Ubik: The Screenplay

Dick's only screenplay was published three years after his death - somewhat ironic, given the themes of death, entropy, and `half-life' in this classic mind-bender, based on his influential novel from 1969. What is UBIK? It derives from ubiquity and comes in a spray can, perhaps the kind taggers use. Dick compares visuals sprayed from the can to Andy Warhol images, which are accompanied by cheesy advertising slogans promoting UBIK as the universal cure-all. Glen Runciter runs a prudence organization comprised of anti-psi telepaths. After they are lured to a lethal ambush inside the Lunar colony (the screenplay's biggest scene) Joe Chip and the rest of Runciter's team experience disorienting shifts in reality and perception, no longer appearing to be in control of their own destiny. This would make a helluva movie. #PKD

This is a screenplay by Philip K Dick based on his novel Ubik. I have not read the novel for a while, so I cannot call out all the differences at this point. I will update this review when I have done the reread. However I can say that while Ubik is one of Dick's best novels, I feel the screenplay stands on its own. Highly recommended to PKD fans.

This screenplay, which the author based on his own novel, focuses more on action than the novel did. It does, however, remain faithful to the novel. The long speeches by the main character, Joe Chip, would be better given to a voice-over narrator. Overall, it's fun to read and would make a good movie. Unfortunately, Halcyon is not using this screenplay. ~~~

PKD wrote this screenplay in 1974 which was scrapped by studios and not taken to seriously. First published in 1985 and now released again, this book is a nice treat. Especially for film fanatics. It was well written, you can see everything that's happening on your screen(your brain), and being written by the man who wrote the classic, its a good bet that it can't get any better than this.What is UBIK? Well its kinda hard to explain and that's what a PKD story is.This is an LSD tablet in the form of literature. Whats happening? Where am I? These are all common elements among his books. This story also has 'Precogs'(Psychics),'Psis','Anti-Psis' and a much more evolved precog.Its very hard to review this book, but I'll explain what its about without giving anything away.The year is 1992. Joe Chip is a technician working under Glen Ruciter, who runs a business employing psychics to block precog mind infiltration. Runciters wife Ella who is in a 'Half Life' state, in which you can communicate with the dead through cryonic suspension. Her advice runs Glens 'Prudence Organization'.We meet a mysterious woman, Pat Conley, who has a power no one has seen, she can go back in time to alter events yet for just a small amount of time, about 5 minutes, and now is working for Runciter.When Joe, Runciter, Conley and a group of interesting inertials go to the moon to visit with associates. They find it to be a trap.Returning to Earth, it is then that mysterious and missing pieces of time begin to deteriorate; cigerettes are stale, cream is moldy and clumpy and technology is rapidly moving backward and dissolving. Thus let the paranoia begin.Whether you've read UBIK the novel or not, picking this up does not stray away from the book and either way you'll grasp the idea. This was a very enjoyable read for me as a film fanatic, but I couldn't envision this film to be made during the mid-seventies and mid-eighties, and in a way, glad they didn't.Now would this work today in Hollywood? There has been talk of still doing a UBIK film but I feel as if the normal moviegoer would not have a clue as to what would be happening. Therefore it would most likely flop and become a cult classic. ALL depending on which director would pick it up and if he/she is serious about its adaption pertaining to THIS screenplay. Here's my opinion of filmmakers that could successfully tackle this project--Christopher Nolan - 'Inception'-Terry Gilliam - '12 Monkeys'-Michel Gondry - 'Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind'-Paul Thomas Anderson - 'Magnolia'-Ridley Scott(of course) - 'Blade Runner'And if it happens to not be made into a film, we still have this incredible screenplay to read over and over again.

In places, this adds to what is in the novel. A few scenes are more vividly rendered. And the ending is a bit different, a little bit got added here. But it's mostly the same material - same plot, same dialogue. Whether one prefers the novel or the screenplay will be determined mostly by whether one prefers to read novels, or screenplays.Dick did understand how to write a screenplay, I think, but this would have resulted in a long movie. (This is more of a miniseries than a movie). It probably would come off more campy than the novel, by a bit, intrinsically. I think that a lot of the greatness of Dick's books is in the small details, which are difficult to make a movie out of. He gave it the old college try here, though, and this is definitely a product of interest to Dick's fans. Casual readers should start with one of the novels, though.

Caution: Ubik may cause cranial implosion in those unfamiliar with the work of Philip K. Dick.If you are new to the work of PKD I would strongly suggest that you buy the original novel version of this work rather than this screenplay. This is an interesting work for a self-confessed Dickophile such as myself but it's debatable whether it would be of much interest to the casual reader.Phil has written an interesting but quite unusable script. He undoubtedly understood the differences between novel and script writing, and this piece shows this awareness initially, but Phil soon forgets that he's writing for the screen. As the piece moves on he appears to be using it as a vehicle to revisit the ideas in the original book. Many scenes are way too long and there is far too much expositional dialogue. Had this been taken up by a studio it would've spent an eternity in "development hell". In fact I think this would be more successful as a radio play.I unreservedly recommend PKD's work, but stick to the novels and short stories. It's in these formats that he excels. This still warrants 4 out of 5, however, because I found it fascinating.

Caution: Ubik may cause cranial implosion in those unfamiliar with the work of Philip K. Dick.If you are new to the work of PKD I would strongly suggest that you buy the original novel version of this work rather than this screenplay. This is an interesting work for a self-confessed Dickophile such as myself but it's debatable whether it would be of much interest to the casual reader.Phil has written an interesting but quite unusable script. He undoubtedly understood the differences between novel and script writing, and this piece shows this awareness initially, but Phil soon forgets that he's writing for the screen. As the piece moves on he appears to be using it as a vehicle to revisit the ideas in the original book. Many scenes are way too long and there is far too much expositional dialogue. Had this been taken up by a studio it would've spent an eternity in "development hell". In fact I think this would be more successful as a radio play.I unreservedly recommend PKD's work, but stick to the novels and short stories. It's in these formats that he excels. This still warrants 4 out of 5, however, because I found it fascinating.

Dieses Screenplay war Philip K. Dicks erstes und einziges Screenplay. Ich habe einmal ein Interview mit Ray Bradbury gehört, in dem er erzählte, dass seine erste Bühnenfassung von Fahrenheit 451 ganz schrecklich war, weil er einfach nur das Buch umgesetzt hat und die Dialoge übernommen hat.Das ist genau das, was Philip K. Dick in diesem Screenplay macht. Er hat das Buch genommen, die Dialoge von Inquitformeln befreit und in Theaterform gebracht. Die Beschreibungen des Narrators als Regieanweisungen umgeformt und noch ein wenig Kameraführung hinzugefügt.Alles ist da, wie man sich daran aus dem Roman erinnert. Es gibt 3 neue Szenen oder so, besonders am Schluss, das war es dann aber auch schon.Ich weiß nicht, ob das als Film wirklich funktionieren würde. Es liest sich gut, flüssig, recht schnell, es spielt sich tatsächlich ein Film im Kopf ab, es wirkt aber ein wenig altbacken, irgendwie wie ein billiger B-Movie. Ob das daran liegt, dass das Screenplay aus den 1980er Jahren ist oder die Handlung sich einfach arg sklavisch an den Roman hält, kann ich nicht sagen.Ich konnte dem Screenplay gut folgen, weil ich das Buch kenne. Aber ich weiß nicht, ob die Motivationen und dergleichen so, wie das Screenplay jetzt ist, wirklich rüberkommen würden. Irgendetwas schwer fassbares fehlt.Da das aber auch mein erste Screenplay ist, das ich gelesen habe, kann ich nicht sagen, wo genau das Problem ist, ich habe keine wirklich positive Vergleichsmöglichkeit.Vielleicht waren es einfach die zu langen Regieanweisungen, die explizit beschreiben, wie der Charakter drauf ist, das war wie ein normaler authoritative Narrator. Dafür gibt es kaum Kamara- oder Schnittanweisungen.Fazit: Ja, man kann das Screenplay sicherlich mal lesen, aber es gibt keine wirklich allzu großen neuen Erkenntnisse im Vergleich zum Buch. Ja, das Ende hat noch einen leicht neuen Twist, der bringt es aber auch nicht wirklich und die Müsliszene, naja, nett. Lest lieber den Roman, obwohl... Das Screenplay hat schon mehr Tempo und schneidet subjektiv doch ein bischen besser ab, als der Roman.

Aunque de obras de P. K. Dick no son pocas las películas que se han hecho (algunas libérrimamente), es poco sabido que el propio Dick hizo un guión para intentar hacer la película de Ubik (una de sus mejores novelas, si no, la mejor). La lectura es un tanto curiosa porque aparte de centrarse en los diálogos, hace breves descripciones de los escenarios y el tipo de decorado futurista que se imaginaba para una película.Naturalmente de forma inevitable se recorta bastante del contenido de la novela, y en ese aspecto la sigo prefiriendo, pero es muy interesante leer el guión tanto para aproximarse a lo que DIck consideraba esencial de la trama como a la forma en que él se imaginaba cómo llevar sus libros a la pantalla. No se entiende muy bien por qué precisamente de esta obra no se ha hecho nunca la adaptación cinematográfica (quizás que la sorpresa final sea similar a la de ciertas películas célebres, muy dignas, pero de cuyo nombre, por no hacer spoiler, no quiero acordarme); aunque personalmente yo votaría por una miniserie porque precisamente uno de los problemas de recortarlo en película (como es el caso de este guión) es que no se pueden desarrollar algunos aspectos interesantes.

El libro me encanto, solo el envio tardo mucho.