I’ve been watching the old Stallone/Snipes classic Demoltion Man on Netflix streaming, and it got me to thinking, was the “New Way” society of San Angeles portrayed to be deliberately repellent?
If I had to make the choice of living in the “Kinder, Gentler” society of SA, or living in the Undercity with Edgar Friendly and his group, I’d choose the Undercity, because only there were you truly free, no, you weren’t coddled by namby-pamby touchy-feely crap, and life may be harsh and rough in the Undercity, but at least you didn’t have to deal with the “thought police” and being forced to conform to societal “norms”
Yes, I’d miss Taco Bell, but I’d also probably not be able to figure out the Three Seashells either, and I’d quickly be bankrupted by the Verbal Morality Standard enforcement, K-G San Angeles is, IMHO, Nannystatism at it’s worst, and frakking annoying
<Buzzer> MacTech, you have been fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Standard
So, let’s say you fell through an Orange Whirly Thing In Space, and ended up in the universe of Demolition Man, what society would you choose to live in, Kinder, Gentler San Angeles, or the San Angeles Undercity?
Neither really. I always wondered what the rest of the country/world was like in Demolition Man. After all San Angeles was just one city-state (IIRC Dr. Cocteau was refered to as the “Mayor-Governor”). Is everyplace else a nanny-state like SA, a poverty-stricked Hell like the Undercity, or something else entirely?
I would enjoy the civilized comforts of San Angeles by day while spending my nights hanging out in the Undercity, at least until my attempts at current Undercity slang got me killed.
I’ve watched the film a couple of times, both of them before I hit 20, and possibly I should watch it again now that I’m older, but I always thought that SA was far far more appealing. Everyone was nice to each other, there was no crime, people were encouraged to be happy and friendly - what’s not to like? I honestly don’t understand how people can be willing to trade not being at risk of ever being murdered or physically attacked for the right to swear.
The undercity wasn’t a free society at all, it was just another survivalist hole where the only real freedom is the freedom to starve if you’re not strong.
Dopers will choose the happy happy joy joy San Angeles, because they are the weak, and live life at the mercy of the tyrannical strong. San Angeles appeals to them, because it seems to be a haven for the weak.
Me? I will be in the underbelly. And I will be king. And soon, I will be coming up to “visit” the kinder, gentler world you so desire.
Undercity. While I admire the peace and serenity of San Angeles, it is simply to constrictive to endure. I would be happier in the Undercity where I could pursue life as I see fit. The problem with SA is that it has stripped it’s citizens of the ability to be tough and self reliant when necessary. It has in effect, made them completely vunerable, and that does not sit well with me at all. I’m all for peace, but we should be able to kick ass when needed. SA needs to reference the Shaolin more, and the new agers less.
Undercity. Because I strongly suspect that SA engages is some heavy duty mind control. How else would such a society remain stable? Why don’t the Undercity types just rise up and take over? Against people so passive that one criminal is an irresistible force it shouldn’t be that hard. And consider the mind control that was used on Simon Phoenix - it seems rather unlikely that such a technology would exist in the first place unless it had been invented by people who intended to use it. I suspect there’s some sort of covert mind control equipment in common use throughout SA; the Undercity types don’t try to take over because they get Stepfordized if they try.
Probably no one but the head guy actually knows what it is or where though. Built into every bed? Part of those shell things? I always got the distinct feeling that the whole place was basically his puppet show.
I’m pretty sure that San Angeles was deliberately portrayed as stifeling and unappealing. Not that Undercity’s fight-for-survival culture was much better – but I haven’t seen the movie in many years.
Didn’t seem like that to me. The big, tough guys went out on raids above to steal food and supplies, and then they shared it with everyone down below, including old, weak, and children. If it was a “survivalist hole” then Stallone, Bullock, and…umm…random Hispanic Guy would have been killed the second they step foot down there, being cops and all.
But though they are dirty and use curse words, they are still good people, just not teetotalers.
That being said, I voted Cyrostasis…at least until a year or so after the events of the movie, when it seemed like SA and the Underground were working to make a middle-ground.
I find it appealing as I have never found Sandra bullock more appealing than in that movie. Unfortunately, she went on to do just about everything else she’s done.
It wasn’t a trade-off; it was the epitome of “ignorance is bliss”. The society was formed by strict rules and strict enforcement, pushing anyone who wouldn’t conform out of the society. By the time that generation had grown up, they simply didn’t know anything different. It’s not a choice when you don’t realize that you actually have an option.
And even today, do you ever really feel under threat of being murdered or attacked? I realize that it’s not zero, but I’ll take my one in a billion chance of being murdered and having freedom than taking that absolute certainty at the expense of so many rules. I’ll take a little bit of cursing, a little bit of rudeness for being able to choose how to live my life, have sex, eat unhealthy food, and take risks.
The Undercity was preferable, but only because it had freedom. That it lacks so much in the way of technology sucks. As such, I’d really prefer to live in neither, and I voted such, but if there’d been only two options, I’d have chosen it. They looked to be heading toward a good middleground at the end… that would be nice.