Again, this is what I assume he means and I could be way off so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
There are some people who prefer the original's gritty
Chandleresque voice-over narration and the ambiguous happy
ending (both supposedly forced on Scott), but the Final
Cut is a more disturbing tale of dehumanisation.If you are truly clueless of how those images translate to the "Normals" [2] whose only introduction to anything remotely scientific is a staple diet of Ancient Aliens [3] and similar pseudoscience shows on History Channel, then you could really use a road trip through the flyover states of America.
Strike that. Just venture into Tracy or Morgan Hill or Walnut Creek, if you live in the Bay Area.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant
[2] http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/31/the-only-normal-people-are-...
The point that you are making will always seem clear as day to you because you are the one that believes it. The onus is on you to make sure that the rest of the world can understand it if you want to effectively communicate with others. If you have multiple people saying that they don't understand you, throwing up your hands in the air and saying, "Y'all must be trollin'" isn't very useful.
That said, we don't need to delve into fictional cyberpunk dystopias to find examples of "science run amok," so I'm not really understanding how getting movie critics to write editorials criticizing movies that show us bleak futures is all that useful, or necessary.
> [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review
Can you explain this one? I don’t understand why journalists should be “rebutting” SF movies from the early 80s.
I have never heard someone use the plot of Blade Runner as any kind of policy advice... which makes sense because we’re not living in the aftermath of a nuclear war, and we don’t have to deal with escaped androids from off-world colonies. Most of the Blade Runner fans (and fans of the Dick novel) I’ve met are bullish on technology.