A Scanner Darkly Film Preview

Jason K writes "Hi, webmaster of PhilipKDick.com here. Thought that the Slashdot community might like to see this exclusive report that was just added to the official Philip K. Dick web site by his daughters about the 'A Scanner Darkly' film production. The film production of A Scanner Darkly is based on the classic PKD drug novel of the same name. It is directed by Richard Linklater (Slacker, Dazed and Confused, School of Rock) and stars Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson. Linklater is using a more sophisticated version of the 'rotoscoping' animation technique that he debuted in 'Waking Life'. This is shaping up to be the most faithful adaptation of a Philip K. Dick novel or story to date." Waking Life was a little odd.

Comments

'Most faithful adaptation' is subjective...

[brainstyle]

I actually became more impressed with Blade Runner after reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - because as much as I liked the latter, it's not terribly filmable as written. Roger Ebert's said a number of times that all a movies adapted from a book owes is to be a good movie; whether or not it's line-for-line identical is irrelevant.

Waking life WAS a little odd

[Anonymous Coward]

In that it was thoughtful and interesting and totally willing to have scenes as simple as an interesting person saying interesting things. Hardly the typical crapfest that slashdotters seem all too willing to gush over.

"most faithful adaptation"?

[bookemdano63]

Think that is a good thing? The Minority Report and Total Recall books were ridiculously antiquated and would have made terrible movies if they hadn't been changed. In Minority Report punch cards were a major plot point.

Re:"most faithful adaptation"?

[Trurl's Machine]

Think that is a good thing? The Minority Report and Total Recall books were ridiculously antiquated and would have made terrible movies if they hadn't been changed. In Minority Report punch cards were a major plot point.

You seem to confuse Philip Dick with Arthur C. Clarke. Dick never wrote science-fiction to anticipate the future. He was more interested in exploring the inner space of human mind. And he was great doing that. You can't credit him as "the guy who predicted satellite TV relays", but you can credit him as "the guy who predicted the atmosphere of corporate paranoia of the late twentieth and early twenty first century". Take a contemporary realistic novel about the corporate world, like Joseph Finder's "Paranoia". It's so phildickian you could mistake it for a lost PKD manuscript. Dick was one of the rare SF writers of 1950's and 1960's who understood that human race will enter the world of powerful future technologies keeping their minds as fragile as ever, and was quite accurate in predicting the outcome (paranoia, drug addiction, escapism, the rise of omnipotent corporate moguls - both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are like characters from PKD novels!). So yes, he thought that punch cards will survive. But he also predicted Microsoft. His books will be antiquated only after a succesful antitrust action against MS, which means when hell freezes over.

Re:Congratulations

[0123456]

Congratulations for not realising that the first 'Lord of the Rings' movie _was_ a rotoscoped cartoon.

PKD Rocks.

[wackysootroom]

If this movie does well, I hope the PKD estate allows someone to do The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch.

That book was quite the head-trip, and with the right director would make an awesome film.

Dick is more descriptive than prescriptive

[Ohreally_factor]

Don't worry if you're "deep enough". You're no doubt of above average intelligence, despite this being /. and all. Please excuse the folowing dissertation.

Probably, it's just that Dick doesn't float your boat. If we all liked tha same thing, what a boring world we'd have.

But I think you've hit on one of Dick's ironies. That people need a box to experience empathy. Remind you of anything?

Anyway, it's not so simple, where one can clear things up by saying whether Dick favored or disapproved Mercerism. In fact, this ambiguity is a major part of the book at the end. Is Mercerism a hoax? Or is it true, i.e., is there an underlying truth to Mercerism that will never be perceivable by the androids?

The love of animals is a central tenet of Mercerism. Yet, as happens in all religions, the expression becomes perverted. Animal ownership becomes a signifier of status, prestige, and even corporate power.

Also, I think that Dick was saying that the values behind Mercerism are central to being human, not whether or not it would be good for humanity.

Anyway, I think that Dick just isn't your cup of tea. Maybe you haven't really suffered, or maybe you've suffered, but haven't suffered enough. If this is the case, I hope you never have to, but if it happens, there are authors like PKD that are great to turn to.

PKD is definitely for the wounded and those that have been crushed. Most of his characters are damaged and flawed, and perhaps they are hard to like if you're not damaged and flawed. Mercer knows I'm plenty of both. I should start a blog or something. =)

Not all his novels are this deep, however. Some of his others, while dealing with interesting issues, are lighter and more fun.

Anyway, sorry if I was a dickhead, but, after all, I am a Dickhead.