Films Which Take Place In The Future

LittleBook

It feels like every film set in the future is "apocalyptic" or "post apocalyptic" or "dystopian".

Why is the future so depressing? I mean "in the heads of writers and film-makers", not in the philosophical sense ... although I suppose it would be difficult to discuss this without getting a little philosophical.

Can anyone think of a film which is set in the future that is optimistic? Or at least not completely pessimistic?

Not that I'm complaining, there are some fantastic films set in dystopian and post apocalyptic futures. I just wonder why they (seemingly) ALL have to be that way.

But what is it about science fiction that leads us to assume that science will invariably turn around and bite us in the ass?

Do we all just find it easier to believe that in the future we'll all be idiots, eaten, oppressed, controlled by the government, invaded by hostile aliens, ruled by apes or murdered when we hit 30?

duckworth

If was alive in 1910 and was given a vision of the world today - I'd probably have a pretty negative view of it.

Art imitates life.

FortuneChip

Marty McFly would disagree

mike65

If the future was a breeze there would be no drama, no drama = no film.

johnny_ultimate

I suppose you have a persuasive point that they tend to be pessimistic visions. But at the same time, the drama probably lies in the negatives.

If you take any science fiction film, they usually focus on someone fighting against the bad things. But the background sights and sounds of the future setting can often be intriguing. Take Minority Report - obviously a big central conspiracy, but the hints of 'normal' life are curious (advertising etc...), alas we're focused on the action side of things. Similarly, Blade Runner is a thriller on one hand, but an engaging and strange vision of a future city on the other, with the non-rogue cyborgs living amongst the humans quite normally. I'd say an awful lot of 'futuristic' films feature this sort of compelling vision, but the cost of rendering such a place requires money, which means there has to be some sort of action-packed narrative to go alongside it.

Could we consider Primer perhaps a more realistic, thoughtful representation of future technology? Although not exactly optimistic either.

Only example

JP Liz V1

Maybe Serenity

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/

johnny_ultimate

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Maybe Serenity

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/

I vaguely recall a massive, dominating dystopian government conspiracy plot in that.

ztoical

LittleBook wrote: »

Can anyone think of a film which is set in the future that is optimistic?

Star Trek, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Demolition Man [:p],

tricky D

2001 is the only one I can think of which bucks the trend. Kind of has a dystopian past, actually.

Sad Professor

The Star Trek films take place in a very utopian future, at least for humans. Technology is shown in a positive light as well. Roddenberry was often praised for his utopian vision which was quite unique even in the 60s. Most of the films don't really stay true to Roddenberry's vision though.

The Recliner

The Fifth Element?

Or maybe it was just all the bright colours that made me think it was a happy place

Vanilla Sky would be one I suppose

JP Liz V1

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I vaguely recall a massive, dominating dystopian government conspiracy plot in that.

bnt

I, Robot was set in a pretty cheerful world, actually: the US Robotics problem was an extraordinary occurrence, things were otherwise pretty good for citizens. I was wondering about Minority Report, which was made in 2002 but contained some genuine research in to nesr-future technologies. If it looks like a dystopia, well, it's looking pretty accurate so far. Our own future is looking like a dystopia, compared to the past, so I'm not surprised to see that portrayed in movies more often than not.

pickarooney

Demolition Man?

Turtyturd

Didn't Gattaca show a somewhat Utopian future?...and I ain't seen the Aeon Flux movie but what I remember from the TV show it was also pretty Utopian.

But as has already been said, all the drama and interesting story lines comes from how messed up things have become...personally I am hoping for Mega City 1 to become a reality.:D

Sad Professor

Turtyturd wrote: »

Didn't Gattaca show a somewhat Utopian future?

In which genetic discrimination takes place? No way. Gattaca has a very negative view of where science will take humanity.

ztoical

A good story wants conflict and drama something which you don't really get in a Utopian future - weres the story if everyone is happy?

Also alot easier on the set designers

LittleBook

Thanks for all the feedback folks!

FortuneChip wrote: »

Marty McFly would disagree

Depends on which future though, doesn't it?

duckworth wrote: »

If was alive in 1910 and was given a vision of the world today - I'd probably have a pretty negative view of it.

Really? I know the world today isn't great, but even in terms of medical advances it would be utopian for someone from 1910 ... assuming we gloss over the odd world war or two.

ztoical wrote: »

Star Trek, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Demolition Man [:p],

Good calls! I completely forgot about the utopian aspect of Bill & Ted.

The Recliner wrote: »

The Fifth Element?

Or maybe it was just all the bright colours that made me think it was a happy place

Vanilla Sky would be one I suppose

I'll allow The Fifth Element, ignoring the "impending attack of pure evil and destruction" that was the whole point of the film because ... well ....

it didn't happen

But I don't think I'd consider Vanilla Sky to be very futuristic, even if it did involve futuristic technology and a brief visit to the future.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Could we consider Primer perhaps a more realistic, thoughtful representation of future technology? Although not exactly optimistic either.

Again, not sure I'd consider this one to by typically futuristic either ... I know, I'm making the rules up as I go along

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Take Minority Report - obviously a big central conspiracy, but the hints of 'normal' life are curious (advertising etc...), alas we're focused on the action side of things. Similarly, Blade Runner is a thriller on one hand, but an engaging and strange vision of a future city on the other, with the non-rogue cyborgs living amongst the humans quite normally.

bnt wrote: »

I, Robot was set in a pretty cheerful world, actually: the US Robotics problem was an extraordinary occurrence, things were otherwise pretty good for citizens. I was wondering about Minority Report, which was made in 2002 but contained some genuine research in to nesr-future technologies.

Actually I did think of Minority Report and Blade Runner in that there's no real indication that the future in these films is dystopian. But I guess my reading of the books fleshed it out for me, even if the films didn't.

Good call with I, Robot.

duckworth wrote: »

Art imitates life.

mike65 wrote: »

If the future was a breeze there would be no drama, no drama = no film.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But at the same time, the drama probably lies in the negatives.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If you take any science fiction film, they usually focus on someone fighting against the bad things.

ztoical wrote: »

A good story wants conflict and drama something which you don't really get in a Utopian future - weres the story if everyone is happy?

Turtyturd wrote: »

But as has already been said, all the drama and interesting story lines comes from how messed up things have become...

Aw, come on guys! No film without negative drama or conflict?? You know that's not true for films set in the present or the past. So (in spite of the few examples we've found) why is it the case for nearly all the films set in the future?

Goddammit, even Woody Allen couldn't do a futuristic comedy without it being set in a police state! :pac:

johnny_ultimate

LittleBook wrote: »

Aw, come on guys! No film without negative drama or conflict?? You know that's not true for films set in the present or the past. So (in spite of the few examples we've found) why is it the case for nearly all the films set in the future?

Goddammit, even Woody Allen couldn't do a futuristic comedy without it being set in a police state! :pac:

It's not that a film can't exist without conflict, they most certainly can. Well, with a tiny few exceptions most great films have some sort of drama however small, but let's just refer to the "guns & explosions" kind of conflict for now, for the purposes of this argument.

The reality is that to make a science fiction film you often need a lot of money. To have a believable, well rendered world in an American film $$$ is necessary. And of course Hollywood isn't going to pay to have a film where a lot of people go around having a laugh and not much else :pac: So you wind up having to throw in a bit of violence or conflict to please the studios, no matter how vivid your vision may be. If we're just sticking with Hollywood, I just sincerely doubt they would have the nerve to follow through with a science-fiction film where nothing much happens.

This isn't an ideal situation, and of course it's ignoring the independent scene. But the best examples of "low drama" cinema tend to be fairly "low budget" too. Say you're making a truly no budget film - all you need is a few apartments and random local settings and you're probably good to go. If you suddenly want to try and create an idealised, utopian future to boot, well you're out of the realm of low budget!

They are two extreme examples, and I agree that there is surely a middle ground. But science-fiction is probably the most expensive of all genres, which is why it tends to be the domain of big-budget commercial cinema. There are plenty of examples of low budget "sci-fi", but off the top of my head I can't think of one that creates an entirely new world on the scale of Blade Runner or Star Wars. There are plenty that are fictionalised science, but a lot of them tend to stick with a contemporary setting with futuristic technology - again, the budget being driven downwards as result. Primer is a perfect example of this rare "no budget sci-fi" genre. But yes, while it would be nice to see - say - a futuristic rom-com, in which Jennifer Aniston for some reason is a robot (which would surely be the most believable performance of her career) with hilarious results, no-one is going to fund that film when they can make a contemporary set one for a fraction of the price.

On an unrelated note, I haven't seen it, but I think 2046 may suit your criteria?

PerrinV2

Bicentennial man?

indough

Science fiction is mostly a study of what it means to be human and/or an exaggerated version of the world we already live in. No surprises then that it's almost always a bit dark.

losthorizon

ztoical wrote: »

A good story wants conflict and drama something which you don't really get in a Utopian future - weres the story if everyone is happy?

Also alot easier on the set designers

Ahem - Theres an excellent film called Lost Horizon by Frank Capra were relatively little conflict takes place in a shangri-la. Its not the future but Capra proved that nothing much need happen to keep you rooted to the chair. Note: If you ever do see this film get the 1930s version not the remake.

During WW2 the film was re-released with huge bits cut because of their leanings towards non violence! The authorities thought the film was unpatriotic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA-7ssebkIM&feature=related

ztoical

losthorizon wrote: »

Ahem - Theres an excellent film called Lost Horizon by Frank Capra were relatively little conflict takes place in a shangri-la. Its not the future but Capra proved that nothing much need happen to keep you rooted to the chair. Note: If you ever do see this film get the 1930s version not the remake.

During WW2 the film was re-released with huge bits cut because of their leanings towards non violence! The authorities thought the film was unpatriotic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA-7ssebkIM&feature=related

I have seen Lost Horizon [both versions and read the book] and I disagree there's no drama as

Maria dies upon leaving Shangri-la and George kills himself as a result

I didn't say a film had to be non-stop conflict and drama but the very notion of a Utopian future means there is no issues between age, sex, race etc etc which leaves little for there to be a story for. Most films/stories that deal with Utopian settings tend to do so from the view of the outsider who doesn't normally share their out look on the world and thus causes conflict either within themselves or in the society. Planet of the Apes could be viewed that way as the Apes have their advanced world that is ruined by the outside interference of the humans. It's very hard to do a perfect future vision as we don't live in perfect world now and it's hard to see how we can have that future world without some group having to be below another [Planet of the Apes, Gattaca etc etc]

There are loads of stories that are slowly paced and little happens but that keep people rooted in place.....Beckett once claimed with Waiting for Godot he had written a story were nothing happens twice.

bnt

pickarooney wrote: »

Demolition Man?

Unless you were one of the "scraps" living underground, eating ratburgers, that is. I'm guessing that bit was lifted from HG Wells' Time Machine, with its Eloi and Morlocks ...

indough

There is a dystopia in Lost Horizon anyway, it's everything outside Shangri-La. In most cases utopia's in fiction are quite horrific in themselves (think 'brave new world' or its more popular yet crap film equivalent, 'demolition man').

edit: oh snap. nah the people living underground in that movie are the equivalent of the 'savage' colonies in BNW. similar enough concept though i guess.

LittleBook

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Bicentennial man?

Maybe, haven't seen it. The description doesn't mention any nuclear holocausts or apocalyptic events, I'll try to check it out.

bnt wrote: »

Unless you were one of the "scraps" living underground, eating ratburgers, that is. I'm guessing that bit was lifted from HG Wells' Time Machine, with its Eloi and Morlocks ...

indough wrote: »

There is a dystopia in Lost Horizon anyway, it's everything outside Shangri-La. In most cases utopia's in fiction are quite horrific in themselves (think 'brave new world' or its more popular yet crap film equivalent, 'demolition man').

edit: oh snap. nah the people living underground in that movie are the equivalent of the 'savage' colonies in BNW. similar enough concept though i guess.

Crap, forgot about the Wasteland Scraps and now that I think about it, even taking the complete lack of crime into account, we're still looking at a police state where free will and choice are limited. Hey ho.

Westworld came up in another discussion. There's no indication that the world outside of Westworld is in a bad way.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The reality is that to make a science fiction film you often need a lot of money. To have a believable, well rendered world in an American film $$$ is necessary. And of course Hollywood isn't going to pay to have a film where a lot of people go around having a laugh and not much else :pac: ... science-fiction is probably the most expensive of all genres, which is why it tends to be the domain of big-budget commercial cinema.

I agree with you ... in the context of films. This still doesn't explain though why most of the stories (upon which most of the films are based) are so dark.

In fact, the film version of Blade Runner might actually make my "list" in that the level of fúcked-upedness of the society represented there could expotentially be compared to today.

However, "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" (with it's radiation poisoning, extinct animals and Mercerism) is a lot darker than the film, and that's nothing to do with money.

I'm beginning to think that aside from the necessary "drama" and funding that a film requires to be successful, maybe it's simply that:

indough wrote: »

Science fiction is mostly a study of what it means to be human and/or an exaggerated version of the world we already live in.

and that writers' expectations for the future and perceptions of the world currently around them are simply a lot more cynical and pessimistic than my own.

And maybe it's simply not possible to have utopia without dystopia.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

but I think 2046 may suit your criteria?

'Fraid not. I've seen it and:

[in 2047] The world is a vast dystopia, and lonely souls all try to reach a mysterious place called 2046 in order to recapture lost loves. In the world of 2046 nothing ever changes, so there is never loss or sadness. No one has ever returned from 2046 except the protagonist

But hey, there's always "Star Trek, "Futurama" and "Buck Rogers".

ztoical

LittleBook wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that aside from the necessary "drama" and funding that a film requires to be successful, maybe it's simply that:

Alot of it comes down to the reasoning behind why you want to set the film in the future. A good film maker will question themselves as why all the time and ask over and over why 2011 why not 3001 or 1950, how important is that to the story. Usually the reasons for setting in the future is because you can have some great catalyst that people can relete to [ice caps melting = flooded planet = Waterworld]

You also need to put the films into context. A great many earlier sci-fi writing and films were made during the cold war when people did see this scary future that was either going to be planet blown to pieces or a world run like 1984 and alot of more recent films have just followed on with that style.

LittleBook wrote: »

And maybe it's simply not possible to have utopia without dystopia.

It depends on the level of dystopia, what would you consider too much? Are you looking for that future were everything is perfect or would you consider a mainly positive future with some evil elements? Like Slipstream [the one from 1989] is set in some distent future were the Earth had enough of all the abuse from humans and fought back using winds to wipe most of the humans off the planet. I have to say I quite like that future....yes loads of people die but I like the idea of nature fighting back.

baalthor

Bicentennial Man is the winner.
It's set in the future (for plot reasons) but it's not about the future.
Think of it as Driving Miss Daisy for robots.

LittleBook

ztoical wrote: »

Alot of it comes down to the reasoning behind why you want to set the film in the future. A good film maker will question themselves as why all the time and ask over and over why 2011 why not 3001 or 1950, how important is that to the story. Usually the reasons for setting in the future is because you can have some great catalyst that people can relete to [ice caps melting = flooded planet = Waterworld]

You also need to put the films into context. A great many earlier sci-fi writing and films were made during the cold war when people did see this scary future that was either going to be planet blown to pieces or a world run like 1984 and alot of more recent films have just followed on with that style.

Great points, particularly about the cold war.

ztoical wrote: »

It depends on the level of dystopia, what would you consider too much? Are you looking for that future were everything is perfect or would you consider a mainly positive future with some evil elements?

I have no measurements or (to be honest) personal quest, just shooting the breeze on (what I think is) an interesting subject concerning my favourite thing in the world, films.

Although I think your "mainly positive future with some evil elements" is more reflective of my world and my vision of the future than that which I see (in the main) in films. But that's very subjective obviously!

At this point, I'm considering separating (in my tiny mind) "dystopian" from "apocalyptic". As I mentioned, one man's utopia is another man's dystopia and many of the films which have come up appear to be utopian but, scratch the surface and you have the dystopia right there too.

Whereas with an "apocalypse" (either natural or man-made) basically everyone's screwed.

ztoical wrote: »

Like Slipstream [the one from 1989] is set in some distent future were the Earth had enough of all the abuse from humans and fought back using winds to wipe most of the humans off the planet. I have to say I quite like that future....yes loads of people die but I like the idea of nature fighting back.

Interesting, unfortunately is sounds a little too like The Happening so it's slightly polluted in my head.

Cheers!

professore

duckworth wrote: »

If was alive in 1910 and was given a vision of the world today - I'd probably have a pretty negative view of it.

Art imitates life.

I sincerely doubt that duckworth. In the developed world at least, now is a utopia compared to 1910.

Plazaman

The Island (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/) was a great upbeat futuristic film imo. Longevity of life, hover bikes, the bars still seem normal. Yes life seems good for everyone (except for the clones but sure they've no rights anyways.... bloody clones)

Plus I'd be happy if Scarlett Johannsenn and her ilk walked round continuously in tight fitting white clothes (girls and white clothing - topic for another thread )

baalthor

LittleBook wrote: »

Westworld came up in another discussion. There's no indication that the world outside of Westworld is in a bad way.

Westworld is set in the 'present day' i.e. the 1970s, when the world was definitely not in a good way and that does provide a context for the film.
And Westworld has a very dark view of technology and progress. It's saying: 'If you put your faith in technology and abandon the established order of things, there will be a price to pay'

ztoical

LittleBook wrote: »

Interesting, unfortunately is sounds a little too like The Happening so it's slightly polluted in my head.

Cheers!

It's very different to the happening - I should have pointed out that the film takes place many years after nature has taken back over and the human population has been reduced right down - this is all just the backstory used to create the world they want for the films setting [should point it is a very 80's film and not that great but I liked the idea behind it] Looks wise it's closer to Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind then the hapening.

mewso

pickarooney wrote: »

Demolition Man?

Wasn't sex non-contact in the future depicted by Demolition Man? Thats a big enough negative for me. Never mind poverty, evil governments and other boring future problems. If we lose sex then forget about it.

Idiocracy at least made me laugh at the future no matter how bleak it was.

Magic Eight Ball

Was 'Strange Days' that much of a dystopia? Years since I last saw the movie.

Earthhorse

If you only watch the first half of most of these films you'll find they're mostly Utopian in their outlook.

johnny_ultimate

Heh just saw this article and thought it might be appropriate for this thread:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/even-dystopias-have-their-perks-19-redeeming-quali,52443/?utm_medium=promobar&utm_campaign=recirculation

duckworth

professore wrote: »

I sincerely doubt that duckworth. In the developed world at least, now is a utopia compared to 1910.

Well, it's either a Utopia or it's not - it can't be a Utopia in comparison to something else.

But if you're argument is that the civilizations have progressed significantly in the last 100 years - I can't agree. The world is still a ****-hole, life is still suffering, societies are still unfair, wars are even more commonplace than they were then.

What's good about it? Penicillin? Facebook? Global Markets?

I'm not buying it.