Adults' obsession with science fiction causing society to become infantilised
independent.co.uk
independent.co.uk
Actually I mean romantic comedies in their entirety including all of film and literature. Your perspective evinces a strong familiarity with SF and a surface impression of recent romcoms but I could be wrong.
To me SF films are mainly about technology fetishism and the social commentary is incidental.
Wait, seriously how? Who? How many of them?
> Films used to be about challenging, emotional journeys.
Charlie Chaplin. Laurel and Hardy. Buster Keaton. John Wayne. Die Hard. Lethal Weapon. Airplane.
The World's End.
> Now we’re really not thinking about anything, other than the fact that the Hulk just had a fight with a robot.”
Yep. I took an afternoon off to treat a few people to Age of Ultron. It was awesome. Afterward, I went back to work.
I think this article can go sit right next to the nonsense about Clint Eastwood and the empty chair: "Person states opinions about society and ends up in the news because they're an actor, more at 11."
Too many, all arounds us. You wouldn't catch many 20 and 30 years old dead in something like Comic-Con 30 years ago.
>Charlie Chaplin. Laurel and Hardy. Buster Keaton. John Wayne.
Not sure how Chaplin, Keaton and John Wayne are in any way a counter-argument about films being "challenging, emotional journeys".
Something like "The Searchers" is an order of magnitude more poignant and challenging than Iron Man or Avengers. As for Chaplin, there's a reason he is taught in film school, and that is not because he was merely popular and funny.
>Die Hard. Lethal Weapon. Airplane.
Only his point wasn't that there weren't slapstick or action movies back in the day, mostly for mindless fun. Just that those kind of movies (and even more naive "action" movies) are prevalent today with the 20-40 demographic, something which wasn't the case in decades past.
BayCon has been around for 30 years. Before that, the niche interests just change -- my dad and his friends have been dressing up in 20s garb and driving 20s cars to period events since the 60s. There are Civil War re-enactments and sex clubs and costume parties and all sorts of things.
And anyway, making those things into an indictment of society at large is silly, especially when there are so many trivially easy indictments of society (like the way everyone always thinks this generation is worse than the ones before it).
> Something like "The Searchers" is an order of magnitude more poignant and challenging than Iron Man or Avengers.
Are you being disingenuous, or did you not realize you're cherry-picking here? Spaghetti Westerns and shoot-em-ups and grindhouse films and silent comedies have all occupied a place as entertainment alongside more serious films, and "serious" films, if that's what you're into, are still alive and well.
Try comparing Laurel and Hardy's "A Perfect Day" to The Avengers while comparing The Searchers to, I dunno, Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby or Interstellar or whatever your poison.
> Just that those kind of movies (and even more naive "action" movies) are prevalent today with the 20-40 demographic, something which wasn't the case in decades past.
And my point is that he's wrong, and history proves it.
This is just a classic rose-colored glasses problem, that's all. People are imagining history as they prefer to imagine it, not as it was.
This page has a picture of the nonexistent 20-40 year olds turning out to see Stan Laurel in 1947: http://www.nwemail.co.uk/memories/stan-at-queen-s-first-roya...
"When one goes, as I did recently, to a city like Chicago and finds on the South Side, a district equivalent to New York’s Harlem, a two-million-dollar building of a magnificence housing nothing but photoplays, and sees over four thousand people packed in, watching and listening and obviously amused and thrilled, he asks what all this means, and admits, unless he is a Dumbkopf, the coming in of a new order. Particularly is he amazed and bewildered when, in the same city, he witnesses a brilliant spoken farce-comedy, deftly played by distinguished actors, given before half-empty benches – yet in the very heart of the town. What is one to say in the light of such over-whelming evidence? Simply that something has entered the world, suddenly, which grips the people, appeals to them, rivets their attention, and drives them out of the old established theatres."
That was written in 1921.
Context at https://nenaghsilentfilmfestival.wordpress.com/category/frid...
Star Trek conventions and other stuff too. But all of those were a very fringe thing to what Comic-Con is today, and were not attended by late-20 or 30-somethings...
>Before that, the niche interests just change -- my dad and his friends have been dressing up in 20s garb and driving 20s cars to period events since the 60s. There are Civil War re-enactments and sex clubs and costume parties and all sorts of things.
A costume ball or a civil war re-enanactment (much less a "sex club") is not the same kind of thing as a comics/star wars/etc based pop culture that's mainstream with adults.
>This page has a picture of the nonexistent 20-40 year olds turning out to see Stan Laurel in 1947
Not sure what the relevance is. Stan Laurel was a comedian and a famous actor. Nobody said comedy and movies weren't popular with adults.
We're talking about stuff like Batman and similar superhero stuff -- which was something few 20-40 year olds cared for even in the early 80s.
Well, OK. I guess you can argue the "infantilisation" of society from the narrowest possible definition so that it represents just one particular modern fad. I guess that means you get to believe society is newly infantile up until the novelty of realistic superhero movies wears off?
My mistake, anyway. I thought there was a debate over "this fad means society is more infantile than it used to be", not, "superhero movies specifically mean that society is now infantile". The first argument is common but wrong and easily rebutted, the second one wouldn't've been worth the time.
SF, especially, hard SF, has always tackled grown up questions.
Here are a few I have recently re-read:
The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin, Saturn's Children by Charles Stross, Engines Of Light by Ken McLeod, 2001 by Arthur C. Clarke, Robots of Dawn, etc. by Isaac Asimov.
In any event, yeah, it's clear Pegg meant a certain sub-genre, comic-book science fiction. There have been plenty of extraordinary SF films over the years that are quite delicate and complex, Ex Machina not least among them.
What I do find a bit concerning is the avalanche of super hero movies. While I've been raised on a diet of French and US comics, and like a good braindead super hero movie (or even less braindead, like Watchmen), monocultures are not a good thing. More variety would be nice. But thinking they are more silly than generic Hollywood blockbusters is a weird complaint.
Folks who prefer their science fiction from the likes of Jack Womack, Cormack McCarthy or any of the masters of science fiction need not be concerned.
Move along please, there's nothing to see here.
But even if he was just a layman, and it was his opinion, that's just as good. That's what discussion is about, an exhange of opinions and arguments.
Not everything has to be "studies" and "statistics". Not everything is a Journal (nor are most "studies" and "statistics" illuminating and valid).
As soon as you write something with an authoritative sounding / study-like title, my first reaction is to judge it as one. The title/envelope matters for framing the discussion.
"Since when has comicbook superhero garbage counted as scifi?" "It still doesn't."
End of conversation.