Talk:Retro-futurism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sky Captain, etc.

If this article is on retro-futurism, should we be including things that were just plain futurism at the time? For example, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is obviously retro-futuristic, in that it uses a mid-twentieth-century vision of the future (and places it during the actual past), but Metropolis or Buck Rogers were genuine "future" settings. I think the article should be more clear on this topic. -Branddobbe 23:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As another example, Nineteen Eighty-Four was also futuristic in its time. The specification of 'futuristic' as set in the 1990s or afterward seems quite arbitrary to me. But then that begs the definition of futurism too. Is the Book of Revelations futuristic? Is futurism necessarily fictional, or can it be nonfictional? Can retro-futurism refer to either a retrograde style of futurism or a retrograde style of prediction? What is the status of factual information in futurism, such as satellites in Arthur C. Clarke's book where he predicted satellites? Is furutism necessarily science-fiction? The meaning of 'science-fiction' is not always clear, as it could refer to 'space opera' or 'science fantasy' or 'speculative fiction.' 'Prior futuristic' might also be 'prior specualtion' or alternate-history speculation. The usual distinction between possible-future speculation and possible-history speculation may not be clear-cut for fiction. oneismany 14:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, What is the status of settings that follow past futurisms that are now retro-futurisms? (For example the sequels to a futuristic story taking place in the past.) I vote for post-retrofuturism! And the status of present settings in retrofuturism, as distinguished from accurate predictions? Transformers: The Movie takes place in the year 2005. Is it retro-futurism, or is it just fantasy? Retro-fantasy? The year 2005 is now here, which makes the Transformers not futuristic, but simply fictional. On the other hand, in 1984 they were supposed to come from a planet millions of years old, which would make them futuristic fantasy, but in the present, not in the future. What is present-day futurism? If 2005 is the present in the Transformers movie and it is present now, does that make the year 2005 in the movie factual? On the other hand, what makes a year factual anyway? oneismany 14:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess that every sci-fi story that occurs in the future is destined to become retro-futuristic, unless it's perfectly accurate. I think there should be a separation between futuristic stories that became retro-futuristic, and "true" retro-futurism, that was deliberately made in the style of old sci-fi.
A sci-fi story doesn't have to occur in a year that has already passed to be considered as retro-futurism. Some of Asimov's stories, for example, occcur after the 21st century, but we already know the world won't be like the ones portrayed in them.
I think retro-futurism is closely related to steampunk, because both are based on "what they thought could be". The difference between the two is sometimes blurred. Is Asimov's Multivac, that works on obsolete vaccum tubes, is retrofuturistic or steampunky? How about the 1984 telescreens? I think the connection between the two terms should be mentioned in the article.XamiXiarus 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
'Futurism' is artifice in the style of a prediction. 'Retro-futurism' is artifice in the style of an outdated prediction. I argue that it also includes artifice in an outdated style of prediction, e.g., outdated futurism. In other words, sincerely futuristic literature that is now outdated, either because the time frame has passed or because certain elements are now anachronistic, is also retro-futuristic (in addition to futurism that is deliberately and knowingly anachronistic). I argue that if modeling your futurism on Transformers: The Movie (for example) makes it retro, then the source you are modeling is also retro. Discussion? oneismany 21:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to improve the article with your perspective. --Loremaster 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portmanteau?

I don't think "retro-futurism" is a portmanteau of "retro" and "futurism". I mean, obviously it is derived from those words, in that it is those two words placed one after the other. But surely a corresponding portmanteau would be "returism" or "futro". Or "futroism". -- Supermorff 15:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I've made the appropriate changes. --Loremaster 15:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlestar Galactica

Shouldn't the new Battlestar Galactica tv series be included since it uses antiquated technology in contrast with its futuristic setting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.11.58 (talk • contribs) (22:40, 3 January 2007)

No. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retro-futuristic hoaxing

I added a new section: Retro-futurism#Hoaxing featuring an example I saw in the Photoshopping article. If anyone knows of other notable retro-futuristic hoaxes, please add them. --Teratornis 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, darn. The Image:Lukket-50s-computer-HOAX.jpg is copyrighted, and under terms of fair use I can't include it in other articles. I'm changing the section to refer to the fair-use instance of the photo without including it in Retro-futurism. --Teratornis 05:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomorrowland

I think there should be a mention of the Tomorrowland section of the Disney theme parks in the examples of retro-futurism. Each Tomorrowland (or in the case of Disneyland Paris, 'Discoveryland') is based on a retro-futuristic architectural design.Macg4cubeboy 03:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steampunk?

I was wondering why this article focuses entirely on the 50's era retro-futurism. Isn't that merely one flavor of retro-futurism? For instance, I fully expected steampunk to be listed here as a subcategory of retro-futurism, and yet it's excluded as something else entirely. Rofang 01:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think steampunk is retro-futurist, at least by my understanding of the term and that described in the article. Retro-futurism is a vision of the future as held by the people at the time. Steampunk is the otherway around - I think it was created in the 1980s rather than the Victorians' own image of the future. The 50s-style retro-futurism, on the other hand, is actually how the people of the 50s imagined the future. AdamBMorgan 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Who

Why was the referance to Dr Who removed? (Slatersteven 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Dune

Although not a retro-futrue film Dune certainly has a retro-future look to it, should it be included in the film list? (Slatersteven 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

No. Dune is a completely different animal altogether. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Raygun Gothic

There's insufficient material in that article to stand on its own, but it makes a reasonable subcategory for this article (where it's already discussed). RandomCritic 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with this suggestion. The Raygun Gothic article is little more than a stub---indeed, reformatted, and with the extraneous Gibson material removed, there would be hardly anything there at all. This merger is appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I have yet to see editors produce a reliable source to the effect that Raygun Gothic is entirely reducible to retro-futurism. I would appreciate it if editors would discuss the proposed merge with a view to forming consensus rather than trying to ram it through unilaterally. Skomorokh incite 11:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This merge proposal has been in place for over a month. That is hardly "ramming it through unilaterally". RandomCritic 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce McCall

Not adding him to the list of artists is a serious oversight. --Armadillo01 15:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)armadillo01

Well, if you are so certain that he is important, add him yourself. Oh, and please use edit summaries. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic entries

There seems to be some uncertainty over what qualifies as retro-futuristic; in looking at some of the entries, I get the impression that some editors have thought that any science fiction more than a few years old is "retro-futuristic". Here are my thoughts on what retro-futuristic is not:

  • If it's science fiction set in the past, even an "alternate past", which doesn't portray the trappings of a *future* society (from the point of view of both the time period portrayed and the present), it's retro, but not futuristic.
  • If it's science fiction set in the future, and it's still a semi-plausible future from the point of view of the present, then it's futuristic, but not retro.
  • If it includes a bunch of random science fiction cliches, some of which may be past their sell-by date, but doesn't fit them into a somewhat coherent setting, it's not retro-futurism, it's just a stylistic mixture.

Ideally, retrofutures should be set in the future (at least, the future from the point of view of the particular time the retrostyle is based on -- the date might be the present or even the last few decades) but I suppose we have to include "presents" where futuristic tech has been produced by mad scientists and the like. There's still a difference between retro-futuristic tech intruding in an ordinary retro society, and a total retro-futuristic society (where, say, everybody is wearing shiny plastic clothing and going to work by jet-pack), and that might be worth breaking out at some point. RandomCritic 05:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, a distinction needs to be made between retro-futurism and remakes of pre-1965 science fiction subjects (like Flash Gordon, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Duck Dodgers -- in these cases, the "retro" style that may appear derives not from a deliberate choice to be anachronistic, but from a faithfulness to the established styles of the subject matter. It may be an exercise in nostalgia, but it's not "retro" because the styles aren't contradictory to the time and place of their origin. -- RandomCritic (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

Does anyone consider this to be retro-futurist? I think it is a bit off the mark. I have seen it listed over in the steampunk article, to which it is closer. But, it really has nothing to do with a Victorian or early 20th century model of the future. Rather, it is set in the Victorian age, but with anachronistic technology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am going to delete it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Future Part II

Anyone wanna toss BTTF II into the appropriate category? TheHYPO (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Robot attackers.jpg

Image:Robot attackers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge from futuristic clothing

The clothing article is a stub, and everything described therein pertains to retrofuturism (futuristic clothing means dressing in skintight suits etc as imagined in old-fashioned SF). So i think this article should have a subsection about retrofuturism's influence on fashion, and the other should redirect there.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)