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

#41

Post by polemic » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:20 PM UTC

Perhaps it could be articulated as an obsession with the physical and technological. 70s futurism revolved around the amazing materials and electronic advances of the time. That continues today, but we have a much better handle on how that technology is shaping our lives. In other words, 'future-tech' is not futurism (any more).

There are other inspirations out there. Hannu Rajaniemi's maths/crypto heavy scifi draws gives us a glimpse of new ways to think about personality, privacy and culture. The Fountain's future parallel provides a very different view of a potential space traveller, and Isaac Asimov's collective work spans so many cultural diversions that have fallen out of fashion just waiting to be re-imagined.

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

#42

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

icebraining wrote: post #23

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')

People alive today still don't believe we were able to get to the moon; what makes you so sure about your predictions?

Scale perhaps?

Moon is 380,000 km away. The nearest galaxy is 1×10^18 km away.

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

#43

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

In the opening issue of the National Review, William F. Buckley said the magazine "stands athwart history, yelling Stop". When their political antithesis ended in the early 1990s, the book that probably best summed up the establishment intellectual view of the time was one which said we were at "The End of History".

I think comments such as these bookending the Cold War speak for themselves. The tendencies of monopoly capitalism have been written about for over a century. Romney's slam of Tesla is part of all that (please don't say Romney was against Tesla due to government breaks - it's more difficult to name a large company not getting government subsidies than one which does get one, including Romney's own Steel Dynamics). The Democratic party is so near this position as well to be almost indistinguishable from the GOP.

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

#44

Post by nknighthb » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:24 PM UTC

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')

Star Trek lore assumes multiple major wars on Earth followed by contact between humans and a significantly more advanced alien race by 2063.

It's not our technology 250 years from now, it's our galactic neighborhood's technology 250 years from now.

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

#45

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:24 PM UTC

cglee wrote: post #7

The latest Star Trek movie was meant as a prequel, so if the movie showcased advanced tech that's not in the original, it would look weird to the Trekkie purists.

> The latest Star Trek movie was meant as a prequel

It was a sequel to the immediately previous Star Trek movie, which itself was, by its own terms, later in causality (though earlier in time) than the last appearance of Spock (or, for that matter, Romulus as an existing planet) in the earlier canon (and, also, later in both time and causality than the most recent TV series.)

The latest Star Trek movie isn't a prequel to anything, since none of the pre-existing canon follows it in causal sequence, its a sequel (though an alternate-universe-earlier-setting-date sequel, for some of the earlier canon) to the earlier canon.

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

#46

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:24 PM UTC

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #19

In immigrant circles, we lament this notion that the first generation works its ass off, the second generation studies its ass off, and the third generation parties its ass off. I think that what we see in cinema is kind of linked. America post-WWII worked and studied its ass off. Then it defeated the Soviets. You ask people today though, what they think of the future, and I think that the picture is bleak not merely…

[deleted]

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

#47

Post by theviciousfish » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:25 PM UTC

Is it possible, that we can only see so far into the future of technology because there is only so far it can go? We assume that we will keep up this rate of innovation forever and continue to evolve intellectually until.... what?

Perhaps the future holds something much more important for our lives than more advanced technology. Perhaps the future will be defined by a greater understanding of our universe through different means, through non technological means.

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

#48

Post by yid » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:26 PM UTC

devindotcom wrote: post #13

yid wrote: post #2

This is a great point. I was wondering what about the new Star Trek movie made me unhappy, beyond the Michael Bay-esque explosions and off-topic banter between characters, the annoying contemporary compulsion to be "dark" and the fact that the plot was drawn out in crayons. This is it! The original Star Trek blew my mind -- warp speed, teleportation, colored people on the bridge! Even TNG had the replicators and the…

You went to a recycled franchise expecting something mind-blowingly new? It's an action-oriented big-budget Star Trek blockbuster - you go to see spaceships crashing into each other. Intelligent sci-fi rarely sells enough tickets to justify a budget in the hundreds of millions. I don't really like the reboot either (wrong tone entirely if you ask me) but you can't say you could expect much after the first, right?

I actually didn't think the first one was as awful as this one. Perhaps it was because of the novelty.

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

#49

Post by michaelfeathers » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:27 PM UTC

There's still a lot of ground to cover with the future. For one thing, everyone assumes minimalism. I can imagine a very lush future with ornate decoration. We could have a renaissance triggered by nearly cost-free manufacturing.

Another vision of the future might be excessively biological. Sci-fi authors have depicted bio-engineered worlds, but cinema doesn't seem to do much with the idea. An old favorite of mine in this area is 'Existenz' by David Cronenberg, but then bio has always been his thing.

Cinema can also do a lot depictions of the future that seem flat out impossible today. For example, imagine identity being fragmented such that people can simultaneously be and experience life in many places at once. I'm not sure how that would ever be possible, but maybe it doesn't have to be explained. It could just be a piece of technology that appears to as as magic, much like a teleporter.

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

#50

Post by intrazoo » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:27 PM UTC

akeck wrote: post #35

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.

Ghost in the Shell is the greatest thing ever. The same director that did the series did Eden of the East which is fun and near term sci-fi. But, also, Dennu Coil might be a series worth checking out. Nowhere near as epic as GitS, but it explores near term AR tech in a thematically interesting way (as well as being a neat case study in movie/show making (due to the whole AR thing)).

Disclaimer: I have not yet finished the series, it is animated, it does not seem to have the type of accuracy that GitS has (but still interesting!), it stars kids, and is somewhat family friendly.