#clark finding darwin | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

romancomicsblog · 2 years ago

Text

What the new "Heroes" of Superman Legacy can tell us about the DCU

To somehow everyone's surprise, it seems DC has jumped the Gunn. (See what I did there?)

While many were convinced the antagonists of the 2025's Superman Legacy would be The Authority, The Elite, or even a mixture of the two, it appears for now it may be a prototype version of the Justice League.

James Gunn has casted three JLA members including Isabela Mercad as Hawkgirl, Edi Gathegi as Mister Terrific, and Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern AKA Guy Gardner.

While the Authority, the Elite, or even another major Superman villain can play a part, I believe the spot of heroes who "do what they have to" may have been taken.

While this is a shocking turn of events, and one that may be regretful as over world building was the death of the DCEU, I do think these castings and choice of characters tells a good deal about Gunns priorities.

You see, unlike Black Adam, which brought together a team Justice Society members who it seemed Warner Bros said The Rock could have, this team seems purposeful.

So let's go through the characters and see their potential for the DCU:

Starting with the one I'm most excited for:

Isabela Merced as Hawkgirl

You thought I was gonna say Green Lantern, didn't you?

Isabela Merced is a fairly young actress, known for roles like Juliet in Hulu's Rosalind, The Widow Queen in Maya and the Queen, and most famously....

Dora Dora Dora the Explorer.

Merced is a bright young talent, who has been consistently working since 2014 and landed decent roles in big projects. Whether she continues on to be a great character actress or a leading actor, adding Merced in the DCU early almost guarantees having a star down the line.

But even more importantly than any of that, Hawkgirl is a great choice to begin a DCU.

Like Clark, she is an alien, a young hero, and a brawler. The two can find common footing and begin a very heartfelt friendship that can last throughout the DCU.

Unlike her counterpart Hawkman who isn't really any interesting, Hawkgirl was a founding member of the team for many peoples introduction to DC, The Justice League and Justice League Unlimited cartoons.

More than that, her betrayal for her home race of Thanagarians is one of the most iconic parts of the show.

If that is part of the larger narrative Gunn is trying to tell, that tells me Gunn is honoring what fans actually love.

Plus having a Peruvian woman play Hawkgirl just makes my Latinx/Hispanic heart happy.

Edi Gathegi as Mister Terrific

I'm glad Darwin is getting another shot at this superhero thing.

Known for his roles in X-Men First Class, Twilight, The Blacklist, and The Harder They Fall, Edi Gathegi has also had a rather impressive career.

I like this trend Gunn has currently with Gathegi, Merced and Corenswet of actors you may recognize but not know.

What's more interesting than the cast is the character.

Mister Terrific is considered the third smartest person in the DC Universe. While he is known to use T-Spheres as a weapon, he also is an extremely skilled hand to hand combatant, a Renaissance man if you will.

To put him in perspective, he often has a friendly rivalry with Batman.

Terrific is a fan favorite character, and one we haven't seen before in film. He can bring a dynamic fighting style, and a perspective of advanced intellect that can challenge Clark. Gunn clearly wants to bring in the characters people love, in a way they don't expect.

Which leads me to:

Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern

Just not the one you're thinking.

I could go into Fillion's history, but you know him. Castle. Firefly. The Rookie. He's an icon.

While he was famously fan casted and even voiced Green Lantern Hal Jordan in several pieces of animated media, Nathan Fillion is now the DCU's Guy Gardner.

Which is, bizarre.

While Fillion is more than a capable enough actor, and has the comedic timing to play the role, I never would've expected a Green Lantern in the first Superman movie, let alone THIS one.

For those not in the know, Guy Gardner is the asshole Green Lantern. He was a football star who suffered a career ending injury in college, and kind of lives in his glory days. He's a more aggressive, often more obnoxious Lantern. Definitely the least heroic of the bunch.

Introducing Guy as the first Green Lantern, and likely leader of the JL that lost their way, makes a lot of sense. It could tempt Clark to be more like Guy, and even better, remind Guy what it means to be a hero.

In any case, character shows me Gunn is not following a specific playbook. There is no order to which Lantern comes first, nor Flash, nor any character.

Which is kind of exciting.

James Gunn has hit us with a huge curveball, basically telling us to expect the unexpected.

Which to me is a breath of fresh air.

Thank you for reading! If you'd like to support me you can follow me on my socials here!

7 notes · View notes

morethanonepage · 3 years ago

Note

3. What fic are you attached to? I know I'm still very attached to the ClintCoulson voicemail fic bc i like hurting myself

3. what fic are you emotionally attached to?

ohhhh my gosh, another blast from the past, good ol' You Have Reached. That is another great little fic, i don't know why i don't bring it up more often in this kind of meme. because it WAS very painful -- it was even painful for ME to write, i remember getting choked up about it, even, esp with the last message.

but anyway, RIGHT fics i am emotionally attached to....i guess it's either all of them or none of them to be honest. (well, never all of them -- i find like, a solid 50% of my output to be unforgivably cringy). but obviously adrift -- i bring it up A LOT and i wrote it, unbelievably, more than FOUR YEARS AGO, but it really is something i'm proud of. the fire and the flood, i wrote a bit more recently (2020, so not THAT recently LOL) but it's something i had worked on for SO LONG (while the show was still airing, i think!!! that's how long!!!!) and i am still proud of myself for actually finishing it, though it isn't perfect. i also think of like heartbeats between thunderclaps a lot. for a fic i only wrote because i'd rewatched one of the episodes of The West Wing that Clark Gregg was in, it really turned into just a very -- soft and intimate and domestic little moment between them. idk i just love writing characters who are TIRED but get to rest next to someone they love. WHAT does that say about me etc etc but here we are.

also i have great fondness for blended cotton with gannex twill, aka, the sentient trench coat fic. like i found the idea genuinely delightful, a mutual bullied me into writing it, it was fun and funny (i think???? at least funny for me to write) and idk, whatever, just delightfully absurd.

i also will always have a sad little fondness for A Battle, A War, A Growing Up -- I wish I had written more of it, I wish it was better in general, i wish i wasn't so -- cringe and awkward when writing their dialogue. but it's one of the few alex/darwin fics out there, which is a travesty, and i'm happy to have contributed what little i could.

#deep fic writer asks

4 notes · View notes

sometimesrosy · 5 years ago

Note

Hmm regarding the episode titles, a few ancient God like titles and royalty. Also isn't Anaconda meant to be the title of the back door pilot for the spin off I thought it would be later in the season considering they filmed it later but they must of filmed it whenever they got time, probably better it's mid season considering people are usually too distracted to pay too much attention to them if their near the finale like in arrow.

Anaconda is supposed to be the back door pilot. Hm. I thought it was going to be near the end, but it’s not. I wonder what that means. I still think it will have something to do with our plot/story, but let’s see.

Almost all the titles do seem to have something to do with religion/mythology and/or a larger meaningful theme. Well, he did say there IS a point to all this and we’ll find out this season. But I’m pretty sure he’s also threaded that meaning throughout the whole show and I don’t think we’ll be that surprised if we were paying attention to the text.

7.01 From the Ashes: This comes from our canon story. From the ashes we will rise. It is both the motto of the Second Dawn cult and part of the death rites for the grounders... indicating that the two are connected btw. It’s definitely a post apocalyptic theme, but in the case of Second Dawn, it would be preapocalyptic, indicating that they are a death cult, obsessed with the end of the world (possibly causing it) so that they may rise, in power. (possibly an indication that we’ll see sheidheda back [did he sneak into Russell’s minddrive and body snatch him? sounds likely] and maybe that he knows more about second dawn than expected. what is his connection to cadogan? what is cadogan’s connection to russell?)

7.02 The Garden: From the old testament and from our canon story. The Garden of Eden. 5.01 was Eden. Two serpents, one garden. Also referenced twice (?) when bringing up Adam and Eve.

7.03 False Gods: From the bible and from our canon story. Graffiti painted on Sanctum walls in regards to the Primes.

In Abrahamic doctrines, a false god is a deity or object of worship that is regarded as either illegitimate or non-functioning in its professed authority or capability, and this characterization is further used as a definition of "idol".[x]

7.04 Hesperides: Greek mythology.

In Greek mythology, the Hesperides are the nymphs of evening and golden light of sunsets, who were the "Daughters of the Evening" or "Nymphs of the West". They were also called the Atlantides from their reputed father, the Titan Atlas [x]

Not from canon so far. But it reminds me of Second Dawn, the sanctum obsession with eclipses, dawns, etc. Also the buttery light of Bellarke’s last meeting. But this is sunset not dawn. Hmm. I speculate this might be one of the planets. Relates to false gods, because that concept comes from monotheism in reaction to pagan pantheism, like worshipping greek gods and their daughters.

7.05 Welcome to Bardo: A new one to me. This is in fact religious. Not biblical, greek or western.

Used loosely, "bardo" is the state of existence intermediate between two lives on earth. According to Tibetan tradition, after death and before one's next birth, when one's consciousness is not connected with a physical body, one experiences a variety of phenomena. [x]

This fits with the apocalypse and rebirth of humanity. A waiting place. This also fits with the primes when they are in between hosts. Perhaps Murphy’s “hell” experience. Likely a new planet.

7.06 Nakara: No idea. May be the name of a planet.

Nakara (drum), an Indian musical instrument Nakara (martial art), a traditional martial art in the culture of Kiribati Nakara, Northern Territory, a suburb of Darwin, Australia Nakara people, a group of Indigenous Australians Nakkara language [x]

Ah, wait. It’s an island nation in the pacific, one of the most isolated nations in the world. I suspect it’s also one of the colony planets.

7.07 The Queen’s Gambit: Ah. Not religious/mythic. One of the oldest opening chess moves. Canon theme. Chess. But who is the queen? Clarke who seems to represent the queen in this theme? Octavia our red queen? Someone else? All of them. It also seems to be a move that starts of with the pawns, in order ot open the board up so queen has freer movement, but i’m not a chess player, so if anyone has insight. Who are the pawns though? Wonkru, Sanctumites, COGs, Miller, Niylah, Jackson, Emori, Echo, Madi, Jordan even?

7.08 Anaconda: We’ve talked about this. A giant snake, mythic in nature in South America. We keep connecting it to the ouroboros, the snake swallowing its own tale, a symbol of infinity, sometimes in a circle, sometimes a figure eight. Also the two serpents of Octavia and Diyoza, which might be the light/dark element, in a circle, sorta like a yin yang. idk. This is the backdoor pilot episode supposedly. I tend to think it will be about the circularity of time, as we go back in time to see the original victims (perpetrators?) of the apocalypse.

7.09 The Flock: Whose flock? These are the followers in a religion, particularly judeo christian religions. The sanctumites? wonkru? COG? the people on the other planets? the second dawn cultists? ALL of them? idk.

#the 100 #the 100 s7 #titles #speculation #mythos #allusions

59 notes · View notes

paddleboatonfire · 5 months ago

Text

Finding Darwin Page 73

I actually dropped this page last Wednesday, but I forgor to share here 😅 Read the rest of the comic by following the link below!

#webcomic #comic #finding darwin #comics #art #webcomics #clark #kira

6 notes · View notes

space-life · 4 years ago

Text

Some things about Space Life

Space Life is a science fiction webcomic set in an indefinite future on a small spaceship traveling the cosmos. On board the spaceship we find Tom, an astronaut we always see with a suit and helmet and AL, the voice of an artificial intelligence. Welcome to spaceship Beagle 5. Sit back and enjoy following Tom and AL on an extravagant adventure among the stars. Try to find countless references to famous and little-known jewels from scifi, nerd and pop culture.

Some things about Space Life

The Beagle 5 spaceship takes its name from the HMS Beagle ship. The HMS Beagle on her second voyage hosted the then young naturalist Charles Darwin on board, whose work made the Beagle one of the most famous ships in history. Number 5 is a tribute to Eagle 5 (which also has a certain similarity with the name Beagle) spaceship of Spaceballs (A 1987 american science fiction comedy film co-written, produced and directed by Mel Brooks).

AL is a tribute to Alan Turing. Philosopher, mathematician and cryptographer. The test that bears his name is still considered today a valid tool to ascertain whether a machine is able to compete with human intelligence.

AL also remembers HAL 9000, the supercomputer aboard the spacecraft Discovery in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and Arthur C. Clarke's book of the same name. In 2003, the American Film Institute placed HAL 9000 in 13th place on its list of the 50 Best Movie Villains of All Time. What surprises will AL have in store for us?

The work break raises the question about the future of work and about human-machine interaction. For further information see Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow by Yuval Noah Harari and Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies by Nick Bostrom

The game of chess proposed by Tom in "Origin" is a tribute to the great chess challenges between man and computer. Chess and computers have gone hand in hand since the dawn of information technology. Between the end of the 40s and the beginning of the 50s the first articles appeared (with signatures of illustrious scientists such as Claude Shannon, Norbert Wiener and above all the aforementioned Alan Turing) that designed algorithms capable of playing. Memorable were the challenges between Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue.

In "Spoiler" Tom says he wants to start reading "War and Peace". The reference is to the Peanuts character Snoopy who loves War and Peace, but in order not to get tired he reads no more than one word a day.

After the Apollo 1 fire, Snoopy became the official mascot of the Apollo program's aerospace security, testing and rebuilding.

The Apollo 10 lunar module was named "Snoopy" and the command module "Charlie Brown".

The Silver Snoopy award is a special NASA award in the form of a silver pin engraved with Snoopy with a space helmet. It is given to an astronaut who works in the space program who has gone above and beyond on the pursuit of quality and safety.

In "Cultural evolution" we refer to the cultural evolution in animals. In recent decades, a burgeoning literature has documented the cultural transmission of behavior through social learning in numerous vertebrate and invertebrate species. A meaning of "cultural evolution in animals" refers to these findings and I present an overview of the key findings. I will then address the other meaning of the term focused on cultural changes within a lineage. Such changes in humans, described as "cumulative cultural evolution", have been spectacular, but relatively little attention has yet been paid to the subject in non-human animals, other than claiming that the process is unique to humans. A variety of evidence, including controlled experiments and field observations, has begun to challenge this view and in some behavioral domains, particularly birdsong, cultural evolution has been studied for many years. The scifi reference is to "Planet of the Apes" and compared to the bears to the short story "Bears Discover Fire" by American science fiction author Terry Bisson.

"Time" is set in the vicinity of the black hole M87 . It's the central black hole of the giant elliptical galaxy Galaxy Virgo A, encoded as "M87" (the largest galaxy in the "near" universe, located 56 million light years from us , in the Cluster of the Virgin). It has a mass approximately 6.6 billion times that of the Sun.

That the time be one illusion is a mantra of many modern theoretical physicists. In the equations of the "loop quantum gravity model", with which Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin and others try to unify Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics, time disappears. What exists at the fundamental level are only "atoms of space". The universe and its history are nothing more than ways in which these "space atoms" are arranged. (Rovelli's Book)

Tom's answer - "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so"- is a quote from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams.

Have fun finding references and quotes in the next few episodes! feel free to write your ideas in the comments.

3 notes · View notes

vannahthehufflepuff · 5 years ago

Text

NEXT GEN OC | ISLA WEASLEY

House: Hufflepuff

Blood Status: Pureblood

Place of Birth: Hogwarts

Career Path: Herbologist or Healer

Sport: Quidditch (Beater)

Likes: knitting, flowy dresses, nature, flowers, mud, plants, foraging, sunshine, sweets, fairytales.

Dislikes: shoes, pants, any constricting clothing, people babying her just because she’s soft.

Favorite Classes: Herbology, Ancient Runes, Care of Magical Creatures

Physical Quirks/Scars: she has lots of scrapes on her legs from climbing trees, running through tall grass, etc. tall.

Speech: very soft, light tone. she’s usually told to speak up. breathy.

Wand: Cypress wood and unicorn hair, 13 ½”, Slightly Yielding

Patronus: Dolphin

School Pet: a rat named Beasley. Beasley Weasley.

Family: Fred Weasley, father. Maisie Barker (now Weasley), mother. Amelia Weasley, twin. Alfie Clark-Weasley, younger brother.

Friends: Darwin Weasley (lou’s oc, cousin), Einin Wood (lou’s oc), Finlay Weasley (cousin), Gresham Malfoy

Love Interest: Gresham Malfoy

Personality: kind, caring, thoughtful, soft. finds beauty in everything. a little shy. surprisingly courageous. a tad headstrong. not a mean bone in her body.

Face claim: Julia Adamenko

#next gen oc: isla weasley #family: barker-weasley

6 notes · View notes

81scorp · 5 years ago

Text

Constructive criticism: The Superman film series

(An editorial originally posted on Deviantart Mar 26 2015)

Superman, created in 1938 by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. A popular character that has remained popular through the years and is considered an american cultural icon. He has appeared on the radio, animated shows and live action TV. Then someone thought "Wouldn`t it be neat to see the man of tomorrow on the big screen?". Because of the special effects they had back then, portraying Ol` Supes most well known and iconic power: flying, was hard to pull of without making it look a tad bit silly. From what I`ve heard they were, at one point, thinking about taking it in a direction similar to the campy Adam West Batman universe. But Richard Donner (to my knowledge at least, correct me if I`m wrong) wanted it to be a movie that people could take more seriously. So, with a more serious script, good casting, acting, well made flying effects and the music of John Williams you would`ve believed a man could fly. It was a critical and financial success, and with financial success comes sequels. Superman II was a little more tongue in cheek than it`s predecessor but was still considered good and did well at the box office. Then came Superman III... and after it came Superman IV... Both were not that good. Let us, in my very subjective editorial, take a look at were they went wrong and how it could have been improved. Truth, justice and SPOILERS Superman Not really much to mention about the first movie. It is, for it`s time at least, an almost perfect superhero-movie. The score by John Williams fits perfectly with the tone and story and, this is probably just me but, the space scenes have a bit of a 2001: A space odyssey feel to them. There is of course one thing that makes it end up on this list. Reversing time by reversing Earth`s rotation/traveling backwards in time In a way it`s an admirable gesture that shows that he is willing to move heaven and earth for Lois and the scene before it is a powerful one where he holds her body in his arms. But still. If he somehow made the planet spin the other way it wouldn`t affect time, the sun would just rise in the west and set in the east. Assuming that the planet and it`s inhabitans would survive the change. Some say that he didn`t actually change the rotation, that it was just a way to illustrate that he actually travelled backwards through time. It would make more sense if he used a wormhole to time-travel. But if he time-travelled, wouldn`t there be two Supermen? The time-travelling one and the one from that time-period? Oh my, I`ve gone cross-eyed! But to be honest, I wouldn`t like that either, I feel it makes him too powerful. Don`t get me wrong, I want Superman to be powerful. But there should be limits. Instead: He`s holding her body in his arms. Superman: "Lois... please... don`t be dead..." (He COULD try to bring her back with CPR. But maybe he`ll accidentally crush her chest with his superstrength or destroy her lungs with his breath? You could argue that he has learned to control his power and hold it back. Yes, but in this scene he`s in a very emotional state. Is he stable enough to control himself that much?) There is silence for a moment... Then: ba-bump! He hears her heartbeat! she`s alive! She regains consciousness and he takes her to the nearest hospital. This shows that despite his god-likeness there are limits to what he can do. Maybe not perfect, maybe it lacks something, but at least it makes sense. Superman II Donner had a different vision of Superman 2 than the one that ended up on the big screen. However, due to off-screen problems between Donner and the producers over shooting schedule and final cut privileges, Donner (who had shot roughly 75% of the movie) was replaced by Richard Lester (who had to shoot 51% of the film in order to get directors credit). I still like the film but I have to admit it lacks a little of what could have made it great in some areas. Zod being amazed by so many things on Earth. I know, Earth and Krypton are two different planets, but still. He could understand what some things are even if they are different from Krypton. Like when he lands in a lake and goes: "strange surface". What? You don`t have lakes on Krypton? Then again, from what I saw of Krypton I don`t remember seeing any, so maybe they don`t. But at one point in Krypton`s history they must`ve had lakes and oceans, right? Not to mention that he`s confused that humans don`t have superpowers. Less of scenes like these. Zod`s telekinesis powers Not poor writing, just a personal opinion of mine. I like it better if all Kryptonians`s powers are limited to the ones Superman usually has. So away with it. That stupid STUPID kid at niagara falls Now this is poor writing. I know that it`s necessary for Superman to save someone so that Lois can get suspicious, but does it have to be in such a stupid way? The kid could have been leaning to get a glimpse of/trying to photograph something and lost his balance, and he could have been on the right side of the rails! (I assume they`re called rails,correct me if I´m wrong, english is my second language.) Not perfect but at least it makes him look like less of a Darwin-award nominee. Real kids are smarter than him... I hope. That female Daily Planet employee Remember the woman who said that the other ones were just as strong as superman? The way she said it made me think she was gonna turn out to be Nelson Muntz in disguise who mocks Lois for rooting on the losing team. She could have said it like: "Oh my god... The other ones are just as strong as Superman!" As if she`s aware that if Supes loses, everyone on Earth is doomed... including her. I know, it`s a small scene, but still. The unnecessarily thrown-in "comedic" moments during the big fight The producers seemed to have thought "this is based on a comic, as in comical. Let`s force in some comedy!" You know scenes like when the man eats an ice cream and it blows away, and the man who tries to make a phonecall and still stays on the phone even when the phonebooth he`s in gets obliterated. Away with scenes like those! Superman throwing the giant "S"-shield and the holographic doubles People think of the "S"-shield thing as another Superpower, but it doesn`t have to be, it could have been a thing that he had prepared. However, since we never find out if it was a power or not and it didn`t really change much, I`d say: loose it. The holographic doubles: From what I remember (correct me if I`m wrong) this is supposed to be a superpower. Why didn`t he use this in other scenes? I would change it to: Supes and Zod and the others fighting each other by moving around quickly with super-speed. The amnesia kiss Added superpower and lazy writing. Instead of Supes erasing Lois`s memory because she can`t handle that Clark is Superman, how about: She feels that having this knowledge is hard, but she can handle it. It would be more mature that way than to reset everything to status qou. Good performance by Margot Kidder though. Superman III Richard Donner was not involved in the making of this movie. Richard Lester was the one in the director`s chair, and the small seeds that hinted the direction of where this franchise was going in the second movie had blossomed to their full potential in this one. (If you can call it "potential".) In this case I don`t feel that it`s enough to list a few points like the previous ones. I`d change most of the plot. Bad guy Since Superman fought a computer in the climax I`d pick Brainiac as the villain. Since it came out 1983 I`d go with the pre-crisis version of him. Plot Earth is visited by an extra terrestrial A.I. that comes in peace, to gather information about us and then leave to continue it`s fact-finding mission (yes, I know, it`s a lot like that episode from that animated series). The A.I. (Brainiac) exposes Supes to a radiation that makes him evil. Some of Earth`s population put their trust in Brainiac since Supes has lost it. Eventually Supes manage to defeat his bad side in a junkyard (I liked that scene so I`m keeping it) and goes to battle Brainiac who, after being defeated, flees back into space. Subplot Since Lois was mostly absent from the third movie she`ll get more screen time in my version. She thinks it`s a bit much to be Supes girlfriend so she leaves Clark to date a more earthbound man. (But she has no trouble keeping his secret though, just so you know.) There could be some scenes where the three meet that could be a little funny but also a litte sad. However, in the end Lois realizes that she still loves Clark and goes back to him. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace This movie was not directed by Richard Lester or produced by Ilya and Alexander Salkind. It didn`t make it any better though. I still kinda liked this movie more than III though. Partly because of it`s so bad it`s goodness but also because it felt more like a Superman movie than a Richard Pryor movie. Still bad though. First... NO CHINESE WALL RESTORING VISION! Nuff said. Lenny Luthor Remove most, if not all of his goofiness or replace him with miss Teschmacher or come up some other assistant of Lex. Lex breaking out of prison Instead of Luthor being freed because the two guards wanted to see what it was like to sit in an expensive car: Have Lenny/miss Teschmacher/new character come flying in with a jetpack, give Lex an extra jetpack that he/she was carrying and have them both fly away together. Badguy Since Nuclear Man was a clone of Superman I`d use Bizarro. The thing with Bizarro though is that he`s not much of a villain. Wether he`s evil or (trying to be) good he`s always mentally slow. Therefore he could be like Frankensteins monster. He may not be as threatening as Nuclear man, but at least he`s 3-dimensional. So technically, the biggest villain in this scenario would still be Lex. Bizarro would just be an obstacle. Also: He wouldn`t be solar powered. Subplots Clark`s mom would be very old but Lana could be helping her take care of the farm. So that scene where a man wants to buy Clark`s farm but he refuses because he only wants to sell to a real farmer wouldn`t be necessary. Since Lois remembers Clarks secret identity in this hypothetical movie and they`ve gotten back together there`s no point in having that scene with the "double date" with her, Clark/Superman and Lacy. This would give more room to Lois`s conflict with David Warfield over what he`s done to Daily Planet, and in some cases she`d have to have this conflict with Lacy Warfield. Plot After Lex escapes from prison he and Lenny/miss Teschmacher/new character gets a hair sample from Supes just like they did in the movie. But they create him in a lab in Lex`s HQ (no rockets in the sun). Lex fills the clone`s head with knowledge through a subliminal "teaching-helmet". The clone is at first a perfect duplicate of Supes but then turns all Bizarro-y. Lex calls him "bizarre" and adds "Oh!" as in "Oh. What the hell am I gonna do with it now!?" But realizes he can still have use for him. Bizarro causes disasters, fights Supes and wins the first round (Beginners luck?). Supes manages got get a piece of Bizarro`s hair during the fight. He gives it to Prof: Phineas Potter (a friend of Supes in the silver age comics) to analyze. Later Bizarro slowly developes a conscience. Round 2: Supes wears a protection suit and tries to use a bit of kryptonite on Bizarro. (It`s the rock that Lex used in the first movie.) Supes gave it to scientists to use against him if he turns evil again like in the third movie (Continuity!). It doesn`t work on Bizarro, they fight. Their battle puts people in danger, Supes has to temporarily incapacitate Bizarro and help them. Bizarro sees how Supes cares about others and then leaves. It ends in a draw. Round 3: Prof Potter has, by comparing Bizarro`s dna with Supes and analyzing how ordinary kryptonite affects Supe`s dna, created blue Kryptonite. Supes uses it against Bizarro. In their fight, civilians are put in danger. Supes try to keep them safe. Bizarro, even though he`s weakened, helps him. They see that they are not enemies and Bizarro turns on Lex who tries to destroy him and sends him to an ambiguous death. In the climax Lex puts on a super-armor-suit, battles Supes, loses and goes back to jail. It is hinted that Bizarro is still alive and travelling the world, trying to do good. In my version there`s no "Supes gets rid of nuclear weapons", but I hope the subplot with Bizarro`s inner journey is enough to make it feel that there are enough plot-lines. Superman Returns After being absent from the big screen for 19 years, Superman (much like the title says) returned to a world with new actors, a bigger budget and digital effects. Directed by Bryan Singer, it completely ignored the last two movies and was a big love letter to Richard Donner`s Superman movies. And it wasn`t very successful. People were not very keen on Supes having a kid with Lois (based on a scene from Richard Donner`s cut of Superman II where Supes and Lois have some nekkid action after he`s given up his powers). Plus Lex`s evil plan was pretty much the same plan he had in the first movie, except with more kryptonite. Lots and lots and lots of kryptonite. How I would have done it.

Plot Supes returns to Earth after having been out in space for a few years, searching for the leftovers of Krypton. His mom is now dead and the farm (like in the last movie) is being taken care of by Lana. She`s glad that he`s back and thinks that he should take care of the farm now because she has plans for her own life and she`s engaged to Pete Ross. Since Supes never found what he hoped to find in space Lana thinks he should try to focus on his life on Earth. Lois is dating a guy (and if there has to be a kid in this movie he/she should be the child of the guy that Lois is dating) and Lex is out of prison. I`d keep the part about Lois writing the "Why the world doesn`t need Superman" article and the part where Supes prevents the plane from crashing. When Supes travelled in space an alien being noticed him and tracked him to earth. Early in the movie Lex seems to be the main bad guy, but then it turns out to be the alien that followed Supes to Earth, and it should be... Mongul! You may ask: "Why not Darkseid?" For the same reason the Avengers didn`t fight Thanos in their first movie, he should come later. Supes fights Mongul and gets unexpected help from Lex who uses his high-tech weapons against the threat. Mongul is defeated and Supes and Lex are celebrated as heroes. Supes however doesn`t believe that Lex has changed, that the heroic act is just for show (and he`s right). Lois leaves the guy she`s dating but doesn`t go back to Supes (at least not yet). Meanwhile: elsewhere, a man is watching the celebration on a big computer-screen (he`s seen from behind and the computer-screen is the only light source in the room). There`s a butler standing next to him. They`re in a cave. With bats. (Sequel-bait!) And those are my ideas. They`re not perfect but I hope they`re not bad.

Have to go now. I have to fight a giant metal spider for some reason.

#superman #richard donner #dc comics #movie #constructive #criticism #editorial #81scorp

4 notes · View notes

puddles-and-yellow-flowers · 5 years ago

Text

Photographs

I fell in love with our first photographs- the ones on the dock on Clark lake; on our first date, where I almost fell in the water and you said you would jump in to save me ( I think I would accidentally pull you in.)

The photo from my aunts memorial- when we are both dressed in black, standing next to one another. You made me strong that day, and amongst my family you gained a sort of legendary fame ( good job Mr. Keaton). Of course that just reminds me of-

That picture of Monty and me, in your clothes on the kitchen floor. That black dress which didn’t last long, on the floor in your old room.

The photograph Darwin took of us on the couch at your dads, the polaroid's from new years and pops shoots... god damn we look good together.

But I don’t just want those photographs... I want more. I want ‘ oh my fucking god your really here’ photos from when you come visit. The post hotel-sex photos from that future night... and all the post-sex photos after. I want photos of us at the house, when I don’t have to leave anymore... photos at our temporary apartment’s front door in Bozeman.

Photos from game nights and parties, and quiet days. I want pictures when we go mudding, or are just incredibly dirty. I want photos of us shoulders up, from after going skinny-dipping ( a bucket list item of mine). The ‘oh shit she’s driving’ photos where you're (even if you say you aren’t) a little nervous of what i could end up doing. All the little quick photos, when ill come up to you and kiss your cheek or slap your ass.

The engagement photos that Owen’s gonna take, and the wedding photos that he’s most definitely not going to. I want photos of your face when I walk down that aisle in white lace... and when I kiss the cake off your face when I just smooshed some on your face. First dance, carrying me into the reception and the garter-throw. I want a photo album of that day to be displayed on our bookcase.

I want the road trip photos, the ones in the back of Kris. I want the oh-my-god look where we are photos- all around the world, on top of castles and when you find me lost in Hobbiton. I want to take selfies in the car while your driving and I may be being a little annoying.

I want photos that we’ll send on cards to friends and family- when we tell them ( the ones that we haven’t told) that there’s a baby. I want photos in the hospital, when I’m exhausted and we’re both lying on that hospital bed, our baby nestled between. Bringing them home for the first time, and all the time in between ( not like imma remember a lot of it.)

I wanna fall in love with all the photographs, and have all the memories to flip through in a photobook- point at a page and say ‘ do you remember that day?’ I wanna show people how lucky we are- so that our smiles are immortalized on a page.

1 note · View note

fableway-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Eye-Opening Quotes That Will Make You Notice What You Always Ignored

Seem to be going through life without taking the time to smell the roses? Here are some eye-opening words to help you notice things which you have always ignored.

Sometimes you never realize the value of a moment until it becomes a memory. Dr. Seuss

A ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not why ships are built. A fortune cookie

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. Calvin Coolidge

Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in a long-shot. Charlie Chaplin

A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the crowd. Max Lucado

It is the mark of an educated mind, to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

Another flaw in the human character is that everyone wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance. Kurt Vonnegut

I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him. Mark Twain

In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on. Robert Frost

Silence is holy. It draws people together because only those who are comfortable with each other can sit without speaking. Anonymous

Life isn’t about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. George Bernard Shaw

What do they call the person who graduated last in his class in med school? Doctor.

All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. T. E. Lawrence

Nothing of me is original. I am the combined efforts of everyone I’ve every known. Chuck Palahniuk

There is only one way to avoid criticism: Do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing” Elbert Hubbard

Don’t tell me the sky’s the limit when there are footprints on the moon. Paul Brandt

If you remember me, then I don’t care if everyone else forgets. Haruki Murakami

When another person makes you suffer, it is because he suffers deeply within himself, and his suffering is spilling over. He does not need punishment; he needs help. That’s the message he is sending. Thích Nhất Hạnh

Warning: everything saved will be lost. Wii notification

There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man. Patrick Rothfuss

Imagining the Future is a kind of nostalgia. You spend your whole life stuck in the labyrinth, thinking about how you’ll escape it one day, and how awesome it will be, and imagining that future keeps you going, but you never do it. You just use the future to escape the present. John Green

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius

Treat the Earth Well. It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. Kenyan Proverb

I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up all alone, it’s not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone. Robin Williams

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

A person is a person no matter how small. Dr. Seuss

There are 1,000 lessons in defeat. But only one in victory. Confucious

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. Teddy Roosevelt

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. Charles Darwin

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Eleanore Roosevelt

Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. Arthur C. Clarke

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. André Gide

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin

When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.” Mr. Rogers

Stay strong. Depression lies. Wil Wheaton

I have noticed that people who claim everything is predestined, and we can do nothing to change it, look both ways before crossing the road. Stephen Hawking

You are the universe experiencing itself. Alan Watts

For more dramatic content, check out www.fableway.com.

#eye-opening #qoutes #ignored #value #memory #moment #life #aristotle #charlie chaplin #books #ebooks

1 note · View note

scotchfields · 5 years ago

Text

Galbraith, Friedman, and the Televised Argument

I recently subjected myself to an entire season of the all-but-forgotten 1977 BBC documentary series The Age of Uncertainty, a drab early version of the now ubiquitous “television documentary”. Filled to the brim with stiff academic talk, thick cigarette smoke, hokey animation, and silly references to the New Wave, The Age of Uncertainty is a neat little time capsule. It was written, produced, and hosted by Canadian-American economist and sensation John Kenneth Galbraith, more than once dubbed “sexiest man alive,” and also remembered as a profoundly radical and influential public economist. Adopting a similar style to earlier television documentaries like Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man and Kenneth Clark’s Civilization, Galbraith had a big budget, plenty of important names attached, and complete creative control over the show’s content. With the BBC’s backing, and embracing a tongue-and-cheek, at times fiery style, Galbraith launched the first major attempt at a television documentary covering economics.

And in this modern viewer’s hindsight, the result was a complete and utter trainwreck. The Age of Uncertainty is not only boring as fuck – it ranks among the snooziest programs I have ever laid my eyes upon. For all of Galbraith’s sophistication, all of his finesse, the man’s slow monotone tests absolute limits of sustained attention to even the most passionate audience. Still, The Age of Uncertainty is worth talking about, even if it is probably not worth watching. In our day of Netflix, Kanopy, Hulu, HBOGo, et cetera, the television documentary has become a staple of living room background ambience. The Age of Uncertainty was at the apex of the format, brandishing some of its worst and best characteristics. The Age of Uncertainty also spurred unprecedented amounts of debate and rebuttal from public intellectuals. It proved, if anything, that television documentaries could matter in the real world.

Over the course of twelve episodes and three one-hour special interviews, The Age of Uncertainty explores the history of economic thought since the 18th century. Special attention is paid to the ways in which ideas shape institutions, and how history has been fundamentally altered by different notions about how the economy functions. In framing economic thought as profoundly institutional, Galbraith hopes to break down the barriers of academic discourse that, in his view, make economics needlessly complex to ordinary people. By the end of the final episode, Galbraith develops his thesis: markets, far from an abstract, complex concept, actually affect day-to-day material realities, and thus should be put under greater public, democratic control. Galbraith’s argument, rooted in an explicitly neo-Keynesian, left-of-center ideological background, connects form with content. He attempts to use accessible language, along with various methods of viewer-friendly visual storytelling, to reject free-market economics, and to propose an economic order more oriented around human need and participation. Galbraith’s use of animation, skit acting, expensive sets, and various other techniques are hit-or-miss, but do reveal the ideologies informing Galbraith and his opponents, and help us understand the relationship between an economist and the public.

Before exploring the content of the show, it’s important to understand Galbraith’s position within the economics discipline and his views on academia more generally. Indeed Galbraith’s lofty ambition in creating The Age of Uncertainty, and his more implicit desire for audience resonance and participation, both stemmed from his unique relationship to the academy. Galbraith was a recognized and even self-admitted heterodox economist, who tended to break from mainstream economic thinking on a number of important questions. Most notably, Galbraith tended to reject economics as reducible to a set of concrete laws. Human behavior, in Galbraith’s view, was a product of the institutions, communities, and cultures from which it developed, rather than any process reducible to mathematical models. As a result, Galbraith tended to reject many core economic precepts, such as the tendency towards perfect competition in markets. Economic historian Alexandre Chirat has written extensively about Galbraith’s relationship to the economic mainstream, explaining:

“Heterodox economists — and, more specifically, institutionalists — have always dealt with power in economics more than others. Whereas textbooks economists find this notion disappointing at best, Galbraith thinks, as Bertrand Russell, that power is a fundamental concept in social sciences. According to him, “in eliding power — in making economics a non-political subject — neoclassical theory, by the same process, destroys its relation with the real world.” In other words, it destroys its raison d‘être… It is exactly because of the introduction of power in his analysis that Galbraith gives up on orthodox postulates, on one hand, and deals with the power of economists, on the other.” [2]

Chirat sees Galbraith’s power analysis as the core motive that undergirds his entire worldview. In particular, Chirat brings up Galbraith’s interest in three crucial power dynamics: the sovereignty of the consumer, the sovereignty of the citizen, and the maximization of profits. These three factors, which Galbraith sees as largely ignored by the economic mainstream, introduce elements of uncertainty to economic decisionmaking on a massive scale. Chirat considers Galbraith’s mutli-faceted power analysis as veering towards disciplines like political economy or even social theory, especially in its consideration of “socially-constructed” understandings. “Considering power in economics,” Chirat argues, “leads Galbraith to reflect on the role — and, therefore, the power — of economists.” For Galbraith, the very way academics think about issue areas like education, healthcare, and immigration determines real-world outcomes. Such a self-reflexive notion – breaking down the ideologies that form how decisionmakers think about the economy – leads Galbraith to a “pluralism regarding social purpose.” For Galbraith, “the economy” is not and ought not be synonymous with “public welfare.”

Galbraith’s heterodox economic views are expressed in both the content and form of The Age of Uncertainty. Firstly, with regard to content, the scope of Galbraith’s historical analysis seems to fit his ideological background. Galbraith makes clear the connection between “ideas,” or the economic orthodoxy that he so opposed, and lived, material realities. The history of modern society, in his view, was little more than the net outcome of ideas adopted and ideas rejected. One example comes with Episode 2, “The Morals and Manners of High Capitalism,” an episode almost singularly concerned with the rise of robber barons, and the ideology of “Social Darwinism” that permitted their existence. Galbraith says that “a strong and even dominant current of social thought in the last century set the rich apart and held that they were, indeed, a superior caste.” This current of social thought, Galbraith explains, “protected wealth,” as no entity “could interfere with the essential process” of wealth concentration. Social Darwinism, in Galbraith’s view, is an idea like any other, depending “a little on economics,” a little on “theology,” and mostly on a notion of “biology.” But this simple concept had immense power in the shaping of Western society in the 19th century, justifying the stratified social system under which nations existed. Galbraith goes on in the episode to discuss Thorstein Veblen, Norweigan-American economist and Galbraith’s “main influences.” Veblen’s ideas about “conspicuous consumption,” Galbraith argues, had the effect of beating back the trend of Social Darwinism, and targeting criticism towards the wealthy. Ideas, then, can work both ways.

In fact much of Galbraith’s analysis, from the early days of industrialization in England to the modern, postwar Keynesian period, is concerned with the nature of ideas about wealth, poverty, and inequality. He is especially concerned with how ideas are adopted, and how power relationships impact perception of ideas. In Episode 7, “The Mandarin Revolution,” Galbraith talks about the origin of the Keynesian idea, and the ways in which it fundamentally transformed society. “Keynes,” Galbraith says, “had a solution without a revolution… [When] Washington was cool to Keynes… he captured the United States by way of the universities.” Galbraith discusses how the older generation of economists roundly rejected Keynes’ ideas, while younger economists were quick to adopt them. Eventually, Keynesianism became ubiquitous, and as a result, human welfare improved. During his discussion of Nazi Germany’s response to the Great Depression, Galbraith is sure to invoke this skepticism of “mainstream” academic thought. “The Nazis were not given to books,” he writes. “Their reaction was to circumstance, and that served them better than the sound economists served Britain and the United States.” He discusses how the German motivation to borrow and spend money on public works like the Autobahn massively reduced unemployment. In the end it was nothing short of an economic miracle, where the Germans recovered from the Great Depression much faster than their peers.

In examining the ideological content of The Age of Uncertainty, Galbraith’s analysis should also be contextualized within the historical moment of the Cold War. In particular, Galbraith seems intent on understanding both sides of the conflict, and perhaps even arriving at some sort of a consensus between the two models. One of Galbraith’s main policy ideas, after all, he termed “new socialism,” and involved the extension of various aspects of centralized planning in the United States. While preserving a market-based framework, Galbraith’s “new socialism” adopted elements from the Soviet system regarding medicine, public utilities, and the industrial sector. The twelfth episode of The Age of Uncertainty captures Galbraith’s attitude towards these two poles of capitalism and communism, concluding with a somber warning about the horrors of nuclear warfare and the common humanity shared by Americans and Soviets. “The Russians are no less perceptive, no less life-enhancing, no more inclined to a death wish than we are,” he explains. “That, indeed, is the highest purpose of politics in both countries, one that far transcends differences in economic of political systems.” While this quote digresses slightly from my point about Galbraith’s search for capitalist and socialist consensus, it still captures his attitude towards the Cold War quite effectively. Galbraith, in final analysis, viewed both systems as having merit. The “great uncertainty” of the show’s title, after all, refers to Galbraith’s view of the ideal economic system as basically undiscovered.

The Age of Uncertainty’s visual style compliments Galbraith’s ideological message by twisting and contorting the traditional science-documentary format. In doing so, Galbraith attempts to break down the barriers between audience and expert that he feels needlessly complicate economics for ordinary people. The ultimate goal, then, is to demystify economics, uncovering the ways in which free-market economic ideas create their own logic and embed themselves within society. For one, The Age of Uncertainty employs animation to visually articulate Galbraith’s lectures. In the first episode, “The Prophets and Promise of Classical Capitalism,” Galbraith notes how the computer “can be made to reach back in time,” before revealing an elaborate metaphor for serfdom using an animated village. In the animation, buildings represent individual power and status, with a castle atop a hill equalling the state, a less ornate castle representing the landlords, and small houses representing agrarian villagers. The animation is arranged in the form of a pyramid, with the poor villagers at the bottom and houses slowly increasing in size as they move up the hill. The point of the animation, Galbraith explains, is to convey the strict nature of precapitalist society, wherein peasants were locked into their position at the bottom of the pyramid. The animation, however, is rather difficult to understand at first, as the various buildings don’t have obvious meanings. This invites a degree of ambiguity on behalf of the audience. If Galbraith’s goal is to connect on a human level with his audience, his visual materials should probably be more explicit.

The Age of Uncertainty also takes advantage of grand, expensive sets. In the fourth episode, “The Colonial Idea,” Galbraith tries to convey the turbulent and brutal nature of 19th century European politics with a massive, life-sized map of Europe painted on the floor. Atop each country stands a soldier, played by a real actor, dressed in a military uniform appropriate for his particular country and weilding a sword. The actors, apparently representing the military of their respective countries, take turns clashing swords with one another in an almost rhythmic, dance-like fashion. The scene is clearly meant to portray 19th century Europe as rife with aimless, nonstop bloodshed, but mostly comes across as silly and cheesy. Only several minutes later in the episode, Galbraith discusses British Empire, and in particular the 1947 partition of India. Outlining the chaos and bloodshed that occurred in the subcontinent, Galbraith uses what appears to be real archival footage of mass migration and human displacement. Spliced into the archival footage, though, are scenes of actors clashing swords. The juxtaposition of real, tragic archival footage with more obviously fake scenes filmed on set, both following the comical “map of Europe” scene, seems rather tone-deaf.

The public reception to these visual techniques, and The Age of Uncertainty at large, was mixed at best. Some critics dismissed Galbraith’s lectures as overly complex, despite his efforts to use relatively simple language. Others favored his speaking style and appreciated his command of language. The main criticism of the show, though, focused on the sets and animations. Critics tended to dismiss the visual style of the show, which rather than aiding understanding, actually “distracted” them from Galbraith’s message. The Historian Angus Burgin has written about the reception to The Age of Uncertainty on both sides of the Atlantic:

The extravagant and self-conscious visuals in The Age of Uncertainty seemed to have done little to make Galbraith’s arguments more rhetorically compelling for his audience. In America, George Stigler (1977) wrote that the documentary had fulfilled his “fears about the effective use of television” as a medium for economics, as Galbraith “made no observable attempt to use visual methods to illuminate ideas”: in England, one observer noted that Galbraith’s visuals seemed as though they had been “mischievously” devised by a conservative think tank “to distract attention from his message.” Silent reenactments and composed dances, it seemed, were a disruptive complement to Galbraith’s narrations; in a series on the social sciences, viewers manifested a preference for visual economy rather than excess.

Criticism was also directed towards the ideological content of The Age of Uncertainty. For the most part, ideological criticisms were divided along partisan lines. Prominent figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, for example, dismissed The Age of Uncertainty as left-wing propaganda. Notably, the American economist Milton Friedman released a ten part series entitled Free to Choose: A Personal Statement as a direct response to Galbraith’s program. Released in 1980, Free to Choose features a loosely similar style to The Age of Uncertainty, with Friedman narrating a variety of historical case studies of economic thought and policy. The main difference is Friedman’s focus on an explicitly political agenda. In contrast to Galbraith’s chronological, step-by-step history, Friedman organizes his program based on specific, hot-button policy topics. Episode titles range from “What's Wrong with Our Schools?,” to “Who Protects the Worker?,” to “How to Cure Inflation.” Where Galbraith maintains a pretense of objectivity, Friedman openly confesses his biases, and essentially outlines how the free market is the solution to the problem of each episode. At the end of each episode, Friedman engages in a debate with a prominent expert on the opposing side of the issue. Friedman’s debating style and overall charisma were praised.

Burgin has written about the relative success of Free to Choose compared to The Age of Uncertainty. Overall, he attributes Galbraith’s failure to a few main elements: Galbraith’s “stiffness,” the “cheesy” production techniques, and perhaps most importantly, the lack of a strong “unifying” theme to encapsulate Galbraith’s ideas. On the latter, Burgin sees Friedman’s message as concise enough to resonate with audiences in a single sentence: the free market works. He explains how Friedman’s charm was based around this simplicity:

“At the center of his appeal, however, lay the force of the market metaphor. While Friedman’s rhetoric aligned well with the requirements of late twentieth century modes of transmission, Galbraith never found a way to distill his views in such simple and broadly applicable terms. As one journalist wrote before the release of either documentary, to be an “economic superstar” it was necessary to arrive at a ‘fixed view of the world, learn to state it forcefully and cast unremitting scorn on those who disagree.’”

Burgin expands:

“Galbraith, as one might expect, was horrified by Friedman’s means of persuasion. He found the arguments Friedman adopted “simplistic” and perhaps even “purely rhetorical,” relying “almost wholly on passionate assertion and emotional response” (Galbraith 1981b). He marveled at the “radicalism” of economic ideas in the early 1980s, labeling himself a dispositional “conservative” by comparison.”

Burgin’s analysis of the problems that plagued The Age of Uncertainty helps to explain much of why the show failed to gain traction. In addition, his comparison with Free to Choose, a more critically and commercially popular program, helps to underscore the public’s lack of interest in Galbraith’s lecturing style. However, Burgin’s analysis is incomplete insofar as it fails to consider what the proper role of an economist should actually be. Perhaps Friedman is better at concisely communicating his ideas to the public, but is this necessarily better for the public? What is the proper relationship between an expert economist and their audience?

These questions have been debated constantly by economists for decades. It might be useful to view the debate in the context of television history. Galbraith, as evidenced by his show, clearly favored some role for economists in connecting with audiences and ensuring that their ideas received a wide public hearing. However, his “horrified” response to Friedman’s rhetorical style also suggests that he opposed any oversimplification of complex ideas. The scholar George Stigler, cited by Angus Burgin, agrees with Galbraith. Like Galbraith, he sees the economist as needing to straddle a line between maintaining authority and fulfilling a social need. In turn, he sees economists as inherently in conflict with vested interests – be it corporations, or labor unions – who seek to manipulate the public agenda through more sly, unscrupulous tactics. For Stigler, though, the economist ought never sacrifice personal integrity, as academic truth will win out in the end.

One contrasting view on the role of economists, particularly relevant to The Age of Uncertainty, comes from economist Samuel Bowles in his essay “Economists as Servants of Power.” Like Galbraith, Bowles sees economics as inherently political from the outset. In particular, both are interested in how “social constructions” of power shape material realities. However, Bowles takes the discussion further by exploring how the state apparatus, monied interests, and professional economists feed off of one another, and in turn develop ideas symbiotically. Bowles argues that experts, in their close proximity to power, either “figure out ways to ameliorate social conditions which run the risk of being politically explosive,” or outright “obfuscate the roots of inequality and hierarchy,” which in turn “constricts the range of policy alternatives.” As a result, Bowles argues that economists should drop all pretenses of being apolitical, and should assume more activist roles in pursuit of egalitarianism. In short, Bowles not only believes that economists should consider both how power shapes the world, but also that economists’ priorities are shaped by power. The conclusions are significant. While Free to Choose connected Friedman with the public on the surface level of his rhetoric, deeper down, his methodologies were still informed by his close relationships with institutions of power like the Republican Party, the US Treasury Department, think tanks like the Hoover Institution. Thus, in reality, Friedman’s conclusions were actually developed at a distance from the public.

Over the course of twelve episodes and three one-hour special interviews, The Age of Uncertainty explores the history of economic thought since the 18th century. Galbriath’s ultimate objective, which forms the entire trajectory of the show, is perhaps best conveyed in the opening chapter of The Age of Uncertainty’s accompanying book. “What people believe about the workings of markets and their relationships to the state,” Galbraith argues, “shapes history through the laws that are enacted or discarded.” In framing economic thought this way, Galbraith hopes to demonstrate the close proximity of “economics,” broadly understood, to real peoples’ lives. In turn, he hopes to make the economics discipline more participatory and open.

Galbraith’s argument, rooted in an explicitly neo-Keynesian, left-of-center ideological background, rejects mainstream economic thought, viewing power, institutions, and outright “social constructions” by academics and policymakers as crucial in human decisionmaking. A variety of techniques, including animation, skit acting, are used to make this case. These techniques had a mixed reception among critics and audiences, mostly coming off as stiff and tone-deaf. Especially compared to the more charismatic, plainly rhetorical style of Milton Friedman, Galbraith largely failed to fully involve the public the way he wanted, and to connect economic ideas with lived realities. However, the notion of involvement with the public is complex. As scholars like Samuel Bowles have argued, there are different ways in which an economist can be “close” to the public. More important than an easily-accessible communication style is a research methodology that invites participation from various stakeholders from throughout society. In this sense, Galbraith’s desire for a more participatory economics discipline, and one that connects ideas with the material world, might be the more authentically “public” style after all.

Theodore Molina

1 Angus Burgin, Age of Certainty: Galbraith, Friedman, and the Public Life of Economic Ideas

2 Chirat, Alexandre. “When Galbraith Frightened Conservatives: Power in Economics, Economists' Power, and Scientificity.” Journal of Economic Issues 52, no. 1 (2018): 32

3 Chirat, 33

4 Chirat, 35

5 Galbraith, 45

6 Galbraith, 213

7 Galbraith, 342

8 Chirat, 31

9 Burgin, Angus. Age of Certainty: Galbraith, Friedman, and the Public Life of Economic Ideas. In: Tiago Mata/Steven G. Medema (eds.), The Economist as Public Intellectual (= History of Political Economy, annual supplement), Durham 2013. 51

10 Burgin, 50

11 Burgin, 30

12 Bowles, Samuel. "Economists as Servants of Power." The American Economic Review 64, no. 2 (1974): 129-32.

#theodore molina #reviews

1 note · View note