Which is better, book or film?

Book or film?

  • I prefer the book

    Votes: 18 27.7%
  • I prefer the film

    Votes: 36 55.4%
  • No preference really

    Votes: 11 16.9%

  • Total voters
I agree with the majority here, both Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and Blade Runner are both good in their own right. I do have to say that I find it hard to make a comparison as I have always viewed them as completely separate entities...

Concur. It's like asking which is better, tea or coffee.

Film for the visuals, the realization of the city and the music.
Book for the plot, the characterization and the details.
That's an odd thing to say. At the risk of derailing this thread, what films would you classify as "never bettered"?

2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick - 1968 (US/UK)
Solaris - Andrei Tarkovsky - 1972 (Rus)
Alphaville - Jean Luc Godard - 1965 (Fra)
Blade Runner - Ridley Scott - 1982 (US)
The Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kirshner - 1980 (US)
Close Entounters of the Third Kind - Steven Spielberg - 1977 (US)

Great films are usually made from a relatively simple Idea
A pretty good list, but there have been some excellent sf films made since Blade Runner... Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Natural City, Sky Captain & The World of Tomorrow, Primer, The Matrix, Donnie Darko...
A pretty good list, but there have been some excellent sf films made since Blade Runner... Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Natural City, Sky Captain & The World of Tomorrow, Primer, The Matrix, Donnie Darko...

'Starship Toopers' was good fun, 'The Matrix' turned out to be a decent action film with some interesting Science Fiction Ideas - The sequels became increasingly absurd and tiresome with meaningless fight scenes that go on forever

I liked 'The Fifth Element' it was a bit of a mess to be honest, it had no real hook performance in it, though it was colourful, funny, offbeat - with some spectacular sequences, underserving of the mauling it received by Critics etc

I like Donnie Darko too, one of it's major strengths is it's feeling for time & Place, the Fashions, Colour, Haircuts, all seem just spot on for 1988 - For some reason, the Americans seem to be very good at this

the others I'll have to check out

I'm glad you didn't mention Armageddon, Independance Day, Serenity, Alien Ressurection :eek:
The film is better, but it's one of the great Science Fiction movies, there have only been a handful made (great ones that is)

So much went into it, the Set Design, Cinematography (framing), Music, Lighting, atmosphere - the performances are good too

Science Fiction Cinema has seriously declined since the 1980's, it's mostly been very poor since then

If thats the film strenght then its not half as good as the book.

The story should be the most important thing in a SF movie or book. Not the set design,framing,music or what not.

I dont remember the movie but i will watch it again and forget that i read the book and then compare which told the best story.
The book was interesting and clever, but there are hundreds of sci fi books that far surpass it. The movie, however, is the best sci fi movie ever made. Or at least one of the best five. It's like comparing Jaws the movie vs. the book; the movie is vastly superior. In terms of Blade Runner, the disparity between movie and book is even greater.
Hahaha so the movie is only great cause SF movies arent better than they are in hollywood.

If so than you can say any movie version ever made of books is better than all thier book versions. Cause surely they are always books better than those books .

There are probably SF better the book but i doubt there are many as good when its about the androids and the theme of the book.

Me i cant see how any SF movie version is better than thier famous book part. Even the famous Bladerunner is dumbed down version of the book.....

Me i never got the hype of the movie. I remember it now for some reason maybe cause i have read the book and remember the story of the movie that i totaly forgot. It was nothing special than just another SF except with Ford and it was one of the first futuristic SF movies. Maybe thats why its so famous.
No, on that one I'll disagree with you, CoR. I think it is a great film, because it didn't slavishly follow the book, but developed the same themes (and with Dick's approval) in a different medium, with different requirements; it also allowed for a different approach, allowing one to see the emotions of all the characters in very subtle ways... and how they are all trapped within this cultural matrix. In a way, they are all constructs (even Sebastian and Bryant), playing their roles accordingly... and Roy may be the most human of all, by breaking out of his "predestined" role not only once, but many times. (I think, for instance, of the incredibly compact arc of character development offered in that small sequence of Roy in the lift after having killed Tyrell and Sebatian. That little piece of film manages to say enormous amounts in a very brief space -- something the book simply could not do as succinctly. Also, the set design, etc. are important not because they're "glitz-&-glamour", but because they create a milieu realistically, with richness of detail that would take hundreds of pages in a book. Those aspects of film are not to be despised save when the people doing them are lazy or slipshod -- which was by no means the case here.)

As I've said before, I think the book and the film are both very good pieces, but each is adapted to its own medium, with the strengths and weaknesses of that medium. Blade Runner has a tremendous lot to offer on many levels, but they are not the same as those offered by the book.
Thats the thing im not saying the movie is bad on its own but to say its better than the original story sounds wrong to me.

The movie should be compared to other SF movies where it shines wit it setting,visuals etc

Not compare the the two stories where one was about the hole empathy thing and the dark future world and the animal view which made you think.

The other is futuristic noir.

I understand people that say like you but i dont understand the ones say the movie is vastly superior cause of the visuals....
I, for one, never said the movie was vastly superior because of its visuals. I said it was vastly superior, period. I do not rank the book as one of the great works of sci fi. It's interesting and clever, but short and underdeveloped. But I do rank the movie as one of the great works of sci fi. In my opinion, it's the best sci fi movie ever.
You've GOT to be kidding.

The "book" wasn't even really a novel as I recall, more like a long short story.
(Then there was novelization of the movie....that's kind of weird comparing to versions of the same story like that...how many stories have ever been made into films, then back into novels?)

It wasn't that great of a story, frankly. Not up to standard of Ubik and such.
And one of the really cool films ever.
I saw the film before the book and then watched the film again. The book had extra layers to it and I think they compliment each other well. Logically, the book I guess...or no film would have been made : ) .
i think (and this is the one an only time) that the film was better than the book) Classic film, mediocre book.
IMHO, a rare case in which the film was as good as the novel. Though plot-wise/dialogue, there is little resemblance to PKD's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? the main underlying theme remained the same (what it means to be human), which is depicted quite well.Hmm...hard to decide, since I'm not much of movie person, but in the end I went for the book.:D

Have to admit though, Bladerunner had some memorable dialogue, I'm sure would have been already posted to death, but I'll go on and do it anyway:D:

Roy confronting the Chinese scientist.
"if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes"[/SIZE]

Roy when he saves Deckard from the fall; funny, he loves life enough to save Deckard at the moment of his own death, such mercy from a "machine". Makes me wonder who is human.

"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 the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Cheers, DeepThought
Last edited:
The superiority of the film to the Dick story is not just visual and imagintive, it's literary. There's no comparison whatsoever to the depth and movement of the script to the story.

Logically, the book I guess...or no film would have been made : ) .

I think your smilie means your kidding here, because there have been a lot of fine films made from inferior books.

By the way mentioning 2001 and Matrix is odd because I don't think there was a novel of Matrix and I KNOW there wasn't one for 2001.
I enjoyed the book years ago for it's thought provoking themes and the not too distant world that it portrayed.
However I love the film. The visually engrossing world that Ridley Scott created was one of the most believable i have ever seen in a Science Fiction movie. The technology had an authenticity and matter of fact quality about it. It seemed as if it was an every day reality and not a film device made to evoke awe and replace good writing. The movie treated the audiance as intelligent beings and not popcorn swilling consumers who are bored if they don't see an explosion every few moments. The acting was also very good for this genre. Harrison Ford did a great job portraying the weary conflicted officer who no longer has a zeal for his duty. Rutger Hauer also does a fine job getting us to question what it is that makes us human. This theme seems too be a pervasive one in Science Fiction. The show Battlestar Gallactica has some of the same themes.
I watch this movie a few times a year and never tire of it. The new Blu-ray version is the best yet. I saw it about 10 years ago at the Zigfield Theater in New York City and believe me you must see it in a large theater if you ever get the chance.
By the way mentioning 2001 and Matrix is odd because I don't think there was a novel of Matrix and I KNOW there wasn't one for 2001.

Well, no. But the short story, "The Sentinel" was the source from which the idea for 2001 emerged. And the novel Childhood's End was a more full blown examination of the ideas contained in it.
I feel that it's rather silly to compare book to film, for they are usually totally different. However, in this case I shall make an exception. The film was a soon to be cult classic, the effects, pyratechnics, acting, mis-en-scene, dialogue etc was well thought out. I say film. :]

Similar threads