Yes, but as a negative. The movie, like the novel, was advocating conservative morality -- sexual promiscuity, hedonism, and homosexuality were presented as aspects of the immoral, anti-family dystopia, and then Logan and Jessica learned of the wonders of marriage and the nuclear family from Peter Ustinov and presumably passed those traditional values on to their people once the dystopia conveniently collapsed.
Perhaps, but I somewhat disagree. Maybe it's because the 1960s70s/Stonewall/etc opened the doors to more inclusion on screen (which could lead to positive images and not just ones that could be seen negatively), or because I'm not a Kinsey 0 heterosexual, but I saw the movie's setup as being open and inclusive of non-heterosexual examples. Yes, Logan rejects the red-clothed guy but there are several prongs to this: 1. Red means the person is older and not everyone wants someone older or younger too much compared to themselves. 2. Individuals of any sexuality have individual tastes. Logan was wanting a woman at that time or not into scrawny guys that look younger than him despite wearing the clothes saying he's older, but everyone ages differently where someone 50 can look 40 and some who are young look older than their actual age too. 3. Logan probably came back from killing a runner and wants to mentally block out anyone older, so red is a game stopper as far as his joystick is concerned. Granted, the actual book might tell it all differently and maybe it is backhandedly promoting things the author hated. Movie adaptations are rarely made 100% true/identical to the book, which can be good or bad, and more to a point my ex fiancee definitely didn't perceive the film as being homophobic and he would get boisterously upset at anything he perceived even slightly homophobic. Maybe he missed out on those aspects as well. Or he was using me even more-- well, probably not, but either way it doesn't matter... what is certain is that he's definitely type-A enough to blow his stack over anything deemed anti-gay. Movies and perception of what they're telling can be amazingly varied. Then the creators come out and say what they were wanting to project in making-of documentaries. )
Not to mention, there is a belief that people who don't have sex with others outside a mutually and emotionally healthy relationship are less likely going to go out and potentially contract and spread VD/STDs - which was something of a general issue in the 1970s and even before HIV became fully known.
If it's being pro-"nuclear family" just by showing other types, via being a paradigm showed outside of a constructed civilization, just switch which side is in which society and it's the same thing. hen I saw it, I didn't perceive an ulterior motive, and that the movie was trying to be clinically objective. Plus, there are gay and bi people who want nuclear families too - whether they raise children or not. This can go into too much a lengthy tangent--
--so I would be more likely to opine that the movie seemed to be focusing most prevalent in an pro-old people stance, since everyone after x age (30 in the movie's case) is to be culled, with a ritual that states the people will be reborn later to live another life of more of the same. That's definitely dystopian with a layer of icing that says "reincarnation!" all over it. Which maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. The anti-old people part struck my chord far more. The book's age, which I looked up, and its use of "21" is far creepier. Apparently the book used the ritual in a different way, and gassing people to death was not going to be allowed. Not because it lacks spectacle next to the big wheel everyone floats off of whose shape is like the gem embedded in their palms.
This would not be a new topic either, TV shows such as "All in the Family" had Michael (the hippie young adult stereotype faction) going off against ageism and everything being youth-centric, in one of the few times he'd side with Archie on anything. Maybe the Logan's Run movie was trying to say "Ward Cleaver family good, all else bad" but it was seemingly saying other things louder., especially when many civilizations revere old people. Isn't it a bigger issue to ask why Logan's Run society is having its people killed off at 30 and is leaving it open-ended? Why might that be? What does the movie gain from that?
I'll admit: I need to do a rewatch as I may have missed out on something and I don't even recall how they procreated in that civilization, as the kiddies that sprout have to do so from somewhere and I don't recall the movie going too far into that. (The "cooped up in city versus wild life complete with waterfalls" trope was prominent, of course... but I digress.) Something was going on, but the city's participants were just living in their own tradition that started whenever for whatever reason. I don't recall it promoting anything, even backhandedly, about any specific sexual attraction type. But I perceived the Teleportinder scene as being more casual, at least for this one Sandman, the same way people look for different television shows. Not as if it were right or wrong in our current day but how that fantasy society did things in its own world, which is not ours. Our society allows both casual and relationships, families still exist, people wanting casual still exist.
I think a fair number of movies in the late '60s and '70s took advantage of the greater freedom to depict sexuality while trying to have it both ways, painting it as an aspect of a dystopia or as an unhealthy indulgence, using rape as a plot device (e.g. A Clockwork Orange), or sexualizing women who are victims of serial killers. (This is an archetypal trope of '80s slasher films, but it goes back to the '70s or earlier, e.g. in Roger Vadim & Gene Roddenberry's dark sex comedy Pretty Maids All in a Row.)
That is an excellent point.
And I forgot about Clockwork Orange - I saw the infamous clip but not yet the whole movie... Ditto for another one,
Deliverance. Definitely freedom or envelope pushing to depict things for theatrical effect.
Yes, but only in the lifeclock embedded in the palm. It was the movie that introduced the use of clothing that matched the lifeclock color.
Thanks much. I hadn't read the book, which I intend to get to some day. Along with being a decent enough visual cue, it probably saved on the costuming budget to do everything via a set of specific styles. Depending on mindset, it's also bland to be so uniform, but the inhabitants didn't mind.
Don't confuse jokes with reality. Of course it was never an intentional policy of TOS to equate red shirts with mortality; that's just a lame joke in fandom that people today have taken far too literally.
I'm not, but on this I am aware of the myth, which has some entertainment value as well. I've even got a better set of percentages coming up as well.
Based on raw numbers attributed to profession, there is no myth.
Based on percentages, there is a myth.
Both sides are not incorrect. Even that 70s movie character would say "...from a certain point of view."
The chart below refers to only involves people on the Enterprise on away missions, which doesn't take into account what the people were doing when getting killed. When you consider how security guards are on almost or all 100% of those, certainly far, far more so than the other divisions are, the chart pretends that's not a factor. People in the security division die more than in other professions, which are generally less dangerous, and far less so if they didn't need security.
Count the number of episodes in which security people beam on down as opposed to geologists (who wear blue): 1 in 79 episodes features a geologist on screen beaming down and dying (D'Amato). That's 0.012% of all TOS episodes where a landing party member who's a geologist gets killed. It's a safe guess to say that more than one security person beamed down over the span of 79 episodes than just...
one. Let's say for arbitrary sake that 50 episodes had security dudes beaming down and one gets killed each time. That's 63% right there IF (to reiterate) it's only 50 episodes, for which
only 1 guard is killed and not any more...
...based on criteria, anyone can make percentages and still be not wrong. And since, on screen, either which way, we see more security guards on landing parties dying than geologists on landing parties dying, it takes little to get above that 0.012% hurdle that the blue shirt geologists set... so red still wins out and red is not the safest color. That said, geology rocks. They just didn't do enough of it on TOS because it wasn't as exciting compared to pew pew action fun from that security person's gun. But there's more to criteria than just the shirt hue worn. (Or to say from
that example above that 100% of blue shirts die - that sounds like a joke.)
That was a big "WTF" even back then. 
I don't remember if the original LR novel discussed the use of hue as making determining age ranges easier**, but it's nonetheless interesting that LR and TOS both use red accorded to those about to be killed off. Unless they're the main cast, but thankfully engineering, communications, and security all share the same hue to make it slightly more difficult. And more so since gold and blueshirts got kersplattered at times too...
