I saw the Hunger Games this afternoon. If you're interested, you should read the book first. I'm one who doesn't like to have the movie in my head when I read a book; I'd rather let the author's words create the vision.
Ever notice, though, how almost all SF is dystopic or, at least dysfunctional? Babylon V had the Earth governed by a dictatorship that chose the wrong side of the Second Shadow War. Farscape had a military dictatorship attempting to impose its view of order on other planets. Even Star Trek, which in its inception wanted to show a rosy future, had war after war and one species after another trying to obliterate humanity.
The reason is pretty easy to see: Peace and prosperity are boring. There is, however, drama in conflict. Whether the conflict is a teenager trying to outwit a repressive government or an astronaut trying to stay alive or warring spaceships on the edge of the galaxy, it doesn't seem to matter.
SF portays the future as being pretty gritty. I have a bad feeling that, in fifty or a hundred years, the times will be far meaner than we may imagine.
Abandon Those Photos And Start Over
17 minutes ago
2 comments:
Generally SF has earth getting overcrowded and
even if the resource problems are managed space and what we call lifestyle is compacted. Caves of Steel" and many others come to mind.
While Firefly was maybe a bit off.. In many ways if we colonize other planets it will be the wild west as all law will be local as anything more than a few days travel by any means being horse, stage coach, train or space ship is too far to make law able to reach out.
I'd expect to see things like circuit judges
and all like Deadwood.
Eck!
I decided to read the books before going to the movie, and I haven't forgiven Rowlings for making movies before the end of Harry Potter, because the actors never caught up with the characters in my mind. Yep, conflict does make for drama, and I was hoping "The Road" had really ugly actors playing the parts, but it didn't.
Post a Comment