Comments on: 폭탄영어 #8 - Kimchi in Spaaaaaaaaace!

By: Javis

Javis — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:39:48 +0000

And about Save the Green Planet, I actually first read a review of the film on an English language blog about cyberpunk anyway, so I can appreciate its cult status.

By: Javis

Javis — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:15:00 +0000

Maybe industrial and post-industrial are better labels for what I was trying to say.

By: Javis

Javis — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:47:40 +0000

Don’t worry, I did finish listening to to podcast

I agree with a lot of what you guys said about the potential benefit from Sci-fi in Korean society. I wonder if 이소연 would have received a more enthusiastic treatment in a Korea where science fiction was popular. I recently told a Korean friend that I read a lot of sci-fi, and he had a grimace on his face as he told me of how his mother’s profession as a school biology teacher had turned him off to science.

The modern/post-modern thing was just in response to something I had read in Michael’s blog. We’ll call it the difference between unbounded enthusiasm for progress, like the Nazi’s eugenics or “From the Earth to the Moon”, and caution and introspection with respect to potential mistakes resulting from that progress, like the Non-Proliferation Treaty or “Speakers for the Dead”. I guess it’s not a very important distinction for the genre.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:27:39 +0000

I hope you listen to the episode, because we didn’t really address the idea of sci-fi as modern vs. postmodern . . . but how are you defining the terms?
I don’t think 지구를 지켜라 really did get much mainstream exposure. It left theaters remarkably quickly and is pretty much considered a 마니아 (cult) film. A shame, it’s a fabulous film.

By: Javis

Javis — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:28:25 +0000

I’m posting this before listening to the lesson, but I just read Michael’s blog posts about Star Trek and BSG. I think it’s a little simplistic to classify all sci-fi as post-modern. For example, Asimov’s early work, with its themes of technological determinism, are quite modern. Also, the Foundation and Empire novels were reflections more of historical models than the present day (i.e. Foundation = fall of the Roman Empire; The Stars, Like Dust = Golden Horde in Russia)

Anyway, have you watched ‘지구를 지켜라’? It may be the first work of Korean post-modern sci-fi that gained mainstream exposure. It blends themes of dissatisfaction with Korea’s rapid development and distrust of the establishment with fear of the alien outsider.

By: Kinsey

Kinsey — Sat, 17 May 2008 05:53:21 +0000

I said I agreed with you. In fact, I said I *completely* agreed with you, and you called me bitter. I said DS9 was one of the better Star Trek series, and you called me partisan. (I’m a big fan of both btw.) I said that the ideas that DS9 took from B5 quickly fizzled out and went nowhere (meaning they never became an important part of DS9), and you claimed I said it “stole all its plotlines from there”. I agree with 90% of everything you’ve said in your comments.

The point of my first comment was just to introduce myself and contribute a bit to the discussion. It was a very good episode. I liked it and have no complaints. I can’t really add useful comments to the other (interesting and enjoyable) episodes I’ve heard so far, since I know so little about Korea

Just to clarify on 24, I don’t know if it had an effect or not. It’s not my idea. I ran into it recently on the Internet and thought it worth mentioning. Anyway, it never occurred to me that non-positive portrayals would sway voters. When I saw that we were starting out with different assumptions, I clarified what I meant. I wasn’t changing the meaning.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:34:20 +0000

Ok, I really don’t want to get into it with a bitter B5 fan. If you think it copied B5, and stole all its plotlines from there, fine. Enjoy.
Yes, you did say “positive”. In your third post. So it seems a little disingenuous to say I missed a point you didn’t originally make. And I still stand by the fact that there have been many, many portrayals of black leadership both as president and otherwise prior to 24. This doesn’t mean I don’t think that 24 couldn’t be havng an effect, but it is a little late to the party and I think other media portrayals were probably more significant. On the other hand, if you’d brought up “Commander in Chief” I would have been a little more understanding in how it relates to women’s leadership and Hillary’s chances, partially because the makers of that show were specific in that being one of their goals.
Maybe what we can learn from this conversation is that we’re all partisans of our own programs. There’s DS9 fans, B5 fans (not exclusive categories, by the way) and those who wouldn’t miss 24, and the die hard CSI fan. We all tend to see wider influence in society of those things which have influenced us.

By: Kinsey

Kinsey — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:51:40 +0000

Well, yes, I completely agree. DS9 came up with the space station premise completely independently of B5, and it was very different, so much so that most of the ideas it tried to steal from B5 ended up fizzling and going nowhere. DS9 was one of the better Star Trek series IMHO.

GI Joe and He-Man had very similar formulas in different settings.

I’ve really got to see Plato’s Stepchildren again, but didn’t Nurse Chapel end up giving birth to a child that was one quarter Vulcan? How do you explain that? (kidding)

The 24 reference I made was just a little parenthetical remark I threw in, because I thought it was interesting and sort of related to what you said about Janeway. Having said that, I have to disagree with “Nobody said anything about a positive portrayal”, because I did. That was my whole point.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:44:39 +0000

Re: Plato’s Stepchildren - you can interpret what was shown in any way you like, but what was shown is that immediately after the kiss, Spock and Kirk are forced to pick up weapons and threaten Ohura and Chapel. You can say you think it symbolically represents rape if you like, but the actuality of what’s shown doesn’t support it.
Glad you’re enjoying the podcasts, keep listening!

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:39:32 +0000

- I don’t argue that Majel Barrett’s character wasn’t removed, but she herself wasn’t, and stayed on as Nurse Chapel.
- Nobody said anything about a positive portrayal . . . and I just think that fictional African-American presidents have a long enough history that we shouldn’t overestimate the impact of 24 . . . and besides, our point was that seeing leadership in fiction makes it plausible to people, and sci-fi in this respect is often on the cutting edge. 24 is neither sci-fi nor first on the scene, so whatever effect it may be having on the US this election cycle (and for the record, I think it has very little if any) it wasn’t part of our original conversation.
- Our point was that in the “present reality” of the Federation, racism among humans is over. That doesn’t mean that they’re unaware of what racism is or its history. The important point of Star Trek was positing a future world where humans were no longer racist. Not that racism didn’t exist elsewhere in the galaxy, but that humans had the power to transcend and go beyond our current problems with race. Lots of episodes deal with race and racism, but they always do it from the perspective that in the future we WILL go beyond using skin color as a guide to human dignity. It’s not a denial of race, it’s hoping we get beyond it. Sisko’s historical awareness of race as an issue doesn’t seem to be an anomaly at all. It would be like Lt. Kim in Voyager being totally cool with traveling back in time to the colonial period. He may not be presently harboring any beef with the Japanese, but that doesn’t mean he wants to go back and experience it himself.
- Michael’s point was that Star Trek is explicitly political/social commentary. Star Wars is just not. Even with that little speech thrown in, Star Wars is escapist fantasy. It’s not sci-fi. People see similarities in modern political situations in Lord of the Rings, too, but that does not in the least mean that Tolkien was trying to comment on the modern state of politics. Star Wars is great, I love it*, but it’s not designed to provide political commentary. You can read it how you like, but that’s just not its purpose.
- I should know better than to get into it with a Babylon 5 fan, but . . . I know it’s a good series. I just didn’t watch it. That said, I’m familiar enough with the plots of both series to say that while there were some similarities in setup, their respective treatments were very different. In this case the resemblance is extremely slight, to the point where I would never have even called them similar. And contextually, the DS9 plot made perfect sense, and was deliberately meant to recall particular historical terrorist movements - DS9 was copying history and the newspapers. Re: DS9 vs. B5?
I didn’t watch B5, but I know it was an interesting and well-written series. I bet I’d enjoy it if I ever watch it. But I could find plot points and situations that are similar between GI Joe and He-Man if I really wanted to waste my time that way, and while DS9 wasn’t perfect, but it was better than a carbon copy of B5.