Posted on 01/11/2010 5:52:50 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com ...
About the ONLY thing the Baen authors have screwed up on, is their expectation that Hillary would be President right now. . .
They didn’t expect THe Mule.
And we may as well also face the fact that the Indians were not Utopian lovers of peace and the environment.
SG: Atlantis was great. I esp. like the time when they were discussing a virus that would prevent the Wraiths from feeding, and someone worried it could wipe them out. The general consensus was “Works for me!”
Ah, but the Second Foundation took care of that.
I never read Dick as being particularly political one way or the other, although his works frequently expressed a fear or dislike of an all powerful government.
Ah, but the Second Foundation took care of that.
True...that is how the story goes...
He specifically mentions there is no money (possibly commie, but not necessarily), but also mentions merit. Communism is devoid of that. I have no problem with a world trying to better itself. If it took getting away from money and using individual merit, then so be it.
Really, the folks in the 24th century are smart, creative and productive. So it can't be communism. There's no will to succeed with communism/socialism/liberalism.
How so? Please explain.
I think they also supported their unions.
I'll grant you that there was one episode in which labor relations was the main point of the plot, and the overall tone of the episode made the union in question look good...but at least the show is realistic enough to have labor unions in the future, unlike Star Trek in which everyone works for the sheer love of their job without monetary compensation.
You don’t remember Sheridan yappin’ lines about how “Diversity is our strength?” I can’t name a specific episode, but there were a lot of them. It shouldn’t be hard to find one.
Mostly I remember this because I kept thinking how asinine that sort of statement is; any smart villain (like the Shadows) should have been able exploit the stress lines through societies that “Diversity” causes to bring them down in ruins.
The nice counterpoint to this is that Lily chews him out later about his supposed "evolved sensibilities" when it's clear that human nature is just as gritty and flawed as ever.
Even Star Trek is a left-wing show and movie.
There are plenty of holes in the "everyone loves their work and is fulfilled by it" premise, too. Here's one: Picard, recuperatng after having his Borg implants removed, is reunited with his family. There is long-standing animosity between he and his brother, Robert, who "had to stay behind and tend the family vineyard" while Jean-Luc went off to join Star Fleet.
Sounds more like the future depicted in the pilot episode of Futurama, where regardless of what you find "fulfilling", you get assigned a job and are expected to do it.
Mostly I remember this because I kept thinking how asinine that sort of statement is; any smart villain (like the Shadows) should have been able exploit the stress lines through societies that “Diversity” causes to bring them down in ruins.
Sheridan was leading a coalition of dozens of different species in his war against the Shadows. Under the circumstance he had to be pro-diversity. What did you expect him to do, join the Home Guard?
Gene Roddenberry created (or inspired, in the case of the later series) all of the Star Trek series. He was an atheist and a progressive. (I enjoy all of the Star Trek canon immensely, with the exception of DS9, btw...but it is what it is)
TOS was a series that was produced in the mid 60s, so its unlikely that the NBC censors in that day and time would have allowed it to push the envelope as much as Roddenberry would have wanted. There were, none the less, many extremely liberal aspects to the series, particularly the world government (expanded to interstellar extremes).
However, in Star Trek TNG, the future is apparently a communist one in which people don't need money and are happy in their jobs and find recreation through virtual reality simulators.
That was due to the invention of "replicator" technology that eliminated scarcity.
Not a lot of thinking necessary these days.
Expensive pretty FX, battles and mindless action, unimaginative aliens, two dimensional characters, regurgitated stories from only even a decade or two ago, or hijackings of someone ele's creations and dumbing them down. And even some of that is ok if your engaged enough to think in a new way. Good sci fi does that. Political content is the least of sci fi's problems these days. A good film lately that cost only 5 million dollars was "Moon". Nothing ground breaking, but by today's standards, it was exceptional.
Since there's no scarcity in the Federation, can any citizen have his own Galaxy-class starship to play with?
To my knowledge, the Star Trek universe hasn’t really gone into great depth with regard to how money is handled. Picard gives a general idea in First Contact, but it could be just setting the mood for when Alfre Woodard’s character calls him out on his so-called “enlightened sensibilities” at the end of the movie.
Also, just because there is no “money”, doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t some other method of exchange. In the TV series the Ferengi used latinum as a valuable commodity for exchange and it’s safe to assume that Federation crewmembers vacationing on Risa or some exotic locale which isn’t a member of the Federation may require some type of currency.
In the first episode of TNG (Encounter at Farpoint) you see crewmembers shopping for fabric but there isn’t a mention of how that exchange is carried out.
I think in the original series “credits” were used as a currency. Trader Cyrano Jones quotes prices in credits in The Trouble with Tribbles. Of course, in that episode, the Tribbles blew up the supply/demand curve.
“And we may as well also face the fact that the Indians were not Utopian lovers of peace and the environment.”
I agree — some of the tribes were very warlike against their own kind. However, that still doesn’t change the fact that our government at the time really screwed a bunch of people by taking their land and made treaties they regularly broke. I bet you our fellow Freepers would be pretty upset if that happened to us now, and rightfully so.
You mean the Night Watch ;) (Yes, I really, REALLY liked B5!)
Nope. But “Diversity is strength” is a sort of Orwellian liberal mantra and those sort of things tend catch my attention, esp. when show up in my favorite show.
The one world govt in Star trek was done in a US style type of Republic where individual freedoms existed and expoused by the federation. Again, context is important. it was obvious that the Romulans were the Eastern Bloc and the Klingons were the Red Chinese.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.