4 ms·

That's an opinion(so of course it can't be wrong) that I have heard, it is being debated fairly intelligently downthread along with a debate about the fantastic

That's an opinion(so of course it can't be wrong) that I have heard, it is being debated fairly intelligently downthread along with a debate about the fantastic King of the Hill and Office Space. Here is a list of movies that critics and non-critics consider to be much better post WWII satires than Idiocracy, according to internet ratings of these movies. Note: many of these are more humorous and brutal while being less crude and light-hearted than Idiocracy. Also many have plot, emotion, and deep characterization. Films: American Psycho, A Clockwork Orange, Fahrenheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Dr. Strangelove, Office Space(also Mike Judge) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire My main problem with Idiocracy as a satire is that the message it sends is flatly incorrect, because the rules of their world are not the same as ours. It is a satire of some alternate universe in which we are not living, it has no applicability for the world we live in. Film's message: "If our societies ever end up giving a competitive advantage to low IQ people, time travel will be necessary to correct society's decline." The truth:"If our societies ever end up giving a competitive advantage to low IQ people, natural selection will take care of it, since intelligence seems to be a competitive advantage for apes." I think the true message is also a better call to arms for both intelligent people and unintelligent people. The movie Idiocracy seemed like it was made to be consumed by the citizens of the low-IQ world, in both plot and acting. I do enjoy its light-heartedness. Much more realistic are the famous dystopian texts, especially Harrison Bergeron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

maxerickson 14y ago
The time travel is a plot device. It exists only to set the stage for the story. The satire is the stuff like politics being an obvious (blatant?) popularity contest and people not having any notion of where their food comes from. You know, like today. I think even the fall of society depicted in the movie is mostly a plot device. For instance, in much of the developed world, trash is simply thrown on a big pile (generally a special, well managed pile, but nonetheless a big pile). The movie isn't a warning where we are headed, it is a withering criticism of where we are.
- tossacct 14y ago
  I mostly agree with what you are saying, and I don't feel like it is in conflict with anything that I said in my comment. One point about our trash - is it "simply thrown on a big pile", or is it "strategically centralized so that future people can effectively recycle it when it becomes economically feasible"? In a post apocalyptic wasteland, you will find me making runs to the "grocery store" that is the trash dump. I think it appealed too much to "the masses" to be enjoyed by "sophisticated" people. And I think that the satire bits were much too sparing to really be absorbed by "unsophisticated" watchers. No one under the age of 18 that I talked with has any idea that this movie is a "withering criticism of where we are". Here's why: I do agree with you that the movie had satiric elements, and I agree that it pointed out the specific issues that you say it pointed out. But if you watch the movie, these issues are only briefly mentioned, they are not explored or analyzed. If the film was pared down to the satire bits, it would be about 7 minutes long. The plot of the film was Luke Wilson the time traveler saving the world, the serious satire elements were the setting. Well if the plot doesn't get the message through, we can use the characters, right? Unfortunately, the low IQ people in the film were incapable of talking about their problems in a sympathetic way that most people can understand. Few people recognized that the characters were actually caricatures, because they were so dumb and happy about their lot in life. When you watch Schindler's List, do you relate to the characters that are unsympathetic oppressors or to the characters that are sympathetic and oppressed? My friends and family were effected much more by the satire in Planet of the Apes, which is very similar movie to Idiocracy. The main thrust of both plots is "a hero saves the day," and the satire elements are mostly setting. PotA works as satire because some of the ape and human characters had problems that they were struggling with, just like you and I! None of the lower IQ people in Idiocracy was struggling with anything; the "dystopia" was NOT a nightmare for them, because they had IQs too low to express any anguish and garner any sympathy. I think the movie would have made an excellent short film, and I think Luke Wilson would have been brilliant in it. It would have made a fantastic Family Guy episode for those that enjoy Family Guy. It failed as a feature length film which is disappointing from such an effective artist as Mike Judge.
  - tossacct 14y ago
    My friends and family were effected much more by the satire should be My friends and family were affected much more by the satire There were many effects of the movie - one was to make the watchers cry, the other was to make dinosaurs explode onscreen. They were affected by the movie. I have affected the deal - pray that I do not affect it further. Affect is always a verb. Effect is always a noun, except when it's a verb. In that case you rely on a subject/object agreement thing, and English should really drop both words and use ffect instead.
mortenjorck 14y ago
I would add the brilliant, venomously-biting 2009 political satire In the Loop to that list. Its characters are over the top, yet their interactions and the ensuing consequences have a ring of political verisimilitude unlike any similar comedic piece.
charlieok 14y ago
I caught the made-for-tv adaptation of Harrison Bergeron one time at least a decade ago. Since then I've dropped “I'd say that's proof positive!” into conversation lots and lots of times. Still waiting for the awesome moment when someone catches the reference :)
altcognito 14y ago
Stephen Colbert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwIL3Tr3N9Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwIL3Tr3N9Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A

maxerickson 14y ago

The time travel is a plot device. It exists only to set the stage for the story. The satire is the stuff like politics being an obvious (blatant?) popularity contest and people not having any notion of where their food comes from. You know, like today. I think even the fall of society depicted in the movie is mostly a plot device. For instance, in much of the developed world, trash is simply thrown on a big pile (generally a special, well managed pile, but nonetheless a big pile). The movie isn't a warning where we are headed, it is a withering criticism of where we are.

tossacct 14y ago
I mostly agree with what you are saying, and I don't feel like it is in conflict with anything that I said in my comment. One point about our trash - is it "simply thrown on a big pile", or is it "strategically centralized so that future people can effectively recycle it when it becomes economically feasible"? In a post apocalyptic wasteland, you will find me making runs to the "grocery store" that is the trash dump. I think it appealed too much to "the masses" to be enjoyed by "sophisticated" people. And I think that the satire bits were much too sparing to really be absorbed by "unsophisticated" watchers. No one under the age of 18 that I talked with has any idea that this movie is a "withering criticism of where we are". Here's why: I do agree with you that the movie had satiric elements, and I agree that it pointed out the specific issues that you say it pointed out. But if you watch the movie, these issues are only briefly mentioned, they are not explored or analyzed. If the film was pared down to the satire bits, it would be about 7 minutes long. The plot of the film was Luke Wilson the time traveler saving the world, the serious satire elements were the setting. Well if the plot doesn't get the message through, we can use the characters, right? Unfortunately, the low IQ people in the film were incapable of talking about their problems in a sympathetic way that most people can understand. Few people recognized that the characters were actually caricatures, because they were so dumb and happy about their lot in life. When you watch Schindler's List, do you relate to the characters that are unsympathetic oppressors or to the characters that are sympathetic and oppressed? My friends and family were effected much more by the satire in Planet of the Apes, which is very similar movie to Idiocracy. The main thrust of both plots is "a hero saves the day," and the satire elements are mostly setting. PotA works as satire because some of the ape and human characters had problems that they were struggling with, just like you and I! None of the lower IQ people in Idiocracy was struggling with anything; the "dystopia" was NOT a nightmare for them, because they had IQs too low to express any anguish and garner any sympathy. I think the movie would have made an excellent short film, and I think Luke Wilson would have been brilliant in it. It would have made a fantastic Family Guy episode for those that enjoy Family Guy. It failed as a feature length film which is disappointing from such an effective artist as Mike Judge.
- tossacct 14y ago
  My friends and family were effected much more by the satire should be My friends and family were affected much more by the satire There were many effects of the movie - one was to make the watchers cry, the other was to make dinosaurs explode onscreen. They were affected by the movie. I have affected the deal - pray that I do not affect it further. Affect is always a verb. Effect is always a noun, except when it's a verb. In that case you rely on a subject/object agreement thing, and English should really drop both words and use ffect instead.

mortenjorck 14y ago

I would add the brilliant, venomously-biting 2009 political satire In the Loop to that list. Its characters are over the top, yet their interactions and the ensuing consequences have a ring of political verisimilitude unlike any similar comedic piece.

charlieok 14y ago

I caught the made-for-tv adaptation of Harrison Bergeron one time at least a decade ago. Since then I've dropped “I'd say that's proof positive!” into conversation lots and lots of times. Still waiting for the awesome moment when someone catches the reference :)

altcognito 14y ago

Stephen Colbert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwIL3Tr3N9Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwIL3Tr3N9Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A