Star Trek, tech companies, and the death of futurism in cinema | Hacker News Reader

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

medium.com

83 pointsestenh123 comments

Open articleView on HN

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 city

- matter transference across light years

I think the issue here is that author only paid attention to the elements that seem familiar, and dismissed the rest as fantasy. Of course handheld communicators and tablet computers were once fantasy too.

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 project all the moving pieces between any group of people.

So in a plausible future everyone is sitting inside a brain jar experiencing a 'shared world' in what is not unlike a giant World of Warcraft type experience, including the ability to do magic, conjure things out of thin air. While nutrients feed what's left of our bodies.

Is that exciting? Does that make for dramatic movies? No. But sadly it is the current path we are on.

Well, more likely the technology will get to the point where we download ourself in a machine or virtual VM - no need for keeping the brain in a jar.

That leads to plenty of interesting Asimov like thinking, except instead of AI and Robot, it would be us vs virtual us.

Also what happens with buffer copies, backup. How do you define being human at all ? Or even more basically the very concept of time become weird.

It is not necessary that a virtualised human would not have access to the external world. Maybe you can upload yourself, control animal, why not culturing special type of synthetic bodies for recreation ?

To me that does not look so bad at all, and there is definitively non-boring science-fiction material in there.

Much of the above are depicted in depth by Peter F. Hamilton's books, such as the Pandora's Star or Fallen Dragon.

I was thinking of Daniel Suarez's Freedom (TM) book when I read this thread.

Greg Bear's Eon trilogy also touches on People-as-VM issues

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.

What makes you think this isn't our present?

That isn't the question though, once you know you are living in a simulation what happens? This was a very interesting question that was raised in the TV show Caprica (a Battlestar Galactica prequel series). If you know it is a simulation then you can just do what ever the heck you want, reboot/restart when necessary. Doesn't make for interesting cinema or literature as the question of future value / future outcome vs present action / inaction is what creates tension.

The tension could come from others not knowing they're in a simulation. Oh, The Matrix.

As always, Gren Egan has done this stuff too.

You still could suffer lasting psychological damage.

Probably the best argument there is Occam's Razor. A heuristic it may be, but it has proved useful many times. Though I've often wondered if it truly has that much cosmic power, or if it becomes useless at that scale.

Why "sadly"?

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.

(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.

TNG had to, they're the future; the current movie is the time-line of the original Trek; they can't do that, it wouldn't make sense.

The new movies were backward thinking by design. Into Darkness takes place 5 years before TOS and 100 years before TNG. Any radically new federation technology inserted there but not shown in TOS/TNG would just look out of place and be held against it.

New technology like transwarp beaming? :/

(I suggest you re-watch the 2009 movie.)

It's the major technology that wasn't in TNG, DS9, or Voyager, or the TNG movies... Unless you're arguing that the 2009 movie shouldn't be considered to have any continuity with those, in spite of authorial attempts to ensure that it does? But that doesn't seem to have been your argument. :)

I was trying not to ruin the 2009 movie for people who haven't seen it, but read Steko's response to johnny_eh. This is not some weird timeline inconsistency by the mistake of the writers... this is actually a weird timeline inconsistency by design of the in-universe plot. (If Steko's description then itself seems impossible, re-watch the TNG episode Relics.)

As a bonus that episode features a Dyson sphere (no Tholians though).

But why is that in this new timeline? Was there a line in there about Eric Bana bringing it back from the future? I thought Scottie just invented it.

Scotty & Spock figured it out near the post-TNG timeframe and future Spock gives reboot Scott the solution.

Just as an aside there's a hilarious Cracked post about how transwarp beaming obsoletes the Enterprise.

They couldn't create tech that was TOO forward thinking, IE creating tech that might be seen around the time of TNG - given that as a franchise they could still mine a reboot of TNG if the well for Kirk-era Star Trek runs dry.

I wasn't disappointed by the tech. To be frank, I think that they're simply giving themselves room to continue making money with rebooting other Star Trek franchises in the future

Ok for Star Trek, keep the universe. But the point is still valid: movies (and science fiction) do not propose up to date prediction of the futures.

I came to say something similar. Much of the tech like light-speed travel and other advances will not be around for a very long time, perhaps never. There's a fine line between sci-fi and fantasy. Lots of ideas have been done in other movies, like The Matrix, with instant learning through brain programming, lifelike VR simulations. Men in Black, Thor, Contact, Aliens go from sci-fi to unrealistic fantasy.

I think Star Trek tries to maintain a balance that still looks attainable. Also, perhaps there's a shortage of grandiose discoveries lately. We know the Higgs exists, the universe is flat from WMAP, quantum entanglement is gaining practical use. But this isnt as useable for movies as say discovering that we live in a universe with other galaxies, etc...

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.

It was a prequel. If he wanted something new, he shouldn't have gone to see a movie that was set in a time period between the original TV show and the present day.

I think the real issue is that Hollywood isn't interested in developing new franchises, or even stand-alone projects.

Instead, they are content to recycle the same characters, plot lines and assumptions.

Just like Silicon Valley isn't interested in investing in risky technology anymore, Hollywood isn't interested in investing in risky new ideas.

This, more than anything else, is a sure sign that the front-line of history and our collective future is happening somewhere else.

I haven't seen the movie, but weren't all the items in your list pretty standard fare for dreamers 30-40 years ago? I mean, the Star Trek TOS series introduced most of those ideas, and the series that followed expanded on them, philosophically or aesthetically.

It's difficult to deny, IMO, that human imagination as far as the future is concerned has not dreamed up anything beyond what was conceived by the early grandmasters of science fiction literature and television.

I guess the author was lamenting the absence of things such as the 3D user interfaces from Minority Report.

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. In this context, the writers have limited wiggle room in which to dream up "tomorrow's technology".

On the flipside, it's also a bit inspiring to see that some of that which was considered sci-fi less than a generation ago is now hum-drum reality.

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.

Let's talk about this thin wedge (hopefully without spoilers). I understand that this is a relaunch of the series but I think they did it wrong. It probably would've been blasphemy to throw it all out the door, and 'historically' the same things can happen but they really should be ignoring everything from TOS.

Will we see VGER? The monolith from 'Voyage Home' (ST4) must make an appearance, right? I mean we have to assume that whales are still extinct in the alternate timeline. Will Praxis explode resulting in 'Undiscovered Country' (ST6)?

I think you missed the point of the reboot, Vulcan was destroyed, the time-line forever altered, this crew isn't going to re-live the events of the original crew.

Is that really true? Avoiding spoilers apparently this most recent movie has proved otherwise.

Vulcan being destroyed doesn't stop VGER and it doesn't stop the monolith. It probably does change the Klingons so maybe 'Undiscovered Country' doesn't happen.

> 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

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 live in a world that is quickly gaining the capability of creating our ideas, so those things that were fantastical in the 70s but trope today are not as easy to devine today.

I was just thinking the other day that I sincerely enjoy how Scifi is quickly becoming a mainstay of modern film, because it means more scifi films to invent some novel idea of the future. You really should not be basing your assumptions of modern cinema off of a remake.

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.

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 because of the economic malaise, but because people don't know what to strive for.

In a competitive sense, who are we fighting? Our ostensible enemies are (1) the lunatic fringe of Islam and maybe also Christianity, and (2) China/India, depending on who looks more fearful in any given year, except the West also trades and intermarries with those cultures. I think the kicker is that Westerners don't even fetish after Chinese and Indians the way they used to.

Now in a purely constructive sense, what does the future hold? Well we've already seen that the tech industry simply isn't providing jobs for most people the way that manufacturing did. And why should it? Lets face it, our culture is not one that really values math or science or engineering. Most of you weren't popular when you were kids, am I right? It's not nice to hoard all of the pie, but it's not easy to share it on these terms either. The best programmers are supposedly 10x-100x better than the average ones, so even if more people did get into tech, they'd probably be discouraged and see it to be insurmountably difficult, and they might be right.

Tech has increased the productivity of workers in the West, but it has not necessarily increased the well-being of the average person, and that's what cinema was originally made for. It is a mass media. It caters to the common man, and the common man probably thinks better of the past than the future. I think it isn't surprising then that the latest Star Trek actually feels strangely like a retro-future, or that the tech in it is just shiny polished toys. I think that's the real danger here, that in tech, we will simply just relegate ourselves to making shiny toys for people, and all they do is consume. That's probably not the path to a healthy future for our society.

It may be instructive to look at a series like Firefly, or even BSG. When people are feeling down, they want to be empathized, and Firefly assuages that in a way. In the future, even if things all go to hell, some people will still make it out, by the ties they share and their ingenuity.

>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.

Human history is a story of people nostalgic for the past, believing things are going to hell, oblivious to improvements.

When I was born two big countries had nuclear weapons pointed at each other with the very realistic possibility of exchange. Everything we built could be eradicated in an hour or two. We are quite better off.

I'm reminded of a history class I had relatively recently. We were talking about the cold war, and the issue of modern terrorism came up. My history teacher made the point that, looking back, many people are nostolgic because in the cold war, the president could pick up the phone to the soviets and talk to someone rational.

I doubt anyone at the time thought that.

> When I was born two big countries had nuclear weapons pointed at each other with the very realistic possibility of exchange.

The only time at which that hasn't been true was a brief period during the early-mid 1990s. India and Pakistan are not small countries.

`Do not ask, ``Why were the old days better than these?'' For it is not wise to ask such questions.' (Ecclesiastes 7:10)

Besides that this completely missed the context, that we are talking about the American mass media, and American nostalgia, I'd argue that time will have to tell on this matter. 2000-2010 started well for most of the world, but major faults were revealed in the global economic system. We may well look back on this time period much as we would with the Roaring 20's. What if most of the growth was fake? What if it really were all just financed by deficit spending on the part of the West, and that China, India and the rest of the developing world cannot uphold their current levels of infrastructure, let alone their level of prosperity?

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 AI computer and Data. What do we get now? Tired, topical tropes of terrorists and characters recycled from the Wrath of Khan. For a recycled franchise, there isn't anything mind-blowingly new.

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.

Missing the grand thought experiment of an emotion-driven Spock, they just passed over the character development entirely.

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.

TOS showed technology, but the technology rarely interfered with people being people as we know them from every day life. People in TOS had replicators; we have fast food.

The coming next generations of technologies may well remake our species is ways that make everyday experience difficult to understand and distracting to narrative story. They may be intellectually interesting, but it would be difficult in a movie. From third paragraph illustrates the point.

I do like your first point, with respect to Star Trek. Certainly we can have both minimalism and exotic baroque lushness, sitting side by side.

I'm glad someone mentioned Existenz. God, that movie is weird, but it's definitely very unique in its biological approach to sci-fi. Very interesting though, check it out if you haven't yet.

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.

This article brought up a good point. But while Star Trek is a vision of the future from the past, there is plenty of SciFi out there from very talented people with extremely fertile imaginations that is just waiting for some young filmmaker to take a chance on and deliver us a new Star Wars or Star Trek type franchise. The books I have run across in that have been published in more recent years cover everything from hard scifi that could be a reality today with a ton of money and the will to engineer it into existence, to the really fun theoretical stuff out there on what could be...

I myself have a preference/hope to live in the universe that Peter Hamilton conjures up in Pandora's Star. Its everything that got me into Star Trek as a kid and so much more. That is just one of many books that give me hope for our near and distant future and what could be...even if a bunch of it seems as far from reality for us as iPhones were in 1969.

I think we can see where the future is going well enough to know what it's going to look a lot less like the Enterprise and a lot more like the Borg.

It just doesn't make for good cinema.

Talking computers, ubiquitous tablets, massive electronic knowledge store all seem pretty Enterprise-y to me.

Beyond that, the Borg definitely make for good cinema.

Lots of wrong in that post ;)

> Talking computers, ubiquitous tablets, massive electronic knowledge store all seem pretty Enterprise-y to me.

That's the present, not 100 years in the future.

> Beyond that, the Borg definitely make for good cinema.

Not if we're the Borg.

Of course when you take out convenient and safe space travel, it's easy to say there's nothing to strive for, technologically. Try having the same opinion while leaving space travel in the conversation, especially with FTL travel. And infinite non-polluting energy sources. And superior medical technology. And the end of hunger and poverty. And dozens of other innovations in the Star Trek world that are pipe-dreams right now. There's plenty left to invent and innovate. If all you focus on is furniture and hand-held devices then you're not thinking big enough, and you will be disappointed.

Personally, I think the fact that you didn't even notice the more world-changing advances in the background to be a credit to the movie; a world like that was so believable that you didn't even notice how far away it actually is.

OP is not alone. I saw the trailer for elysium and immediately thought, Rendezvous with Rama ( 50 yrs old ). For me, part of the problem with envisioning a future that is so much 'more' than what we have today, on the order of how Star Trek was in the 60s, is a consequence of how much our scientists understand 'limits' today than they did then. Elevated freeways, and floating cars, simply aren't practical given our understanding of physics and energy. The most practical 'sf' that we've seen lately is about human simulation, and as far as the big screen goes, that's pretty boring. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but since the transistor, we've seen three waves of digitization, digitization of tools ( calculator ), digitization of human society/social interaction ( message-boards -> facebook ), and finally we are beginning the third and final stage, digitization of ourselves ( quantified self, implantable bio-tech ). This 'second renaissance' if you will seems to end with human virtualization ( after which no reasonable extrapolation seems plausible ).

From a SF big-picture sort of movie archetype, this stuff seems pretty tired, thin and boring. I think we are only beginning to understand the societal implications of the first two waves of digitization, and even the most hardcore dystopia hasn't yet captured all the avenues of the third. Seems to me, Hollywood can only make blockbusters profitable, and the type of SF that we are envisioning now is a lot more subtle.

Reading the comments here, then most of the article itself, I couldn't help thinking "so what?" I like the older Trek and it was clearly impressively ahead of its time, but the new ones (despite the fact that I really enjoyed the reboot, at least the first film) aren't intended to be anything more than action movies with reheated characters.

On finishing the article... I'm closer to siding with the author. I don't know if it's the rational-rather-than-nostalgic way it's written or what, but it does make me feel like we're selling ourselves short, and it definitely wakens an old question: What might the future look like, if it changes as much as we've seen things change since that venerable original series?

I don't think looking to the tech industry is fair; that is and always has been about business. But Hollywood is sticking to the safe franchises even more than they ever have with the advent of comic book movies (another thing I've enjoyed some of, but they've been done to death several times over). There have been some really good science fiction series in the last decade, but in the vein of this article, I can't really think of any that really pushed the envelope in terms of futurism with technology.

I actually find this a bit more inspiring than morbid, though. What could be coming? Childlike wonder, here I come! :)

When I try to think of scifi that really seems like "the future", I have a hard time thinking of any movies. But I can think of some novels that fill the role. The one that comes to mind most immediately is Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age, which revolves quite a bit around super advanced nanotechnology and AI. I could see a film adaptation of that being fairly awesome.

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.

If you like japanese cyber punk checkout

Goku Midnight Eye Cyber City Oedo AD Police

Thank you, will do!

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).

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

It's a movie set in an already defined universe, you can't just start adding new technology because we invented the cell phone. There's still a bloody lot we're missing, and just because those things are way above the comprehension of a non-physicist doesn't make them any less inspiring. It'll just inspire future generations to become physicists, to build things like transporters, artificial gravity, phasers, warp drives and huge spaceships. Just because we have tablet computers doesn't degrade the rest of the inspiration Star Trek still provides, and I think that's where this article completely misses the point. If you look at faster than light travel as a 70s idea, there's something seriously wrong with your view of the future.

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.

Spoiler Alert, HCI elements will plateau at voice control and touch displays. Why? Because the human body is what it is. It isn't going any further than that until it jumps to something matrix style, but that movie has already been made. Alien Computer Interaction however could offer some interesting opportunities.

Forget hoverboards and dick tracy watches, Star Trek still has plenty of imaginitive technologies that don't yet exist. Between cold fusion, warp drive, teleporters, transcoders, etc... there is still plenty of good tech to make an entertaining movie with.

http://www.frontiersin.org/human_neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum....

We've been directly stimulating the acoustic nerve since the 1960s. The first commercial "bionic eye" was FDA approved in February. Various brain-computer interfaces, invasive and not, have proven practical if still rather crude over the last 20 years.

"Matrix style" is already here, it just doesn't use a giant SO-239 in the back of the head.

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.

Could the dystopian future : happy future ratio be a valid metric for how our society feels that society and the future itself is going? If so, then perhaps we, the general public, no longer (or infrequently now) see a happy future, but a dystopian one, at least in the next 200 years

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.

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.

> 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.

I think we're tired, the future is here and it's exhausting. Doing the work of the present future is challenging and interesting but it wears us out. 130 years ago there were no airplanes, no telephones, almost no electricity, no production computers, no cell phones, no MP3 players, no CD/DVD players, no phonographs, no movies, no production cars. 130 years is just barely beyond the life span of the longest living human beings.

I would argue that that's actually what the directors want, though. They want you to feel like the technology is something you can relate to. It makes you way more immersed in the film when you can relate to the emotions of the characters and their surroundings. If everything is too far futuristic, I think it doesn't allow you to focus on the movie's plot, but makes you over think small things. Things the director doesn't want you to spend time thinking about.

Also, I could easily see the opposite of this article being written if the movie was indeed doing what you asked for, from the technology and futurism standpoint. For example, if everyone just teleported everywhere (or something crazy like that), people would just call it ridiculous and fake. They would just complain that the movie doesn't relate to a realistic future.

I, personally, loved the new Star Trek, and thought it was incredible. I think they hit a great balance of innovation and futurism, but also still made it relevant to things we see everyday (iPhones, minimalistic designs, etc).

> 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?

Futurism isn't lost in the Star Trek reboot. The tech seen in the new Star Trek movies, rather than diminishing futurism, serves to show us that the future that Star Trek introduced to us these past few decades is just around the corner. They are using devices we are now starting to see every day, and some tech that we can imagine our children using in the very near future.

Maybe that's not as exciting to some, but to have that mix of technology and design from the present day feels like a confirmation that a lot more Star Trek tech might become reality within our lifetimes :).

Obviously this person hasn't seen Continuum

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.

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.

except that this article was written in 2010 (three years ago!), and not much has actually changed since then.

Except the tablet revolution, massive leaps forward in translation and speech recognition, an electric vehicle being named Car of the Year, multiple states passing self-driving car legislation, featherweight wearable computers that project an image directly onto your retina, a private company successfully docking a spaceship with the ISS, discovery of the Higgs Boson, large-scale entanglement in a quantum computer, a man jumping from a balloon at the edge of space while millions of people watch live over the Internet, an SUV landed on Mars via a sky crane, a computer crushing the world's best Jeopardy players, wireless video calls via a pocket computer...

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 pure sci-fi for us: actually long lasting batteries.

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.

Take a look at Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) - the holographic "touch" input is pretty sweet - it could even be completely invisible to non-users.

> 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.

Can anyone suggest a good, current futurist author?

Charles Stross and Greg Egan are two that spring to mind, though Egan's writing is quite heavy going.

The introduction to Toast has some interesting thoughts on issues faced by current futurists:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/toast/to...

(The intro in the collection, not on that page. Click through to whichever format...)

I think theme of action movie is taking over sci-fi genre by the storm. Repackaging a legendary sci-fi movie into an action packed one does not give justice to Star Trek's reputation. I am not saying that action is bad but it should not be the most vibrant component but sci-fi, what this article trying to point, should be the one.

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.

That's a good point.

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.

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

If you understand the basics of physics and the nature of Earth and the moon, as we did by about 1700, it's easy enough to grasp how you might get from one to the other given sufficient energy. A little over 250 years later, it happened.

I wouldn't necessarily rule out a major breakthrough in space travel, though it seems extremely unlikely. But transporter technology is so wildly implausible as to be effectively impossible, certainly in that time frame. Reassembling a full human being doesn't even begin to fit our current understanding or any suggested theory of physics.

Scale perhaps?

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

Scale for sure. Not just in terms of how far they were able to travel, but how big everything is and how many resources they would take to build, not to mention time.

Even if we knew exactly how to build everything in the movie, it would still take a TON of time to build it. Now start in the future and work backwards -- it's simply unrealistic.

That isn't to say that we won't have tons of things even 100 years from now that we can't imagine currently. I just tend to think the unimaginable is more easily attained than the evolution of those things already made.

Just think about where we were 250 years ago (that's around 1760), and how far we've come technologically since then.

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.

Uh, yeah, I was just checking whether this thing was on.

I see the point, the movie doesn't really push the envelope as much as it could have when it comes to future science. Signal to Noise would be a pretty awesome book to translate and see the tech. I'd say that would be the future that would inspire me to work in the engineering field.

Star Trek isn't interested in predicting the future, because most of the stuff just beyond the horizon is either deeply scary or plays havoc with plots that depend on putting the characters in danger.

If you have a hundred backup copies of your mind all over the solar system, what do you care if one of you gets killed? How can you possibly write a plausible plot that includes a weakly godlike AI that doesn't involve it instantly solving any problem that faces the protagonists? How can current audiences relate to a world where the population of the Earth is 100 trillion, all of them running as uploaded minds on computers?

(Disclaimer, I'm not a fan of Star Trek: http://bbot.org/badtranscript-startrek2.html )

Read Altered Carbon [1] - this book addresses this question.

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40445.Altered_Carbon

For plot reasons, the world of Altered Carbon only lets you run one copy at a time, offsite backups are very expensive, (even though individual stacks are so cheap that literally every person in the world has one installed?) and the time between backups is 24 hours.

In the real world, there's no reason to expect any of these limitations to exist. It makes more sense for backups to be cheap(ish) and taken every five minutes.

SPOILERS:

Altered Carbon also addresses the nightmare scenario of state vector theft very well; if the bad guys have a copy of your mind, they can torture you to death, over and over, forever. But in the real world, the precise mechanism of capture used in the book would be unlikely: if you thought you were about to be kidnapped, you'd just suicide, (using a explosive charge in your brain) and let one of your backups figure out what happened.

I also thought that the book didn't go into the deep effects of having sleeves and backups, as simliar as Star Trek doesn't go into full effects of transporter technology (terrorism of non-warp stations/planets via transported explosive/poison would be unstoppable - forcing the development and pervasiveness of passive transport shielding - think faraday cage)

I agree with the author. We should not be content with just silly iPads! Silicon Valley please start thinking "actual future" and give us some replicators and holodecks. Especially holodecks.

I guess i'd hold up the culture series, and the diamond age as my vision of futurism. Those are both decades old though.

Any suggestions for something written after, say, 2005?

Does it need to be written after 2005? Fire Upon Deep/Hyperion-Endymion/The Matrix (all 90's works) all posited Humans vs. AIs as a central theme, and I'd say that's another interesting take - has all sorts of frankenstein's monster implications, creator/creation contrasts.

In case you're wondering about more recent Sci-Fi, I googled it, and here's a good listing of interesting concepts:

http://io9.com/5929436/10-recent-science-fiction-books-that-...

Iain M Banks, Culture - commonplace AI of human level and above in form of drones and larger entities. Pretty please.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com