Like putting aside the cynicism of "This is propaganda" it was also an ideal. A view of a world without capitalism, of a world for people instead of companies or wealth owners.

So... why did tech got ambivalent and dystopian?

My take is that it's because in the 90's and 2000's digital technology as stil focused on middle class and upper-mid consumers. It was about making an actual product: a camera, a music player, a virtual space on the internet. a real thing with value that people would use, eve if it was just to entertain themselves.

That started to change in the 2010's, with the data markets and algorithms. That's when it all became detached from a personal consumer and it became about catering to companies: data collection tools, automation of the workforce. All these are things we as people have no use for but corpos and companies do. The newest tech like LLMS, video generators, biometric scans are all not made for us, they are only sold to us as a sort of collateral to get some extra cash.

We can see the American empire crumbling, but we can't yet tell if this is just the beginning or if this is close to the latter half. The current narratives are that the USA is Rome in its later days.

But I am more fascinated by the view of "the USA is the fall of the Ottoman empire". Maybe because it is closer in time.

Following this take, the next few years would see the USA attempting to reform its various systems: economic, educational, military... but fail to address the root problem. Now in the Ottoman empire it seemed to be power elites impeding reform. If the parallel is true, then the American government will try to enact several reforms around corporate elites instead of tackling them directly.

And because I am not deep into the geopolitics LARP fandom I can't say I have accurate predictions. Maybe the reform attempts will really target these elites and succeed in breaking their power and there will be a good balance of government, citizens and corporations. Or maybe everyone is too complacent to really try it and we'll the American power dwindle over the century.

But a different type of life like the creatures of Darwin 4 or the spiders from Children of Time? liquivores use acids to melt their food and drink them. that's a different game from mechanical food breakdown.

Again, I don't like "the Boys" simply because I'm over grimdark deconstructions of superheroes. As the seasons have progressed, the Boys fandom has complained about many things but I was surprised to find they are complaining about everything becoming so dark and raunchy. Like I thought that was part of the charm, Y'know? seeing shitty people abuse power without regard.

So yeah I kinda feel like saying "See I was vindicated in believing shows that revel in cynicsm end up disappointing their fanbases". But of course the problem of shows like "the Boys" and the way the GOT novels are stuck in development is more complicated.

The nuanced analysis I have is that with so much grittiness and cynicism permeating the story, that chokes out the narrative motion. You can only play the "greatest hits" of grim and dark themes like "might makes right" and "breaking away from the status quo means destruction" before the audience gets bored. Eventually, to break the status quo you'd have to add idealism, nobility, altruism or the like in some capacity.

The commentary on "why people like grimdark" that I've seen is that people like it precisely because good grimdark acknowledges how difficult it is to have noble virtues and ideals and how they are still necessary in a world ruled by self-interest and suspicion. In this way this little windows into goodness punch harder, and it's never free; it comes with dire consequences.

But apparently that's not what has been happening in The boys and the GOT books. In the quest for pungent social commentary and "realism" the authors of these works have painted themselves into a corner where the protagonists gaining ground would feel unearned because the odds are so big and the characters are just not the type to power through the odds with belief alone.

I think the reason many millennials (like me) still have a soft spot for the Harry Potter OG saga is that it appealed to the fantasy of fitting in. Harry was a jock that got in trouble and talked back to teachers occasionally, whom was famous from the get go and didn't have to worry about material conditions because he came from an affluent family.

the self insertion elements was becoming an average joe with a good social standing in an world with many parallel systems to ours, but enhanced by magical elements.

We all wanted to be harry because he liked the average Joe things of the magical world (and to be fair who wouldn't), he was good at them and was liked because of that.

What if Neo's whole purpose had been to teach the other people that they too could bend The Matrix?

This plot change is only a little bit more marxist yeah, since it still leaves Neo as a messiah that gave humanity the keys to salvation.

Independently from whether there is a just war, or if war was ever a war that could be romanticized, that is an irrelevant question.

Living in the 21st century I'd say all coming wars will be fought over interests of elites. As such, there is no place for idealism or romance in media about war.

So, to be dogmatic (and this is just me yelling at clouds) war media should be about people in hellish situations, no knowing why the conflict is being fought or what is going on, and it should emphasize the exploitation of human beings for the war machine.