Paul M. Sammon

"Blade Runner" went through so many incarnations and has such a complicated history, and Sammon does a great job of telling its story. This book is really engaging, with a POV that's Just Fannish Enough. (Although Sammon's totally wrong about the Director's Cut being better than the International Cut. Narration rules!) It's a shame that Ridley Scott comes off as totally batshit insane in the interview at the end of the book. ("Deckard's a Replicant...and he's immortal!")

One of the few good reference books written on the Sullen Northman. With this book we get to see the many aspects and personalities that multiple writers have given us for our hero. Publication history and lots of good meaty things to slice into. Reminds us that Conan is not just a character that Arnold portrayed. But instead a conflicted and brooding man who knows his destiny but constantly clashes with it. Much more than a big guy wearing a loin cloth in a much bigger world than we ever show more thought. show less

I skipped past the interviews at the end as well as some of the info on the newer versions of the film. It's a pretty interesting book but there were some really weird glaring mistakes, like the fact Sammon comments on how Man in the High Castle was a smash hit on Netflix? Book does give you a good respect for all that goes into making a movie

Original review 2013:

Read this a few years ago now and don't recall much other than I read it because "Blade Runner" is one of my favourite SF films, if not the most favourite, and I've also read the P K Dick original and several of his other books, though not for some years.

Re-read 2022

Just re-read this before passing the book to a charity shop as doing some downsizing of books. This did not alter my original 3-star rating because a) there is no index and that would be handy with the show more number of people being discussed who were involved in the film; b) although there is a list of film credits in an appendix, it doesn't help with the number of other people who are name checked and who didn't actually work on the film, for instance, the film backers, and it is sometimes hard to recall who someone is when they are reintroduced later; c) the black and white photos in the text are small and dark so it isn't easy to make out detail in most of them; d) points in the plot I've always wondered about are not addressed.

An example of the last issue is in the scene where Pris fights Deckard and could have broken his neck but then releases him and gives him the perfect opportunity to shoot her. The author does slightly skate around the thread of misogyny in the film - Deckard only kills women and at one point - haven't seen it for years but the author does cover it in the chapter doing a scene by scene breakdown - assaults Rachael although he supposedly "loves" her - but he backs away from the subject. I love the film but it does have this disquieting aspect.

Positive points about the book are the light shed on the film making process, the many compromises made, committee nature of script production (and how this leads to continuity errors with the script going through multiple drafts by multiple people), pressures from the various financial backers involved and the possibility of on-set tensions and misunderstandings. It's amazing that films are made despite all this and are even as good as Blade Runner. show less