Technology is moving too fast for movies

[Green Lantern wannabe]

Superman I is on now, and I presume the spate of these movies is to celebrate the 70th anniversary of his first appearance.

The interesting thing is that it was made in the 1970's, before PC's became widely available, so, in the Daily Planet newsroom, everyone was using typewriters. Lex Luthor's dungeon headquarters had a terminal, which now looks old and clunky. The same was true in Superman III, where Richard Pryor, the computer whiz, was using IBM terminals with DOS screens. And, to top it off, in Wall Street, just a few years later, Gordon Gekko, the bad-guy, had a high-powered toy, a cell phone, which was maybe four times the size of what everyone and his dog has today.

The same seems to be true for Ironman. I don't think I'm spoiling anything to say he was using a modern day cell phone, which is almost obsolete, given the paper-thin versions now coming out, never mind those you can plug in your ear. And, in a decade, those would be obsolete.

So I ask, if you were producing a movie, how would you get around this, so your characters' technology won't look clunky a decade or two from now? Remember you want residuals and royalties, so you want to plan your props so they look relevant for as long as possible.

The best approach I've seen is in Star Trek, the Next Generation, where they never actually show anything - no screens, nothing, just the occasional dashboard and some flashing props. So, no matter what happens, they won't look obsolete, at least not for a while.

[Alex Dragon]

I don't think you can get around it. The person watching the movie just has to accept that it was made years ago. I think there are some things that looks futuristic that really doesn't look too dated like holograms. Otherwise if they try and go too over the top hi-tech it just ends up looking silly like those old 50s movies where people are walking around in shiney silver jumpsuits and all machines just has lots of knobs and buttons and flashing lights.

From a movie visual stand point if they actually did things like they really predict the future will look like it would make for dull looking sets and backgrounds. If you notice almost everything is getting smaller and more sleek. Realistically, in the future a lab or equipment room wouldn't have that much stuff in it because everything getting smaller with less knobs, handles and such. From a visual standpoint a room full of computers, lights and do-dads just looks more impressive. The current "bulky" armored Iron Man looks more powerful and impressive than the Iron Man who's armor was more streamlined than Batman's.

[Ryan Day]

So I ask, if you were producing a movie, how would you get around this, so your characters' technology won't look clunky a decade or two from now? Remember you want residuals and royalties, so you want to plan your props so they look relevant for as long as possible.

But you also want product placement dollars, too. If Sony wants to give you a million dollars to use their phones in the movie, who really cares how the technology looks in 10 years?

[Green Lantern wannabe]

But you also want product placement dollars, too. If Sony wants to give you a million dollars to use their phones in the movie, who really cares how the technology looks in 10 years?

Excellent point. I didn't think of that one.

But there are other props that aren't the result of endorsements - Superman I had typewriters that I presume weren't the result of product endorsement.

Alex, I think you're right - you can't really get around it, unless you have something generic like flashing lights and knobs. I hear that, in a few decades, with the current exponential rates of advancement in technology, society will be totally unrecognizable to the humans of the 20th Century.

Interesting, isn't it, how life works? :smile:

[Naetnalta]

Isn't it great how in a lot of TV shows and movies, computer programs look way too fancy to be practical? They'll have all these crazy awesome graphics for doing simple tasks. It looks totally fake because they look like they're playing a video game when they're just checking their e-mail.

[Captain_Video]

Make the story about everything but the technology, as long as your story is compelling it does not matter if the technology featured is obsolete in a few years time, because the people watching it will still be entertained\moved.

If your focus is more on groovy technology and far out gadgets than human drama and a well thought out, well developed thought provoking narrative, then you are already doomed.

In addition product placement has no place in movies, I accept that it is a big money spinner and can add to a production budget, but a film shoot be a story or even better a work of art, which advertising and commerce have no place in.

Obviously you should use real world objects ( fair use ) wherever possible, but directly promoting a product has nothing to do with telling a story ( unless the story is about advertising ).

There is no convincing argument for product placement in movies, advertising is its own creative form and should be kept seperate from movies.

[Jmacq1]

Make the story about everything but the technology, as long as your story is compelling it does not matter if the technology featured is obsolete in a few years time, because the people watching it will still be entertained\moved.

If your focus is more on groovy technology and far out gadgets than human drama and a well thought out, well developed thought provoking narrative, then you are already doomed.

In addition product placement has no place in movies, I accept that it is a big money spinner and can add to a production budget, but a film shoot be a story or even better a work of art, which advertising and commerce have no place in.

Obviously you should use real world objects ( fair use ) wherever possible, but directly promoting a product has nothing to do with telling a story ( unless the story is about advertising ).

There is no convincing argument for product placement in movies, advertising is its own creative form and should be kept seperate from movies.

It's all well and good to take the principled point of view, but I don't think product placement in films is going away anytime soon.

PS: Tony's cell-phone in Iron Man is actually a fairly recent model. :wink: Plus I don't think we're going to get those 3D interactive holo-interfaces, House AIs, and personal battle armor suits with the firepower of a tank battalion particularly soon.

[the goddamn batman]

Make the story about everything but the technology, as long as your story is compelling it does not matter if the technology featured is obsolete in a few years time, because the people watching it will still be entertained\moved.

If your focus is more on groovy technology and far out gadgets than human drama and a well thought out, well developed thought provoking narrative, then you are already doomed.

Blade Runner holds up really well for me despite the dated tech BECAUSE it's more about the people... even though the tech is a large part of it, I don't think it hinders the film at all.

In addition product placement has no place in movies, I accept that it is a big money spinner and can add to a production budget, but a film shoot be a story or even better a work of art, which advertising and commerce have no place in.

Obviously you should use real world objects ( fair use ) wherever possible, but directly promoting a product has nothing to do with telling a story ( unless the story is about advertising ).

There is no convincing argument for product placement in movies, advertising is its own creative form and should be kept seperate from movies.

David Lynch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4wh_mc8hRE

[Green Lantern wannabe]

Captain Video has a point - if a story is about the story, as opposed to gadgets and gimmicks, it will succeed, and people will understand that the movie was made decades ago. The Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III were nifty, with great special effects, but they sucked in terms of story telling.

But I have no problems with product placement - though the producer will have to know that it could detract from his movie in a few decades.

Blade Runner is a good story, and it has held up well, despite being almost a quarter century old. I don't like the Director's cut, though, because the narrative is left out.

[the goddamn batman]

Blade Runner is a good story, and it has held up well, despite being almost a quarter century old. I don't like the Director's cut, though, because the narrative is left out.

But the narration is a useless piece of shit; poorly written, poorly performed and entirely unneeded.

[Jmacq1]

But the narration is a useless piece of shit; poorly written, poorly performed and entirely unneeded.

Others' opinions differ. Both versions (well, all three now I suppose) of the film have their adherents and detractors.

[maczero]

I don't think it's much of an issue. Fans of any long time running series have always accepted that the times and technology change. As a comic fan do you complain that Spiderman stories written in the 60's include cars of that era?

[Green Lantern wannabe]

I can accept that, and, I think many will. But the obsolete technology does distract me from the story several times. I mean, whenever I see the old IBM terminals, I think of how out-of-date they are, and that distracts me from the story.

[maczero]

I can accept that, and, I think many will. But the obsolete technology does distract me from the story several times. I mean, whenever I see the old IBM terminals, I think of how out-of-date they are, and that distracts me from the story.Yeah, it happens to me too but if you're really a fan of a series then you get over it. Besides, it's kind of unfair to the filmmakers to expect them to have enough foresight to know which technologies will be commonplace 10-20 years from now.

[BoosterBronze]

Ever read "Dracula?"

In the book, the hero characters are all total techies. They use the most cutting edge stuff just like Jack Bauer in CTU. There's a dictaphone, telegraphs, steam ships, trains, even sci-fi blood transfusions. It's all very modern and the author really makes a point of how cool and cutting edge the technology is.

I think sci-fi needs to follow John Campbell's idea that characters should always treat the sci-fi elements as completely normal. I cant recall the film, but some movie had the character take out this TINY little CD and make a comment about how much information it could hold. That's all well but it only draws attention to itself because it wasn't accurate.

On the otherhand the crazy computer in "Blade Runner" is still cool because a:) it can look behind things in a 2d photo and b:) they never bother to talk about how it works, so we don't even have to think about it.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

Yeah, it happens to me too but if you're really a fan of a series then you get over it. Besides, it's kind of unfair to the filmmakers to expect them to have enough foresight to know which technologies will be commonplace 10-20 years from now.

It is unfair to filmmakers, but I've been wondering if they can find a way around that.

[Jmacq1]

It is unfair to filmmakers, but I've been wondering if they can find a way around that.

Aside from setting it an a setting so "alternate" that it doesn't resemble the real world at all, or avoiding the depiction of technology altogether, I'm not sure there is a way around it.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

For far off future, you can get away with just props that don't reveal anything - ST: Next Gen was like that, and so were some of the Star Wars movies. But, for those closer to the present, that would be very difficult, because the present is moving so fast.

[Shellhead]

Viewers simply need to be aware that the world has changed over the years, and focus on acting and the plot while accepting the tech differences as making the movie a period piece. It's unfortunate that modern viewers might laugh out loud during a dramatic scene in a Hitchcock movie where someone is dialing on a rotary phone. Instead, they might pause to reflect how much more dramatic the scene becomes when dialing is a laborious process compared to speed-dial.

[Dreadstar]

It is unfair to filmmakers, but I've been wondering if they can find a way around that.

Why would you want to get around it?

Superman was set in circa 1980. Reporters were still using typewriters. Wall Street was set in 1987, a turbulent period of corporate takeovers. Superman III was set at a time when your computer *did* pop up DOS prompts, and it usually did it on a green screen (or, at the best 16-colors)

You use the props of the times. I mean, would you try to substitute a brand new Mustang for Steve McQueen's '68 C/D fastback? Nah, because the storyline happened in 1968.

[Shellhead]

And some great movies are period pieces anyway, like Miller's Crossing, a gangster movie set in the '20s. It's important for that movie to take place in that era, and the Coen Brothers really went with it, using appropriate clothes, vehicles, tommy guns, and even a vintage record player. Even the slang was right for the era (as far as I can tell). To update Miller's Crossing with cell phones and computers would be just wrong. It would be almost as bad as inserting modern technology into the Lord of the Rings movies.

[Jmacq1]

There's a big difference between movies that are actually intended as period pieces, and movies that were produced as "present day" that end up looking like period pieces 10 or 20 years later, though. In the former, the "dated" look makes the film more immersive, and the latter it becomes a distraction to some people.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

Why would you want to get around it?

Superman was set in circa 1980. Reporters were still using typewriters. Wall Street was set in 1987, a turbulent period of corporate takeovers. Superman III was set at a time when your computer *did* pop up DOS prompts, and it usually did it on a green screen (or, at the best 16-colors)

You use the props of the times. I mean, would you try to substitute a brand new Mustang for Steve McQueen's '68 C/D fastback? Nah, because the storyline happened in 1968.

Good point, and most viewers would know it. But it does detract from the story sometimes. Speaking of the 1960's, I am thinking of a scene from the James Bond movie, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where 007 broke into the lawyer's office, and he had to get another agent to use a crane from the outside to deliver a special machine in through the window to photocopy the secret documents. Today, if he did break in, he wouldn't need a special machine to photocopy anything - all offices have photocopy machines, portable or otherwise.

Scenes like that just seem quirky and do detract from the story. That said, most viewers would accept that. But it does seem strange, that's all.

[Dreadstar]

It would be almost as bad as inserting modern technology into the Lord of the Rings movies.

I don't know, I would have enjoyed seeing Numenor rolling out some heavy tanks against the Mumakil and their riders at the battle of Pelennor Fields. :wink:

[Dreadstar]

There's a big difference between movies that are actually intended as period pieces, and movies that were produced as "present day" that end up looking like period pieces 10 or 20 years later, though.

See, the thing is:

"Present day" *was* 10-20 years ago. The movie was supposed to tell the story set during that period, ala Superman and Wall Street.

Why slide "present day" from it's intended setting to "now?"

[Dreadstar]

Good point, and most viewers would know it. But it does detract from the story sometimes. Speaking of the 1960's, I am thinking of a scene from the James Bond movie, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where 007 broke into the lawyer's office, and he had to get another agent to use a crane from the outside to deliver a special machine in through the window to photocopy the secret documents. Today, if he did break in, he wouldn't need a special machine to photocopy anything - all offices have photocopy machines, portable or otherwise.

Scenes like that just seem quirky and do detract from the story. That said, most viewers would accept that. But it does seem strange, that's all.

But...



...no, nevermind.

[Jmacq1]

See, the thing is:

"Present day" *was* 10-20 years ago. The movie was supposed to tell the story set during that period, ala Superman and Wall Street.

Why slide "present day" from it's intended setting to "now?"

I'm not advocating changing them, it'd be pointless anyhow, and it doesn't really bother me personally/I tend not to notice.

However the fact is that the period/setting in the "not originally intended as period pieces" is supposed to be incidental or essentially nonessential to the film as a whole. By setting it in "present day" the filmmakers are giving the audience the opportunity to not really have to think about the setting much. "Oh yeah, it's just like today." When the film becomes dated, it suddenly becomes "OK, it's just like 1980...what were things like in 1980?" That's outside the intent of the original work.

Period pieces work on the opposite convention, it's meant to evoke the time period, to replicate the way of life, styles, and conventions of that time period. "Present day" movies aren't designed that way, or with that intent. I don't think we can ascribe it to them "after the fact."

[Green Lantern wannabe]

However the fact is that the period/setting in the "not originally intended as period pieces" is supposed to be incidental or essentially nonessential to the film as a whole. By setting it in "present day" the filmmakers are giving the audience the opportunity to not really have to think about the setting much. "Oh yeah, it's just like today." When the film becomes dated, it suddenly becomes "OK, it's just like 1980...what were things like in 1980?" That's outside the intent of the original work.

Period pieces work on the opposite convention, it's meant to evoke the time period, to replicate the way of life, styles, and conventions of that time period. "Present day" movies aren't designed that way, or with that intent. I don't think we can ascribe it to them "after the fact."

I think you're right. It doesn't really annoy me, but I'm forever fascinated (fixated?) by how technology looks obsolete in just a few years. Remember the movie, "You go mail"? That was just ten years ago and was a statement about the AOL phenomenon ... which is long out of date.

[Agent Helix]

A movie like "You've Got Mail" isn't supposed to be a classic for all time to begin with.

[Jmacq1]

A movie like "You've Got Mail" isn't supposed to be a classic for all time to begin with.

And that goes back to the root of the discussion, really: If the movie is good enough, no one will give the dated elements a second thought in most cases.

[The Batman]

I'm not advocating changing them, it'd be pointless anyhow, and it doesn't really bother me personally/I tend not to notice.

However the fact is that the period/setting in the "not originally intended as period pieces" is supposed to be incidental or essentially nonessential to the film as a whole. By setting it in "present day" the filmmakers are giving the audience the opportunity to not really have to think about the setting much. "Oh yeah, it's just like today." When the film becomes dated, it suddenly becomes "OK, it's just like 1980...what were things like in 1980?" That's outside the intent of the original work.

Period pieces work on the opposite convention, it's meant to evoke the time period, to replicate the way of life, styles, and conventions of that time period. "Present day" movies aren't designed that way, or with that intent. I don't think we can ascribe it to them "after the fact."

Well, that isn't the films becoming unintended period pieces so much as it is them becoming unintended artifacts and that's really something that's unavoidable isn't it? I mean, as much as artists might hope that their films are being watched in 20 years I think that their primary concern is and financially has to be entertaining their contemporary audiences.

[Agent Helix]

Most movies just aren't really meant to be rewatched down the line. It wasn't really until the advent of VHS that this was even possible, anyway. Sure, there's undeniable classics that bear rewatching, and they're not all that rare, but the vast majority of films, are you really going to go back to them in ten years? Twenty?

[Green Lantern wannabe]

Most movies just aren't really meant to be rewatched down the line. It wasn't really until the advent of VHS that this was even possible, anyway. Sure, there's undeniable classics that bear rewatching, and they're not all that rare, but the vast majority of films, are you really going to go back to them in ten years? Twenty?

Superman I, which was the movie that started this thread, is almost 30 years old, and so are the old Star Trek episodes. And, of course, war classics like The Longest Day were made before most of us were born and are still shown regularly.

That said, George Lucas may have the right approach - he revisited his old Star Wars movies and redid them, to bring them up to the times (and the prequels). Many would like the old movies the way they are, because obsolesence is part of the ambience, but, as I said, this is one approach.

[Agent Helix]

Superman is a classic. Star Trek just has a niche audience (sorry kids, it's true), and is viewed mostly as camp and kitsch by everyone else. And war movies are deeply rooted in the era in which they were made because every one of them is about a specific war.

[Jmacq1]

I dunno....there are a lot of people that tend to view Superman as pretty campy and kitschy these days.

[Agent Helix]

I dunno....there are a lot of people that tend to view Superman as pretty campy and kitschy these days.

Not nearly as much as Star Trek, though. That's as niche as you can get.

[HeckBoy]

I don't really think keeping the tech "timeless" or even non-obsolete for a couple years is really all that important. Everything's about product placement these days so a lot of the mundane, everyday tech (I'm excluding sci-fi flicks here) will reflect the trends of the day (or at least the trends of a couple months ago depending on how long post production takes). Plus, I don't think the audience cares. I mean, after 10 years, you know a film's going to be old and if you're going to watch it [again] after so long, you're probably watching it for the story instead of the tech (unless it's for a chuckle).

[saintsaucey]

The same can be said for using pop cultural refferences in a script/speech. I'm reminded of a Batman TOS episode in which Barbara dies while fighting scare crow, and Gordon outs Bruce Wayne as Batman. Four of his villians then go on to sue Bruce because he is richer than God and they are represented by someone who can only be a cartoon Johnny Cochran.

Listen to the commentary on that episode. The producers admit it was a bad Idea to include him because years from now no one will remember him. Anything can date a movie. Not just tech.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

I'm reminded of a Batman TOS episode in which Barbara dies while fighting scare crow, and Gordon outs Bruce Wayne as Batman. Four of his villians then go on to sue Bruce because he is richer than God and they are represented by someone who can only be a cartoon Johnny Cochran.

I'm a Batman fan - which episode and series are you referring to? The animated one from the 1990's?

[Shellhead]

There's a big difference between movies that are actually intended as period pieces, and movies that were produced as "present day" that end up looking like period pieces 10 or 20 years later, though. In the former, the "dated" look makes the film more immersive, and the latter it becomes a distraction to some people.

Why does there have to be a difference? Movies intended as period pieces are at a distinct disadvantage compared to movies actually filmed during that period, but audiences should be able to appreciate the results either way. The point is not to judge every piece of entertainment against the standards of right now, but to appreciate immersion in a given time and place depicted on the screen.

[Jmacq1]

Why does there have to be a difference? Movies intended as period pieces are at a distinct disadvantage compared to movies actually filmed during that period, but audiences should be able to appreciate the results either way. The point is not to judge every piece of entertainment against the standards of right now, but to appreciate immersion in a given time and place depicted on the screen.

Not when that isn't the intent of the original film, but see my post above re: The quality of a movie can be great enough to overcome any sense of "datedness" to it.

The point of Superman (for example) is not, and never was to make a movie that "immerses" you in the early 80's, it was intended to immerse the audience in "the present day" (or thereabouts). The passage of time cannot change the fundamental intent of the original film. This is the polar opposite of an actual period piece, which much of the whole point is to immerse the audience in that time period.

If a viewer chooses to view any "dated" film as a period piece by default, I suppose its' their right to do so, but I don't subscribe to the maxim of turning movies into period pieces after the fact.

As I said, for me personally it really doesn't matter, as I don't tend to be distracted by the dated elements anyway, at least not to the point of it detracting from my enjoyment of the film.

[saintsaucey]

I'm a Batman fan - which episode and series are you referring to? The animated one from the 1990's?

Yeah the one that was retitled and added Tim Drake as Robin I think the title was Batman Gotham Knights. I don't remember what the name of the episode was. It was a fairly poppular one. It starts out with a chase scene then cut to a flash back the cut forward to the present.

[Black Atom]

People always talk about how we've already got more sophisticated communicators than Captain Kirk and his crew did. Touch screens a la ST: TNG aren't all that far off from widespread implementation either (we've already got them on ATMs and handheld elecctronic notebooks). I guess the next step will be holographic/virtua interfaces somewhat like Minority Report. Generally, though that doesn't bother me. You have to think that technology is going to reach a practical end point, eventually.

What bothers me more in movies is tech that doesn't seem at all feasible or even practical. I find it a lot more jarring in a movie when there's tech that behaves like magic or does something so specific you'd wonder why it would have been invented, outside of serving its purpose in the movie.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

I would look at it this way.

If the movies don't have technology as an integral part of the story, then it doesn't matter. Examples are the Blues Brothers, Animal House, and, maybe, Superman I.

But, if the movies have technology as an integral part of the story, then it may matter. Examples are 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two, Star Trek, and Superman III.

Some movies are in-between. Wall Street had a scene where the bad guy was using a cell phone, to show how high-powered he was. Because technology was an integral part of that scene, then it would matter if that technology became out of date. Otherwise, the movie continues to be a good morality tale.

[Shellhead]

As a form of media, I think that movies are always about immersion in a setting, because you are presented with all these sights and sounds at the same time. In books, things can be more abstract or internal, dwelling upon thoughts and feelings to the exclusion of surroundings, depending on the writer.

[Agent Helix]

Superman III.


I'm sorry, but even if they'd gone into the future, stolen our technology and brought it back with them, then used it in the making of this film, Superman III would STILL be an enormous pile of shit.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

I agree that Superman III was a bad movie, but the thing is that, even if it had been a good movie, it would have seemed awkward, because computers were at the heart of that movie, and they are now seen as out of date.

And I do agree that, sometimes, it's important to get the dated look of the movie. Metropolis would be a perfect example, and The Sting would be another one.

[Agent Helix]

Metropolis? The movie made in 1927 that depicted the far-flung clockwork future of 2026?

[Dreadstar]

I... my mind is broken now, I think.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

Metropolis? The movie made in 1927 that depicted the far-flung clockwork future of 2026?

Well, it's the ambience, like Blade Runner is about ambience. But I see your point.

[Agent Helix]

But it disproves your point. The technology in that film, by our standards, is completely laughable. It's literally a bunch of guys moving arrows around by hand for no particular reason. It's a complete joke.

But it's one of the best movies ever made.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

But it disproves your point. The technology in that film, by our standards, is completely laughable. It's literally a bunch of guys moving arrows around by hand for no particular reason. It's a complete joke.

But it's one of the best movies ever made.

Touche. I guess that's why film-making is an art form - there're no absolute answers.

[Shellhead]

Btw, when I first read this thread title, I thought this was going to be about CGI. A lot of actors struggle to do a good job in movies that are heavy on the CGI effects.

[kalorama]

Btw, when I first read this thread title, I thought this was going to be about CGI. A lot of actors struggle to do a good job in movies that are heavy on the CGI effects.

Which is one of the reasons why certain actors tend to get typecast into doing effects heavy stuff, because directors know they understand how to work within the parameters.

[Black Atom]

I would look at it this way.

If the movies don't have technology as an integral part of the story, then it doesn't matter. Examples are the Blues Brothers, Animal House, and, maybe, Superman I.

But, if the movies have technology as an integral part of the story, then it may matter. Examples are 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two, Star Trek, and Superman III.

Some movies are in-between. Wall Street had a scene where the bad guy was using a cell phone, to show how high-powered he was. Because technology was an integral part of that scene, then it would matter if that technology became out of date. Otherwise, the movie continues to be a good morality tale.

Wall Street isn't a great example, mostly because it's not meant to be timeless in the way we tend to think of the word. It encapsulates the greed/money culture of the era, so I think it's okay if people see that cell phone and instantly realize the story takes place in the 80s.

It's probably a bigger deal with stuff like TNG-era Trek (as opposed to the original show) because I don't think the show's as interesting if you can't believe they're 3,000 years in the future or whatever it's supposed to be.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

Wall Street isn't a great example, mostly because it's not meant to be timeless in the way we tend to think of the word. It encapsulates the greed/money culture of the era, so I think it's okay if people see that cell phone and instantly realize the story takes place in the 80s.

It's probably a bigger deal with stuff like TNG-era Trek (as opposed to the original show) because I don't think the show's as interesting if you can't believe they're 3,000 years in the future or whatever it's supposed to be.

I'd have to agree - that scene in Wall Street was just a minor one. The thing with TNG is a much greater deal, since it is supposed to be 300 years in the future, in the 25th Century. But, as has been said before, most people would understand why the props are out of date.

I wonder if it's a good idea to redo Star Trek, the old series. George Lucas did it with Star Wars.

[Omega Alpha]

Others' opinions differ. Both versions (well, all three now I suppose) of the film have their adherents and detractors.

Well, Scott and Ford are among the detractors...

And that goes back to the root of the discussion, really: If the movie is good enough, no one will give the dated elements a second thought in most cases.

Exactly.

[ultramandingo]

.......... id rather watch a Ray Harryhausen dinosaur than a cgi one - heck id rather watch a guy in a rubber suit smashing toy tanks than something made in a stinking cubicle

[Black Atom]

I'd have to agree - that scene in Wall Street was just a minor one. The thing with TNG is a much greater deal, since it is supposed to be 300 years in the future, in the 25th Century. But, as has been said before, most people would understand why the props are out of date.

I wonder if it's a good idea to redo Star Trek, the old series. George Lucas did it with Star Wars.

I lot of people would say it was a bad idea when George did that. It holds up fine, in any case. The original Trek was really a classic sci-fi show, like The Twilight Zone. Both are still relevant because of the questions they asked about humanity, ethics etc.

TNG and the shows that followed were mostly space-dramas. The tech is part of the setting, so it's probably more integral that it seems like it could plausibly come from 300 years in the future.

[Green Lantern wannabe]

I lot of people would say it was a bad idea when George did that. It holds up fine, in any case. The original Trek was really a classic sci-fi show, like The Twilight Zone. Both are still relevant because of the questions they asked about humanity, ethics etc.

TNG and the shows that followed were mostly space-dramas. The tech is part of the setting, so it's probably more integral that it seems like it could plausibly come from 300 years in the future.

I don't like the new version of Star Wars when redundant scenes were added - as to what's redundant, it's of course a matter of individual taste. As for Star Trek, the old series, yes, it's about questions of humanity and so on. But it's also a technical sci-fi show, and, to that extent, perhaps it should be redone.

[Alex Dragon]

Btw, when I first read this thread title, I thought this was going to be about CGI. A lot of actors struggle to do a good job in movies that are heavy on the CGI effects.

I've always thought that the actors doing work against greenscreens and with special effects have a harder job and are doing truer "acting" than the ones in real locations and have the real things around them. I think it's easier to act like it's cold when you're in a cold climate than to act like it's cold when actually 80 degrees.

[Alex Dragon]

Most movies just aren't really meant to be rewatched down the line. It wasn't really until the advent of VHS that this was even possible, anyway. Sure, there's undeniable classics that bear rewatching, and they're not all that rare, but the vast majority of films, are you really going to go back to them in ten years? Twenty?

People can watch and enjoy older movies from any era if they just acknowlege it's an older movie and accept it. I can watch the old Star Trek from the 60s and not be bothered by what their version of the future looks like because in my mind after watching it for a few seconds even though it's supposed to set in the future it still looks like the 60s. Any movie from the 50s to me always looks like a 50s movie regarless if it's supoosed to be set in the future, the past or the then present day 50s. To me STAR WARS looks like a 70s movie, SUPERMAN looks like a 70s movie and the the THREE MUSKETEERS looks like a 70s movie even thought they're all supposedly set in different times. There are so many subtle visual cues that tells you what era a movie was made in regardless of the setting the movie pretty much just screams the decade it was made in. Particularly the older movies.

[Alex Dragon]

But you also want product placement dollars, too. If Sony wants to give you a million dollars to use their phones in the movie, who really cares how the technology looks in 10 years?

I actually like product placement. To me it's more distracting to have fake names of products than the real thing. Having a box of cereal named "Sugar Flakes", a dirty magazine called "Play Pen", an energy drink called "Blue Bull" is distracting because it just keeps pointing out that it's a made up world and it just makes me dwell on that product more than I would if it were something familiar like "Corn Flakes", "Playboy" and "Red Bull". With the real things there my mind just accepts it and moves on. When something isn't quite right it draws my attention and takes me out of the story for a few seconds.

[Jared]

I actually like product placement. To me it's more distracting to have fake names of products than the real thing. Having a box of cereal named "Sugar Flakes", a dirty magazine called "Play Pen", an energy drink called "Blue Bull" is distracting because it just keeps pointing out that it's a made up world and it just makes me dwell on that product more than I would if it were something familiar like "Corn Flakes", "Playboy" and "Red Bull". With the real things there my mind just accepts it and moves on. When something isn't quite right it draws my attention and takes me out of the story for a few seconds.

I feel the same way. As long it's not an unncessary closeup of the soda can, or a character needlessly name-dropping a brand name and extolling its virtues in an unrealistic way, I have no problem with it.

To me, what makes Star Trek TOS look especially jarring and silly is how the look makes it painfully obvious that the movies were made years later, and with a much bigger budget. Look at any episode, then look at the first movie, it's hard to believe that they're the same universe at all, much less only ten or so years apart.