hammock wrote:I've reflexively helped more insects out of water containers they fell into (etc circumstances) than I'd care to remember. Especially as I've gotten older and felt the weight of my own mortality and impending doom. Figger its probably related to Deckard's explanation of Roy Baty's unexpected act toward the end of Bladerunner....
[Deckard falls, Roy catches him.]
Roy: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die.
Deckard (Voice-over): I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die.
Kinda forgot this, but to add: in the book, Decker walks in and shoots the leader of the Androids in the head killing him instantly. There's none of the moral searching in the film at the end that is played out in the dialouge in and of itself, although there is plenty amongst the characters all through the book in spades; what it does do though is exploring the deeper side of what it means to be human; in the book because it's post apocalypse ie supposedly some nuclear war or such or melt down of society or whatever, most people don't own animals, in fact to own one is a status symbol, as you can see in the film it's a dark world under a cloud.
But the point of the Electric sheep in the title is far more subtle than that, humans dream can androids, humans use counting sheep to drift away, can androids do the same, if they can why are they any different from humans, and this is the very subtle point. Decker has a pet, one he barely notices, he uses it in the same way humans do maybe not now but if they had something as expensive, as a bit of a status symbol, he never feeds it, it's a wonder it is not dead, but it lives next door to an "actual human" with the same pet: it's a replicated pet, of course as is his neighbours, there are virtually no existent non human species. But then again the author makes a very subtle point about how Decker thinks and this is echoed throughout in very subtle ways that you won't always pick up on. Which is why no doubt it's worth reading it again like any good novel.
For example, there is a whole chapter where Decker is brought in for questioning because they all think he is a replicant. The books is a lot deeper and more complex and explores many more themes than the film. That said, I don't think the directors took too many liberties, it's still ultimately the same story whichever Directors cut you watched.
Think about this though the replicant hunter, hunting supposedly Deckard keeps leaving little origami figures all of over the place, the last he finds, is when he flees the planet with a replicant named Rachael, (something bought up more in the sequel novel), and incidentally Rachael is someone it took almost 3 hours to establish as a replicant so let that bake your noodle.
The last animal though, what is it, do you remember, that is of course the genius of P.K.Dick, and something you only get alluded to in the film.
"Too bad she wont live, but then again who does?"
The last quote in the movie before IIRC the sublime music by Vangellis plays out.
Was the book better than the film, yes probably, was the film a masterpiece, definitely.
