3 ms·
I don't think it's contrary. First, Blade Runner came BEFORE Neuromancer was released, so it cannot have been a derivative, and there weren't any good represen
by the_af 5y ago
I don't think it's contrary.
First, Blade Runner came BEFORE Neuromancer was released, so it cannot have been a derivative, and there weren't any good representations of the aesthetic on screen either; its visuals broke new ground in many senses. Gibson rightly feared that:
> "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."
[source: https://web.archive.org/web/20070926221513/http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/2003_01_01_archive.asp#90199532 https://web.archive.org/web/20070926221513/http://www.willia...]
Are there any other visual works of cyberpunk that came after Neuromancer and that Gibson praised? There must have been, but how common were they?
Second, I don't think Gibson's main objection was the aesthetic, but rather, that derivative works didn't do anything with it. They just copied, losing the punk spirit and rebelliousness.
- BTCOG 5y agoI think that's a great assessment. Other than being great friends with Bruce Sterling I'm not aware of afterward works considered derivative that he's directly praised. Maybe some Stephenson works and Sterling?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]