Which is better, book or film?

[conradbrean]

I started reading the book and Deckard's discussion right off the bat with his wife seemed a bit trite. Let it be known that I adore P.K.D. but it just seems that Scott was right on the money when he decided to show the "outer world" of future LA as oppossed to confining his characters to enclosed quarters.

[Mistral]

I agree with the majority here, both Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and Blade Runner are both good in their own right. I do have to say that I find it hard to make a comparison as I have always viewed them as completely separate entities...

[Gunny]

Book was far more interesting for me, only because I like to allow my brain / imagination develop the visuals. Generally the book of any great/ good author has solid foundation and story line, where the movies (in this case) draw you into the AV side and not the character build.

[The Wanderer]

The film is better, but it's one of the great Science Fiction movies, there have only been a handful made (great ones that is)

So much went into it, the Set Design, Cinematography (framing), Music, Lighting, atmosphere - the performances are good too

Science Fiction Cinema has seriously declined since the 1980's, it's mostly been very poor since then

[iansales]

That's an odd thing to say. At the risk of derailing this thread, what films would you classify as "never bettered"?

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Mistral

I agree with the majority here, both Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and Blade Runner are both good in their own right. I do have to say that I find it hard to make a comparison as I have always viewed them as completely separate entities...

Concur. It's like asking which is better, tea or coffee.

Film for the visuals, the realization of the city and the music.
Book for the plot, the characterization and the details.

[The Wanderer]

Originally Posted by iansales

That's an odd thing to say. At the risk of derailing this thread, what films would you classify as "never bettered"?

2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick - 1968 (US/UK)
Solaris - Andrei Tarkovsky - 1972 (Rus)
Alphaville - Jean Luc Godard - 1965 (Fra)
Blade Runner - Ridley Scott - 1982 (US)
The Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kirshner - 1980 (US)
Close Entounters of the Third Kind - Steven Spielberg - 1977 (US)

Great films are usually made from a relatively simple Idea

[iansales]

A pretty good list, but there have been some excellent sf films made since Blade Runner... Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Natural City, Sky Captain & The World of Tomorrow, Primer, The Matrix, Donnie Darko...

[The Wanderer]

Originally Posted by iansales

A pretty good list, but there have been some excellent sf films made since Blade Runner... Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Natural City, Sky Captain & The World of Tomorrow, Primer, The Matrix, Donnie Darko...

'Starship Toopers' was good fun, 'The Matrix' turned out to be a decent action film with some interesting Science Fiction Ideas - The sequels became increasingly absurd and tiresome with meaningless fight scenes that go on forever

I liked 'The Fifth Element' it was a bit of a mess to be honest, it had no real hook performance in it, though it was colourful, funny, offbeat - with some spectacular sequences, underserving of the mauling it received by Critics etc

I like Donnie Darko too, one of it's major strengths is it's feeling for time & Place, the Fashions, Colour, Haircuts, all seem just spot on for 1988 - For some reason, the Americans seem to be very good at this

the others I'll have to check out

I'm glad you didn't mention Armageddon, Independance Day, Serenity, Alien Ressurection

[deathwizard]

I definitely go for the film, which had a big effect on me. I rank it in my top five films of any genre. So much going on between the lines. So beautifully acted. And what an ending!

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by The Wanderer

The film is better, but it's one of the great Science Fiction movies, there have only been a handful made (great ones that is)

So much went into it, the Set Design, Cinematography (framing), Music, Lighting, atmosphere - the performances are good too

Science Fiction Cinema has seriously declined since the 1980's, it's mostly been very poor since then

If thats the film strenght then its not half as good as the book.


The story should be the most important thing in a SF movie or book. Not the set design,framing,music or what not.

I dont remember the movie but i will watch it again and forget that i read the book and then compare which told the best story.

[deathwizard]

The book was interesting and clever, but there are hundreds of sci fi books that far surpass it. The movie, however, is the best sci fi movie ever made. Or at least one of the best five. It's like comparing Jaws the movie vs. the book; the movie is vastly superior. In terms of Blade Runner, the disparity between movie and book is even greater.

[Connavar]

Hahaha so the movie is only great cause SF movies arent better than they are in hollywood.

If so than you can say any movie version ever made of books is better than all thier book versions. Cause surely they are always books better than those books .


There are probably SF better the book but i doubt there are many as good when its about the androids and the theme of the book.


Me i cant see how any SF movie version is better than thier famous book part. Even the famous Bladerunner is dumbed down version of the book.....

Me i never got the hype of the movie. I remember it now for some reason maybe cause i have read the book and remember the story of the movie that i totaly forgot. It was nothing special than just another SF except with Ford and it was one of the first futuristic SF movies. Maybe thats why its so famous.

[j. d. worthington]

No, on that one I'll disagree with you, CoR. I think it is a great film, because it didn't slavishly follow the book, but developed the same themes (and with Dick's approval) in a different medium, with different requirements; it also allowed for a different approach, allowing one to see the emotions of all the characters in very subtle ways... and how they are all trapped within this cultural matrix. In a way, they are all constructs (even Sebastian and Bryant), playing their roles accordingly... and Roy may be the most human of all, by breaking out of his "predestined" role not only once, but many times. (I think, for instance, of the incredibly compact arc of character development offered in that small sequence of Roy in the lift after having killed Tyrell and Sebatian. That little piece of film manages to say enormous amounts in a very brief space -- something the book simply could not do as succinctly. Also, the set design, etc. are important not because they're "glitz-&-glamour", but because they create a milieu realistically, with richness of detail that would take hundreds of pages in a book. Those aspects of film are not to be despised save when the people doing them are lazy or slipshod -- which was by no means the case here.)

As I've said before, I think the book and the film are both very good pieces, but each is adapted to its own medium, with the strengths and weaknesses of that medium. Blade Runner has a tremendous lot to offer on many levels, but they are not the same as those offered by the book.

[Connavar]

Thats the thing im not saying the movie is bad on its own but to say its better than the original story sounds wrong to me.

The movie should be compared to other SF movies where it shines wit it setting,visuals etc

Not compare the the two stories where one was about the hole empathy thing and the dark future world and the animal view which made you think.

The other is futuristic noir.



I understand people that say like you but i dont understand the ones say the movie is vastly superior cause of the visuals....