By 20X0, over 80% of the earth’s surface will not be suitable for living, and people need to abandon the old city and move into the new one. Most of the futuristic cities in sci-fi movies, stories are written under this kind of setting. In the article, the writer mentions different migratory cities that are common in sci-fi. A giant walking city is riven by a hydroelectric system; A flying city that saves people away from the ground; or an underground city that hides people from the hazard.
Although building these kinds of cities is not realistic at all, the idea of creating a mobile city is meaningful. As the process of building these imagery moving cities, we have to consider what elements are needed for maintaining our living. Such as the movie Snowpiercer. The train provides everything that people needed for survival but still, conflict occurs. It is interesting since different sci-fi movies or stories often show us the things we need for a living tend to be something more than just physically exists.
— Chan Chun Hing, 3035762841
It is great that you started your response by pointing out the common narrative in sci-fi movies. You have picked an interesting perspective of migratory cities to discuss which is the elements that allow for self-containment within these moving cities. It would greatly benefit if you can further elaborate or identify those elements more specifically. For example in the case of Snowpiercer, there are train cars for agriculture, sea ecology, education etc.; a social hierarchy is maintained through class and absolute authoritarianism which was overthrown later by people who strived for equality (even though the end revealed it was a planned revolt as population measure in the movie). Often these elements reflect real-world issues which can enrich your response if discussed.