doctorow at March 6th, 2014 13:57 — #1
timothy_krause at March 6th, 2014 14:06 — #2
Whence the Dystopian LA? To quote a Learned Internet Acquaintance of Some Notoriety:
Just look at it.
jeff_fisher at March 6th, 2014 14:08 — #3
Peterson!!! - recurring accidental gag line in 'The Forbin Project".
Maybe because LA is a dystopia, while SF is a utopia?
Seriously I once spent an hour looking at random google maps pictures around LA and around SF. The vast majority of the SF one are beautiful. Bridges, mountain, beach, pretty houses, gardens, sunsets, etc. The majority of the LA ones are ugly. Parked cars, slightly dingy looking buildings, streets, highways.
I'm sure there is lots of cool stuff in LA, its a huge city afterall... but at a glance it can be pretty horrid, while at a glance SF is pretty idyllic.
jandrese at March 6th, 2014 14:09 — #4
SF is often just the current world reflected through the prism of a possible future.
So LA has urban decay and a gang problem, suddenly the "future LA" is a gang run apocalyptic wasteland. This really isn't that surprising.
daneel at March 6th, 2014 14:11 — #5
I love SF. I loathe LA.
acerplatanoides at March 6th, 2014 14:16 — #6
Maybe Hollywood hates where it lives, and wishes it had taken a different life path after college?
heckblazer at March 6th, 2014 14:17 — #7
Then there's the Star Trek into Darkness curveball. The utopian future in the film may have been set in San Francisco, but it was shot in Los Angeles, e.g. Starfleet Academy was shot at the Getty Center.
sdmikev at March 6th, 2014 14:21 — #8
As a bay area native transplanted to Southern CA, I'll have to agree with this, of course.
The big city north of me (I live in San Diego) has some pretty cool things in it, and I very much dig the winding streets that spill south from Mulholland Drive down to Sunset, but overall... not my favorite place.
Don't get me started on OC.
daneel at March 6th, 2014 14:25 — #9
Beautiful place. Love the architecture. Hate the art, though.
joelfinkle at March 6th, 2014 14:32 — #10
Howsabout "Her"? Quite Utopian, and definitely LA. Light Rail along the ridges, useful subway, pedestrian malls, and no cars.
lorq at March 6th, 2014 14:34 — #11
That would be the 1949 novel Earth Abides by George R. Stewart. Ernest Callenbach wrote Ecotopia in '75.
funruly at March 6th, 2014 14:47 — #12
Because LA is already full of people in a zombified state looking to cannibalize from the brains of their fellow human?
Or so I am told.
brainspore at March 6th, 2014 14:50 — #13
Hollywood also really, really loves fucking up the Golden Gate Bridge. It's a damn monster magnet. At least the Star Trek franchise lets it off with a near miss now and then (Nero's tunneling beam and the Bird of Prey from Star Trek IV both missed it by feet).
corydon_hinton at March 6th, 2014 14:51 — #14
I believe the author of Earth abides is George R. Stewart.
ratel at March 6th, 2014 14:56 — #15
brainspore at March 6th, 2014 15:06 — #16
Not sure I follow. I've lived in both cities, and the presence or absence of trees in both varies dramatically by neighborhood.
jetfx at March 6th, 2014 15:09 — #17
A better question is, why is California always the future? I understand that in film this is in big part due to Hollywood's location, but this issue extends across media in general. It's a really narrow conception of the future.
votdephuque at March 6th, 2014 15:21 — #18
Southern California IS a hellscape. LA. Needles. Barstow. The only difference between it now and the Mad Max future is the number of spikes on the cars.
votdephuque at March 6th, 2014 15:23 — #19
Because movies are made by a bunch of jackoff narcissistic egomaniacs who burn and crumble to dust if they come into contact with reality.
jetfx at March 6th, 2014 15:25 — #20
I don't mean just movies though. California is a common setting in written science fiction as well.
next page →