2019
Ian MacDonald
Sometimes I wonder whether it would have been a better thing to have set
Blade Runner further into the future than 2019. After all, it's only 21
years from now and the technology on display in the film is a lot longer
than that away (if at all). I think the film will lose much of its
impact when 2019 comes around due to it being 'dated'.
Look at '1984' for example. When it was first published, it portrayed a
stark view of the (then) distant future, but is the book still regarded
as highly, now that we have seen the 'real' 1984 fourteen years ago?
The same could be said of '2001 A Space Odyssey', a film that will
really be dated in a couple of years, caused by the author/director not
having enough foresight.
As it is, Blade Runner is already displaying signs of being 'dated', but
not from the real world's failure to match it's technology, but certain
technologies inability to keep up with the real world.
--
Ian MacDonald
Lukas Mariman
I don't think people want to wake up in 2019 and say "Hey - Ridley Scott was
right/wrong/whatever!"
I don't suppose people were disappointed when 1984 didn't turn out to be a
completely miserable and totalitarian place.
Personally, I *am* a bit disappointed there is still no Moonbase Alpha and
no storage of nuclear waste on the moon, so it probably *won't* be blasted
out of orbit in september of next year. :-)
The people who made these stories were not in the business of fortune
telling, they were just trying to write an interesting story, set in what
was at the time a reasonably distant (i.e. not too close and not too
distant) future.
Now, if we really must look at the dates...
Does it really matter if the story's *time setting* will be outdated?
And does that mean the authors didn't have "enough foresight", as you
mentioned?
I'd say *economic factors*, like inflation, recession, and politics, must be
taken under consideration rather than the author's supposed "lack of
foresight" or vision.
If space exploration hadn't stagnated way back in the seventies, maybe our
technological level would be a lot higher today.
----
Lukas Mariman
E-mail: lukas....@skynet.be
URL: http://users.skynet.be/mariman/
POD
powerful than anything they had in 1977.
OK hopefully we will not be having the third world war that was the backdrop
to the film, and a building on the scale of the Tyrell building would never
get planning permission, but Robotics/Genetics maybe at a corresponding
level in 21 years time, though the manufacture of artificial people for sex
would probably never be allowed, but when you look at the so called morale
decline of the last two decades, even that maybe acceptable in 2019.
Flying cars...well I can dream.
Mike
>
> Sometimes I wonder whether it would have been a better thing to have set
> Blade Runner further into the future than 2019. After all, it's only 21
> years from now and the technology on display in the film is a lot longer
> than that away (if at all). I think the film will lose much of its
> impact when 2019 comes around due to it being 'dated'.
Generally, something sci-fi being called dated means that the technology
comes sooner than the sci-fi work predicted. With Blade Runner I believe
it could still go either way. Our level of technology could be higher or
lower, but I doubt any technology predictions in sci-fi have ever been
right on the money.
> Look at '1984' for example. When it was first published, it portrayed a
> stark view of the (then) distant future, but is the book still regarded
> as highly, now that we have seen the 'real' 1984 fourteen years ago?
1984 wasn't about technology at all, it was about society. For all we
know we might have the ability to make a world like Blade Runner in our
real 2019, it's just a question of society wanting to make it so.
> The same could be said of '2001 A Space Odyssey', a film that will
> really be dated in a couple of years, caused by the author/director not
> having enough foresight.
It has little to do with foresight. If support of space exploration
hadn't died down in the early 70s there's a good chance 2001 would be
closer to reality. Sociological trends are very hard, if not impossible
to predict.
I feel 2001 is far more accurate than most sci-fi movies, especially
considering when it was made. Look at Star Trek, some of it's technology
pales in comparison to what we have now while other things might never
be possible. I still think those "white on one side, black on the other"
people are brilliant though.
> As it is, Blade Runner is already displaying signs of being 'dated', but
> not from the real world's failure to match it's technology, but certain
> technologies inability to keep up with the real world.
>
What sort of things are you talking about here? Computers I would
assume, what else?
Mike
-------------------------
"I sure wish I could remember exactly what one of the black/white
fellows said to Kirk."
-Me
Mike Mariano
I don't think passing dates affect a story's impact AT ALL! I didn't read
1984 until 1996, and it was still chilling to read, and still effective as a
view of the future. I have a book of 1960s sci-fi, and most of those
stories put man on Mars in 1992, or time traveling to 1976, or driving big
American cars!
The 1984 introduction of "1984" covers this topic... the dates may pass,
but the warning never dies. In 1984, there were still problems with the
Ayatollah, Russians, and tons of Engsoc-similar practices in different
countries. They said, "1984 may be past, but there's always 1985..."
And 2001 was accurate enough as far as space travel plans went in 1967. It
will always be a powerful, acclaimed film. No calendar can take that away.
Should we stop listening to a certain Prince song next year?
Just take the story at what it is; NO MOVIES have EVER matched up to
reality, and they shouldn't. Movies must create their own realities...
************************************************
* http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/4213 *
* Mike Mariano's Online Anthology *
************************************************
Mike
>
> In article <73v33j$g90$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Lukas Mariman
> <bs24...@skynet.be> writes
> >Ian MacDonald heeft geschreven in bericht ...
> >>
> >>Blade Runner further into the future than 2019. After all, it's only 21
> >>years from now and the technology on display in the film is a lot longer
> >>than that away (if at all). I think the film will lose much of its
> >>impact when 2019 comes around due to it being 'dated'.
> >>stark view of the (then) distant future, but is the book still regarded
> >>as highly, now that we have seen the 'real' 1984 fourteen years ago?
> >>really be dated in a couple of years, caused by the author/director not
> >>having enough foresight.
> >>not from the real world's failure to match it's technology, but certain
> >>technologies inability to keep up with the real world.
> >
> >
> >right/wrong/whatever!"
>
> >I don't suppose people were disappointed when 1984 didn't turn out to be a
> >completely miserable and totalitarian place.
> always the possibility that life *could* be like that, which in my
> opinion added to the fascination and interest of the novel. Once the
> year 1984 came and went the book was no longer taken seriously.
Life can still be like that, it just wouldn't be in 1984. Actually, the
party could change time so that it was 1984 if they wanted to. And I
still take it seriously, the only people who don't are the ones who
can't draw their own conclusions about anything and miss the meaning of
everything.
> >
> >Personally, I *am* a bit disappointed there is still no Moonbase Alpha and
> >no storage of nuclear waste on the moon, so it probably *won't* be blasted
> >out of orbit in september of next year. :-)
>
> Don't be disappointed. The Earth would suffer a catastrophe - with you
> (and me) on it! (Unless your *real* disappointment lies in the fact
> that you're not likely to be on Moonbase Alpha when there's a
> fan/excrement interface :)
> But there's another example : will Space 1999 have the same attraction
> after next year?
> >
> >The people who made these stories were not in the business of fortune
> >telling, they were just trying to write an interesting story, set in what
> >was at the time a reasonably distant (i.e. not too close and not too
> >distant) future.
> Yeah, but at least give it a few hundred years or so, especially for a
> society so different from our own, as portrayed in BR. What would have
> been wrong with setting the story in 2119? That way, when that year
> comes round there'll either be no-one left on the planet to care, or BR
> will have ceased to be of any interest. And for everyone in between, it
> remains a *possible* future.
But Blade Runner is far more likely in 2019 than 2119. What you're
saying is that stories should be more random and have nothing to do with
social, political, and technological trends. BR can still be a possible
future after 2019.
> >Now, if we really must look at the dates...
> >Does it really matter if the story's *time setting* will be outdated?
> >And does that mean the authors didn't have "enough foresight", as you
> >mentioned?
> I think it does matter, because when that date is reached, the film/book
> ceases to become what it set out to be - a vision of the future. And I
> think the authors should set a more realistic time projection, or even
> better, not mention a date, but just set it 'in the future'.
2119 is hardly a realistic guess for BR. I'm going to have to bring out
the overused big gun here: If you don't like it, write your own
futuristic story and set it in the time you want. It's easy to put a
movie or book a few hundred years in the future, because the writer
isn't going to live long enough to see the mistakes he made.
> >
> >I'd say *economic factors*, like inflation, recession, and politics, must be
> >taken under consideration rather than the author's supposed "lack of
> >foresight" or vision.
> These are also things the author should take into consideration when
> setting a realistic time setting. This is something the film makers
> didn't do when they sprinkled their film with adverts for Atari, Pan Am,
> Koss, RCA and Cuisinart. In this respect, the film is already dated.
Yeah, I hate those damn film makers who try to add atmosphere without
being psychic. RCA is still a big company BTW.
> >
> >If space exploration hadn't stagnated way back in the seventies, maybe our
> >technological level would be a lot higher today.
> True, I think it's a great tragedy that space exploration has been going
> nowhere for the last two decades. We've gone from travelling a third of
> a million miles during Apollo to travelling two hundred and fifty miles
> with the Shuttle Programme. So, yeah, maybe twenty years ago Space 1999
> wasn't such a pie in the sky - I'll give you that one !
> But we've only got twenty years to colonise space, produce Replicants
> and invent flying cars :)
Replicants should be possible by 2019. There is work being done on
flying cars as well.
Mike
-------------------------
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking
thirteen."
-George Orwell, 1984
Ian MacDonald
>Personally, I *am* a bit disappointed there is still no Moonbase Alpha and
>no storage of nuclear waste on the moon, so it probably *won't* be blasted
>out of orbit in september of next year. :-)
Don't be disappointed. The Earth would suffer a catastrophe - with you
(and me) on it! (Unless your *real* disappointment lies in the fact
that you're not likely to be on Moonbase Alpha when there's a
fan/excrement interface :)
But there's another example : will Space 1999 have the same attraction
after next year?
>
>The people who made these stories were not in the business of fortune
>telling, they were just trying to write an interesting story, set in what
>was at the time a reasonably distant (i.e. not too close and not too
>distant) future.
Yeah, but at least give it a few hundred years or so, especially for a
society so different from our own, as portrayed in BR. What would have
been wrong with setting the story in 2119? That way, when that year
comes round there'll either be no-one left on the planet to care, or BR
will have ceased to be of any interest. And for everyone in between, it
remains a *possible* future.
>Now, if we really must look at the dates...
>Does it really matter if the story's *time setting* will be outdated?
>And does that mean the authors didn't have "enough foresight", as you
>mentioned?
I think it does matter, because when that date is reached, the film/book
ceases to become what it set out to be - a vision of the future. And I
think the authors should set a more realistic time projection, or even
better, not mention a date, but just set it 'in the future'.
>
>I'd say *economic factors*, like inflation, recession, and politics, must be
>taken under consideration rather than the author's supposed "lack of
>foresight" or vision.
These are also things the author should take into consideration when
setting a realistic time setting. This is something the film makers
didn't do when they sprinkled their film with adverts for Atari, Pan Am,
Koss, RCA and Cuisinart. In this respect, the film is already dated.
>
>If space exploration hadn't stagnated way back in the seventies, maybe our
>technological level would be a lot higher today.
True, I think it's a great tragedy that space exploration has been going
nowhere for the last two decades. We've gone from travelling a third of
a million miles during Apollo to travelling two hundred and fifty miles
with the Shuttle Programme. So, yeah, maybe twenty years ago Space 1999
wasn't such a pie in the sky - I'll give you that one !
But we've only got twenty years to colonise space, produce Replicants
and invent flying cars :)
PS I hope you have/have had a good holiday!
>
--
Ian MacDonald
mookid
<two...@abank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The same could be said of '2001 A Space Odyssey', a film that will
>really be dated in a couple of years, caused by the author/director not
>having enough foresight.
>As it is, Blade Runner is already displaying signs of being 'dated', but
>not from the real world's failure to match it's technology, but certain
>technologies inability to keep up with the real world.
must contibute!
i don't think the movies will look dated, because the people seem
real. most people aren't going to say "yeah, it was a cool movie, but
it looked kind of hokey because things won't be like that in just
twenty years," etc. people are more than willing to suspend disbelief
for a couple of hours as long as a movie gives a decent imitation of
reality. those silly sci-fi 50's flicks with theremin solos and flying
paper plates look dated because your average person who just happens
to work is space probably won't look like those movies' square-jawed
heroes in silver jumpsuits or buxom heroines with stacked hair and
silver miniskirts. blade runner, star wars, and alien all have
realistic people; you can believe that space has become such a usual
part of everyday life that normal, working people would be a part of
space.
one other thing: most writers are more worried about now than
twenty years from now when it comes to releasing a movie or book.
often authors and scriptwriters pick a date that's just distant enough
from the present to make the movie seem possible, and just near enough
to make the future seem almost tangible. they *want* you to shiver and
think "that could really happen, given a few changes..." kind of like
"1984," which was written when most of the western world was terrified
of communism. communism seemed like a ravenous, impossibly strong
force, and many people believed that if communism took over, something
like the government in "1984" could easily evolve. nowadays, after the
collapse of the USSR and a definite trend by communist coutries toward
capitalism, the book is regarded as an excellent story with incisive
social commentary, and not a prediction at all.
(hey, i just wrote an essay of my own!)
-mookid
"Do not do unto others as you would they would do unto you.
Their tastes may not be the same."- George Bernard Shaw
Daniel Holwerda
thread in here!
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with your premise that BR will no longer
be relevant after 2019, though. When P. K. Dick wrote the novel, or for
that matter when most sci-fi/fantasy authors write novels, he didn't intend
it to be a dead-on portrayal of events that he predicted would happen. He
was trying to use a time and place of his own invention in order to examine
ideas and principles that transcend any one time or place.
To make a bad analogy, just as the original TommorowLand at DisneyLand was
Walt Disney's vision of one possible future, from the vantage point of
1950's America, BR is Dick's vision of another possible future, written from
his own vantage point. Neither one of these visions may necessarily pan out
in reality, but they both give insight into the minds of the people who
created them, which is why, ultimately, they interest us so much.
Ian MacDonald wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder whether it would have been a better thing to have set
> Blade Runner further into the future than 2019. After all, it's only 21
> years from now and the technology on display in the film is a lot longer
> than that away (if at all). I think the film will lose much of its
> impact when 2019 comes around due to it being 'dated'.
> Look at '1984' for example. When it was first published, it portrayed a
> stark view of the (then) distant future, but is the book still regarded
> as highly, now that we have seen the 'real' 1984 fourteen years ago?
> The same could be said of '2001 A Space Odyssey', a film that will
> really be dated in a couple of years, caused by the author/director not
> having enough foresight.
> As it is, Blade Runner is already displaying signs of being 'dated', but
> not from the real world's failure to match it's technology, but certain
> technologies inability to keep up with the real world.
> --
> Ian MacDonald
Patrick JB
<two...@abank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The same could be said of '2001 A Space Odyssey', a film that will
>really be dated in a couple of years, caused by the author/director not
>having enough foresight.
>must contribute!
>i don't think the movies will look dated, because the people seem
>real. most people aren't going to say "yeah, it was a cool movie, but
>it looked kind of hokey because things won't be like that in just
>twenty years," etc. people are more than willing to suspend disbelief
>think "that could really happen, given a few changes..." kind of like
>"1984," which was written when most of the western world was terrified
>of communism. communism seemed like a ravenous, impossibly strong
>force, and many people believed that if communism took over, something
>like the government in "1984" could easily evolve. nowadays, after the
>collapse of the USSR and a definite trend by communist countries toward
>capitalism, the book is regarded as an excellent story with incisive
>social commentary, and not a prediction at all.
>(hey, i just wrote an essay of my own!)
As with most other's I agree that BR is a movie which will have an ongoing
currency well past its "use-by-date." It has a meaning beyond the
technology........in fact, when one considers the genetics experiments
being conducted now (growing an ear on the back of a mouse - grossly
offensive), it will have a continuing relevance. Just think of movies about
slavery! In many ways BR comments on the repulsive and inhumanity of
slavery.
Re: the commentary on '1984'. Orwell, in fact, was concerned about the
totalitarianism that he saw in the world (he fought against Franco in the
Spanish Civil War). He was as concerned with the dictatorship of Capitalism
and Fascism as much as that of Communism.
"But it was not only the Soviets who worried him - it was any powerful
state that might be tempted to bully its own citizens, as well as those of
other countries."
("Orwell", Michael Sheldon. 1991)
This included the latent fascism he saw in the US and many European states.
Patrick
Great discussion though.............again, thanks boys and girls. (that's
an okay form of reference here in Oz :)
mookid
>Re: the commentary on '1984'. Orwell, in fact, was concerned about the
>totalitarianism that he saw in the world (he fought against Franco in the
>Spanish Civil War). He was as concerned with the dictatorship of Capitalism
>and Fascism as much as that of Communism.
>
>"But it was not only the Soviets who worried him - it was any powerful
>state that might be tempted to bully its own citizens, as well as those of
>other countries."
> ("Orwell", Michael Sheldon. 1991)
>
>This included the latent fascism he saw in the US and many European states.
well, *you* staying 100% accurate without ever having read or
discussed the book in school, not having read it in a year, having
such an old copy of that book that there isn't a long, explanatory
preface (and so old the book's cover price is about 60 cents), and not
having the book on hand. then try it on not enough sleep. =P besides,
mine was a valid point. so there.
even more tired,
mookid
>well, *you* staying 100% accurate
grr. try *staying* 100% accurate...
Lukas Mariman
>In article <73v33j$g90$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Lukas Mariman
><bs24...@skynet.be> writes
>>Ian MacDonald heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>>>
>>completely miserable and totalitarian place.
>True, but prior to 1984, and for anyone having read the book, there was
>always the possibility that life *could* be like that, which in my
>opinion added to the fascination and interest of the novel. Once the
>year 1984 came and went the book was no longer taken seriously.
I disagree. To my knowledge, the book is still widely regarded as a classic.
BTW, the book was written in 1948, Orwell just switched the last 2 numbers
to get 1984; I don't think he really cared if it would be true or not in the
real year 1984; what was probably more important that it just *might* become
true in a not-too-distant future.
>>Personally, I *am* a bit disappointed there is still no Moonbase Alpha and
>>no storage of nuclear waste on the moon, so it probably *won't* be blasted
>>out of orbit in september of next year. :-)
>
>Don't be disappointed. The Earth would suffer a catastrophe - with you
>(and me) on it! (Unless your *real* disappointment lies in the fact
>that you're not likely to be on Moonbase Alpha when there's a
>fan/excrement interface :)
LOL! Well, naturally I was joking: I realise the consequences for Earth
would/could be enormous.
...
A fan/excrement interface?! That's a good one... :-)))
>But there's another example : will Space 1999 have the same attraction
>after next year?
I wonder.
>>
>>The people who made these stories were not in the business of fortune
>>telling, they were just trying to write an interesting story, set in what
>>was at the time a reasonably distant (i.e. not too close and not too
>>distant) future.
>Yeah, but at least give it a few hundred years or so, especially for a
>society so different from our own, as portrayed in BR. What would have
>been wrong with setting the story in 2119? That way, when that year
>comes round there'll either be no-one left on the planet to care, or BR
>will have ceased to be of any interest. And for everyone in between, it
>remains a *possible* future.
Maybe, although I was kind of hoping civilisation would look a little better
in 2119...
>>Now, if we really must look at the dates...
>>Does it really matter if the story's *time setting* will be outdated?
>>And does that mean the authors didn't have "enough foresight", as you
>>mentioned?
>I think it does matter, because when that date is reached, the film/book
>ceases to become what it set out to be - a vision of the future. And I
>think the authors should set a more realistic time projection, or even
>better, not mention a date, but just set it 'in the future'.
IMO, these works' visions of the future don't cease to be simply because the
date has been reached, they may still hold valid messages, which may yet
come true.
>>I'd say *economic factors*, like inflation, recession, and politics, must
be
>>taken under consideration rather than the author's supposed "lack of
>>foresight" or vision.
>These are also things the author should take into consideration when
>setting a realistic time setting. This is something the film makers
>didn't do when they sprinkled their film with adverts for Atari, Pan Am,
>Koss, RCA and Cuisinart. In this respect, the film is already dated.
Well, I'm sure it's not the filmmakers' fault these companies went down the
drain...
>>If space exploration hadn't stagnated way back in the seventies, maybe our
>>technological level would be a lot higher today.
>True, I think it's a great tragedy that space exploration has been going
>nowhere for the last two decades. We've gone from travelling a third of
>a million miles during Apollo to travelling two hundred and fifty miles
>with the Shuttle Programme. So, yeah, maybe twenty years ago Space 1999
>wasn't such a pie in the sky - I'll give you that one !
>But we've only got twenty years to colonise space, produce Replicants
>and invent flying cars :)
Yeah, these engineers better get their *sses in gear. :))
>PS I hope you have/have had a good holiday!
Thanks! Anyway, I'm leaving today, so I won't be reading any possible
follow-ups to this discussion for a while.
Patrick JB
=)
mookid <moo...@earthling.net> wrote in article
<3663ba80...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
Ian MacDonald
<moo...@earthling.net> writes
>On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:21:32 +0000, Ian MacDonald
><two...@abank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The same could be said of '2001 A Space Odyssey', a film that will
>>really be dated in a couple of years, caused by the author/director not
>>having enough foresight.
>>not from the real world's failure to match it's technology, but certain
>>technologies inability to keep up with the real world.
>
>i don't think the movies will look dated, because the people seem
>real. most people aren't going to say "yeah, it was a cool movie, but
>it looked kind of hokey because things won't be like that in just
>twenty years," etc.
was a cool movie, but its *looks* kind of hokey because things *aren't*
like that *now*" (ie in twenty years time).
> people are more than willing to suspend disbelief
>reality. those silly sci-fi 50's flicks with theremin solos and flying
>paper plates look dated because your average person who just happens
>to work is space probably won't look like those movies' square-jawed
>heroes in silver jumpsuits or buxom heroines with stacked hair and
>silver miniskirts. blade runner, star wars, and alien all have
>realistic people; you can believe that space has become such a usual
>part of everyday life that normal, working people would be a part of
>space.
in a galaxy with which we have no frame of reference. I can't remember,
but was Alien set in a specific year?
> one other thing: most writers are more worried about now than
>twenty years from now when it comes to releasing a movie or book.
>often authors and scriptwriters pick a date that's just distant enough
>from the present to make the movie seem possible, and just near enough
>to make the future seem almost tangible. they *want* you to shiver and
>"1984," which was written when most of the western world was terrified
>of communism.
>communism seemed like a ravenous, impossibly strong
>force, and many people believed that if communism took over, something
>like the government in "1984" could easily evolve. nowadays, after the
>capitalism, the book is regarded as an excellent story with incisive
>social commentary, and not a prediction at all.
prediction of the future. Whether they believe the worlds they create
will ever be a reality is immaterial. My point is that they shouldn't
set it only a few years away if they're going to depict such a radically
changed world. Better still, just set it 'in the future' and leave it
at that.
>(hey, i just wrote an essay of my own!)
Thank you for taking the time. My opinions are, of course, my own and
it's nice to know that not everyone agrees with them :)
>
>
>-mookid
>"Do not do unto others as you would they would do unto you.
>Their tastes may not be the same."- George Bernard Shaw
--
Ian MacDonald
Ian MacDonald
<mike...@earthlink.net> writes
>>
>> >I don't suppose people were disappointed when 1984 didn't turn out to be a
>> >completely miserable and totalitarian place.
>> True, but prior to 1984, and for anyone having read the book, there was
>> always the possibility that life *could* be like that, which in my
>> opinion added to the fascination and interest of the novel. Once the
>> year 1984 came and went the book was no longer taken seriously.
>
>Life can still be like that, it just wouldn't be in 1984.
the book, it just can't be set in *any* year up to the present day, let
alone 1984.
> Actually, the
>party could change time so that it was 1984 if they wanted to. And I
>still take it seriously, the only people who don't are the ones who
>can't draw their own conclusions about anything and miss the meaning of
>everything.
when it was *the* possible future. Would it hold the same attraction
for me now ? I don't think so, now that it has become only *a* possible
future that didn't materialise. I'm not detracting from the quality of
the writing or the message Orwell was putting forward, however. It's
just tying the novel down to a specific year I have problems with.
>
>> >
>> >The people who made these stories were not in the business of fortune
>> >telling, they were just trying to write an interesting story, set in what
>> >was at the time a reasonably distant (i.e. not too close and not too
>> >distant) future.
>> Yeah, but at least give it a few hundred years or so, especially for a
>> society so different from our own, as portrayed in BR. What would have
>> been wrong with setting the story in 2119? That way, when that year
>> comes round there'll either be no-one left on the planet to care, or BR
>> will have ceased to be of any interest. And for everyone in between, it
>> remains a *possible* future.
>
>But Blade Runner is far more likely in 2019 than 2119. What you're
>saying is that stories should be more random and have nothing to do with
>social, political, and technological trends. BR can still be a possible
>future after 2019.
>
>> >Now, if we really must look at the dates...
>> >Does it really matter if the story's *time setting* will be outdated?
>> >And does that mean the authors didn't have "enough foresight", as you
>> >mentioned?
>> I think it does matter, because when that date is reached, the film/book
>> ceases to become what it set out to be - a vision of the future. And I
>> think the authors should set a more realistic time projection, or even
>> better, not mention a date, but just set it 'in the future'.
>
>2119 is hardly a realistic guess for BR. I'm going to have to bring out
>the overused big gun here: If you don't like it, write your own
>futuristic story and set it in the time you want.
comes, I'll never be proved wrong ;)
> It's easy to put a
>movie or book a few hundred years in the future, because the writer
>isn't going to live long enough to see the mistakes he made.
>
>> >
>> >I'd say *economic factors*, like inflation, recession, and politics, must be
>> >taken under consideration rather than the author's supposed "lack of
>> >foresight" or vision.
>> These are also things the author should take into consideration when
>> setting a realistic time setting. This is something the film makers
>> didn't do when they sprinkled their film with adverts for Atari, Pan Am,
>> Koss, RCA and Cuisinart. In this respect, the film is already dated.
>
>Yeah, I hate those damn film makers who try to add atmosphere without
>being psychic. RCA is still a big company BTW.
I was under the impression that they were bought over by General
Electric in 1986 and that the name 'RCA' continues only to appear on
French and German TV sets.
>
>> >
>> But we've only got twenty years to colonise space, produce Replicants
>> and invent flying cars :)
>
>Replicants should be possible by 2019.
Seriously?
>There is work being done on
>flying cars as well.
What about the Off World Colonies? NASA can't even get the first part
of the International Space Station off the ground at the first attempt.
> Mike
>-------------------------
>"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking
>thirteen."
>-George Orwell, 1984
>
--
Ian MacDonald
Ian MacDonald
<mike...@earthlink.net> writes
>Ian MacDonald wrote:
>>
>
>> As it is, Blade Runner is already displaying signs of being 'dated', but
>> not from the real world's failure to match it's technology, but certain
>> technologies inability to keep up with the real world.
>>
>
>assume, what else?
> Mike
>-------------------------
>"I sure wish I could remember exactly what one of the black/white
>fellows said to Kirk."
>-Me
>
across the screen at various parts in BR. Companies which have been
unable to keep up with the real world such as Atari, PanAm, Koss and
Cuisinart. These companies do not exist in 1998, let alone 2019.
--
Ian MacDonald
EgoistX
>Star Wars doesn't come into my argument because it is set in the past,
>in a galaxy with which we have no frame of reference.
I would argue that Star Wars is *not* set in the past. Star Wars is basically
a comparative myth blended the futuristic with the ancient/archetypal. You are
taking "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" much to literally. This is
the way that fairy-tales start, and Star Wars takes the form of these stories.
The similar things can be said about 1984. As someone mentioned, the title was
derived from the year in which it is written - 1948. I really doubt these
authors are sitting down with their Hari Seldon Psychohistory programs, trying
to write fiction that is prophetic in a definitive way and not so much about
humanistic or universal themes.
Don't be distracted by the mention of the year - the themes of the works are
what's important. And the themes of 1984 are especially relevant today. Sure,
the physical world is not exactly the same as that in the book, but that's not
the point. The book is about control, manipulation, freewill, privacy, and
government. If one can't see how much some of Orwell's "predictions" have
come to pass, then that person is certainly naive.
EgoistX
"It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion. . ." - Mentat Piter de Vries
Patrick Lange
> Ian MacDonald wrote:
> >
> > In article <73v33j$g90$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Lukas Mariman
> > <bs24...@skynet.be> writes
> > >Ian MacDonald heeft geschreven in bericht ...
> > >>
> flying cars as well.
> Mike
> -------------------------
> "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking
> thirteen."
> -George Orwell, 1984