Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Utopia

Well I'm guessing we all know about the deal with Utopia in the series. The question is, how did it make you feel?

The problem with Utopia, in my opinion, is that although there is no violence or war, it's also quite boring. Like Tempus said, "There are 9000 channels and nothing on." I don't blame him for being upset.

I didn't read anything HG Wells wrote, but I saw a version of it on TV. Yes, I know, but it couldn't have been that far off.

The Utopia that was presented to us there was totally boring and awful. No one even knew how to speak, for crying out loud! There was no need. There weren't any books, any computers, nothing. Well, there were, but they were so dusty and so old they shattered when the hero touched them. I don't think that's a future I'd have liked to be responsible for, if I were L&C.

Julie

Great poll Roo! I'd been thinking of doing a post on the same topic.

I found Utopia fascinating for three reasons 1) I'm always interested in future utopias/dystopias 2) I always wondered what spurred Utopia to come about 3) And I wonder if it really is a Utopia.

Now, we all know that "Utopia" was founded by the descendants of Superman and Lois Lane. And by descenedants I'm assuming they mean children or grandchildren since Tempus lived in Utopia and he was from the 22nd century.

What I wonder is how in a period of less than 100 years did their world go from the disorganized, violent place that is in some ways familiar to our own to this "Utopia". Was there some radical event? Did everyone just get together and decide to not fight anymore and play nice? Really?

Maybe it speaks to my own cynical nature but clones, cyborgs and aliens I have no problem buying but this "Utopia" keeps me wondering.

(I posted this on the other boards a while back so I am just cut-n-pasting my ideas here.)

As I see it, we have three possibilities.

The first is the least radical and the most probable. We need to look at how much we know about "Utopia" and most importantly who gives us this information. What we know isn't much. We know that it is founded by the descendants of Lois & Clark who base their society on the principles that Lois & Clark espoused during their lives and that these two are revered highly. We know that violence and guns are extremely rare if not a memory and we know that there is some sort of ruling council/protectors of "Utopia". We have this information from three sources, Tempus, H.G. Wells and Andrus.

Tempus has provided us with the information that there is "no violence" and there are "no guns" in Utopia. What we don't know is if that is 100% factual or an exaggeration (if not a total lie). Our source on this isn't trustworthy and very ruthless and nihilistic so we can assume anything from the fact that violence and guns no longer exist in Utopia or that they do exist but are not as prevelant as they are in present society or as prevelant as Tempus would like. Since violence has been with humans since the dawn of time I would guess the latter.

Next, H.G. Wells has provided us with his glowing view of Utopia and of the fact that it is founded by Lois & Clark's descendants and with inspiration from those two. His view, like Tempus' is very biased. We will have to look at what we know about HG Wells - he's an intellectual, liberal Englishman who lived from the 19th to the early 20th centuries. This time period was marked by horrible, pervasive illnesses that ravaged most of the world, a difficult life for most of the world's popualtion, nothing in the way of a "safety net" for the poor, elderly, orphaned or ill, huge social inequality for the poor, minorities and women as well as constant wars for resources and land. To someone who comes from a present like that to a future that has social programs to prevent anyone, but those willing, to become destitute, drugs that can cure or prevent illnesses that a couple centuries before were crippling if not a death sentence, protected equality and suffrage for all adults, and an international body that encourages nations to find solutions other than war for their problems and a life for the average Westener that would be a luxury the rich of his time couldn't even dream of --- well that is Utopia! We can't judge if the future is a "true" Utopia or if it is one in comparison to the present.

Finally, Andrus doesn't give us much information except that he is on a governing-sort of council in Utopia. He also backs up HG Wells assertions that it was founded by Lois & Clark's descendants and inspired by them and that Tempus is a criminal.

We also know that the future posesses time machines and devices that can manipulate the populace (as seen in the episode "Meet John Doe"). IIRC, these machines come from the 25th or 26th century.

So, in this possibility, since HG Wells and Andrus are our most reliable sources we can theorize that this Utopia isn't a perfect future, since people like Tempus exist, but a greatly improved thanks to Lois and Clark.

Then there are the other two interesting possibilities.

First, there is your basic post-apocalyptic future that is very a popular theme in most stories and the basis of such franchises as the "Terminator" and the "Matrix". We have a world that is ravaged by some catastrophe, war, disaster, famine or all of the above. This sets the stage for chaos and reverts us back to almost tribal warfare with factions battling each other for control of this fragmented world. Of course, as in all stories such as these there is a "savior" of humanity who with his plucky band of followers will triumph over the others who would take control and restore order and bring hope to future generations. If we accept this possibility we can assume that this "savior" will be a Kent...either Clark or one of his descendants.

The interesting thing about this if you favor this idea is that HG Wells has never mentioned such a thing taking place, perhaps because then Lois and/or Clark would try to prevent whatever catastrophe from happening and alter history.

Finally, there is the very intriguing "Dystopia" Utopia position. This position theorizes that Utopia is actually closer to Orwell's "1984" with a populace that is too controlled (remember those mind-control devices I mentioned earlier?) to lash out. This would flip all our info around and make HG Wells naive if not a villain in compliance with Andrus and Tempus could be the protagnist, an anti-hero -- a freedom fighter who is trying to free humanity from the control of half-human, half-Kryptonian government that calls itself a "Utopia".

Sorry this is so long, I'm just fascinated by this aspect of Lois & Clark.

You know, that would make a very interesting fanfic.

I couldn't exactly call Utopia "romantic", but it is an intruiging idea. As has been mentioned, there is the 1984 type of society, which while socialitarian (and I probably have the wrong word.. communistic? hrm..), is not perfect. It is straight-laced and no room for intellectual movement. Not quite something I could see from Lois and Clark's decendants.

Then there's the Star Trek version of Utopia. All violence takes place outside of Earth. Earth itself, in the time period of the original series and beyond, is a fairly harmonious place. No war, no violence, no famine. People are free to pursue their interests. Of course, I'm probably forgetting a bunch of stuff from the movies and the shows, but that's what I remember.

I think Tempus found Utopia boring because there was no violence. He was the type of person that thrived on violent entertainment. Just one of those people whose violence gene/personality was dominant. The non-violent forms of entertainment had no interest for him. But that doesn't mean Utopia was a truly boring place.

So far the results are not what I thought they'd be. Obviously it is not a representative sample, but hey still neat.

Roo,

I was a bit surprised to see so many reactions were either positive or neutral. (I'm not saying the people who felt this way are wrong. I'm just saying it was surprising to me to see so many people had a radically different take on this than I did.)

I was one of only 3 people who voted option 5. I did not find this idea even remotely romantic.

My first reaction was to think of (the real) H.G. Well's book The Time Machine, in which Utopia is a sham. A picture perfect illusion hiding a hideous reality.

And, as Julie mentions, the L&C version of "Utopia" sounds outright boring. Tempus says that in the future, "no one works". Tempus also needs to bring Wells along to run the time machine, because, "One of the many disadvantages of living is Utopia is a complete lack of technological understanding."

Finally, Birdie brings up the book 1984, which also came to my mind when thinking about Utopia.

All my thoughts of Utopia were negative. I didn't find the idea appealing at all.

- Vicki

Fascinating poll and topic of discussion, Roo.

I've always been very fascinated with the concept of Utopia as introduced in the show, but not as something positive (I'm actually among the minority that voted for option 5 in the poll ).

There are several things that really bother me about the idea. First, as Birdie has very comprehensively explained her her post, it calls for a "dystopia" situation. What makes me think about that is that if Utopia were the perfect world Wells claims it is, there would be no Andrus, no need for a Kryptonian Council and certainly no place to lock Tempus away in the future. Utopia would mean everyone respected the law without discussing it, that there would be innate goodness and generosity in everyone, that no-one would ever commit a crime. There would be no need for prisons or a justice system. So if Andrus exists, it means Utopia only has an appearance of perfection.

Also, what really bothers me is the cult that seems to develop for Lois and Superman in the future. Statues of Lois Lane, a cereal brand... granted, I know historical people occasionally get statues and streets to their names (statues are rarer, though), but it does make me think of a personality cult that truly bothers me on many levels.

The way Utopia was described in the show, it looks more to me like a big dictatorship where the population is muzzled rather than a real democracy. Yes, crime might be non-existent, which is fantastic, but the cynical in me doesn't truly believe that kind of perfect world can exist naturally. It would have to be imposed. Crime would have to be fought with measures so drastic that no-one would dare cross the line. And if that's the case, if the reason for this appearance of perfection is a dictatorial regime, there's the risk of rebellion, like we see with Tempus. The fact that Tempus existed proves that there's no innate goodness in every single human being in Utopia, which confirms that Utopia is a very strict regime holding people with something I believe is akin to fear.

Kaethel

Well, I've always been skeptical about Utopia (and I voted for choice #5, as well), but I hadn't put much thought into why So this has been fascinating to read.

I haven't got much to add, except that I believe "utopia" means "no place" (Anna, is it Greek?) -- even the people who came up with the idea didn't believe it was possible.

Mostly, tho, I just take it at face value if I have to acknowlege it at all.

PJ

p.s., Roo, you said this hadn't gone quite how you'd expected -- what were you expecting?

I agree with those who disliked the idea of Utopia as it was put across in the series, and Kaethel says it perfectly: what was described to us did not sound like a perfect world at all.

But I didn't vote for option 5: while I don't like the idea, it doesn't make me... uh... want to puke. It was the choice of words in the option which put me off voting for it, in other words! So I voted for option 4, I think.


Wendy

My personal opinion of "Utopias" in general are marginal at best. Like many of the others I find it hard to believe that such a 'perfect' society could exist naturally. It just goes against some of the basic natures of man.

As far as the show went, I just excepted the concept as part of the canon. What I thought about it personally wasn't terribly important.

As someone who believes that Lois and Clark could never have children due to the fact that Clark wasn't even human (let alone why they would ever want any of the little monsters). My way to get around the canon of Utopia was to shift the 'desendants' of Superman from literal, biological desendants to philosophical and spiritual desendants. I envisioned an organization like 'The Daughters of The American Revolution'. It could have been called 'The Sons and Daughters of Superman' or some such thing, giving them a sort of psuedo connection to the Man of Steel and his eventual bride.

Anyway, that's the way I thought it, but as I said, I don't generally think much of the concept of Utopias. Actually, at one point, I had a story idea where Lois somehow went to this future Utopia to see for herself and was shocked at the repression and intellectual malaise she found there.

Tank (who never bothered to follow up on that story idea since he is now retired)

I never voted, but I was for the last option.

That's a very interesting thought. It reminds me of one of the Star Trek Next Generation episodes, where Wesley walks on the grass accidentally on some planet where they have the death penalty or something horrid for it. I wish they'd have had an episode where Clark went to Utopia and saw what it was like. Maybe he'd have tried to change it.