Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

Oops: Five Movies That Failed to Predict the Future, Part 2

Oops: Five Movies That Failed to Predict the Future, Part 2

Kevin Buist
By Kevin Buist posted 9 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Last week I offered a list of movies that made ambitious predictions about the near future, only to lose credibility when their dark futures didn’t become a reality. As meaningful as this exercise is, it’s also very limited, I can only debunk movies whose futures have already failed come true, or can I? Using FutureMe.org, I sent my future self an e-mail, asking how movies which predict what the next ten years have fared. Luckily, PastMe.org must be up and running in 2019, because I received a prompt and courteous response from my future self. Here is the response, which I will write in ten years:

Past Self,

Got your e-mail about failed movie predictions. I knew it was coming ;) Here’s what I’ve got for you:

2012

I realize this Roland Emmerich mega-budget doomsday picture hasn’t come out yet in your time. I don’t recommend seeing it when it does, unless you were so impressed with Emmerich’s filmmaking in Godzilla and 10,000 BC that you actually want to see more. The film predicts that multiple apocalyptic catastrophes befall the world in 2012, in accordance with an ancient Mayan calendar which stops on December 21 of that year. What we know now is that the Mayans simply ran out of room on the rock they were carving, and were not trying to warn future generations of anything. Promoters of New Age Mayan mysticism did make a big deal about what they said would be the end of the world, making several appearances on popular talk shows. Of course, nothing happened on December 21, 2012, except that the special edition Blu-Ray of 2012 went on sale, hoping to make up for poor sales by becoming the ironic Christmas gift of choice.

I Am Legend

This 2007 Will Smith vehicle is another example of revisionist futurism, when a story’s prediction doesn’t come true, the story is retold and the date is moved further into the future. This is the third film adaptation of Robert Matheson’s original novel. Published in 1954, the book follows a scientist named Robert Neville from 1976 to 1979. Neville is apparently the sole survivor of a pandemic which resembles vampirism. The Will Smith version takes place in 2012, clearly a favorite year for doomsday prophets. While the prediction of a virus that turns everyone into rabid beasts didn’t exactly come true, that year’s American Idol competition was particularly brutal, inspiring an outbreak of backyard gladiatorial battles, similar to those now used to choose the winner of the show.

The Postman

This 1997 film, directed by and starring Kevin Costner, was generally regarded as a flop when it was released. It grew in popularity, however, as its prophetic vision of 2013 began to look more like reality. In the film, society is in ruins after a nuclear war. Costner’s character inadvertently brings hope to the destitute survivors when he starts delivering mail. While there was no global nuclear war in 2013 (that doesn’t happen until 2015), the film did accurately predict the return of pony express style mail delivery. Due to the ongoing financial crisis, the US government shut down the Postal Service, assuming that private carriers and e-mail would fill in. It worked for a few months, until bad loans and $300-per-barrel oil drove the private delivery firms out of business right during the Great Broadband Crash of ‘13. It was a bad year. But letters from loved ones did seem that much more meaningful when they were hand delivered by a disheveled vigilante fighting off dysentery.

Back to the Future Part II

The 1989 film Back to the Future Part II made several predictions about what the world of 2015 would look like. Having lived through that memorable year, I can tell you things didn’t turn out as shown in the film. In reality, flying cars were not released commercially until 2036, but never became widely available due to the market domination of flying Segways. Hoverboards, on the other hand, were widely available by 2015, but were pulled off the market following the unfortunate death of Tony Hawk during the 2016 X-Games. Many blamed the incident on Hawk’s malfunctioning cybernetic legs, rather than the Hoverboard, but the toy was still unable to recover from legal trouble. One prediction Back to the Future Part II did get right was Marty McFly’s futuristic Nike shoes. Nike released the Air McFly, in July 2008. While they were a limited edition, there’s no reason you couldn’t wear them in 2015.

Blade Runner

In Ridley Scott’s 1982 science fiction noir, Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a hard boiled detective hired to assassinate several illegal androids known as replicants. The film’s predictions about what a gritty futuristic Los Angeles would look like were pretty accurate. Genetically engineered pets are also available, but you need to go to some rather unsavory neighborhoods to find people who produce them. Super realistic androids, similar to replicants, also exist in 2019. Which brings me to a rather important point. This e-mail is not actually from your future self. I am a replicant. Your memories were transferred to me shortly before your grisly death.

Thanks for writing. If you have any more questions about the future of movies, let me know!

Best,

Future Kevin

Oops: Five Movies That Failed to Predict the Future

Oops: Five Movies That Failed to Predict the Future

Kevin Buist
By Kevin Buist posted 10 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

We don’t ask much from science fiction movies: entertaining plot lines, competent acting, huge explosions, and accurate predictions of the future. Many films fail to deliver on that final request, prognosticating about the world to come and screwing it up again and again. Many of these movies rely on the believability of their premise, but when that premise involves a prediction about the state of the world at a specific future date, they’re setting themselves up for failure when that day comes to pass without incident. Here are five films that forecasted doom and gloom that did not happen.

…Read more

SXSW Roundtable Part 2: Kirsner, Russo-Young, Weiler, Willmore

Paul Moore
By Paul Moore posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Left to right: Scott Kirsner (Cinematech), Ry Russo-Young (Orphans), Lance Weiler (Head Trauma, The Workbook Project) and Alison Willmore (IFC News) on the future of filmmaking.

SXSW Roundtable Part 1: Kirsner, Russo-Young, Weiler, Willmore

Paul Moore
By Paul Moore posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Spout invited Scott Kirsner (Cinematech), Ry Russo-Young (Orphans), Lance Weiler (Head Trauma, The Workbook Project) and Alison Willmore (IFC News) to come and talk. We like their minds and think they’re really tapped into the future of filmmaking and what the new distribution “sledgehammer” will be.

Trusted voices in a sea of content

By posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Our own Rick DeVos, Spout’s fearless leader, was interviewed and quoted in an Austin Chronicle article yesterday. The article, “The Future of Film on the Web,” talks about the overwhelming sea of content on the web, and how “The old days of a Web campaign for a film attracting audiences on novelty alone are over. …Instead, filmmakers are finding success in reaching out to online communities….”

Communities build excitement around discovering and sharing something with others, the article asserts, which is what filmmakers need to do today to make their movie stand out. This, of course, is where Spout comes in. Here’s part of what Rick has to say:

For Rick DeVos, founder and CEO of film community Spout.com, that’s where Hollywood goes wrong. “They think of community as, oh, I’ll put a message board on my Web site, and that’s building a community around this film. It’s much deeper and more complicated than that.”

Spout is a community first, a commercial entity second, and it’s powered by connections. “We’ve stolen liberally from Malcolm Gladwell’s ideas around the tipping point,” DeVos explains. “We think of our users as three components: You have the casual film consumer; you have the maven, the passionate film fan, the connector who’s tagging and blogging like crazy; and the filmmaker. We think of the maven as the way of connecting the consumer and the filmmaker. They’re a trusted voice in this sea of content.”

Silent cinema: nostalgia or opportunity?

By posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

If you’re someone who takes note of advances in technology and reacts to them in some way, you’re most likely in one of two camps: the Nostalgia Camp or the Opportunity Camp. But it’s possible to have a foot in both camps, valuing the past and envisioning the future all at the same time. A somewhat recent revival of silent films with live performances is a good example.

John Brownlee of Wired recently wrote a post about this, “Filmmakers Seek Future in Past.” He says the silent film medium was pretty much killed about 80 years ago, with advances in sound recording. Now, Brownlee writes:

Prolific modern-day directors like Guy Maddin work largely in the medium of silent film to convey postmodern tales. Silent film festivals are held annually around the world: from San Francisco to Kansas, from Italy to Australia. The Chilean subways are plastered with thousands of still images, coming to life as contiguous strips of film as the trains rumble by. And numerous groups throughout the United States have been inspired to compose and perform live original scores to silent film.

Silent film has much to offer, creatively–it doesn’t have to be left in the Museum of How We Used to Make Movies. It’s true that although certain stories and messages are very difficult to communicate in a silent film, other material can be more fully and less-awkwardly communicated without sound, or at least without words. Adding a live score allows even more opportunities to communicate and convey emotion. (Check out the Alloy Orchestra, which some of the Spout team heard accompany Lonesome at Telluride last year.)

In all, I think the revival of silent films is an exciting development, especially for musicians and composers who have a whole slew of classics to pick from and play with. But will filmmakers get excited about potential new opportunities for them? And are the opportunities really new, or are they just exercises in nostalgia? Obviously, it can go in either direction, depending on the intentions and visions of the people behind the project. In terms of moving the medium forward, here’s an interesting prediction from Cherchi Usai, the director of Australia’s National Film and Sound Archive:

Curiously, it is in the ubiquitous digital advertising displays littering modern cities that Cherchi Usai sees the future of silent film, pointing to the Going Underground film festival, a weeklong event in January where silents from local filmmakers were shown in Berlin’s subways.

“Silent cinema is penetrating our lives in new, unpredictable ways,” says Cherchi Usai. “There is a paradigm shift. This is an evolution of the silent film experience into a completely different technology. And it could not have happened before.”

Fast Company, December ‘05

Paul Moore
By Paul Moore posted 3 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

So if you haven’t yet read the latest issue of Fast Company, you should. Alan Deutschman and Scott Kirsner cover the changing, bomb-shelled landscape of movie distribution. ("Hollywood’s New Wave" and "Maverick Mogul" only available in print right now)

Of course, for some of you the issue will be mostly review. They cover the usual names-Mark Cuban and Steven Soderbergh (2929 Entertainment and Landmark Theaters), Harvey Weinstein, Lloyd Braun (Yahoo!)-but they also give some back-story to what the studios are doing to keep up. Still, the coverage around film distribution and the digital age is heavily slanted toward the question, "How will Hollywood survive digital download?"

Who cares? Why is it that corporate brass monopolizes the discussion around the coming new age of film distribution? I really don’t care what happens to them, I care what happens to me. It’s no surprise to me that Chicken Little was released this year because the mood with these media execs seems to be "The sky is falling! And it’s raining every film ever made and they’re available for free! And Mark Cuban is the mad scientist controlling the weather!"

So silly. But as Steven Soderbergh and Mark Cuban are quick to point out, the Hollywood system is terrible at innovating and very skilled at reacting. So they’re reacting to what happened to the music industry and jumping on the the iTunes train to salvation. But what about me? Why doesn’t Anne Sweeney at Disney-ABC TV, Brian Roberts at Comcast, Kevin Tsujihara at Warner Bros and Blair Westlake at Microsoft sit back, take a deep breath and imagine what it is like to be a little fella like Paul-a father and film lover living in the gloriously snow covered Midwest?

Please, imagine me suddenly being able to get 100,000 films for $2.99 each downloaded onto my iBook over a wicked fast internet connection. Imagine me sitting in a cafe, sipping the House Blend, reading a one paragraph synopsis on a movie-a movie I will commit two hours of my life to. Now imagine me picking up my cell phone and calling one of my film club buddies and asking them if they’ve heard about any good films lately.

Bingo. The real winner in the coming age of Video Download is Verizon Wireless. That is, of course, unless there is a place called Spout to find out about what the people in the know are saying about the diamonds in the rough. Nonetheless, it’s exciting to see Fast Company covering some problems we’ve been working on for over a year now. Maybe it takes the whining of Hollywood brass to get the attention of a magazine like Fast Company, but it’s the rest of us who will determine the real future of film.