Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema • Hacker News Board

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#31

Post by msglenn » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:08 PM UTC

mmanfrin wrote: post #11

I think Star Trek is a bad example, as it's seen as such a prime example of 'good' that it's hard for modern directors/producers to deviate too much from the original feel of the material (beyond modern cinematic tropes). Prior to seeing Star Trek, I watched Oblivion, which seemed to me full of futurism -- it had a ship that had a novel (to modern cinema) ship design, 'drone' design, antagonist design. I think we liv…

I found Oblivion to be an homage to some of the best sci-fi over the past few decades (Moon, The Matrix, Independence Day), an effect that was ruined by the feeling that it took itself too seriously to realize it was an homage.

In terms of derivative sci-fi, I think Oblivion really reinforces the author's point.

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#32

Post by m0nastic » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:08 PM UTC

noblethrasher wrote: post #20

smrtinsert wrote: post #5

I mention this alot to friends as well. We need new sci-fi concepts just like we need new super hero concepts. Think about how outdated a bat signal is, why can't batman check for tweets?

The Bat Signal is more secure. 1. It's inherently asymmetric (Batman can observe the message but messengers cannot observe him). 2. It's highly unlikely to be forged.

1.) Twitter is also asymmetric

2.) I'm pretty sure that what seemed like a good third of the sixties Batman TV show episodes involved Batman showing up to the Bat Signal only to have it have been a trap. (and yes, I consider the TV show to be the canonical Batman).

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#33

Post by joshuak » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:08 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #15

I guess I was watching a different movie, because I saw: - advanced handheld medical scanners and treatments - a genetically engineered human with super strength, health, and intelligence - suspended animation that keeps humans alive for centuries - artificial gravity - faster than light communication and travel - materials strong enough to maintain structural integrity after falling from space and plowing through a…

I think the point was that we've already seen all of those things. These ideas are the future of a writer making TV in the late 60s. Where are the new ideas of our future?

I'd agree the space race inspired amazing science fiction that mostly dried up by the end of the 80s in popular culture. Since then it's been super heroes, robots, and reboots.

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#34

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:10 PM UTC

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #21

I think today's films still have futurism but we don't want to see it as that because they predict the future will be a burned out and destroyed Earth with us living elsewhere. And that is depressing.

Dystopias have always existed; a few decades ago it was nuclear holocaust, now it's ecological destruction, but visions of a destroyed Earth are nothing new.

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#35

Post by akeck » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:11 PM UTC

Of the recent Sci-Fi movies I've seen, I find that Ghost in the Shell feels the most like what I think the medium term future will be - Highly uneven distribution of ever more sophisticated tech and a much more gritty day-to-day existence.

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#36

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:12 PM UTC

auctiontheory wrote: post #29

zipppy wrote: post #14

I tend to have an opposite reaction -- I get annoyed with futurism that is unrealistic compared to how far in the future the story takes place. Even Star Trek is completely unrealistic - it takes place less than 25 decades from now. There's no way we have space vehicles so advanced so soon. (edit: even ignoring 'warp speed')

Perhaps I'm missing your sarcasm, but 2500 years is a very, very, long time. Never mind the last 2500 years - just think how far technology has advanced in the last 250.

25 decades is 250 years, not 2500.

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#37

Post by saurik » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:15 PM UTC

jherdman wrote: post #28

snowwrestler wrote: post #15

I guess I was watching a different movie, because I saw: - advanced handheld medical scanners and treatments - a genetically engineered human with super strength, health, and intelligence - suspended animation that keeps humans alive for centuries - artificial gravity - faster than light communication and travel - materials strong enough to maintain structural integrity after falling from space and plowing through a…

You saw the same movie, but you missed his point: this is the same future that folks in the 70's were predicting, and not one as his own generation sees it.

If it wasn't the same future as predicted in the 70's, it wouldn't have been Star Trek: they may have thrown away all of the later canon, but they couldn't just start over... it wouldn't be the same universe.

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#38

Post by jonnathanson » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:17 PM UTC

Apropos of nothing, Google Glass is remarkably similar -- right down to the design details -- to the navigation glasses used by the bad guys in in Star Trek: DS9. The resemblance is uncanny enough that I have to believe somebody at Google was inspired by the show.

More apropos of the topic at hand: sure, the current version of Trek could be said to be lazy in its futurism. And futurism was certainly a big part of the original Star Trek. This is, after all, the series that gave us such geek staples as the replicator, the transporter, phasers, warp nacelles, and so forth. Even the "cell phones" used in the show were, back in the '60s, freaking crazy by the standards of their day. In a very real sense, yes, it's a crying shame that the new interpretation of Star Trek is not making the bold leaps forward that its predecessor did.

On the other hand, this new interpretation of Star Trek is an attempt at returning an increasingly greying, idiosyncratic, and narrowing universe to a broad audience. It's about mass appeal. It's about emotional storytelling. In some respects, I don't fault Abrams's Trek for not reveling in futurism the way the original Trek did. Abrams has very different strategic goals in mind.

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#39

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:17 PM UTC

Aardwolf wrote: post #30

We went from big CRTs to flat touch screens. What more do you want? A flat touch screen is a pretty practical form, unlike a CRT, so it is kind of the reached target of an evolution imho. Surely gimmics like screens in tshirts, glasses, and what not may appear as well, but a flat hard device simply is a good useful form. I also never saw them charge their devices by plugging them in the wall. There's something that's…

We're very far from the target of the evolution. The screen is still physical, it's not even an in-air projection yet.

And having a screen is itself redundant when you have glasses with true 3D overlaying, where you can just make a screen appear wherever you want with the size you want.

Re: Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema

#40

Post by msluyter » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:18 PM UTC

I don't necessarily disagree with the article so much as view it as tangential to the movie's real problems. What I missed most was that grandly optimistic vision of humanity; the idea that we could transcend its baser, violent instincts and rise to become something nobler. Into Darkness seems somehow... smaller than that -- cops & robbers writ large. Of course, I guess that's true about a lot of the Star Trek movies, so perhaps this is just my nostalgia for the most philosophically engaging of the ST:TOS episodes showing.