A perception of the future already exists once people have watched just about any science fiction movie, that the world to come will be dark, misty, and horrible.
The other half was to do with the environment in Blade Runner, and how well it compliments and carries the weight of the film.
Yet, even if these worlds might seem hopeless, there are still heroes there, fighting against the stacked deck, and against their better judgment, for some sense of right and wrong.
Which isn't much, but it's something, and if that's the case, then maybe there's hope for us, yet.
The idea of the future culture clashed with Scott s, but there is something about the rain soaked Los Angeles that suggested more truth.
Scott s views of the future fit in with the expected contexts science fiction displays, and therefore half of the narrative comes from our own ideology as readers.
The main question Scott poses, is how could we call some brain dead drug addict who spends ninety percent of the time without human consciousness a human, and decide that a replicant is not.
The only way you can tell replicants apart from humans is the Kemp -Voigt test, this is a process of multiple questions which determines replicants by their lack of feelings and emotions to events, comparing it to the ideal feelings which humans should feel.
v=Sqoxk3Sr ZRw It's almost impossible to imagine a world without the aesthetic of , and just as inconceivable that no one thought to combine the two essential American genres, noir and science-fiction, before Philip K. Furthermore, it is probably worth meditating on the fact that for most adults, 2017 seemed at one time not so long ago like a distant vista, full of impossible promises.
And yet, here in that 'future,' we find the world to be not only oddly similar to the one we remember, but different in ways that are strange and disorienting.