MovieChat Forums > Paycheck (2003) Discussion > Having read the short story, I can now c...

Having read the short story, I can now compare it to the movie

posted 16 years ago by sofox
9 replies | jump to latest

Okay, so I didn't have high expectations for the movie, yet found I enjoyed it, but naturally it made me curious about Philip K. Dicks original short story the movie was based upon. I wanted to see what elements made it through, what didn't, and most importantly if there were any underlying themes or thoughts that didn't make it to the final screen.
After reading it through, I was surprised to find that the movie, all things considered, was a fairly decent adaptation. The original short story is a fun, enjoyable read that makes you think about a neat scientific concept, and the movie does close to the same thing. But to understand that opinion fully, lets start at the beginning...
The book begins with the protagonist waking in a plane flight after the contract is up (actually, I'm not quite sure of the exact form of transport, Philip had a tenancy to name all these futuristic forms of transport without giving any description of them). He thinks back and remembers signing onto the contract and is then informed by the head of the company that it is now two years later and his contract is up. The terms are similar to the movie, we pay you a lot of money for years of work that we erase your memory of.
There are some minor differences such as how much lower wage (the story is from the 50s) and memory removal (by surgury, and no one outside the company knows about it, making explaining it extra awkward), however early on I think one of the main improvements of the book over the film takes place. We see from the protagonists perspective that he was actually nervous taking on the contract (fist time he'd done something like this in the book), pondering whether it was worth losing part of his life for money and having creeping uncertainty the moment after signing the contract. This makes him a more relateable character by having understandable uncertainty about such a major thing. Naturally, the movie changed this to give minor character development in the form of the main character learning not to sell his memories because of what he loses from it. The book also doesn't have the confusing part in the movie where somehow the character swaps the contents of his personal effects for some other objects (it doesn't make sense on a couple of levels, such as why he would be allowed to do such a thing). The book has the contract allow the worker to substitute the paycheck for a set of objects that are worth less in value, naturally the protagonist is angered when he finds out he chose such an option, just like the movie. There is an implication that similar things have happened with previous workers, though they didn't take things as far as the main character.
From that point on, I found the book and the movie pretty much on par with eachother. The protagonist goes on a quest, hooks up with an attractive lady which he's with by the end of the story, and tries to go up against the company, infiltrating it's premises using stealth to get what he wants, and aided by the fact that he's got several items that he knows will assist him at vital moments. The two do diverge but mainly because the story seems to just be taking its clichés from a different era.
Overall, the movie and the book have a similar tone and theme. I know Philip K. Dick was known for very cerebral creations, that delved into human nature and existence, but this wasn't one such work. It takes the simple concept of how a simple object can become of vital importance in the right circumstance, and uses a sci-fi concept to explore the subject in a fun setting. A classic story of a man against the system that may make you think about an interesting idea, but not to be taken too seriously.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sofox 16 years ago

Alright, to deal with that aspect (further spoilers):

One key difference between the short story and the movie is the difference in quests. In the movie, the idea is to destroy the company, in the original book, it was to blackmail the company into getting full time employment and being part of the company. As I said, I didn't consider either of these plotlines to be that original, just "taking its clichés from a different era." You see, in 50s America, major companies and governments were seen as gigantic monolithic fixtures. It was seen at the time that either your life involves having a good position in one of these, or else you are at the very low end of the scheme of things overall, possibly feeling insignificant, or easily subverted by the great powers in the world. The setting of Paycheck takes this atmosphere to its extreme where the government is somewhat totalitarian (we never get a good look at them though), and the only way to escape arrest is to be employed by, and hence protected by, a major company. Hence the original Paycheck book is about wish fulfillment, a hero being able to get his way into the top of one of these organizations, feathering his nest for the rest of his life, with protection against possible threats from either people he knew or other organisations. (He even seemed happy at this obtained position giving him a potential wife who he shared little in common with and who showed no feelings towards him, a weird reflection on either Dick or the 50s culture of having an attentive wife where love and mutual attraction seemed less of a priority).
In the environment the movie was made in, major companies were shown to rarely be a constant in terms of power, from going bankrupt, merging or being overshot by new competitors or changing environments. American culture was also more focused towards individualism, self accomplishments, and companies viewed has being amoral, avaricious, and willing to screw over many people for their own game. And so the plotline becomes a more up to date version of the wish fulfillment: destroy an evil corporation, get a girl who loves you, and set yourself up for life if you can in the process.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kodak18 15 years ago

Book: Wish To Get Some Money. Egoistic. And he also gets the girl (probably). And the world can go to hell.

Throughout the entirety of the story (at least, from the point where he is pursued by the police), Jennings' motives have nothing to do with getting money, it's all about getting protection by being within the company. He insists on blackmailing his way to the top versus just accepting a job there because he fears that accepting anything less than co-ownership opens him up to another memory-wipe and being tossed out where he will once again be a target for the government. It is only at the very end when he has the upper hand that he shows interest in the money and the girl.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pacscistaff 15 years ago

I was reading it just at work this week so it took a few days to get through it. The ending has an old father type Rethrick(60-70 yr old maybe) telling Jennings what he wanted for the company that he inherited from his own father who lived in Maine. Something about giving something back to the working people of the country. Something they can have that they can defend themselves with. Not so much about saving the world, more like saving the country from big brother/big corporations. Jennings was all for it and he didn't mind at all becoming "part of the family" of Rethrick Construction.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Now I'm curious about what the deleted comments said.

[–] sebaser 11 years ago

Dicks books arent too good, so a decent movie will be a good adaptation by definition.
I read few dicks boosk and compared it to movies based on them, and each time the movies were better, they fixed a lot of plot holes, removed pointless fillers and generally improved on inconveniences. Scott did wonders to blade runners disjointed plot ( the random appearance of space robo jesus almost made me throw the book out the window ).

Dick was a junkie who couldnt edit his books into proper shape if his life depended on it. He just wrote what was on his mind at the moment, even if it was completely irrelevant or contradictory to the plot. But he did have interesting ideas.

Anyway, i like the movie, more than the book.

[–] Jnbfwc 11 years ago

I disagree on one aspect, here:

"however early on I think one of the main improvements of the book over the film takes place. We see from the protagonists perspective that he was actually nervous taking on the contract (fist time he'd done something like this in the book), pondering whether it was worth losing part of his life for money and having creeping uncertainty the moment after signing the contract."

I watched the movie just a moment ago, prior to logging into this website to commiserate with fellow fans, and one thing that was poignant to me was that the camera-angles, slow-motion, and timing of the moment all came together to create a sense that Michael Jennings was becoming uncertain of his decision the MOMENT after he was injected (and even just before he was injected).

Notice the way he keeps grabbing his arm and looking distracted.
The movie actually creates that emotion of uncertainty quite well, I think.