post films that suck after you've read the book they are based on.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
post films that suck after you've read the book they are based on.
post films that suck after you've read the book they are based on.
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Blade Runner is merely inspired by the book
an inferior inspiration imo. All Ridley could come up with was "replicants (who don't even exist) are people too and they can feel empathy!" while Phil was asking "What the frick even is empathy? What the frick even are humans?"
Dekard's wife always using her mood machine to always stay in a bad mood has stuck with me the last 50 years. Dick knew puss.
>post movies that suck after your not in your alcoholic, depressed phase anymore
>anymore
amateur
I prefer the movie.
boku no pico
It's because of the differences between the two that they complement each other nicely. I saw the film first and then had fun noticing the areas of disparity in the book, some of them large, like the subplot about Mercer. The reps are sympathetic runaways slaves in the film and heartless autismos in the book, demonstrating the range of attitudes that can be taken towards artificial life. There's an interesting process of bargaining as the film discards many of the details and even the central theme (machines can't be capable of empathy) while trying to be faithful to PDK in spirit.
It's also cool that if you play the Westwood adventure game they include a couple of scenes from the book that didn't make it into the film, and they reference Dick's other works in places (the pet shop "Runciter's" is a reference to the Ubik character).
>demonstrating the range of attitudes that can be taken towards artificial life
the book isn't even really about artificial life, but humanity and the nature of empathy and the loneliness of existence. People use machines to dictate how they feel in the book throughout the day. The voight-kampff test is predicated on the idea that "empathy" is a human trait, but people like Resch are psychopaths yet still humans. What's more, even Resch manages to empathize with Replicants when he sees Munch's Scream in a gallery and likens the painting to their existence, screaming in silence alone with nobody to hear them. Most people just see empathy as a kind of fellow-feeling or the ability to infer someone's emotional state but Phil seems to think it's something more painful than that. Something more like Mercer.
There's also the whole chapter with the android police station. The fact that an entire police precinct filled with replicants can exist on earth to the point where Deckard has never heard of it before in his entire life hammers home how self-focused humans in the book are.
Jurassic Park is a better book
Forrest Gump is a better movie
Stand By Me is better than "The Body"
Fight Club is a better movie
The Shining are both respective masterpieces (not 1997)
Dune is a better book
Jaws is a better movie
Planet of the Apes is a better movie
Just finished Forrest Gump I can't believe they made a good movie out for that dogshit book.
Forrest Gump isn't good. It's only popular with Americans because it paints stupidity as a virtue and makes them feel better about themselves.
>Jurassic Park is a better book
Nah.
jurassic park book
>it's a bad idea when cutting edge science and startup capitalism are combined because they're going to evade regulations, cut corners and generally frick shit up in ways people didn't even know shit could be fricked
>hammond is a greedy c**t who refuses to spend money on backup systems for the park and willfully puts his grandchildren in harms way
jurassic park movie
>science is le awesome!
>hammond is a sweet old grandpa who just loves the dinos
>uh oh, bad things happened through no fault of anybody because... uh... life uh... finds a way
Yeah, the book is better.
The movie is more memorable.
Just needed a map and a compass.
Movie didn't suck but the book goes so much harder towards the end
My friend hated any mention of the movie since it veers so much from the book
I enjoy the films, but The Bourne Identity is such a better novel than the film. I appreciate that they diverted from the overall trilogy for the remaining films.
Once you notice that Ludlum puts text in italics for emphasis in almost every sentence, it gets really grating. It was especially bad in the two later novels of the trilogy
Jackson's lotr are shit
LotR. Definitely Two Towers and especially RotK are far better as books.
Brilliantly made obviously but misses the entire point of the book.
The film is much better than the book.
Not Cinemaphile but I listened to the song "The Great Sun Jester" by Blue Oyster cult and I thought man, this shit sounds fricking tight
So I read the book and it was terrible, the character didn't even remotely live up to what was promised in the song
sorry, arnie
Cloud Atlas. The book is great, the film is a clusterfrick.
>All Ridley could come up with was "replicants (who don't even exist) are people too and they can feel empathy!" while Phil was asking "What the frick even is empathy? What the frick even are humans?"
>NOOOO WHY DOESNT DECKARD RUN AROUND IN A LEAD CODPIECE LOOKING FOR A NEW ELECTRIC GOAT LIKE IN THE BOOK