I noticed Peter Boyle playing some form of Wii Golf. Is it Wii? I'm so behind all the computer advances. I also noticed the video phone and the ability to log and differentiate between different calls from the same person...what did other people here see?
shareNothing big about the gold simulator... it's actually been around for 30 years, long before your precious Wii was invented :)
In other words, the one Peter Boyle is playing was an actual golf simulator, likely the one named Par-T Golf.
A company called optronics brags about being the first to have perfected these. Look them up.
The videophone? Well, they had tv back then, and the car phone had been around for some years, I guess visionaries could see the next step. I guess the same resonance was made about the logging of calls, there being computers available.
But yeah, it's funny to see what they developed in movies.
Think about Minority Report. We're not too far away from the virtual screen. They've already invented hardware that can project a useable interface on any surface.
[deleted]
Damn, I watched this film yesterday and that's exactly what came into my mind: the guy's playing Wii Sports!
share I wince slightly whenever this film's 'realism' is discussed. Sure, some things presented here are quite prophetic, like it's the 21st century, and we're still using 50 year-old kitchen mixers, rich guys still like to play golf by themselves (so no one can see how bad they play), and everybody still prefers their food deep-fried.
The film's visual treatment of 'used near-future' is designed to remind us of our own world and be immediately recognizable to us, which is why you still see french fries, which probably would cost more to ship to Io, than the titanium, shipped home by the astro-miners, is worth. The film's setting is compelling, visually exciting and entertaining, but it is not terribly realistic. The wonderfully intuitive, flexible, and highly selective artificial gravity system works overtime to move the story along, but it does not hold up well to engineering scrutiny.
Is anything in this film truly prophetic? Oddly enough, no. There are no portable telephones, no Internet, no Blackberrys, no social networking. The lo-fi employee photos are only slightly less crappy than the one on my Costco card, which is a centimeter on a side; meanwhile, answering machines deal in full-colour hi-res video imaging, to maintain the dramatic impact of Mrs. O'Niel's 'Dear Sean' letter.
'Outland' does not deal in prophecy, other than the probably-true prediction that corruption, crime, vice, and greed will follow mankind into outer space, and the maybe-true prediction that once we are tired of sending squeaky-clean bible-thumping teetotalers into space we will start sending low-class scuzzbags with nasty facial hair and clogged arteries. It's just not that kind of movie.
>Is anything in this film truly prophetic? Oddly enough, no. There are no
>portable telephones, no Internet, no Blackberrys, no social networking.
>The lo-fi employee photos are only slightly less crappy than the one on my
>Costco card, which is a centimeter on a side; meanwhile, answering machines deal
>in full-colour hi-res video imaging, to maintain the dramatic impact of Mrs.
>O'Niel's 'Dear Sean'
The premise of the film is that lower class people go to a mining colony to work themselves nearly to death, in order to go back to earth with a load of money. In fact the miners are so focused on their bonusses that they voluntarily take drugs to work more. They are even angry about being possibly replaced by machines.
Cell phones, internet, blackberrys, facebook etc. are luxuries for people who have actual lives... These miners don't seem to have time for anything other than work, and perhaps the colony's hookers and booze. Besides, try using the internet from a distance of close to a million kilometres from earth.
As for the technology, it is low tech by todays standards, but very realistic considering that this is happening in space. computers in space would be designed to last for the lifetime of the colony and be reliable for everyday use until the colony is decommissioned. Spacecraft today use 70's computer technology, because it is rugged and reliable in hostile environments such as space.
No. The people are lower class because we are asked to suppose that space has become the dumping ground for our lower class. This is a fantasy. We have people right here on Earth spending micro-fortunes today on Cell phones, internet, blackberrys, facebook etc., even though they can barely afford their mortgages or put food on their family's tables. Why on Earth would such things be available at any Wal-mart if the lower classes weren't expected to buy them? Angry about being replaced? They're not angry about being replaced, they're angry that their Shop Steward is a weenie, and want to replace him! As for their distance from Earth, it comprises a 20-minute delay as the lightspeed crow flies. Assuming the 'Space Station' has a central computer, one might assume that this would be the computer one interacted with, using an Io-based Internet. In other words, someone would figure it out.
As for the technology, what was presented in 1981 was cutting-edge for 1981, which was when the film was made. We are to suppose, then, that it will be a cutting-edge world, in 'Outland', albeit a well-used, and grungy one. Stuff lasts 25 years in space before it is replaced, because that's about how long it presently takes for stuff to stop working and blow up. That's why we're retiring the Space Shuttles, because they've already killed people, and also because since they run on Windows 3.1 (NOT 70's technology, sorry), they no longer support Instant Upgrade. But if we ever colonize planetary space, the limiting factor will be distance. At least optical fibres are light, low-volume, and relatively easy on the wallet pocket, although that was not at all certain in 1981. So there is actually a tiny piece of prescient future-posing in 'Outland'.
The use of 'Used, Near-Future' in 'Outland' serves a singular purpose, that of suspension of disbelief, which is crucial to engaging the audience in the story; if this fails, nothing else really matters, including any real sense or logic. Because so much is familiar to the audience (french fries, Keds, Winchesters, whores) the audience involuntarily 'sees' itself in the film. That does not mean it is either realistic, or even believable, from any practical point of view. This was true in 1981, never mind the present day.
>Angry about being replaced? They're not angry about being replaced, they're
>angry that their Shop Steward is a weenie, and want to replace him!
Wrong.
>As for their distance from Earth, it comprises a 20-minute delay as the
>lightspeed crow flies. Assuming the 'Space Station' has a central computer, one
>might assume that this would be the computer one interacted with, using an Io-
>based Internet. In other words, someone would figure it out.
You are making assumptions that don't fit with the environment of the film. A 20 minute delay means that there is no internet to IO, that is the nature of packet switching. If you are refering to the communication systems shown in the film, then it is a colony wide intranet with slow long range communication.
>Stuff lasts 25 years in space before it is replaced, because that's about how
>long it presently takes for stuff to stop working and blow up.
No, radiation kills microelectronics. Thats a fact.
>That's why we're retiring the Space Shuttles, because they've already killed
>people, and also because since they run on Windows 3.1 (NOT 70's technology,
>sorry), they no longer support Instant Upgrade.
Even the AP-101S used 1970's technology, although packaged differently and using semiconductor memory instead of cores and it didn't run windows 3.1. The most mainstream processor aboard the upgraded shuttles were the low speed radiation hardened 386 display controllers also made using 1970's tech.
>At least optical fibres are light, low-volume, and relatively easy on the
>wallet pocket, although that was not at all certain in 1981. So there is
>actually a tiny piece of prescient future-posing in 'Outland'.
Actually, optical fibres were old tech in 1980. With many first gen systems in place and second generation in the works.
>That does not mean it is either realistic, or even believable, from any
>practical point of view. This was true in 1981, never mind the present day.
And yet, the technology in Outland and even Alien is quite realistic, simply because space is such a harsh and unforgiving environment.
Allthough the technology seems solid and realistic, I cant remember any real innovations in this one.
I think it is a foregone conclusion that the film is hardly prophetic, either in its future prognostications, or in its product placement. On the other hand, it is now the year 2014. Keds, shotguns, french fries and whores are still as popular as ever, and promise to continue to be so, far into the forseeable future.
shareAaand... guess what, kiddies? It's now the year 2022 and we can't get a rocket full of clothing dummies to our own moon, much less anybody else's.
shareThe first email was sent in 1971 and the computer engineer who sent it also invented the "@" character.
share