I think Futurea holds some sort of a record, as the tv series set farthest in the future.
obsoive:
Buck Rogers: 25th century Star Trek: 23, and 24th century Babylon 5: 24th century Mercy Point: 24th century Battlestar Galactica: 20th century.. Batman Beyond: 21st century. Max Headroom: 21st century.
Zachary Zulkowski wrote in message ...
23rd century, actually (2257-)
Actually, wasn't Max Headroom "20 minutes into the future" :-) ?
How about Mystery Science Theater 3000 :-) ?
-Bob
listen nerds, at the beginning of mst3k, the line is "in the not too distant future..."
well, that solves the mystery of the missing ring.
the professor
(the origional character on atf)
Right. They did have one episode set one million years in the future, though.
Yup.
I thought MST3K was set in the 1950s. :-)
And as was said before, Red Dwarf was set very far forward, enough for cats to evolve into humanoids.
And Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy probably covered pretty much the whole span of the universe (particularly the end, with the Restaurant). It probably holds the record.
In what year did "The Jetsons" occur? Or "The Partridge Family in Outer Space"? Or "Quark" (starring Richard Benjamin)?
tpe "Yes, your monkey has got it right, sir." "Who are YOU calling a monkey?"
[email] wrote:
Wow! Somebody else actually remembers "Quark"??!?!?
Damn, you know they only made 8 episodes?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[email]
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE* I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.Gamma wrote in message ...
Yes! The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. You just can't get any further into the future than that.
-Bob
In article , "Bob Flaminio" wrote:
Farthest they got was 2525, I think, where they picked up Prof. Bobo.
The Ren & Stimpy Show's "Space Madness" shorts take place "In the amazing year, FOUR HUNDRED BILLION!" if I remember correctly... but then, that was only certain segments of the show, and not the whole series... Still, 400000000000 is ridiculously far into the future!
Prez Midnite wrote in message news:[email]...
farthest
And then there was the Simpsons episode which flashed forward to 10,000 AD.
Pipian
In article , [email] says...
What about Mystery Science Theater 3000? "In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D." Kind of ambiguous though.
Chris.
In article , "Pipian" wrote:
Maybe the rule needs to be the year(s) the series takes place for most of its episodes, and miniseries don't count.
On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 17:54:45 -0500, Prez Midnite wrote:
Hitchhikers had a "End Of The Universe Party". The robot they lost spent the entire time parking cars.
Haynes Lee wrote in message news:[email]...
"The first 10 million years, they were the worst. The second 10 million years were the worst too. The third 10 million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline." -Marvin
Marvin the Robot ended up being "57 times as old as the Universe, itself."
Greg Evans wrote in message ...
all.
In alt.tv.futurama, "Zachary Zulkowski" writes:
|
|
Red Dwarf and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (yes, there was a series) are both set zillions of years into the future.
The British are bit more forward thinking than we give them credit for... then again, there's Space 1999 :-)
mikey
In alt.tv.futurama, [email] writes: |
Hmmmm. My memory of HGG is slowly coming back. While parts of it involved time travel to who knows when, I think the majority of it was in the not-insanely-distant future. Nevvver mind.
Red Dwarf is still pretty far out there though.
mikey
[email] (Mike Lee) wrote:
Somebody'd better hurry up and build that moon base, as it's set to blast off into space in less than five months.
CountV
In article , "CountV" wrote:
The comic strip FoxTrot had a nice reference to that show. It just turned 1999, and the father quips, "Shouldn't Martin Landau be on the moon or something?"
In alt.tv.futurama Mike Lee explod |In alt.tv.futurama, "Zachary Zulkowski" writes:
|Red Dwarf and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (yes, there |was a series) are both set zillions of years into the future.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy isn't set in the future. It's set in the present... then a few million years in the past.. and sort of hops around a bit.. but it's not zillions of years into the future. Except briefly, when they stop for lunch.
Still... with the exception of Planet of the Apes, i think this is the farthest-in-the-future a show taking place *on earth* has been
Willondon Donovan wrote in message ...
"Battle..." is actually not that far into the future -- it takes place sometime after "Conquest...", which was around the late 20th/early 21st century. I would put "Battle..." somewhere around 2020 or so.
-Bob
Here's the rundown on settings: 1971: Escape from Planet of the apes 1991: Conquest of the Planet of the Apes 2001: Battle for the planet of the Apes 3955: Original and Beneath the Planet of the Apes
btw: Did you know they're remaking Planet? tentatively set for a summer 2001 release. Most of the news however has been director after director being oh-so-close to committing to do it, then turning it down
ever so sincerely, Reznik the Great and Powerful (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain)
"If toast always lands butter-side down,
and cats always land on their feet,
what happens if you strap toast on
the back of a cat and drop it?"
-=Steven Wright=-"Only two things are infinite,
the universe and human stupidity,
...and I'm not sure about the former"
-= Albert Einstein =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Twin Peaks -- COMPLETE
http://www.iosin.com/twinpeaks
updated April 1999
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Twin Peaks 1999
"It is happening, again"
http://www.iosin.com/twinpeaks/tp99.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Reznik wrote in message ...
I could be wrong (and I've been so many times before), but didn't the plague that killed all dogs and cats occur in 1994? (There was a monument shown in Conquest.. that had that date on it, I *think*.) That would put Conquest at some point after 1994, perhaps as much as 10 years.
And thus make Battle some 10 years after that (based on the age of Caesar and whats-her-name's son).
This date would put the original significantly later than Futurama (he says in a bold swing to stay on topic).
I've heard that, and that it has been in development hell for some time. Personally, I find it hard that they could improve on the original, but if they do proceed with a remake, I hope they stay truer to the Boule novel (in the novel, the Apes were a fairly technologically advanced sort, with airplanes and all that, and not the pseudo-18th century tech that was portrayed in the movie).
There must be a website somewhere that has all this information...
-Bob
I got these dates from the Fox site (which one I can't remember). They're promoting a 30th anniversary rerelease or something or other. I used to have a more definitive timeline... with not only the movies, but the TV show and the cartoon accounted for, but I lost it :(
<psst: Good move ;) >
http://spleenworld.com/apes/
I've been keeping an eye on this site < Eye! Get it? One eye! Bwahaha!... uh... hehe... ugh!> for quite a while. They've gone through a slew of proposed directors, everyone from James Cameron to (now) Michael Bay.
If it _EVER_ actually gets made, I'm hoping it'll fare better than any of the other remakes of classic movies/TV.
ever so sincerely, Reznik the Great and Powerful (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain)
"If toast always lands butter-side down,
and cats always land on their feet,
what happens if you strap toast on
the back of a cat and drop it?"
-=Steven Wright=-"Only two things are infinite,
the universe and human stupidity,
...and I'm not sure about the former"
-= Albert Einstein =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Twin Peaks -- COMPLETE
http://www.iosin.com/twinpeaks
updated April 1999
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Twin Peaks 1999
"It is happening, again"
http://www.iosin.com/twinpeaks/tp99.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Mike Lee wrote:
LOL, that has been repeated on BBC recently. It might still be on, actually.
Quality program that shouldn't be knocked for anything other than the dodgy sets, awful scripts, wooden acting.....
Sharif
One of these days, I'm going to rally around all the voices in my head to get them to vote for me, and then I'll be president of my own mind.
(Delete 'REMOVE_THIS' from my address to reply)
"Sharif Shahwan" wrote:
What I love about Space: 1999 is the way most episodes seem to follow the same template; weird thing happens, the heroes scramble to do something about it, it somehow gets solved (usually by ludicrous means) and then in the denouement there's always this sense of "we'll never know what just happened because the Universe is full of mystery".
CountV
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, CountV wrote:
But why is that unique to Space: 1999? Star Trek sure had a template; that's why there's all those jokes about the security guys getting killed off within minute of any planet landing.
Any tv show (or movie for that matter) has a template. At it's simplest, the template is beginning, middle and end. Specific shows have more detailed templates, but it builds on that. Even without taking note of the specific template, you can be aware of it since you know by the clock where things are going. Maybe not earlier in the show, bu tyou know when time is about up that whatever is going on is going to ne resolved. Even a show like Seinfeld, that at first glance doesn't seem to have that sort of a template, in fact has a template of some other sort.
Michael
Oh sure, all TV shows have conventions within which they operate. But where Star Trek's, for instance, was more of a morality-based one, with a pretty clear cause-and-effect chain and some (within the context of the show) logical solutions to the problems presented in each episode, Space: 1999's was simply "weird-ass shit happens, gets fixed and then we never explain it". I'm not pointing at the problem of having a template, but of having one that leads to such innately pointless storylines. Hilarious, but pointless.
CountV
Land of the Giants: 1982(!)
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 [email] wrote:
We were fairly optimistic back then. I still have my scrapbook of clippings about the space program, and interweaved with stuff about the effort to go to the moon, there are clippins about this neat moving that was being made at the time, 2001. I did the calculations and I'd be the ancient age of 41 in 2001 and I expected that there'd be commercial trips to the moon at that distant date. I guess not, unless a lot is done in the next year or so, and 30 years looking back is not nearly so long as thirty years looking forward.
In some ways, we were fooled because 2001 seemed an extention of the psace program. Something like Star Wars is so far in the future that it has no connection to our present life. 2001 seemed to come ouf of those "artist's conceptions" that regularly showed up in National Geographic and elsewhere.
As a matter of fact, I was feeling nostalgic recently and took a couple of books out about space travel. One was from 1972, and expected the moon landing to just be a step in a series of steps that went much further, and it's full of "artist's conceptions" of what must have been on the drawing board at the time at NASA (though that drawing board might have been based on dreaming and what could be done, rather than what would be done). The expectation was that a lot of things would have taken place by now.
The other book came out in 1991, and was about space travel in the next hundred years or so. It's a little bit fancier, but it's basically the same book. They don't explain how it all is supposed to start happening though.
So it's not really a surprise that Land of The Giants was set in 1982. It is a bit of a jump, but it reflected the hope and expectation of the time.
Or maybe I'm interpreting it all wrong. That too much of what I thought would happen was truly fiction and 2001 didn't seem too far off not because the space program seemed to make great progress in a very short time, but because all the fiction acted like it would happen.
Michael
Michael Black wrote:
I'm sure I won't be alone in pointing out that Star Wars is set in the distant past. Maybe it was a typo for Star Trek?
I seem to remember Rollerball being set in 1987, or something.
CountV
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:08:27 -0400, "CountV" wrote:
Also, the world was blown up by a global defense computer bent on making Terminator robots with bad Eastern Europe accents last year. This year the moon is going to be blown out of Earth's orbit.
Has any sci-fi been on the mark...ever?
"[email] (Rob Merritt)" asked: << Has any sci-fi been on the mark... ever?>>
Please God, don't let anyone claim that "Back to the Future Part 2" (1990) predicted that Florida won the World Series in 1997, because that's just an Urban Legend!
tpe (still waiting for Pan Am to offer round-trip flights to the moon and back!)
Quantum Leap took place from 1995 to 1999. Hmmm..I haven't heard of anyone inventing a time machine yet that can jump into past people's bodies just before something bad is going to happen.
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:37:09 GMT, [email] (Rob Merritt) wrote:
Kahn (of Star Trek) is going to be exiled in a sleeper ship which was converted from an interplanetary shuttle. As you remember, he and other genetic "supermen" took over 90 countries in 1993.
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, CountV wrote:
Actually, maybe I missed something but I always interpreted the opening of Star Wars to mean that the film was made way way in the future, and referred back to a time long in the past. In other words, what's in the movies take place in the future, and the film that we see is even further in the future.
It's not an original idea. Isaac Asimov's Foundation books (it was only a trilogy when I first read them) does the same thing.
Perhaps I'm the only one interpreting it that way, but I'e interpreted it that way since that afternoon in 1977 when I saw Star Wars the first day and sat through it twice.
Michael
Michael Black wrote in message ...
It's an interesting idea.
Back in '77, I fantasized that Star Wars was not just a motion picture, but rather a transmission being received by the theater, real-time. Given the time it would take a signal to travel between galaxies (at light speed), the events of the film really were taking place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away".
-Bob
Here's my Theory.
Star Wars was a million years ago in a far off galaxy and because of an unfortunate mix-up with an improbability drive and a small sun they send two descendants through space to another galaxy (the out rim of the milky way) and then they started another race (humans) and the story's been in our genetic code just waiting to be exploited by the *chosen descendant* (George Lucas) so that the human race would truly know their real heritage which will be brought out in *Star Wars XII : Travelers.*
"The force is strong with this one"
Michael Black wrote in message news:[email]...
Someone said: << Actually, maybe I missed something but I always interpreted the opening of Star Wars to mean that the film was made way way in the future, and referred back to a time long in the past. In other words, what's in the movies take place in the future, and the film that we see is even further in the future. >>
Gee, and here I always thought "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... " was just another way of saying, "Once upon a time... " As though they were telling us, "Gather 'round, kiddies, and lemme tell ya about something that happened a while back... "
Thus, the "Star Wars" movies took place a LOOONG time ago from the present day. Which means we won't have to worry about the Empire invading our galaxy any time soon. (Whew!)
tpe "I'd just as soon kiss a Wookiee!" "I can arrange that!"
[Off-topic STAR WARS post follows; no flames please!]
You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation, but this is how I see it:
"A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far Far Away" means that it all happened so long ago and so far away, that there's really no reason to associate the films with anything you've ever seen or heard before. It takes place in a galaxy where nobody has ever heard of Earth, probably because it doesn't even exist yet. Really, it's George Lucas' way of telling the audience that they're about to visit the land of make-believe. In this aspect, the Star Wars films are more fantasy than sci-fi... kind of like a high-tech J.R.R. Tolkien story...
CountV wrote...
According to the movie "Escape From New York," Manhattan will have been made into a big prison by the year 1997.
Anyone recall how far into the future Planet of the Apes is supposed to be? I wonder if Futurama is gonna spoof it.
[email] wrote:
Any more than The Simpsons already have? I don't think that's possible. Has anyone ever counted the references to POTA in TS? I seem to recall seeing a post about this around a year or so ago on a.t.s. Aside from all the obvious references, there have been the countless times that the dramatic-type music from the film has been used.
Sharif
One of these days, I'm going to rally around all the voices in my head to get them to vote for me, and then I'll be president of my own mind.
(Delete 'REMOVE_THIS' from my address to reply)