can it not know what it is?" Tyrell explains how he implanted them with memories to make them more human. Rachel asks Deckard if he has ever taken the test himself. According to the Fancher and Peeples movie script, this is the key. Deckard is a Blade Runner, which is a replicant designed to kill stray replicants. Thus, why he falls in love with Rachel, and why Roy Baty does not kill him. If Deckard is a replicant, so were the other Blade Runners, meaning there are Replicants of unknown (non-Tyrell Corp.) origin on earth, and this is illegal because replicants are only authorized for off-world use. In, "Androids," it is implied that the government has built them as cops and soldiers (like Roy.) This is the, "We've got a bigger problem now," meme (Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode 4.) In, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," the evidence is when Deckard goes to a cop shop he never knew existed. If he is a human cop of retirement age why does he have no knowledge of the main police station? Because he isn't human, he's a replicant with a cop's memory implants, as reinforced by the unicorn dream while playing the piano. Deckard is a mythical creature (Earth-dwelling undocumented Replicant) that never existed (from the human perspective) touching on PKD's theme of, "What is human?" Oft used but most touted here.

Deckard and Rachel flee off-world because, "No one knows how much time they have." Rachel will die soon because the Nexus-6 (like Roy) are dying. That's why Gaff says, "Too bad she won't live!" and leaves the origami unicorn which alerts Deckard to flee Earth. Deckard's lifespan is unknown because he shouldn't even exist. Cheers, and have a, "What is reality, " Dicksian day.

Because the animals are rare, humans should be extra sensitive about their possible extinction.
Holden: "You're in the desert. You come across a tortoise on it's back. You aren't helping it."
Leon, "What's a tortoise?"
Holden, "Know what a turtle is?"
Leon: "Yeah,."
Holden: "Same thing."
Leon: "Why aren't I helping it?"
Holden, "Because Leon, you aren't helping it."
Voight-Kampf detects Leon as a replicant because he has no emotional response. A human would say, "I flip it over."

As for the "non-literati" I believe they don't get that Deckard is a replicant, probably because the audience response was better when they left this ambiguous. But if you read the script, Deckard is a replicant, and wonders how many more like him there are. It even opens the possibility that replicants become the dominant life form over the long haul.

The owl is real according to the movie novel adaption, even though Rachel says it's fake. Testing Deckard (echo.)

Wow, thanks Jay. I need to watch that film again

Great review. I found it so interesting how different this was than the movie. I loved both. I actually was fascinated by the strange faith system he developed.

Thanks Rhett!

Nice review, Lyn.I just finished it a few minutes ago.
One thing that struck me as the most conspicuous inconsistency is that PKD didn't maintain the 'First law of robotics'. Namely, a robot cannot harm a human being in any condition. I know it was invented by Asimov and PKD is not bound to follow the rule, but it seems kind of odd that in a world where the government regard all life supremely sacred(even abortion is punishable by death), would permit manufacturing android that can kill humans in the first place.

Thanks Safat

Thank you for the great review.

If I haven't read PKD before I should start elsewhere, though? The Man in the High Castle perhaps? That was original inclination.

Great review, Lyn. That first sentence totally made me laugh. This is my favorite of his so far. For me it was one of those delightfully perfect books.

Damn phone! It decided I was done blathering and I was not. I was going to day that I haven't seen Blade Runner and I have no desire to. I did love this book, though.

Jason wrote: "Thank you for the great review.

If I haven't read PKD before I should start elsewhere, though? The Man in the High Castle perhaps? That was original inclination."

Man in the High Castle would be a great start, also Ubik

Thanks Sarah Anne

Jason wrote: "Thank you for the great review.

If I haven't read PKD before I should start elsewhere, though? The Man in the High Castle perhaps? That was original inclination."

It's a great place to start. Better here than, The Man in the High Castle, which some feel ends abruptly, or is not satisfying. I've read about 95% of the PKD library.

Jay has me beat and I'll defer to his recommendation, I've read most but not sure about 95%. The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch is another good one or Martian Time-Slip, but there are so many that are enjoyable

Safat wrote: "Nice review, Lyn.I just finished it a few minutes ago.
One thing that struck me as the most conspicuous inconsistency is that PKD didn't maintain the 'First law of robotics'. Namely, a robot canno..."

The androids aren't supposed to be on earth, they hi-jacked a ship to get here. *spoiler* In the book, the existence of Blade Runners on earth is part of the intrigue, as if a shadow government exists that is using androids illegally. That's why (I believe) the unknown cop shop exists.

In the movie, Deckard is a former military bot, slightly less capable than Roy, maybe a Nexus 5, who has probably had his memory wiped, then given false memories before becoming an earthbound (cop) Bladerunner. Roy, being superior, realizes that Deckard is an inferior version of himself and so spares his life.

Rachael is an illegal Nexus-6, on earth because she is claimed to be Tyrell's niece. She's a prototype for advanced emotional capabilities, so really she is a Nexus 6 plus or higher. That's how she can shoot Leon, probably never having fired a weapon before.

So while the government claims earth to be an android free zone, there are shadow elements who would do otherwise. If it says somewhere that androids are manufactured on earth, let me know. Otherwise, I assume the pyramid is like Tyrell Corporate headquarters. Maybe you can build parts on earth, but not the entire, but even (Hannibal) Chew seems to imply that his eye manufacturing operation is illegal.

In Blade Runner 2, one of J.F. Sebastian's creations (either the bear or the colonel ) injures him accidentally. So in Jeter's world there is no such directive.

Furthermore, they wan't people to colonize off-world, so androids out there, doing the work, is one of the draws. Keep in mind, there is only one city left with humans in it, this mega-city where the story occurs. The androids return to find Tyrell.

Anyway, stuff to think about.
I'm writing this from memory. I could also be wrong. :)

a true classic.

indeed

Very nice review, Lyn. I just did post a review of this PKD classic you might want to check out.

Thanks Tara and Glenn!

Great review Lyn. I am also a huge fan of Scott's adaptation of PKD's novel.

I love PKD's ideas, his wry, paranoid - and often drug-fuelled - take on society's quirks and foibles. He was the Hunter S. Thompson of gonzo SF. But his writing? Rather pedestrian, on the whole. It's not for his soaring flights of prose that he'll be remembered.

Prospero wrote: "I love PKD's ideas, his wry, paranoid - and often drug-fuelled - take on society's quirks and foibles. He was the Hunter S. Thompson of gonzo SF. But his writing? Rather pedestrian, on the whole. I..."

Sure, PKD is no Henry James or William Gaddis, no William H. Gass or Thomas Burger but I find much of his writing vivid and colorful. Matter of fact, I've listened to the audio book of VALIS over and over, each time the language strikes me as exceptionally lively. However, I can appreciate if other readers have higher standards.

I'm with you, Glenn. Granted, it's been a while since I've read any PKD (about two years I'd say), but I remember feeling his language was pretty spot on. Maybe he's not the most poetic of writers, but I thought his writing fit his style quite well, and his diction always came across as deliberate. The interplay between his diction and tone were always pretty enjoyable.

Sal wrote: "I'm with you, Glenn. Granted, it's been a while since I've read any PKD (about two years I'd say), but I remember feeling his language was pretty spot on. Maybe he's not the most poetic of writers,..."

Thanks, Sal. I don't think is an accident that Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ lists over a thousand PKD quotes, more than a hundred from VALIS alone. And yes, for diction and tone in science fiction, you will have to go a long way to beat such as this quote from VALIS: “The distinction between sanity and insanity is narrower than the razor's edge, sharper than a hound's tooth, more agile than a mule deer. It is more elusive than the merest phantom. Perhaps it does not even exist; perhaps it is a phantom.â€�

In my opinion, his writing became a lot more interesting on a line-by-line basis in the 70s and 80s. A Scanner Darkly and Valis are good examples of that; very different in style from his 60s books. The characters have more depth, as well. In fairness, many of his 60s books were written, if I remember correctly, on two-week amphetamine binges. He had the luxury of taking more time with his writing as he had some success, and it showed.

agreed

Great book, great review.

Yes it is and thanks Michelle

I am very much a bad pizza fan when it comes to Philip K. Dick. His pulpy, clumsy stories are my favorites of his. That man was using pineapple as a topping before anybody else.

Ha! great observation

nice review. Maybe because you basically thinks the same way as I do :)

Thanks Bruno

Lyn, as usual, I agree with your thoughts. After having enjoyed the film 20 times I recently found a first or a facsimile of one and finally read it. I enjoyed it too and loved finding out there was actually an electric sheep in the story. Who woulda thunk it?

Thanks Tim, I think I am overdo to watch it again

;)

What a fantastic review! I really enjoyed this book and will surely reread it in the future.