What's the 80's version of "Steampunk?"

[Blamo]

Yeah, on second thoughts it probably is cyberpunk.

Perhaps my problem with defining it as cyberpunk is that the only contempory cyberpunk we've had (and that occurs to me) is the Matrix and I saw that as an example of cyberpunk (cyberpunk being about the interface between man and machine and little else).

However having looked at the wikipedia page of examples, it looks more like the Matrix is the odd one out in terms of theme. Then again perhaps it's the setting and plot that didn't help.

 

[melancholymecha]

when I think of 80's scifi I think of Star Trek TNG as well as the computer game graphics at the time, not just the video games but a lot of the art & typography used to advertise them...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There is a Steampunk version of Trek out there:

Steam Trek

 

[Mysterion]

Blade Runner would be the movie most visually and conceptually aligned with "cyberpunk." Legend has it that on first trying to watch it William Gibson was unnerved by how much it resembled "what was inside my head."

And wasn't The Difference Engine by Gibson one of the earlier works of what became "steampunk" just as his Neuromancer was one the earlier works of cyberpunk?

 

[sojourner]

I think the name steampunk is just much newer than thw works associated with it. I only recall hearing it used in the last 5 to 8 years, whereas I can recall a board/rpg game from the 80's using steampunk spaceships to go to Mars. Forget the name of it.

 

[Mysterion]

^^^
That RPG was Space: 1889.

 

[sojourner]

Bingo!

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Back to the original question about design aesthetics in the late 70's and into the 80s:

There were actually two different design models for sci-fi set decoration at that time:

One was the "generic blinkies" look, of which I offer Buck Rogers as a prime example. Lots and lots of busy blinky lights, oscilloscope readouts, and such like. Look's pretty and futuristic, but sometimes leaves the viewer wondering just what the heck is going on. Sometimes the exact same panels of blinkies were used to do entirely different things at different times. A lot of shows shared this look because they all got their set dressings rented from the same few suppliers of such things, which is how a blinky panel in Quark could be in Buck Rogers and go on from there to be in Knight Rider.

The other was the "realistic" look. This design motif is characterized by a look that is familiar to the viewer because it resembles similar designs they might encounter in real life. Panels are often labled as to function, and used appropriately for their stated purpose. They may look "high tech", but they're readily identifiable by the viewer. The Alien movies are a prime example of this.

A very few shows had a mix of the two at times, like Battlestar Galactica (78). Much of the set dressings had a realistic bent to it. (Indeed, the show rented the computer gear for the bridge from Thiakol.) The Viper and shuttle instrument panels were planned out and resonably well labled and consistent. But some bigger sets needed more and the generic "blinky bits" got trotted out to fill in the gaps.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I often thought there was an "80s -Punk" myself. Though more along the lines of "Build It from stuff found at Radio Shack Punk".

Examples

Doc Brown's Deloreon Time Machine
The Ghostbusters equipment
Quinn Mallory's Sliding Machine and TImer

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^Ok, three catagories...

 

[Australis]

Read Neuromancer by William Gibson. The epitome of cyberpunk (though Gibson apparently hats the word).

 

[Hyperspace05]

But applying an anachronistic label can lead to misunderstanding of the true nature of the earlier work. Steampunk means more than just a story about Victorian sci-fi technology. The term refers to a genre that branched off of cyberpunk and is influenced by it in style and content. So earlier works that don't have that cyberpunk influence are not really steampunk, but precursors of steampunk.

This is the problem with labels. They oversimplify and stereotype things. They obscure understanding more than they enable it. Every label should be used with caution and skepticism, and the desire to lump all similar works under a single simplistic term and pretend that offers true understanding should be resisted.

But you are labeling as well, falling into the same trap... And I have to disagree with you. I just don't see anything in common between Steampunk and Cyberpunk, other than the name deriving from the other.

The stories are different, their whole mindset is different (optimism vs pessimism), their views on technology are radically different... They are more polar opposite than alike.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

80's -- it's got to be "New-Romantic Neuroromanticism" -- the punk movement was the 70's.

 

[Christopher]

But you are labeling as well, falling into the same trap... And I have to disagree with you. I just don't see anything in common between Steampunk and Cyberpunk, other than the name deriving from the other.

The stories are different, their whole mindset is different (optimism vs pessimism), their views on technology are radically different... They are more polar opposite than alike.

I'm not saying they're the same thing. I'm saying that, whatever the influences were, steampunk was a product of a certain time, shaped by factors in its own time. And something similar from an earlier era, whatever the resemblances from our POV, would not have been motivated by exactly the same factors, and thus it gets in the way of understanding it if you slap the same label on it. This is a principle I learned in my history studies, the danger of making anachronistic assumptions that can lead you to misunderstand the values and intentions of earlier eras. The Native Americans weren't environmentalists, Queen Hatshepsut wasn't a feminist, etc.

Granted, I'm probably being stricter and more technical than necessary here. I'll concede that "steampunk," used loosely, is a handy label for earlier works like The Wild, Wild West and the like, one that efficiently conveys their nature to modern listeners. I'm just saying that those who use the label in that way should be aware of its anachronism and imprecision and those who hear it used that way should not take it too literally.

 

[sojourner]

^So basically it's the difference between saying "native americans were environmentalists" and "native americans were environmentally friendly without realizing it".

In a sense, "Wild, Wild, West" was not steampunk, it just was steampunk in nature.

 

[Christopher]

But there's more to the movement called environmentalism than just "environmentally friendly" (and it's something of an exaggeration even to say they were environmentally friendly; they just had different ways of interacting with their environment due to their different needs). That's the point -- just because two things from different eras resemble each other in some ways, that doesn't make it right to assume they're the exact same thing. You have to consider each in the overall context of its culture and be able to recognize when the similarities are deceptive. Any label carries with it a raft of unspoken cultural assumptions, and it's important to be aware of those assumptions and not cavalierly apply them to earlier or foreign cultures. Labels can be convenient shorthand, but they can also be profoundly misleading if you don't use them with caution and skepticism.

 

[sojourner]

^Right. Essentially the difference between applying the label and a description using the words.

 

[Christopher]

^I still don't think you get my point at all. It's not that simplistic.

 

[Stevil2001]

We also call The War of the Worlds science fiction, but H. G. Wells wrote a scientific romance. These things happen.

 

[Kegg]

We also call The War of the Worlds science fiction, but H. G. Wells wrote a scientific romance. These things happen.

We call Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and The Last Man sci-fi too, and she didn't even have a term for them. The issue is never when the term was invented but what it intends to mean. Words also change their meanings drastically, which can affect their use.

If we accept Christopher's definition that steampunk is basically derivative of cyberpunk, his argument would make sense, but if we use the word to apply to all retro-future 19th century stories (like the original Wild West) then less so. The latter appears to be a better definition because a lot of self-identified steampunk today seems to have pretty much nothing inherently in common with cyberpunk.