Why 'Used Future' is better than 'iPod Future'
Quick, name a sci-fi movie with an aesthetic you can actually see happening!
I'm willing to bet Star Trek didn't pop up immediately, huh? (Sorry Linkara).
See there's two competing schools of thought in how to portray a 'future' world legitimately and believably. School 1 is the iPod future, best typified by the J.J Abrahms Star Trek feature. Everything is shiny, antiseptic and beautiful. All sleek lines, soft curves and the feeling that the Apple corporation became frighteningly more powerful in the intervening years.
The problem with this future is, let's face it, its not something we can really believe is attainable. Did you ever watch an episode of Star Trek and say to yourself "Yeah! That's exactly how its gonna be!"? While some of you did, I'm betting more saw it as just as fantastic as the more mystical elements of Star Wars. As a movie watcher, the aesthetics of Star Trek always seemed too...clean to me. It came across as beautiful, yes, but not practical. Now you may answer this with a retort of "But its the future! How will you know what things look like x years from now?!" I don't, but I'm willing to bet it won't look like Star Trek. The other main gripe I had with iPod future is honestly, it never looks like anyone's meant to actually LIVE there. It all gives the impression of beautiful set pieces and model homes, but nothing relates the feeling of someone actually having raised a family in any of the houses or skyscrapers.
Contrasted with this, and a setting I find much more belivable is the Used Future setting. I made a previous post about Alien, but I'm going to bring it up again. Along with Star Wars, Alien showed a future you could actually believe would happen.
...