Real World Event Discussions

Real world relevence of science fiction and the Whedon-'verse

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, January 20, 2006 16:58
VIEWED: 7719
PAGE 2 of 6

FARAMOND

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:04 AM

You know, I brought the whole breast thing up just as a joke, but it got me to thinking....and this actually does have a minor "political" point.

Have you noticed that the casting dept. of Firefly tended to eschew the typical "Hollywood Beauty" aesthetic or the classic "TV Actress" look, choosing more interesting forms of beauty? Look at our favorite mechanic; she was asked to gain twenty pounds so that she WOULDN'T look "TV", and Inara and Saffron would be accused by many producers as being too fleshy, but are absolutely gorgeous. Even River, while waifish, has an unusual type of face that I find more beautiful than the rediculously caricaturized Angelina Jolie or Nicole Kidman. Of course, I was always hot for Agent Scully, too. Or look at the guys; Mal doesn't have that David Hasselhoff or Johnny Depp thing going for him, nor Wash, nor Jayne, etc.

Now, my point is this: you take the show more seriously when the people you see don't look like they were chosen by a team of demographics experts who work for "Days of Our Lives". Your typical Made-for-the-Sci Fi channel feature [or movies like "Underworld" or "The Cave" or anything with Jessica Alba] seem to insult the viewers by saying "let's convince people that this collection of underwear models is a believable collection of individuals you'd find spelunking" in giant-bat infested caves. One of the reasons I'm able to get into the show is that it "feels" more real. Except Zoe, whom I disliked at the beginning because, to me, she looks like a Sci-Fi channel staple, but now I love because her role won me over. So please no hate-mail over Zoe; I like her.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

FARAMOND

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:14 AM

You could say Corporate. You could say Government. I say, let's get a little more basic. I believe it to be human nature run amok. People tend to be self-centered. Happily, we also have it hard-wired within us to want to do the right thing; but we don't usually do what we know we ought to do, and the things we don't want to do, that's what we find ourselves doing.

It's a very human predicament. Look at the Environmental movement. Should be about the environment, right? But so often they end up acting like the corporate entities they supposedly hate. [of course, a look at their board of directors will often reveal a CEO or twelve]....meanwhile the regular farmer or homeowner gets the shaft.
Or look at Scientists. Supposed to be scientists, but they act like corporate/govt. shills and the new priesthood than the objective people they claim to be.

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

FARAMOND

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:22 AM

I BELIEVE THE TERM THEY'RE USING NOW IS "THIRD WAY"
WHICH IS A BLEND OF EASTERN COMMUNISM WITH WESTERN CAPITALISM. IT'S ESSENTIALLY FACISM: CAPITALISM WITHOUT ALL THAT PESKY FREEDOM.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove

Todays corporatists are not very different if at all from Mussolini. They seek the merger of corporation and state to give them not only govt. control over industry, but also a 'safe space' for their command structures

...Other societies have used this model before, besides Mussolini's Italy, including Nazi Germany and present day Communist China, which has govt. friendly corporations that get enormous contracts and laws passed which set things overwhelming in their favor.

...Though Clinton started this, he has really been outclassed by Bush, who knows know shame. Sadly, now the United States has to be added to the list of societies that follow this model.

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FARAMOND

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:26 AM

Their Mount Rushmore would probably be: Mao, Cecil Rhodes, Karl Marx, Javier Solana, and either George H.W. Bush or Gorbachev. Or Monty Hall.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Though Clinton started this, he has really been outclassed by Bush

So...the Alliance will have a statue of Bush AND Mao at their HQ?

Chrisisall

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:13 AM

Faramond,

You raise an interesting point. While I don't believe hollywood creates ideals of beauty, or for that matter has even a modicum of influence on them, they do tend to fill space ships with fashion models. Real people look much more like jayne and kaylee. I don't find the people on the typical show 'more attractive' just boring and artificial. But it's not just a look, the firefly crew also act more like regular people. Not just in the who they are, but down to the body language and personal grooming habits. A star-trek engineer never gets his hair mis-aligned while crawling around the spotless jeffries tubes and handling the immaculate sproingy things.

I disagree on Zoe. I think she's a classic example of non-standard. I think Zoe is pretty much just unattractive. Not ugly, unattractive. Let me explain. Rather than pick an uhura, or a black model or classic beauty, Morpheus' wife seems to me to have the build of a pro-wrestler. Add to that the militaristic clothes and the character that takes guff from no one and scarecly has a moment of letting her guard down, you end up with a lead female pretty close to devoid of sex appeal, yet without being at all physically ugly.

The one who annoys the heck out of me is Inara. I can't see what Mal sees in her unless it's completely physical. She's arrogant, self-involved, spoiled and blatantly hostile. She also strikes me as the typical TV character, always causing an emotional scene with her excess of attitude. But I understand why she is an essential part of the story, because she represents the contrast, a member of alliance society. Without her, the character depiction of the others would not work.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:32 AM

Faramond

I disagree with you on the human nature and doing the right thing, unless this is what you mean. Necons are the result of the human desire to do good gone out of control. They see other people who are not in line with them as evil or ignorant, and thus to marginalized completely, and that any means are justified if it brings them closer to their ends, which are a series of supernational entities arranged into a one world state. You can never discount these people's belief in a utopian ideal and their almost religious belief in how one gets to that goal.

I agree on environmentalists. As more of less one my self, I think this is one of the ways in which the left lost me. Near as I can figure, it all started in America with TR, and the Conservation movement. Environmental Conservation was a hallmark and a platform point for the better part of a century, and well, technically, it's still on the platform, Bush just does a sucky job of it, as did his father and Reagan. I chalk this part up to corruption. But this means, after Nixon, the GOP dropped the ball on the environment. So the left picked it up with the word 'environmentalist' instead of 'conservationist' and it applied to a larger reach than just conservation.

But I have several problems with the way this has turned out:
1. The democratic party has yet to pay any more than lip service to the idea. The have been some general pushes for energy efficiency, which falls under the larger umbrella of environmentalism, but doesn't specifically impact important issues like the destruction of forests or the extinction of species, poisoning of our air and water, etc.
2. There has been a lot of noise from radical leftist groups, but very little headway has been made and lots of ground has been lost. I think this is due in part to the infighting and power struggles you mentioned. It's not enough to say you oppose something, you have to actually be able to stop it.
3. Leftist environmental groups often get tied to particularly unpopular political agenda items which are not directly related to the environment, and it damages or perhaps defeats the cause. An environmental conservation movement should probably stick to being a single issue item.
4. Most importantly, of the environmentalists, those who are not 'captured' as you suggest, are too far away from industry, to the point where they view it as an evil plague which must die. You will never get someone to listen to your argument on how to better themselves if you cannot convince them that you have their best wishes at heart, but instead have already convinced them that they are evil and must die.
5. Leftist environmentalists are unwilling to go after problem groups that aren't the target group of their political philosophy, even if they happen to be serious culprits in the crime. Random peasants are the planet's most destructive force, followed by govts. particularly of developing nations.

So, if you ignore the two major causes, totally alienate the third, (corporations) and then acquire no political power, and spend much of your time infighting, it is hard to actually achieve your goal.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:37 AM

Yeah.

They call it the third way in Britain. Bliar does. I actually met the guy who he stole the phrase from. http://www.thirdway.org/

Which isn't an endorsement of his page, but he leads a fringe group which been in politics for a long time, and he said Blair's people spent a fair effort trying to get the domain from him.

But any way, I agree, on the mix. It's closer to fascism than anything particularly american, or the UK for that matter, with some ideas taking from russia and china.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:45 AM

Faramond,

I disagree on George H. W. Bush. He had his problems, but he was not a neocon, and the neocons hated him with a passion. Lately he plays their game more, and he did to some degree as president, but it was a political game, they deeply despised him. The current installment George W. Bush is more likely to get a statue from this crowd, but if you want to go back to who it all started with, I think Max Shachtman is going to get the statue. He's the equivalent to Karl Marx in the neocon world. Cheney is Lenin and Wolfowitz is Trotsky. Rummy or maybe Cheney is Stalin. Well, the parallels aren't exact, but I guess Cheney/Rummy are Stalin, and Wolfowitz/Perle and their collective following are Lenin and Trotsky (in this parallel, clearly they are all Trotskyites, and not Leninists)

Reagan might get a statue as the first neo-con symathizer to be elected. (Ford, remember, was not elected, and Carter, as a democrat is technically a supporter of neolibs, but only as much as G.H.W. Bush)

LIMINALOSITY

Monday, January 16, 2006 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
(Cont. from another rather noisy thread)
*Other Sci-Fi movies/etc. that deal with the same types of issues [ie: Gattaca, trying to create the "perfect world", through genetics instead of pharmaceuticals]and any parallels we might draw...and lo and behold, our own 'verse trying the same with both.

* Which female aboard Serenity has the greatest rack?
[I put in number four to see if anyone can draw present day sociopolitical parallels with boobs.]
-As posted by Faramond

Thanks Faramond and Chris
Socio-political parallels with boobs? I was hoping that idea wouldn't survive the move, but how can I not comment. I know when I wear a t-shirt I will feel the stare of the guy sitting in the parked truck way way over there, but ideals of beauty change. In the end, physical appearance isn't what people come to value most, and I think that would hold in any socio-political reality.

On with my rant about trying to create a better world through x,y and conditioning, and some of the side effects of that effort.

Regarding flashing lights and other stimulus triggering psychic experiences
http://www.geocities.com/iona_m/Chaosophy3/CRPtheta.html

Remember the Pokemon episode in Japan from 1997? This link had some interesting comments about that episode. In case you can't be bothered reading it, here's one thing I found very important regarding this sort of triggering...
"It is important to distinguish seizures from epilepsy. A seizure is a symptom of epilepsy, which in turn is a general term for an underlying tendency of the brain to produce a variety of electrical energy that disrupts brain function. Seizures can be brought about through various ways [e.g., a lack of oxygen, brain injury, high fever], and one seizure does not in itself establish epilepsy."
http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/pun/Psycho-Log014/page3.htm

From Wiki:
Flashing images have become a staple of the Fanimutation community, often with humorous on-screen references to photosensitivity. These animations should be avoided by at-risk people.

And look, though this is not about flashing, except flashing back apparently...a tiny number of Reavers, relative to the population
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/03.21/SuddenBrainSeiz.html

But it was right about here that I started trading the concept of 'flashing' for the idea of 'alternating' in this whole idea of triggers, and I started wondering if being triggered is something facilitated by the grid of alternating current that surrounds us. I’m wondering if it happens because alternating current forms a kind of background noise that interferes with our natural frequencies and makes us more vulnerable to being unbalanced. I’m sure this won’t be news to everyone. Anyway, this last link is a forum topic: a sharing of personal triggers from very ill people.
http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-77066.html

Flashing or alternating imagery may trigger affect in:
Some epileptics
People subject to migraine headaches (I didn’t cart those links over from the thread of epic unpleasantness)
Some children (and others) watching animation
Some seemingly random humans
Psychics

I’d say that covers everyone. Comments?

One last thing: since part of my search involved a Google–ogle on the words ‘flashing lights’ there were quite a few links to websites on the topic of fireflies.

Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:57 PM

We've all been omitting someone. I feel foolish now.

Saffron is the hands down, err.. hands on... um, the winner.