Talk:Things to Come

Undated comment
I replaced this:

''Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945 there would be an increasing lack of public safety in "criminally infected" areas. The plan for the "Modern World State" would succeed on its third attempt, and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq. The book also states: "Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition anywhere."''

with a complete stub, because the above seems to have been copied from a website; could be any one of   or several others. --Camembert

Douhet? was there a specific connection to Douhet?
Anyone want to clarify better what Douhet's relationship to the film might have been? I like 80.177.108.194's addition that


 * The film is notable for its graphic depiction of strategic bombing in scenes where London is flattened by air attacks and society collapses into barbarism. This echoes pre-war concerns about the threat of the bomber and the apocalyptic pronouncements of air power prophets such as Giulio Douhet.

But that sounded almost like a suggestion that Wells had based his ideas on Douhet. I added a sentence to make it clear that Wells certainly had not gotten all of his ideas about air war from Douhet.

But was there a connection? I know nothing about this myself and can't comment intelligently.

Wells was a well-informed man so by the time he wrote the screenplay he might well have known about Douhet (or Billy Mitchell for that matter), and discussions of air war and its consequences could well have been "in the air." Aircraft manufacturers were building warplanes, and by the time the film was in preparation Mussolini's air force would already have been conducting attacks on Ethiopia.

I guess what I'm wondering about is, did Wells get some ideas from Douhet? Did the people engaged in the production naturally turn to Douhet's book for research on what air war might be like?

Or was it more like people watched the film and said, after the fact, "Oh, yes, that's what Douhet was talking about?"

There probably isn't any good answer to this... Dpbsmith 12:31, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wells would have almost certainly been aware of Stanley Baldwin's 1932 statement that "the Bomber will always get through". Douhet was just one of several prominent prophets of air power, alongside Mitchell (and certainly the most well-known in Europe) and was part of a general movement that was trying to make the world aware of the offensive potential of air power. I will suggest removing the Douhet reference but leaving the link to strategic bombing in the text. The movie is a document of popular belief in the potency of bombing and a reminder that it was thought to be as apocalyptic a threat as nuclear war is to us today. Prune 15:01, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * If it was anyone it was probably Hugh "Boom" Trenchard. He was behind the setting-up of the RAF as primarily a strategic bomber force in 1918. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.230 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Frayling
I don't see why the Frayling remark is in 'Behind the Scenes' - it is an opinion so I am cutting it.


 * It's a valid opinion and it's from a verifiable source, so I don't see the problem and I'm putting it back. Wikipedia prohibits articles from including Wikipedia editors' own opinions. It does not prohibit what Jimbo has called "facts about opinions." It is a fact that Frayling holds that opinion. If you think this is a disputed topic, if you think Frayling's opinion is wrong, and you want to balance it by adding a verifiable source citation from an authority who has a differing opinion, by all means do so. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem with it up top. It just was not adding a detail about the production. Frayling showed some footage at the RCA that was a test reel for the effects done by the artist Naum Gabo. Worth an addition?


 * Sure. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Frayling is no longer with the BFI.Piersmasterson 12:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he was when he wrote that comment... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Oops, I didn't reference the source when i added the Frayling quote back in 2003. I'll add a reference soon... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It was Moholy-Nagy not Gabo so I've fixed that. In the process I found a photo of his test effectsPiersmasterson 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Influence
After seeing this film for the first time, I was struck by how elements bore similarities to later media. The 2036 portion is a lot like Osamu Tezuka's Phoenix as well as the backstory for the Silver Surfer and Kang the Conqueror. Is anything in print about this film's legacy?--StAkAr Karnak 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the war lord in the post-apocalyptic era look like a template for all those villains appearing in the Mad Max movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.63.47 (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the film covers a state of total destruction of civilisation was possibly the first instance in cinema. All films covering this subject since, Planet of the Apes,episodes of television science fiction such as The Twilight Zone,etc. owe something to this film.The implications were also covered in "The Time Machine", starring Rod Taylor.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Predicted World War II?
The statement in the article that
 * The film is notable for predicting World War II; it was only one year off.

seems pretty unconvincing to me. For one thing... it's been a while since I've watched it and I don't feel like watching it right now just to check... I don't think the phrase "World War II" is used. Is it? For another, apart from being a global war in which air power played a role, the resemblance to World War II isn't close. The gas attacks resemble World War I more closely than anything in World War II. There's no obvious political or military similarity. The war is not really presented in enough detail to judge whether it's an impressive bit of prescience or not.

Second, "it was only one year off" isn't very impressive given that the movie was released in 1936, and that fear of approaching war was hardly a unique insight.

Third, and admittedly I'm setting the bar pretty high here; for most writers, I wouldn't have said that they ought to have predicted the use of atomic bombs in World War II, but given that Wells wrote a novel about them in 1914 in his case I'd say that not having them in Things to Come is a failed prediction&mdash;if one is measuring the movie as a prediction of the actual historical World War II.

I've always perceived it as a fantasy of the way in which things could develop in some unspecified future... not an attempt at accurate short-term prediction.

Anyway, I think this sentence should go. The film did not "predict World War II" and is far less closely tied to historical reality than, say, Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Comment:The film says war starts with a surprise attack before war was declared.This is surprisingly what happened in Pearl Harbour, so right event, just not England.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the phrase "World War II" isn't used, but while at the time "World War I" was still generally known as "The Great War," the title of the first "chapter" of the shooting script adapated and published by Wells in October 1935 is "Before the Second World War" (page 19). The review of the film in The Times also uses the term "the second world war" in relation to the events in the film.


 * The fact that gas wasn't used historically in WW2 would surprise most of the UK population before it started, as there was a widespread belief that it would be, as evidenced by the fact that nearly every British citizen was issued with a gasmask in September 1939.


 * Since the film starts on Christmas Eve of 1940, it's actually almost 16 months off. However, the original storyline for the film was written in early 1934, i.e. 5½ years before War broke out, which is a bit more impressive than if you take 1936 as start date. Nick Cooper 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's my point. It wasn't particularly prescient as a prediction of World War II. The war in Things to Come doesn't much resemble World War II other than being a world war. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Running times
I've reverted the recent "rounding" (although, technically, one would have expected 108m 40s to be rounded to 109m!) of the various running times for the film. Given the various issues around the length of the film and what has survived of it, I think it is important to be precise, and I have added references to confirm the actual timings. Nick Cooper 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can anyone give these lengths in feet and frames? The NTSC/PAL (24fps/25fps) discrepancy has the potential to cause confusion, if the timings are based on the viewing of VHS or DVD copies.  LDGE (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All the timings noted in the article for the length of the film when either projected, or on a 30fps video format. The only exception is the specific statement that the 92m 42s version runs to exactly 89m on PAL, so really PAL speedup isn't really an issue, especially since the only versions available on the format are that and the reconstructed Amercian Print via the Network DVD. In actual fact, as regards this article, the only relevent exact footage known is that of 9,781 feet stated in Low (as referenced), from which the original UK release of 108m 40s is derived. I now have trade documentation with includes the physical lengths of the 1943 and 1948 British reissues, although at 6,850 (76m 07s) and 8,398 feet (93m 19s), these conflict with the BBFC's records and the previously-assumed running time for these releases respectively.


 * We do have a problem in that the American print actually runs to 96m 30s, not 96m 24s as stated in the Network DVD booklet, which I was the author of. The reason for this is that while working on the release, I derived the length by adding the length of the additional "new" footage to the existing 92m 42s print, but the finished product ended up a few seconds long, most probably because we gained a few seconds here and there on reel changes that in the past were excuted a bit too abruptly. Likewise, having done a more exact analysis, the 104m 41s "continuity script" is actually ~105m 02s. Our quandry, though, is that the slightly shorter timings are published and therefore can be cited, while the longer actual ones aren't and can't be, even though in retrospect I consider them correct enough to have been included in the DVD booklet, had I known at the time. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For reference, as per the Network Blu-Ray booklet, page 27 (note that the "EXTANT" at the top of the fourth column should actually appear above "FEET" in the fifth), the "continuity"/London Film Script length has now been fixed at 9,546 feet & 9 frames (106m 04s), although his doesn't include two extant cutaways not in the script, which run to an additional 28 ft & 15 fr (19.3 seconds). Nick Cooper (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status
Seems way, way off. Why would its being a derivative work based on something not in the public domain affect anything? Weird. 208.111.241.155 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's ended up that way because it was originally maintained that the film is still PD in the US. The fact that dozens of sellers on eBay think it's PD (even some in the UK, where it never has been!) demonstrate what a minefield the whole subject is. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah you're going to have to explain it. That people are confused about its legal status doesn't affect that status; there is no intent requirement for copyright violation. Further, although some elements of a work derived from a public-domain work would be in the public domain, there could still be independently copyrightable elements. This is a confused and confusing mess, and if I only knew the facts I could apply the law and clean it up. At this point, a train wreck. 208.111.241.155 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Legend Films was "digitally restored?"
I'm not sure what counts as "digitally restored," but I bought the Legend Films DVD (with Harryhausen's name on it) and returned it. I was completely disappointed in it. I saw no evidence of anything I would call "restoration" apart from the bad colorization. It appeared to me to be no improvement at all on previous DVD or VHS releases. (I didn't check to see whether any it contained any previously cut material, though).

The DVD I saw, both in the colorized and uncolorized versions contained on the disk, had unsteady framing (as if projected in a projector with a dirty film gate or worn sprockets). It had a poor grey scale (too contrasty). It had the effect inaccurately called "flicker" often seen in bad multiple-generation copies of old films: an irregular variation in brightness on a time scale of seconds. (I've assumed, without knowing for sure, that this is the result of uneven processing, increased by film fading over time, and increase further by contrast pickup in multigeneration copying). And, like 16 mm prints, the film was watchably sharp but nowhere near as sharp as it should have been.

By contrast, I recently viewed DVDs of a 1960s black-and-white movie, "David and Lisa," which made no claims to being digitally restored... and a 1953 movie--I think a somewhat later film re-release--"Mr. Hulot's Holiday"--which also made no such claims. They were steady, sharp, had a good grey scale. If we call the Citizen Kane restoration 10, these would have been about an 8, and the Legend Films "Things to Come" would have been about a 3.

I don't believe it was "digitally restored" at all. I'd love to know how one would go about proving that one way or another.

When I saw "Things to Come" in a theatre in the late 1960s, it looked just as good as any new, clean, 35mm print of a black-and-white movie, which is to say very good. Since good prints of it were circulating in the 1960s, I don't know of any reason why a DVD transfer of it shouldn't look every bit as good as "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" or "David and Lisa." The DVD case claims that it is a transfer from "original elements" which I would assume would lead one to expect better quality than in a 1960s print. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Utopian Vision
I believe this film deserves more discussion of its predictions of life after war is over and the post-war dark age is dispelled. The idea of Utopia has many forms and is depicted in many books, movies and even political theories. The manipulation of people is still a part of the future, visionaries are branded as extremists.The ordinary man and woman are shown to be putty in the hands of a well meaning but short sighted politician types. The world of the future is shown as an environmentally controlled super city, pre-dating "Logans Run" and many other futurist films. There are neat gizmos like a wrist communicator, no doubt inspired by Dick Tracy, or was it the other way around? Colds,indigestion and common ailments have been eliminated. The space race of the sixties is "predicted" as a pivotal point in the development of humankind. Anyone familiar with the "Star Trek" movies knows this is also a key element in that fictional future. The theme put forward is that moving into space demands that mankind moves beyond the historical limitations that have defined the species since prehistoric times. It's a huge leap that most science fiction of the twentieth century shares. This theme is so obvious that it seems to have been missed in the main article. I wouldn't think of changing the main article until this aspect has been discussed by the worthy wikipedia contributors.Things to Come is one of the pivotal films of science fiction and deserves respect. Thanks folks.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to dig up reliable sources that discuss these themes. Otherwise, it's original research, which is not desirable in an encyclopedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also some very cool flat TVs. Gerry246 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I always found that interesting, a film from the 1930's predicted flat screens while films such as Total Recall and Timecop featured great big bulky trinitron things. In the 30's there must have been a great many people who had never even seen a TV, unless they happened to wander into the very biggest and most expensive department stores to dream. 86.138.25.190 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the Dick Tracy page, the wrist-radio didn't appear in the comic strip until 1946, whereas the device seen in the film was noted in the Second Treatment/Script for Things to Come in late-1934/early-1935. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "concrete slab construction" near the end of the futuristic montage sequence shows many similarities to modern construction methods. Sadly, we don't have those aesthetically brilliant deco tractors ... but there are similarities nonetheless. Colon el  Tom 15:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * : HMS Thunder Child is god! ( in a time and age before the Civ5 Smoky Skies were conquered by wrightian sky ships... )

The problem with being too close to predicting the future: the powers that be ( voted by democracy - a systenm that is in direct oppostion to theocray - theocracy proposes the worth of the individual whereas democracy proposes the most convincingly equal primus (or pree-moose, cf ee-d-o-cracy movie) inter pares, anyway, if someone becomes too close to predicting the future might end up being called and denounced a cheat ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.86.185 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

George Sanders
Sanders undoubtedly did appear in the film, as he is listed as an extra in at least one reliable source (IIRC, it's either Kulik's biography of Korda, or Rachael Low's Film Making in 1930's Britain). He certainly doesn't play a character called "Menzes" since there isn't one in the film; the appearance of "Menzies" on filmreference.com is the name of the director, as per all the other listed films. Not sure where the claim that he plays a pilot actually originates, but widespread net proliferation may be more down to widespread copying - I'll have to check. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mo problem on my end with what you've trimmed it down to in the meantime. I'll be interested to see what, if anything, you come up with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Two pieces of information
I found this picture: "Speed wings over the world".



Did this statue inspire H.G. Wells?.

The first LP from the Spanish group Aviador Dro (Airmen Dro) was called "Alas sobre el mundo" (1982)("Wings over the world").

It is no coincidence: Aviador Dro has (has, they are still active) a mundialist/"progressive"/socialist ideology, and "Things to Come" (retitled "Mundo futuro") was aired repeatedly on Spanish T.V. during the 1970s and 1980s. Randroide (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Imperial Airways and other sources, the statue dates from 1938, which obviously post-dates the film. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Inspiration for a SF film history book.
There's a book on the history of Science Fiction film, published in 1977, titled "Things to Come". Its foreword states the author took his title and inspiration from this film. The last film covered in the book is "Star Wars", about which the author states no further advance in special effects is possible, advances will only be in plot and story. It wasn't long at all before the movie industry (especially Industrial Light and Magic) proved it extremely wrong on that point. I've tried to find information on the author, publisher etc, but as usual, it's very difficult to find anything on the web that predates 1992 unless it's of significant educational or historical interest, or had a site or at least some mention made by an interested individual. I may still have a copy of it... somewhere. The cover image is a still from "2001: A Space Odyssey". IIRC the title may be in the 'computer letters' style popular in the 1970's which is based on the shapes of MICR numbers. Bizzybody (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You may well have found this in the last five years. The book you've thinking of is Things to Come: An Illustrated History of the Science Fiction Film by Douglas Menville and Robert Reginald, ISBN 0812907108. Apparently it was rushed into production to cash in on Star Wars. The cover has little pictures from 2001, Planet of the Apes, and Star Wars (the frontispiece has a big image from Things to Come). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Pointless US information in the infobox
How tedious, an attempt to ignore the MOS and the template guidelines and force in unnecessary information that is not needed in a British film. I'll open a comment at Film Project shortly to get a wider input on something as basic as this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, your suppression of pertinent information is quite tedious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I trust you will notify the Military History, Science Fiction and Books projects as well, since it is settled WikiPolicy that projects do not own articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, it's not suppression as the same information can be found in the body of the article, it just doesn't belong in the infobox. SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

From WP:TPO:


 * Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.

"Pointles" is decidely one-sided, so I am, once again, removing it from the section title. Per Policy, please do not restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a guideline not a policy, much like the info box guidelines. Odd how you missed that one - and odd how you pick and choose which guidelines you want to follow, according to your own POV. RfC opened at Film Project. - SchroCat (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have a reason beyond the one given in your edit summary where the number of people speaking English, there is no reason to add US centric information to what is a British film, it is not what the infobox is for. America apparently matters for ALL films because people speak English there? DId you read that summary before you clicked submit? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless it can be shown that the film is an American co-production then the infobox should only contain British-centric information. Under the circumstances I'm open to retaining the statement "Original UK release" especially as that version now appears to be lost. BTK's infobox contribution contradicts the article: did the film premiere in the US on 17 April or 18 April? - Fantr (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While no-one would dispute that the American market is notable, it's only of tangential significance at best on an article about a British film. Most films are primarily produced for their native markets, so I don't see a compelling reason to make an exception to the guideline in this case. As for the running times we generally go with the original theatrical running time in the infobox, since this is the primary version; derivative cuts can be covered in the article body as determined by merit. Betty Logan (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've amended the rounded "109 minutes" to the more precise "108m 41s" at the press screening/premiere - the various print lengths of this film are a major issue (similar to Metroplis and Lost Horizon), so it is important to be precise. Even so, there was probably only ever a single print of that length, the general UK release being 98m 07s. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Music timing
I've moved this query from the body of the article here, where it belongs. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Wells originally wanted the music to be recorded in advance, and have the film constructed around the music, but this was considered too radical and so the score, by Arthur Bliss, was fitted to the film afterwards in a more conventional way."


 * Is this comment accurate ? A number of film & music historians in Britian maintain the Bliss DID compose, at least the March, BEFORE the film was complete - Can anyone confirm the truth ?


 * Yes, virtually all the music was composed long before it was added to the film, but it still had to be done so in a conventional manner. Wells's idea was to have the music already recorded and the film then edited to match it, but in the end it had to be done the usual way - i.e. with Muir Mathieson conducting the orchestra in the studio, fitting the music to the edited footage as it was played back. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Things to Come. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927184816/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/8E7E5A2977A61CC1802566C80032E39F to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/8E7E5A2977A61CC1802566C80032E39F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Location of Everytown
There has been a recent attempt to remove references to Everytown being a British/English location. I would note that not only does Cabal wear a Royal Air Force uniform, but the published treatment specifically refers to him as a "British airman" in the scene in which he engages the enemy bomber (Stover, page 130). Similarly, the enemy air fleet in the preceding sequences is described as passing over "the Dover cliffs" in the cutting script (Stover, page 202). In the narrative, Burton refers to Gordon - having escaped - "making the French coast," (Film Story, page 83). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bradbury
Ray Bradbury said that, after watching the film, he decided that he "would make the future" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6DRBURPlxI&t=2428s at 49:30). 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:D911:BDE0:A2FF:C03E (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)