noahspud

This article moves me to wonder what “utopian literature” is. Most settings that seem like utopia are really dystopias in disguise – for example, The Giver, by Lois Lowry, focuses on a young boy discovering that the idyllic world he lives in is very far from ideal.
The world of Star Trek is described as a “post-scarcity utopia”: there is no currency and considerably less war over resources. Yet the show is still known for its warrior races and weapons because conflict is inevitable.
The question “Why is utopian literature less popular than [anything]?” seems misleading because it assumes that there is such a thing as utopian literature.

No, I haven’t. Just based on what I do know, I would say Plato’s philosophies take a more optimistic outlook and Lovecraft, in the interest if horror, would go a more pessimistic route, if and when the two of them consider the same ideas.

To me, the most fascinating thing about the Urban Fantasy genre is the quirk of worldbuilding sometimes called the Veil: in a lot of UF, regular humans are not allowed to know about magic and magical creatures, either because of a law (as in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) or some kind of spell that erases magic from humans’ awareness.
Imagine if other fantasy worlds, like Middle-Earth, had this trope. Stories would be very different if one of the racial groups was almost completely unaware of the existence of every other racial group. Themes of prejudice and cooperation would be a little different, too.

There’s an episode where the Machine is having memory problems, so she doesn’t recognize the show’s human protagonists. After taking stock of what they have done with their lives, she identifies them as Perpetrators of Violence who should be eliminated. Harold needs to plead with the Machine that what they do is “a pure Good,” that the ends justify the means.
To me, this scene indicates that the Machine’s Moral Imperative isn’t as straightforward as you might think. She learned Right and Wrong from Harold. Although Harold is sometimes surprised by what the Machine is willing to do in support of what she considers Right, she still looks to “Admin” as a higher authority than herself, almost every time.
Philosophers often wonder whether Right and Wrong exist as basic principles of the universe, or if they come from a higher source. If there is a God who decides what’s right – the same way an Admin tells the Machine – that means people are held accountable for following through on their understanding of what’s right. If there isn’t a supreme moral authority, then Samaritan’s ideas of right and wrong are just as viable as Harold’s. (I’d go with the first option, personally.)

You’re totally right that an Yzma-Kronk movie wouldn’t work if it got all melodramatic, but imagine the comedy it could make by indirectly referencing the melodrama of the Maleficent-Cruella trend!
Maybe if things started to get moody, Kuzco could do his fourth-wall breaking, spotlight-stealing shtick, much like he did when the original movie spent “too much time” on Pacha being sad.

I love looking at Sherlock Holmes with an autistic lens. One of my favorite points is that OG Holmes (from Doyle’s writings) repeatedly claims that he’s not extraordinary. “Elementary,” he famously says. I like to think this was because if people considered him “special” or “different,” they would also consider him “weird” or even crazy. He didn’t want to consider himself crazy, so he was quick to assure everyone else that he was normal.
On the other hand, in modern adaptations – even the Robert Downey Jr. version set in the days of yore – Holmes takes an excessive amount of pride in his peculiarities because he sees himself as superior to everyone. Society, and indeed the audience, sees him as superior, so he is allowed to share that perspective. Unfortunately, this also leads to modern incarnations of Holmes being egotistical and very rude. This risks giving other people on the spectrum a bad reputation.

What I find so fascinating about detective stories is the detective character exists purely for the benefit of other people’s stories. The true main characters in the story are either dead or criminals trying to hide their involvement, so the plot can only develop if another character shows up to point out the clues.
TV adaptations of Sherlock Holmes have amped up the drama of his struggle to maintain relationships with his brother and friends. But in the original books, Holmes barely had a life outside of work, and that was okay, because the majority of each story was taken up by other people telling their stories, with Holmes just listening quietly. Then he would spend a couple paragraphs pointing out the relevant details and what they meant. Altogether, it doesn’t seem like a strong formula for a great character or a great story, but it works for all the reasons you described. Well done.

Indeed. One of the reasons a transition from selfish to selfless is so common in these movies is the time traveler comes to realize just how impactful their decisions are on the lives of those around them.
Like, there’s an episode of The Flash where a time traveler from the future comes to the present for almost entirely selfish reasons: she just wants to hang out with her dad before he died. Then she gets stuck reliving the same hour or so, and every decision she tries to make gets another one of her friends killed. She learns the importance of sacrifice real quick.