Why do you think PKD is so filmable?

[Rodders]

That says it all really. There have been many successful and unsuccessful adaptations of PKD's works over the years. What do you think that his stories offer that makes them so adaptable to the screen?

 

[CyBeR]

An easy an adaptable universe basically. I have read just one of PKD's books, I admit and have been put off by it at the time...but while collecting some titles for a list of books I wanted to read later on, I found that there were some titles of his that interested me still soo...Anyways, not to derail myself, what I've read is 'Ubik' and the sensation remained while I read that it would be easy to film. The Sci-Fi universe is easy to relate to current times, the 'special effects' are subtle and simple and the world invites both enthusiasts of the genre and non-enthusiasts inside.

I believe that's what makes the works of Philip K. Dick so filmable. The fact that his world can appeal both to the hardcore fans for whom men like Herbert, Asimov, Pohl or Haldeman are gods...and to those for whom the creators of 'Andromeda' or 'Stargate' are pretty good novelists.

 

[Quokka]

I think a lot of his books also rely on (or at least have) a final twist or revelation, which often works well in film.

 

[Diggler]

PKD was more of a thinking mans sci-fi writer. While his books were very much sci-fi affairs, they seemed to be grounded in reality, with realistic characters. Also his novels were more than sci-fi. There are huge dollops of philosophy, sociology, politics and religion within a lot of writings as well.

I personally feel that his lesser works are more suited for film. They are, in some cases, nowhere near as deep, or involved as his better known novels. Though "Flow My Tears" and "UBIK" would be very enjoyable.

 

[Connavar]

PKD was more of a thinking mans sci-fi writer. While his books were very much sci-fi affairs, they seemed to be grounded in reality, with realistic characters. Also his novels were more than sci-fi. There are huge dollops of philosophy, sociology, politics and religion within a lot of writings as well.

I personally feel that his lesser works are more suited for film. They are, in some cases, nowhere near as deep, or involved as his better known novels. Though "Flow My Tears" and "UBIK" would be very enjoyable.

You put in words well what kind of writer PKD is and why his stories are so filmable.

Novels wise,most of his good ones are deep,social,politics,religion stories set in the future with some SF elements. The settings are almost the only things that make them a sf. A dystopian near future like most of his. Why i wasnt surprised when i saw he realesed non-genre books.


He is so filmable because his short stories in general are more pulp like,not as deep and much more SF like in their elements,stories.
Why there are movies like of Paycheck,Next,Total Recall,Minority Report etc
Except Minority Report none of those are typical PKD story.

Hollywood wouldnt on their own make serious movies about his best books like The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch ,Flow My Tears,Now Wait For Last Year,Dr Bloodmoney,The Man in the High Castle.....

Those movies would'nt be cheap thrills,action films with Ben Affleck,Nicholas Cage and their kind of actors.

 

[jojajihisc]

The stories are almost always in the near future and set in California. This appeals to the ethnocentrism of your garden variety Hollywood movie screenwriter.

 

[BAYLOR]

His style of storytelling works was made for the big screen.