Philip K. Dick's 'Ubik' To Be Filmed

bowman9991 writes "Could this be the new Blade Runner? SFFMedia reports that Celluloid Dreams has obtained the movie rights to Philip K. Dick's science fiction masterpiece 'Ubik.' First published in 1969, Ubik's central character is Joe Chip, a technician for a telepathic organization that employs people with the ability to block certain psychic powers so they can secure other people's privacy. In the novel, the dead are kept in 'half-life,' a form of cryogenic suspension, with limited consciousness and communication ability. A mystical substance called Ubik, available in spray-can form, is the only thing stopping reality from disintegrating before Joe's eyes. It'll be hard to film, but fantastic if they get it right!"

almost impossible to film

[GabrielF]

There's no way that Ubik could be filmed for a mainstream audience. The plot features telepaths and anti-telepaths, communication with the dead, time travel, coin-operated apartment front doors, people who suddenly turn into dust, a bomb blast that may or may not have killed all of the characters, and the usual questions about the nature of reality. Just figuring out a way to explain what the hell is going on will be a pretty big challenge. During the whole course of the plot, time is flowing backwards, so the filmmakers would have to build not just a static version of New York City, but one where all the artifacts are gradually transforming into their more primitive forms. If they can pull this off, it will be amazing, but its hard to imagine anyone tackling it without a big budget, and the eccentricities of the plot seem to preclude that. Its a wildly imaginative and thought-provoking book, and I hope someone makes it into an amazing film, I just don't expect it to ever happen. The one Dick book that I'm surprised hasn't been filmed is The Man in the High Castle, which has a much more conventional plot (by comparison) and would be more accessible to a mass audience.

Re:Previous efforts

[HiVizDiver]

Interestingly enough, the director of "A Scanner Darkly" (Richard Linklater) initially wanted to do "Ubik" [filmmakermagazine.com], but there was some issue with the rights with respect to Dick's estate, and Linklater thought that "A Scanner..." might make a better film anyway.

I admit I don't know "Ubik", but I enjoyed Bladerunner (based on Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", for anyone who may not know) immensely, and I really liked Linklater's adaptation of "A Scanner Darkly", so I'd definitely check this out.

Re:Why the fuss over blade runner?

[grub]

I watched Blade Runner in the theatre. Came out thinking "WTF did I just see?" (and that was with Ford's voiceover explaining everything!) I was confused yet knew there was something there. Bought the widescreen VHS a while later and it really grew with each viewing.

Now I'm a diehard fan and just love it. My gut feeling hints that most big fans weren't until they had a few viewings.

Re:First Post

[91degrees]

One of his books has a character called "Horselover Fat", which is apparently a translation of his name. Philip is derived from Philoppos - a greek name meaning lover of horses, and Dick is German for Fat. I think he was probably okay with his name.

Re:To recreate Blade Runner...

[fan of lem]

Have you seen I Am Legend? While he may be a mainstay in stupid Michael Bay films, I am convinced he can pull off a convincing science fiction movie lead. And I mean in a character-oriented way, not just being action hero-y and all.

Re:Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep vs Ubik

[kegon]

Mercerism was nothing to do with worshipping animals, it was about feeling empathy to someone, even if you knew that person was doomed.

Animals were not worshipped at all. They were a status symbol because almost all of them had been wiped out from radioactive fallout.

It would not have been difficult to add Mercerism to Blade Runner in presentation but it would have been difficult to avoid confusing the story line.

Basically, Blade Runner was 1000 miles from DADOES. No one has ever made a decent screenplay from a PKD book, maybe that's why Blade Runner succeeded. I doubt this movie will break that tradition unless they similarly make massive changes.

Re:I may be too overly hopeful, but...

[tzot]

Adding to the nearly off-topic wish list, I wonder why they haven't yet filmed "The Demolished Man" by Alfred Bester. It could be kept faithful to the original, and yet be a commercial success.

Re:Previous efforts

[cyberon22]

I don't mean to flame here, but Total Recall is a great film and totally blows away "A Scanner Darkly". You should give it another shot!

The great thing about the movie is that it isn't just a visual retelling of the short story. It is a tirade against the dominance of sex and violence in the entertainment industry (our collective fantasies). The director might be somewhat tongue-in-cheek for communicating this using such a violent film, but even if the hypocrisy rubs you the wrong way the focus on fantasies of violence is a brilliant treatment of the original story since it works so well in conjunction with it: the resolution of Dick's paradox (is it a dream?) ends up irrelevant to the central message of the film. Under-emphasized elements of the book (Mars = God of War) also gain new salience.

Total Recall is a great film because it takes good material, does it's own thing with it, and puts the viewer in a paradox much like the one it shows us. As long as we enjoyed the movie, the film has us pinned. How much of our enjoyment was because of the sex and violence the film revels in even as it critiques it?

In contrast, "A Scanner Darkly" paid homage to the high noes of the book (and it was sweet that they included the epilogue too), but there wasn't anything really original and exceptional about the execution save the style of the animation. Worth watching, but not worth watching more than once.

Re:Previous efforts

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Blade Runner kept any of the spirit of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". The only resemblance it had to the book was a few lines here and there. Other than that, they were completely different.

One was practically and action movie about a bounty hunter, while the other was more themed around the apocalypse, and how at the end of the world humans will hold life above all other possessions.

The book is inspiring, while the movie is just odd.