Poll: Excuse me, waiter there appears to be politics in my sci-fi

[Mr. Doe]

at what point did Full Metal Jacket say anything anti war? sure half the American soldiers were crazy as hell but the enemy forces werent taking any moral high ground YOU INTERPERATED it as anti war Full Metal Jacket isnt about "This is wrong and awful" its "This is what war is like. What do you think?" and why are you telling me to grow up? because I dont want political diatribe in my entertainment? and I find it just lovely that you think that the only messages I saw were the political messages in Avatar that is just what pushed me over the edge that and the thought of a predator movie where half the predators wear mood rings and dont hunt for skulls. In conclusion FMJ isnt pro or anti war its a story that lets you decide and I think a more anti-war/anti-vietnam movie is Platoon.

Yes, sure, FMJ, as a work of art, is a subjective experience, and Kubrick did supposedly intend to make a movie portraying war, rather than making an implicit anti-war movie. But yes, my interpretation is one of anti-war. In fact, I'd say any movie which successfully portrays war is by default an anti-war movie - anything else will be propaganda. You don't exactly come out of it feeling like it'd be a fun idea to go shootin' and tootin' in the jungles, do you? Then again, I am well aware that soldiers can turn any movie into a pro-war movie (as was also briefly mentioned in Jarhead, although they were watching Apocalypse Now).

Now, why can we have this discussion? Well, because the movie FMJ clearly has some kind of message, whether pro-, anti-, or proffed "neutral". We could each of us give our reasons for why we think the movie corresponds to our view of things (for instance, I think the whole first act in the boot camp is about as anti-military as you can get), and then have mature debate over it. What we'd be discussing then is the inherent message of the movie, as we subjectively experienced it. I'd say that any work of art must have a message, and I personally think that FMJ has a lot more of it than most.

It was your blanket statement that the movie is somehow a tabula rasa which should be taken at face value and nothing more that prompted my "grow up" comment: shit ain't that easy. As others have tried to tell you here, nothing is that easy. I do often elect to watch(/read/listen to/play) something which I know has deeper ramifications, but which I choose to ignore for the moment and just let it entertain me. That's why I can enjoy Gears of War even though everything in its narrative is ludicrous, or why I can watch Die Hard and just get me some John McClane action without further wondering about the othering of the European. But just because I choose to ignore the message for the moment does not mean it's not there, and I do have the critical capacity to discern it. We can have differing opinions on a matter (say, whether Aliens is pro-feminist or anti-feminist), but it does -not- remove the fact something is happening below the surface.

Honestly, I don't understand what you're looking for here. If an author/director/developer is too 'in your face' with their message (like for instance Cameron was in Avatar, plus the fact he hashes it all up), then that's a sign of poor writing/directing/whatever, which can and should be criticized. But to somehow completely, in an Uwe Boll-like manner, attempt to SIDESTEP a deeper message? What the hell? Are you deliberately looking for poor writing?

I apologize for the personal attack, anyway, it was unnecessary, although I explained my reasoning above.

I accept your apology and would merely like to state that when I say "have a message" I mean it more as "more focused on the message than making it work as entertainment" Plenty of good movies have messages just some of them implement them ham handedly and it takes away from the narrative like Avatar and District 9 did. District 9 would have worked if they hadnt abandoned the whole downtrodden opressed poor refugee thing so that Wickus and Christopher could defeat the entire security company and the warlords with just a laser gun and a battle mech it just feels schizophrenic switching from aparthied style drama to sci-fi wooosh bang at the tail end. I just dont like how it draws away from the inherent awesome of battle mechs, space aliens and laser guns to say "Apartheid was wrong" a message that is so obvious you dont need to hammer it home with big evil PMCs and corporations trying to reverse engineer weapons it makes it feel like they didnt ever consider the thought of People wanting to see a movie about downtrodden refugees trying to break free of an oppressive regime so they recycled it with aliens. When I go to see sci-fi movies I want the laser guns to be in full force and the message to be either deep and meaningful but kind of off to the side or "Lasers are cool", When I read a Sci-fi novel I want deep complex narrative or old pulpy "EGAD CAVE ZOMBIES FROM MARS!" type writing.

 

[The Hairminator]

Ever read Heinlein, d00d?

 

[Mr. Doe]

snip

Can you give an example of a good sci-fi movie that doesn't bring politics into it?

The whole point about any story is to try and give a side to a political entity, whether it is a huge ideal, or a little preference.

Otherwise what is the point for the story to even exist?

I love humor and good old nature fun, like the movie Slither. But it still kinda has a point about human nature, even tho it is mixed up with fun and politics that humans relate to.

Mmmmmeat.

Well lets see how about Alien there arent any politics in that just a dickfaced alien that hates people, or how about Sky Captain and the world of tommorow a throwback to the old Pulp Sci-fi with rocket planes, giant pincer handed robots, lasers and evil scientists with a narrative no more complicated than the blurb on a cereal box sure it bombed pretty hard at the box office but I love the damn thing.

 

[itf cho]

Where are the green skinned space babes?

Not that I necessarily disagree with you... some shows do go way too far in hitting you over the head with delivering their chosen 'message'. But it is kinda funny that you referenced Star Trek; since Star Trek was known for tackling many social/political/racial issues in their episodes.

 

[Mr. Doe]

Ever read Heinlein, d00d?

a little bit but his works (the ones Ive read) werent really that complicated or topical they were speculative like Asimov with robots.

 

[Mr. Doe]

Where are the green skinned space babes?

Not that I necessarily disagree with you... some shows do go way too far in hitting you over the head with delivering their chosen 'message'. But it is kinda funny that you referenced Star Trek; since Star Trek was known for tackling many social/political/racial issues in their episodes.

that was kind of par for the course in the 60's every episode had an aesop sure but the overall message of the show is Space is a huge place were there could be anything and its pretty damn awesome.

 

[Kair]

300 has no intended allegories, it is a depiction of a historical event.

Avatar, however, is fiction and carries a political message.

 

[Billion Backs]

Exploring political and religious ideas in Sci-fi is awesome.

And yes, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and The Dune are among my favorite books.

Real science fiction, not that shallow monstrosity often bearing its name, was never about laser fights. Science fiction very often focuses on "deep" questions of morality, ideology, and effects of technology on society. Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and plenty of other lesser known writers in the field of science fiction have always been about that. Even more "modern" writers tend to focus on deeper aspects of the genre then just half-assed laser-fights.

 

[Good morning blues]

The true potential of science fiction is to provide parables. Sure, some schlocky whiz-bang action is fine for a brief distraction, but I really prefer things like the new Battlestar Galactica, where there is intelligent commentary on pressing, topical, and relevant issues.

 

[The Hairminator]

300 has no intended allegories, it is a depiction of a historical event.

Not a very accurate one at that.

 

[Kair]

300 has no intended allegories, it is a depiction of a historical event.

Not a very accurate one at that.

I agree to that.

The base still lies in history and the intentions of the writer can not be interpreted in any other way except perhaps by looking at the choice of historical event.

 

[BonsaiK]

snip

Every single science-fiction tale is also a political tale by default, because the society that created the tale is informed and influenced by political opinion. There isn't a single science fiction tale that cannot be interpreted as having a political message of some sort. Star Wars is a very preachy parable about the importance of standing up to totalitarianism (I mean, they even called the bad soldiers stormtroopers, geez, talk about underlining the point, George "subtlety, we don't need that" Lucas). Starship Troopers is one of the most clever and caustic anti-war films ever made. Nasty sentinent AIs when they appear in a film are usually there as a critique of humanity's technological race and the possible consequences. Star Trek is the perfect postmodern critique of colonialist thinking (contrast how the Enterprise crew behave when visiting "unknown worlds" with what European settlers did in Africa, Australia etc), and most films involving "aliens" usually have something under the surface to say about things like immigration, racism etc (no coincidence that the US calls illegal immigrants "aliens" too). Those green-skinned space babes were probably on the run from oppression in their homeworld. Even E.T. was just a tale of human prejudice. The reason why you see science fiction always paired with politics is because science fiction IS politics. If you've never noticed this before, it's probably just because you were younger and not as aware - now that you're older and smarter you're able to read between the lines of these things a lot more easily.

Sci-fi (the movies anyway) for me has awlays been a sort of mind vacation where I dont have to think about HOW the thrusters are working or WHY the aliens are hostile or any sort of the thing its space its supposed to be awesome the final unexplored parts of our universe lawless and fantastic without any of the bullshit

one Sci-fi movie that definetly has no message of politics or social satire (unless you didnt take your meds that day) is ALIEN a story about a frieghter that gets murdered by a dickheaded alien.

Definitely wrong on that point. Alien is filled with messages and social commentary, it's arguably one of the most politically charged sci-fi movies of all time. The following site gives a very basic overview, but barely scratches the surface:

http://www.freewebs.com/mgutman/historicalculturalcontext.htm

A lot of science fiction is also devoted to plausibility - many sci-fi books do their very best to explain how their technological toys work, and the only reason why films and TV shows don't is because there isn't the running time. They squeeze it in there when they can though:


(watch from 0:55)

...because one thing that sci-fi fans love is the idea that maybe this technology that they are dreaming about could actually exist one day and so technolgoical explanations are often very appealing to sci-fi fans. Even computer games often go into detail, look at the reams of text EVE devotes to breaking down their technology:

http://www.eveonline.com/background/articles.asp

...because plausibility adds to immersion. Hell, they've even got a technological explanation for the hideous third-person perspective that players are forced to endure:

http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=apr01-02

(for me EVE's biggest failing has always been the "pod" idea, which is just an excuse for lack of ability to move around inside your ship, and also the related weakness of a lack of a first-person view when flying, but I digress...)

Of course, if you don't wan't to think about things like this, you don't have to, you can just play the game and go "awesome, lasers and shit". There's nothing wrong with consuming any sci-fi purely on a superficial "wow" kind of level, but sci-fi always lends itself to a deeper analysis. Science fiction is called science fiction for a reason.

 

[AdamRBi]

... if its a message like that and it doesnt try and be anything prominent than it works because on Star Wars center stage are space Samurai/Wizards living in the distant past fighting an evil empire. When I sit down to watch sci-fi I dont want to be deconstructing the whole thing to find hidden messages I want to watch lasers blast through hulls and space sword fights. Sci-fi (the movies anyway) for me has awlays been a sort of mind vacation where I dont have to think about HOW the thrusters are working or WHY the aliens are hostile or any sort of the thing its space its supposed to be awesome the final unexplored parts of our universe lawless and fantastic without any of the bullshit in other fiction where they cant be muslims because were at war with them and they cant be americans because than it looks like we support the "THE GOVERNMENT DID IT!" type of thinking when I watch sci-fi I watch it because it has space marines and mile long spaceships.

If that's the way you see it that's ok, I for one however love wondering how it all works. It's the whole reason I love Sci-Fi, because it's Science. Though I think you're missing the point of why an artist makes a movie and why there are sometimes heavy or light social commentary in them.

I think what you're trying to say is that you don't like Sci-Fi being used as a method of commentary, which is an odd statement because that's like saying Romance, Mystery, and Epic Quest Movies shouldn't have messages ether despite the fact that they all make perfect vessels for them, including Sci-Fi. That being said, while they do make great vessels, on a rough sea cargo is lost if there's nothing tying it down. If the Message is the goal then it's a PSA, and those are never praised for their storytelling ability.

Social and Universal Commentary is in all great Sci-Fi, only it's hidden by the Characters, the Story, the Concept... and yes also the battles. However It's the message that makes the it more of a great story and less like watching a recording of a Halo 3 Deathmatch, which is pretty much what you describes Sci-Fi should be more like.

Quick example: Your interpretation of Star Wars may be Samurai Wizards and Armies fighting Space Battles, but if you actually stop and think about it an entire movie of that would get pretty boring. Give the Space Wizards reason to fight like rebelling against a dictatorship, securing food for their planet, or out for the hunt and already the story becomes more interesting. Of course now you have them fighting towards something, do they succeed? All stories and conflict must eventually meet their end, and it's that closure that's usually the most interesting part of the story, it's where the protagonist reaches their goal or comes out a bit short. Once you have motive and closure, you have a message, even if it's a subtle one. Now though, you watch this movie and it's entertaining yet mediocre at best. It's amateur really, the bare bones of a movie. Where's the Beef? That beef is a character arch, in which all the characters end the movie having learned something after having gone through a life changing scenario; wether it be a Grand Victory or a Grave Loss. If the character learns something, we learn something and that is the message of the film. The closure of Star Wars, both Trilogies, was a delicate scale balancing itself out. The Message is that life needs balance, if that balance if tilted too far in any direction it can have consequences. I don't think the Series would have been as successful without the key elements that projected that.

It should be noted, however, that the message is usually just a side effect of the writing process. The writer is usually just pulling from their sub-conscious scenarios to help the heros reach their closure. That's what usually forms itself in to some kind of perceived message. The movie "Wall-E" for example had a strong environmental message to it that was unintentional, the writers were just trying to tell a robot love story and ended up using the dirty planet as a plot device to get them together.

Avatar is the same, the message about treatment of natives defiantly wasn't intended. That movie only exists so that Cameron could enhance movie making technology, I'm sure any message (and the story for that matter) was all an afterthought.

 

[Mr. Doe]

snip

Every single science-fiction tale is also a political tale by default, because the society that created the tale is informed and influenced by political opinion. There isn't a single science fiction tale that cannot be interpreted as having a political message of some sort. Star Wars is a very preachy parable about the importance of standing up to totalitarianism (I mean, they even called the bad soldiers stormtroopers, geez, talk about underlining the point, George "subtlety, we don't need that" Lucas). Starship Troopers is one of the most clever and caustic anti-war films ever made. Nasty sentinent AIs when they appear in a film are usually there as a critique of humanity's technological race and the possible consequences. Star Trek is the perfect postmodern critique of colonialist thinking (contrast how the Enterprise crew behave when visiting "unknown worlds" with what European settlers did in Africa, Australia etc), and most films involving "aliens" usually have something under the surface to say about things like immigration, racism etc (no coincidence that the US calls illegal immigrants "aliens" too). Those green-skinned space babes were probably on the run from oppression in their homeworld. Even E.T. was just a tale of human prejudice. The reason why you see science fiction always paired with politics is because science fiction IS politics. If you've never noticed this before, it's probably just because you were younger and not as aware - now that you're older and smarter you're able to read between the lines of these things a lot more easily.

Sci-fi (the movies anyway) for me has awlays been a sort of mind vacation where I dont have to think about HOW the thrusters are working or WHY the aliens are hostile or any sort of the thing its space its supposed to be awesome the final unexplored parts of our universe lawless and fantastic without any of the bullshit

one Sci-fi movie that definetly has no message of politics or social satire (unless you didnt take your meds that day) is ALIEN a story about a frieghter that gets murdered by a dickheaded alien.

Definitely wrong on that point. Alien is filled with messages and social commentary, it's arguably one of the most politically charged sci-fi movies of all time. The following site gives a very basic overview, but barely scratches the surface:

http://www.freewebs.com/mgutman/historicalculturalcontext.htm

A lot of science fiction is also devoted to plausibility - many sci-fi books do their very best to explain how their technological toys work, and the only reason why films and TV shows don't is because there isn't the running time. They squeeze it in there when they can though:


(watch from 0:55)

...because one thing that sci-fi fans love is the idea that maybe this technology that they are dreaming about could actually exist one day and so technolgoical explanations are often very appealing to sci-fi fans. Even computer games often go into detail, look at the reams of text EVE devotes to breaking down their technology:

http://www.eveonline.com/background/articles.asp

...because plausibility adds to immersion. Hell, they've even got a technological explanation for the hideous third-person perspective that players are forced to endure:

http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=apr01-02

(for me EVE's biggest failing has always been the "pod" idea, which is just an excuse for lack of ability to move around inside your ship, and also the related weakness of a lack of a first-person view when flying, but I digress...)

Of course, if you don't wan't to think about things like this, you don't have to, you can just play the game and go "awesome, lasers and shit". There's nothing wrong with consuming any sci-fi purely on a superficial "wow" kind of level, but sci-fi always lends itself to a deeper analysis. Science fiction is called science fiction for a reason.

yeah that Alien thing kinda reads WAAAAAAAAAY too deep into the material and all of what that writer talks about is interperitation not a message thats actually there but one that they percieved and from what Ive heard you cant play Eve online in the mindset of "Lasers, adventure green skinned space babes!" you can only play it in the mindset of "Buisness management turn off the game to be better at it!" also I never said I didnt like Science in my science fiction I said I dont want moralizing or political messages shoved down my throat if they weave well with the narrative without taking center stage and corrupting the inherent coolness of the Sci-fi than Im cool with it but when it does the opposite it makes the Sci-fi angle feel tacked on like it doesnt really matter to them and is only there to attract people looking for a 2 hour mind vacation.

 

[BonsaiK]

snip

Every single science-fiction tale is also a political tale by default, because the society that created the tale is informed and influenced by political opinion. There isn't a single science fiction tale that cannot be interpreted as having a political message of some sort. Star Wars is a very preachy parable about the importance of standing up to totalitarianism (I mean, they even called the bad soldiers stormtroopers, geez, talk about underlining the point, George "subtlety, we don't need that" Lucas). Starship Troopers is one of the most clever and caustic anti-war films ever made. Nasty sentinent AIs when they appear in a film are usually there as a critique of humanity's technological race and the possible consequences. Star Trek is the perfect postmodern critique of colonialist thinking (contrast how the Enterprise crew behave when visiting "unknown worlds" with what European settlers did in Africa, Australia etc), and most films involving "aliens" usually have something under the surface to say about things like immigration, racism etc (no coincidence that the US calls illegal immigrants "aliens" too). Those green-skinned space babes were probably on the run from oppression in their homeworld. Even E.T. was just a tale of human prejudice. The reason why you see science fiction always paired with politics is because science fiction IS politics. If you've never noticed this before, it's probably just because you were younger and not as aware - now that you're older and smarter you're able to read between the lines of these things a lot more easily.

Sci-fi (the movies anyway) for me has awlays been a sort of mind vacation where I dont have to think about HOW the thrusters are working or WHY the aliens are hostile or any sort of the thing its space its supposed to be awesome the final unexplored parts of our universe lawless and fantastic without any of the bullshit

one Sci-fi movie that definetly has no message of politics or social satire (unless you didnt take your meds that day) is ALIEN a story about a frieghter that gets murdered by a dickheaded alien.

Definitely wrong on that point. Alien is filled with messages and social commentary, it's arguably one of the most politically charged sci-fi movies of all time. The following site gives a very basic overview, but barely scratches the surface:

http://www.freewebs.com/mgutman/historicalculturalcontext.htm

A lot of science fiction is also devoted to plausibility - many sci-fi books do their very best to explain how their technological toys work, and the only reason why films and TV shows don't is because there isn't the running time. They squeeze it in there when they can though:


(watch from 0:55)

...because one thing that sci-fi fans love is the idea that maybe this technology that they are dreaming about could actually exist one day and so technolgoical explanations are often very appealing to sci-fi fans. Even computer games often go into detail, look at the reams of text EVE devotes to breaking down their technology:

http://www.eveonline.com/background/articles.asp

...because plausibility adds to immersion. Hell, they've even got a technological explanation for the hideous third-person perspective that players are forced to endure:

http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=apr01-02

(for me EVE's biggest failing has always been the "pod" idea, which is just an excuse for lack of ability to move around inside your ship, and also the related weakness of a lack of a first-person view when flying, but I digress...)

Of course, if you don't wan't to think about things like this, you don't have to, you can just play the game and go "awesome, lasers and shit". There's nothing wrong with consuming any sci-fi purely on a superficial "wow" kind of level, but sci-fi always lends itself to a deeper analysis. Science fiction is called science fiction for a reason.

yeah that Alien thing kinda reads WAAAAAAAAAY too deep into the material and all of what that writer talks about is interperitation not a message thats actually there but one that they percieved and from what Ive heard you cant play Eve online in the mindset of "Lasers, adventure green skinned space babes!" you can only play it in the mindset of "Buisness management turn off the game to be better at it!" also I never said I didnt like Science in my science fiction I said I dont want moralizing or political messages shoved down my throat if they weave well with the narrative without taking center stage and corrupting the inherent coolness of the Sci-fi than Im cool with it but when it does the opposite it makes the Sci-fi angle feel tacked on like it doesnt really matter to them and is only there to attract people looking for a 2 hour mind vacation.

Having a woman in the lead role on Alien was definitely a deliberate decision by the director/casting that was based heavily on the politics of the day. That's regardless of interpretation (and there are multiple possible interpretations, both positive and negative). And it's well known that "hostile alien" films are very much referring to the perceived threat of communism etc, the idea of the "unknown force" being a scary thing that must either locked up and studied or defeated. Alien also has the theme of science getting too big for its britches and meddling in areas that it shouldn't be messing with, not knowing when to leave things alone, this is a theme that crops up over and over again in sci-fi.

EVE definitely has its eye candy - most people who play as pirates do so simply because they like watching things blow up and being cruel and heartless.

 

[itf cho]

Where are the green skinned space babes?

Not that I necessarily disagree with you... some shows do go way too far in hitting you over the head with delivering their chosen 'message'. But it is kinda funny that you referenced Star Trek; since Star Trek was known for tackling many social/political/racial issues in their episodes.

that was kind of par for the course in the 60's every episode had an aesop sure but the overall message of the show is Space is a huge place were there could be anything and its pretty damn awesome.

Well, remember that a series can showcase it's overall vision of the future - for Star Trek that was one of hope - in a more casual way. Sci-Fi movies on the other hand have only 90 minutes (subtract 30 for commercials), instead of an entire season, so they have to be more heavy-handed with their "vision/message/morality tale" if they want to get the message across. But quite often Star Trek used a huge blunt mallet to bludgeon it's viewers over the head with the message they wanted to convey inside a particular episode. The episode on racial intolerance with the last two survivors of an entire civilization, who were each white and black on opposing sides of their bodies, is one of the more obvious examples.

The big difference for me is whether the show can shoehorn it's message into an entertaining story without destroying the pacing, plot, or overall story. Cheesy as some of the episodes are by today's standards, Star Trek never failed to entertain me. Of course, I saw them originally as repeats in the early 70s when I was quite young. But when a show can't wedge their message in aside from long, tedious bouts of exposition is when it can bog down a show. When that happens, I usually think, "Aha - this is the character that the writer thinks of themselves as..." When the message can be imparted to viewers throughout the course of the movie from short bits of dialogue, and the action & scenery itself, it's much more effective; than opposed to having a character ramble on for five minutes about the danger of this or that.

 

[Queen Michael]

Why is Sci-fi being reduced to a channel for people to pour political/religious diatribe instead of being about Aliens and lasers and foward thrusters?

In my opinion, you're the one who's trying to reduce sci-fi. It's a genre that can give us fascinating new perspectives on things, and you want to reduce it to people with laser guns shooting at each other? Sure, lasers are cool, but there's nothing wrong with trying to give it the same serious message you might find in other genres.
I'm a Heinlein fan, in case you didn't notice.

 

[lwm3398]

If you consider Wall-E sci-fi, then no, political messages in sci-fi movies are unnecessary and preachy. They suck, and make the entire movie terrible. Avatar is did same thing, at least in my opinion.

Although, when sci-fi movies go for the District 9 approach to political messages, where the commentary is nearly non-existent but still there, that can work well. What District 9 and other sci-fi movies similar to it have done is this: Have the plot of the movie not related to the messages themselves, but rather to a totally different thing that doesn't need the messages to work. Once you're sure the movie works on its own, then sprinkle in the social and political commentaries. Don't make the plot of the movie revolve around the opinions you're expressing, because then it just becomes whiny, preachy bullcrap.