|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
|
|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
In Reply to: Re: nope posted by john dem on November 29, 2001 at 12:20:40:
(Did I spell it right?)Mostly, I agree with you John. But not entirely.
I think sci-fi as a "popularizer" of science has been grossly oversold. The fact is that most science in sci-fi is bullshit science that, as much as anything, just perpetuates fantasies. As a predictor of the future, sci-fi is a dismal failure. Exhibit A -- a movie that you like for other reasons, John -- "2001-A Space Odyssey." Well, we're here and the real 2001 doesn't look anything like the movie. Ditto for the British TV series "Space-1999."
However, at its best, sci-fi is the modern iteration of a now-disfavored literary form -- the allegory. Think of Bunyan's "A Pilgrim's Progress" then think of the original Star Trek. Both used stories to make moral points. That was the key to the sucess of Star Trek in re-runs in the late 1960s. It was that the show was an allegory for all of the values espoused by the liberal counterculture that grew up then. Of course the sets were cheesy; of course the acting was terrible; of course the effects were crude. But the message was right for the audience; and they ate it up. They did not laugh at it. The show failed in first run because it was just a few years ahead of its time; but when it went into syndication in the late 1960s, the audience had caught up to it.
Of course, the "heresy of the didactic" was rejected by serious writers even in the 19th Century; so, by that yardstick, sci-fi can never be serious literature. (Ok, we'll have to make an exception for Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. But, I'm sure you'll agree with me that both "Animal Farm" and less obviously, "1984" are allegories. "1984" is allegory in the form of science fiction.) But if we go back to an earlier time, when tales, fables, parables and the like were more respectable in the literary sense (indeed they are common in sacred, religious writings), sci-fi of the Isaac Asimov/Orwell/Huxley/Roddenberry variety would fit right in.
(Of course the successors in the Star Trek franchise have, wisely, moved away from the allegorical mode of the orginal. They are just entertainment, with an occasional nod to Roddenberrianism.
I think it's kind of ironic that 'phlounder, who is so virulently non-religious, has embraced a literary form whose roots are clearly in religion.
How's that for a thought, boys?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- semi-curmudgeonly - Bruce from DC 16:13:57 11/29/01 (2)
- ya done good - late 17:03:47 11/29/01 (0)
- No curmudgeonly argument here. - john dem 16:44:20 11/29/01 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
