Very loosely based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick (ISBN 1857988132 ). The book is actually very good, in MoonShadow's opinion; but the movie is still worth watching for the style.
Actually quite a good translation to movie. Some of the more philosophical bits were dropped, yes, but hints of an equivalent plot were left in. The number of replicants and their manner of expiration was changed, but all in a way that made good film. A very very very stylish film. The film is also famous for having far too many different versions. (Two main releases, two screeners and two director's cuts. The second one is probably the best, but the non-US main release is probably better than the first cut) --Vitenka
It's an incredibly intertesting adaptation, because it's almost precisely not an adaptation. It's pretty much an inversion of the book, using the same concepts and tackling the same themes, but coming at them from nearly precisely opposite angles. Dick and Scott both explore what it means to be human, but whereas Dick's book looks at the dehumanisation of people, for instance by the 'moood organ', to the point where their only contact with others is mediated through machines, with the androids as contrast as artificial beings which are in some cases more human than the humans who hunt them, Scott is interested in the androids, and their plight - so close to human, yet doomed - forms the centre of his story. Thus the issue is explored form both sides: unlike most adaptations, the two compliment each other rather than retreading the same ground in a different medium.
Plot. Replicants (enfleshed AIs) are not allowed on earth (which is all post disaster - in the book deserted and in the film wet and crowded). But replicants come to earth anyway, and it is the main character's job to find them and kill them. In the book, he does so over a long period of time in which the possibility that the whole department are really replicants is discussed. The replicants manipulate the humans' mood organs (a device used to dial new moods) and their favorite TV show come religious experience. The 'what is human' question is writ large, and empathy is the deciding factor. There is also a lot of struggle to own real animals, but self-delusion is decided as equivalent. In the film, the replicants go down fighting in far more interesting ways - and the possibility that the main character is a replicant is barely hinted at (more or less in different versions - some say the first directors cut makes it utterly blatant) The film is primarily famous for its visual style - which, when coupled to Vangelis' spooky aural feast certainly strikes an unforgettable image into the mind. The most famous pieces are the opening flythrough of the city (preferably without the voiceover) with flying cars and giant pyramids of copper - towers rising to blot out the sun. And the ending sequence, famously adlibbed by actor of the replicant (Rutger Hauer? One of my three fave actors --Mjb67). The theme of the film is more 'what is life' than 'what is human' But 'boy this is stylish' trumps either. The film also spawned a lot more quotes than the book.
If you have not yet seen BladeRunner - do so. The CambridgeArtsTheatre? has a reel, and shows it periodically. --Vitenka
According to my mate Dave who worked at the Arts Cinema (1998-200?), showing BladeRunner was one of the few things keeping it afloat financially as the place would actually get packed for those showings. --Jumlian
I'll believe that - it was the only thing they ever showed that I had heard of, and heard they were showing in advance. --Vitenka
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
BladeRunner