Subject:
|
Re: Ice Planet 2002!!! Err, I mean 1993!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 May 2003 16:13:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
897 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Allan Bedford writes:
> Many movies over the years have also been set in what is known as 'near
> future'. Two quick examples: <snip>
Curiously, there are also examples of far future scenarios where a
technology is theorized as being super-advanced, yet today in real life they
have been developed. For example: In the first Star Trek series, crew
members of the ship have tricorders and similar handheld computing devices.
Yet, in real life (centuries before Star Trek time), PDAs that can do more
and are half the size already exist and are popular. Equally, the computer
voice in the first Star Trek was dated in real life by the time the Star
Trek movies came out.
So this sort of mix-up goes both ways. Back to the IP2002 issue, actually
now that I think about it, it is more than simply the fact that Y2K was far
off (because it wasn't really that far off in 1993. Rather, throughout the
20th century, it was a common tool in Sci Fi and in marketing to make
anything sound futuristic by giving it a name that included "2000" or "2001"
or "2002". I am almost certain there were other toys I saw in my youth that
had names of "2000"...some Matchbox sets from about 1980 come to mind,
although I cannot remember the exact name. "2000" and numbers like it had a
magical futurness to them, just as today "3000" might be used in this way.
This also makes me think of all those late night low budget commercials
(RonCo type stuff) where they use buzzwords like "Space Age Material" or
"Atomic Age Design". My reaction is always something like, "Space Age? So
that means the product comes from what, 1963?" or "Atomic Age? So their
product has been sitting on the shelf since when, 1945?" Oooh. Oooh. I
better call!
The best avoidance of this sort of slip-up that I can think of was with the
TV show Max Headroom. The actual title of the show was "Twenty Minutes into
the Future", and they never actually gave a year. So it was always supposed
to represent a near future possibility that was not overrun by the passage
of real life time.
Wow. Is my babbling off-topic or what? Maybe we need a
lugnet.off-topic.really.interesting.space.babble ?
-The Galactic Mediator
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ice Planet 2002!!! Err, I mean 1993!!!
|
| Matt, (...) Actually, Sean's answer wasn't all that far from the truth: In lugnet.space, Sean D. writes: (...) Many movies, books, toys etc. look ahead to the future (sometimes known as 'speculative fiction') and try to predict vehicles, buildings, (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.space)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
