> Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3]

> [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review

Can you explain this one? I don’t understand why journalists should be “rebutting” SF movies from the early 80s.

I have never heard someone use the plot of Blade Runner as any kind of policy advice... which makes sense because we’re not living in the aftermath of a nuclear war, and we don’t have to deal with escaped androids from off-world colonies. Most of the Blade Runner fans (and fans of the Dick novel) I’ve met are bullish on technology.

I understand his point to be that in California, the tech industry is very influential whereas in places predominantly Republican and shunning of science/tech like this area of Texas, the people don't seem interested at all in promoting science/tech as the way of the future and maybe even embrase the bleak and dystopian frontier that may lie ahead.

Again, this is what I assume he means and I could be way off so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

It pays to actually explore the links, provided.

  There are some people who prefer the original's gritty
  Chandleresque voice-over narration and the ambiguous happy 
  ending (both supposedly forced on Scott), but the Final
  Cut is a more disturbing tale of dehumanisation.

I have to agree with the sibling comment here, I still have no idea what you're getting at with the Blade Runner stuff or how it ties into the rest of your point.

You have me truly puzzled over whether you are feigning incomprehension over this or you honestly don't get what the ordinary joe six-pack or the average hockey mom makes of a future filled with dehumanizing conditions for mankind when coupled with the film's vivid representation of replicants [1] not to mention the deluge of postindustrial decay in its imagery.

If you are truly clueless of how those images translate to the "Normals" [2] whose only introduction to anything remotely scientific is a staple diet of Ancient Aliens [3] and similar pseudoscience shows on History Channel, then you could really use a road trip through the flyover states of America.

Strike that. Just venture into Tracy or Morgan Hill or Walnut Creek, if you live in the Bay Area.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

[2] http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/31/the-only-normal-people-are-...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens

> You have me truly puzzled over whether you are feigning incomprehension over this or you honestly don't get what the ordinary joe six-pack or the average hockey mom makes of a future filled with dehumanizing conditions for mankind when coupled with the film's vivid representation of replicants [1] not to mention the deluge of postindustrial decay in its imagery.

The point that you are making will always seem clear as day to you because you are the one that believes it. The onus is on you to make sure that the rest of the world can understand it if you want to effectively communicate with others. If you have multiple people saying that they don't understand you, throwing up your hands in the air and saying, "Y'all must be trollin'" isn't very useful.

That said, we don't need to delve into fictional cyberpunk dystopias to find examples of "science run amok," so I'm not really understanding how getting movie critics to write editorials criticizing movies that show us bleak futures is all that useful, or necessary.

I did read that. I still have no idea what you’re getting at. Could you please “explain it like I’m five”?

I understood your BR reference but I'd counter that the dystopian future films are what the public likes even if they aren't what they initially want as the box office receipts show they lap these films up.

The problem with why you're getting so many comments about your BR reference is you made it way too obscure and it even comes off as a little hipster-ish. Also, (the rest of this response is in reference to your replies to said comments) perhaps instead of trying to land the flaming plane, you should have just bailed out instead.

As someone who works in the film industry, Hollywood makes movies that reflects the public's hopes and fears. It doesn't do dystopia for its own sake, any more than it does mindless techno-optimism. Picking out the re-release of Blade Runner as an example of what Hollywood churns out 'like clockwork' seems self-contradictory to say the least.

On the larger question of why we don't have a lobby to fund basic research, I don't know - perhaps because nobody wants to expend political capital on research that might not be patentable or commercially exploitable, plus you could argue that private capital is already performing effectively in that area. I think it's absurd to pin the blame on Hollywood and think it's more to do with the limitations of our geographically representative form of government, which makes alternative electoral structures like party lists impossible. Probably the best hope for blue-sky scientific research is a new cold war, sadly :-(

For someone who "works" in the film industry, you seem to be gleefully unaware of Hollywood's fondness for dystopia.

Interstellar might be one of the few newer breed of films that actually casts human space travel in some positive light.

In fact one is left wanting for instances of the "techno-optimism" - mindless or otherwise - that you describe of, in Hollywood flicks.

List of dystopian films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_films

A simple Google search

http://i.imgur.com/hHvy0rN.png

Hollywood is fond of conflict because that's where drama comes from, as observed by Aristotle a couple of millenia ago. Nobody is interested in a story where the protagonist doesn't have any problems, which is why there's a genral shortage of utopian literature in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_utopian_literature

A good number of the films listed by Wikipedia as dystopian technology is working out just fine for most people while disenfranchising a few - much as in our own world. Insofar as dystopianism is aesthetically fashionable it's largely reflective of contemporary economic or political anxieties rather than being predicated on technology. Total recall (both versions) are listed as dystopian, for example, but those films are quite neutral on the impact of technology - the dystopian element is that of economic coercion resulting from a natural monopoly (oxygen on Mars in the original; the labor supply chain in the remake).

I could dig into examples at length and compare them with positive and negative views of the future from earlier eras of film, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort given your needlessly snide tone.

You might have missed the part where the sole premise of Interstellar was that they were leaving Earth to explore other planets because of how bad Earth had become. I.e. a dystopian future.

Regarding [2]: the incumbent in CA-17 is a popular liberal Democrat, who like most liberal Democrats supports funding for science and technology. He had as much support from the tech industry as a whole as his primary opponent, who was funded in great measure by extremely wealthy Silicon Valley executives and investors. Said opponent ran a campaign to the right of the incumbent, littered with gibberish like "disruptive" and "Government 2.0".

I don't identify with the "we" that tried to elect that guy. To me, it looks like a handful of tech billionaires trying and failing to buy a seat in Congress. If they really want to support science and technology, there's a lot of districts in the R+5 range where diligence and money could help elect centrist technocrats (with any letter after their name) rather than yet another good ol' boy.

>I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one.

Interstellar, I'm hoping, re-inspires some of us to dream about science once again.

>one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech.

Not really. People who are interested in actually contributing to the world by scientific research and technological innovation have zero interest in a field that is overwhelmingly useless and idiotic: Politics.

>"People who are interested in actually contributing to the world by scientific research and technological innovation have zero interest in a field that is overwhelmingly useless and idiotic: Politics."

You say politics as a field is deemed useless by those people, and yet the funding for them to pursue the thing they are interested in is directly affected by said "useless field".