In his New York Times article on Ridley Scott, David Carr erroneously calls the look of Scott's "Aliens" and "Blade Runner" films "steampunk."
To quote Wikipedia:
"The term denotes works set in an era or world where steam power is still widely used — usually the
19th century, and often Victorian
era England
— but with prominent elements of either science fiction or fantasy,
such as fictional technological inventions like those found in the works
of H. G. Wells and Jules
Verne, or real technological developments like the computer
occurring at an earlier date. Other examples of steampunk contain alternate history-style presentations of "the path not
taken" of such technology as dirigibles,
analog computers, or digital mechanical computers (such as Charles Babbage's Analytical engine); these frequently are presented in an
idealized light, or with a presumption of functionality."
Tony Scott doesn't know what neorealism is, and David Carr hasn't a clue about steampunk.
So much for corporate film critics.
