Talk:Logan's Run

Discussion
Has anyone read Logan's Run? If so, take a look and what I've done. It's ages since I read it, but I've been bold and put down what I could. Cgs


 * I saw the film, but not the book... Martin


 * I only saw the film too, but I took a shot at editing the article a bit. Nice article! My minor changes didn't alter the content significantly. I have a question, though.  Didn't Logan's Run have some sequels? If so, they should be mentioned in the article. &mdash;Frecklefoot 15:22, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * A sequel to the film or book? I don't know of either (although the TV series was based very much on the film rather than then book). CGS 17:56, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC).


 * William F. Nolan wrote a couple of sequels: Logan's World (1978) and Logan's Search (1980). (And a novella called Logan's Return (2000), which only got a limited release.) According to his web site, he's also working on a couple of prequels. &mdash;Paul A 01:21, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Is the age limit thirty-years (Plot Conclusion) or 21 (Plot Introduction)? Mlk 06:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * In the first book it's 21. In the movie it's 30. Salsa Shark 06:43, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If anyone has read the book more recently than I, it'd be great if you could clarify the plot differences between the book and the movie. It seems to me the current article is a jumble of the two. Salsa Shark 04:01, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the current article reflects the plot of just the book. CGS 17:29, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC).

One thing I found very interesting; Logan's Run, like many other novels, was a cynical commentary on the times. Nolan imagined the youth protests and growing cultural obsession with the young and beautiful as leading inevitably to a youth-dominated and finally youth-only culture. Interestingly, the opposite is happening; in Japan, the US, Europe, all places with a culture that worships youthful beauty and innocence, spawning such ideas as the "wisdom of a child" being somehow greater than experience. In each of these cultures, the population is AGING. I would love to see an exploration on THAT twist of fate. Tom S.

I interpreted the book to be an excuse to write about sex mostly. Bad writers overuse sex. There was no real plot, the characters simply wandered from scene to scene. Let them have sex in an ice cave! Let them have sex in a desert! The movie was a huge improvement. The book over simplified the youth culture theme. Children under 21 aren't interested in maintaining civilization or the machines that maintain it. The movie did well to raise the age limit to 30. Children under 21 aren't as afraid to die as are 30 year olds. They're bubbling with hormones, by 30, people have cooled off and are more protective of life. The movie also explains how children can be born without women carrying the children. Neither the book nor the movie explains why it's important for women not to carry (bonding) or how the fetus is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the book and saw the movie - both many years ago. I prefer the ending to the movie rather than the book. As the theme is itself a social commentary like 1984, brave new world, fahrenheit 451, i thought that 'sanctuary' being a space station around mars was a trite sci-fi ending. In the film sanctuary does not exist as they'd thought... However the world outside had returned to a pre-industrial 'paradise'. The citizens leaving the tightly controlled domed city to return to nature was a much better philosophical ending in tune with the larger philosophy of the story. 15.252.0.75 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

audience
Dial press. everyone dies at 21. cover art by a childrens illustrator. anyone have references to show this is an early work in the YA genre? this is a progenitor in spirit to so many novels now, like hunger games, etc. i think YA emerged just around this time. i know i was reading books in this category in 71, published up to 3 years prior, in series that were marketed to us. i recall them being together at the bookstore. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hulen Mall
Logan's Run was filmed in several locations around DFW but Hulen Mall wasn't one of them. Hulen Mall did not open until late 1977 and was still a hole in the ground when the movie was released. I am aware there are a few websites that list Hulen Mall as a location, however these websites are incorrect.

The Dallas Market Center is where most of the interior city scenes were filmed. Much of it hasn't changed since 1976, and is worth checking out if you happen to be in town for one of their rare general public exhibits.

I changed the sentance about the movie to reflect the correct location information, however trying to cram all that information into one line is awkward at best. Perhaps expanded sections dedicated to the book, movie, and TV show would be in order? - Thatdog 8 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

Future film release
A citation has been requested for the statement that a new version of the film will be issued in 2006 or 2007. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  21:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

MGM
As far as I know this was one of MGM's last productions. As the film on its original release was only a moderate hit it wound up production at the studio - ironic as the film just missed the late 70s sci-fi boom. According to IMDB Jon Voight, Lindsay Wagner and James Cagney were all first choice for the leads so is it a case that the film has hamstrung by having an English lead and American villain.

2000AD and Logan's Run
The style of the guns issued to the Sandmen have a striking similarity to the Lawgiver sidearms issued to the Judges of the 2000AD comics. Not only do they contain six different types of round depending on the situation (Standard execution, Heatseeker, Ricochet, Incendiary, Hi-Ex and Armour piercing in this instance), but they also have technology to ensure that only the rightful owner can wield them, killing anyone trying to use the gun if they are not the registered Judge.

Anyone know if there has been any influence cited by the creators, Wagner or Ezquerra regarding Logan's Run? Slavedriver 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Scope of "the run."
Previously the article indicated that Logan and Jessica travel all over the world. In reality, they spend most of their time in North America and briefly visit a research facility in Challenger Deep. I updated accordingly.

For reference or possible inclusion elsewhere, their path in the book is as follows: Los Angeles, California, USA -> Molly (Challenger Deep) -> Hell (Northern Canada) -> Crazy Horse Mountain and vicinity (South Dakota, USA) -> Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA -> Washington DC, USA -> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA -> Cape Steinbeck, Florida, USA. Jzerocsk 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comic
While one issue of the seven issue Marvel Comics run had a story with Thantos, that story was not set in the Logan's Run Universe, nor was it related to the story in any way. It was just a second story in the issue. 70.106.220.156

Are the 30-year-old in the story being euthanised ?
The word is used a few times in the article, but i'd argue that it's not euthanasia. The wiki dictionary definition is here, and it relates to a a mercy kiling to end an incurable conditon. Assuming you don't consider life itself to be an incurable condition (!!!) i think the word used should be 'killed' or executed. A more loaded term, yes...but more accurate I think.

I'm updating the artcile to reflect this.

ahpook 17:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Termination -- that is what it is/was called by the state. The Runners called it murder. Being blasted by lasers (in an arena or by a gun) is not, IMHO, being euthanised. -- Jason Palpatine 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In the book, the 21 year olds are killed in "Sleepshops" by a topical application of a lethal dose of "Hallucinogen, which wiped away a confused look of suffering and replaced it with a fixed and joyful smile." (Described in Chap. 10) This seems to be a painless method of execution. Only runners are killed with Guns. IMHO, if you consider the humane society killing excess kitties and puppies to be euthanization, then this is euthanization, too. JoKyR 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you just equate dogs and cats to humans? You can't apply the same terms. Euthanasia is defined as painless killing to relieve SUFFERING. These people are being murdered plain and simple.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This book reminds me of the hetaoni version of marukaite chikyuu - "I can't forget the taste of hell that's trapped forever in my mind!", "in this nightmare world, is a recipe for hell", "a nightmare hell can be seen" because this is creepy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.91.122 (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Split suggestion
Since there are three distinct works here, I suggest Logan's Run (1976 film), Logan's Run (TV series), and Logan's Run (nnnn film) (for the one in production). Any takers? ♥ Her Pegship ♥ 03:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I second this suggestion. Furthermore, the listing of differences as it exists now should also go to the film article.  --Reverend Loki 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there should be one for the book as well. To be honest, the TV series was so short-lived, it may not be worth having its own article.  Having an article for the upcoming film seems to go against WP:NOT's "crystal ball" clause.  The Logan's Run remake as been in pre-production for a long time and the date is continuously being pushed back.  This Letter dated June 13, 2006 purportedly from William F. Nolan himself indicates that the film is currently back in limbo with no director, no completed script, and no plans to start shooting.  There's not enough encyclopedic information available about a film that doesn't even have a production team and what little information there is will likely be completely different by the time the movie makes it to the can.  So I would propose a Logan's Run (1976 film) that makes mention of the television show and upcoming movie, a Logan's Run (novel) (and perhaps additional articles for the sequels) and if there is enough information to make it worth while, I wouldn't oppose a separate article for the TV series.  Of course, if the new remake ever makes it to production, then an article should be generated for it. Jzerocsk 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A vote against the suggestion. I found it useful comparing the movie vs the book. However in this regard it would be usefull if the differences were made clearer, especially when refering to the ankh in Differences between the novel and film - Keith Kube - 30 June 2006


 * Another vote against the suggestion. Sorry, but the amount of information provided in each section is not extensive enough, IMHO, to warrant separate articles.  If you have more (a lot more) information to add to the various sections, then it could be justifable -- look at what happened to 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) after the initial article became too over-bloated.  I think the amount of information involved should be a significant factor in this decision.  And there just doesn't appear to be enough here to justify it at this time.  I believe -- as it stands now -- the article should remain intact.  -- Jason Palpatine 15:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I revise my proposal based on the June 13 letter mentioned above. Despite the paucity of material, I think we should at least have a separate article for the book (Logan's Run (novel)), as it is a distinct work apart from the film. ♥ Her Pegship ♥ 22:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I split off the 1976 film and left the rest. ♥ Her Pegship ♥ 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Trivia" Section
I just do not feel that fan speculation about what sort of banging might be included in the unmade film qualifies as trivia. Happy cricket 00:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Trivia section is still there, but I'm removing the mention of the song "Carousel, Carousel". That would be homage to the film only, as the Carrousel [sic] concept doesn't appear in the novel. If the Logan's Run (film) article has a trivia section, it could be added there. Druff 03:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Remake information
I've expanded on the information about the remake with solid citation. However, one citation, I found, this letter, is located on a personal webpage hosted by GeoCities. While the letter does not seem fake, the fact that it's found on this webpage but nowhere else (that I could find) makes it a weak source to use. If the letter can be located on a news website that recognizes it as the author's own, then I would be glad to cite it. In the meantime, I'm not sure if the link is appropriate, even as an external link. A second citation issue is the mention of director James McTeigue as Singer's replacement. McTeigue was first mentioned at Variety, but it was treated as a rumor. There was a leftover citation from TV Guide, but the link does not work. I was not able to find any search results that cited TV Guide mentioning McTeigue as a possibility, only ones tied to Variety, which I've mentioned called the information a rumor. If anyone can verify either the letter or the McTeigue possibility, that would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This section seems a bit long for here. Maybe it would fit better at the film page? JJL 16:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, since the information reflects that it would both reference the book and the original film. I think it's most appropriate at the article of the primary source material. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Horse Link
The article currently links to Crazy Horse the person, but in context should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Horse_Memorial 72.158.52.66 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That was fixed. Jacqke (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Novel vs. Movie
An anon editor has been adding things from the movie ("The Circuit") which were not present in the novel. Please stop doing this. Only edit if you know what you're talking about. Sir Rhosis 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Question - and I may be showing my noobness at this, but is there a Wiki-preference for novels over books, or for the original work over the work remade into different forms? Wondering, because it would seem that the majority of people searching Logan's Run would be looking for the movie, not the book. Why aren't searchers sent to the movie first, with a disambig link to the book? Applejuicefool (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a subsection for the movie. In the case of Logan's Run, the book is the original work, and the movie derived from it. In other articles, a movie may be the original work and a novelization may be the derivative.--Hellsop (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jessica's back in the movie
What was on Jessica's back in the movie when they were in the ice cave and before they donned the furs? 45smile54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Dystopian?
I wonder if the world of Logan's Run should be described as dystopian? The wikipedia article describes a dystopia as fraught with poverty, disease, human suffering, etc. And the Logan's Run world is debatable how nice it would be to live there, but either the dystopian article is too narrow or the intro to this article should be qualified or something. That's my thought for the day. Rhetth (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for hijacking this section, I wasn't sure how to start a new section in the editing talk (I hope it's ok to post this here.)

The Movie and I presume the book is hardly original but that hadn't been mentioned on the Wiki page: An X Minus One radio show The Sense Of Wonder Author: Milton Lesser Originally Aired: 24 April 1956

Plot synopsis: On a spaceship that has been voyaging for ten thousand years, the descendants of its original crew have come to believe that nothing exists outside the ship, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a heretic. Based on a short story first published in Galaxy Science Fiction magazine, in September 1951.

However: There's no getting away from the fact that this episode's story owes a substantial debt to - some might even say plagiarizes - the Robert Heinlein short story 'Universe' http://www.oldtimeradioreview.com/x-minus-one---s.html

The reason for the people being on the space ship in the first place was similar to that of Logan's Run, a dystopia caused by some war (presumably nuclear.) In both cases the survivors were sealed off to escape from the diseases of the post nuclear world. (I guess this radio show is more similar to the movie than the book.) However, apparently the radio show altered the ending of Heinlein's short story 'Universe' so maybe that short story had a similar ending to the book Logan's run.

There is no mention of people being killed at a certain age in that radio show, however, there is the Isaac Asimov novel 'Pebble in the Sky' where people were put to death at age 60. It was later turned into a Dimension X radio show of the same name.

https://www.tangentonline.com/old-time-radio/3667-dimension-x-qpebble-in-the-skyq-by-isaac-asimov

And fans of Logan's Run (1967 novel, 1976 film) might find it interesting that in the novel and movie of the same name society enforces population control by means of requiring the death of anyone over the age of 21 (the novel), or 30 (the film). Pebble in the Sky predates William F. Nolan's and George Clayton's method of population control in Logan's Run by enforced death by some 17 years, though Asimov sets his "early retirement" from society at age 60, as you will hear in this dramatization of Isaac Asimov's Pebble in the Sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Tondowsky (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what changes you'd like made in the article. You mention a number of interesting plot similarities, but to include them would be original research unless a source has made the same comparisons. DonIago (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Konstantin Mereschkowski Link?
The Russian biologist and notorious child-abuser Konstantin Mereschkowski in the early 20th century wrote an utopian (rather than dystopian) novel ""The Earthly Paradise"" where all people are euthanized at the age of 35. I checked up, the Wiki article on Konstantin Mereschkowski mentions this novel. Perhaps it should be included. I am not sure whether it had appeared in languages other than Russian by that time.128.69.177.37 (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Is "Chicken Run" and adaptation?
I was surprised to not have this confirmed elsewhere on the internet or on this page, but the Aardman film, "Chicken Run" is an adaptation of this book, right? clearly. Maybe we should add it to the list of adaptations?  yuo win  tawk 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * !? Apart from one word, where is the connection?91.111.14.86 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And the sourcing. Doniago (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CR is obviously a parody of WW2 POW escape movies, with camp full of Brits and the arrival of a charismatic American leader (included to please US audiences). A "chicken run" is an area where chickens are allowed to wander and forage, in British English anyway. There is no connection with Logan's Run. --87.115.10.127 (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mention of The Gun
The Sandman's gun was considered to be an unusual and ground breaking invention in the 1960s when the book was published and has had possible influences on Judge Dredd (see above).

I mentioned this in a section entitled The Gun but another editor removed it citing that it was trivial.

I disagree as the main plot of the novel in both this book and the sequel Logan's World, focuses on how terrified Runners are of this weapon and in particular the threat of being shot at with a Homer.

The Gun provides key plot elements in the novel (e.g. Logan killing the tiger towards the end, his inability to kill Jessica with it at the novel's close, the Gun going "wild" as they race for Sanctuary and Logan using the power cell to find a way out of the cave they are trapped in).

The Gun is also something that saves his life on many occasions and on two separate instances alerts other people to who he really is (Doc in The New You and Jessica when he kills the Cub Scouts).

I believe such a crucial backbone to the novel deserves its own sub section, especially when it has as much impact on the story as Logan, Jessica or Ballard/ Francis do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.248.87.125 (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any sourcing to back this up? I'd also suggest that sourced prose would be a better use of space than the current format. Doniago (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The editor who inserts the gun section is overstating its importance to the nth degree.  It is mentioned, yes, in a clunky section of exposition, but it did not have the impact on the world that the overexaggerating editor ("Crucial backbone?" -- melodramatic much?) insists.  Delete this nonsense.  Sir Rhosis (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sir Rhosis, keep your opinions to yourself. This is a place to discuss the article not have you lament about my passion for this inclusion you insulting moron. That aside, I will endeavour to find the prose for this. Any further insults bunged my way will result in you having your account suspended. Childish and unprofessional idiot. --189.158.80.220 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, irony in action. Let's keep this discussion civil please. Name-calling doesn't accomplish anything. Doniago (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

British Comic Strips

 * Hello, you have removed my edit concerning the British Logan's Run annual and the Logan's Run strip in Look-In stating that I "did not provide a reliable source". I own the annual, for pity's sake, is that not "reliable" enough for you? I wouldn't have added the information if I didn't know it was accurate! And the Look-In strips can be viewed online at http://www.snowcrest.net/fox/logancomic/index.htm

I shan't bother, next time. Tony ingram (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For reasons that are hopefully understandable, Wikipedia editors are not considered to be reliable sources. It's generally best not to take umbrage when you're requested for a source, but to just provide one and move on. If a source isn't available, then you can't exactly fault the editor challenging the claim to begin with, which is hopefully also understandable. DonIago (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources backing up that information which you could have found with a two minute Google search before removing the information. One is in the link provided above. And there is visual representation of the material in question here, including a couple of scans taken from my own collection: http://britishcomics.wikia.com/wiki/Logan's_Run Satisfied now? Tony ingram (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikis aren't reliable sources, and given your snarky tone and your threatening to file a complaint against me I'm not especially inclined to assist you at this point. I'm content to wait to hear from an uninvolved editor. DonIago (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, isn't that convenient! Well what, in your oh so informed opinion, is a "reliable source"? You've got a photo of the bloody book, do you want me to buy you a copy or something? And I guess the other site I linked to isn't a "reliable source" either, eh? Tony ingram (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to rephrase that in a less snarky tone I'll be happy to address your points. In the meantime - WP:RS. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to rephrase anything to you right now. I'm just getting wound up so I've asked for Dispute Resolution and will now log off for the night before I lose my temper even more and say something I might end up regretting. I'll wait and see what someone else has to say about the matter. Tony ingram (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider the children
If the normal female childbearing age is assumed to be 13 their children will be maximum 7-8 when they become orphans as their parents are killed at 21 (and there will be a disinclination for older teenagers to have children); if 30 then the oldest children are likely to be what we consider young adults (and previous generations full adults). And if people do not expect to live beyond 21/30 they will be disinclined to think of the future and keeping the system going. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:FORUM and WP:OR notwithstanding, but you're applying current societal norms to a completely different environment with very different ingrained ethics and views on what is and isn't the norm. Witness the fact that Logan's society thinks is completely acceptable to go to their death at 21, whereas our society is obsessed with putting that date off for as long as possible.  There are other examples, but that's the most obvious.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not commenting on the social norms but on the inherent practicalities - especially with the 21 cut off date. Quite a few dystopia fictions (written/TV/film) contain inherent implausibilities - and most societies have some norms that inhabitants of other societies consider weird or worse. And 'one of the functions of Wikipedia is to note things you want someone else to research.' 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are commenting on the society - "there will be a disinclination for older teenagers to have children", that's a presumption on your part. Why do you assume "there will be a disinclination for older teenagers to have children"?  Because our society finds such a scenario abhorrent? Mayhap Logan's society is perfectly happy with the scenario you outline above, even though the ages seem unacceptable or limiting to us and our society.  In fact, you could say that is definitely the case, as the city has clearly been operating for many years on that basis with no slackening of children to take up the positions of those gone to carrousel.
 * There is no indication at any point in the film that any characters have any care or concern who their parents are - there is a bit near the beginning of the film where Francis and Logan discuss the newborn Sandman - Francis asks something about Logan 6's parents - Logan 5's response is along the lines of to know is to be sick, and not to be discussed or looked into. Parenting doesn't seem to hold the same value in Logan's society as it does in ours.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally - I know that I refer to the film above, and this discussion is primarily about the book, but the general premise is the same. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is not 'teenage parents' as such (go back only a few generations and they would be, if not the norm, extremely common - Henry Tudor's mother and the line in Romeo and Juliet that younger females than Juliet are mothers) - but #how will said children be looked after# between their parents' deaths and having the capacity to be self-sufficient. (There are also wider issues such as 'professions where significant training and experience is necessary.')
 * And if you know you have less than a year to live would you aim to have a child? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I would have a child, but there it is again; applying current societal morals, thinking and expectations to a society that is vastly different and exists with a very different outlook on life. You have to accept that the society described in Logan's Run is so different to ours that we cannot adequately explain it using our own society as a basis for explanation.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The cultural set-up is not the point - if I were 'creating the backstory' (which would belong on Archive of Our Own not on this talk page) I would have something like first year or so with the parents, then something like the Spartan system for boys - but what are "the practicalities" of looking after and educating the children until they are self sufficient. There are also other practical issues - how will the infrastructure, food supplies and necessary equipment 'looked after and provided' - and 'the 15 year old computer experts able to rearrange the system in interesting ways.'
 * As a general observation - many of the constructed utopias and dystopias seem to have inherent problems and issues which are likely to destabliise them in the longer term (WPians can deduce some from the plot summaries on the several pages - analysis and discussion what they are 'belongs elsewhere'_. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I repeat myself: "You have to accept that the society described in Logan's Run is so different to ours that we cannot adequately explain it using our own society as a basis for explanation."  You are admitting you can't explain how Logan's society works, because the only experience of society you have is ours, and the two are incompatible. Note that I do not profess to explain or understand it either, but I accept that it can't be done - both from an ethical and practical point of view, so I don't try. However, going directly against my previous sentence - I (personally) should imagine that automation is heavily involved in all aspects - food production and education etc. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of us do get interested in 'back-stories and plausibility/viability of the created universes' - and what is needed perhaps is an equivalent of 'The science of (sf/fantasy world of choice)' books we have all come across.
 * Perhaps WP could have 'a wishlist of books WPusers would want to read' - and this would be one entry on the list. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

A distinction should be made between 'the story as is' on the one hand, and 'the feasibility of its backstory (a longer timeframe for the population age shift and absence of birth control) and after story - maintenance of the city and likely lack of technical training). Lilac Amethyst (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because it would all be WP:OR and inapplicable for the encyclopedia. That's why none of the above made it into the article in the first place.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Category of stories with problematic infrastructures (excluding timeframes which are likely to be wrong - The Time Machine, 2001 A Space Odyssey etc)' (your hypothetical technology will require maintenance; what happens when Airstrip One's administration encounters a major problem that cannot be explained with Newspeak etc). And thinking along the lines of 'In Real Life, for comparison, birth rates range from (significantly less than two per woman) to (whatever)/annual birth rates are). (The evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens into Homo sapiens eloi and Homo sapiens morlocki is feasible, though requiring a longer time than HG Wells was then aware of using the science of his time.) Lilac Amethyst (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Ageist?
As a new editor I did not want to make an edit to the introduction to an article that is well established, has consensus, and in a steady state. My eyebrows did go up a bit when I read the term "ageist" because there was a practical reason (or rationalization) for limiting population; at the time of publication there was a big concern about overpopulation and a Malthusian result. China's one child policy spoke to the same dynamic from another perspective. Other science fiction works of the times peak to the same theme. ''Ironically, we may be at the start of a demographic collapse now! ''

Logan's Run is a science fiction novel by American writers William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. Published in 1967, the novel depicts a dystopic ageist future society in which both population and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by requiring the death of everyone reaching the age of 21. The story follows the actions of Logan, a Sandman charged with enforcing the rule, as he tracks down and kills citizens who "run" from society's lethal demand—only to end up "running" himself.

V - Malthusian

It depicts a Utopian future society on the surface, revealed as a dystopia where the population and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by killing everyone who reaches the age of 30.

So I figured I could humbly point out my concern here. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point that it is not ageist. If you do make an edit, please note that it is age 21, not 30. 21 is used in the book, 30 in the film, and this is the article about the book. MarcGarver (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input - I did not even realize that the quotation I pulled was from the movie; which is another reason I am being conservative about making edits. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)