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

I guess I was watching a different movie, because I saw:<p>- advanced handheld medical scanners and treatments<p>- a genetically engineered human with super strength, health, and intelligence<p>- suspended animation that keeps humans alive for centuries<p>- artificial gravity<p>- faster than light communication and travel<p>- materials strong enough to maintain structural integrity after falling from space and plowing through a city<p>- matter transference across light years<p>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.

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 <i>very</i> established lore and universe.<p>This isn't just a "movie about the future". It's <i>Star Trek</i>. 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".<p>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.

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).<p>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.<p>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 <i>remake</i>.

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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.

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!<p>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.

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.<p>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.<p>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.

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 &#38; 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...<p>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.<p>It just doesn't make for good cinema.

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.<p>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 -&#62; 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 ).<p>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.<p>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 <i>might</i> the future look like, if it changes as much as we've seen things change since that venerable original series?<p>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.<p>I actually find this a bit more inspiring than morbid, though. What could be coming? Childlike wonder, here I come! :)

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.

I mention this alot to friends as well. We need new sci-fi concepts just like we need new super hero concepts.<p>Think about how outdated a bat signal is, why can't batman check for tweets?

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).<p>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.<p>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.

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.

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 <i>somebody</i> at Google was inspired by the show.<p>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.<p>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.

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.<p>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.<p>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).

&#62; 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?<p>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 <i>just around the corner</i>. 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.<p>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?<p>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: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11502715" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11502715</a><p><pre><code> "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." </code></pre> Our sci-fi present is making sci-fi harder to write.

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.<p>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.<p>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.

&#62; 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?<p>I think video games, AAA and indie titles alike have got this covered for me. What inspires one man does not inspire another.<p>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?

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.<p>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.<p>(edit: even ignoring 'warp speed')

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.<p>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?<p>(Disclaimer, I'm not a fan of Star Trek: <a href="http://bbot.org/badtranscript-startrek2.html" rel="nofollow">http://bbot.org/badtranscript-startrek2.html</a> )

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.<p>Any suggestions for something written after, say, 2005?

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".<p>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.