Watchmen out this Friday

Not Sure wrote:

The book is about people addicted to paranoid, unpleasant, reality-fracturing drugs. I thought it translated very well to the screen. These aren't folks hanging out smoking weed, their drug of choice is called "DEATH". The book was indebted to all the people he'd seen kill or destroy themselves with drugs in the 60s, generally speed or heroin. Not pretty shit, and a lot of people struggle with it still. As far as details go, them leaving the list of casualties in the credits of A Scanner Darkly was one of the biggies. I also think Barnes is misremembering the end of that book. It was pretty clear that big business was involved all along.

I remember in the cinema the list coming up on the screen. This is such a powerful moment in the book. Someone nearby me asked the person they were with, "What does that mean?" I sat and thought exactly. The lead up to that list just didn't quite make sense without being able to piece it altogether from reading the novel. The film was good but I think it had an agenda that took away from the story's power. I'd still say the director did a good job I guess it is just a case that two people looking at the same thing see it with different eyes.

You say they aren't hanging out smoking weed but early in the book isn't there a scene were they do exactly that. Again, I shouldn't get into these kind of discussions because I read the book about ten years ago. Do the characters not all claim to be recreational drug users? This aspect to me of the reason these people are taking drugs seemed to be absent. It felt to be more along the lines of they are taking drugs because they are lazy, beatnik undesirables. Don't do drugs, kids.

Citadel wrote:

You say they aren't hanging out smoking weed but early in the book isn't there a scene were they do exactly that. Again, I shouldn't get into these kind of discussions because I read the book about ten years ago. Do the characters not all claim to be recreational drug users? This aspect to me of the reason these people are taking drugs seemed to be absent. It felt to be more along the lines of they are taking drugs because they are lazy, beatnik undesirables. Don't do drugs, kids.

It's been a long time since I've read it as well. Yeah, they all claim to be recreational drug users. So does every junkie I've ever known. Some of them really are. Most of them are more like the poor bastards in the book/film. The film doesn't really do a good job of explaining how someone gets into this lifestyle, but I think that's a matter of screentime. Also, nobody ever has a good explanation for hardcore drug use. The best explanation I've ever heard is "it just sort of happens."

It may be just case of different eyes, but I don't think the film is any more overtly anti-drug than the book. I think both come down to: "Drugs can pretty seriously fuck you up." I don't think anyone's going to dispute that. There may be some bits lost here and there, and the characters may not get the most sympathetic portrayal, but that's not a filmmaker agenda in my mind. If anything, it's "medium change", the opposite of what I'm arguing with Barnes about re: Watchmen.

The question of why people become drug addicts is very interesting. I am hearing more and more that if you sit down and talk to Heroin and Crack addicts many have suffered severely traumatic experiences, often during childhood, that have led to their addiction - the drugs let them forget. Having never done this myself, I cannot claim to know if this is true or not.

Yeah. I didn't mean to be busting your balls over this, and I'm not a straight-edge "drugs are bad!" kind of guy. But in a story about people profoundly damaging themselves with drugs so bad they're practically a caricature of normal stuff, the idea that one could ratchet up the "anti-drug" level seemed pretty weird.

People generally get into drugs by experimenting. Some of them stop doing them, some stay at a relatively consistent level, and some go off the deep end. I'm sure not qualified to explain why, but I've seen all sorts of behavior linked to all sorts of different substances. A Scanner Darkly is really a cautionary tale as much as anything, I think. PKD certainly had his share of drug problems, and people flop all over on the "why are so many great artists total and complete drug fiends" issue without getting anywhere. Who knows. It's a great book, and I think it made the transition into a fine film as well. Unlike, say, Watchmen. Or really any other Alan Moore comic or PKD novel. Some guys just aren't Hollywood.

(Blade Runner is based on Dick's work about as much Disney's Jungle Book is based on Kipling. )

Citadel wrote:

The question of why people become drug addicts is very interesting. I am hearing more and more that if you sit down and talk to Heroin and Crack addicts many have suffered severely traumatic experiences, often during childhood, that have led to their addiction - the drugs let them forget. Having never done this myself, I cannot claim to know if this is true or not.

Isn't this the excuse these days for everything from child touching to serial killing to animal torture.

Personally I think it's just because the person is a dumb fuck. I may write a book about my theory one day.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Citadel wrote:

The question of why people become drug addicts is very interesting. I am hearing more and more that if you sit down and talk to Heroin and Crack addicts many have suffered severely traumatic experiences, often during childhood, that have led to their addiction - the drugs let them forget. Having never done this myself, I cannot claim to know if this is true or not.

Isn't this the excuse these days for everything from child touching to serial killing to animal torture.

Personally I think it's just because the person is a dumb fuck. I may write a book about my theory one day.

I'd like to read this one. Mr. Skeletor's "Knock it the fuck off, dumb fucks! Your guide to better living."

Whoa, I think you're totally wrong there. BLADE RUNNER may be a loose adaptation, and I'm using that word VERY generously, but I think it totally captures a lot of the themes and ideas that inform the complete Dick canon. There's TONS of PKD in the film- the issue of authenticity versus artificiality, a key theme in most Dick writing, being the most evident. I think Fancher and Peoples really used ELECTRIC SHEEP as a jump-off point to get into some of those Dickian ideas. There really isn't any other film that captures that like BLADE RUNNER. MINORITY REPORT, for all of its fumbles, gets close but I think they really managed to condense a lot of why I like Dick, at least, into a cohesive film with a rough connection to a specific novel.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Whoa, I think you're totally wrong there. BLADE RUNNER may be a loose adaptation, and I'm using that word VERY generously, but I think it totally captures a lot of the themes and ideas that inform the complete Dick canon. There's TONS of PKD in the film- the issue of authenticity versus artificiality, a key theme in most Dick writing, being the most evident. I think Fancher and Peoples really used ELECTRIC SHEEP as a jump-off point to get into some of those Dickian ideas. There really isn't any other film that captures that like BLADE RUNNER. MINORITY REPORT, for all of its fumbles, gets close but I think they really managed to condense a lot of why I like Dick, at least, into a cohesive film with a rough connection to a specific novel.

Blade runner isn't really an adaption, more "inspired by".
Much like the "Dawn of the dead" remake, which I'd argue isn't a remake at all.

And I don't think that would be a terrible argument at all- if anything the DAWN remake is really just a revision of the same scenario. It's just that scenario couldn't be anything but DAWN. Even when it's under a different name (DEAD RISING, MALL OF HORROR), everybody knows it's DAWN.

Michael Barnes wrote:

And I don't think that would be a terrible argument at all- if anything the DAWN remake is really just a revision of the same scenario. It's just that scenario couldn't be anything but DAWN. Even when it's under a different name (DEAD RISING, MALL OF HORROR), everybody knows it's DAWN.

Huh? Isn't it just the stock standard zombie movie template?

Michael Barnes wrote:

Whoa, I think you're totally wrong there. BLADE RUNNER may be a loose adaptation, and I'm using that word VERY generously, but I think it totally captures a lot of the themes and ideas that inform the complete Dick canon. There's TONS of PKD in the film- the issue of authenticity versus artificiality, a key theme in most Dick writing, being the most evident. I think Fancher and Peoples really used ELECTRIC SHEEP as a jump-off point to get into some of those Dickian ideas. There really isn't any other film that captures that like BLADE RUNNER. MINORITY REPORT, for all of its fumbles, gets close but I think they really managed to condense a lot of why I like Dick, at least, into a cohesive film with a rough connection to a specific novel.

I knew I'd catch some fire for that, but you're making my point for me. Blade Runner is one of my all-time favorites, but it's a pastiche if anything. It's got so little to do with "Do Androids..." that when it does accidentally reference the book it's just confusing. Ask anyone who hasn't read the book *why* the Voight-Kampf test questions are all about animals. It's not there. Why is the guy hassling Leon about the turtle? Why won't Rachel take the fur coat? What the fuck is going on here?

It does a fantastic job of turning the PKD worldview into a movie. After some heavy polish, it even makes an excellent standalone movie. But the reason it's good is because it has the soul of the source material, and fuck the details. Watchmen has Zack Snyder proudly telling us about the sign on the wall that's just like in the comic panel, and no soul. We're arguing into the same point.

(thanks for helping me re-rail this thread, btw.)

Huh? Isn't it just the stock standard zombie movie template?

No. It's the stock standard "Indians circling the wagon train" movie template.

That's a good point about BR, but I do think there's enough in it that contextualizes the "animal" issue- black market synthetic animals and whatnot. But it ultimately isn't as big a plot point as in the novel.

But we are after the same things- it is about capturing the essence of something rather than a bullet-point list of particulars. The thing is, they DID catch the WATCHMEN story. You can watch the film and get the WATCHMEN story almost in its entirety, at least as far as plot points and dramatic beats are concerned. Scratch a little deeper, and it does turn out to be a pretty hollow contraption. A replicant.