Why Are So Many Sci-Fi Films Left-Wing?

IBD's Capital Hill ^ | 1/11/2009 | Ed Carson

[Slyscribe]

“Avatar” is wowing audiences with its groundbreaking 3-D technology (too bad the characters are one-dimensional). But in another way it’s ordinary: a science-fiction film that plays to leftist fantasies about capitalism and the military.

Yet many sci-fi fans are on the political right. So why are sci-fi films and TV shows typically liberal?

Hollywood films tend to be liberal, sure. But science fiction in particular lends itself to utopian visions that the world’s problems can be solved once and for all.

[Texan Tory]

“I don’t think Avatar is left wing. One needs to read the sub-text.

Republicans are the blue people, living in harmony with their economic environment, attacked by powerful outsiders.”

I see Avatar kind of the same way you do. James Cameron obviously wanted to take a swipe at Bush in the movie, but he completely failed to make an effective comparison between the bad guys and Bush. The truth is, the mercenaries were trying to take land and resources from the Na’vi without any treaty or compensation. This is not conservative behavior at all, and is in fact very Hugo Chavez-like behavior. It is socialists (not conservatives) who believe they are entitled to take things without paying for them. So if you see Avatar, you can go ahead and cheer for the blue-skinned Na’vi as they fight against the Chavez-like mercenaries. Although the Na’vi do have a touchy-feely home-tree religion, they otherwise don’t seem at all like liberals, and they even hunt for food.

[GL of Sector 2814]

Neither was Starship troopers

Yes it was.

The film of Starship Troopers was explicitly intended to be a satire of "American fascism" according to its director. The original book by Heinlein has no such message, of course.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Sci-Fi is either Utopian in nature(Star Trek) or Dystopian (Mad Max)."

I can't see where "Stargate SG-1" (or "Stargate: Atlantis" for that matter) fits either of those categories.

[Sans-Culotte]

That's a good way to look at it. I always thought that on ST TNG they simply wanted to dispense with any mundane plots involving theft, embezzlement, hunger, unemployment, etc.

As you say, that would only work with unlimited material goods for which no invoice is ever due.

[GL of Sector 2814]

There is one episode or film in which Picard specifically defines the communist utopia of the Federation. I think it is in the First Contact movie.

You're correct, here's the actual quote from the film: "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."

My reaction to this would be, "So...you're not human anymore, is that it?"

[6ppc]

IMHO The biggest problem with science fiction movies is that producers and screen writers somehow believe they can do a better job than science fiction authors. I have noticed that many if not most science fiction movies are original screen plays written by clueless idiots. Good science fiction movies are few and far between.

[Oztrich Boy]

The original book by Heinlein has no such message, of course.

But then Verhoeven started the film not knowing of the book, and only read a few chapters before getting depressed and bored.

[GL of Sector 2814]

That's a good way to look at it. I always thought that on ST TNG they simply wanted to dispense with any mundane plots involving theft, embezzlement, hunger, unemployment, etc.

This is what makes Babylon 5 so much superior to ST: TNG. B5 dealt explicitly with all of these subjects. Just because it's hundreds of years in our future doesn't mean these problems are going to go away.

[GL of Sector 2814]

But then Verhoeven started the film not knowing of the book, and only read a few chapters before getting depressed and bored.

That speaks ill of Verhoeven, not the book...

[Sans-Culotte]

This is what makes Babylon 5 so much superior to ST: TNG. B5 dealt explicitly with all of these subjects. Just because it's hundreds of years in our future doesn't mean these problems are going to go away.

Same was true of Firefly in which the protagonists were smugglers in a totalitarian universe. Or, rather 'verse.

[castlegreyskull]

I really don’t see how Waterwold and The Postman are liberal. /s/

[Oztrich Boy]

Same was true of Firefly in which the protagonists were smugglers independent traders in a totalitarian universe

[Perdogg]

Given the context of the 21st century it would, but of course we are talking about the 24th century. In the 24th century technology has replaced the old economies and the means of production. It did not come about in name of income redistribution and dictatorship. I am not the biggest fan of TNG, but this is again, is a stretch and has to be kept in its proper context.

What he is referring to is that people choose to explore and conquer space.

[Future Snake Eater]

The film of Starship Troopers was explicitly intended to be a satire of "American fascism" according to its director. The original book by Heinlein has no such message, of course.

The film was so stupid, yet cool to look at, and a blast to watch.

I read the book when I was deployed to Iraq (read it in my Stryker while pulling ridiculously long security missions), and I decided that the book was far superior, but would've been a fairly dull movie.

[Oztrich Boy]

That speaks ill of Verhoeven, not the book...

Well yeah, but he had his anti military message to tell\





"Making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep is cheaper than them uniforms, and they're starvation cheap" -Rudyard Kipling

[Chickensoup]

The Children of Men was a conservative book written by a conservative author. It was ravaged by the screenwriters and director. Turned it into a leftist screed.

[GL of Sector 2814]

The film was so stupid, yet cool to look at, and a blast to watch.

From what I've heard, that sums up the movie "Avatar" as well. I'll give it a miss.

read the book when I was deployed to Iraq (read it in my Stryker while pulling ridiculously long security missions), and I decided that the book was far superior, but would've been a fairly dull movie.

I agree that it would have had to have been substantially altered in terms of plot, pacing, etc., but what's so annoying about the film was the director's perversion of the book's philosophical message.

[Little Ray]

No, B5 was liberal in a lot ways. For example, they went off the deep end for “Diversity.” I think they also supported their unions.

[jetson]

Any film can be picked apert as liberal. There always has to be a villan and a good person. The only blatant liberal show I've seen is the Dr Who series that seem to slather all over the name of Obama. Typical for the Brits. A bunch of bone heads.

[BlueLancer]

"I think they also supported their unions."

I interpreted them more as "guilds" than unions. And guilds are inherently conservative and guard their parameters, rights, and responsibilities jealously. Think of the old European guilds which brooked little or no intrusion from church or state.