For social changes, how about Farenheit 451? While we don’t have firemen that burn books, the idea of a society that disdains reading (and all forms of active, critical thinking) in favor of passive consumption of television images has actually come to be. All people are expected to conduct themselves along the lines of a strict ultra-P.C. code of behavior.
The book/movie also speculated that TVs would become supersized wall units that dominated family rooms. People who think for themselves, rather than follow the TV-dictated trends, are ostracized and shunned.
IIRC, there is even mention in the program of ‘interactive’ TV shows, in which the viewing audience can send away for scripts (on audio, natch) so that they can ‘be part of the TV show.’ That’s not that far off from the idea of reality TV, wherein ‘normal people’ partake in frankly scripted ‘real life’ scenarios.
And it would have taken an author still more gifted to predict that other technologies would emerge and kill off the drive-ins. (How many are there left in America now?)
Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War envisioned homosexuality becoming near-universal – but that was because the government encouraged it for population control. A lot of SF was premised on the assumption of an overpopulation problem. Social stuff is hard to get right! And there’s constant mutual interaction between sociocultural and technological developments.
In the Country of the Blind, by Michael Flynn, features a secret society (several, actually), derived from a group of early-19th-Century mathematicians who used Babbage’s “Difference Engine” computer to develop a real, reliable predictive science of history and society – sort of a steampunk version of Isaac Asimov’s psychohistory from the Foundation series. When you think about it, that comes under the “flatly impossible” category. No matter how sophisticated their models or how skillful their calculations, how could such scientists possibly have foreseen the sociocultural effects of the radio, pennicilin, or the atomic bomb? The science of their day gave them no grounds even to think such things were possible.
Rollerball came out in 1975. How is the violence in football more “obscene” since then? Players are bigger and stronger. But they have added more rules to protect the players. No one can do a Deacon Jones head slap. No one is allowed to do a crackback block. The game is no more violent than it was in 1975. If you look at the 1970s Oakland Raiders I would say it is less violent.
As for greed, did the owners want to make less money in 1975? The NFL probably wasn’t quite as popular then but it was pretty popular. The big change is the ammount of TV revenue and free agency. So who is being greedy? Should the TV stations keep all the ad revenue? Should the owners keep all the TV and concession revenue? Should the players not want to get their slice of the pie? The average NFL career is 3 1/2 years. Most players are not big stars and are not rich. There are no guaranteed contracts. If they get hurt the money stops. They can get hurt at any moment. Even if they are lucky to have long careers they will have injuries that affect them their whole life. I can not blame them for trying to get as much as they can when they can.
The Superbowl in 1975 was the first win for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Terry Bradshaw vs Fran Tarkington. Hardly ancient history. The game was not any different than it is now. Rollerball predicted nothing in the NFL. As someone else said you could make an argument that it predicts reality TV but that is stretching it.
I’ve done that. A cell phone is a convenience – unless you don’t want to be reached.
So, let me hear your prediction for a bit of technology that doesn’t exist yet, in use fifty years from now, and what it’s good for, and why some people won’t always appreciate it.
The important social predictions in Rollerball aren’t about sports, but about transnational corporations running everything, replacing national governments.
I do this. My WAG is about 10 percent of people I know do it or would like to do it if they could “get away with it”.
My SO bitched me out last week for not having my cell phone on, by calling others with me that DID have theirs on. It was accidental in this case, because its a new phone and I had the settings messedu up. I almost broke the thing in half and threw it away. The fact that I was in the company of others inclined me not to do it.
But, “Cocksucker” Swearigine from Deadwood predicted this long ago when the telegraph was coming to town and everyone else was excited.
His take on it, paraphrasing :
When has someone, particularly a stranger, contacted you with GOOD news?
I recall reading years ago that video phones would never take off because women would have to put on makeup to answer the phone. I can’t recall if this was written jokingly or not but there’s a truth to it. One can answer their phone naked and in rag order. Video phones have other potential problems for users, not being able to fake a sickie as easily, or lie to whoever as to your location.
Like I said, the vast majority of people don’t do this.
Predicting the cell phone? Sure, good call. Predicting that a handful of people will occasionally intentionally leave it behind? Can’t say I’m blown away by the prescience here. A big yawn from me.
Come to think of it, I’ve often wondered why there were so relatively few movies set aboard commercial airliners prior to Airport. True, relatively few people traveled by plane in those days, but you’d think the dramatic possibilities would have been more than worthwhile, and the exotic quality of a form of travel which most people had not yet experienced would have been a draw. And, it’s relatively easy to mock up an airplane passenger interior in the studio, or I’d think it would be.
