Films about science and technology are usually pessimistic. Why?

then please refute

>he has never heard of slice of life genre

Please tell me about these slice of life sci-fi movies that I've been missing.

I did. Most of them have conflicts. No matter the genre, it is extremely difficult to have a an interesting plot without any conflict

Entropy?
The chances of total chaos/annihilation/destruction of the universe in general far out way everything working out in a nice and good way
T.not very scientific sounding guy

Most of "Planetes" if hard sci-fi slice of life. Most are anime, so I suggest you search with that in mind. It is an extremely popular genre, but is often mixed with other genre.

That's a western thing. A lot of asian stories don't have conflict. Getting no conflict and having sci-fi is hard to find since most of this shit is popular only as slice of life which is a real hard genre to find good shit since there's so much.

Every episode of that show has some sort of conflict in it. "conflict" in storytelling doesnt mean that there has to be a fight or anything

That's incorrect. By that definition a character walking down the road is in conflict with Earth's gravity and therefore any story about him will have conflict because of that.

Not at all. That wouldnt be a conflict

>terrorist attacks
>intense salvage drama
>individual character drama

Planetes is not in the same category as Yuru Yuri.

But YRYR is still superior

A boy walks through the street and he gets home, drinks a glass of milk and goes for a nap.
He wakes up and sees his mother, who then asks him to bring some flour from the store. He comes back from the store and his mom makes fried shrimp. The kid liked it.

That's a story. There was no conflict in it. Please don't redefine conflict to be right here, you weren't.

Alright I concede, a story doesn't need conflict to be one, but that story you wrote is boring as shit.

Of course it is, it has no conflict.
Also, the boy died because his mother was undergoing severe depression and poisoned the food to escape the dread of maintaining her child as a single mother with no lucrative skills.

Because humans are pessimistic about ourselves and society.

Wow sounds like something we need to spend millions of dollars on to turn into a sci-fi movie.

Watch Star Trek

The modern star trek stuff is pessimistic in a meta sense.

>story ends with technology willingly abandoned or destroyed, with society reverting to "natural state in harmony with nature, a fresh start"

why the fuck didn't the elysium ring have any fucking roof?
That can't be good for atmosphere containment, temperature regulation and cosmic ray protection

i always wondered what would have happened after the end of fight club.
i'd imagine just some sort of dictatorship to arise and or the US being invaded by another power. Basically, the world market crashes; dictators show up everywere, a new world war maybe and then return to normal after a new equilibrium is found, but no fullfillment whatsoever of tyler durdens strange hippie fantasies

Why doesn't earth have a roof?

Same reason.

are you fucking serious? Theres no way an atmosphere so thin could regulate temperature and protect you from cosmic rays, UV rays etc. And i'm pretty sure with walls so low you'd lose a fuckton of atmosphere every week, even if elysium has 1g as it should have according to the film

>Films about science and technology are usually pessimistic. Why?

You can thank Michael Crichton for that.

In the late 80s that fucking hack started looking at any new tech that was on the horizon, and because he didn't truly understand it he freaked out and used that as the general outline for all his shitty book. And of course, this approach has mass appeal and fear markets itself.

1. See new tech
2. Something goes wrong
3. Running and screaming
4.
5. Profit

The answer is "cool visuals"
There is no good reason for it in the film.

Nobody would ever design it that way. It would have at least a transparent ceiling, if they really wanted the open look

>Veeky Forumstards think that the air would stay inside the torus simply because it's spinning

Because the forward march of technology does not mean things get better.

Jesus Christ, this is a work safe board.

That movie was for pacification.

Films like that are to be an outlet for a society's pent up anger towards its own government. It is a form of control, a release valve to prevent any sort of actual retaliation against the governement or people in places of power.

Watching these movies pacifies you. You live vicariously through the movie. This allows you to remain a good sheep and little consumer whore.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/overthinking-it/how-elysium-is-a-carnival-ride-and-why-its-atmosphere-is-a-bucket-of-water/

Watch out! Popsci coming through!

>It would also need a power source, as frictional forces would sap its spin
?
What frictional forces? Solar winds? Or just the corriolis effect of the atmosphere inside the ring?
Also, why is this article made? Just to tell us to shut up and accept everything

Are there good scientific movies made by chinese or russians maybe?

solaris
the original one

I cant remember the author who im quoting but i remember when asked by a mother this same question he replied with something like "ma'am I write about these terrible worlds so that your children know not to let them come to pass"

the banks and credit agencies enact their disaster recovery plans and use their off site backup records.

FBI, ATF, CIA, and others hunt down the Fight Club terrorists and arrest or kill them all.

The recession they caused ends a few years later. Corporate power over government is even stronger.

>...and merely return to the status quo...
THIS.

get a load of this autist

Moscow-Cassiopeia

could you please elaborate?

Road to the Stars

He probably means how the show constantly show humanity's weaknesses, even though it is also showing the characters overcoming them. That in itself is a jab to humanity, that it needs to get its shit together.

>Films
Movies are political propanganda. If you watch them, especially without keeping that in mind, you're drinking a sort of mental poison. Yes, this includes the older, optimistic ones that you miss.

Movies changed because the political goals of the moviemakers shifted.

110% this

Even if you know it is fully propaganda, you shouldn't view it unless it aligns with your views specifically. Every bit of trash that goes into your head affects you even if you know it and don't want it to.

The best thing to do is to drop all forms of media entertainment.

I am pretty sure everybody here is aware of the centrifugal forces. There are much more problems. Shit design is shit

Solaris

>Why are science fiction films so pessimistic these days?
If you look at people's vision of the future in the 1950's it's all about people flying around in jetpacks and exploring the universe. Do the same thing for the 2000's and it's basically all post-apocalyptic shit. So what happened?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Happened before the 1950s.

>August 1945

Of course Elysium is a political film. You don't have to be smart to figure this out. At the same time, you don't have to go full on /pol/ and claim that all forms of entertainment are a conspiracy by (((Hollywood))) to destroy the white race.

we are already in the transition phase to step down the throne which is the human race to make place for a new completely technologic species. people are afraid of that but I honestly think it's the only way to preserve our diversity.

or else i cant stretch how much i despise this ideology

Matrix 1 and iRobot at least have an open end and propagate the ideology of abandoning technology, two very good and (more or less) realistic movies imo

I was naive enough to hope the black guy with the deep voice would get the Rama film off the ground. It'll never let it happen because it would be pure optimism. Even children's films are pushing really dark narratives. Tomorrowland was optimistic on the surface but it was filled with violence and implicit pessimism.

*(((They'll)) never let it happen

>Why are science fiction films so pessimistic these days?

Elysium had a happy ending, though.

>be movie
>everything is good
>its the future
>no conflict
>no realism
>everything is always cheerful

>why wont anyone watch me???

No, it didn't.

Well, Matt Damon died (which many would say is a good thing, hurr), but he released the technology the Elysium station was holding prisoner to the rest of humanity, so they too could live longer and more comfortably.

Happy ending, unless you're some /pol/-tard who has a hate-boner for brown people, that is.

This
Has everybody OP wants and still very interesting conflicts

As great as a Rama movie could have been, It would have probably been butchered to hell and back. They'd have thrown in a shitload of drama and generic action scenes. Although I doubt they could have done worse than the sequel books.

To keeps the masses stupid.

Chernobyl

THIS

>drop all forms of media entertainment
Get off Veeky Forums. It's the Devil.

>Every bit of trash that goes into your head affects
Don't take in trash and you wont be trash

>all forms of entertainment are a conspiracy by (((Hollywood))) to destroy the white race.

...

conflicts everywhere. 90% of the humor is based on those guys not knowing how to deal with situations

>New Captain Kirk is a punk little shit
>Into darkness has an admiral who should have never been appointed as such given his psyche and the current society
>Prometheus
>the scientists are all retards
>the protagonist save herself and is all MUH FAITH

>live longer problem solved
How will those bed resolve poverty? Crime?
People are going to live longer, which mean they are going to be less doctor needed, and that's some jobs that are sliced off, plus people living longer means they held the job for longer, which means again, less jobs for the youth like in Japan, less work, more poverty aka more crime.

Really makes you think

The Sci-Fi of the 70s (Silent Running, Logan's Run, Soylent Green, the 70s remake of Body Snatchers, Alien) was also quite cynical, depressing, and dark. This has been partially attributed to the post-Vietnam malaise in the culture. Everyone was gloomy, and about gloomy, depressing movies - in the USA at least. Carter was president, gas was through the roof (in 70s dollars). New York was a hellhole. Bad times, in many ways.

This is a HUGE part of the reason why Star Wars became a cultural phenomenon. The culture was embittered by this point, and people just wanted a feel-good escape. Star Wars provided that, providing an antidote to all the above heavy shit. Yeah Vader chokes people out and a planet is blown up, but this is all cartoon-cowboys-n-indians shit, which is part of the appeal of the first movie. We don't /relate/ to a planet being literally exploded. In that sense, it's easy to psychologically keep the events at arm's length, not let them get too close, like a gloomy vision of the future (Soylent Green) can do. And there's lots of quips and smiles, besides. And The Good Guys Win, straight-up. No moral ambiguity, at least, none is really intended, or emphasized. Easy.

One can easily argue that Star Wars is first of all a fantasy picture, but it's also obvious that it's wearing very convincing sci-fi clothing. To the average moviegoer, Star Wars simply is "a sci-fi movie", or as close as makes no difference. So it was an antidote sci-fi movie to the depressing stuff.

>happy ending

Earth needed a pandemic.

The whole movie is actually meant to be dire.
The director is violently anti-mixing Boer, and simply hid his message below a thin veneer of "Hollywood liberalism".
takimag.com/article/elysium_neill_blomkamp_fools_the_critics_again_steve_sailer/
Pretty clever.

The boy was having a conflict with his desire to sleep and drink.

>A boy walks

Conflict with gravity and friction!

No it didn't; it had a terrible ending.

Rational people who had chosen to protect themselves from savages had their technology stolen from them.

How was that a happy ending?

Not since the accident

>Why are science fiction films so pessimistic these days?

I'll just leave this here.

Because pessimism sells these days. Think about it, most optimistic material comes from what, the 1950s? Back when the future was now! Things were getting better, the nuclear age, all that shit.

What do we have today? New gadgets and bullshit, yet wages and overall standard of living is going downhill... And we're just supposed to accept that, that that's how things are.. The status quo, everything gets worse and it's normal. Of course the future will be a dystopia. In fact people nearly get off on it, the whole victim complex thing. Your life isn't interesting unless you're a victim, suffering. What is this mysterious thing, happiness, contentment? Bland, boring... Only as an excuse as to it's un-achievability for your average Joe.

>overall standards of living going downhill
>everything gets worse

Oh, really? Lol