june gloom on 27/9/2012 at 18:07
Actually in the book Deckard's humanity was a driving point of the plot -- here he was facing inhuman replicants (some of them actively trying to mess with him -- see the fake police station) and he had to maintain the fact that he was human. The "is he secretly a replicant?" thing was a new twist in Blade Runner, introduced not even in the theatrical release but in the Director's Cut.
I'm not saying the movie took more than the basic plot elements and character names from the book, but your claim -- that the movie took more influence from a comic (albeit one that Ridley Scott has claimed influence from) than, you know, the book the screenplay is an adaptation of, is frankly ridiculous. It's fair to say it was a key visual reference (along with Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" -- one of my favourite paintings btw) but even Dick said that they'd captured his "interior world" when he saw a preview clip of the movie.
Thirith on 27/9/2012 at 18:13
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I'm not saying the movie took more than the basic plot elements and character names from the book, but your claim -- that the movie took more influence from a comic (albeit one that Ridley Scott has claimed influence from) than, you know, the book the screenplay is an adaptation of, is frankly ridiculous.
Only if a film is primarily defined by its plot (and even there it's more of an "inspired by" than anything else). I think you could make a strong point that at least
Blade Runner is just as much about its visual design, its atmosphere, the world it evokes (when you say
Blade Runner, people are probably at least as likely to think of its look and feel, the cityscape, the flying cars, the big geisha ad, Pris' hair and makeup etc. as they are to think about human vs. replicant) as it is about its plot. So, at least IMO, Vivian's point is not "frankly ridiculous", it's another point of view that has some merit.
june gloom on 27/9/2012 at 18:17
And when you ask them what the movie's based on, they're gonna tell you it's the PKD novel, not some comic book.
Hell, honestly the comic doesn't even look all that similar, and film noir-style voiceovers are a dime a dozen.
Vivian on 27/9/2012 at 18:48
It does look pretty similar, and what's the voiceover got to do with it, and my original point still stands up (but I'll weasel it if it makes your panties unknot) - don't shit on comic books, a lot of great movies are either based directly on comics or OWE MOST OF WHAT MAKES THEM GOOD to comics. Happy? you could switch MOST for MUCH or just A LOT if you want.
june gloom on 27/9/2012 at 18:53
I'm not shitting on comic books. I read comic books almost every day. I'm just rejecting the idea that Blade Runner was based on a comic in more than a superficial way.
Vivian on 27/9/2012 at 18:59
You seriously saying the visuals are a superficial part of blade runner?
SubJeff on 27/9/2012 at 20:55
Are you seriously saying they're the most important part?
The film is based on Do Androids.
Thirith on 27/9/2012 at 21:05
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Are you seriously saying they're the most important part?
The film is based on Do Androids.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that the visuals are *as important as* the story in terms of what makes
Blade Runner what it is. As an *adaptation* of
DADOES I don't think it does particularly well (whatever Dick says) because it's interested in asking different questions than the novel and coming up with different answers, and it's practically a different genre. It takes
DADOES as its starting point but it wears its other influences on its sleeve and is happy to dump most of
DADOES in telling a pretty different story in the end. The film doesn't seem particularly interested in doing anything other with Dick's novel than stripping it down to its premise and then doing its own thing with this.
june gloom on 27/9/2012 at 21:38
Irrelevant. The film is still based on Do Androids, regardless of what it actually does with it. Anything else can be cited as a visual or story influence, but the idea that the movie's very existence hinged on something other than the book is ludicrous. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Pyrian on 27/9/2012 at 22:37
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Because there's no actual hard distinction between "based on" and "influenced by", and the concepts are almost entirely interchangeable once you've reached "loosely based on" and "strongly influenced by".
