MickeyFuture Boy
More than a few times family (not friends; one can't choose one's family) have asked me if I think the sci fi shows I watch are what the future will really be like. I bite back my sarcasm as best I can and tell them I'm deeply skeptical about what I see on CNN, let alone Andromeda. Very few sci fi writers have any delusions about forecasting the future (to say nothing of the ones with little or no grasp of real-world physics or engineering). They are extrapolating current trends and tech to see how they may affect us in the future, but that "us" in the future is still contemporary folk like us. The whole point is to entertain, not predict.
Just looking at how society has changed (both technological innovations and in basic values- just imagine women wearing pants in 1907) in the past century, it's fair to say that human society in three or four centuries would look very alien to us. Such human "aliens" are often depicted in more literate sci fi novels (even so, they are often presented in contrast to more modern-day types, e.g. Greg Bear's novel Eon), but TV is a mass medium. A book can be a huge success selling in numbers that would get a TV show cancelled. Captain Kirk and Admiral Adama have to be people the here-and-now audience can love, relate to and even imagine having an affair or a beer with them.
The same needs have influenced a lot of sci fi tech. A book can (in the hands of the right author) effortlessly give us any of the details needed to understand a sleeper ship or generation ship or even a relativistic ship traveling from star to star- and make a compelling B story about how planet-bound civilization is changing all the while to boot. In the time allotted for a TV show it's just so much easier to wave your hand and invoke a warp drive or Jump engine or some such FTL device. Even so, too many shows have wasted far too much air time on exposition and technobabble- but that's another story...
Budget constraints can inspire creativity as well. In the 60s landing the Starship Enterprise was out of the question- even showing a shuttle coming down would have required traveling matte shots, which were so expensive we see the ones made endlessly recycled throughout the series. The stationary matte used to limit the sparkle effect for the transporter to the people beaming down was way cheaper. The sparkle itself was simply a matter of stirring glitter in a fishtank. Cheap and for its time, quite effective.
The miniskirts worn by 23rd Century Starfleet officers of the feminine persuasion were definitely a sign of the 60s. While it may looktotally fantastic a bit sexist by our modern, "enlightened" standards, I've read articles where they claimed at the time that they were symbols of female empowerment. Now I'm not going to pretend to know how a woman might feel about a miniskirt, but I can tell you that as a teenage boy, when I saw Nichelle Nichols strutting around in that little mini you could actually hear my hormones fizzing.
Sci fi, like any other art form, is always a child of its times. Certainly in the modern Galactica we can see echoes of our modern experiences in warfare (though to their credit the producers haven't gotten nearly as preachy as too many Star Trek episodes), which help to draw us into the story. That's really the whole idea: Put present-day people into a different, made-up world and see how they react. The future definitely won't be like what we see on TV- the Great Maker be praised!!
Just looking at how society has changed (both technological innovations and in basic values- just imagine women wearing pants in 1907) in the past century, it's fair to say that human society in three or four centuries would look very alien to us. Such human "aliens" are often depicted in more literate sci fi novels (even so, they are often presented in contrast to more modern-day types, e.g. Greg Bear's novel Eon), but TV is a mass medium. A book can be a huge success selling in numbers that would get a TV show cancelled. Captain Kirk and Admiral Adama have to be people the here-and-now audience can love, relate to and even imagine having an affair or a beer with them.
The same needs have influenced a lot of sci fi tech. A book can (in the hands of the right author) effortlessly give us any of the details needed to understand a sleeper ship or generation ship or even a relativistic ship traveling from star to star- and make a compelling B story about how planet-bound civilization is changing all the while to boot. In the time allotted for a TV show it's just so much easier to wave your hand and invoke a warp drive or Jump engine or some such FTL device. Even so, too many shows have wasted far too much air time on exposition and technobabble- but that's another story...
Budget constraints can inspire creativity as well. In the 60s landing the Starship Enterprise was out of the question- even showing a shuttle coming down would have required traveling matte shots, which were so expensive we see the ones made endlessly recycled throughout the series. The stationary matte used to limit the sparkle effect for the transporter to the people beaming down was way cheaper. The sparkle itself was simply a matter of stirring glitter in a fishtank. Cheap and for its time, quite effective.
The miniskirts worn by 23rd Century Starfleet officers of the feminine persuasion were definitely a sign of the 60s. While it may look
Sci fi, like any other art form, is always a child of its times. Certainly in the modern Galactica we can see echoes of our modern experiences in warfare (though to their credit the producers haven't gotten nearly as preachy as too many Star Trek episodes), which help to draw us into the story. That's really the whole idea: Put present-day people into a different, made-up world and see how they react. The future definitely won't be like what we see on TV- the Great Maker be praised!!
