what is on the surface is open to interpretation.
Ok, but what does any of it have to do with VJ?
those are not mutually exclusive points of view.
Yes, they pretty well are.
Watch the original series again and think on it.
1 Like
bootz is sort of right. If you look at it from the perspective that a lot of sci fi stories follow, of using aliens to say a message about human issues.
Is it common for OPās to refuse to answer questions about their OP around here?
you would have to ask a coherent question to get an answer
Whatās amusing me most is the suggestion that Barr wasnāt making a racist comment but rather attempting to invite her Twitter followers to engage in a postmodern critique of the Obama presidency based on themes presented in Planet of the Apes.
Eleventy dimensional bull ā ā ā ā right there.
3 Likes
You mean all of those sci fi shows which have followed POA?
Scifi was in itās infancy in the seventies.
Apes are typically portrayed as less intelligent than humans. In the planet of the apes it is indisputable that the humans destroyed themselves. Humans in the movies were unable to speak. the portrayal of apes being superior to humans is a metaphor to the stupidity of nuclear weapons.
Oh my Godā¦ Iām back. Iām home. All the time it wasā¦ we finally really did it. [screaming] YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! OH, DAMN YOU! ā ā ā ā ā ā ā YOU ALL TO HELL!
The apes ending up more advanced than the humans is absent of mechanism. The fact that they are portrayed as more intelligent and then are willing to follow the same path as you say, is an indictment on intelligence.
address the muslim brotherhood part
Well this isnāt true in the slightest. Or are you just referring to film? Sci-Fi was absolutely roaring in literature by the 70ās
The Apes continued to evolve while Humanity as a result of our arrogance and stupidity had destroyed themselves as the dominant species on the planet and had then devolved to a point in development where the apes were pre holocaust.
I know youāre somewhat familiar with the series but you really should watch the original.
It was a profound piece of work that had a lot to do with changing peopleās attitudes about where we were heading.
It had been āroaring alongā but basically making no gains from the 20ās onward.
POA, Star Trek, A Space Odyssey, and a few others really turned us on to it as a nation, and then Star Wars and CGI came along making it the dominant genre it has become since.
In the early 70ās though it was still in itās infancy.
Barrās social critique falls apart without the Muslim Brotherhood part?
It would fall apart without either.
Itās kinda hilarious. Out of all the attempts Iāve seen to show how the tweet isnāt racist. This one is my favorite.
Although, I do have to say. Iām a little disappointed bootz hasnāt given a clear answer as to how POA and VJ go together yet.
When I first heard what she said, I took it as a simple insult. The race angle did not occur to me at all until ABC fired her for it. I should have picked up on why it was considered to be racial, but I didnāt. That said, I think that a lot of highly creative people regardless of their political views straddle that edge of sanity a bit. Roseanne may be one of them.
Not sure about the āartisticā part, but thereās a difference between a society being tolerant and being accepting. Society is tolerant of what she said. She hasnāt been lynched or tarred and feathered. She hasnāt been burned at the stake. And no, a private employee deciding to fire an employee because of socially questionable behavior does not approach any of those.
There is nothing that says a society has to accept the behavior. People have the right to be offended and act accordingly. If an artist decides to pee in a jar with a cross in it, people can be offended and not visit the artist or the gallery. If an āartistā says socially objectionable things, that same person can decide not to watch their show or the network that broadcasts it.
Our society is tolerant of opinions/āartistic interpretations,ā but that doesnāt mean we have to accept them or the person conveying them.
Are you talking about hitting mainstream consciousness?
Because by the time the 70ās rolled around, Sc-Fi in literature was fairly popular. From sever different sci-fi mags, to short stories appearing in Playboy. By then, there had already been several heavy hitters active for decades, like Asimov, Heinlein, Dick, Clarke, Bradbury etc.
I will give you that it wasnāt probably till Star Trek, and then Star Wars, that Sci-Fi had become more mainstream with the average American.
