I watched some historic Sci-Fi movies recently that got me thinking about this, and came up with "the late 70s." Partially inspired by my reading of Strange Rebels and on Deng Xiaoping. But cause this is Languish I think I'll frame this around the Sci-Fi movies.
1936's Things to Come:
The world in Things to Come is, to me, almost completely unrecognizable. H.G. Well's antidemocratic, technocratic impulses get free reign as a group of vanguard technocrats based in Basra, Iraq (!) conquer the world with the last remaining airplanes after a devastating, multi-generational war that is quite likely the first depiction of a post-apocalyptic society on film.
Coming from the early-21st Century it's hard to find almost any assumption here that isn't horribly dated;
1) Democracy, private ownership and the nation-state are inefficient, will be replaced with a vaguely socialist, technocratic world order
2) Violence against uncooperative social elements is a-okay, healthy, inevitable
3) The planet's resources exist entirely so that we can extract them. There's a rather hilarious 10 minute montage of BIG MACHINES DOING GREAT THINGS that would not fly in the West after Silent Spring and the enviornmental movement.
4) People are a-okay with living underground because for some stupid reason it's considered more efficient
5) Humanity is awesome, and we'll either conquer the universe or we won't do anything.
I don't think it is possible for anyone in the past 30 years to have made a movie with any of these assumptions and not have it criticized extremely harshly.
1968's 2001
I watched this today, and it struck me as a lot less dated than I remember. I remember there being a focus on the then-inevitable Soviet-American Democratic Socialist synthesis, as America becomes more progressive and the USSR becomes more democratic. That's not really present. There's a BBC 16 (indicating 15 other BBC channels), but there's also clearly a corporate presence in space; there's a PAN AM spaceship, IBM everywhere, Hilton, HoJo's, etc....From a technological perspective I think the movie has also aged way better than just about any other Sci Fi film ever made; the crew uses an iPad, a lot of the computers look incredibly modern for the time of production, and no one is wearing unitards or Mao suits.
However, the tone seems to date it more than anything. Space cooperation has brought detente to the stars, and some Wells-y Utopianism is still at play.
1979's Alien
I would argue that this is the best movie here, but that's a matter of taste. Although the technology in 2001 has aged a lot better, (Alien's Mother is hilariously dated), the tone and universe of Alien mean it could plausibly have been released at any point in the last 4 decades, though the relative subtlety of the production would have been a no-no at any other time.
1) Nation-state no longer seems as important, replaced in large part by domineering corporate interests. Weyland-Yutani's full power is never explained in detail, but it's relatively clear that we're dealing more with something like the British East India Company or (to tie in to Nostromo's Conrad reference) the Congo Free State than any modern corporation. No reference to Socialism or the USSR.
2) Paranoia exists in the future. Weyland-Yutani is basically using the crew of the Nostromo as test-subjects to poke at the alien life form at LV-421. It's never explained how much they know about the life on the planet, but I think it's safe to assume they understood that it was dangerous.
3) World is big, scary and old. Guys on the space ship wear Hawaiian shirts, look at porn, a lot of tech on the Nostromo looks 20+ years old. There's an industrial feel of wear and tear.
What's the question? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 05:42:57 PM
What's the question? :huh:
Yeah, I'm a little confused too.
Is it about when older sci-fi film reflect the 'modern' world ? :unsure:
Somebody got wasted watching movies.
The question is whether you agree with his contention that aesthetically and culturally our world view isn't too different from how it was in the 70s onward, but if we go back to the 60s or earlier there are some fundamental differences about how the world works, what shapes the future, and also in the aesthetic goals we like to see our movie making strive for.
... and if you disagree, he implicitly asks where you'd put the break between the modern of the present and the alien past (and why).
It depends on what you mean by modern. When I read the title as I was looking over the board the date that immediately popped into my head was 1860.
It took me 5 minutes yesterday to figure out how to use a coin-operated locker. I pretended I was texting while I figured it out.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 28, 2013, 05:40:19 PM
I watched some historic Sci-Fi movies recently that got me thinking about this, and came up with "the late 70s." Partially inspired by my reading of Strange Rebels and on Deng Xiaoping. But cause this is Languish I think I'll frame this around the Sci-Fi movies.
1936's Things to Come:
The world in Things to Come is, to me, almost completely unrecognizable. H.G. Well's antidemocratic, technocratic impulses get free reign as a group of vanguard technocrats based in Basra, Iraq (!) conquer the world with the last remaining airplanes after a devastating, multi-generational war that is quite likely the first depiction of a post-apocalyptic society on film.
NETFLIX QUEUE.
The more recent the movie, the more modern it seems?
Okay, I can buy that.
1914, when civilization ended.
To answer the general question, 1945.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 28, 2013, 05:40:19 PM
Coming from the early-21st Century it's hard to find almost any assumption here that isn't horribly dated;
1) Democracy, private ownership and the nation-state are inefficient, will be replaced with a vaguely socialist, technocratic world order
Post-1990 examples of this: Dark Knight Trilogy, Star Trek: The Next Generation (explicitly), Terminator (implicitly), Miracleman, Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
Quote2) Violence against uncooperative social elements is a-okay, healthy, inevitable
Post-1990 example of this: every action movie made in the past twenty-three years.
Quote3) The planet's resources exist entirely so that we can extract them. There's a rather hilarious 10 minute montage of BIG MACHINES DOING GREAT THINGS that would not fly in the West after Silent Spring and the enviornmental movement.
OK, concur. Environmentalism has become so widely accepted that it's hard to even be reasonable about it.
Quote4) People are a-okay with living underground because for some stupid reason it's considered more efficient
Concur. It would be more efficient. But it is not generally given life in fiction. In fact, it was rare before the world became "recognizably modern." The only other work I can think of that uses this idea is Clarke's Imperial Earth. Which is awesome.
Quote5) Humanity is awesome, and we'll either conquer the universe or we won't do anything.
Star Trek.
QuoteI don't think it is possible for anyone in the past 30 years to have made a movie with any of these assumptions and not have it criticized extremely harshly.
1968's 2001
I watched this today, and it struck me as a lot less dated than I remember. I remember there being a focus on the then-inevitable Soviet-American Democratic Socialist synthesis, as America becomes more progressive and the USSR becomes more democratic. That's not really present. There's a BBC 16 (indicating 15 other BBC channels), but there's also clearly a corporate presence in space; there's a PAN AM spaceship, IBM everywhere, Hilton, HoJo's, etc....From a technological perspective I think the movie has also aged way better than just about any other Sci Fi film ever made; the crew uses an iPad, a lot of the computers look incredibly modern for the time of production, and no one is wearing unitards or Mao suits.
However, the tone seems to date it more than anything. Space cooperation has brought detente to the stars, and some Wells-y Utopianism is still at play.
Of course there is. It's Arthur Clarke.
Quote1979's Alien
I would argue that this is the best movie here, but that's a matter of taste.
Yeah, bad taste. Alien > 2001. No wonder you didn't like Sinister. You're nuts. :P
Somewhere between Columbus, Luther, and Copernicus.
I think I get what Spell-us is getting at. Movies reflecting a mind-set you find most familiar. It is interesting the way he's framing it around sci-fi (which often predicts the future), but newer movies much more likely to fit the mind-set then past ones.
'Brazil' in part reflects how the modern world is/doesn't work. :bowler:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2013, 07:21:25 PM
I think I get what Spell-us is getting at. Movies reflecting a mind-set you find most familiar. It is interesting the way he's framing it around sci-fi (which often predicts the future), but newer movies much more likely to fit the mind-set then past ones.
I wasn't clear enough in the post because the post title itself makes it pretty clear.
A lot of contemporary movies are about personal drama or about "eternal" topics. My thinking here was inspired by how people of the past believed the future was going to look, as it's way more obviously dated than, say, class politics in Dassin movie.
QuotePost-1990 examples of this: Dark Knight Trilogy, Star Trek: The Next Generation (explicitly), Terminator (implicitly), Miracleman, Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
Uh, no? TNG's world is post-scarcity so people can do whatever the hell they want, the Dark Knight's world is dystopian, Rise of the Planet of the apes doesn't even have anything to do with this.
QuotePost-1990 example of this: every action movie made in the past twenty-three years.
Things to Come has the eradication of entire classes as a worthy goal, you don't really have that in Western drama after the collapse of Marxist ideologies in the late 70s.
QuoteStar Trek.
That was already considered corny in the mid-60s.
QuoteYeah, bad taste. Alien > 2001. No wonder you didn't like Sinister. You're nuts.
They're such different movies that this isn't a really meaningful conversation.
Obviously Queequeq's first passion, after chicks of obscure ethnic backgrounds, is motion picture set design and art direction. Go for it, Q.
Aw, Mike, I wasn't really trying to be confrontational. Hence the :P
Star Trek, especially early TNG, constantly espouses disdain for capitalism, even in a inter-scarcity society. It also depicts a tremendously militarized society (if also a well-socialized military), which is not the result of replicators but rather Roddenberry's belief system.
The world in the 2008 Dark Knight is dystopian but can be corrected by benevolent statism and a dictatorial presence. The third one is arguably about the elimination of poor people, but it's also terribly made, so it's hard to say.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is about a singular leader leading the oppressed. It is also about the genesis of a caste society. Ape society is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship, and at least while engaged with the story, the audience is expected to find Caesar's rise to power (along with the accompanying destruction of humankind) a positive development.
I didn't mention Wall-E, but that is also a grimly authoritarian movie where democratic input into a decision that may lead to the extinction of humankind, and will certainly result in great sacrifice and suffering, is never even considered.
Also, after having just watched Pain & Gain again, it is explicitly against the accumulation of wealth and the existence of the wealthy; the envy their existence engenders leads to social and economic waste, not to mention human carnage.
Also from this year, The Purge and You're Next are explicitly about class inequality. Elysium argues for the elimination of class explicitly. The Purge presents those of privilege as vile or indifferent or both. You're Next, which is subtler, still presents the rich as weak or evil or both.
Marxism is dead because no one cares about boring books that spend thousands of pages on archaic and invalid economics lessons. But class war lives.
However, if you mean there is no didactic utopian fiction that outlines a specific blueprint for the classless, perfect society, I can't name many other than Star Trek, but how widely popular do you expect didactic utopian fiction to be?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 10:26:38 PM
However, if you mean there is no didactic utopian fiction that outlines a specific blueprint for the classless, perfect society, I can't name many other than Star Trek, but how widely popular do you expect didactic utopian fiction to be?
You're forgetting
Madagascar 1,
2 and
3.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 10:33:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 10:26:38 PM
However, if you mean there is no didactic utopian fiction that outlines a specific blueprint for the classless, perfect society, I can't name many other than Star Trek, but how widely popular do you expect didactic utopian fiction to be?
You're forgetting Madagascar 1, 2 and 3.
Lolwhut?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 10:18:28 PM
Obviously Queequeq's first passion, after chicks of obscure ethnic backgrounds, is motion picture set design and art direction. Go for it, Q.
This actually isn't that far off the mark if you include costume. It's a passion.
QuoteStar Trek, especially early TNG, constantly espouses disdain for capitalism, even in a inter-scarcity society. It also depicts a tremendously militarized society (if also a well-socialized military), which is not the result of replicators but rather Roddenberry's belief system.
Star Trek universe has like 10 big milky way species that want to totally annihilate humanity, hundreds of malevolent godlike beings, and Star Trek is basically 19th Century Britain in Space, only all of the shows and movies obviously focus on Space Horatio Hornblower more than Space Jane Eyre.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 10:37:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 10:33:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 10:26:38 PM
However, if you mean there is no didactic utopian fiction that outlines a specific blueprint for the classless, perfect society, I can't name many other than Star Trek, but how widely popular do you expect didactic utopian fiction to be?
You're forgetting Madagascar 1, 2 and 3.
Lolwhut?
:lol:
As soon as cars, city life, and working for wages becomes the standard. I guess around 1920 or so in the US.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2013, 08:02:54 AM
As soon as cars, city life, and working for wages becomes the standard. I guess around 1920 or so in the US.
1920s is my answer as well. I'm also thinking in terms of radio, movies, photography (i.e., pictures from the 1920s onward start to look "real" to me), women's rights (for better or for worse :P ), socialist governments, etc.
The 1990s. Before that, the US still had rampant oppression.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 29, 2013, 01:42:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 10:18:28 PM
Obviously Queequeq's first passion, after chicks of obscure ethnic backgrounds, is motion picture set design and art direction. Go for it, Q.
This actually isn't that far off the mark if you include costume. It's a passion.
Does the costume thing apply to the girls or the motion pictures?
Both?
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 07:41:27 PM
'Brazil' in part reflects how the modern world is/doesn't work. :bowler:
Nice choice.
Reaganomics marks the beginning to the most prosperous age in American history, therefore the modern times. Obamacare marks the beginning of the end.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 12:51:05 PM
Reaganomics marks the beginning to the most prosperous age in American history, therefore the modern times. Obamacare marks the beginning of the end.
So modern times are coming to an end? Bummer.
Yesterday's tomorrow is no longer what it used to be.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 12:51:05 PM
Reaganomics marks the beginning to the most prosperous age in American history, therefore the modern times. Obamacare marks the beginning of the end.
:lmfao:
If we get away from movies, where the technological change skews perceptions, I think Mark Twain has a quite modern outlook.
Pre WWII (and even more so WWI) continental european politics seem quite alien.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2013, 01:30:49 PM
If we get away from movies, where the technological change skews perceptions, I think Mark Twain has a quite modern outlook.
Pre WWII (and even more so WWI) continental european politics seem quite alien.
To me the 17th century as the age where the modern world begins to become recognizable. Writers before it, like Shakespeare or Bacon clearly have a very different mindset; while say Voltaire or Alexander Pope have a recognizable outlook. Seventeenth century thinkers, like Newton, Milton or Descartes are largely creators of what I view as the modern world, but in a large part they belong to the previous age.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 30, 2013, 01:45:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2013, 01:30:49 PM
If we get away from movies, where the technological change skews perceptions, I think Mark Twain has a quite modern outlook.
Pre WWII (and even more so WWI) continental european politics seem quite alien.
To me the 17th century as the age where the modern world begins to become recognizable. Writers before it, like Shakespeare or Bacon clearly have a very different mindset; while say Voltaire or Alexander Pope have a recognizable outlook. Seventeenth century thinkers, like Newton, Milton or Descartes are largely creators of what I view as the modern world, but in a large part they belong to the previous age.
Newton is a great example: half modern scientist, half medieval alchemist.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 12:51:05 PM
Reaganomics marks the beginning to the most prosperous age in American history, therefore the modern times. Obamacare marks the beginning of the end.
Man, you really are drinking that kool-aid.
I have yet to see a half-decent 17th century SF movie.
The modern age began when coal miners, street peddlers, and janitors took off their suit jackets and started wearing jeans and tshirts. So some time in the 40's or 50's.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 30, 2013, 01:45:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2013, 01:30:49 PM
If we get away from movies, where the technological change skews perceptions, I think Mark Twain has a quite modern outlook.
Pre WWII (and even more so WWI) continental european politics seem quite alien.
To me the 17th century as the age where the modern world begins to become recognizable. Writers before it, like Shakespeare or Bacon clearly have a very different mindset; while say Voltaire or Alexander Pope have a recognizable outlook. Seventeenth century thinkers, like Newton, Milton or Descartes are largely creators of what I view as the modern world, but in a large part they belong to the previous age.
As with so much else, it comes down to how we define the terms...I'd think of modern as a person with a mindset that could relatively easily adopt to the trends of today. I think a Mark Twain could. A Theodore Roosevelt could. I suspect a lot of the political mindset in Europe from 100 years ago could not. I suspect the typical person from the segregated US south could not.
I think the modern capitalistic with elements of democratic socialist / secular / post colonial / largely post nationalistic world would be rather jarring for someone from the 18th century, but I'm really just applying my own definitions.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 01:51:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 12:51:05 PM
Reaganomics marks the beginning to the most prosperous age in American history, therefore the modern times. Obamacare marks the beginning of the end.
Man, you really are drinking that kool-aid.
You have been drinking it your whole life, the wrong-wing's Kool-Aid.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 02:22:06 PMYou have been drinking it your whole life, the wrong-wing's Kool-Aid.
Only you and a few others see the real truth.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2013, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 02:22:06 PMYou have been drinking it your whole life, the wrong-wing's Kool-Aid.
Only you and a few others see the real truth.
That the moon landing was a hoax and that black people are evil.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2013, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 02:22:06 PMYou have been drinking it your whole life, the wrong-wing's Kool-Aid.
Only you and a few others see the real truth.
That the moon landing was a hoax and that black people are evil.
Of course they are--they're human beings.
Anyway, the world became modern to me in the 1990's. Ever since then we've been living in some kind of futuristic techno-nightmare.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 10:41:27 PM
Anyway, the world became modern to me in the 1990's. Ever since then we've been living in some kind of futuristic techno-nightmare.
Indeed. Your computer is talking to you. And it's pretty schizophrenic.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2013, 10:52:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 10:41:27 PM
Anyway, the world became modern to me in the 1990's. Ever since then we've been living in some kind of futuristic techno-nightmare.
Indeed. Your computer is talking to you. And it's pretty schizophrenic.
It's not the computer that bothers me. It's the air conditioner talking that gets to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2013, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 02:22:06 PMYou have been drinking it your whole life, the wrong-wing's Kool-Aid.
Only you and a few others see the real truth.
That the moon landing was a hoax and that black people are evil.
Ah, you are one of those that dismiss any criticism of Obama as racism. How original.
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2013, 07:57:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2013, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2013, 02:22:06 PMYou have been drinking it your whole life, the wrong-wing's Kool-Aid.
Only you and a few others see the real truth.
That the moon landing was a hoax and that black people are evil.
Ah, you are one of those that dismiss any criticism of Obama as racism. How original.
So what's the deal with the Neo-Nazis stuff you posted on how bad blacks were?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 12:26:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2013, 10:52:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 10:41:27 PM
Anyway, the world became modern to me in the 1990's. Ever since then we've been living in some kind of futuristic techno-nightmare.
Indeed. Your computer is talking to you. And it's pretty schizophrenic.
It's not the computer that bothers me. It's the air conditioner talking that gets to me.
FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2013, 07:57:06 PMAh, you are one of those that dismiss any criticism of Obama as racism. How original.
Actually Siegy, you've posted some stuff that seemed to be pretty much race-baiting targeted at black people and stuff apparently sourced from white supremacists. It had nothing to do with Obama, and it did seem pretty questionable.
What's the story there? Are you joking around, did you not realize it was racist, do you think it wasn't racist at all, or do you in fact have a low opinion of black people?
I'm guessing it's one of the first three...?
I like Siegy's hair. He can do so many neat things with it.
I think he was just trying to point out what he sees as media hypocrisy in how it covered crimes between people of different races.
It doesn't have to be that he's trolling, stupid or racist.
Quote from: derspiess on September 02, 2013, 10:21:38 PM
I think he was just trying to point out what he sees as media hypocrisy in how it covered crimes between people of different races.
It doesn't have to be that he's trolling, stupid or racist.
This is languish - trolling, stupid, and/or racist posts are pretty common, so it's not like it sticks out (though I did account for other options in my question). Nonetheless, it's a new area for posts from Siegy, so I'm curious where he's coming from when he's posting on the subject; with most of the other posters it's pretty clear where they're coming from when they post on race related topics.
Quote from: derspiess on September 02, 2013, 10:06:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 12:26:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2013, 10:52:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 10:41:27 PM
Anyway, the world became modern to me in the 1990's. Ever since then we've been living in some kind of futuristic techno-nightmare.
Indeed. Your computer is talking to you. And it's pretty schizophrenic.
It's not the computer that bothers me. It's the air conditioner talking that gets to me.
FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 02, 2013, 10:21:38 PM
I think he was just trying to point out what he sees as media hypocrisy in how it covered crimes between people of different races.
It doesn't have to be that he's trolling, stupid or racist.
Maybe, but Siege doesn't do subtly. He certainly took a shift in recent months saying that Martin kid deserved to be shot because he was a "thug" and the like. The way he posted the stuff anti-black stuff came off as trolling (claiming they perpetrators were white to see if anyone would damned them without reading the article.)