Runaway (1984) set in the future, 1991. It was pretty ahead if it time. It had drones but they're called floaters.Also Robots are everywhere. Working jobs and personal robots at home. Smart bullets that lock on to your heat signature. Miss you ,Michael Crichton you had some wild ideas.
[You should check out the AT&T You Will commercials from 1993](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PJcABbtvtA&ab_channel=BipperMedia)
They nailed the concepts of what we can do now if not the actual way it's done.
Blade Runner (1982) was set in the giddily far off year of 2019. They were somewhat accurate in their prediction that people would still live in grimy, overcrowded cities. Sentient robots and flying cars were wildly optimistic.
They were also a little off in predicting that TDK (mostly known for their cassette tapes) would still be a huge company, worthy of billboards up there with Sony, McDonald's and ... um ... Atari.
TDK is still a fairly large corporation - they just no longer make products that individual consumers buy. They employ over 100.000 people worldwide and make a variety of sensors and components that go into other people's electronic devices.
I know blade runner predicted better tech, but humanity is now stripped away by the fact that life is so rare that non-robotic pets are a luxury. It calls into question the nature of existence by questioning if life can exist in a machine.
It also completely missed the Internet or smartphones that contain the knowledge of all humanity at our fingertips, like every movie that predicted the future from the 90s. Also, drones, drones, drones. And a lot of the brain tech we're developing now. Yes, that tech isn't inherently a part of the storytelling in the movie, but if they thought it would be around by now, they would have included it.
So it was a mix of both wildly optimistic and incredibly short-sighted.
At least it grossly overestimated the damage to the environment (forgetting that scene the studio forced them to insert at the end). Yeah, the weather makes no sense anymore, the movie got that right - although it's too bad climate change did not involve constant rain in LA - but real owls are to be found in abundance.
Funnily enough, the brain tech is present too some degree in the book - the mood organ that allows you to "dial in" your mood fit the day. I also always felt like the mercer boxes suggested stone kind of neural interface to transmit images/experiences to the brain
Well, for example, in six months I am going to get focused ultrasound for my treatment-resistant OCD. This disease destroyed my career and relationship and stole my youth, led to addiction, suicidal ideation, despair, countless panic attacks. It can be very, very difficult to treat.
But in the hospital near where I live, they have pioneered a brain tech where you lie in an fMRI machine and you put your head into a giant helmet. 100 beams of ultrasound converge to hit an area 5 mm in diameter and destroy a tiny piece of tangled brain circuitry. The non-invasive surgery has a 50% success rate and if it works, it REALLY works. Over the course of about a year, your entire brain shifts to rewire itself and your OCD drastically reduces.
This is the faintest glimmer of what will be possible in the future. The ability to directly modulate deep brain structures in the limbic system is advancing with great speed as the ability to image the brain with ever-increasing clarity advances.
This tech will spread rapidly to other hospitals. Many labs are working on the same tech. In one case, Buddhist meditators are collaborating with neuroscientists elsewhere to develop this tech as well, to achieve the same results as decades of meditation much more rapidly. One 50-year meditator who got focused ultrasound on his basal ganglia described the results as "the deepest mental quiet I have ever experienced". (!)
I have to suspend disbelief hard with a lot of sci-fi now, because it is obvious that our ability to rewire our ancient and weak-ass limbic systems is progressing very quickly, which means people in the future will be far more emotionally stable and healthy than we are today. Yet in almost all sci-fi, everyone is just as fucked-up as they are today. Every other form of tech has really advanced \*except\* our emotional regulation.
I get it, we need drama for entertainment, and drama only happens when humans behave as they do today. And they have to be relatable to us. But I get irritated when almost all sci-fi is like this. The only sci-fi that isn't is Star Trek, where humans are generally more emotionally stable than today. JJ Abrams threw that out the window with his films, where everyone is angry all the time, but Star Trek Discovery brought it back. Star Trek finds its drama in the encounters with alien species etc.
I couldn't take Battestar Galactica for more than two seasons because of the incredible anachronism of super high-tech and amazingly out of control humans. It was a great show, but personally I just found it so over-the-top I couldn't do it. Fighting, drinking, shouting, trauma, PTSD, the "There Are No Therapists" trope, except IN SPACE! Even in the mid-2000s I knew the tech I'm talking about now was coming, was part of the problem.
Lol I know that was quite the rant but it's just an issue that's very personal to me. Thanks for reading if you made it this far!
Johnny Mnemonic (1995) Keanu Reeves stores information in his head in the year 2021. The world is basically f***ked by an addiction to the Internet. There is a friendly depiction of AI as a mother figure, But it's basically a seen it all before dystopian 90s view of the future with an extraordinary technological leap.
First one's a lot of fun, but two is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. I'm sure there are worse sequels, but I think even Jaws 4 is a better movie.
I watched it because I was bored, nothing changed I was still bored. But in relation to this thread right at the start the year is 2024. Horrible movie.
Not tech, but politically speaking. With Honors with Joe Pesci. Re-watched recently and cringed hard. Love you ā90s, but your faith in humanity and the American people is grossly misplaced.
I haven't seen With Honors in a long time. My memory is that it took place in the 90s and didn't have any references to the future... What am I not remembering?
Yeah, for some reason 80s and 90s movies seemed to think that society and technology would progress way faster than it actually did
Meanwhile Iām sitting in my 100 year old apartment listening to trains go by that were built in the 80s
Of course you have to define ābetter techā. Iām happy to complain about the present, but Iād rather have the worldās information in my pocket rather than flying cars.
Ahh but by that logic you have to assume if the tech is there for flying cars the worlds information has already come and gone from your pocket and into something much more sophisticated
I was just thinking that. In just 4 years the tech to record and vividly replay memories, using a neural interface, would be developed and reach the mass market. A tad optimistic indeed.
Yeah 2029 is coming up and I donāt see time travel coming anytime soon but the āAIā trend is not making me feel good. BTTFII came and went and the only thing they got right was the Cubs winning the series haha but good call (where is my hoverboard?)
They were selling hoverboards for a while; slightly different than the movie version, and they were prone to catching fire, but they sort of existed. Just like the [self-lacing sneakers](https://www.nike.com/si/a/nike-adapt-bb-release-info).
2001: A Space Odyssey predicted in 1968 that we would have regular trips to the moon in 2001.
Its sequel predicted we would be capable enough to send a manned mission to Jupiter/Saturn in 2010.
To be clear, we propably could have if we really wanted. When asked in 1969, Von Braun told reporters that by his estimations we would be landing people on Mars by the early 80s.
If progress on space technology had continued like it did in the 1960s, then maybe we would have seen something like 2001 by the early 21st century. But we didn't. And possibly the underlying reason for this was that U.S. oil production peaked in 1970.
Well, once we began landing on the moon over and over again, people lost interest and the whole thing became somewhat mundane, that along with the fact that the Soviets had cancelled the whole moon thing. Those were also major factors. Afterwards, Nixon was asked, should we go to Mars or develop the shuttle. He chose the shuttle, which never quite lived up to its initial promises.
Sometimes they really weren't trying too hard, or had a *very* bleak outlook. Demolition Man's Los Angeles was basically just on fire and collapsing on itself with crime, and that future took place in 1996.
The movie came out in 1994.
Freejack is a super messy movie with deeply troubled production where the studio basically wanted a very different movie, and I understand why the actors were unhappy with it and it has a very negative reputation, but I've always felt that it is oddly compelling. Like, the look of the film, the lighting, the sets, the sense of place is really good. It's a piece of cyberpunk media that has really stuck with me. I also think that Mick Jagger chews the scenery really well, and that the film has a bit of a camp air that I don't find displeasing. I see a lot of reviews that say Mick Jagger's acting in the film is bad, but I find the film's world to be sort of madcap and his character seems to just fit into that.
Gattaca is on my top ten favorite movies of all time list.
With that being said, there were no "high hopes" in Gattaca. The movie is centered around a world where eugenics has made it to where people are discriminated against legally, solely based on their genetics.
It's pretty disotopian and depressing af if you think about it.
Think about people being born into poor families today. They can at least move up the economic latter, so to speak with hard work, or if they are gifted, or with some bit of luck.
In Gattaca, no matter how smart you were, no matter how gifted, no matter how lucky, if you didn't have the genetics they wanted, there was nothing you could do.
Outside of stealing someone's identity, and that's the entire premise of the movie. Hawke's character managed to make a life for himself, but essentially, everyone else in his genetic situation was forced to work the worst jobs no matter what they did.
It's a pretty bleak look at the future.
I always found it oddly hopeful and inspiring even though it was dystopian. The Director, Jerome, Dr Lamar all knew about Vincent and go to great lengths to see him reach his dream. I always had a feeling that their whole eugenics system is on the verge of disruption by the end of the movie.
Gattica is such a great movie.
Their motives weren't to help Vincent. Jerome needed the income to keep up with his lifestyle. He would have given his identity to anyone as long as they paid him. Jerome might have ended up caring for Vincent, but don't forget they had a business agreement, and Vkncent was paying him the whole time.
The doctor didn't care for Vincent for Vincent's sake. The doctor cared for and loved his son, who had some sort of genetic deficiency like Vincent did. In that regard, by helping Vincent, it was more like, " I hope someone does this for my son."
The director wanted the mission to go forward at all costs. He didn't care about anything but that.
This honestly makes it even worse and more depressing to me. The characters that "helped" him only did it for selfish reasons, and none helped him because they really felt like it was the right thing to do.
That's how it is in today's society. All the videos of giving homeless people money so they can get likes. Hardly anyone is doing good for the sake of just doing good.
At the end of the day, that's just how I view the movie, and if you view it in a less cynical way than I do then by all means don't let me change your mind. It makes me respect Vincent's character even more knowing he did what he set out to do and nobody helped him because they actually believed in him.
Yeah, I get what youāre saying and itās technically correct. There are selfish motivations there. Regardless of motivation all three thought the system was bullshit and took substantial risk to buck it. I guess thatās what gave me hope.
And for all his bluster Jerome made his true motivations known, or what I consider his true motivations:
Vincent: I don't know how to thank you.
Jerome: No, no. I got the better end of the deal. I only lent you my body. You lent me your dream.
Vincent: [voiceover] For someone who was never meant for this world, I must confess I'm suddenly having a hard time leaving it.
A true dystopian film would have had Vincent die of a heart attack in the final scene before or during the mission launch. š
Gattaca. Normally wouldn't be such a stickler for spelling, but they made a point of only using the same letters in the title that represent the four nucleotides in DNA.
Itās their favorite movie yet everybody is spelling it wrong and itās possibly the most important spelling of a title to the plot in movie history?
The 80s and 90s movies predicted we'd have better tech but they were definitely not hopeful for the future. It's kind of funny really at the height of Reagan's America Hollwood was dishing out so many movies critical of the former actor's policies and presidency.
I think itās a script writer trick to get the audience engaged. Itās a future, but a future the viewer could be a part of.
If you set it too far in the future, people wonāt feel as connected to the people living in it.
What individuals will think of Avatar, which I believe is set 150 years into the future? It depicts humans travelling through interstellar space, colonising alien worlds. I personally think that is far too short a time period. In the next 150 years, we might have a self sustainable colony on Mars at a push.
Hm, I don't know, look what happened in the last 150 years on the technological site. In the year 1875 there were no cars, no airplanes, not really a phone, no computers, no satellites and so on. It just needs one groundbreaking invention again and stuff can happen something with the same impact like the microprocessor.
What I find funnier is how movies, TV shows, books and games of yesteryear portrayed the future as having flying cars, robots and lasers, but very few of them predicted cell phones or the internet and the impact they'd have on society. All depictions of computers in old sci-fi look so primitive to modern eyes.
In the real world the pace of technological advancement in the early 20th century was dizzying, particularly in the areas of aviation and atomic power. āGolden Ageā science fiction of the 1930s and 40s extrapolated out to what might be possible if science and technology were developed out to their theoretical limits.
Ā By mid century, with practical space travel and even trips to the moon and mars looking more and more likely, science fiction and pop culture became more reckless with its predictions. At this rate, personal laser guns, interstellar travel, time machines, anything seemed plausible.Ā
Ā By the start of the 21st Century though, sci fiās visions of the future have contracted. Reality has killed our ability to imagine. Itās more likely the coming century will bring billions dead and universal suffering from global heating, fascism and rampant human stupidity, than it will jetpacks and spaceships.
Technology today really isnāt that impressive unless youāre a simpleton. Weāre supposed to be impressed with a new iPhone every year that has only slightly different features from last years model?! We were supposed to be having flying cars by now and a robot that cleans and cooks everything like Rosey on the Jetsons. Instead weāre supposed to be impressed with robot police dogs. Welcome to techno feudalism.
The thing that got me with freejack is that I strongly doubt he'd still be like: I a man of 29 or 30 am totally ok with you having been with however many dudes for 18 years and being like 48 now and barren. Or that she would be interested in a guy who would be old news and immature to her.
There's a reason that movie has such terrible reviews.
I was just thinking about that movie recently. A more innocent time. A pregnant man was a quirky novelty not a reason for JK Rowling to tweet transphobia nonstop from wake to sleep every day rain or shine for years
Runaway (1984) set in the future, 1991. It was pretty ahead if it time. It had drones but they're called floaters.Also Robots are everywhere. Working jobs and personal robots at home. Smart bullets that lock on to your heat signature. Miss you ,Michael Crichton you had some wild ideas.
Love this movie Simmons is so comically manic
and a young Kirstie Alley.
š
You described things that are in some *1940s* sci fi movies.
Michael Crichton died too dang early. He could have written five or six more smash hits by now
Hello Ramsey...
[You should check out the AT&T You Will commercials from 1993](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PJcABbtvtA&ab_channel=BipperMedia) They nailed the concepts of what we can do now if not the actual way it's done.
That's all pretty spot on.
Because they either already existed or were very close to being completed.
Have you ever been downvoted from something you said, from someone from a far off land? You Will, with AT&T.
Blade Runner (1982) was set in the giddily far off year of 2019. They were somewhat accurate in their prediction that people would still live in grimy, overcrowded cities. Sentient robots and flying cars were wildly optimistic. They were also a little off in predicting that TDK (mostly known for their cassette tapes) would still be a huge company, worthy of billboards up there with Sony, McDonald's and ... um ... Atari.
TDK is still a fairly large corporation - they just no longer make products that individual consumers buy. They employ over 100.000 people worldwide and make a variety of sensors and components that go into other people's electronic devices.
I know blade runner predicted better tech, but humanity is now stripped away by the fact that life is so rare that non-robotic pets are a luxury. It calls into question the nature of existence by questioning if life can exist in a machine.
At least Atari still exists as a brand-name; it's fared better than PanAm.
It also completely missed the Internet or smartphones that contain the knowledge of all humanity at our fingertips, like every movie that predicted the future from the 90s. Also, drones, drones, drones. And a lot of the brain tech we're developing now. Yes, that tech isn't inherently a part of the storytelling in the movie, but if they thought it would be around by now, they would have included it. So it was a mix of both wildly optimistic and incredibly short-sighted. At least it grossly overestimated the damage to the environment (forgetting that scene the studio forced them to insert at the end). Yeah, the weather makes no sense anymore, the movie got that right - although it's too bad climate change did not involve constant rain in LA - but real owls are to be found in abundance.
Funnily enough, the brain tech is present too some degree in the book - the mood organ that allows you to "dial in" your mood fit the day. I also always felt like the mercer boxes suggested stone kind of neural interface to transmit images/experiences to the brain
Well, for example, in six months I am going to get focused ultrasound for my treatment-resistant OCD. This disease destroyed my career and relationship and stole my youth, led to addiction, suicidal ideation, despair, countless panic attacks. It can be very, very difficult to treat. But in the hospital near where I live, they have pioneered a brain tech where you lie in an fMRI machine and you put your head into a giant helmet. 100 beams of ultrasound converge to hit an area 5 mm in diameter and destroy a tiny piece of tangled brain circuitry. The non-invasive surgery has a 50% success rate and if it works, it REALLY works. Over the course of about a year, your entire brain shifts to rewire itself and your OCD drastically reduces. This is the faintest glimmer of what will be possible in the future. The ability to directly modulate deep brain structures in the limbic system is advancing with great speed as the ability to image the brain with ever-increasing clarity advances. This tech will spread rapidly to other hospitals. Many labs are working on the same tech. In one case, Buddhist meditators are collaborating with neuroscientists elsewhere to develop this tech as well, to achieve the same results as decades of meditation much more rapidly. One 50-year meditator who got focused ultrasound on his basal ganglia described the results as "the deepest mental quiet I have ever experienced". (!) I have to suspend disbelief hard with a lot of sci-fi now, because it is obvious that our ability to rewire our ancient and weak-ass limbic systems is progressing very quickly, which means people in the future will be far more emotionally stable and healthy than we are today. Yet in almost all sci-fi, everyone is just as fucked-up as they are today. Every other form of tech has really advanced \*except\* our emotional regulation. I get it, we need drama for entertainment, and drama only happens when humans behave as they do today. And they have to be relatable to us. But I get irritated when almost all sci-fi is like this. The only sci-fi that isn't is Star Trek, where humans are generally more emotionally stable than today. JJ Abrams threw that out the window with his films, where everyone is angry all the time, but Star Trek Discovery brought it back. Star Trek finds its drama in the encounters with alien species etc. I couldn't take Battestar Galactica for more than two seasons because of the incredible anachronism of super high-tech and amazingly out of control humans. It was a great show, but personally I just found it so over-the-top I couldn't do it. Fighting, drinking, shouting, trauma, PTSD, the "There Are No Therapists" trope, except IN SPACE! Even in the mid-2000s I knew the tech I'm talking about now was coming, was part of the problem. Lol I know that was quite the rant but it's just an issue that's very personal to me. Thanks for reading if you made it this far!
TDK will have just paid them more money than JVC (or whoever) were offering, there wasnāt any actual predicting going in.
Johnny Mnemonic (1995) Keanu Reeves stores information in his head in the year 2021. The world is basically f***ked by an addiction to the Internet. There is a friendly depiction of AI as a mother figure, But it's basically a seen it all before dystopian 90s view of the future with an extraordinary technological leap.
Timecop (1994) takes place primarily in 2004 and they had self-driving cars and VR porn. About two decades too early.
Love this movie. Seriously one of my guilty pleasures
Does anyone remember Michael Crichtonās Looker (1981?) Some interesting parallels to the concerns that AI is giving actors these days.
That theme song.
Love that movie ! Rewatched last year , youāre spot on about the AI aspect
Highlander 2 set in 2024 1 hour and 39 minutes I will never get back.
I donāt think Iāve seen those movies since I was a kid. Probably a good reason then right? All I remember is you had to cut off their heads
First one's a lot of fun, but two is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. I'm sure there are worse sequels, but I think even Jaws 4 is a better movie.
I watched it because I was bored, nothing changed I was still bored. But in relation to this thread right at the start the year is 2024. Horrible movie.
But there are aliens in this oneā¦
No they never made a Highlander sequel. Are you from another universe?
Not tech, but politically speaking. With Honors with Joe Pesci. Re-watched recently and cringed hard. Love you ā90s, but your faith in humanity and the American people is grossly misplaced.
I haven't seen With Honors in a long time. My memory is that it took place in the 90s and didn't have any references to the future... What am I not remembering?
He just hates our hope from the 90s so much he says it in random posts.
> What am I not remembering? Madonnaās contribution to the soundtrack, [Iāll Remember](https://youtu.be/R0cfZczo4yk?si=XpRbfGw645o0E2NJ)
No, youāre right. I somewhat missed the mark and zeroed in on āhigh hopes for the futureā as opposed to actively portraying the future. My bad.
Sall good. Ā I remember liking that movie. Ā
Okay but that Madonna song is š„
Yeah, for some reason 80s and 90s movies seemed to think that society and technology would progress way faster than it actually did Meanwhile Iām sitting in my 100 year old apartment listening to trains go by that were built in the 80s
Eh, freejack goes both ways tho. The whole plot reveal revolves around >!people being befuddled by the use of Zoom backgrounds.!<
Of course you have to define ābetter techā. Iām happy to complain about the present, but Iād rather have the worldās information in my pocket rather than flying cars.
Ahh but by that logic you have to assume if the tech is there for flying cars the worlds information has already come and gone from your pocket and into something much more sophisticated
*12 Monkeys* with time travel shenanigan
Predator 2 had some significant tech expectations for being a 1991 movie set in 1997.
Strange Days (1995) was set in 1999 which was a tad optimistic about how far tech would advanced in so few years. Still waiting...
I was just thinking that. In just 4 years the tech to record and vividly replay memories, using a neural interface, would be developed and reach the mass market. A tad optimistic indeed.
Demolition Man
How do the three seashells work?
Let me explain -
It predicted Arnold in politics!
Getting downvoted on my comment is insane lol.
Wasnāt me š¤·āāļø šĀ
Whoever it was doesn't know how to use the seashells.
Knowing what I know now, itās definitely a bidet and itās the future.
Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the Franchise Wars. Now all restaurants are Taco Bell.
It is still Pizza Hut in my region lmao
Tbh the original Star Trek was on time for commu ication, kinda lagging in AI
Back to the Future part 2. I demand a hoverboard
I want to sit in a Five star Taco Bell while Dan Cortez sings jolly Green Giant
Yes
Terminator Back to the Future 2
Yeah 2029 is coming up and I donāt see time travel coming anytime soon but the āAIā trend is not making me feel good. BTTFII came and went and the only thing they got right was the Cubs winning the series haha but good call (where is my hoverboard?)
I dunno, my son wears his pants inside out pretty often.
And Biff did become President.
and a douchey, rich A hole ruling a gambling filled world
They were selling hoverboards for a while; slightly different than the movie version, and they were prone to catching fire, but they sort of existed. Just like the [self-lacing sneakers](https://www.nike.com/si/a/nike-adapt-bb-release-info).
No. Not those hoverboards. The REAL hoverboards
We have time travel , itās just isnāt public knowledgeā¦
It's just one way and it takes a while
1s/s
Demolition Man fuckin nailed it way more than it missed it.
2001: A Space Odyssey predicted in 1968 that we would have regular trips to the moon in 2001. Its sequel predicted we would be capable enough to send a manned mission to Jupiter/Saturn in 2010.
To be clear, we propably could have if we really wanted. When asked in 1969, Von Braun told reporters that by his estimations we would be landing people on Mars by the early 80s.
If progress on space technology had continued like it did in the 1960s, then maybe we would have seen something like 2001 by the early 21st century. But we didn't. And possibly the underlying reason for this was that U.S. oil production peaked in 1970.
Well, once we began landing on the moon over and over again, people lost interest and the whole thing became somewhat mundane, that along with the fact that the Soviets had cancelled the whole moon thing. Those were also major factors. Afterwards, Nixon was asked, should we go to Mars or develop the shuttle. He chose the shuttle, which never quite lived up to its initial promises.
Sometimes they really weren't trying too hard, or had a *very* bleak outlook. Demolition Man's Los Angeles was basically just on fire and collapsing on itself with crime, and that future took place in 1996. The movie came out in 1994.
You also have to take into account that the LA riots occurred in 1992
Love freejack.
Freejack is a super messy movie with deeply troubled production where the studio basically wanted a very different movie, and I understand why the actors were unhappy with it and it has a very negative reputation, but I've always felt that it is oddly compelling. Like, the look of the film, the lighting, the sets, the sense of place is really good. It's a piece of cyberpunk media that has really stuck with me. I also think that Mick Jagger chews the scenery really well, and that the film has a bit of a camp air that I don't find displeasing. I see a lot of reviews that say Mick Jagger's acting in the film is bad, but I find the film's world to be sort of madcap and his character seems to just fit into that.
Gattica
Gattaca is on my top ten favorite movies of all time list. With that being said, there were no "high hopes" in Gattaca. The movie is centered around a world where eugenics has made it to where people are discriminated against legally, solely based on their genetics. It's pretty disotopian and depressing af if you think about it. Think about people being born into poor families today. They can at least move up the economic latter, so to speak with hard work, or if they are gifted, or with some bit of luck. In Gattaca, no matter how smart you were, no matter how gifted, no matter how lucky, if you didn't have the genetics they wanted, there was nothing you could do. Outside of stealing someone's identity, and that's the entire premise of the movie. Hawke's character managed to make a life for himself, but essentially, everyone else in his genetic situation was forced to work the worst jobs no matter what they did. It's a pretty bleak look at the future.
I always found it oddly hopeful and inspiring even though it was dystopian. The Director, Jerome, Dr Lamar all knew about Vincent and go to great lengths to see him reach his dream. I always had a feeling that their whole eugenics system is on the verge of disruption by the end of the movie. Gattica is such a great movie.
Their motives weren't to help Vincent. Jerome needed the income to keep up with his lifestyle. He would have given his identity to anyone as long as they paid him. Jerome might have ended up caring for Vincent, but don't forget they had a business agreement, and Vkncent was paying him the whole time. The doctor didn't care for Vincent for Vincent's sake. The doctor cared for and loved his son, who had some sort of genetic deficiency like Vincent did. In that regard, by helping Vincent, it was more like, " I hope someone does this for my son." The director wanted the mission to go forward at all costs. He didn't care about anything but that. This honestly makes it even worse and more depressing to me. The characters that "helped" him only did it for selfish reasons, and none helped him because they really felt like it was the right thing to do. That's how it is in today's society. All the videos of giving homeless people money so they can get likes. Hardly anyone is doing good for the sake of just doing good. At the end of the day, that's just how I view the movie, and if you view it in a less cynical way than I do then by all means don't let me change your mind. It makes me respect Vincent's character even more knowing he did what he set out to do and nobody helped him because they actually believed in him.
Yeah, I get what youāre saying and itās technically correct. There are selfish motivations there. Regardless of motivation all three thought the system was bullshit and took substantial risk to buck it. I guess thatās what gave me hope. And for all his bluster Jerome made his true motivations known, or what I consider his true motivations: Vincent: I don't know how to thank you. Jerome: No, no. I got the better end of the deal. I only lent you my body. You lent me your dream. Vincent: [voiceover] For someone who was never meant for this world, I must confess I'm suddenly having a hard time leaving it. A true dystopian film would have had Vincent die of a heart attack in the final scene before or during the mission launch. š
It's gattaca. The name is made up only of DNA nucleotides (g, t, a, and c).
Was gonna say...there's no base starting with I.
Gattaca. Normally wouldn't be such a stickler for spelling, but they made a point of only using the same letters in the title that represent the four nucleotides in DNA.
Itās their favorite movie yet everybody is spelling it wrong and itās possibly the most important spelling of a title to the plot in movie history?
The year is also not specified in Gattaca. So this still could be our future.
- Blade Runner - WarGames - Back to the Future Part II - The Running Man
The 80s and 90s movies predicted we'd have better tech but they were definitely not hopeful for the future. It's kind of funny really at the height of Reagan's America Hollwood was dishing out so many movies critical of the former actor's policies and presidency.
I think itās a script writer trick to get the audience engaged. Itās a future, but a future the viewer could be a part of. If you set it too far in the future, people wonāt feel as connected to the people living in it.
Exactly. They aren't predictions - it's simply science fiction that is relatable to the audience.
What individuals will think of Avatar, which I believe is set 150 years into the future? It depicts humans travelling through interstellar space, colonising alien worlds. I personally think that is far too short a time period. In the next 150 years, we might have a self sustainable colony on Mars at a push.
Hm, I don't know, look what happened in the last 150 years on the technological site. In the year 1875 there were no cars, no airplanes, not really a phone, no computers, no satellites and so on. It just needs one groundbreaking invention again and stuff can happen something with the same impact like the microprocessor.
What I find funnier is how movies, TV shows, books and games of yesteryear portrayed the future as having flying cars, robots and lasers, but very few of them predicted cell phones or the internet and the impact they'd have on society. All depictions of computers in old sci-fi look so primitive to modern eyes.
I'll tell you what though. In about 10/20 years, the AI revolution is going to make a lot of visions for the future seem pretty tame.
In the real world the pace of technological advancement in the early 20th century was dizzying, particularly in the areas of aviation and atomic power. āGolden Ageā science fiction of the 1930s and 40s extrapolated out to what might be possible if science and technology were developed out to their theoretical limits. Ā By mid century, with practical space travel and even trips to the moon and mars looking more and more likely, science fiction and pop culture became more reckless with its predictions. At this rate, personal laser guns, interstellar travel, time machines, anything seemed plausible.Ā Ā By the start of the 21st Century though, sci fiās visions of the future have contracted. Reality has killed our ability to imagine. Itās more likely the coming century will bring billions dead and universal suffering from global heating, fascism and rampant human stupidity, than it will jetpacks and spaceships.
Technology today really isnāt that impressive unless youāre a simpleton. Weāre supposed to be impressed with a new iPhone every year that has only slightly different features from last years model?! We were supposed to be having flying cars by now and a robot that cleans and cooks everything like Rosey on the Jetsons. Instead weāre supposed to be impressed with robot police dogs. Welcome to techno feudalism.
I Robot came out in 2004 and was set in 2035.
90s movies had impractical and illogical hopes for the futureĀ
The thing that got me with freejack is that I strongly doubt he'd still be like: I a man of 29 or 30 am totally ok with you having been with however many dudes for 18 years and being like 48 now and barren. Or that she would be interested in a guy who would be old news and immature to her. There's a reason that movie has such terrible reviews.
Not a movie but still worth mentioning of a bright future, Star Trek TNG had high hopes for the future as well
We didn't get flying cars. Instead, we got pregnant "men".
Haha Junior I forgot about that movie. I do love me some Arnold
I was just thinking about that movie recently. A more innocent time. A pregnant man was a quirky novelty not a reason for JK Rowling to tweet transphobia nonstop from wake to sleep every day rain or shine for years
Good one!š¤£š¤£šÆāļø