YouTube link here. Again, no kitties. Why have they forsaken us??
Part 2 of 2. This week, it’s the movies and the video games. But then, thanks to Jas, it becomes a conversation all about privilege, feminism, and Barbie. Very exciting! Enjoy!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
“If it popped out of her, it’s the air”
Was that a fart joke?
I mean, probably, right? 🙂
Science Fiction vs. Fantasy:
I thought a lot of what you all were saying to distinguish the two made sense, but I got to thinking of a more general distinction.
I think the distinction has to do with where the power to interact with the world, or change the world, comes from. If the power comes from something inherent in individuals and/or the natural world and that power only changes in an evolutionary or developmental way, then it is a fantasy. If the power comes from something mechanical/technological and that power changes through technological development, then its Science Fiction. I’d say that Star Wars is, at heart, a fantasy because the key source of power is the Force. Star Trek is primarily Science Fiction (even if the science is not real) even though it will have occasional episodes that veer into fantasy. The episodes that revolve around beings that seem god-like in some way are the ones I’m thinking of.
Barbie: I still haven’t seen! I have been more than usually busy and actually haven’t been to a movie at a theatre since March, I think.
The person who wrote the article was, I think, reacting somewhat to the glorification of the movie as a Feminist Masterpiece! But there were things about the critique that I thought depended too much on subjective reactions (like how charming one found Ryan Gosling’s performance). I will say thought that I find the phenomenon of how a particular actor can change the messaging of a tv series interesting. I wrote about this a bit in an article I did about Buffy (the actor being James Marsters). The one point that I thought might especially have some merit was the criticism of the “You can be whatever you want to be” message. I agree with what Tony said here, that perhaps what is going on is that we are supposed to find that message overly sentimental. I didn’t get what you both were saying about it being technically true. I don’t see how that is true in any sense in the same way that I don’t see how the American Dream can be seen as true in any sense.
Ooh! I really like your definitions of fantasy and sci-fi! I’ma steal those!
We were probably being a bit glib with saying ‘you can technically be whatever you want,’ I suppose. I guess I meant it in the literal “there’s no law stopping you from being President” kind of thing. And it’s all supported by the statistically insignificant number of people who become something/someone that theoretically should’ve been out of our reach.
But yes, we kind of glossed over the fact that, though it’s often not explicated, there are lots of unscalable walls for various members of society.
Did that make sense? I just woke up.