Holy schmuck, something went wrong there wil commenting. O_o;

What I wanted to say was the following; Back to the Future isn't that pessimistic about technology. Star Trek is neither. And Star Wars isn't that pessimistic about it either; of course the robots of the Trade Federation are the bad guys, but then again - the clones (also new technology) are the good guys for quite some time as well!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Back to the Future isn't that pessimistic about technology.
The movies you mention aren't about the Technology. The DeLorean isn't a "character" in the movie -- it only serves to get Marty into the 50's.
Where Technology is a "character" and not just a plot vehicle, they are invariably bad guys: the robots of the Trade Federation, or Star Trek's V'Ger.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

What about RoboCop? What about the upcoming Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy? The Iron Giant has a friendly robot.

Not that I don't disagree with you; most movies do tend to be on the pessimistic side - showing humanity 'prevailing' over robotics, but there are exceptions to the rule. Even though I might not recall them right now.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

RoboCop: Murphy's robotic systems are merely a tool by the corrupt OCP to further their own ends. It is precisely Murphy's humanity that saves the day.
Haven't seen the Hitchhiker's movie, so can't comment on that.
Iron Giant: Yes, he was friendly. Until his battle-program kicked in and he destroyed the town.

You need to come up with better examples -- or I should watch more movies. :)

Even though I might not recall them right now.
The thing is: there are very, very few movies where the technology is a character and the message is positive.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, let me think for a moment then:

Alien 2. Bishop, the entirely robotic android, is nothing but good.

Blegh. Maybe halfnorn should kick in gear - she watches a whole lot more sci-fi than I do.

The thing is, it is much more interesting plotwise to have technology run amok, and humanity having to fix it. The other way around, humanity running amok and technology having to fix it, wouldn't attract as many paying customers. It would make the audience feel like they were the bad guys. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is a risk, and every project which bears the big red stamp 'risk' is considered a dozen times before being produced by the movie studios. They've become a bunch of pansies.

Now, the theme 'humanity running amok, technology going to fix it' is exploited in I, Robot. Of course, the "weakness" (or perhaps, strength) of the computer is that it has no feelings and can just stash away all humans without feeling bad. Simple reasoning; humans harm environment, must deal with humans. (It is a bit more complex, but you've seen the movie, so I won't go into it further.) The other robot appears to be a baddy at first, but turns out to be good in the end. I didn't mention this example because this robot is weird, something with a 'human spirit' or a 'ghost in the machine', which doesn't make it entirely technological in my view.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Alien 2. Bishop, the entirely robotic android, is nothing but good.
Isn't he a plant by the Corporation? Isn't his mission to ensure that the Alien is captured alive, rather than the survival of the human crew and colonists?
That movie has one of my all-time favourite quotes: "Let's nuke the place from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!"

The thing is, it is much more interesting plotwise to have technology run amok, and humanity having to fix it.
That is precisely my point. Technology is consistently cast in an unfavourable light in movies and other media.

I didn't mention this example because this robot is weird, something with a 'human spirit' or a 'ghost in the machine', which doesn't make it entirely technological in my view.
It is an example of 'good' Technology existing only to battle against Bad Technology -- the only times that a piece of Technology is cast in a favourable light.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Isn't he a plant by the Corporation? Isn't his mission to ensure that the Alien is captured alive, rather than the survival of the human crew and colonists?
Talking about Aliens (the second movie) here, not the first, third or fourth.

Technology is consistently cast in an unfavourable light in movies and other media.
But mostly I think, because people don't want themselves in the role of the bad guy.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

In two of your your examples, you mention systems that you recognize. Unix, nmap. I think they are used- and hacked into- because they might be recognized by the viewer, thus making the film more realistic than by using a custom made "downloading" screen like you see in plenty of other films (like The Net), and maybe as a form of product placement.

Ofcourse there have been a lot of films who use 'technology going haywire' as a plot point;
You've named a couple. But that's only natural- films portray doubts and worries in today's society. True science fiction puts our fears, and stories of how we conquer those, in a fresh setting so an amusing story remains that we can relate to. That's why films are so quickly dated- good sci-fi isn't about the then, it's about the now.
That's why I'd like to mention The Truman Show. The reason that story came to be was the influx of reality tv, and as a critique on reality shows, it's more about the people victimized by the use of technology (media), than the evil technology itself. "The Net" came to our movie screens just when the Internet was the latest thing. The internet was real, so the threat was scarier. But it was people using technology that caused all the trouble in that film; not the technology out of it's own.
Upcoming film "The Island" starring Ewan McGregor looks to explore the subject of cloning. You will probably see some examples why technology is in your eyes evil; but as I explain below in my Jurassic Park 'review', it will probably only be a setting for the people to be in.

Let's go to those reviews.

If a major part is reserved for a robot or a computer system, it is always the bad guy. Consider Jurassic Park, The Matrix, or 2001: A Space Odyssey, or I, Robot, or The Terminator, or Tron.

I actually think most of your examples are flawed. I will not discuss 2001 because I haven't stayed awake long enough to see it all; and Tron I haven't seen yet.

In Jurassic Park, technology only plays a minor role. It's only there to convince people in theatres of the authenticity of the dinosaur-presence. It's to make the film more realistic; it doesn't make it (feel like) a science fiction film. I think it's obvious to all who watch the film that it's the guy behind the steering wheel that is evil- not the computer who grants access. (By the way, if you haven't read the book, I would strongly recommend that- it's a great read on chaos theory etc. and way better than the film)

In The Matrix, humanity let robots and technology take over their jobs, and it backfired. Technology farms on human flesh (eew). Then why does this technology keep the humans in a lulled state leading happy (synthetic fantasy) lives till they die of old age to be turned into glue? I think the message people walk away with from watching this film isn't "gee golly, technology is evil", but will ignore the whole part about how we are responsible for our own demise and look at all the nifty gadgets. Technology in the Matrix is just the setting for another story of good versus evil.

In I, Robot you see an advanced society and a man who has always been paranoid about technology. It's easy for him to point the blame at the robots. And it turns out to be them, following orders of their queen bee, taking extra good care of people who don't know how to take care of themselves. Sonny is flawed (thus relatable to), and isn't evil.

>> to be continued

(Reply to this) (Thread)

>> part two!

In The Terminator, the main, most popular character was a robot. Yes he was evil. But he was so popular he became the lead for the other two films in the franchise. Again, technology is the setting (as it is in Jurassic Park). More so than that the film is a truly negative view of what happens. OK, death and mayhem if the kid dies. ;)

When it comes to robots, the rule seems to be that if the robot has feelings, he is 'safe'. But do emotions make the robot human? They're still part of technology.
To name a few friendly robots Arnoudens may have forgotten;
The housekeeper of The Jetsons
C3PO, R2D2
Bicentennial Man (Robin Williams)
Artificial Intelligence's main characters (played by Haley Joel Osment & Jude Law)
Data (Star Trek)
The computer (Star Trek)

When it comes to emotional robots, I think it's interesting to take a look at Star Trek. Every Star Trek series has had a character we couldn't relate to, who as the show progressed became more human (Spock, Data, Odo, Tuvok, T'pol). Spock may have been the first 'robot' to grace our tv screens in that regard ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

BTW, I think you can add I, robot's Sonny to that list as well :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Again, technology is the setting (as it is in Jurassic Park). More so than that the film is a truly negative view of what happens.
How is "Robots kill all humans" not casting Technology as the bad guy(s)?

When it comes to robots, the rule seems to be that if the robot has feelings, he is 'safe'.
It's 'warm humanity' versus 'cold Technology', yes. That is the point of most of these movies.

To name a few friendly robots
You have good examples of Technology being cast as the Good Guys, thank you. But I also see a trend: the robots you mention all have 'human' qualities -- they are more like humans inside a tin enclosure, rather than a Technological product.

Movie makers try their best to make Good Technology human-like, anthropomorphised (C3PO's appearance and whining, R2D2's stubbornness, Data's quest for humanity), while they are trying to make Bad Technology exactly the opposite. They employ tactics such as BlinkenLights and nonsensical displays to alienate the audience from the Technology -- which was my original point. By doing so, the movie makers are reinforcing the audience's instinctive fear of Technology.

To be fair, I do not know in which way movies are influencing Neo-Luddism -- the causation could be entirely the other way around. Still, I think the movie makers are doing their audience a disservice by doing so.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

In mass-media class, I was taught about the horseless carriage syndrome. A car was a horseless carriage, until people were used to it. A TV was a radio with pictures until people were used to it.
That's why you had a lot of non-sensical displays and flashy lights and closet-computers. Not to alienate viewers, but to bring across a point: 'this is something only the hacker understands, so now you know he is a very smart man'; or 'the computer is now downloading all the megabytes of information to the floppy'. If you see a hacker hack into windows, just clicking around in Windows Explorer, it's a whole lot less impressive. ;)

In the same way, you can go back in film/tv history and see what way people looked at robots and technology, and how both were used as plot points or setting in the story. The negative-technology plot as you see it from 2001: A Space Odyssey is a direct result of the era surrounding it.
I really do not believe Technology is to be feared or that movie-makers are trying to make you frightened of it. It's merely a 'horseless carriage' that is new, nifty, can be used for all kinds of plot points and investigations into morality. I think it's less predictable than the british accented villain in most Hollywood films or the black underdog character. There is only so much you can do as a storyteller to use technology as your 'deus ex machina' solution (be it for a positive or negative turnout in the story), and I think all of those options have been exhausted in the nineties. (Actually, as far as I'm concerned, I think this whole discussion is a bit too late ;) )

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

the horseless carriage syndrome.
I know this phenomenon as "hoorspelen op TV". Your sources go even further back than that. :)

Not to alienate viewers, but to bring across a point: 'this is something only the hacker understands, so now you know he is a very smart man'
"This is Technology that you can't understand" -- I'd call that pretty alienating.

I think all of those options have been exhausted in the nineties.
"I, Robot" was of a later date... Perhaps the scenario writers are indeed moving away from "Technology as Bad Guys", but I do think the trend will continue for quite a bit before it's all dissapeared.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I think they are used- and hacked into- because they might be recognized by the viewer, thus making the film more realistic than by using a custom made "downloading" screen like you see in plenty of other films
Then why don't all movies do this? Why have the custom 'downloading'-screen or nonsensical 3D filesystem navigation?

But that's only natural- films portray doubts and worries in today's society.
I am not saying that it is unnatural. But my point is that Technology is always cast into the role of Bad Thing -- you seem to agree with this.

it's the guy behind the steering wheel that is evil- not the computer who grants access.
Actually, the whole diatribes about Chaos Theory seems to suggest that the real message is that Technology is dangerous, because as the systems become more and more complex, the human user is less and less able to accurately predict the system's responses. How is this not casting Technology in an unfavourable light?

Technology in the Matrix is just the setting for another story of good versus evil.
Good (humans) versus Evil (Technology, in the form of Agents).

it turns out to be them, following orders of their queen bee, taking extra good care of people who don't know how to take care of themselves.
And how does this portray Technology in a favourable light?

Your refutations of my examples are flawed -- you're proving my point for me. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Then why don't all movies do this? Why have the custom 'downloading'-screen or nonsensical 3D filesystem navigation?

These were primarily used in films before the millenium. It probably has something to do with american audiences not being familiar with computers and technology and needing a summary of what is going on. Or not getting money/not wanting to pay money to Microsoft for using windows in their displays.

I am not saying that it is unnatural. But my point is that Technology is always cast into the role of Bad Thing -- you seem to agree with this.

No, it isn't a Bad Thing. Technology is a tool, in almost all of these films you mention- it's man that's the bad thing, that abused it or mis-used it. A robot or a machine doesn't build itself.

Actually, the whole diatribes about Chaos Theory seems to suggest that the real message is that Technology is dangerous, because as the systems become more and more complex, the human user is less and less able to accurately predict the system's responses. How is this not casting Technology in an unfavourable light?

I did not mean to pull the chaos theory part in the book into this discussion, because we were talking films and television, not literature.
However, you essentially say in the underlined sentence that it's the human user who is the problem. Technology can only be a bad thing or evil if it has a mind of it's own. Technology as a whole doesn't have that.

Good (humans) versus Evil (Technology, in the form of Agents).

The Agents are computer programs, true, but I thought the whole Jesus-'the One' story in the Matrix was to remind people of the great Flood, how man made about their own undoing and now has to face the demons it created?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

These were primarily used in films before the millenium. It probably has something to do with american audiences not being familiar with computers and technology
That is a very valid point.

Technology is a tool, in almost all of these films you mention- it's man that's the bad thing, that abused it or mis-used it. A robot or a machine doesn't build itself.
Everybody understands that Skynet and the Terminators didn't build themselves (well, they did, but not initially). But that doesn't change the movie's premisse a single bit: someone made a Frankensteinian monster, and it's gone out of control.

Technology can only be a bad thing or evil if it has a mind of it's own. Technology as a whole doesn't have that.
That is certainly true. Yet in movies, Technology is consistently cast in the role of Bad Thing. Technology isn't value-neutral in movies, as it is in real life. That's my point.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

My god... you're entries become more and more essay-like over time don't they? ;)

What I scanned of your post and replies it's all very interesting. I'll put this one in my memories for later reading and reference. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)