I'm afraid the workings of J.J. Abrams' mind falls outside the predictive capacity of any coherent theory.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think science fiction is very bad at prediction.
I think predictability is built into any good novel in some way - you begin reading Anna Karenina and you know pretty much what's going to happen at the end. But that doesn't mean you know what's going to happen in the middle. For me, it's that sense of what happens in the middle that's important.
I think the least important thing about science fiction for me is its predictive capacity.
Very simple ideas lie within the reach only of complex minds.
The mind cannot foresee its own advance.
I think that if there's one key insight science can bring to fiction, it's that fiction - the study of the human condition - needs to broaden its definition of the human condition. Because the human condition isn't immutable and doomed to remain uniform forever.
J. J. Abrams is a director that I've admired for a long time, from the very first scripts he wrote - including 'Regarding Henry,' which I was in.
I hesitate to predict whether this theory is true. But if the general opinion of Mankind is optimistic then we're in for a period of extreme popularity for science fiction.
J. J. Abrams is amazing.
I'm not sure what theory is, unless it's the pursuit of fundamental questions.
No opposing quotes found.