Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop Me if This Movie Premise Sounds Familiar: "In a Post-Apocalyptic Future..." (Ugh) (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I mean this in all seriousness (9+ / 0-)

    I am not at all sure the post apocalyptic future was closer in 1962.   We certainly were in a desperate situation, but one in which the solutions were simple, never push the button.

    Now, we are facing planetary annihilation by our own hands and it is not simple, we can't simply refrain from pushing the button.   We have to take collective action all across the planet to avoid this apocalypse, something we have never done, something that it is not in the economic interest of multinational corporations with interlocking boards and interests who control most governments in the industrial world, and we probably are going to condemn millions if not billions of people to death, as well as most of the other species on the planet by simply failing to act.

    Hollywood doesn't have the guts to tell the real story of the looming apocalypse.  It is so much easier to blame aliens, or a madman super villian and fix the problem by shooting things.

    •  Not all that simple. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      defluxion10, SuWho

      The world was on a hair-trigger where basically an errant gunshot across the Berlin Wall might set off a cascade of events leading to the end of civilization within anywhere from days to minutes.  If something like the Chelyabinsk meteor had happened at any point in the '50s, '60s, and probably '70s anywhere within the main territories of either superpower, nuclear holocaust would have been likely.  I'd much rather face the complexity and heavy-lifting of dealing with climate change than living under that Sword of Damocles every minute of every day.

      Now, we are facing planetary annihilation by our own hands and it is not simple, we can't simply refrain from pushing the button.
      The problem with movie depictions is not that they're not willing to show disastrous climate change - it's that they're not willing to show it as the real epic story it is, or show people dealing constructively and intelligently with it.  They just show fantasy disasters like The Day After Tomorrow, and either deal with it through magic bullshit or just revert to primitive societies.  And because people are so used to stupid post-apocalypse movies, they can't take it seriously.  It's a subject ripe for a mini-series.
      Hollywood doesn't have the guts to tell the real story of the looming apocalypse.
      But they have and continue to do so - they just refuse to show it credibly, constructively, and compelling because everything is a stupid action movie.

      Democracy is a habit, not a circumstance.

      by Troubadour on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:17:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what if is great (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpecialKinFlag, Kevskos, DuzT, SuWho

        for science fiction, but it really isn't what was or did happen, because in 1962, two relatively rational entities were facing each other knowing it meant the end of the world to over react, and both their populations knew it, too.  The movies dealt with that reality fairly well.  MAD was the name because people understood the reality.

        Now it is not even acknowledged publicly.  I think that because you say people are dealing with it constructively and intelligently is giving too much credit for too little over the last 42 years since 1962.   We've moved past so many tipping points, we've wasted so much time.  What is being done now, may in fact be too little too late, and is absolutely too little given the situation.

        Optimism is a great thing, but pushing fiction for reality, in these circumstances, not so great.

        •  Science fiction isn't supposed to be (0+ / 0-)

          fatalistic.  It's totally useless and masochistic if it is, and defeats the entire societal principle of science as a progressive endeavor.  

          Democracy is a habit, not a circumstance.

          by Troubadour on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:12:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  science fiction (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jabney, DuzT, CayceP

            is whatever the author sees, it is not a constrained art form which must always be optimistic, always be the good guys wear white hats and win.

            Science is actually fairly neutral in many ways, and ought to be.   It should be a search for facts, to understand how things work and what is.  But it has always been corrupted by those who would avoid the facts, and its products misused to destroy rather than succor.

            I prefer optimistic stories, morality tales in which good triumphs over evil.   But I don't think anyone can or should dictate that science fiction is always optimistic.

    •  Thanks. Environmental degradation is what I was (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jfromga, Kevskos, mookins

      alluding to.
      It's this slow-motion disaster that clear thinking people everywhere can see happening and yet have very little power to do anything about.

      I can see Canada from my house. No, really, I can.

      by DuzT on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:20:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can think of any number of constructive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DuzT

        ways that environmental issues could be addressed in movie and TV science fiction, although it would have be in "War and Peace" level multi-generational epics showing what is possible and how we can both find new opportunities and respond to disasters intelligently.  

        Democracy is a habit, not a circumstance.

        by Troubadour on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:14:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site