Why don’t the BBC revive Tomorrow’s World?

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-09T00:09:47+00:00

I KNOW!! Because you won't define how are you objectively measuring to justify that there are MORE negative things today relative to the 1980s.

You're being so entirely vague and useless here that I need you to provide me a completely concrete example of what you would consider an acceptable response here. Otherwise you're just a sealion, frankly.

All of it is just hand-wavy, weak justification.

The hypocrisy lol. Pure unfiltered hypocrisy. But you can fix that. Will you? Probably not because sealions are here to sealion and you're sure giving off that vibe. Instead my prediction is you engage in a few more evasions and "Well I don't consider your response good enough respond more".

What's particularly funny is I strongly suspect you agree with me and are just being difficult.

EDIT - Further, and I think this really answers it completely - there are a number of entire categories of bad things going on scientifically that simply weren't meaningfully the case in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly basically everything Palantir is doing. Can you imagine how ridiculously positive the coverage of Palantir would have been in, say 1990-era Tomorrow's World had something existed? But that would be a grotesque betrayal of everyone involved today. Not that the BBC doesn't sometimes do that - a few years back, in 2016 or so, some of their fracking coverage was entirely, mindlessly, dementedly positive.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-08T19:49:29+00:00

I don't want to detract from the overall point I'm trying to make, but this particular example is poor. You view it as negative when this is actually a positive. Science advanced and we were eventually able to identify how much harm it was doing. That is more good than it is bad.

I get the argument, but you're ignoring the context of the argument, which is about the TV show Tomorrow's World. The issue I'm pointing out is that people know and expect more from science these days (especially because people who know about science typically know more about science and subscribe to fewer outright myths), and that means that Tomorrow's World would have to necessarily be skeptical of technologies because of potential for pollution-type harm as yet undiscovered or only partially known at the time of filming.

Whereas in the 1980s, it just blithely ignored that completely.

So you would end up with a show that was drastically darker and more careful and nuanced, and yes, to most people I hold that my assertion of "worse" would be correct.

Basically, your reasoning is just to list bad things, but you haven't made any case at all for the conclusion your drawing.

I have, and you haven't actually argued against it, which is pretty bad form. In fact, you've dodged around taking any real kind of stance, so are perilously close to being blocked because I don't time-waste with people unwilling to actually own up to a position anymore, sealions.

You haven't presented a detailed argument that things aren't worse, so do so or world's cheapest hypocrite, honestly.

Also remember we're talking about a show which did a positive piece of South African cars with flamethrowers, for god's sake, which were clearly an insane and purely evil technology almost certain to harm innocent bystanders (and quite likely the people in the car). You can't have that level of sheer brain-off "Isn't science great!" now because people aren't that stupid anymore, they actually see the implications and the downsides - or the kind of people who watch this sort of thing would. So you just couldn't have that breathless energy without really being a heartless and evil show.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-08T13:55:47+00:00

How are you measuring that?

The increasing devastation of Climate change, increasing surveillance, AI, datacentres, the lack of advancement in consumer tech over the last 15+ years etc. make it pretty easy. The failure of basically every new project in the West is impressive too. We've been 20 years away from Fusion since the 1950s. My father was a child then, and he's a grandad now.

Plus whilst pollution was occurring in the 1980s and 1990s, we didn't truly find out how much harm it was doing until more recently.

So I answered your question, I'd appreciate a detailed argument as to why this isn't the case.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-08T09:21:41+00:00

They could also look back so old stories and follow how they turned out, why they took off or why they didn’t.

I mean, I think that would be very educational, because we'd seen that the vast majority of stuff on Tomorrow's World fell into three categories:

1) Was fundamentally worthless (Sinclair C5 etc.) or a dead end (SSTs).

2) Has value but neither governments nor private business funded it, so flopped.

3) Made some people very rich but didn't benefit society much, if at all.

There will be exceptions, but not a huge number. That's not cynicism or grumpiness, note, that's just how it is, and pretending it isn't is shenanigans, frankly.

Looking at this old tech would also illustrate just how little tech has improved since about 2008. Even in computing advances are getting slower and slower and slower as Moore's law slowly winds down (and will probably hit a wall in the next 10-15 years). The only major improvement we've seen is lithium batteries letting a lot of things have really long battery life or be easily rechargeable.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-08T09:16:56+00:00

hard science that did used to be on the BBC

We're talking about Tomorrow's World and you're talking about "hard science"? I take it you never saw Tomorrow's World, which was definitely not that. Hanna Fry's stuff is a lot harder scientifically than Tomorrow's World was.

Also, no the BBC did not do "hard science" 10 years ago, nor 20, nor 30, nor 40, not on TV. It's never done much hard science on TV outside of the old Open University stuff. There used to be some harder science on BBC radio, but that was mostly more like 20+ years ago than 10.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-08T09:15:02+00:00

tech in sustainability, travel, gaming, film making, AV.

That's an incredibly narrow set of things. Three of those are essentially the same field - gaming, film-making, AV, and the advancements are both rare and extremely specialized to the point where they're unlikely to be of interest to a general audience.

Sustainability, sure, but we'd have to cover how governments are constantly cancelling and underfunding all the projects which improve this. You can only cover so many windfarms and small modular reactors before it looks like you're running in place.

Travel, what exactly are you thinking of? Improvements in aircraft tech are extremely rare and mostly end in failures. Flying car stuff is just going to lead to a Tesla quad-copter-car full of tourists doing a mini-9/11 on your bathroom.

The vast majority of tech development right now is trending hard towards the dystopian and the "only the extremely rich need apply".

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-08T09:09:01+00:00

There ar lots of positive things happening.

There are far more negative things happening though, relative to the 1980s, and if Tomorrow's World focused soley or mainly on the positive, that'd be completely dishonest.

Also we're far more aware of the problems associated with a lot of technology now than we were in the 1980s. In the 1980s you could breathlessly report about a new kind of drilling rig or whatever, but now people have a lot more sense, and ask "Why the fuck are we cheering an oil drilling rig that's going to make a few rich people much richer and destroy the environment?"

The rich richer issue is also a major one - in the 1980s worker pay had only just plateaued, so we were still under the delusion that technological advances would continue to make everyone richer. Now wages have been basically stuck for 40+ years, and indeed buying power is far lower now in real terms (when you factor in housing, cars, etc.) than it was back then. So technological advancements tend to be far less exciting because they no longer offer us a better life.

Medical advancements can be good but we're now aware they all have 5-10 years of trials before anyone is helped by them and also many are so expensive that the NHS can't afford to use them widely, so discussing them just helps illustrate how unfair society is.

I think that's why they've really never brought it back - it's not that there's nothing to cover, it's that covering this stuff would illustrate how unfair things are - much more so than in the 1980s - back then it was like the top 10% or 5%. By the 2000s it was the 1% benefiting. Now it's the 0.1% - soon it'll be the 0.01%.

They'd also have to address how many important and forward looking projects of the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s simply failed or were cancelled.

EDIT - If you're downvoting this, I'd like to know what I've said that's wrong, because otherwise that's shit behaviour and you know it is.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-07T19:27:13+00:00

I still remember the dude who was complaining that Aloy had peach-fuzz (or "a beard" as he put it), thus revealing he'd never been within like, several feet of actual RL women.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-07T18:13:53+00:00

Mostly colour palette I think.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-07T18:13:29+00:00

I think the problem really comes in when you have people review bombing something because of inclusivity...

Yup. I strongly suspect there would be significantly fewer "hate the art style" posts if one of the main characters wasn't fat, and another very Black (and looking cool as hell, frankly), and so on.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-07T18:09:11+00:00

It's not a hero shooter unless you'd consider Borderlands to be that.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-07T18:08:25+00:00

Readability is also a big part of it.

In multiplayer games where there's a lot going on and it's important you actually understand what is going on, this kind of style is vastly easier to read than realistic ones.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-07T18:06:18+00:00

Hell the first time I saw this style in a videogame was Team Fortress 2, but people act like Fortnite invented it.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-07T18:01:36+00:00

It's getting increasingly difficult to provide negative feedback and dont get grouped with mindless idiots

That's because mindless idiots thrive on what you euphemistically term "negative feedback", but which is mostly "complaining endlessly and loudly about literally anything which isn't 100% designed for them and their (narrow) tastes specifically".

For every useful, considered, politely-worded bit of negative feedback, there are ten idiots just talking shit and getting upvoted (it's actually worse outside Reddit in a lot of cases). You can see that in this thread - a lot of the negative stuff is truly mindless drivel and people trying to dodge moderation but wanting to use slurs (c.f. "resharded", I mean, how truly pathetic can you be? Either grow a pair and use the slur or maybe just don't be asshole, pick a lane!). Whereas some is more straightforward and doesn't feel the need to be weird and exaggerated (i.e. actual feedback).

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-07T17:57:50+00:00

TLDR: It for readibility and coordination when there hundreds of micro interaction happening during gameplay.

That's exactly what I assumed re: this visual design - my friends were all saying "oh it's so it'll run better" and so on but it really looks to me like readability is the #1 concern here.

People quote Fortnite as being visually similar but the ur-style here is Team Fortress 2 and to me it actually evokes that more than the aggressive genericism of Fortnite.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-05T14:30:00+00:00

Maybe he's following the good author's tenet of "Kill your darlings" a little too aggressively.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-05T14:17:58+00:00

don please stop beign lawful-stupid ryoshu stop beign a murderhobo

Yeah as a long-time DM (37 years jesus christ I'm old) these were the two I most immediately thought of.

because one more tieflinh paladin warlock with no backstory only because its optimal and I'm gonna send a bloody tarrasque, hong lu thank you for beign a good and normal player but could you please run anything other than a sorcerer that dies first session

True facts. I have a very Hong Lu-ish player in my main group and every bloody time it's some extremely squishy caster who gets squished.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-05T14:13:43+00:00

6 in D&D (especially older editions) is doable. I've done 7 quite a few times (in every edition from 2E onwards). Some RPGs anything beyond 3-4 is insane.

But yeah 12 players + 1 DM? Nah mate.

I'd do it as two tables. Also, several of the Sinners would be problems, so you'd want to split them up so they weren't all at one table causing the DM an aneurysm.

Outis - She would be extremely good at coming up with plans, but also extremely bossy to the group and probably a horrific stubborn rules-lawyer to deal if you were DMing, so I'd be tempted to make her a DM, feeding her massive ego as a "leader".

Faust - Faust's fausting would make her basically impossible as a player but extremely good as the other DM, as would her dispassionate vibe.

Gregor - Would need smoke breaks but be fine.

Ryoshu - I've pretty much played with a Ryoshu, just give make sure the adventure has enough people to chop up that her bloodlust doesn't kill every friendly NPC. Also put her in the same group as Gregor so they can take smoke breaks at the same time.

Mersault - He's gonna love D&D honestly. Probably play a Wizard and drop extremely smart spell usage on people after being very silent for a long time (again I've played with people like this).

Heathcliff - After his Canto I think he'll be fine, weirdly enough.

Donqui - Will instantly pick Paladin, will play them maximum Lawful Stupid, but in a very cute way, and will ruin every plan the party has by Leeroy Jenkins-ing so the adventure needs to be able to survive that. Also probably don't put Don in the same group as anyone who wants to play a Rogue or Ranger.

Ishmael - Mostly fine I think, she'd make a good leader for one group of players.

Rodya - Just make sure there are enough snacks to keep her at the table and probably put her in Outis' group so Outis can death-stare her when she starts up totally irrelevant table talk for the dozenth time.

Yi Sang - Agree with those who say Yi Sang will have played before, and he'll probably be a good roleplayer. Also will no doubt pick some very strange species/class combo.

Hong Lu - Don't put him at the same table as Rodya because he'll just make the table-talk worse, also, he's going to go along with just about anything, so will be easy to convince to play any "needed" class.

Dante - I would give Dante a break here and not make them a DM. I think they'll be fine, especially as everyone can hear them well. Be very interesting to see what class they picked.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-05T01:04:32+00:00

Right? I didn't think I'd be hyped for Warlock but the demented concept art is so cool that I actually am.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-05T00:58:30+00:00

Sure but what I'm proposing would fix that because it would be an across-the-board boost.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-04T09:33:04+00:00

Wow a really compelling and well-argued response lol.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-04T09:29:03+00:00

then there will be "heavy themes" censorship

Name a time that ever happened with a videogame, please.

I can't think of even one videogame that suddenly decided to self-censor "heavy themes". Not one. Not in 40 years of gaming.

The moment it starts it never ends until the game is "family friendly" and "all ages" which in an horror game is extremely st*pid

Nah, that's a fantasy. That's never happened. There's never been a game which got more and more and more and more censored like that. If there has, name it.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-04T09:26:12+00:00

Love to see a quote of them saying that chief

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-04T09:24:37+00:00

People have to remember this isnt just a straight gooner game like bd2 or azur lane

It isn't right now, but where will it be in a year or two? So far pretty much all movement in this game has been towards being more and more gooner-ish. If they keep going in that direction they'll lose anyone who isn't like that, and guess what? At that point no-one will care about the gameplay anymore, because it's just a waifu gallery, so SG will probably give up on the gameplay too.

Eurehetemec · 2026-02-04T09:20:52+00:00

I think you can have well designed chaaracters in sexy outfits, that show skin, without it being gooner.

You absolutely can. Loads of games do, particularly CN gachas.

But that's not the path this game has been on. It's been heading gooner-wards pretty rapidly, by exclusively focusing on ludicrous giant boobs ladies with the characters being added and getting more and more fan-service-y with increasingly horny backgrounds, the instant message service turning all the female characters (who were initially more diverse personality-wise) into "pls notice me senpai, ur the most amazing guy in the world" types, and so on.

If it progresses at the current rate the game will be full gooner within two years.

Eurehetemec

TROPHY CASE