Your Personal Pop Culture Utopia timeline

[xie323]

Poorly done is the Key, the characther have to want real redemption from himself, Zuko as example, doubt the cause and what he really wanted, and learned what Honor really was, other are just there or the japanese example of 'defeat means friendship', i know you're a Reylo fan but Kylo wants to be Evil, let him, if at the end he learned was a stupid before die, all was his fault, he have all the chance to be good and evil..and always choose evil

I'm gonna say that I'm no longer a Reylo. I changed the opening post because I thought that was a bit of an old shame for me. I was a Reylo back when I was lets say not in a nice place wrt social justice issues(I was that "let's have socialism first" before we deal with social justice issues sort of obnoxious berniebro) and part of it was driven by, admittly, an rather immature desire to "own the libs" in the wake of Sanders losing to Clinton due to a large part of the arguements against it being "Reylo harms Rey as a character and reduces her to prop up a evil man" reminding me of extreme pro-HRC arguements on the basis of her gender and her being first female star wars protag/first female president respectively. As I became much more supportive of women and minority rights and less of a obnoxious brocialist, I have become aware of some of the problematic implications Reylo might have and became more critical. However, if JJ actually goes to that place, I won't spend time dissing Episode IX the same way RLM fanboys did with the prequels and the far right influenced "Fandom Menace" did with TLJ and the ST as a whole.

However I am still pro Bendemption and feel that it wouldn't be a strong end to the saga if Kylo dies full on evil(if he dosen't get redeemed but gets a Azula, Maul, or Killmonger style alas poor villain sort of death/sendoff I would accept it more, but if he goes pure evil it's gonna suck for me unless they retcon Reywalker or Reysolo as canon). It's up to the author if Kylo wants redemption AND the journey that matters. Like every villain that gets redeemed, even the poorly written ones, end up wanting redemption or feeling remorse. It's the journey to that point that matters and right now, his arc is admittedly all over the place that I can't 100% criticize Bendemption. Through that all over the placeness in both the EU and the movies, along with the fact that Kylo Ren emerged in a very turbulent political period with what's essentially at best a really vile form of ultraconservativism backed by even worse political ideas or at worst outright neo-fascism on the rise across America and Europe may have added fuel to the fire and gotten people to misinterpret the FO as an allegory for this rising ultranationalism.

There are a shit ton of villains that reject redemption for episodes but still turn good in the end that isn't poorly done. Also with Palpatine back as main villain, unless we get another red herring, redemption is very likely.

Star Wars anyways has enough 1000% irredeemable cackling villains as it is. Don't really need one more.

And can we discuss this over PMs instead? I didn't even bring up Star Wars before you did, I alluded to it sorta but I didn't want to bring it up and this thing is better discussed over PMs because it's gonna go in circles and eat up the thread.

The grey/grey morality thing I think is more because of the cyclical nature of pop culture, regsrding deonstruction and reconstruction. Most people have gotten sick of grey/grey morality and black/grey morality or don't like the cynical implications, much how white/black morality is dismissed as naive or two-dimensional

Alternatively we could use it to present both sides as somewhat sympathetic rather than going into WH40K everyone sucks territory, and if everyone indeed sucks(let's say both factions are highly corrupt) something is done about that suckiness. I do think rising far-right does play a role through. Like Stephen Universe has gotten flak for "Nazi apologia" due to how it portrayed things, and the Gundam fandom has been accused of being a source of Fascist apologia because of how it presented both the Federation and Zeon as scummy but making the soldiers on the Zeon side very sympathetic despite the genocidal leadership.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

A few regarding Hanna-Barbera:

- The MGM Animation Studio is not closed down for another few years. Which allows Bill and Joe to get more cash for TV projects.
- TV programs are largely better animated thanks to said budget. The result is more like the stuff used in 101 Dalmatians, but it's better than OTL.
- Only a handful of characters are actually used. There are few copy-cats at all. The most prominent characters are still around though.
- Wait Til Your Father Gets Home is better received, and manages to run for several more seasons. In fact, the show creates a trend of animated sitcoms long before The Simpsons did.
- Productions of the 1980s are not as reliant on pre-existing franchises.

 

[Skallagrim]

Okay, I have a lot of opinions on this. A lot of those have already been mentioned, but nobody has yet balked at seconding ideas that were already raised before, so I'll just add my voice to the chorus here and there. Considering the absurd length of my list-of-ideas, I'm going to split this into multiple posts. Let's start with some general opinions and ideas about the media landscape.


General / "meta"

— I'd very much like it if there was a strong cultural attitude demanding consistency in characterisation and internal plot logic. Any media sinning against internal consistency (except purposely non-serious ones) should be punished by losing busloads of fans. This forces creators to take both characterisation and world-building very seriously.

— In all forms of media (film, television, publishing, music) there should be a huge taboo against "executive meddling". Stipulations preventing it should be part of basically every contract. Only when a creator is really going off the rails can it be condoned.

— The relatively recent OTL tendency to aggressively politicise fictional media doesn't evolve. The general attitude should be that socio-political themes ought to be timeless ones; anvilicious references to present-day real-world politics are definitely not done, and are considered gaudy/tasteless.

— In fact, whoever first said "all art is political" should ideally have choked to death while trying to say something that imbecilic, and shortly thereafter, someone should instead have famously declared that "art and politics are by definition different provinces; when something is political, it is no longer art". And that should have become the dominant cultural attitude.

— Because of the less politicised nature of media and the strong attitude condemning censorships, we see the appearance of (for instance) non-straight characters earlier, and without any drama. It just happens, and people don't make a big fuss about it.

— A strong aversion to censorship evolves. No "moral guardians", no age-ratings for media (parent are encouraged to make their own decisions about what their children are ready for), there's never a Motion Picture Production Code, nor a Comics Code Authority, etc. etc.

— In fact, the Motion Picture Association of America never comes into being.

— The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does come into being, but is a lot less bitchy about stuff like the exact way your credits should be organised etc. — with the result that certain films are eligible for Academy Awards that were excluded in OTL.

— The Disney-pushed copyright extensions are never passed. In fact, copyright goes right back to the terms of the Copyright Act of 1790: a 14-year term, renewable for one additional 14-year term (but only if the author is alive at the end of the first 14 years). All future extensions of copyright are explicitly blocked. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act certainly isn't passed, nor anything else covering even remotely the same ground.

— The hidden culture of sexual predation in Hollywood and the whole film-and-television milieu is exposed much earlier. Various perpetrators get long jail sentences, and serious rules and mechanisms to prevent this kind of thing get put in place.

— Hollywood gets a particularly bad name for a while, after its hidden culture of abuse and exploitation is revealed. As a result, the American film industry ends up being less centred on Los Angeles. There is greater diversity of content and setting as a result, and there are more, smaller film studios than in OTL.

— In film and television, subtitles become the standard globally. Dubbing completely fades out of existence.

— The practice of "Dawson casting" isn't as prevalent, and people at least close to the correct age are typically cast. Hopefully, this leaves teenage viewers with a bit less of an absurdly distorted idea of what people their age ought to look like.

— The use of CGI is less wide-spread, with practical effects staying more widely used than in OTL.

— There's a bit of a bias against superfluous sequels and re-makes. Basically, these things are only welcomed when they offer something that's both good and new. Endless parades of sequels are widely scorned, and uninspired re-makes don't find an audience.

— In music, there's a strong stigma against auto-tuning.

— In gaming, the OTL predominance of online multiplayer games should be radically reduced, in favour of a strong dedication to excellent and extensive single-player campaigns. In particular, there should be more classical adventure games (ideally, 2D animation and point-and-click should stay popular in that genre).

— As far as online games are concerned; pay-to-win, over-reliance on DLC, and the whole concept of the "loot-box" never come into existence.


...All of that should already bring us a lot closer to my idea of a pop-cultural utopia. In future posts, I will go into specific examples of works and franchises that could have been a lot better, in my opinion.

 

[Nivek]

The general attitude should be that socio-political themes ought to be timeless ones

That is very hard to impossible, that is why the flintstones might be so timeless, as rarely touch that in their post modernism allusions

 

[Skallagrim]

That is very hard to impossible, that is why the flintstones might be so timeless, as rarely touch that in their post modernism allusions

I don't think it's that all difficult, really. Let me refer to Star Wars, which I really like. In the OT, the political themes are very general/universal, and mostly exist in the background. In the prequels, it's generally noted that bringing politics more to the foreground hurt the story-telling (in Episode I), and we see that there are some overt allusion to political issues of the time (especially in episode III), in that Palpatine's actions were deliberately supposed to resemble those of George W. Bush a bit (compare the Chanellor's special powers to the PATRIOT Act). We also see this in tie-in books written at the time: Matt Stover refused to put in allusions to contemporary real-world politics, and it worked great. Luceno put some extra resemblances between Palpatine and Bush into his books, and I think that they ultimately suffer for it. They're otherwise great, but those on-the-nose allusions make his work somehow smaller and less immersive. And then there are the new sequel films, which have an even more pronounced socio-political "message", and I find that this is to the detriment of the story.

Essentially, I think it would be artisticially wiser if, when it came to politics, works of art were generally more like the OT and Stover's books, and less like the sequels and Luceno's books. Trying to force contemporary political messages into fictional universes almost invariably makes the final product weaker, and (after a few years) at bit dated and preachy. When choosing between message and story, always pick story. If you want to prioritise the message... just stop writing a story, and write a pamphlet instead.


(P.S. -- In the case of Star Wars, the political messaging that I'd prefer not to have been there is vaguely left-wing/progressive, but note that this sort of thing can be applied universally. For instance, what I have written above could also be titled "Things that someone should really have told Ayn Rand"...)

 

[Nivek]

prequels, it's generally noted that bringing politics more to the foreground hurt the story-telling (in Episode I), and we see that there are some overt allusion to political issues of the time (especially in episode III), in that Palpatine's actions were deliberately supposed to resemble those of George W. Bush a bit (compare the Chanellor's special powers to the PATRIOT Act).

He was a textbook hitler, even the same title too

 

[Skallagrim]

He was a textbook hitler, even the same title too

Well, sure-- that's obvious. Also Caesar/Augustus. And the fact that we can refer to such disparate comparisons shows how general and universal that angle is. My point is that when they started putting in some more blatant references to contemporary politics, that was (and remains) a lot less universal. I mean... Lucas himself said that his inspiration for Palpatine was not Hitler, but Nixon. Yet you wouldn't know that from watching the OT. Compare Luceno, who copped to lifting a lot of Bush-era/war-of-terror comparisons for his portrayal of the Palpatine government. When you read his book, you would know that. In fact, you can't miss it.

In my opinion -- and that's of course a personal opinion -- one of these is doing it right and the other is doing it wrong. So in my (again, personal) pop-cultural utopia, things would generally be done the way I feel is right, and not the way I feel I wrong.

Anyway, the point was that you figured it'd be hard to make that happen, but I referred to some examples of it being done the way I prefer. I still don't think it would be particularly difficult, in a practical sense. It mostly entails that creators would have to work a bit harder to keep their real-world opinions on current politics out of their works of fiction.


---


Since I've brought up Star Wars, I'll just take the opportunity to get my specific points about some works of mr. George Lucas (most of which are indeed of the Star Wars variety) squared away. Once that's done, I'll give it a rest for the day and post further ideas about other works/franchises at some other time.


Return of the Jedi

— The film opens with Luke on Dagobah, completing his own light-sabre. This indicates he's been there for a while, training, with Yoda teaching him how to be a Jedi. Then Yoda dies, just as in the actual film. It's made explicit that Yoda feels that he is being called to become one with the Force, and that it is now time for a new generation to assume its place of responsibility in the galaxy. He tells Luke that he has nothing left to teach him (rather than Luke "needing no more teaching"), and implies that the wise never stop learning. Now it is his time to learn of a greater mystery. Luke, his training now complete, departs from Dagobah.

— The film then shows us the Imperials preparing for a committee of the Grand Moffs with Vader and the Emperor. The Rebels have become more bold since the destruction of the Death Star, and it is time to set in motion a final campaign to wipe the Rebellion away completely. The Emperor is willing to allocate all means necessary to this, and will hear the suggestions of the Grand Moffs at a secret conference in a space station near Kashyyyk.

— No second Death Star is at any point involved.

— We then cut to Tatooine. I'd tighten up the whole Palace sequence a bit, so that it drags on a little less. In particular, Jabba's 'court' and all of the bizarre figures there can easily be toned down. Make it less 'The Muppets', and a bit more serious. No silly musical numbers!

— After the rescue of Han, our heroes go directly to rendez-vous with the Rebel fleet, where Mon Mothma tells them about the Imperial conference. Thanks to many brave Bothans who gave their lives to get this information to the Rebels, they now have a chance to strike a critical blow at the Empire: killing their entire high command in one fell swoop. It's a unique chance, and all the more vital because if the Imperials instead get the time to prepare a greater anti-rebel campaign, the Rebel Alliance will almost certainly be destroyed.

— Chewie can get our heroes in with the Wookiees on Kashyyyk, where they must destroy the shield generator protecting the space station where the Imperial leaders are gathered.

— Therefore, no Ewoks but Wookiees in this film. Thing go largely the same, with Luke going to confront his father after telling Leia the truth. Palpatine gloats to him that the whole conference isn't a meeting to decide on a strategy against the Rebels: it is the strategy, because it's a trap. The shield generator is still up, and an Imperial war-fleet jumps out of hyperspace to ambush the Rebels. A massive space battle ensues. This plays out pretty much as in the actual film, with Han, Leia and the Wookiees eventually destroying the shield generator. The throne room duel plays out exactly the same, with Luke taking his father's body back to the surface (after getting off the station just in time). The Empire's high command is utterly vanquished, leaving our heroes hopeful for the future. I'd otherwise keep the ending just as it is (except with Wookiees instead of Ewoks).


Star Wars (misc)

— Some deleted scenes from ANH are kept in (particularly the scene that sets up Luke's friendship with Biggs, which also gives us a bit of background on the oppressive nature of the Empire's regime.)

— Lucas never goes back to change stuff needlessly. He creates polished versions of the OT, but he doesn't go about adding all sorts of crap to them.

— A better prequel trilogy is made in 1996-1999-2002. There are people involved who stand up to Lucas where needed. The prequels give us a convincing and captivating tragedy. CGI is largely avoided, plotting and pacing improved, dialogue vastly improved. Most characters (mostly played by different actors) are aged up a bit, to more closely match what we know their ages to be as per the OT. As a side-effect, undue YA emo-ness is avoided.

— The weirder/weaker entries to the EU are avoided, because a group of general editors (tasked with guarding quality and continuity) is appointed early on. The EU as a whole is a bit more coherent and consistent, and generally gets a bit more respect because of that. Although Lucas has the power to overwrite what he doesn't like, virtually nobody questions the EU's canonicity.

— With the success of the ATL prequel films, a lot of EU stuff written post-1999 is butterflied. There certainly won't be any LotF or FotJ. (As an aside: both Denning and Traviss are kept far, far away from the franchise.)

— In 2000, we get a TV mini-series of maybe six hour-long episodes, based on the first two arcs (Shadow Academy and Diversity Alliance) of Young Jedi Knights.

— A sequel trilogy is made in 2005-2008-2011, starring the characters/actors of the aforementioned mini-series in the lead roles. The main OT cast appears (all in good health during this time-frame) in supporting roles. The story begins in 29 ABY, and is in many ways a re-worked ATL version of the NJO story. The conclusion of this trilogy ends the "main saga", and a rule is put in place that any works taking place after it must be set at least 100 years later (and that during that intervening century, the galaxy was at peace).


The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles

— Lucas gets more push-back regarding his weird obsession with having a child protagonist, and the series focuses exclusively on Indy as a young adult.

— The episodes are made and aired chronologically, spanning the period 1916-1920.

— There should be either eight 45-minute episodes per year, or four 90-minute television films, for a total of either 32 or 16. If we go with the latter, the series should be designed on that basis from the start: no later "editing together" of shorter episodes to make cobbled-together television films.

 

[Nivek]

For me would be Locomotion never die or got buy by Sony, so we got a permanent anime channel in latinamerica, maybe Sony that way is more serious with animax getting Locomotion and Animax facing each other and getting more subbed and dubbed anime in hispanic countries(and brazil too)

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

None of the Disney live-action remakes are made unless the improve the story. Like Cinderella or The Jungle Book.

 

[xie323]

— The relatively recent OTL tendency to aggressively politicise fictional media doesn't evolve. The general attitude should be that socio-political themes ought to be timeless ones; anvilicious references to present-day real-world politics are definitely not done, and are considered gaudy/tasteless.

— In fact, whoever first said "all art is political" should ideally have choked to death while trying to say something that imbecilic, and shortly thereafter, someone should instead have famously declared that "art and politics are by definition different provinces; when something is political, it is no longer art". And that should have become the dominant cultural attitude.

— Because of the less politicised nature of media and the strong attitude condemning censorships, we see the appearance of (for instance) non-straight characters earlier, and without any drama. It just happens, and people don't make a big fuss about it.

I wanted to talk to you about your misguided(imo) opinions on media politicization on the make ST better thread but this is a more recent thread to do so.

The thing is that media is inherently political, and even when they aren't written deliberately to make a point, there will be those that try to invoke death of the author and make it so. IMO the sequel trilogy wasn't inherently politicized apart from Canto Blight, and even then it's more of a blanket "capitalism and the military industrial complex was bad" than specifically naming names and making it in your face. People instead chose to view the ST in the lens of their politics.

Sure Holdo had pink hair, but the character wasn't necessarily written to be this lesbian sjw character or somehow representative of themes within gender studies. Also nowhere did JJ Abrams or Rian Johnson claim that "The First Order is the alt right". That was a label assigned to the First Order by tumblr activists that chose to view the ST as antifa vs. alt right. When JJ Abrams compared the first order to a group, it's a hypothetical Nazi hideout in Argentina that managed to somehow grow strong(drawing on a "timeless/historical evil everyone knows is bad rather than the modern day alt-right pepe memeing trumpist"), and Lindsay Ellis went further in her analysis and claimed the First Order is a vague vanilla pastiche style of fascism than any sort of commentary on the alt right or even Nazism, drawing more on aesthetics than ideology or being written in a specific way to make a "go antifa go" comment.

There's also the fact that Kylo Ren was never marketed or presented as this "mass murdering school shooter that's in league with the the SW equivalent alt right". JJ Abrams just marketed him as another Star Wars villain and even reflected on him kinda sympathetically and Rian Johnson went on and on about how he wanted to humanize Kylo in TLJ as a relatable character and how he finds Vader a worse villain than Kylo atrocity wise. He disagreed with the crowd that viewed this in antifa-vs-pepethefrog terms. Now obviously whether Kylo is actually sympathetic as presented, or he either fails to be sympathetic at all or the current political discourse makes sympathy for Kylo impossible without veering dangerously close to fascist or alt right apologia is a whole other can of worms that I'd rather not talk about, but he was never presented by either JJ nor RJ as this goose stepping incel school shooter wearing a MAGA hat. Instead, it's the people that chose to believe the ST was this "antifa vs. alt-right" flick that chose to use that projection of the FO=MAGA to color their perception of Kylo. You can't blame ST for catering to the tumblr crowd when their interpretations have never been the official point the authors want to make at all.

Star Wars ST's politicization by both antifa and the alt right that condemns it wasn't the only time where a media was politicized beyond the intentions of the writers. Daenerys heel turn in Game of Thrones has been interpreted as anti revolutionary, anti neocon/anti imperialist, anti tankie depending on what side of the spectrum one is. I've seen people on the libertarian side say it's anti authoritarian, and people on the left that hated this turn say it's anti revolution, while people on the left that found this turn justified claiming it was anti neocon/anti US imperialism, there was even one leftist on twitter that claimed this was anti-tankie/Stalinist. The Japanese anime Voltes V was banned in the Philippines for excessive violence--fast forward a few years and it became a symbol of resistance to the Marcos regime.

And you can't really blame people for choosing to view media or consume it in a certain way. Their own lived experiences might color their perception of reality. Maybe some people are politicized because they see it as a means of fighting back against those that wronged them.

It should be also noted that not every work of fiction making a political point over timeless ones is bad or not as good as "timeless" ones. Just look at animal farm and 1984, they're seen as classics for being political allegories by almost everyone outside the extreme tankie left or some diehard anti-imperialists. Black Panther had a really blatant sociopolitical message and it's seen as one of the best MCU movies of all time. The Twilight Zone was created by Rod Sterling as a way to deal with political issues.

Also hyperpoliticized anime happen in Japan all the time(usually with a nationalist bent) and not all of them faded into obscurity because of that, in fact we have some masterpieces that are very much political. I think Tomino used Zeon to critique Japan's war record and LOGH had a "authoritarian is not always bad" message, and Gundam is seen as a classic and so is LOGH. A lot of classic Japanese media(ie: Godzilla) have strong anti nuclear messages too.

Lastly, a depoliticized environment where LGBTQ rights are not being constantly pushed by the left won't lead to early acceptance of LGBTQ characters. Sailor Moon was for instance censored for including an LGBTQ villain(gender for that character was changed) by english dubs.

 

[darklordoftech]

Legally-enforced media ratings, mandatory V-Chip inclusion, and FCC censorship are ruled unconstitutional ASAP.

 

[unclepatrick]

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles

The Episodes of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles were less Indy meeting interesting people in History and more a Cliffhanger series in the style of the Old Republic Studio Serials.

 

[unclepatrick]

I mention this over on another Thread.
While I think that Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars Film, It does have one problem.
Luke try to lift his X Wing out of the Swamp with the Force and fails. Luke complains that it too big.
Yoda lifts the X Wing out of the Swamp with the Force and puts it on the Ground saying "Size Matter Not".
By doing that, Yoda give Luke a way out with out having to learn anything.

What I, instead Luke try to lift the X Wing out of the Swamp. He fails. Yoda lifts it, "Size Matter Not"
But then instead of putting the X Wing down on Solid Ground, Yoda puts it back in the Swamp and it sinks back down.
Yoda tells Luke, ' When you are ready, You will do'.
The Next Time we see Luke, he has a big Smile on his face and is cleaning the X Wing.
He has learned to use the Force.
It not just Yoda giving Luke a way out.

 

[Skallagrim]

I wanted to talk to you about your misguided(imo) opinions on media politicization on the make ST better thread but this is a more recent thread to do so.

Your comments are clearly heartfelt and deliberated, yet I must admit that they do not convince me. In the end, it boils down to your clear belief that politicised media are a good thing -- or at least can be a good thing and typically are -- and that is I position that I find misguided. Of rather: I simply do not share it. I prefer art (in the broadest sense possible) largely devoid of politics, and certainly divorced from contemporary real-world politics. I prefer my messages to be timeless, and I prefer them to transcend the political (which I often find vaguely distasteful at best).

So while you may like and prefer whatever suits you, my hypothetical utopia contains a general pop culture that isn't politicised.

The thing is that media is inherently political

There we have it, don't we? You believe this, I do not. I think that themes that transcend politics will certainly have implicit political dimensions, but that these will (in works of quality) be abstract; relating to universal principles, rather than crudely attempting to "say something" about contemporary issues in the real world. Every rule has its exceptions, but in the vast majority of cases, attempts to be "topical" or "relevant" are (in my view) forced, outright pathetic and greatly detrimental to the art itself.

Just tell the story. Let the people fill in their own ideals. Don't hand them your politics. It does them a disservice, and it hurts your art.

and even when they aren't written deliberately to make a point, there will be those that try to invoke death of the author and make it so.

(...) wasn't the only time where a media was politicized beyond the intentions of the writers. (...) And you can't really blame people for choosing to view media or consume it in a certain way. Their own lived experiences might color their perception of reality. Maybe some people are politicized because they see it as a means of fighting back against those that wronged them.

There certainly are people who "read into it", and that is their business. Note that I didn't even mention this tendency at any point. I'd prefer it if people were a little less inclined to project in this manner (mostly because the more radical opinions tend to be so irritating)... but its their business. It usually only limits and distorts their own experience, and doesn't injure me.

IMO the sequel trilogy wasn't inherently politicized apart from Canto Blight, and [list of points, snipped]

You seem to ignore that the creators involved have eagerly proclaimed these films to be political/policised. You seem to rely exclusively on the views of mr. Abrams, who has refused to enter that political debate. You decline to reference Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson (et al.) who have been rather different in their statements and their attitude.

I don't really think this is the threat for an extensive discussion of these films (again). Suffice to say, key people involved in their creation openly and proudly admit to their deliberate politicised nature. Your idea that the politicisation is just the result of fans "reading into it" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. People saw what was actually put in there, and had opinions about it. In many cases, hysterical opinions (of one sort or another).

I've been working on a fan project (an analysis and re-write of the sequels), and I want to stress that most of the flaws I see in these films aren't political issues, by the way. But many of the flaws do seem to trace back to the desire to craft explicitly "topical" films (as opposed to timeless ones). Mainly because this desire constrained and limited the story-telling. In my experience, that is almost always the case. Like I wrote earlier in this thread: when creating a work of fiction, tell a good story. There can be a message, but the story comes first. If you want the message to come first, write a pamphlet instead.

It should be also noted that not every work of fiction making a political point over timeless ones is bad or not as good as "timeless" ones. Just look at animal farm and 1984, they're seen as classics for being political allegories by almost everyone outside the extreme tankie left or some diehard anti-imperialists. Black Panther had a really blatant sociopolitical message and it's seen as one of the best MCU movies of all time. The Twilight Zone was created by Rod Sterling as a way to deal with political issues.

Again, I must strongly disagree. When I compare Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, I find that the former is somewhat weakened by its overly on-the-nose references to certain real-world politicians, whereas the latter has a far stronger claim to universalism and is a stronger work. Black Panther is, in my opinion, a mediocre film that only got most of the praise it did because of its (actually pretty superficial and rather incoherent) politicised elements. A more polished story and a massive reduction of the blatant political chest-thumping would have resulted in a much better film. As for The Twilight Zone... I will note that I'm not alone in observing that the more universally themed stories have generally stood the test of time best, whereas the more blatant contemporary messages have been more weathered by time. (Compare this, also, to the 2019 "reboot", which relies to a much greater extent on "current politics", and which I consider to be extremely cringy as a result. Even when I agree with the politics!)

hyperpoliticized anime

I can say little about this, because the world of anime is totally beyond my experience.

Lastly, a depoliticized environment where LGBTQ rights are not being constantly pushed by the left won't lead to early acceptance of LGBTQ characters.

Once more, I must disagree in my assessment. You see, in my view of the world, the notion that sexuality is in any way a "political" issue is in itself an absurdity. The fact that you are trying to defend one side in the politicised debate on this matter perfectly demonstrates that you are looking at it from within a political paradigm-- one that I much prefer to step outside, whenever possible. Politicisation itself is the whole problem in the first place, and without it, your concerns would evaporate.

Sexuality should never have been subject to politics. That is my view of it. And in my utopia, pop culture (and culture in general) doesn't approach the matter through a political lens. Therefore, there would very much be an earlier "acceptance", because it would be divorced from people's inane political hang-ups. If it's not politicised... why would you even get upset? That brings me back to my core thesis: politicising a thing almost invariably tarnishes that thing, and art is better when we keep it elevated well above the filthy habits of poltical posturing.

 

[oreocruncher]

Once more, I must disagree in my assessment. You see, in my view of the world, the notion that sexuality is in any way a "political" issue is in itself an absurdity. The fact that you are trying to defend one side in the politicised debate on this matter perfectly demonstrates that you are looking at it from within a political paradigm-- one that I much prefer to step outside, whenever possible. Politicisation itself is the whole problem in the first place, and without it, your concerns would evaporate.

Sexuality should never have been subject to politics. That is my view of it. And in my utopia, pop culture (and culture in general) doesn't approach the matter through a political lens. Therefore, there would very much be an earlier "acceptance", because it would be divorced from people's inane political hang-ups. If it's not politicised... why would you even get upset? That brings me back to my core thesis: politicising a thing almost invariably tarnishes that thing, and art is better when we keep it elevated well above the filthy habits of poltical posturing.

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be issues with LGBT characters in media...
But we don't live in an ideal world...
For quite a number of people, the very existence of LGBT people is in of itself a political statement...

Even when there's no (at least canonical) LGBT characters, there are media works that get condemnation over the "gay agenda", like SpongeBob...
I mean, what basis is there to politicize SpongeBob?!

 

[Skallagrim]

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be issues with LGBT characters in media...
But we don't live in an ideal world...
For quite a number of people, the very existence of LGBT people is in of itself a political statement...

Even when there's no (at least canonical) LGBT characters, there are media works that get condemnation over the "gay agenda", like SpongeBob...
I mean, what basis is there to politicize SpongeBob?!

It is a sad thing indeed. Of course, remember that this thread here quite literally has "utopia" in the title, so I think I'm justified in portraying a situation that I find ideal, despite knowing it's not likely to just have occurred in a realistic ATL.

 

[oreocruncher]

It is a sad thing indeed. Of course, remember that this thread here quite literally has "utopia" in the title, so I think I'm justified in portraying a situation that I find ideal, despite knowing it's not likely to just have occurred in a realistic ATL.

It's never going to happen IMO...
PTA groups always have existed, as well as censor authorities...

 

[Skallagrim]

It's never going to happen IMO...
PTA groups always have existed, as well as censor authorities...

Well, in general sense, people are always going to find ways to be obnoxious about things. I have no illusions about that. But again: ideals do have merit on their own terms. Or at least, I believe that to be so.


...And speaking of ideals and expectations for the future, let me divert us all right back to the actual topic. Away from Star Wars, too, and towards that other famous sci-fi franchise. Yes, I have opinions on Star Trek, too. Particularly on Deep Space Nine (my favourite part of the franchise), but assorted other opinions as well.


Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

— Remove the whole part where Sisko is an Emissary of the Prophets. Keep the Prophets much more vague and much less involved in the plot. The Bajorans believe they are supernatural, Starfleet theorises they are extradimensional beings who inhabit the wormhole, and no conclusion is ever reached. Sisko has a vision of them in the first episode, but this happens while he's in distress inside the wormhole. Was it all in his head? We're never told. But apart from being a factor in Bajoran religion (and religious politics), they don't really play a role again. Some events may occur that could be ascribed to the Prophets, but again: we're never given any proof.

— On that note: definitely no Pah-wraiths, nor demonic possessions by them. That whole plot-line should be completely cut.

— Cut out (most of) the "Ferengi episodes" and other "light-hearted" stand-alone episodes, including all that stuff with the holographic lounge singer guy. The conventional wisdom back then was that series with season-long or series-long arcs need episodes like that as "breathers". That conventional wisdom was wrong. Those kind of episodes detract from the rest of the series, and it would be stronger without such incongruent filler.

— If in any way possible, keep Terry Farrell on board for the last season. Ezri was eminently okay as late-in-the-game character replacements go, and it was handled as well as it could be, but keeping Jadzia would have been better.

— No sudden switch in Dukat's character development. (This also ties into the Pah-wraiths thing.) Dukat is evidently a monster, but the character was going somewhere. And then, it was completely turned around and the whole arc was abandoned. The way I see it, Dukat's and Damar's final arcs should be flipped. Damar crosses the moral event horizon when he kills Ziyal, so he should be the one who goes off the deep end and ultimately has to be put down like a rabid dog. Dukat should finish his arc: his daughter is killed in front of him, which confronts him with the exact kind of monstrosity he's been committing his whole life. This prompts him to take on Damar and the Dominion in an undertaking he knows to be suicidal... but which he nevertheless sets out on, because by this point he's a broken man looking for what little redemption he can get. He dies in the attempt, with the general conclusion being "he died better than he lived".

— We all know Garak was really gay for Bashir, and I'd have been fine with that being made explicit instead of just being implied about a gazillion times.

— I'd have preferred Sisko not to disappear off to a higher plane at the end. I really hate that trope, I really hate bittersweet endings, and I don't like the whole Prophets-plot to begin with. And it'd have been much nicer to see that life goes on, and that as Commander of DS9, Sisko will have his most interesting days still ahead of him now that the war is over and a new era of contact and exploration can begin... with his station as the jump-off point.


Star Trek (misc)

— Roddenberry gets some pushback on the more incoherent elements of his personal brand of utopianism, in keeping with my ideal ATL's stronger cultural desire for internal consistency. The not-quite-sensible idea of a "money-less" future is dropped altogether. It's just pointed out that replicator tech has greatly reduced the importance of scarcity, and society has grown less materialist as a result.

— The idea that religion is relatively unimportant in the future is dropped. It's never very important to the plot, but this change kills the stupid OTL pop-cultural meme that "religion is going to be obsolete in the future".

— The TOS films Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier are never made. Instead, The Wrath of Khan is made in 1979, The Search for Spock in 1982 and The Voyage Home in 1984. After that, no TOS films are made for several years, until The Undiscovered Country is made in 1991 as per OTL. This film closes off the TOS era, and Generations never gets made.

— TNG has a stronger start, because various stupid rules (i.e. "no conflict between the characters") aren't implemented to begin with.

— Also in TNG... Wesley Crusher is simply never a character in the series.

— Of the TNG films, only First Contact is made.

— Star Trek: Voyager is completely overhauled, and based on a pre-planned, multiple-season plot. Characters are given consistent motivations and characterisation, and the series greatly relies on how the various characters deal with various challenges and moral quandaries during their difficult voyage home. The series explores various views of ethics, and really pushes the limits of "Starfleet morality". Villains are better developed, and more annoying characters should just get left out entirely.

— Instead of Star Trek: Enterprise, avoid a "prequel"-setting altogether, and make a series set some time after DS9, with the major plot involving an unexpected and escalating conflict versus the Romulans. The destruction of Romulus (which may be due to the failure of a secret super-weapon programme that their own government was running) ultimately ends this conflict. That also sets the stage for the "Kelvin-verse" films, and Nimoy can appear in repeated cameos as Ambassador Spock. After two more "deconstructive" series (Voyager and Deep Space Nine), this series once again takes a very clear moral stance. Particularly one critical of militarism and in favour of dialogue and diplomacy. (In a way, it's a counterpart to the ethical murkiness of 2004's Battlestar Galactica, and the key message is that even in dark times, we have to live up to a certain standard, without compromise.)

— The "Kelvin-verse" films are made by someone who is not J.J. Abrams, and thus aren't burdened with his characteristic failings. Such as his allergy to logical consistency, his inability to understand even the most basic of physics (or even the concept of distance), and his apparent need to make Star Trek films that are just generic sci-fi action-adventure flicks and lack anything that makes them thematically recognisable as Star Trek.

— Instead of the Star Trek: Discovery that we got, create a series starring a somewhat younger Captain Pike (Anson Mount), set in the Kelvin-verse. Apparently, Pike became Captain of (a previous incarnation of) the Enterprise in 2254 (shortly before meeting Kirk after that bar fight, which occurred in 2255), and served on the Yorktown before that— possibly as Captain. So conceivably, the series could be set around 2250, with Pike as Captain of the Yorktown and Kirk (et al.) not in the picture yet.

— And besides that, you can make an ATL series in the main time-line, set after the destruction of Romulus. With most major military conflicts resolved for the time being, this series could be about exploration again, and about a variety of "smaller" stories and adventures. (Proposed name— Star Trek: Horizon.)

 

[cortz#9]

Well, in general sense, people are always going to find ways to be obnoxious about things. I have no illusions about that. But again: ideals do have merit on their own terms. Or at least, I believe that to be so.


...And speaking of ideals and expectations for the future, let me divert us all right back to the actual topic. Away from Star Wars, too, and towards that other famous sci-fi franchise. Yes, I have opinions on Star Trek, too. Particularly on Deep Space Nine (my favourite part of the franchise), but assorted other opinions as well.


Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

— Remove the whole part where Sisko is an Emissary of the Prophets. Keep the Prophets much more vague and much less involved in the plot. The Bajorans believe they are supernatural, Starfleet theorises they are extradimensional beings who inhabit the wormhole, and no conclusion is ever reached. Sisko has a vision of them in the first episode, but this happens while he's in distress inside the wormhole. Was it all in his head? We're never told. But apart from being a factor in Bajoran religion (and religious politics), they don't really play a role again. Some events may occur that could be ascribed to the Prophets, but again: we're never given any proof.

— On that note: definitely no Pah-wraiths, nor demonic possessions by them. That whole plot-line should be completely cut.

— Cut out (most of) the "Ferengi episodes" and other "light-hearted" stand-alone episodes, including all that stuff with the holographic lounge singer guy. The conventional wisdom back then was that series with season-long or series-long arcs need episodes like that as "breathers". That conventional wisdom was wrong. Those kind of episodes detract from the rest of the series, and it would be stronger without such incongruent filler.

— If in any way possible, keep Terry Farrell on board for the last season. Ezri was eminently okay as late-in-the-game character replacements go, and it was handled as well as it could be, but keeping Jadzia would have been better.

— No sudden switch in Dukat's character development. (This also ties into the Pah-wraiths thing.) Dukat is evidently a monster, but the character was going somewhere. And then, it was completely turned around and the whole arc was abandoned. The way I see it, Dukat's and Damar's final arcs should be flipped. Damar crosses the moral event horizon when he kills Ziyal, so he should be the one who goes off the deep end and ultimately has to be put down like a rabid dog. Dukat should finish his arc: his daughter is killed in front of him, which confronts him with the exact kind of monstrosity he's been committing his whole life. This prompts him to take on Damar and the Dominion in an undertaking he knows to be suicidal... but which he nevertheless sets out on, because by this point he's a broken man looking for what little redemption he can get. He dies in the attempt, with the general conclusion being "he died better than he lived".

— We all know Garak was really gay for Bashir, and I'd have been fine with that being made explicit instead of just being implied about a gazillion times.

— I'd have preferred Sisko not to disappear off to a higher plane at the end. I really hate that trope, I really hate bittersweet endings, and I don't like the whole Prophets-plot to begin with. And it'd have been much nicer to see that life goes on, and that as Commander of DS9, Sisko will have his most interesting days still ahead of him now that the war is over and a new era of contact and exploration can begin... with his station as the jump-off point.

<>

I agree with you about the Prophets and Dukat's character development and I hated the lounge singer. I also preferred Farrell.

 

[TheDimensionalWatcher]

None of the Disney live-action remakes are made unless the improve the story. Like Cinderella or The Jungle Book.

What does science fiction franchises look in the Boydverse?