CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Your CHUD Blogs › Greg David's Blog
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Greg David's Blog

post #1 of 38
2/10/08 at 6:11pm
Thread Starter 
A couple of people expressed interest in hearing what I'd have to say. A couple of people is all I need.

My Blog, Part One.
Reply
post #2 of 38
2/10/08 at 8:05pm
Good blog! I'm by no means an expert on genres (and sci-fi in particular), but I've always thought sci-fi to be specifically a genre of ideas. One that uses scientific concepts and possibilities to explore sides of humanity you usually couldn't. I've always hated how sci-fi and fantasy are often joined together as the same thing. When it comes to movies, yeah... it can't be helped. But obviously, a film like Star Wars isn't sci-fi. I find nothing sci-fi about it. It's just dressed up to the nines in what people consider to be sci-fi.
Reply
post #3 of 38
2/10/08 at 11:46pm
Why does the military run everything in the future? Because of, like, social commentary and stuff.

Planet of the Apes' ruling class was more of a head-in-the-sand religious type gang, but they liked their gorilla thugs. Conquest was rocking a police state, though.
Reply
post #4 of 38
2/11/08 at 12:57am
Thread Starter 
I don't count Planet of the Apes among my gripes. I love that series. In fact, I miss the kind of science fiction that movies were employing in the seventies. We don't get much of that anymore. These days, science fiction means a thinly-disguised action movie, but with advanced firearms and body armor.
Reply
post #5 of 38
2/11/08 at 1:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Good blog! I'm by no means an expert on genres (and sci-fi in particular), but I've always thought sci-fi to be specifically a genre of ideas. One that uses scientific concepts and possibilities to explore sides of humanity you usually couldn't.
We had a long interesting debate on what constitutes science fiction last year, but it has been lost forever. Looked high and low for it, finally found a link to the thread and was given a 404 page not found for my troubles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I've always hated how sci-fi and fantasy are often joined together as the same thing. When it comes to movies, yeah... it can't be helped. But obviously, a film like Star Wars isn't sci-fi. I find nothing sci-fi about it. It's just dressed up to the nines in what people consider to be sci-fi.
One of the last topics discussed in that thread was exactly what genre Star Wars fit. The idea of soft and hard sci-fi, and the allowance for a film or novel to fit into two genres seemed to bother some people.
Reply
post #6 of 38
2/11/08 at 1:22am
Interesting blog. I'd venture to say that most modern sci-fi involves the military because that's the easiest (read: laziest) way to guarantee conflict. "A group of scientists travel to an exotic world to encounter a fantastic alien race? How about a group of space marines that goes to war with a fantastic alien race?! Yeah, that's what people want to see!" That's lowest-common denominator thinking. That's hollywood thinking.

As for Roddenberry, wasn't he in the Air Force? I'm sure he had a more utopian vision of the military due not only to his service, but also the era he served. Until 'Nam, I think most Americans viewed our military as more of a benevolent protector than an evil agressor.

And I mentioned this is in my maligned Dragonslayer thread, but Star Wars is nothing but fantasy with sci-fi trappings (spacecraft, aliens, etc.)
Reply
post #7 of 38
2/11/08 at 1:34am
Thread Starter 
To me, the issue of Star Wars' genre is not so much a matter of its trapping or details, but of its intent. Lucas drew heavily on mythology, Samurai films, and fantasy archetypes to build his world. And while it's true that he also drew heavily on westerns and World War II movies, none of those things make it science fiction.
Reply
post #8 of 38
2/11/08 at 1:42am
That's what I meant, the trappings are what fools people into thinking it's sci-fi. How could something like the Force exist is true sci-fi? You'd have to explain it as...microscopic beings in our-oh, right.
Reply
post #9 of 38
2/11/08 at 1:47am
Thread Starter 
The whole midichlorian thing has been blown way out of proportion, as if it's a scientific explanation for the Force. It doesn't explain jack shit. So they allow people to communicate with the Force. It still doesn't explain what the Force is in any kind of scientific context. He only invented them so he'd have some kind of test the Jedi could run to find potential.

But far be it from me to rob the mob of their pitchforks.
Reply
post #10 of 38
2/11/08 at 1:52am
I always looked at the story of Vader, a man becoming a literal machine as he loses his humanity, to be a science fiction concept. Granted, exploring that notion may not have been Lucas original intent, so it's a moot point if we are only discussing the first film and not the completed saga. But in that first film you're still left with a group of rebels trying to bring down a tyrannical regime who are maintaining control through technology. It's not deep sci-fi, but it's science fiction nonetheless. I have no problem with calling it a sci-fi/fantasy. I recognize that when It comes to Star Wars it's classification has always been a point of contention, but there are some people from that old thread who felt strongly that Star Trek wasn't science fiction either. Just like there are some people who can't accept Alien as anything but a horror film and the sci-fi elements are just trappings. This is why that original argument went on for as long as it did.
Reply
post #11 of 38
2/11/08 at 2:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron View Post
We had a long interesting debate on what constitutes science fiction last year, but it has been lost forever. Looked high and low for it, finally found a link to the thread and was given a 404 page not found for my troubles.

One of the last topics discussed in that thread was exactly what genre Star Wars fit. The idea of soft and hard sci-fi, and the allowance for a film or novel to fit into two genres seemed to bother some people.
That was a great thread if I remember correctly. Bummer if it's lost for good. I came in towards the end, but I really dig the subject matter and discussion.

Nice blog. It could easily have been longer (ie: I would "like to know more").
Reply
post #12 of 38
2/11/08 at 2:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
That was a great thread if I remember correctly. Bummer if it's lost for good. I came in towards the end, but I really dig the subject matter and discussion.
Not sure how I missed it the first time, but I just found it:

http://chud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97958


Hello!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
Really, a lot of what makes Star Wars what it is is the essential struggle between man and machine, albeit in an allegorical way. The Empire, with its cold, emotionless, stoic and regimented ways, is representative of The Machine, while the Rebels, who are emotional, warm, bickering, flawed and loyal, represent Life. Vader, having forsaken Life to become part of The Machine, is representative of the central struggle of the entire saga. When the Rebels and the Ewoks defeat the Empire's superior technology through primitive means, it's a triumph of Life over The Machine. It presents the theme of the entire piece in an overt way, while Vader's triumph over The Machine and return to Life presents it in a more allegorical way.

So yes, technology is an important factor in Star Wars.

Thank you, Joseph Campbell.
Sorry Greg, you know I love ya.
Reply
post #13 of 38
2/11/08 at 2:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron View Post
Sorry Greg...
You flip-flopper! I'm voting for the other candidate now.


Seriously, Amph, how did you dig up that thread? Surely not via the FUBAR search function?
Reply
post #14 of 38
2/11/08 at 2:31am
I suddenly remembered it was in Drafts and Lists. I had thought it was in Movie Miscellany for some reason or another. Set the display options at the bottom of a forum to sort from the beginning and it will bring up every thread that has been started in that forum. If you remember around when it was started, it's not too hard to find. I still think some threads were lost for good, though.
Reply
post #15 of 38
2/11/08 at 2:33am
I think there's an idea that our current balance of government with freedom is not something that's sustainable forever. That advances in technology will either mean that government surveillance and warmaking will take over humanity completely, OR that faster and faster communication and travel methods will make governments a thing of the past. Nothing in-between. This is a very easy way of thinking to fall into, and the totalitarian possibility is so scary, that anything set in the future will kind of just follow it automatically unless it has a good reason not to.
Reply
post #16 of 38
2/11/08 at 4:44am
Thread Starter 
D'oh. I'm too in love with debate.

Of course, I wasn't actually making the case that Star Wars is science fiction there. I believe I was responding to someone who said that there are no technological themes to the story. Of course, that's not true. But machine themes alone do not science fiction make. If they did, Gigantor would be science fiction.

It occurs to me that this isn't in any way what I was blogging about. But hey, my next entry will probably have nothing to do with any of this anyway.
Reply
post #17 of 38
2/11/08 at 4:46am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
I think there's an idea that our current balance of government with freedom is not something that's sustainable forever. That advances in technology will either mean that government surveillance and warmaking will take over humanity completely, OR that faster and faster communication and travel methods will make governments a thing of the past. Nothing in-between. This is a very easy way of thinking to fall into, and the totalitarian possibility is so scary, that anything set in the future will kind of just follow it automatically unless it has a good reason not to.
I'm going to open my wrists now.
Reply
post #18 of 38
2/11/08 at 8:27am
Thanks for Blogging Greg, I had never really thought of the military connection til you pointed it out.

Of course now I want to abandon my favorite movie idea (it takes place on a military spaceship)......... On second thought, thanks for nothing!
Reply
post #19 of 38
2/11/08 at 8:32am
Thread Starter 
If I can crush the dreams of just one aspiring artist, then my work here is done.
Reply
post #20 of 38
2/11/08 at 8:50am
You flatter me, aspiring hack is more appropriate. Your comment about sci-fi becoming disguised action films hit pretty close to the mark for the aformentioned idea.

Dammit I designed a really cool rail gun.
Reply
post #21 of 38
2/11/08 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
If I can crush the dreams of just one aspiring artist, then my work here is done.
Just like a war-mongering government. Conspiracy!
Reply
post #22 of 38
2/11/08 at 7:47pm
I think the reason the military dominates sci-fi on TV and film has to do with with the intent of the writers, and what will sell. They are not interested in exploring the effects of technology or space exploration on human culture; they are interested, first and foremost, in creating military dramas.

The sci-fi setting then becomes an able crutch for the creator (which isn't necessarily a bad thing): you can tell your military story without being beholden to modern or historical geography or politics, and you don't have to know alot of details about real-world military procedures, heirarchy, protocol, or tactics. In lieu of alot of research, you can make stuff up.

Military dramas are popular. That's the key. It's not surprising that some of them take on sci-fi settings to allow writers to tell stories that won't fit into the real world.
Reply
post #23 of 38
2/12/08 at 6:22pm
War also offers an understandable (and often immediate) conflict and danger... ontop of the obvious one of travelling in a vaccuum protected by a manmade structure full of moving parts and combustible fuel. Sci-fi is most effectively used to explore the philosophies/fears of current society. When aren't people fighting with each other, somewhere?
Reply
post #24 of 38
2/13/08 at 5:58pm
Thread Starter 
On a totally different subject...
Reply
post #25 of 38
2/13/08 at 6:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Bravo!


"And so I ask you this one question. Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?"

EDIT: The Korean culture I was raised with was fine with corporal punishment. And I'd like to think that I turned out ok. It's not like my parents ever got off on smacking us with sticks (or plastic hangers!). It was nothing compared to the anger and the disappointment on their face. Eventually, it got to the point where I'd much rather have the stick than the lecture.
Reply
post #26 of 38
2/13/08 at 6:46pm
I agree with you; kids are out of control. But what works? You can't hit those kids you're in charge of, so what are some tricks?
Reply
post #27 of 38
2/13/08 at 8:09pm
Thread Starter 
No, we can't hit them. And actually, it's fairly rare that I work with a child that I think needs that kind of treatment. Generally, I use a method of logical consequences. If you're hitting your friends, you don't get to play with them. Go over there and be by yourself. If you're throwing the trucks, you don't get to play with the trucks.

The thing I think is important, and mcnooj kind of hit on it, is that they know they're causing a reaction. Too many parents keep this calm, quiet voice at all times, and it doesn't signal the kids that they're stepping over the line. You don't have to scream at them or anything. But a change of tone is called for.

The most important thing is consistency. If there's another teacher in my room who isn't punishing the same infractions I am, or doing it in different ways, we're both going to pay for it. It's important that everybody be on the same page. This is where a lot of parents get into trouble, as it seems pretty uncommon for a couple to agree on a lot of this.
Reply
post #28 of 38
2/13/08 at 8:21pm
I remember being at a supermarket and I overheard this kid making a ruckus. Just being loud and obnoxious because he hasn't learned to control himself yet. His dad calmly said to him in the softest (in a kind of stereotyped 'gay' way) voice, "Now, settle down son..."

Even louder, the kid said, "SHUT YO MOUTH!!!" with enough sass to be one of Issac Hayes' back-up singers!

I wanted to crack up so hard right then and there.
Reply
post #29 of 38
2/13/08 at 8:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Even louder, the kid said, "SHUT YO MOUTH!!!" with enough sass to be one of Issac Hayes' back-up singers!

I wanted to crack up so hard right then and there.
You are a better person than me. I would have laughed my fool head off.
Reply
post #30 of 38
2/13/08 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by billylove View Post
You are a better person than me. I would have laughed my fool head off.
I wish I could re-enact it for you guys. It's just not the same without hearing the dad's voice and the kid's voice contrast.
Reply
post #31 of 38
2/13/08 at 8:54pm
I've been through that debate with people before, who "can't imagine hitting their kids."

My wife and I are on the same page - yeah, ideally, your kid realizes that you're the adult and they're the child, and you hold all the cards. But when they don't, there's a time and a place to show in a very direct way that there are rules, and there are consequences for breaking the rules. And sometimes the only (or at least most effective) way to get that across is a swat across the bottom.

Of course, a good parent will explain EXACTLY WHY a child is being punished. With no understanding of the whole misbehavior/discipline cycle, you might as well just beat the kid on every other Thursday for all the good it would do.
Reply
post #32 of 38
2/13/08 at 10:06pm
From my comment on the blog:

Do you find that the lack of two parents in the household having another affect on kids? The way I discipline as a man is so different than from the way my wife does, but we both try in our own way to instill confidence in our kids, while tyring to keep up the discipline. The two of us together have different ways to keep our kids in line, but we can work off one another to maintain somekind of balance with them.

I can't imagine raising my kids as a single parent. I think there's a whole other set of problems that come from that.
Reply
post #33 of 38
2/13/08 at 10:43pm
Thread Starter 
Because our center is expensive, we don't get a lot of single parents, but I have had a few. They always seem like their lives are on the edge of collapse. I can't imagine it either.

The answer for them is just to have a very large support system. The ones who can afford preschool programs are lucky (provided they can afford a good one). One of the issues is that almost all single parents are women, who (I hate to generalize, but we know it's true) tend to be lax as disciplinarians. Having a decent preschool teacher who can instill a little more discipline can really help. Failing that, anybody who can fill that role and be the child's caretaker on a fairly regular basis can do the trick. Plus, let's face it, a single parent needs to have a break from kids whenever they can get it, regardless of what the kid may be learning from it.
Reply
post #34 of 38
2/16/08 at 2:01pm
Sign me up for a giant BRAVO to this blog, Greg. By the way - be glad you don't live here. NY is the land of indulgent parents. Your head would explode if you saw the stuff that the little darlings here get away with - and the parents just smile and let them go on, because, after all, "They're just expressing themselves! For God's sake, they'll only be children once!" I was in Bed Bath and Beyond, and there was one father letting his little angel take a wall clock out of the package, and allowed her to occupy herself by forcing the hands 'round and 'round. When she was done and had literally *tossed* it to the side, he calmly put it back in the box and back on the shelf. He never said a word to her. And I'm not sure if income has to do with any of it, but you could tell that they were well off - around here, that tends to be the case. It's the real "haves" that can't spare any discipline for their kids whatsoever.
Reply
post #35 of 38
2/16/08 at 2:11pm
I have no kids (thank the lawd), but on the "need to be on the same page" front - my buddy has twin girls, and he raised his kids to behave, have manners, all that good stuff. Once they were in pre-school, they learned so much bad behavior from the unruly kids that my pal felt he had to start all over again. His experience is that good kids can catch behavioral problems from other kids like a cold.
Reply
post #36 of 38
2/16/08 at 8:27pm
Thread Starter 
That's absolutely true. Every time a group of kids see another kid display a bad behavior, it's like they just discovered alcohol. After a couple of days, the whole group is doing exactly the same thing. That's when the leg manacles come out.

And Lisa, I think income level really is a factor. I don't really understand why this is, but higher-level families tend to be more permissive and less disciplinarian. Which is great, because those kids were already going to grow up with a sense of entitlement, so being raised without rules is really going to help.
Reply
post #37 of 38
2/20/08 at 4:59am
Thread Starter 
I'm gonna get all political now.
Reply
post #38 of 38
2/23/08 at 1:22am
Thread Starter 
A small clarification:

I don't want anyone to think that when I said
Quote:
And if we're really lucky, maybe that black man or that woman will actually be good at their job
, that I meant that I think it's unlikely that a woman or a black man could make a good President. I meant that I think we're really lucky anytime anyone turns out to be a good President. I also think that the great majority of the time, we're not very lucky.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Your CHUD Blogs
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Your CHUD Blogs › Greg David's Blog