Compare the 2016 you saw in 20th-century sci-fi to 2016 today and say that again.
Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.
The fake Apple car didn't impress you.
shareI believe that may be one of the points. The future is closer than you think.
shareIt's not that far into the future...as far the clothes go, fashion is often retro..the portrayal of the tech is also pretty consistent with the our current trajectory.
shareI think the objection has less to do with the trajectory and more the velocity.
I'm only 10 minutes into the pilot at the moment, but you could throw the tech from this show into one 10 years in the future and it would only seem mildly optimistic. But 60 years? It just feels uninspired.
Of course, the reasonable response is that large swaths of civilization have collapsed, so maybe things were set back a bit.
I'm only 10 minutes into the pilot at the moment, but you could throw the tech from this show into one 10 years in the future and it would only seem mildly optimistic.
I didn't author it, I joined an existing discussion.
And yes, what do my viewing habits have to do with my opinion? If I'd criticized the plot, sure, call me out for not having seen the plot. I was discussing the setting and the date, deal with it.
I'm now caught up with the show and my opinion stands, maybe I'd tweak the 10 to a 15, 20 at most.
But talking about people who have nothing to contribute, what the *beep* are you doing? You're not even talking about the show, just responding to month old comments to complain about people who are. *beep* off.
David Brin I think it was said something about like this when writing sci-fi "If you write 5 years in the future, well, you have some good and reasonable guesses there, if it's 500 years, well, you can just do whatever you want, but 50 years - that's a lot harder to determine."
Thats a very loose paraphrase, but it makes the point.
Real scifi is not about gadgets and SFX gimmicks. Ok, this is not real scifi, it's crap, but "futuristic" doesn't mean flying cars.
In the 20th century, "futuristic" movies taking place in 2000 all had us in flying cars, living on other planets and with robotic implants.
In reality, the leaps and bounds of technology have been microscopic but caused huge tectonic shifts in our world. Nobody in the 1960ies could predict the electronic revolution and it may not be as flashy as flying cars but it's much bigger.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
Society has sort of collapsed and in falling apart. It's not even stagnating, it's decaying. You aren't going to have lots of innovation if resources have dried up to the point that even water is rationed to everyone but the top 1%. It's not the wealthy that are the innovators, it's the hungry. That's why they have to go out to the boonies to find really innovative electronics. Necessity is the mother of invention, but if you are part of the 1%, there's never any incentive to be innovative. Furthermore, you don't need new kinds of transportation, if 99% of the world can't pay for it.
A lot of those shiny futures you see in traditional science fiction can only exist in worlds of wealth and plenty. But this is more of a Cyberpunk style world (a subgenre of science fiction that was more in vogue, at least in its literary forms, back in the 1980s and '90s). There's still some cyberpunk written today, but that was when it was most popular. TV and Movie science fiction can sometimes be slow to catch on to those kinds of trends. Think more Bladerunner, less Star Trek.
right, thanks for the post:)
share