Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 127 posts

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

#71

Post by nazgulnarsil »

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…

>but it has not necessarily increased the well-being of the average person

2000-2010 was the greatest decade in all of human history for upraising the standard of living of the human race as a whole. The attitude in this entire comments thread sickens me.

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

#72

Post by coley »

> If we spent the last thirty years inspired by what we saw in Star Trek, what’s going to inspire us for the next thirty?

I think video games, AAA and indie titles alike have got this covered for me. What inspires one man does not inspire another.

It's interesting that we don't see many portrayals of the future of the web or internet either, considering how large of an impact it has had on humanity in the past 20 years.

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

#73

Post by tadfisher »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #62
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…

The discussion here demonstrates the problem. So lets take a moment and think about what we see vs what we do. So if you take the Internet and extend it to its logical next step we've got 20 - 40gbits of bandwidth between everyone and everyone else. We've got parallel rendering pipelines and physics simulation such that you can render a scene that is indistinguishable from reality to our poor brains, and then you can…

What makes you think this isn't our present?

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

#74

Post by noblethrasher »

m0nastic wrote: post #32
noblethrasher wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Fair enough on point 2. But he'd have to be careful about viewing his Twitter account wouldn't he?

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

#75

Post by mhurron »

peterhajas wrote: post #57
saurik wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(Hi, saurik!) Even TNG reimagined the technology of the future through the lens of the 80's and 90's, though. Holodecks, the Borg, Geordi's visor, Data. I think this movie could have been more forward-thinking.

It wouldn't be Star Trek (TOS), not that it really was. TNG took place over 80 years after the events of TOS, of course it looked more advanced.

This is Kirk, Spock and McCoy, their place and point in time in Star Trek history is basically set in stone now. To change it would mean you are not making Star Trek any more.

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

#76

Post by jamesaguilar »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #68
ChuckMcM wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion here demonstrates the problem. So lets take a moment and think about what we see vs what we do. So if you take the Internet and extend it to its logical next step we've got 20 - 40gbits of bandwidth between everyone and everyone else. We've got parallel rendering pipelines and physics simulation such that you can render a scene that is indistinguishable from reality to our poor brains, and then you can…

sadly?

Man, I hope we get there before I buy a farm. Not that I think it's likely, but if I could experience for forever . . . or, instead, if I could just turn of my desire to experience for forever. Either alternative is better than the fate humans meet today.

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

#77

Post by camus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #45
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 prequ…

> 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.

what? ;)

I think there is only one universe. But since it is infinite , there is an infinite copy of ourselves in different times ( since in different places far away from each other). So it is a prequel from the 2009 point of view, but a sequel from the old Star Trek P.O.V.

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

#78

Post by dragonwriter »

vec wrote: post #17
doktrin wrote: post #10

I had this very thought while in the movie theater. However, I chalked it up to being a re-launch of a franchise with a very established lore and universe. This isn't just a "movie about the future". It's Star Trek . With legacy comes baggage. I'm sure there's a small encyclopedia detailing the available technology at the time the movie takes place, as well as potentially canonical books, stories, graphic novels, etc…

Plus since it's (kinda) supposed to be a prequel to NextGen/DS9/Voyager it has to cram itself into that thin wedge between more futuristic than now and noticeably less futuristic than we imagined a decade ago.

> Plus since it's (kinda) supposed to be a prequel to NextGen/DS9/Voyager

While earlier in time than those (and even TOS), its a sequel to most of those (NextGen and DS9 certainly, I don't recall if Voyager has a necessary relationship at all), and not a prequel to anything that has previously come out (film or TV) in the franchise. [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5760215

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

#79

Post by mortenjorck »

Relevant William Gibson commentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11502715

  "In the 1960s I think that in some sense the present was 
  actually about three or four years long," he said, "because 
  in three or four years relatively little would change… The 
  present is really of no width whatever."
Our sci-fi present is making sci-fi harder to write.

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

#80

Post by dinkumthinkum »

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')

I don't really agree. 250 years is a long time if you take account the fact that certain technological innovations incur exponential advancement. In less than 100 years from Edison, we put humans on the moon and not much more than that, we are debating this issue on HN. Compare this 1000 years prior; sure there were innovations but it is clear that advancement is not linear.
Post reply on HN