Is Science Fiction inherently anti-establishment?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, April 19, 2008 17:10
VIEWED: 5811
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 4:30 PM

Let's see...Firefly/Serenity is, IMO.
Dark Angel? Definitely.
Stargate & Atlantis...well, generally they're establishment-friendly, but they do have their criticizing moments...
Heroes? Well, super-peeps have to save the world from terrorists within the halls of power, so I guess so.
Battlestar Galactica? Mutiny, insurrection, disobeying orders, relying on the military...kind of a mixed bag there.
Buffy? Well, the whole Initiative thing...yeah.
Sarah Connor Chronicles? Well, Skynet, so, uh-huh.
Supernatural? I don't see it there, it's mostly anti-ethereal evil as far as I can tell.
Star Trek...again, a mixed bag- the Federation can be cool or not, depending on the scripts.

Movies like Blade Runner, Gattica, Planet Of The Apes, Silent Running, Logan's Run, The Island, Terminator, Aliens, Omega Man/I Am Legend, Escape From NY/LA, Equilibrium, oh, hell yes.

Armageddon is about the only establishment-friendly SF flick I can even think of right now...

Thoughts?

Curious Chrisisall

STRANGEBIRD

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 4:37 PM

Is Science Fiction inherently anti-establishment?

No. But I think the majority of the writers and creators are so it shines through. But Inherently... no.

<------<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(*)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>------>

"When you can't do something smart, do something right." - quoting Book
<------<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(*)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>------>

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by StrangeBird:
Is Science Fiction inherently anti-establishment?

No. But I think the majority of the writers and creators are so it shines through. But Inherently... no.

But if the majority of writers are, then can it not be said that it IS inherently anti-E?
How many SF stories & movies & stuff portray a bright, positive, happy technological future, free from hatred & stupid politics?
Isn't SF mostly all about cautionary tales?

(?)Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 5:31 PM

Ahhhhh- CHOOO(bump)

LEOPARDFLAN

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:10 PM

I would say that good sci-fi is inherently anti-establishment, because having something wrong with the govn't (or just having the govn't after the main guy), is part of what helps suck us into the world of the book (movie, etc.). Sure, there might be some utopia books or flicks out there, but who's gonna like them? There needs to be a problem in the works somewhere, or otherwise it's just bubble-fluff, and I don't think alot of the sci-fi readers/watchers like reading/watching bubble-fluff.

#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#\/#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#

\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/$$\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:27 PM

Ummm... I think anti-E is an inherent, undeniable part of SF because that's what I personally like in my SF.

OK - better answer. I think criticizing the establishment through sci-fi is the safest way to do it, and making a social or political messgae entertaining is like sugar-coating a pill. So it makes sense that SF is so often anti-E, but there's no rule about it.

How about Asimov's Foundation series? That seemed pretty "up with the organized government."

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

How about Asimov's Foundation series? That seemed pretty "up with the organized government."

M4P pretty much made my point. It kinda depends on how you define science fiction. Film, probably so. But old style SF, ya know, the stuff that was actually written on paper, and intended to be read, ( the stuff that IMHO, was REAL SF.) wasn't necessarily.

STRANGEBIRD

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:54 PM

I'll counter all that with this.

If non anti-est Scifi does indeed exist then doesn't that make scifi NOT inherently anti-est?

Just making that statement for the sake of all arguments being presented. I'm really not sure myself and I'm sorta leaning towards current Scifi being anti-est by nature -current meaning the past few decades-. Fantasy though would also have to fall into the same fold.

<------<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(*)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>------>

"When you can't do something smart, do something right." - quoting Book
<------<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(*)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>------>

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I think criticizing the establishment through sci-fi is the safest way to do it, and making a social or political message entertaining is like sugar-coating a pill.

And now that I think about it, Trek's utopian future is directly commenting on our messed-up present- that's why so many peeps like DS9, or BSG, they're less threatening to us now. "Oh hey- they're just as f***ed up as we are! Cool."

Troublemaker Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Let's see...Firefly/Serenity is, IMO.
Dark Angel? Definitely.
Stargate & Atlantis...well, generally they're establishment-friendly, but they do have their criticizing moments...
Heroes? Well, super-peeps have to save the world from terrorists within the halls of power, so I guess so.
Battlestar Galactica? Mutiny, insurrection, disobeying orders, relying on the military...kind of a mixed bag there.
Buffy? Well, the whole Initiative thing...yeah.
Sarah Connor Chronicles? Well, Skynet, so, uh-huh.
Supernatural? I don't see it there, it's mostly anti-ethereal evil as far as I can tell.
Star Trek...again, a mixed bag- the Federation can be cool or not, depending on the scripts.

Movies like Blade Runner, Gattica, Planet Of The Apes, Silent Running, Logan's Run, The Island, Terminator, Aliens, Omega Man/I Am Legend, Escape From NY/LA, Equilibrium, oh, hell yes.

Armageddon is about the only establishment-friendly SF flick I can even think of right now...

Thoughts?

Well, I think you’ve answer your own question. No, science fiction is not inherently anti-establishment. Certainly, the theme exists and is fairly widely employed, but that doesn’t make it a property of science fiction.

Star Trek is pretty pro-establishment. In fact, it’s so pro-establishment that it often seems to purport statism and militarism as a solution to societies problems.

Firefly is pretty anti-establishment. That’s kind of it’s whole raison d'état.

Stargate and Atlantis are also pretty pro-establishment.

BSG and Heroes are complicated. I’d have a hard time labeling either one way or the other. BSG certainly deals with the idea of establishment; it seems to center around battling between the pro- and anti- sides of the coin.

Dark Angel certainly has anti-establishment themes, but it’s much more post-apocalyptic, then anti-establishment. And in the end Max demonstrates that what she and the other transgens are after is in fact an established order.

Buffy is totally pro-establishment. Although it uses anti-establishment themes (including the teen-angst rail against the machine stuff), as a whole it is not possible to get beyond the fact that Buffy is an agent that protects, defends and preserves the established order.

Omega Man was certainly anti-establishment. The book was more complex - was it really anti-establishment or just pro-establishment for an establishment that was different from what we expected?

Planet of the Apes - anti-establishment.

Starship Troopers totally pro-establishment.

Armageddon was kind of anti-establishment, but you could probably argue it both ways, since it’s really somewhat moot in this case.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Starship Troopers totally pro-establishment.

Really? I kinda saw it as poking at it for where it inevitably goes in times of war...the movie, at least.

And Dark Angel was LOADED with anti-E...I'm just goin' through again now, and the sneering and resentment of a system that that thought so highly of itself, yet allowed itself to be taken down so easily and replaced by near-fascist martial law, the endless Republican/Reagan jokes, the whole Transgenic/prejudice thing, even pokes at the Liberal mentality- they all scream it to me.

The Anti-Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Starship Troopers totally pro-establishment.

Really? I kinda saw it as poking at it for where it inevitably goes in times of war...the movie, at least.

Well, the movie dumbed down many things. Movies do that, but if you read the book, you’d see that was all supposed to be taken literally.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And Dark Angel was LOADED with anti-E...I'm just goin' through again now, and the sneering and resentment of a system that that thought so highly of itself, yet allowed itself to be taken down so easily and replaced by near-fascist martial law, the endless Republican/Reagan jokes, the whole Transgenic/prejudice thing, even pokes at the Liberal mentality- they all scream it to me.

I didn’t say the anti-establishment theme wasn’t there, but it was a post-apocalyptic theme. It’s not the same thing.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CYBERSNARK

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:58 PM

Well, the main strength of sci-fi as a genre is that it can broach subjects that the mainstream media isn't allowed to touch (sexism, racism, gender politics, religion, terrorism, drugs, etc).

Similarly, science fiction writers tend to be grown-up geeks. The "Establishment" is generally made up of the people who beat us up, stuffed us into lockers, and stole all the girls (or guys, whichever) in high school. It makes sense that we'd lash out against it/them.

This doesn't necessarily mean that all (or even most) sci-fi is trying to blatantly undermine "our" values (as some ultra-Conservatives have accused it of doing). Often it just means that sci-fi is mainly interested in the "liminal" areas where the Rules don't always apply.

Often, it presents a "better" establishment (as in Star Trek [an intellectual meritocracy, ruled by the virtues of compassion, mercy, nobility, and intelligence --four of the most hated concepts in the modern world], Starship Troopers [which was initially a vehicle for Heinlein's own political ideals --not unlike a post-modern retelling of Macchiavelli's The Prince], or Stargate [a military conspiracy that is neither corrupt nor malevolent --that is, in fact, exactly what the military/industrial complex as a whole should be]).

It's the geeks and nerds that get to grow up to be James Kirk, John Crichton, or Daniel Jackson.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

It's the geeks and nerds that get to grow up to be James Kirk, John Crichton, or Daniel Jackson.

Or John Sheppard...

Shepisall

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:42 PM

erm, no. But Sci-fi is a reflection of the times and pressures, the original Star Trek was quite progressive having a female (and black too!) bridge officer (in fact the female officer used to be the first officer in the pilot, the studio didn't like that). It had a Russian bridge officer because of the cold war, it's packed full of social commentary on the sixties. You may be able to find a lot of anti-establishment sentiment in sci-fi, because there is always something the establishment is currently doing that requires comment.

But integral? Not at all, perhaps American made TV, but American made TV is aimed at an American audience, an audience that largely thrives on distrust of the government ;). You have filters of your own chris, I don't see any particular anti-establishment leanings in the Terminator universe, for instance. Folly with technology, which is perhaps more a cold war M.A.D. commentary, but nothing specific to the establishment.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Often, it presents a "better" establishment (as in Star Trek [an intellectual meritocracy, ruled by the virtues of compassion, mercy, nobility, and intelligence --four of the most hated concepts in the modern world], Starship Troopers [which was initially a vehicle for Heinlein's own political ideals --not unlike a post-modern retelling of Macchiavelli's The Prince], or Stargate [a military conspiracy that is neither corrupt nor malevolent --that is, in fact, exactly what the military/industrial complex as a whole should be]).

Err, Starship Troopers? Starship Troopers was a tacit fascist state, controlled through careful pruning of the electorate. It presented a military dictatorship, with a facade of democracy, I don't characterise that as "better" either in intent or design, it's a warning.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Err, Starship Troopers? Starship Troopers was a tacit fascist state, controlled through careful pruning of the electorate. It presented a military dictatorship, with a facade of democracy, I don't characterise that as "better" either in intent or design, it's a warning.

There’s no warning. The fascist ideology is not presented in Starship Troopers as a dystopic society, but indeed as a “better“ society. You may not agree that this would be the case, but that is certainly the intent in the story.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There’s no warning. The fascist ideology is not presented in Starship Troopers as a dystopic society, but indeed as a “better“ society. You may not agree that this would be the case, but that is certainly the intent in the story.

I don't think its presented as better, the characters think it's better, but go ask a Gestapo official what he thinks of nazism.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You have filters of your own chris, I don't see any particular anti-establishment leanings in the Terminator universe, for instance.

Well, the 'Establishment' in the movies embraced the creation of Skynet- isn't that a slam on the computer-dependent culture we have?

Computers are evil Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There’s no warning. The fascist ideology is not presented in Starship Troopers as a dystopic society, but indeed as a “better“ society. You may not agree that this would be the case, but that is certainly the intent in the story.
I don't think its presented as better, the characters think it's better, but go ask a Gestapo official what he thinks of nazism.

First of all, I don’t really think you understand the book. The fascist ideology presented in Starship Troopers is nothing like Nazism or for that matter like Italian or Spanish Fascism. It may technically be a form of fascism, but it is not a diastopic society. Now one can argue that such a society is impossible, but there is no doubt that it is being presented in Starship Troopers as a “better” society.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There’s no warning. The fascist ideology is not presented in Starship Troopers as a dystopic society, but indeed as a “better“ society.

WHAT????
It was CLEARLY a warning of the "You want THIS future?" variety (in the movie). It was also commenting (ahead of time) about making a virtual religion of hating the enemy.
I would NOT want to live in that world, and I can't believe that you would either.

Bugsisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It was CLEARLY a warning of the "You want THIS future?" variety (in the movie). It was also commenting (ahead of time) about making a virtual religion of hating the enemy.
I would NOT want to live in that world, and I can't believe that you would either.

Actually, I wouldn’t mind at all living in that society - sans the giants bugs. Like all utopias, it would be a wonderful place to live by definition, but I don’t believe it’s actually possible. In fact, as a child, when I was still silly enough to think such things might be possible, I used to imagine myself living in the “Star Trek” type utopias.

I was quite the Trekkie for that very reason I think.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually, I wouldn’t mind at all living in that society - sans the giants bugs.

One thing I liked about that movie was the way they portrayed it as a working society- not the "Fascism leads to Hitler" thing. Still, I found it more than a bit stifling, which I think we were meant to.

Gimme the Trek life Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually, I wouldn’t mind at all living in that society - sans the giants bugs.
One thing I liked about that movie was the way they portrayed it as a working society- not the "Fascism leads to Hitler" thing. Still, I found it more than a bit stifling, which I think we were meant to.

I think the movie played on a lot fascist imagery, which in the real world, as it turns out, is quite stifling, but in the imaginary world of Heinlein, it was a liberal society with a freely elected government - the only requirement in the society was that people had to play a part in that society in order for their vote to count. And ideologically, I find that to be a very satisfying premise - although it may present problems in practice.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First of all, I don’t really think you understand the book.

Or maybe you didn't. Just because I didn't get from it what you evidently did, doesn't mean I didn't get it and you did.

Quote:
The fascist ideology presented in Starship Troopers is nothing like Nazism or for that matter like Italian or Spanish Fascism. It may technically be a form of fascism, but it is not a diastopic society.

Erm, when did I say it was like Nazism? Oh, yeah, I didn't. What I said was that the characters being pro society, doesn't mean anything, because they would be. Just like a gestapo officer would be pro Nazism, but that doesn't mean a book with a pro-Nazi gestapo officer, would be pro Nazi.

Last year I read a book by Ben Elton on the First World War. At the time, most people were pro-war, it was a conflict fought off of nationalism at its height. But Ben Elton doesn't like the war, so the main character is more Ben Elton transplanted into then, than a man of the time. The point is that it's the opposite of the above, the main character is openly anti-war, in a way that is highly unlikely, and it feels clunky and unrealistic.

Quote:
Now one can argue that such a society is impossible, but there is no doubt that it is being presented in Starship Troopers as a “better” society.

But is Joss Whedon's portrayal of Inara pro-prostitution?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:45 PM

I still don't think you understood the book.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I still don't think you understood the book.

I still don't think you understood my post.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
it was a liberal society with a freely elected government - the only requirement in the society was that people had to play a part in that society in order for their vote to count. And ideologically, I find that to be a very satisfying premise

Well, book wise, I see no problem with that, I'm just sayin' I think the movie was more from Verhoeven's anti-Fascist POV.

Nazi-like Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But is Joss Whedon's portrayal of Inara pro-prostitution?

No, I take it as anti-regulation...

My filter is interfering Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
it was a liberal society with a freely elected government - the only requirement in the society was that people had to play a part in that society in order for their vote to count. And ideologically, I find that to be a very satisfying premise
Well, book wise, I see no problem with that, I'm just sayin' I think the movie was more from Verhoeven's anti-Fascist POV.

That’s probably true. But even in the movie, you really have to look for the dystopic side. It's more of a feeling then a direct issue. If you didn't know anything about Nazism or Nazi propaganda, would you really find something dystopic about the settings? Maybe it falls more into the Armageddon camp, where it's not clear which side of the establishment coin it falls on.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Well, the 'Establishment' in the movies embraced the creation of Skynet- isn't that a slam on the computer-dependent culture we have?

Computers are evil Chrisisall

I think its more technophobia built on top of the M.A.D. principle. Skynet is a convenient vehicle for the technophobia, the Government is about the only entity that could really put it in too being. Though a great deal of the Sarah Connor Chronicles is suggestive that an individual created at least the basis for skynet (the turk)...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But is Joss Whedon's portrayal of Inara pro-prostitution?
No, I take it as anti-regulation...

I would say it's pro-prostitution. It's kind of hard to avoid the fact that Inara is a effectively a high-class hooker.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s probably true. But even in the movie, you really have to look for the dystopic side. It's more of a feeling then a direct issue. If you didn't know anything about Nazism or Nazi propaganda, would you really find something dystopic about the settings? Maybe it falls more into the Armageddon camp, where it's not clear which side of the establishment coin it falls on.

The movie always caught me as more of a parody of fascism, actually. And yes, if you knew nothing about Nazism, I think a certain amount of that would come off.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you didn't know anything about Nazism or Nazi propaganda, would you really find something dystopic about the settings?

There was something unsettling about the way when the Sarge got a bullet in his eye, it was more of a fuss about the accident itself, than the death of a good man...or maybe that's just how I saw it. It spoke to me about a culture where we weren't all that much better than bugs ourselves- the 'hive' was more important than the individual.

Dystopic Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It's kind of hard to avoid the fact that Inara is a effectively a high-class hooker.

Prostitution is like boxing; ya got yer big-money championships, & yer back alley bare-knuckle bouts.

Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:12 PM

I'm not sure how a show can be considered pro something merely because it portrays it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not sure how a show can be considered pro something merely because it portrays it.

If anything, I think Joss intended to portray whores & Companions as people, not just playthings, although Jayne would probably go with the playthings more...

I'm in Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not sure how a show can be considered pro something merely because it portrays it.

If anything, I think Joss intended to portray whores & Companions as people, not just playthings, although Jayne would probably go with the playthings more...

I think your anti-regulation theme was more on target with the pro-prostitution thing.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

THESOMNAMBULIST

Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:52 PM

Transformers - Totally Establishment !

Independence Day - Certainly !

Armageddon - yup!

The Island - Anti

iRobot - Anti

THX1138 - Anti

Silent Running - Anti

Stargate - Yes

Starship Troopers - Anti

Minority Report - Anti

Total Recall - Anti

The Matrix - who the hell knows?!

Supernatural - Anti

Residnet Evil - Anti

Heroes - Depends where the end up with it.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:07 PM

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
If anything, I think Joss intended to portray whores & Companions as people, not just playthings, although Jayne would probably go with the playthings more...

Thing with Firefly is that all the characters have their conflicting counterparts. Inara is the counterpoint to Mal and vice versa. Likewise Jayne and Book. Wash and Zoe etc... I don't read it as being so clear cut as pro or against. It's set up to cloud the issue, to cause the viewer to at least consider both arguments. To sympathize with either character depending on the circumstance. To 'un' generalize and to regard people as individual irrespective of their occupation.

ECGORDON

Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
it was a liberal society with a freely elected government - the only requirement in the society was that people had to play a part in that society in order for their vote to count. And ideologically, I find that to be a very satisfying premise

Well, book wise, I see no problem with that, I'm just sayin' I think the movie was more from Verhoeven's anti-Fascist POV.

Chris, you really need to read Starship Troopers one of these days. However, if you end up liking the movie more than the book I'm afraid I'll have to stop talking to you altogether.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
if you end up liking the movie more than the book

I'm certain that will not be the case. And I will get around to it.

Trooper Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

The Matrix - who the hell knows?!

Oh, ABSOLUTELY anti.
We're gonna eff the world so bad AND create the machines that dominate & use us...

We are a plague Chrisisall

34CYGNI

Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:44 PM

Virtually all fiction, or at least works of fiction worth reading or viewing, are anti-establishment for the simple reason that it makes for interesting characters and plots. As an author or artist, one gravitates to outsiders because that's where the action is, literally and figuratively. People who are satisfied with the status quo rarely give rise to compelling drama, except perhaps as foils for a protagonist.

Moreover, one cannot seriously contend that "the establishment" is a Good Thing because it is manifestly clear to everyone that the system -- whatever that might be: communist, capitalist, freewheelingly democratic, or rigidly authoritarian -- doesn't work particularly well. (...As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government ever conceived, barring all the others we've tried.) It is difficult, to say the least, to muster a morally sound defense of a state which represses its own citizens or leaves millions of them wallowing in ignorance and poverty, let alone one which does both at the same time, and there is a word for literature which endeavors to do so: propaganda.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 18, 2008 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 34cygni:
there is a word for literature which endeavors to do so: propaganda.

Wow- give it up for 34cygni!!! Excellent post, my man!

Words fail Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 18, 2008 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 34cygni:
It is difficult, to say the least, to muster a morally sound defense of a state which represses its own citizens or leaves millions of them wallowing in ignorance and poverty, let alone one which does both at the same time, and there is a word for literature which endeavors to do so: propaganda.

I would contend that propaganda goes both ways. What you seem to be arguing is that the “establishment” is always a bad thing - which could be considered as much propaganda as arguing the opposite. In fact, that could easily be viewed as Left-wing propaganda.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 18, 2008 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

The Matrix - who the hell knows?!

Oh, ABSOLUTELY anti.
We're gonna eff the world so bad AND create the machines that dominate & use us...

Once again, that’s a post-apocalyptic theme, not anti-establishment. There seems to be a confusion between the two. I happen to agree with you that the Matrix is anti-establishment, but that has nothing to do with effing up the world. The anti-establishment theme in the matrix deals with the “red pill” concept. The Matrix is a metaphor for a society that has abandoned reality in favor of media or electronic -reality, which means that what we conceive to be truth is controlled by the media, or an established consensus. Now one can disagree on this premise, I happen to think it has some validity, but this is what makes the Matrix anti-establishment.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 18, 2008 4:24 AM

Haven't checked all responses yet...
Always thought Heinlein was pro-establishment.
Deep Impact as well.

For scifi to envision a drastically changed world in a near enough time frame that the writer can have some hope of prediciting what will happen and how similar/different it will be from now, a mojor malfunction of the existing system is an easy way to introduce drastic change (Waterworld, Dark Angel). This means a failure of the exisiting government, which let down the population, and then they would have a poor view of establishment.
A nature of the beast when wielded by lazy (or liberal) writers.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Friday, April 18, 2008 6:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
I think the movie was more from Verhoeven's anti-Fascist POV.

Those of us who read the book before Verhoeven made a movie out of it were truly p***** o** about how much he distorted the book, its plot, its theme, and its characters. Kinda like some folks here feel about Fox.

Even if ya don't agree with RAH, he makes a reasonable case, and his ideas are thought-provoking, although not practical.

But the thing on the movie screen was nothing even remotely close to what he wrote-- to argue against RAH's viewpoint based on the film is totally invalid.

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

THESOMNAMBULIST

Friday, April 18, 2008 6:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

The Matrix - who the hell knows?!

Oh, ABSOLUTELY anti.
We're gonna eff the world so bad AND create the machines that dominate & use us...
Once again, that’s a post-apocalyptic theme, not anti-establishment. There seems to be a confusion between the two. I happen to agree with you that the Matrix is anti-establishment, but that has nothing to do with effing up the world. The anti-establishment theme in the matrix deals with the “red pill” concept. The Matrix is a metaphor for a society that has abandoned reality in favor of media or electronic -reality, which means that what we conceive to be truth is controlled by the media, or an established consensus. Now one can disagree on this premise, I happen to think it has some validity, but this is what makes the Matrix anti-establishment.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Interesting you both think that. I don't particularly disagree but for me the confussion comes at the end of the trilogy (I take it we're considering all three films in this?) If so then what seems to be going on (for I will openly confess to not fully understanding what the Matrix is about) at the end is some kind of comprimise between the two points of view.

Now the confussion for me in the whole matrix thing is just where the humans viewpoint stands, it would seem that they're fighting for an 'establishment' the re-establishment (if you like) of humanity as they perceive it needing to be. So that the idea of 'actually' eating a real steak can be the true reality. A reality realized within an established society.

Maybe....

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 18, 2008 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

for me the confussion comes at the end of the trilogy (I take it we're considering all three films in this?)

It's a commonly held misconception that two sequels followed The Matrix- I deny it totally.

Quote:
If so then what seems to be going on (for I will openly confess to not fully understanding what the Matrix is about) at the end is some kind of comprimise between the two points of view.

But if the films DID exist, I would characterize them as a wuss-out retcon post-911 psuedo-religious garbage. IF they existed, that is.

Quote:

Now the confussion for me in the whole matrix thing is just where the humans viewpoint stands, it would seem that they're fighting for an 'establishment' the re-establishment (if you like) of humanity as they perceive it needing to be. So that the idea of 'actually' eating a real steak can be the true reality. A reality realized within an established society.

Maybe....

I see anti-E as the establishment being the very cause of it's downfall, the fact that they want to get it back up & running doesn't negate the idea that it had major flaws in the first place...but Finn's take on it is equally (if not more) valid, from my perspective.

The blue pill Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 18, 2008 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
This means a failure of the exisiting government, which let down the population, and then they would have a poor view of establishment.

Kind of like the government targeting someone not involved in 911 to vent their wrath, lying to it's citizenry to enable it, dragging it out, and getting a 28% approval rating, eh?
Oh- sorry, didn't mean to comment on your "Liberal" slam....

I sure did Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 18, 2008 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Once again, that’s a post-apocalyptic theme, not anti-establishment.

I don't think the two have to be that separate...I guess my definition of "Anti-establishment" is a bit wider than many folks'.

Broad brush Chrisisall

THESOMNAMBULIST

Friday, April 18, 2008 1:53 PM

Chrisisall wrote

Quote:

It's a commonly held misconception that two sequels followed The Matrix- I deny it totally.

Ha,ha! Very good Big 'C' but I so know you dig Monica Bellucci therefore YOU must acknowledge the exsistence of two more sequels!... I know I do.

Quote:
I see anti-E as the establishment being the very cause of it's downfall, the fact that they want to get it back up & running doesn't negate the idea that it had major flaws in the first place...but Finn's take on it is equally (if not more) valid, from my perspective.

Well ok... What if I'm not totally sold on the idea that there was an apocalypse, as Finn says (unless of course they say that in the film, I honestly can't remember).

I see it more in the vein of 'iRobot' where robots after being given the role of protecting humans, decide that because we do harm to ourselves we therefore have to have power taken away from us, and The Matrix is a natural (machinewise anyway) evolution of that doctrine taking place.... (Were the iRobot notion to have taken hold.)

But anyway it's all good... I still don't understand the Matrix but I don't care it's a cracking flick all the same.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 18, 2008 2:02 PM

Monica....*sigh*
Even she can't make those movies good.

Harsh Chrisisall

PIRATECAT

Friday, April 18, 2008 3:11 PM

For space travel to be beneficial the establishment goverments and corporations have to have a partnership. It won't be to benefit humanity but the pocketbook. They will want returns on their investments. The risks will come down to the little guy who will gain the least. Now that you have my dvd collection thanks for leaving me Screamers.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

TRAVELER

Saturday, April 19, 2008 3:09 AM

Science Fiction is not alone in this. Read "To Kill a Mockingbird", "All Quiet on the Western Front", "A Prayer for Owen Meany", "The Captain", and you will find stories that speak out against the established beliefs. It does not take Science Fiction to do this. It is just another form of story telling. Charles Dickens wrote novels that attacked the flaws of the established society he lived in. So it is not surprising that Science Fiction has done this. It is just one of the many plot lines available to authors of any genre.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

BIGGESTDAMNHERO

Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:10 PM

Personnaly, I could care less. If you have the time to uber-analyze SF go ahead. I enough it as a relief from the "real world". Personnaly I feel evey creator, director, writer has a bias or "angle" taht they will present. Lucas has his issues, Roddenberry did. Sc-Fi should be just that. Not a futuristic representation of leftist "we are the world" PC BS! Too many of the above mentioned SF creators tried to use their media to push an agenda, or view. SciFi would be better off without "strings attached".

"And I'm thinking you weren't
burdened with an overabundance of
schooling"