Part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjgDFmHzs1c
Part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJLu6_rguE
To examine the script:
The Future's Promise: Exploring the Hovercar SCRIPT
Video- Hello, I'm Victor. You know, we've gone into space. We've sent robots to other planets. We've got computers so advanced that they can be used to create photo realistic moving images. We can replace human organs with mechanical parts. We're in the future, right? Well, no. Why? Because we don't have flying cars. Most of us are holding out for the flying car before we'll admit that mankind has advanced in any meaningful way. It can't be the future without flying cars! With that said, today I'd like to look at the gravity defying vehicles of 3 movies: Blade Runner, Back to the Future part 2, and I, Robot, and then examine where we are in developing them in real life.
Audio- Now, to start with, it should be noted that this was in some ways a difficult one to research. I mean, sure, there are books, movie commentaries, documentaries, and more that analyze all of these movies in detail. Trouble is, the character's vehicles aren't high on their list of priorities, apparently. Buut, this is understandable. See, hovercars are almost never the central theme or subject of a film- they're part of the mes-en-scene, or iconography of science fiction. Which is to say, they're one of the things commonly used to identify a film as being science fiction. Westerns have Indians, six guns and horses; sci fis have aliens, ray guns, and hover cars.
And since Hover cars have such a long and varied history, from ferrying George Jetson through the clouds to helping bring Luke Skywalker one step closer to his destiny, we should define our terms. A hover car, for this review, is a vehicle that, is meant to carry one to six beings, can achieve vertical lift without forward motion, can move across at least two dimensions, can safely be piloted within five feet of another one, and can't be used to go into space. Everything else is “up in the air”
Video- (Laughter) .... sorry.
Audio- Anyway, onto Blade Runner. The film opens to a shot of a dark, smoggy, densely packed, and immense city. Suddenly, a hovercar flies into view. This, besides being beautiful to look at and very effective at setting the mood, visually establishes the technology level of this future world. It also leads into the first scene with Character interaction, at the Tyrell Pyramid. From here on in, the hovercars, called Flying Spinners by the filmmakers, are used mainly for scene transitions. Otherwise, they herald the arrival of our protagonist's superiors.
The Spinners themselves are said to be aerodynes, using movable jet turbines to achieve lift. This makes them loud and, probably, energy consuming. They also coexist alongside normal land cars, and are much fewer in number than their grounded counterparts. This implies that spinners are only accessible to government, businesses, and the wealthy. These aspects of the spinners fit perfectly with the dark, polluted, and socially stratified future portrayed in Blade Runner. Also, by making the spinners an extension of modern technology, instead of an assumed “future technology,” the idea that this is a potential future is reinforced.
How did the film makers pull off these effects? Well, keep in mind that, until we hit the 90's, computer generated effects aren't really practical. So the film makers mainly used models and layered shots. And you'll notice if you watch this that you see very few hovercars besides the Police Spinner close up. That's because they only made a few other models besides that of the police vehicle, which they would just repeatedly layer in the background. As for the police spinner, they made several different sized models of it, including one full sized piece that had fully functional lights and moving parts, and a 45 inch long, 65 pound model that, along with having detailed lights and movement, also had detailed puppet occupants! All the detail and attention that was put into the spinners, along with all the other effects, helped to make Blade Runner one of the most memorable and influential science fiction films ever made.
This brings us to the Back to the Future series, the first installment of which came out in 1985, three years after Blade Runner. But here we're going to focus on part two, released in 1989. This is because, with the exception of about 30 seconds at the end of part one and three, all of the flying vehicles are in part 2.
There are two pieces of hover- tech that take center stage in this movies. One is the Hover Delorian, the delorian time machine from the first movie given a 2015 hover conversion, and the other is the hoverboard. More on THAT later. Meanwhile, the retrofitted Delorian was a very central tool. Besides just being basic transportation in the 2015 scenes, it also became an advantage in making escapes and hiding during the 1985 and 1965 scenes.Now, the workings of the hover cars themselves are left pretty ambiguous in the films, but studio- sanctioned documentaries suggest they used “magnetic energy” which, come to think of it, is still pretty ambiguous. But looking at the film's other hover- tech reveals a few interesting ideas. First of all, the hoverboard. Though it can't fly, it can hover a few inches over any surface. It also, over the course of two films and a few weeks, never required a change of batteries. Looking back, one notices floating street signs and markers, which, as they're floating over people's homes, probably also don't require frequent battery changes. It's also revealed in the third film that the “Mr. Fusion” Doc Brown installed in the Delorian was used solely to provide the 1.21 jigawatts of electricity needed to power the time machine. The car itself ran on gasoline, and the existence of a 21st century Texaco station implies that, in 2015, all hovercars run on gasoline!
So hover cars in Back to the Future are low energy, low noise, low pollution, and generally just without downsides. This, along with all the clean and, in many cases, frivolous technology and scenery we see in this future, indicates a world of advancement and convenience. This is in stark contrast with the dark, polluted world of Blade Runner, an effect that was quite intentional on the part of the film makers, as Ridley Scott's film was still fresh in the public's mind at this point, and they wanted something original. The result is a world that does look like a nice place to live, but which also seems very superficial.
As for the effects, they, like Blade Runner, used a lot of models, composite shots, blue screens, and, where needed, cables. The effects weren't quite on par with Blade Runner, but they were still quite good, and completely appropriate for the colorful story being told.
Video- This brings us finally to 2004's “I, Robot.” Here we've skipped ahead 20 years of real time, so the future isn't quite like you remember it.
Audio- In this film, we have a detective trying to get to the bottom of a robot conspiracy, traveling from location to location in a hovercar. This hovercar, as with all the others in the film, do not fly. They hover a few inches off the ground, the same distance commonly achieved by, you know, wheels. The primary advantage of Detective Spooner's Hover Audi is the increased maneuverability and speed. The reduced road and tire wear is also a plus.
Video- As for the effects, I'd like to just say, “They used computers” and call it a day, but I suppose I should go into some detail.
Audio- The trouble is, most of the effects in I, Robot went into the robots, somewhat predictably. Most of the hovercars in the film were fully CG, or computer generated. For the hero's car, a physical mock up was made, which they filmed the actor in, but they admit to replacing most of the mock up with CG in post production.
Video- So yeah, they used computers.
Audio- Now, exactly how the cars hover is never addressed in the film or it's commentaries, but it appears to be some manner of invisible force. It made a crunching sound when driven on gravel, which assumably means that if you stuck your hand between the hoverpad and the ground, you would, at best, feel pressure. This rules out “magnetic energy” as we understand it, but it could be some other kinetic force.
Looking at what these vehicles can tell us about the society, the fact that hovercars are common in this future also indicates that they are relatively cheap to buy and run. This, along with the lack of obvious poverty in the rest of the movie, suggests a somewhat advanced world, both technologically, and societally. While a social strata definitively exists, it's not noticeably pronounced in this film.
Looking back at these three films, we do see a basic change in how our views of both technology and the world in general have changed in the last two decades. Blade Runner and Back to the Future portray wildly different futures, but when compared to I, Robot, they have something in common; They both try to show an amazing future. Blade Runner had a mile- high city shrouded in darkness. Back to the Future had incredible technology, ranging from the useful, the the silly, to the incomprehensible. And they both had cars that could fly. However, I, Robot, as well as many of the science fiction futures made in the 2000's, have practical advancements in slightly more grand cities filled with people doing normal things. And naturally they usually have cars that just hover and/or have guidance systems. Modern futures seem to be more conservative than futures past. Why? Do film makers underplay the technologies not related to the central plot to make the main story elements stand out? Does our increased knowledge of science limit our ideas of what is possible or impossible? Have we seen so many futures come and go that we don't want to look like fools in 50 years for reaching too high? Is it all just a reflection of an increasingly cynical culture? I couldn't BEGIN to tell you. I'm just here to talk about flying cars.
Video- Well, we've seen the fiction. Now let's take a look at the real world to see where we are in developing hover tech, and try to see where the movies might have gotten it right.
Audio- To start with- we do already have flying machines. Planes, Jets, Helicopters- they all rely on the movement of air to achieve and maintain lift. And looking at it, the functional differences between a helicopter and a Flying Spinner are pretty minimal. So rather than get mired down in distinctions, we're going to look at the fringes of science and technology to see some of the more innovative methods people are developing to defy gravity.
The first tech we'll talk about is the actual hover- craft. These things use a large fan or air pump to create a cushion of air under the craft. They can travel almost friction free across both water and land, but the relatively fragile “skirt” that channels the air can be sensitive to sudden changes or irregularities in the surface when on land. The whole thing can also be quite loud and energy consumptive, though improvements in design have made those issues less pronounced. However, the already named difficulties, along with the inferior steering at high speeds, means that we will probably not be riding hovercraft on the highways anytime soon.
But that's not very futuristic, is it? We all know the real future is in magnetic energy! That brings us to the cutting edge of high speed land travel, Magnetic levitation, or maglev. The basic principal is based on the fact that like-sided magnetic poles repel each other. We've been aware of this property of magnets for a long time, but the idea of using it to levitate a large object, like a train, would not be considered a practical idea until the development of effective low temperature superconductors in the 1960's. It wasn't until the 1980's, however, that the maglev train could become a reality, thanks to the creation of higher temperature superconductors. These yttrium, barium, copper oxide metals could allow for the same amount of current to be channeled without the need to waste energy on cooling for the wires. Thus, in the mid to late eighties, Japan and Germany started marketing the maglev bullet trains, which, due to their lack of friction with the ground, can move quietly at amazing speeds, using relatively little energy. On the downside, as a transportation, it can only move on a fixed track, and, again, it's not flying. Still, one could theoretically apply the maglev principal to cars, but besides stabilization and steering problems to overcome, there's also the fact that a maglev car could only drive on a road that has superconductors laid out on or under it, something that could get expensive to install. Also note that a normal car would not last long on a magnetic road, so it would have to be a complete technological change over, both in cars and roads, all over the nation, all at once. So maybe we're not quite ready for that change, yet.
The last notable technology I'd like to look at is the Skycar. The skycar works on the same principals as the Flying Spinners from Blade Runner. It has 4 small jet turbines, which it uses to make vertical takeoffs and, once in the air, steer. And with it's compact size, it really is a flying car, for all intents and purposes. Only problem? It doesn't really work just yet. They've already spent twice their budget on developing it, and authorities won't even let them do a takeoff without it being attached to a crane for the safety of the occupants and neighbors. Still, the fact that people are even attempting something like this is a hopeful sign.
But taking one last look back, there is one overwhelming obstacle that stands in the way of the hover car becoming a reality- humans. A lot of futures function under the assumption that mankind will evolve. First graders will learn quantum physics, chess will need to add a dimension, and anyone can get a flying car license. But the modern view states that even as mankind's technology advances, we will stay essentially the same. So with the accidents that happen at 65 miles per hour on a flat road, try to imagine moving even faster, and/or in three dimensions. Not a pretty picture. So even if we do get hovercars in the future, people will probably not pilot them, that task being left to navigational computers. So while you may be able to ride a hovercar someday, you probably won't be able to drive.
Video- Young- Well, that's about all I've got to say about hovercars, both in fiction and in real life. I really do hate to end on a down note here, but it does occur to me- Even if we overcome the technical obstacles, even if we overcome our own limitations, and even if I live to see it, the magic of the hovercar will be gone by the time they come out. Sure, there'll be some novelty to it, but all the technological advances that'll have to lead up to their creation will make them seem less miraculous. In the end, we'll still be using these amazing things to get to and from our dreary jobs at the soylent green factory. I just wish I could, now, as I am, ride in a flying car, and take it all in with a childlike sense of wonder. Oh well, at least we still have the movies.Video- Old- (Door opens.) Amen to that. But honestly, I didn't think you'd have give up on flying cars so easily. (cut to speaker.) After all, I know me better than that.
Video- Young- I... you... me?
Video- Old- Yes, it is I, Victor of 2065! I remembered my youthful wish, and once they legalized time travel, I knew exactly where and when to go! Come, young Victor, and I shall take you to the future, where we shall take a trip to New Chicago in my flying Toyota!
Video- Young- This is so awesome, I- wait, didn't Doc Brown say in Back to the Future that meeting your past self could create a paradox and destroy the universe?
Video- Old- Oh, don't worry, kid. That was only a movie. In real life, time travel is perfectly sa- (cut to Victorless frame.)
Video- Young- Oh, shi-
