Why did she kill the goat?

Not Veeky Forums. Get out.

>PKD isn't literature

You’re embarrassing yourself.

But the androids in the book, unlike the film, aren’t depicted as very emotionally sophisticated.

it kind of saddens me we will never get a movie adaptation with the robot sheep and the Mercer stuff

Sorry, there's this guy spamming tv with threads about blade runner 2049 like he's vomiting a thesaurus, this post just smacked of his pseud bullshit

archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/text/2049/type/op/

they're the ones with the title subject filled, guys deranged

god she was so hot in that

That's why her acting out of emotion is such an important aspect of the book.

She's an edgelord

>Why did she kill the goat?
Jews always want to make sure that you do not profit regarding any enterprise in which you engage with them. This was her way of knocking Deckard's score back to zero.

8/10, unexpected, simple, the equating of rachel (jewish woman’s name) with the robot f*male and the jew, elegant

this was a good one user. this board may have hope yet

>literature isn’t Veeky Forums
Yeah, I guess that sounds about right at this point.

Jealousy, anger, because she could

I don't know if it would be a good idea for it to be adapted. Blade Runner is probably as good as it gets in terms of adapting the novel, and the deviations it made were honestly for the better.

Look at her now and weep.

Is this book actually worth reading? All I hear is how much better the movie is in comparison

>Is this book actually worth reading? All I hear is how much better the movie is in comparison
Cinematically, the movies are quite good (IMO). Both movies, however, remove nearly all trace of PKD's illustration of crypsis. The book is short and loaded with some neat concepts. I hate to say that the movies are shit because I did enjoy them, but they are definitely not the same story.

Oh okay, so the book and movie are different in purpose, but just use the same concepts?
So comparisons aren't really fair because they want to accomplish different things?

>So comparisons aren't really fair because they want to accomplish different things?
That is my take. The book is not nearly as refined as the movies (that had multi-million dollar budgets). I enjoyed them and they made interesting points. The book stays focused on a lot of issues that never get touched in the movies.

The book (and PKD in general) is very surreal and probably could never have been directly adapted as a movie. The movie is different not just in plot but in overall philosophical outlook. I think the book is deeper and more interesting personally but the movies do a great job of developing an interesting world and exploring some good ideas too. I think 2049 is better.

Mercer is the biggest thing left out. It is a technologically based religion. The idea alone makes the book worth reading.

What could not have been adapted? The followers of Mercer getting hit with rocks?

They lack empathy, not emotion.

It's ten times more bleak and depressing, at least for me it was.

It was (imho) about Deckard disregarding her as an android even after the sexy time, she would show him he did care for her by killing another android he cared about.
Not him but I think the reveal of Mercer being an actor and how it all was set up would be too edgy for a movie as is to be said about the whole chickenbrain arc which features Mercer as a mix of brainkilling TV and religion. The personal 'journey/revelaion' is surpassed by mass produced shit {ie a book that everyone refers to and is used to shut everything down}. Just tune into Mercer, don't really bother with your questions and your own shit, this dude got rocks thrown at him and you can feel it too!
Of course the whole movie would to much longer and probably would have needed that voice over for people's thoughts more and I couldn't stomach that voice over cut.

It literally is Veeky Forumserature-related, you mongoloid. OP is referring to a moment in Philip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and he's used Sean Young's picture because that's the character that kills a fucking goat in the book. How about don't be a pseud-cunt?

The movies are completely different. I always found the original Ridley Scott film to be empty but aesthetically beautiful. I need to rewatch it. 2049 is amazing.

But the original book covers a lot of ground that was ignored in the movies and even elaborates on some of the concepts the movie unpackages. The book is great but it's not the same as the movies tonally, thematically, narrative-wise, etc.

>brainkilling TV and religion
>Just tune into Mercer, don't really bother with your questions and your own shit, this dude got rocks thrown at him and you can feel it too!

I think you are interpreting it wrong, it's been a couple years since I've read it, but Mercer is a good thing despite being "fake" because of the empathy that it creates. This is something the androids were incapable of doing, and is central to the theme of the book. The movie inverted it and made the androids human, turning a complex tale about human feelings and sympathy into a simple morality tale. Throughout the book the android repetitively display their cruelty and inability to feel empathy, whether it's androids plucking off legs from a spider or trying to discredit the emotional experience of the followers of Mercer, by discrediting Mercer himself, because of their inability to participate in that collective ritual.

>I couldn't stomach that voice over cut.
This does absolutely nothing to account for renaming the corporation. The text was purposefully neutered. Much of it could have been portrayed well in film.

It sounds to me like you are ripe for a re-read of the book.

not to mention the movie literally created all of the cyber punk/dystopian imaginary

Nah he’s the one with the correct interpretation, I’m not sure what yours is but the guy he responded to was full retard.

Both missing the point, it isn't about the morality of religion, it's about religions ontological status. Religion does not need to be empirically verifiable. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If they came out tomorrow and presented conclusive proof that Jesus was never a real person, it would do nothing to the faith as a whole. Same works for Buddha, and Arjuna, and Lord Xenu. The proof of religion lies in religious experience, which is why we see a character have a literal religious experience with Mercer in the desert.

Attached: phil_abc_111229_wg.jpg (640x360, 36K)

if you’re interested in the concept user is referring, consider reading ‘the cloud of the unknowning’

>Nah he’s the one with the correct interpretation,
I was not the tard. I am the one who noticed that not all Rosens were droids. I find this observation important to understanding the main body of the text.