Talk:Retrofuturism

Sky Captain, etc.

If this article is on retro-futurism, should we be including things that were just plain futurism at the time? For example, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is obviously retro-futuristic, in that it uses a mid-twentieth-century vision of the future (and places it during the actual past), but Metropolis or Buck Rogers were genuine "future" settings. I think the article should be more clear on this topic. -Branddobbe 23:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As another example, Nineteen Eighty-Four was also futuristic in its time. The specification of 'futuristic' as set in the 1990s or afterward seems quite arbitrary to me. But then that begs the definition of futurism too. Is the Book of Revelations futuristic? Is futurism necessarily fictional, or can it be nonfictional? Can retro-futurism refer to either a retrograde style of futurism or a retrograde style of prediction? What is the status of factual information in futurism, such as satellites in Arthur C. Clarke's book where he predicted satellites? Is furutism necessarily science-fiction? The meaning of 'science-fiction' is not always clear, as it could refer to 'space opera' or 'science fantasy' or 'speculative fiction.' 'Prior futuristic' might also be 'prior specualtion' or alternate-history speculation. The usual distinction between possible-future speculation and possible-history speculation may not be clear-cut for fiction. oneismany 14:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, What is the status of settings that follow past futurisms that are now retro-futurisms? (For example the sequels to a futuristic story taking place in the past.) I vote for post-retrofuturism! And the status of present settings in retrofuturism, as distinguished from accurate predictions? Transformers: The Movie takes place in the year 2005. Is it retro-futurism, or is it just fantasy? Retro-fantasy? The year 2005 is now here, which makes the Transformers not futuristic, but simply fictional. On the other hand, in 1984 they were supposed to come from a planet millions of years old, which would make them futuristic fantasy, but in the present, not in the future. What is present-day futurism? If 2005 is the present in the Transformers movie and it is present now, does that make the year 2005 in the movie factual? On the other hand, what makes a year factual anyway? oneismany 14:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that every sci-fi story that occurs in the future is destined to become retro-futuristic, unless it's perfectly accurate. I think there should be a separation between futuristic stories that became retro-futuristic, and "true" retro-futurism, that was deliberately made in the style of old sci-fi.

A sci-fi story doesn't have to occur in a year that has already passed to be considered as retro-futurism. Some of Asimov's stories, for example, occcur after the 21st century, but we already know the world won't be like the ones portrayed in them.

I think retro-futurism is closely related to steampunk, because both are based on "what they thought could be". The difference between the two is sometimes blurred. Is Asimov's Multivac, that works on obsolete vaccum tubes, is retrofuturistic or steampunky? How about the 1984 telescreens? I think the connection between the two terms should be mentioned in the article.XamiXiarus 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

'Futurism' is artifice in the style of a prediction. 'Retro-futurism' is artifice in the style of an outdated prediction. I argue that it also includes artifice in an outdated style of prediction, e.g., outdated futurism. In other words, sincerely futuristic literature that is now outdated, either because the time frame has passed or because certain elements are now anachronistic, is also retro-futuristic (in addition to futurism that is deliberately and knowingly anachronistic). I argue that if modeling your futurism on Transformers: The Movie (for example) makes it retro, then the source you are modeling is also retro. Discussion? oneismany 21:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve the article with your perspective. --Loremaster 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Portmanteau?

I don't think "retro-futurism" is a portmanteau of "retro" and "futurism". I mean, obviously it is derived from those words, in that it is those two words placed one after the other. But surely a corresponding portmanteau would be "returism" or "futro". Or "futroism". -- Supermorff 15:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I've made the appropriate changes. --Loremaster 15:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

Shouldn't the new Battlestar Galactica tv series be included since it uses antiquated technology in contrast with its futuristic setting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.11.58 (talk • contribs) (22:40, 3 January 2007)

No. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He said "no". Understood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.192.170 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Retro-futuristic hoaxing

I added a new section: Retrofuturism#Hoaxing featuring an example I saw in the Photoshopping article. If anyone knows of other notable retro-futuristic hoaxes, please add them. --Teratornis 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, darn. The Image:Lukket-50s-computer-HOAX.jpg is copyrighted, and under terms of fair use I can't include it in other articles. I'm changing the section to refer to the fair-use instance of the photo without including it in Retrofuturism. --Teratornis 05:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrowland

I think there should be a mention of the Tomorrowland section of the Disney theme parks in the examples of retro-futurism. Each Tomorrowland (or in the case of Disneyland Paris, 'Discoveryland') is based on a retro-futuristic architectural design.Macg4cubeboy 03:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Steampunk?

I was wondering why this article focuses entirely on the 50's era retro-futurism. Isn't that merely one flavor of retro-futurism? For instance, I fully expected steampunk to be listed here as a subcategory of retro-futurism, and yet it's excluded as something else entirely. Rofang 01:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think steampunk is retro-futurist, at least by my understanding of the term and that described in the article. Retro-futurism is a vision of the future as held by the people at the time. Steampunk is the otherway around - I think it was created in the 1980s rather than the Victorians' own image of the future. The 50s-style retro-futurism, on the other hand, is actually how the people of the 50s imagined the future. AdamBMorgan 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Rofang is right. Retrofuturism and steampunk is exactly the same concept, just the period of time is different. Please, read the article "The Tomorrow That Never Was: Retrofuturism in the Comics of Dean Motter" by professor Henry Jenkins and you'll catch the overall idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.192.170 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference given explicitely contrasts steampunk with retrofuturism. One is not a subtype of the other, Steampunk is not an outmoded vision of the future - usually it is not even set in the future!

So basically you claim that retrofuturism is different from steampunk because it's set in the future? Since when? Which titles listed here in the Characteristics section are set in the future: "Mars Attacks", "Destroy All Humans", "BioShock", "GURPS Atomic Horror" or "Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow"??? I can't see any. You have to distinguish OUR future from our ancestors' future (which is our past).

Source said "The term, "steampunk," was coined to refer to science fiction which built on Victorian society and technology, a genre inspired as much by contemporary representations of the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, as by anything actually produced during the late 19th century.(...).Finally, retrofuturism takes earlier science fiction as its raw materials, revisiting mid-20th century constructions of the future from a more contemporary perspective." This is a contrasting sentence construction, it does not show equivalence.Yobmod (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Replace "retrofuturism" with "steampunk" in the above sentence and you'll have a perfect definition of steampunk: "Finally, steampunk takes earlier science fiction as its raw materials, revisiting late-19th century constructions of the future from a more contemporary perspective." As you all know, Steampunk is based on Verne's and Wells' scientific romances, 19th century equivalents of futuristic sci-fi. Read Cory Gross' "A History of Steampunk" for more background.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.192.170 (talk • contribs) (14:12, 8 October 2008)

No, you are changing the sense and meaning of the sentence. Steampunk does not imagine a present-day built upon old notions of the future. Steampunk is set in the past, not in the past's vision of the future. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Retro-futurism is set in the past, too. In OUR past (well, alternate past). I don't like to repet myself, but see the examples in the Characteristics section. "Destroy All Humans", "BioShock", "GURPS Atomic Horror", "Sky Captain" - these titles had been already there, so everybody accepted them as retrofuturistic. The problem with your definition of retrufuturism is that you have no definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.192.170 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To go over my comment from last year, I would still say that retro-futurism is the opposite of steampunk (including clockpunk and similar). Retro-futurism uses historical concepts projected forward. Steampunk uses modern concepts projected backwards onto historical technology.

The actual period of the setting is not important; the ideas and concepts matter. Steampunk reimagines current technology with a historical facade but it is still modern or advanced technology in concept. No one in the age of steam wrote about this subject. It was not how they saw the future. It is entirely modern in origin. Retro-futurism, however, recycles existing concepts from history. This is how people actually depicted the future in the (or is intentionally similar to it). It is explicitly not new or original. Both are anachronistic but from different directions.

I'm not sure if I'm making my point very well but, to summarise:

• Steampunk: Original; Modern; Projected backwards
• Retro-futurism: Recycled; Historical; Projected forwards

- AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Retro-futurism is h"istorical" and "projected forwards"? Projected by whom? By contemporary writers or by historical writers? Your theory doesn't correspond with the provided examples of retrofuturistic movies and games, I'm afraid (see above). Retrofuturism uses modern concepts in the same way as steampunk does. Whithout modern concepts it would be just a copy of pulp. So what exactly distinguishes retrofuturism from pulp and other period sci-fi in your opinion?

I wonder why do you believe that all concepts in steampunk are based only on modern concepts? Flying machines, robots, space travels, aether, mad scientists and their infernal inventions were described in the 19th century dime novels. Steampunk adds some anachronism to all those ancient ideas. Is it really opposite to retrofoturism?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.192.170 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the uncited examples in this article to prove anything does not work. The source gives different definitions for both. If they were the same, why would he do this? It is because they are different. Anubis gates is set in the 1900's, it is not retro nor futuristic at all.Yobmod (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anubis Gates isn't exactly a steampunk novel. Bad, biassed example, I'm afraid. --89.76.192.170 (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, it's one of the novels the term Steampunk was invented to describe. Sorry if you don't like it.Yobmod (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh rly? Citation, please. The fact it was written by one of the Jeter/Blaylock/Powers trio doesn't make it a foundation of steampunk. Much earlier A Nomad of the Time Straeams was 1000 times more important for steampunk than this one.

Taking the examples first:-

• Destroy All Humans = 1950s science fiction recycled for use in a 2005 game
• BioShock = I'm less familar with but I believe that it is based on 1950s-60s science fiction recycled for use in a 2007 game
• GURPS Atomic Horror = a sourcebook based on the 1950s science fiction genre of Atomic Horror, explaining how to recycle the concepts for games of GURPS (this includes the giant ants of "Them" and 1950s style aliens & flying saucers, as with Destroy All Humans)
• Sky Captain = 1930s science fiction, from pulp magazinse and film serials, recycled for a 2005 film

In all cases the modern authors "projected forwards" based on the established historical science fiction.

Now it's my turn:

• Haeckel's Tale = 1818 science fiction recycled for use in a 2006 movie
• The Black Coat = 1870 science fiction recycled for use in 2006 comics
• The Prestige = 1900 science fiction recycled for use in a 2006 movie
• Airborn = 1880 science fiction recycled for use in 2004 novel

Does a publishing date distinguish retrufuturism from other genres? :)

Erm, the prestige is a 90s book, set in the modern day, told in flashback, made into a film. It is neither SP nor RF.

It is Steampunk - see Tesla's apparatus.

And how does that make Steampunk the same a RF, exactly?

Let me repeat one fundamental question: What is Retro-futurism?

But all right. How about The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen = 1890 sci-fi rcld in 1999? --89.76.192.170 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's steampunk, what has that got to go with retro-futurism, the depiction of futures as imagined in the past?

What Sky Captain has that LXG hasn't? Underwater airplanes? Giant robots? What have they got to do with retro-futurism, the depiction of futures as imagined in the past?

However, it might be easier to go through the words themselves. Futurism can mean science fiction or a vision of the future. Retro-futurism is looking back at, or recycling, an earlier vision of the future (or some part there of). Simple examples include silver lame body suits of 50s science fiction or concentric rings of the 30s. In her book Retro, Elizabeth E. Guffey defines retro-futurism as "the discrepancy between what the future once represented and what it no longer means" (p152, ISBN 9781861892904). "Steampunk" is based on "Cyberpunk", an 80s vision of the near future. Steampunk is Cyberpunk translated into a 19th century setting and was first used in the novel The Difference Engine by the cyberpunk authors William Gibson and Bruce Sterling. Taking Difference Engines as an example, to my knowledge this item does not appear in 19th century science fiction. It was only when computing concepts of the 1980s needed to be projected backwards into the past that it was used.

Difference Engine is the only steampunk novel based on cyberpunk. Believe me, there are no others. Associating these two genres is a typical mistake made by noobs. Steampunk is only a funny name, it has nothing to do with cyberpunk. And it's much older than Difference Engine.

For a little more information, please see Word Spy - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's rather a poor resource, isn't it? --89.76.192.170 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Who

Why was the referance to Dr Who removed? (Slatersteven 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Dune

Although not a retro-futrue film Dune certainly has a retro-future look to it, should it be included in the film list? (Slatersteven 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

No. Dune is a completely different animal altogether. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Raygun Gothic

There's insufficient material in that article to stand on its own, but it makes a reasonable subcategory for this article (where it's already discussed). RandomCritic 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with this suggestion. The Raygun Gothic article is little more than a stub---indeed, reformatted, and with the extraneous Gibson material removed, there would be hardly anything there at all. This merger is appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have yet to see editors produce a reliable source to the effect that Raygun Gothic is entirely reducible to retro-futurism. I would appreciate it if editors would discuss the proposed merge with a view to forming consensus rather than trying to ram it through unilaterally. Skomorokh ^incite 11:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This merge proposal has been in place for over a month. That is hardly "ramming it through unilaterally". RandomCritic 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruce McCall

Not adding him to the list of artists is a serious oversight. --Armadillo01 15:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)armadillo01

Well, if you are so certain that he is important, add him yourself. Oh, and please use edit summaries. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic entries

There seems to be some uncertainty over what qualifies as retro-futuristic; in looking at some of the entries, I get the impression that some editors have thought that any science fiction more than a few years old is "retro-futuristic". Here are my thoughts on what retro-futuristic is not:

• If it's science fiction set in the past, even an "alternate past", which doesn't portray the trappings of a *future* society (from the point of view of both the time period portrayed and the present), it's retro, but not futuristic.
• If it's science fiction set in the future, and it's still a semi-plausible future from the point of view of the present, then it's futuristic, but not retro.
• If it includes a bunch of random science fiction cliches, some of which may be past their sell-by date, but doesn't fit them into a somewhat coherent setting, it's not retro-futurism, it's just a stylistic mixture.

Ideally, retrofutures should be set in the future (at least, the future from the point of view of the particular time the retrostyle is based on -- the date might be the present or even the last few decades) but I suppose we have to include "presents" where futuristic tech has been produced by mad scientists and the like. There's still a difference between retro-futuristic tech intruding in an ordinary retro society, and a total retro-futuristic society (where, say, everybody is wearing shiny plastic clothing and going to work by jet-pack), and that might be worth breaking out at some point. RandomCritic 05:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, a distinction needs to be made between retro-futurism and remakes of pre-1965 science fiction subjects (like Flash Gordon, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Duck Dodgers -- in these cases, the "retro" style that may appear derives not from a deliberate choice to be anachronistic, but from a faithfulness to the established styles of the subject matter. It may be an exercise in nostalgia, but it's not "retro" because the styles aren't contradictory to the time and place of their origin. -- RandomCritic (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

Does anyone consider this to be retro-futurist? I think it is a bit off the mark. I have seen it listed over in the steampunk article, to which it is closer. But, it really has nothing to do with a Victorian or early 20th century model of the future. Rather, it is set in the Victorian age, but with anachronistic technology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am going to delete it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete everything - except your contributions, of course :)

BTW, how many "pure", "typical" or "fundamental" retrofuturistic works can you list? Name them, please. --89.76.192.170 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Future Part II

Anyone wanna toss BTTF II into the appropriate category? TheHYPO (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robot attackers.jpg

Image:Robot attackers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

merge from futuristic clothing

The clothing article is a stub, and everything described therein pertains to retrofuturism (futuristic clothing means dressing in skintight suits etc as imagined in old-fashioned SF). So i think this article should have a subsection about retrofuturism's influence on fashion, and the other should redirect there.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Retro-futurism is an aesthetic sensibility; what doeas "futuristic clothing" refers to? is a confusing entry, with no references; is more like a personal analysis, it should probably be completely rewritten or maybe erase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.212.119 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'Ve done the merge, after ssing the strange addition from "Glamour magatzine" to this article. The resulting section i've put under design, and it probably needs to be shortened or made into a sub-heading of design? At least until more sources are found to make a seperate section needed. Also tagged some lists for trimming.Yobmod (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speed racer

Somebody should add the 08 speed racer movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.229.117 (talk • contribs) (03:45, 23 June 2008)

No, someone should find a cite that calls Speed Racer retrofuturism, THEN add it :-). Yobmod (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, Yobmod. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

POV list

Notable artists

• Richard Arbib (1917-1995) 1964 World's Fair, Newsweek
• Norman Bel Geddes (1893-1958) designed Futurama pavilion for the 1939 New York World's Fair]
• Chesley Bonestell (1888-1986) Mechanix Illustrated
• Jack Coggins (1911-2006) Spaceship to the Moon
• Gene Colan Guardians of the Galaxy
• Lee Conrey (1883-?) American Weekly
• Howard M. Duffin Amazing Stories
• Kenneth Fagg If
• Hugh Ferriss (1889-1962)
• Frederic W. Freeman (1906-1988)
• Russ Heath (1926-) Humbug
• Matt Jefferies Star Trek
• Alexander Leydenfrost (1889-1961)
• J Mays (October 15, 1954) Automotive design at VW and Ford
• Arthur Radebaugh The Future We Were Promised
• Frank Rudolph Paul (1884-1963) Amazing Stories, Science Wonder Stories
• Leo Rackow (1901-1988)
• Stewart Rouse Modern Mechanics
• Norman Saunders (1907-1988) Modern Mechanix
• Bradley W. Schenck (1958-) Long Playing Computer Graphics
• Alex Schomburg (1905-1998) Satellite Science Fiction
• James B. Settles Amazing Stories
• Malcolm Smith (1910-1966)
• Osamu Tezuka (1928-1989) Astro Boy
• Edgar Franklin Wittmack Popular Science
• Dave Stevens The Rocketeer

who says these are notable - most are red links, and even the blue links don't have cites with anyone calling them notable for this style of design. It is a POV, OR, mini-promotional list.Yobmod (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Stuck in

"-- again -- because of a failure of imagination."

Ahaha, way to get stuck into writers on two occasions ahaha.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fallout

An IP user added this a while back ,but i must have been on a break. The citation used did not mention "retro" anywhere. Unfortunately, neither did the 2 new cites, so i have removed it for now.YobMod 13:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

readded again, with this cite, which i got a "Not found" result for: ‘Fallout 3’: A post-apocalyptic conundrum

Deleted illustration

I deleted the cover illustration from the August 1928 issue of Amazing Stories. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first, less important one, is that it doesn't illustrate what it was purported to illustrate. It does not illustrate "The jet pack, an icon of the future". It illustrates an event in Edward Elmer Smith's story The Skylark of Space in which the hero, Richard Seaton, has constructed a device (preliminary to building the titular Skylark spaceship) which is effectively an anti-gravity harness, though not named as such, which utilizes an imaginary invisible energy (supposedly arising from the reaction of copper with the fictitious substance "X") to allow the wearer to propel himself in any direction. It does not utilize rockets or jets, and it is not worn as a "pack" on the back or elsewhere.

More significantly, however, as far as this article is concerned, the illustration is simply "random pulp sf cover", and has no relevance to the article. This is not an article about vintage sf; it is an article about retro-futurism, which may draw upon vintage sf for inspiration but is a thoroughly modern phenomenon. As far as I know, no retro-futuristic work utilizes Doc Smith's harness as a basis, and even if it did, what this article needs is an illustration of the modern derivative, not the early 20th-century inspiration. RandomCritic (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The iconic device for retro-futurism is the "personal jetpack" (any number of jokes passim.). This is, to all practical purposes, a "personal jetpack". Whether it works by jet thrust, antigravity or Element X is neither here nor there. Are you seriously suggesting that it's unacceptable for an article on retro-futurism because rather than being a mere jetpack, it's something too futuristic?

What this article needs is a masthead image, and that of the early 20th-century inspiration is an excellent choice. Your action in deleting in (and I note, not even replacing it with your notion of a better image) is hardly working to make a better encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been searching for a more appropriate illustration in Wikimedia Commons, but as retro-futurism is, of course, a modern phenomenon, that means that almost all suitable illustrations are in the private domain.RandomCritic (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Retro-futurism as ideology

In following up the references on this subject in this article, I find that the only example of the use of retro-futurism to refer to a "reactionary modernist" ideology is in a blog post by Dale Carrico, where the context ("a short description of retro-futurism (to which I allude often but which I have never really dealt with in any kind of extended way)") makes it clear that this is Carrico's own, idiosyncratic usage. As such, it fails WP:N. As Carrico's usage has little or nothing to do with the standard usage of the term, it's appropriate to remove references to it from this article. RandomCritic (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete thought...

• "Examples include the film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, set in an imaginary 1939, and The Rocketeer franchise, set in 1938, in both of which"

The paragraph then simply terminates and moves on to the next section heading. Did someone fudge an edit? Delete something they shouldn't have? 98.108.164.197 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, right, sorry, that's from the last paragraph of the "Characteristics" section. 98.108.164.197 (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Fallout and Bioshock references

Feel free to add to this. • RPG Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-6911-RPG-Examiner~y2009m5d27-Retrofuturism-in-gaming (Examiner is currently blocked; WP is not content to merely be an incomplete mirror of information readily available elsewhere, now it has to censor that image also) • You say Apocalypse, I say retro-chic

• Elements of Fallout that are retrofuturistic include: factors too numerous and detailed to list in the opening sequences of One • Two • and Three, set to • the Ink Spots' "Maybe", • Satchmo's "A Kiss to Build a Dream On" • and the song that Black Isle tried to get rights for to use in F1, but could not, F3's I don't want to set the world on fire (Ink Spots again) • The cars • The Vault suits • The Cola machines • The tubes and dials construction of the G.E.C.K. and other devices, • and the line drawings of the Pip-Boy character.

Retrofuturism, like all science fiction, has been social comment, not merely the nostalgia listed as examples in the current version of the article. I can think of many reasons why you may prefer to see it as only pretty pictures, but the truth is somewhat different. 24.5.21.150 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)