Sci-Fi Displays

roxics

roxics

Veteran
I think what irks me the most in science fiction films today is the over use of transparent displays and glitchy holograms. Often with blue or green geometric shapes scattered about. As if all future computer interfaces will look like blueprints made out of the lasers.

For starters the novelty of a transparent display would wear off after about 5 minutes and then it would just get annoying that you can't display opaque images or have to stare at the wall behind your desk through your display.

As for holograms, if they aren't going to work properly, lets just not use them. They seem like more trouble than they're worth. Especially if they don't even look as good as a modern HDTV.

But I think what baffles me the most is that these films are often made by professional filmmakers who strive for the best image quality possible for the film itself, then fail to realize that the future should probably have nicer displays than we have today.
 
roxics said:
...then fail to realize that the future should probably have nicer displays than we have today.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that future 'brain implant display' technology is very hard to 'film', since the implant is in the actor's head and connected directly to the optic nerve...

In the 50's even for 'big', relatively speaking... budget SciFi, one had smoke out of rocket exhausts that 'floated up'... clearly indicating that it was not in space... in addition to 'control' equipment that looked stunningly like ordinary terrestrial equipment... perhaps only differing with shinny coverings.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
equipment that looked stunningly like ordinary terrestrial equipment... perhaps only differing with shinny coverings.
Click to expand...

That still happens a lot. Just the other nght I saw some Galaxy Notes being used as some kind of a futuristic telecommunication system with stuff bolted to it. That doesn't bother me. Not all props can start from scratch. That's more of a budget restriction which I can understand. Same is true with the rocket exhaust. They just didn't have th eresources to do it right.
But it's when they take their time and go out of their way to create these computer generated futuristic displays and don't realize the problems in displays that are all transparent, blue and glitchy. Like somehow everyone in the future will prefer them over the nice full color opaque displays we have today. That's what bothers me.

Instances of this are:
Minority Report - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8qydOVkhD6E/UFTQYAeNzAI/AAAAAAAAAW4/jH28f6XHT_Y/s1600/mreport_8.png
Avatar - http://inventinginteractive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/avatar_43.jpg
Prometheus - https://m1.behance.net/rendition/modules/121681659/hd/089b5f44ffe6859a7e112efecb6dfb00.jpg
and countless others.
 
Last edited:
They just use those transparent displays because they look good, and they are more efficient visually. Instead of having a close up of the monitor, and then the reverse of the person looking at the monitor, and then back to the monitor, you just have a single shot of both the actor and whatever's on screen.
 
Ok, I'm waiting for the futuristic display to pop up and space dude sees a video of a cat. Smacks the projection cube and you see and hear... OK now I'm testing my new 50mm lens, with another shot of a cat. Smacks the projection cube once more... Like I said the empire is crumbling, did you get all that?
 
Unless I see the technology on the old Star Trek classic episodes, I ignore it. Too much of what they demonstrated has come to reality. Imagine someone pulling out a communicator, a tricorder (ipad/tablet), and then sitting there on the bridge looking at a big screen display. Too many coincidences. The only thing missing is the gizmo Bones ran over the body to say "he's dead Jim". Strangely enough, that will likely be coming in the near future as well. It would not be as hard to engineer as once thought.
Tractor beams and transporters to follow.
 
Batutta said:
They just use those transparent displays because they look good, and they are more efficient visually. Instead of having a close up of the monitor, and then the reverse of the person looking at the monitor, and then back to the monitor, you just have a single shot of both the actor and whatever's on screen.
Click to expand...

Yeah I figured that and it makes sense. But as a person sucked into that story environment, I just can't get past it seeming impractical for the user.
 
roxics said:
Yeah I figured that and it makes sense. But as a person sucked into that story environment, I just can't get past it seeming impractical for the user.
Click to expand...

Here's an article on 'futuristic' that is more 'near future' than 'far'...

http://www.cnet.com/news/augmented-reality-contact-lenses-to-be-human-ready-at-ces/

The problem with these sorts of 'display' devices, is it really requires in the Film medium to only view displays from a 'inside the actor's head POV'... otherwise if the character were wearing contact lens + 'Heads Up' display devices, there would be no 'external' display for the viewer to see. Recall the 'internal POV' shots in "Terminator"(1984)... The shot from the external view would show some joker looking like they are suffering from St. Vitus Dance symptoms, or Ray Charles, depending... and perhaps while entertaining in some situations... doesn't lend itself to 'Filmables' which is the basis of... well... Film...
 
Of course the most common real-world use today of what you describe would be heads-up displays in the windshields of aircraft and cars.
Lots going on behind those displays...

But you've got me wondering what kind of displays Nolan uses in Interstellar.
And since it's his homage to 2001 A Space Odyssey, let's not forget that Kubrick's cutting-edge displays and content now look so... 1968.
 
Worst thing EVER in scifi films is to using conventional guns against anything in the future. Always one big LOL from me. Never seen more stupid and dumb thing ever. I always laght hard when I see hoards of troops rattling with their silly inflated gun and armor design runing against any unknown thing or entity or whatever danger it is. From old Alien to Avatar same old big cliche and stupidity.

I think that all the fame of the transparent displays came from HUD displays from jet figters which are synonymous for one of the most fast, powerfull and progressive things we enjoy. Unless HUD displays are huge help for pilots, politics, snipers and some special service workers for the rest of use it will be total mess and nausea distraction. Btw WWII Spitfire fighter had some kind of HUD ;)
 
Last edited:
Btw we already have or just touched technologies we always dreamed about and almost nobody is aware of it.
Like teleportation. ;)

Development is so fast, that futurist dont know what to predict. Some things will be reality tommorrow.
 
hawaj said:
Worst thing EVER in scifi films is to using conventional guns against anything in the future. Always one big LOL from me.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I agree with you there. There is something to be said about projectile weapons, especially in space where the only two effective weapons would be projectile or laser. But lasers in real life don't work like lasers in many sci-fi movies. I think projectile weapons are a safe bet for sci-fi.

That said, I think future projectile weapons might switch out the gun powder for electromagnetic propulsion. That means no spent shells flying out of the gun, but also more rounds per magazine that provide the same punch since you only need the bullet and not the shell. But it would mean guns that need batteries as well.
 
hawaj said:
Worst thing EVER in scifi films is to using conventional guns against anything in the future. Always one big LOL from me. Never seen more stupid and dumb thing ever. I always laght hard when I see hoards of troops rattling with their silly inflated gun and armor design runing against any unknown thing or entity or whatever danger it is. From old Alien to Avatar same old big cliche and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that because it is the year 2014 that swords and knives are incapable of harming us in the 21st century?

When it comes to weaponry on any kind of scale, simpler is better, cheaper is better. Throughout history weapon advances have been driven in symbiotic response to developments in armor, maneuverability and tactics. Even then it is slow to move outside of total war or an arms race. If we could hold off that long it would be years after the initial invasion of a technologically superior alien before combat equipment, strategy and tactics caught up. And only then if we retain our manufacturing base and research capacity. Successful military weapons are easy to understand, break down and repair. Every marine is married to his rifle. It is his rifle. Will the soldier of the future with his million dollar laser handgun be capable of maintaining and repairing it?

Also the disparity in military hardware between 'us' and 'them' is an effective technique to demonstrate in every frame of the film that we are technologically inferior. If we have laser guns and they have plasma rifles or disintegration rays...well it doesn't really illustrate that the good guys are out-manned, out-gunned and reduced to the equivalent of throwing rocks. So there are often legitimate story reasons as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top