Blade Runner changed the direction of science fiction movies. Heck, it changed the direction of WRITTEN science fiction (and, yes, I'm saying that the movie, not the original book, changed the direction of written SF).
I could go on and on, but I don't want to sound like a fanboy...but Blade Runner was - by its effects - one of the most important cultural artifacts of the second half of the 20th century.
The gushing letter he wrote predicted it's going to be a commercial success. I like the movie too (well, not the terrible theatrical release) but that doesn't mean that letter isn't somewhat nuts.
Heck, it changed the direction of WRITTEN science fiction
Except it didn't. Science fiction was already going there anyway. William Gibson on Blade Runner -
"
BLADERUNNER came out while I was still writing Neuromancer. I was about a third of the way into the manuscript. When I saw (the first twenty minutes of) BLADERUNNER, I figured my unfinished first novel was sunk, done for. Everyone would assume I'd copped my visual texture from this astonishingly fine-looking film.
"
I don't want to sound like a fanboy
Well, you're not doing a very good job of avoiding it. While you're sputtering at me and using all caps you somehow didn't notice I wasn't even talking about the movie. Simply pointing out it's a crazy letter written by a mentally ill person who hadn't even seen it. This fact is quite independent of the quality or cultural impact of the movie.
>> The gushing letter he wrote predicted it's going to be a commercial success. I like the movie too (well, not the terrible theatrical release) but that doesn't mean that letter isn't somewhat nuts.
It may not have been a commercial success immediately in theaters, but given the disc sales, the theater screenings of the director's cut, etc., I think "commercial success" eventually came to be quite true.
Simply pointing out it's a crazy letter written by a mentally ill person who hadn't even seen it.
I'm curious why you feel a person's mental health has anything to do with the correctness of his/her writing. It's an obviously incorrect idea, but I'm wondering why you hold it.
I'm curious why you consider the nutty idea that mental health is completely orthogonal to one's ability to write 'correctly' obvious. If your ability to perceive reality is impaired (say, you're delusional or clinically paranoid or otherwise irrational) you're likely to have a very difficult time accurately representing and interpreting reality in writing.
I'm curious why you consider the nutty idea that mental health is completely orthogonal to one's ability to write 'correctly' obvious. If your ability to perceive reality is impaired (say, you're delusional or clinically paranoid or otherwise irrational) you're likely to have a very difficult time accurately representing and interpreting reality in writing.
If a mentally ill person writes down 1+1=2, the fact that they are mentally ill does not make them any less correct. Being mentally ill may or may not affect the probability that a person will write something correct, but that has nothing to do with the actual correctness of what is ultimately produced. Attempting to disprove what was in the letter by pointing to the author's mental illness is just you being intellectually lazy. You might as well have used his physical height or eye color. These attributes are equally valuable in disproving the correctness of ideas.
You might as well have used his physical height or eye color. These attributes are equally valuable in disproving the correctness of ideas.
No they are not. I'm sorry but your argument is simply stupid and wrong. This is written language, not maths, ideas and thoughts have more dimensions than 'correctness'. If someone mentally ill, there is a higher chance what they write is not reflective of reality. And I wasn't attempting to 'disprove' anything in the letter using his mental illness. The letter is obviously overblown and inaccurate on its face. The guy hadn't even seen the movie! Why was he writing such weird letters? Well, I don't know it for a fact but it seems reasonable to conclude it's because he was mentally ill, not because his eyes were brown. The mental health of the author is a useful piece of information when evaluating a piece of writing. Saying that it isn't is bonkers.
I'm sorry but your argument is simply stupid and wrong.
Well spoken. You're eloquence is overwhelming.
If someone mentally ill, there is a higher chance what they write is not reflective of reality.
I acknowledged that possibility in my previous reply. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I wont discuss that here.
I wasn't attempting to 'disprove' anything in the letter using his mental illness.
Whether you intended to or not, you used his mental illness as a piece of evidence. Your intent doesn't really factor in to the meaning your words convey.
The letter is obviously overblown and inaccurate on its face. The guy hadn't even seen the movie!
This is a valid piece of evidence and the correct way to argue that a piece of writing is incorrect.
The mental health of the author is a useful piece of information when evaluating [the correctness] a piece of writing. Saying that it isn't is bonkers.
Saying that is very, very wrong. Once upon a time we claimed the author's gender and skin color were "useful" pieces of information when evaluating the correctness of the writing of women and black people. This was used as an excuse to not publish the work of these disadvantaged groups. Why do you think we have double blind submissions to scientific journals? The correct and only way to evaluate the correctness of a piece of writing in on the words alone.
My stance is not a controversial one, it is an accepted fact. When correctness is the primary concern, only the writing is examined. Information about the author can be used as a filter (example: submitting an OpEd to the NYTimes), but never as a factor in determining correctness. I've done my best to convince you, but if I have failed at this point we're both just wasting time.
How about CULTURAL success?
Blade Runner changed the direction of science fiction movies. Heck, it changed the direction of WRITTEN science fiction (and, yes, I'm saying that the movie, not the original book, changed the direction of written SF).
I could go on and on, but I don't want to sound like a fanboy...but Blade Runner was - by its effects - one of the most important cultural artifacts of the second half of the 20th century.