[cbau]

No, I agree. It's a slow movie, the acting and writing are kind of bad, and it failed to drive home the themes explored in the book its based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The book asked what it meant to be human, and pointed out some of the ironies of humans claiming empathy is what makes humans human, while simultaneously being completely callous towards other humans (by abandoning the masses on a dying Earth) and androids (who are conscious but enslaved and doomed to a short lifespan), and intentionally manipulating their feelings with essentially drugs. It was an entertaining read, which I picked up after watching the movie and feeling similarly confused. The movie kind of missed all that.

The redeeming factor of the film for me was its visual style, which was innovative for its time, and defined the cyberpunk aesthetic that we are familiar with today. The dark dystopian ecumenopolis, neon lights, giant ads, flying cars, etc.

Also worth pointing out that there were several different versions of the film, and some of them have a worse ending than others.

[mcv]

I believe the movie focuses on what was about a page and a half in the book, and expands that into an entire movie. They're related, but you're right that they're not telling the same story.

Even so, Philip K Dick was apparently very enthusiastic about what Ridley Scott did with his story.

[mdp2021]

> Philip K Dick was apparently very enthusiastic

You are looking for this:

> I came to the conclusion that this indeed is not science fiction; it is not fantasy; it is exactly what Harrison said: futurism. The impact of Blade Runner is simply going to be overwhelming, both on the public and on creative people - and, I believe, on science fiction as a field. Since I have been writing and selling science fiction works for thirty years, this is a matter of some importance to me. In all candor I must say that our field has gradually and steadily been deteriorating for the last few years. Nothing that we have done, individually or collectively, matches B.R. This is not escapism; it is super realism, so gritty and detailed and authentic and goddam convincing that, well, after the segment I found my normal present-day “reality” pallid by comparison. What I am saying is that all of you collectively may have created a unique new form of graphic, artistic expression, never before seen. And, I think, B.R. is going to revolutionize our conceptions of what science fiction is and, more, can be. // Let me sum it up this way. Science fiction has slowly and ineluctably settled into a monotonous death: it has become inbred, derivative, stale. Suddenly you people have come in, some of the greatest talents currently in existence, and now we have a new life, a new start. As for my own role in the B.R. project, I can only say that I did not know that a work of mine or a set of ideas of mine could be escalated into such stunning dimensions. My life and creative work are justified and completed by Blade Runner

[deltaonezero]

I haven't read the book, but I met a lot of people who tell me that after they read the book, they now hate the movie because the book was so much better.

Now after I read your comment, I realize they're just being snobbish.

[mcv]

Yeah, I love the book, but it's not "so much better". They're both great, but they're very different, despite some similarities. The movie tells a completely different story within the same events. Perhaps a less coherent story, but still a worthwhile one. But the movie is absolutely more about style.