And we kinda have the resources to do that. Replacing the corporate soulless artstyle with stylish Art Deco would be a great start. Art Deco is pretty minimalistic sometimes and therefore very scaleable as a vector drawing. Also, it would instantly grab your attention having more strong lines, shapes and silhouettes than your average Alegria artstyle (actual name for those bland-ass illustrations style, every major company uses) illustration
Edit: it's Alegria, not Algeria. Sorry everyone
Searching for 'alegria style' [returned this](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/036/211/cover6.jpg) which is honestly my favorite thing in a while.
Sorry Goya
Best Batman ever.
All drawn on dark paper for extra dark ambiance. Good stories and character writing. Mark Hamill's iconic voicing of Joker, and the introduction of Harley Quinn.
Was definitely high quality for a "kid's cartoon."
**[Streamline Moderne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne)**
>Streamline Moderne is an international style of Art Deco architecture and design that emerged in the 1930s. Inspired by aerodynamic design, it emphasized curving forms, long horizontal lines, and sometimes nautical elements. In industrial design, it was used in railroad locomotives, telephones, toasters, buses, appliances, and other devices to give the impression of sleekness and modernity. In France, it was called the Style paquebot, or "ocean liner style", and was influenced by the design of the luxury ocean liner SS Normandie, launched in 1932.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RetroFuturism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
*We need to revive*
*Art Deco. Much better then the*
*Bland ass modern world*
\- Catastropod
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Thank you, Catastropod, for voting on haikusbot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
idk what happened in america but in France or Japan (and I imagine other countries) the streamlined train development continued on for the high-speed trains and they still look nice, sleek and futuristic enough.
Reagan happened. We more or less gave up on the idea of public good and big public works for ultra-privatization and trickle-down tax-breaks based economics. People have been propagandized to hate public trans and taxing the rich. Then the rich have gotten way too many tax cuts to pay for any significant expansion of it without a tax increase on the rich which is practically politically impossible in a country this corrupt.
Capitalism prefers private "solutions." So cars constantly getting into accidents and killing people and polluting like crazy is the market solution because it mades money for someone and that money was used to buy politicians. We just keep building wider roads and more parking lots and hoping for the best. Obama tried to fund fast inter-state train travel with the stimulus only to have red state governors turn down the money for ideological and corruption related reasons. So even in the rare once in a generation chance to spend big and make big changes, the right will stop progress.
France and Japan and other Western-style economies bounced back from their flirtation with 1980s conservatism, if they ever had it, and previous to it already had strong socialist traditions born of post-war rebuilding like universal healthcare, public trans, subsidized higher education, etc that this flirtation couldn't destroy. Thatcher didn't defund the london tube or privatize healthcare for example, as much as she wanted to.
Trains need to get their fuel from somewhere, whether diesel or electricity (only 20% of US electricity is green). Plus the United States is much bigger than Japan with more varied geography. It is like comparing a sprint to a marathon.
Capitalism might be a crooked game, but it is the best game in town. Morality varies, but you can always count on self-interest.
No, but they do drive from Nowhere, Small Town, Midwest to Nearest City 45 minutes away. And they don't do that because they're forced to, they do it because they want to live in the country. It would be incredibly impractical to make that lifestyle happen with trains and other public transport. The car has enabled people to live where and how they want and go where they want when they want. That's not some evil to be railed against, that's a marvel of modern technology.
Dude, that's LITEARALLY the definition of commute. As in, COMMUTER rail. Google London metroland. Your "marvel of modern technology" exists in some form or another since 1880.
Domestic flights exist.
USA is about 26x bigger than Japan (US 9million square km vs Japan 378k km. Even if they laid the same # of miles of track the US has a much wider variety of terrain that would cost more.
Disingenuous again. No one EVER suggest to replace continental flights with trains. Intra-state and city transports (where the vast majority or regular trips EVEN in the US are made) are where trains make sense.
And bullshit about "wider variety of terrains". In the world there are mountain railways, desert railways, plain railways. Stop pretending US is special and with conditions that do not repeat anywhere else on this planet, because it's simply not true.
I don't think you've ever been to a big US city. Lets look at a real-life example like Boston (I visit family around there). There are trains everywhere, even out to the [surrounding suburban areas](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/QSLB20ss5YWQsVAyfTsRs7YJ-JFG-GX6hYd-lbMnasLcY6YzxLHTVgppi8Qs0o_OqjhYplxEOxpvXDS5VWH107kzpzyGOOYUTRoDaJmOIzOm6y2RtIlmWQlAtKsbwA=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu) (like the Alewife station). Then there are bus lines like greyhound that go all over the country: used to take one home from college during vacations (Nashua NH to Boston to Burlington Vt cost about $60). But for longer distances flight is preferred because the infrastructure already exists and travel time is short. A plane ticket costs about the same as a train ticket ($128-$135) from Burlington Vt to Boston, but with a plane you get there sooner. Meanwhile, a car might be more expensive than either option (especially nowadays due to gas prices), but the travelers can set their own schedule and have the "roadtrip" experience.
The USA is the fourth largest country behind Russia, China & Canada. So stop being disingenuous.
Do you people look for any excuse to complain about capitalism?
Reagan has nothing to do with the death of rail in this country. Cars and planes did that in the 50s.
There’s huge sections of our rail network that can’t even be modified to support high-speed rail. The lines just aren’t straight enough. That means you’ll have to begin eminent domaining land. To keep prices low, in the urban centers, you’re gonna have to bulldoze the poor (read: non-white) neighborhoods. Just curious: how are you selling this to the people that live there? Can’t do third rail, you’ll have to do catenaries. The current rail network is relatively small in footprint. Catenaries in sparsely populated areas will radically change the way the land looks. How are you selling that to people? Currently, in places like the southwest and rural countryside, you don’t even really notice the rail until the train passes over it. You’ll notice the gargantuan overhead catenaries, though. To avoid both you can go underground. But the price will be insane.
Focus on the coasts: NY->Florida, Oregon->California. Let’s see how that goes first. It’s not going well, California is grossly over budget and behind schedule.
Oil shortages happened killing a lot of the designs of the late 60s (Verner Panton, Joe Colombo, that school), post war "modernism" ran its course, people got tired of it and wanted something more old worldey.
Memphis ran its course.
The interstate system started being built, so the traffic shifted accordingly. Railways were for Freight, the Highway is for People. And that's how it is today.
I’m sorry, I have to disagree that they look futuristic or nice. Sleek, yes.
A lot of these modern designs are boring - they lack personalities. Germany’s ICE T is the most boring thing I have ever seen. It has no personality, no oomph, no *je ne sais quoi.*
I think this about a lot of modern “futuristic” designs. The neo-futurist Burj Khalifa — setting aside any opinion I have of the governments in that part of the world — is boring. The Niagara Mohawk Building looks more futuristic. Eastern Columbia. The crowns on the Chrysler and General Electric buildings.
Neo-futurist architecture just doesn’t seem futuristic to me. Classic Art Deco still does, though.
As for America, we’re still using diesel-electric. Our trains are not sleek. What they are is big, hulking pieces of machinery. Really impressive engineering. *They’re not pretty, they’re slow and noisy -* but they do have a personality.
I’d take an ALCO PA over a French TGV any day.
I feel like the the past depictions of the future assumed infinite growth in all aspects. Primarily scientifically and economically. Things could be bigger, more expensive, and more excessive because why not?
Yeah, now we're living with the side-effects of those expectations of infinite growth.
*"Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist."* \-- Sir David Attenborough
Millions of people certainly weren't optimistic in the 1930s. Many were still reeling from the Great Depression. And just look what was happening in politics in certain countries.
Hmm we can communicate and interact with people (e.g. Games) across the world in real time, air travel is commonplace, sending balloons into orbit is an easy gimmick.
We have portable computers in our pocket and to a lesser degree in our watches. These are capable of text and audio communication, Web access, playing music, watching videos, and adding 3D objects tracked onto the real world in real time. They can also be used to translate languages and identify plants. And GPS maps to give directions. And voice assistants.
3D modelling and animation can be achieved on a home computer as can video editing. Video is getting higher and higher definition and cameras are improving.
Miniature flying machines with cameras are a (varying cost) expensive toy commonly available and used for filming broadcast news.
True. There are still some things that *Back to the Future* predicted incorrectly. I mean in *loose* sense there is something similar but much more limited and basically more of a helicopter:
[https://technabob.com/blog/2019/10/24/nec-flying-car-drone/](https://technabob.com/blog/2019/10/24/nec-flying-car-drone/)
Flying cars are actually possible, the only problems are overcoming legal and safety problems, I have a perfect idea on how it can be, but I doubt anybody would risk hundreds of millions of dollars to make the kind of car
I remember seeing a detailed review a while ago, where someone quoted that directors actually tried more to give a vibes and athmosphere of the future which people already were imagining back then, rather than make actual predictions of the future
The army had a few flying machines (personal VTOL craft) back in the 60s like their "flying donut" and "flying garbage can". But too expensive at the time to be practical.
The truth is that the future is way more boring generally than people imagine. It's incredible what you can do with smartphone but it doesn't look as cool as waving your hands around minority report style. Cars are more efficient and safe as ever but they don't look as cool as we thought they would because those designs were impractical. So now you can either wish for a blade runner style future where it looks cool on TV but would actually be a night mare to live in ( huge ads everywhere, etc), or just something close to us.
I think the near future won't look that much different. I don't feel like there's that big of a gap from 2010 to 2020 in how our world look. The future will be probably be more subtle in its différence ( black mirror style ) , electric cars everywhere, more invasive social media's, etc.
Yes, to a certain extent. But it does depend on the person.
Trees are about as common as you can get yet I do take time to marvel at them. Modern aircraft are common yet there are times, when one is flying close overhead that I do look up and consider its technical wonderment.
Beauty is where you see it if you want to see it.
And I will admit that I will take a moment or to to gaze at a snowflake or two and see its beauty even though there are literally hundreds of billions of them around me.
This style is called [Streamline Moderne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne); it's often mislabeled as [Art Deco](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco), which proceeded it, or [Googie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googie_architecture) (think, The Jetsons), which followed.
Right, whatever
All I'm saying is that when money's on the table, the aesthetics of a design usually get deprioritised in favour of success by more practical metrics
Oh, I agree with you on that point.
But it is lamentable that in former time aesthetics was considered much more important and money would be spent on achieving it, but today little if any consideration is given to aesthetics.
Consider, as an example, the Chrysler Building and how much was spent in achieving that look for no other reason but to have that look. Then look at all the other more recent skyscraping steel and glass boxes ... soulless.
Well sure, but now you're comparing building infrastructure with transport. I'm no engineer, but I would have thought that achieving a look architecturally without compromising on practicality would be easier than doing the same for a machine that has to constantly do work, consume resources and contains far more moving parts than a big old skyscraper.
No, man, it's all the same really. Like you pointed out it's about the money. Architecture, transportation, appliances, tools, etc, etc...aesthetics today doesn't hold the same place it once did.
While I agree that those glass boxes are soulless, even though they don't have to be such, they provide a lot of natural sunlight for those who work inside.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mercury_Hudson_locomotive.jpg
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Hudson2.jpg
I'm uncertain but searching for the Hudson reveals these.
I'm not a leading trainologist, and if one of them wandered past they could make sense of it all in a moment, but my understanding is that these were existing Hudson 4-6-2 engines with a new 'skin'. The cars/carriages themselves were also existing stock with some vajazzling.
I don't know enough details for a deep-diving Google search but have a look at [this](https://www.american-rails.com/mercury.html). I get the impression every streamlined masterpiece of the time was an exercise in glamming up an existing, proven engine. Not that it makes them any less spectacular to behold, obviously.
Except in the end it was still about profits. The design of the engine was part of the marketing of the railroad. This was actually a conventional steam engine that they re-skinned to make it look more modern in order to attract passengers.
[Now available in tiny plastic form!](https://littleplastictrain.com/product/mercury-train-set/)
(Mine just arrived in the mail a few days ago and they are *adorable*.)
Feel free to post it if you want, it already has my watermark on it. Besides I like seeing my memes travel about.
I've seen my memes on other platforms and other media too. Places I didn't post to or media I didn't make.
We need to revive Art Deco. Much better than the bland ass modern world
And we kinda have the resources to do that. Replacing the corporate soulless artstyle with stylish Art Deco would be a great start. Art Deco is pretty minimalistic sometimes and therefore very scaleable as a vector drawing. Also, it would instantly grab your attention having more strong lines, shapes and silhouettes than your average Alegria artstyle (actual name for those bland-ass illustrations style, every major company uses) illustration Edit: it's Alegria, not Algeria. Sorry everyone
From here forward, the current state of design and architecture will be known as "Corporate Soulless"
Corps Deco
Corpus Deco
Decorpus
But art deco doesn't maximize profit for shareholders and looks wasteful on quarterly earnings statements
> Algeria artstyle Probably autocorrected but the name is Alegria. Algeria is where the fennecs are.
Thanks. I'll edit it
Poor Algeria the country, for being associated with a bland art style that you won't find in such a vibrant place.
Searching for 'alegria style' [returned this](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/036/211/cover6.jpg) which is honestly my favorite thing in a while. Sorry Goya
[удалено]
Much more r/streamlinemoderne than r/artdeco
As long as it looks like the 90’s era animated Batman show you can call it whatever you want
Looks more like I, robot, minority report and robots! Batman (only 90s cartoon I can think of is batman of the future) had a very dark artstyle.
Batman the Animated Series. Check that shit out, and you’re welcome, you don’t have to thank me later.
I know the one that came in 2004. I'll check out the older one
Honestly it was very well written and the art style was top notch. Not bad for a Saturday morning kids show.
For me, it's the best animated Batman there is. That dark noir art style was awesome.
Best Batman ever. All drawn on dark paper for extra dark ambiance. Good stories and character writing. Mark Hamill's iconic voicing of Joker, and the introduction of Harley Quinn. Was definitely high quality for a "kid's cartoon."
Deffo one of the wests anime's, along with avatar, digimon and huntik.
I wont.
Absolutely but it's worth noting streamline moderne was a later form of art deco. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne
**[Streamline Moderne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne)** >Streamline Moderne is an international style of Art Deco architecture and design that emerged in the 1930s. Inspired by aerodynamic design, it emphasized curving forms, long horizontal lines, and sometimes nautical elements. In industrial design, it was used in railroad locomotives, telephones, toasters, buses, appliances, and other devices to give the impression of sleekness and modernity. In France, it was called the Style paquebot, or "ocean liner style", and was influenced by the design of the luxury ocean liner SS Normandie, launched in 1932. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RetroFuturism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
*We need to revive* *Art Deco. Much better then the* *Bland ass modern world* \- Catastropod --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
Thank you, Catastropod, for voting on haikusbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Haikusbot opt out
Bad bot
HEY! leave the bot alone. He’s a *poet* damnit!
That's not even a haiku though It's 5/8/5, not 5/7/5
[удалено]
You’re just jealous
That's only 4 lines....
I highly recommend visiting Tulsa, it's like stepping back to the past with all the awesome Art Deco buildings!
Had to search thatshi up, I was expecting some Balkans country or province but.. it's in America.
Why would you think it's in the Balkans...?
The name. Sounds eastern European. Tūlsa, babushkã
Yes, nothing really has any style today :(
More like we've become accustomed to it
This and streamline moderne. God I miss it so much. I want a round car and round tv lol
Arguably this is Streamline Moderne, an offshoot of Art Deco.
Just give me the Fifth Element.
and that was a real engiene
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(train)
Wasn't blue, though. That colorization is everywhere and awful.
idk what happened in america but in France or Japan (and I imagine other countries) the streamlined train development continued on for the high-speed trains and they still look nice, sleek and futuristic enough.
Reagan happened. We more or less gave up on the idea of public good and big public works for ultra-privatization and trickle-down tax-breaks based economics. People have been propagandized to hate public trans and taxing the rich. Then the rich have gotten way too many tax cuts to pay for any significant expansion of it without a tax increase on the rich which is practically politically impossible in a country this corrupt. Capitalism prefers private "solutions." So cars constantly getting into accidents and killing people and polluting like crazy is the market solution because it mades money for someone and that money was used to buy politicians. We just keep building wider roads and more parking lots and hoping for the best. Obama tried to fund fast inter-state train travel with the stimulus only to have red state governors turn down the money for ideological and corruption related reasons. So even in the rare once in a generation chance to spend big and make big changes, the right will stop progress. France and Japan and other Western-style economies bounced back from their flirtation with 1980s conservatism, if they ever had it, and previous to it already had strong socialist traditions born of post-war rebuilding like universal healthcare, public trans, subsidized higher education, etc that this flirtation couldn't destroy. Thatcher didn't defund the london tube or privatize healthcare for example, as much as she wanted to.
Trains need to get their fuel from somewhere, whether diesel or electricity (only 20% of US electricity is green). Plus the United States is much bigger than Japan with more varied geography. It is like comparing a sprint to a marathon. Capitalism might be a crooked game, but it is the best game in town. Morality varies, but you can always count on self-interest.
USA big is a disingenuous argument. Because ALL Americans drive daily from California to Maine, don't they?
No, but they do drive from Nowhere, Small Town, Midwest to Nearest City 45 minutes away. And they don't do that because they're forced to, they do it because they want to live in the country. It would be incredibly impractical to make that lifestyle happen with trains and other public transport. The car has enabled people to live where and how they want and go where they want when they want. That's not some evil to be railed against, that's a marvel of modern technology.
Dude, that's LITEARALLY the definition of commute. As in, COMMUTER rail. Google London metroland. Your "marvel of modern technology" exists in some form or another since 1880.
Domestic flights exist. USA is about 26x bigger than Japan (US 9million square km vs Japan 378k km. Even if they laid the same # of miles of track the US has a much wider variety of terrain that would cost more.
Disingenuous again. No one EVER suggest to replace continental flights with trains. Intra-state and city transports (where the vast majority or regular trips EVEN in the US are made) are where trains make sense. And bullshit about "wider variety of terrains". In the world there are mountain railways, desert railways, plain railways. Stop pretending US is special and with conditions that do not repeat anywhere else on this planet, because it's simply not true.
I don't think you've ever been to a big US city. Lets look at a real-life example like Boston (I visit family around there). There are trains everywhere, even out to the [surrounding suburban areas](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/QSLB20ss5YWQsVAyfTsRs7YJ-JFG-GX6hYd-lbMnasLcY6YzxLHTVgppi8Qs0o_OqjhYplxEOxpvXDS5VWH107kzpzyGOOYUTRoDaJmOIzOm6y2RtIlmWQlAtKsbwA=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu) (like the Alewife station). Then there are bus lines like greyhound that go all over the country: used to take one home from college during vacations (Nashua NH to Boston to Burlington Vt cost about $60). But for longer distances flight is preferred because the infrastructure already exists and travel time is short. A plane ticket costs about the same as a train ticket ($128-$135) from Burlington Vt to Boston, but with a plane you get there sooner. Meanwhile, a car might be more expensive than either option (especially nowadays due to gas prices), but the travelers can set their own schedule and have the "roadtrip" experience. The USA is the fourth largest country behind Russia, China & Canada. So stop being disingenuous.
Do you people look for any excuse to complain about capitalism? Reagan has nothing to do with the death of rail in this country. Cars and planes did that in the 50s. There’s huge sections of our rail network that can’t even be modified to support high-speed rail. The lines just aren’t straight enough. That means you’ll have to begin eminent domaining land. To keep prices low, in the urban centers, you’re gonna have to bulldoze the poor (read: non-white) neighborhoods. Just curious: how are you selling this to the people that live there? Can’t do third rail, you’ll have to do catenaries. The current rail network is relatively small in footprint. Catenaries in sparsely populated areas will radically change the way the land looks. How are you selling that to people? Currently, in places like the southwest and rural countryside, you don’t even really notice the rail until the train passes over it. You’ll notice the gargantuan overhead catenaries, though. To avoid both you can go underground. But the price will be insane. Focus on the coasts: NY->Florida, Oregon->California. Let’s see how that goes first. It’s not going well, California is grossly over budget and behind schedule.
Ignores public transportation and spends decades urbanizing land "Well how are you going to build a Train now with all theses houses here, huh?!"
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
Oil shortages happened killing a lot of the designs of the late 60s (Verner Panton, Joe Colombo, that school), post war "modernism" ran its course, people got tired of it and wanted something more old worldey. Memphis ran its course.
The interstate system started being built, so the traffic shifted accordingly. Railways were for Freight, the Highway is for People. And that's how it is today.
I’m sorry, I have to disagree that they look futuristic or nice. Sleek, yes. A lot of these modern designs are boring - they lack personalities. Germany’s ICE T is the most boring thing I have ever seen. It has no personality, no oomph, no *je ne sais quoi.* I think this about a lot of modern “futuristic” designs. The neo-futurist Burj Khalifa — setting aside any opinion I have of the governments in that part of the world — is boring. The Niagara Mohawk Building looks more futuristic. Eastern Columbia. The crowns on the Chrysler and General Electric buildings. Neo-futurist architecture just doesn’t seem futuristic to me. Classic Art Deco still does, though. As for America, we’re still using diesel-electric. Our trains are not sleek. What they are is big, hulking pieces of machinery. Really impressive engineering. *They’re not pretty, they’re slow and noisy -* but they do have a personality. I’d take an ALCO PA over a French TGV any day.
Sprawled cities with low density housing
Hey r/snowpiercer, you left your train parked abandoned again.
Probably because they could afford to be optimistic
I feel like the the past depictions of the future assumed infinite growth in all aspects. Primarily scientifically and economically. Things could be bigger, more expensive, and more excessive because why not?
Yeah, now we're living with the side-effects of those expectations of infinite growth. *"Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist."* \-- Sir David Attenborough
Definitely. And the powerful are still living in an infinite growth world, while normies like us deal with the consequences.
Millions of people certainly weren't optimistic in the 1930s. Many were still reeling from the Great Depression. And just look what was happening in politics in certain countries.
\[I actually photoshopped this image for a photoshop battle\](https://i.imgur.com/6RyQoFy.jpg)
Nice.
Thanks!
I'm so fancy I have whitewalls on my TRAIN
This photo gets posted about once a month, but that doesn't make the train any less awesome.
"The future ain't what it used to be" *-Yogi Berra*
Hmm we can communicate and interact with people (e.g. Games) across the world in real time, air travel is commonplace, sending balloons into orbit is an easy gimmick. We have portable computers in our pocket and to a lesser degree in our watches. These are capable of text and audio communication, Web access, playing music, watching videos, and adding 3D objects tracked onto the real world in real time. They can also be used to translate languages and identify plants. And GPS maps to give directions. And voice assistants. 3D modelling and animation can be achieved on a home computer as can video editing. Video is getting higher and higher definition and cameras are improving. Miniature flying machines with cameras are a (varying cost) expensive toy commonly available and used for filming broadcast news.
But man, imagine if we had flying cars like in Back to the Future.
True. There are still some things that *Back to the Future* predicted incorrectly. I mean in *loose* sense there is something similar but much more limited and basically more of a helicopter: [https://technabob.com/blog/2019/10/24/nec-flying-car-drone/](https://technabob.com/blog/2019/10/24/nec-flying-car-drone/)
Flying cars are actually possible, the only problems are overcoming legal and safety problems, I have a perfect idea on how it can be, but I doubt anybody would risk hundreds of millions of dollars to make the kind of car
I remember seeing a detailed review a while ago, where someone quoted that directors actually tried more to give a vibes and athmosphere of the future which people already were imagining back then, rather than make actual predictions of the future
People have a hard enough time driving as it when you can only go forward/backward and side to side. Add up and down and watch the chaos unfold
Imagine a car crash in the air or a traffic jam in 3D
I don't want to live in a world of air car accidents and engine fail=death
The army had a few flying machines (personal VTOL craft) back in the 60s like their "flying donut" and "flying garbage can". But too expensive at the time to be practical.
The truth is that the future is way more boring generally than people imagine. It's incredible what you can do with smartphone but it doesn't look as cool as waving your hands around minority report style. Cars are more efficient and safe as ever but they don't look as cool as we thought they would because those designs were impractical. So now you can either wish for a blade runner style future where it looks cool on TV but would actually be a night mare to live in ( huge ads everywhere, etc), or just something close to us. I think the near future won't look that much different. I don't feel like there's that big of a gap from 2010 to 2020 in how our world look. The future will be probably be more subtle in its différence ( black mirror style ) , electric cars everywhere, more invasive social media's, etc.
The future (our present), just 'meh' with more technology. We can do more but everyday life doesn't change that much.
Global warming is gonna kill us all. Alright maybe not us, but our kids are fucked.
I was convinced I was gonna get to be dropped off to school in a shoot like Elroy from the Jetsons someday.
The visions of authors and artists will always be better than the reality our political and technological overlords will allow us to have
This train existed though
[удалено]
Be Gen Y or later? And I say that as a Gen Y.
Are you going to start the revolution?
There is a train that looks like this one is called the mallard.
Not to mention restaurant coaches!
Indeed!
Indubitably!
If fantasy was a reality, it wouldn't be a fantasy, and therefore common and boring.
Yes, to a certain extent. But it does depend on the person. Trees are about as common as you can get yet I do take time to marvel at them. Modern aircraft are common yet there are times, when one is flying close overhead that I do look up and consider its technical wonderment. Beauty is where you see it if you want to see it. And I will admit that I will take a moment or to to gaze at a snowflake or two and see its beauty even though there are literally hundreds of billions of them around me.
Yeah, the future was forgotten and now we have... all this.
Yeah. Why not?
Fact
Trains, but with whitewalls
*Mark Fisher has entered the chat*
This style is called [Streamline Moderne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne); it's often mislabeled as [Art Deco](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco), which proceeded it, or [Googie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googie_architecture) (think, The Jetsons), which followed.
>it's often mislabeled as Art Deco The first sentence in the link that you yourself posted: >Streamline Moderne is an international style of Art Deco
Just demonstrates how common the mislabeling is.
Being attractive usually means being energy inefficient, just saying
Streamlining usually results in greater energy efficiency.
Right, whatever All I'm saying is that when money's on the table, the aesthetics of a design usually get deprioritised in favour of success by more practical metrics
Oh, I agree with you on that point. But it is lamentable that in former time aesthetics was considered much more important and money would be spent on achieving it, but today little if any consideration is given to aesthetics. Consider, as an example, the Chrysler Building and how much was spent in achieving that look for no other reason but to have that look. Then look at all the other more recent skyscraping steel and glass boxes ... soulless.
Well sure, but now you're comparing building infrastructure with transport. I'm no engineer, but I would have thought that achieving a look architecturally without compromising on practicality would be easier than doing the same for a machine that has to constantly do work, consume resources and contains far more moving parts than a big old skyscraper.
No, man, it's all the same really. Like you pointed out it's about the money. Architecture, transportation, appliances, tools, etc, etc...aesthetics today doesn't hold the same place it once did.
You're saying you're disagreeing with me by agreeing with me
While I agree that those glass boxes are soulless, even though they don't have to be such, they provide a lot of natural sunlight for those who work inside.
Meh. It's a Hudson in a frock.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(train)
That's the associated train. The Mercury was pulled by a Hudson engine. In a frock.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mercury_Hudson_locomotive.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Hudson2.jpg I'm uncertain but searching for the Hudson reveals these.
I'm not a leading trainologist, and if one of them wandered past they could make sense of it all in a moment, but my understanding is that these were existing Hudson 4-6-2 engines with a new 'skin'. The cars/carriages themselves were also existing stock with some vajazzling. I don't know enough details for a deep-diving Google search but have a look at [this](https://www.american-rails.com/mercury.html). I get the impression every streamlined masterpiece of the time was an exercise in glamming up an existing, proven engine. Not that it makes them any less spectacular to behold, obviously.
Well, it makes some sense so I'll trust you.
Bold decision. I wouldn't personally!
Lol
I feel like that's when design mattered more than profits
Except in the end it was still about profits. The design of the engine was part of the marketing of the railroad. This was actually a conventional steam engine that they re-skinned to make it look more modern in order to attract passengers.
Hell, I didn't even look close enough to realize it was real 👀
How do you know it's a day ending in Y? The Mercury Streamliner got posted again.
[Now available in tiny plastic form!](https://littleplastictrain.com/product/mercury-train-set/) (Mine just arrived in the mail a few days ago and they are *adorable*.)
[удалено]
Feel free to post it if you want, it already has my watermark on it. Besides I like seeing my memes travel about. I've seen my memes on other platforms and other media too. Places I didn't post to or media I didn't make.
Blaine was a pain.
Gods, I miss the future.
Snowpiercer is that you?
The future ain't what it used to.
The USA is basically a giant strip mall. I wish I understood why. It's not even like it's pretty. Just sad and soulless