W_W submitted it before, including the end fight. Therefore, this one isn't technically speaking a dupe. As time progresses on M&C, links will increasingly get shorter ;-)

As a result, I could only give this one **** (it's one of my favorite films, though; but the book didn't do much for me, even though I like Dick, i.e. PKD.)

I'd like to see what he can do with "The Forever War." That book hit me hard.

This movie version deviates enough that I feel it's fair to suggest it is less adapted from the book than it is inspired by it. It DID seem to focus on elements of the story that are secondary to the driving point of the book. The book radically altered MY perception of what it is to be human, and caused me to question what it is that makes life sacred.

Creating a machine that is so life-like that it is nearly impossible to discern the difference between it and the species it is intended to resemble generates a remarkable moral/ethical ambiguity. If a machine could consider it's own nature, display a range of emotions as complex as any human, and react to the particulars of it's circumstance as rationally and predictably as the beings who created it, it calls into question the validity of the claim that a rational being has the right to exist. It forces us to examine a value system that puts human rights on so lofty a pedestal.

There was a certain point in my reading of the book (I don't recall exactly what part) that it occurred to me that if you looked at the events in the book from a different perspective, the author effected a reverse anthropomorphism, an elevation of an object to a value so great that it debased the standard against which we were measuring it. By being unable to demonstrate any distinction between ourselves and an object, we lose all rational justification for the assignment of value to that object.

Instead of asking "what is the objective value of something which is capable of rational thought as an asset to humanity," it forced me to ask "is it rational to assign an objective value to something that can establish it's own relative value system." Why do we believe human perception matters objectively? By creating something equal (let alone something possibly superior) to myself, do I not lose the ability to assign it objective value? It would seem to me that the very existence of more than one relative perspective nullifies the concept of objectivity.

Whether or not my interpretation of the story is the same as what Philip K. Dick was trying to convey, I feel like it at least hits on a lot of the same philosophy. My reason for posting this rant was to demonstrate that even going on at length about a subject is not always an efficient means of sharing ideas. Even if a method of sharing information is imperfect, it is possible to catalyze the development of profound concepts by presenting certain basic truths in context. I guess I'm trying to say that the task of creating a story which will appeal to people in a medium which as for-profit as movies are, while still relating the core ideas is no easy task, and I think Ridley Scott did a pretty acceptable job. Before we continue this conversation, I'm going to have to ask you a few questions:



You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise...

I agree that the movie differs wildly from the novel, but it still retains the core ideas. I'm always surprised by the reaction the film gets from hardcore fans of "Androids".

Besides, PKD was a horrid writer with some brilliant ideas (that's coming from a huge fan of his work, BTW). "Androids" would not have translated well on film if it had been transferred verbatim. As much as I love the book, I have to admit it hasn't aged well since the late 60s.