Let's Talk Sci-Fi, and it's Portrayl in Media - It's Sins

[Deleted]

All of the things you listed are Soft Sci-fi, this means they deal with themes surrounding human morality and philosophies. Hard Sci-fi deals with technology (ala 20,000 leagues under the sea). Also that word fiction.

Don't bother ranting when you can't differentiate Soft Sci-fi from Hard Sci-fi

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Don't bother ranting when you can't differentiate Soft Sci-fi from Hard Sci-fi

I listed Hard Sci-fi as Realistic Science-Fiction, and soft Sci-fi as Typical Science-Fiction. I even detailed the differences.

[Dhrizzle]

I listed Hard Sci-fi as Realistic Science-Fiction, and soft Sci-fi as Typical Science-Fiction. I even detailed the differences.

I don't think Firefly or BS:G count as hard sci-fi. Gravity does, apart from a few purposeful embellishments for dramatic or visual purposes.

[LurkerOnly]

I was going to write a long wall of text about how your perceptions are jaded.

For example, the "three warp speed standards that are all used but contradict one another". There's a ton of real world examples, Fahrenheit and Celsius is a good example. Other than "more energy is higher numbers", they don't correlate in any way (except -41 degrees), count differently, are based on different measurements. Both still work, both are still calculable (with correct results), both are used side by side.

Or, "All aliens speak English", as if "every episode is 40 minutes of subtitles" wouldn't then become the next trope on your list of "overdone and boring".

But then, I realized that you haven't studied science fiction from the standpoint of a writer. You may or may not be one of those folks that thinks "foreshadowing" is "being predictable", or that "implied transitions" are a form of "plot-hole", but I'm guessing that you are.

I don't want to be too much of an elitist, but in order to fairly criticize something, it's important to have a good technical understanding of its creation.

Your post is a bit like someone saying "Soccer is stupid. Anytime the ball even comes near their hands, the flail away as if they're afraid the ball will hurt them."

Just an example of how not actually understanding what you're seeing leads to complaints that basically boil down to "I want this thing that I don't fully understand to be more like this other thing."

Your post essentially says "take most of the things that cause this to be science fiction away, and replace it with 'space themed or futuristic drama' instead."

It will probably make you angry, but irreverence isn't the same thing as wisdom. Especially when it isn't backed up by educated understanding.

[Deleted]

I listed Hard Sci-fi as Realistic Science-Fiction, and soft Sci-fi as Typical Science-Fiction. I even detailed the differences.

They aren't even remotely near to what Hard Sci-fi is. Hard Sci-fi implies the emphasis to be on the technical workings or the universe and the tech as well as the scientific accuracy of such.

If you are telling me that the emphasis in Firefly and BS;G is the working of the tech then we watched different things or you didn't pay attention. Didn't watch Gravity but considering you were 2/2 of incorrectness at that point I can assume safely.

I think we place your thread clearly in the...fiction section.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Or, "All aliens speak English", as if "every episode is 40 minutes of subtitles" wouldn't then become the next trope on your list of "overdone and boring".

For example, the "three warp speed standards that are all used but contradict one another". There's a ton of real world examples, Fahrenheit and Celsius is a good example. Other than "more energy is higher numbers", they don't correlate in any way (except -41 degrees), count differently, are based on different measurements. Both still work, both are still calculable (with correct results), both are used side by side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_dr...g_a_background

The three different warp scales completely contradict each other; there's no question about it and you can't use Farhenheit/Celsius as an analogy.

Again; Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Stargate did a great job of keeping a few aliens speaking their own language while performing it in such a way that no subtitles were ever required, like I said before. It was very immersive, but it seems all the other shows just go with automatic UTC excuses.

But then, I realized that you haven't studied science fiction from the standpoint of a writer. You may or may not be one of those folks that thinks "foreshadowing" is "being predictable", or that "implied transitions" are a form of "plot-hole", but I'm guessing that you are.

I never said "foreshadowing" is "being predictable", and if I implied that then you'd be wrong. Foreshadowing can be great in some cases. But what I was talking about shows being predictable is that the vast majority of all the Stargate, Babylon 5, Farscape, and Star Trek episodes were basically the exact same story in the exact same format; just with different names. "Oh! We found this planet on our sensors. Let's go check it out! Hm...looks like these people need help. Oh! 'Enter, the anti-alien spokesman for the town, who wants the protagonists out'. 'Enter, the alien who sides with the protagonists and corrects the spokesman for being unseemly.' Evil plot twist!" Yada yada yada. It's like the script out right ripped from other series, and so you can tell straight away in any 4 of those series the gist of what's going to happen in the whole 45 minute episode.

I don't want to be too much of an elitist, but in order to fairly criticize something, it's important to have a good technical understanding of its creation.

Your post is a bit like someone saying "Soccer is stupid. Anytime the ball even comes near their hands, the flail away as if they're afraid the ball will hurt them."

Just an example of how not actually understanding what you're seeing leads to complaints that basically boil down to "I want this thing that I don't fully understand to be more like this other thing."

Your post essentially says "take most of the things that cause this to be science fiction away, and replace it with 'space themed or futuristic drama' instead."

It will probably make you angry, but irreverence isn't the same thing as wisdom. Especially when it isn't backed up by educated understanding.

All I'm saying is that the writers could at the very very least take an attempt, step outside their comfort zone, and try to do something truly unique. I'd applaud even if they failed, because at least it was something new.

[LurkerOnly]

Again; Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Stargate did a great job of keeping a few aliens speaking their own language while performing it in such a way that no subtitles were ever required, like I said before. It was very immersive, but it seems all the other shows just go with automatic UTC excuses.



I never said "foreshadowing" is "being predictable", and if I implied that then you'd be wrong. Foreshadowing can be great in some cases. But what I was talking about shows being predictable is that the vast majority of all the Stargate, Babylon 5, Farscape, and Star Trek episodes were basically the exact same story in the exact same format; just with different names. "Oh! We found this planet on our sensors. Let's go check it out! Hm...looks like these people need help. Oh! 'Enter, the anti-alien spokesman for the town, who wants the protagonists out'. 'Enter, the alien who sides with the protagonists and corrects the spokesman for being unseemly.' Evil plot twist!" Yada yada yada. It's like the script out right ripped from other series, and so you can tell straight away in any 4 of those series the gist of what's going to happen in the whole 45 minute episode.



All I'm saying is that the writers could at the very very least take an attempt, step outside their comfort zone, and try to do something truly unique. I'd applaud even if they failed, because at least it was something new.

All I'm saying is, that people that produce art and expect to be renumerated for it, need to _not_ step outside the comfort zone of their customers.

Art only has as much value as the audience can extract.

Clearly people like paintings to be done in actual, you know, paint. Maybe painters should, like, step outside their comfort zone, and when people commission a painting, they should instead do a picture drawn in mud, or maybe lemon cream pie, so as not to be just like every other painter and just use paint.

Sorry, but you're asking the medium itself to be changed. "We explore space, find a planet, and have an adventure that underlines a truth that will still be true, even when we have warp drive" is the medium through which science fiction explores the human condition.

Your boredom with that may be genuine, but your derision of it is juvenile.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

All I'm saying is, that people that produce art and expect to be renumerated for it, need to _not_ step outside the comfort zone of their customers.

Art only has as much value as the audience can extract.

Clearly people like paintings to be done in actual, you know, paint. Maybe painters should, like, step outside their comfort zone, and when people commission a painting, they should instead do a picture drawn in mud, or maybe lemon cream pie, so as not to be just like every other painter and just use paint.

Sorry, but you're asking the medium itself to be changed. "We explore space, find a planet, and have an adventure that underlines a truth that will still be true, even when we have warp drive" is the medium through which science fiction explores the human condition.

Your boredom with that may be genuine, but your derision of it is juvenile.

Paint as analogy doesn't exactly work in this example.

I'm fine with "We explore space, find a planet, and have an adventure that underlines a truth that will still be true, even when we have warp drive". The way they do it, the what bothers me; because it's all done exactly the same way every, single, time, be it Stargate, Star Trek, Babylon 5, the list goes on.

Let me break it all down for you: "The typical exploration episode"

"*Random event happening aboard ship until somebody notices random planet* Oh! We found this planet on our sensors. Let's go check it out! Hm...looks like these people need help. Let's land down and say helo! *Party enters town* Oh! 'Enter, the anti-alien spokesman for the town, who wants the protagonists out'. 'Enter, the alien who sides with the protagonists and corrects the spokesman for being unseemly. Anti-alien guy walks away plotting, trying to rally together the town against the people. *Party does some exploration, finds the secret of the town/planet or what's happening, and then is trying to fix the problem/or tell the people what's going on. Dissenter, has the town with him and starts complaining publicly with his backers to throw the party out; party has to explain it and then there's a quick, speedy and not-so-well-thought-out solution that takes place, concluding the episode and town loving the heroes as the party beams up and flies away. The end!"

Again, not that the story is bad, but it is executed pretty much the exact same every time, and by the time you've see it for the fourth time, you immediately say, "Next episode! I've seen this one already."

[Dhrizzle]

Paint as analogy doesn't exactly work in this example.

I'm fine with "We explore space, find a planet, and have an adventure that underlines a truth that will still be true, even when we have warp drive". The way they do it, the what bothers me; because it's all done exactly the same way every, single, time, be it Stargate, Star Trek, Babylon 5, the list goes on.

Well the basic premise of Star Trek and 'Gate is visiting new planets; in Star Trek it's all spelled out in the intro (the whole "boldly going" thing) and in Stargate it's literally all their sci-fi tech is good for. I'm not sure what you're getting at with Bab 5, it was rare for them to visit any planet and most of the episodes took place on the station or in the space immediately surrounding it.

Again, not that the story is bad, but it is executed pretty much the exact same every time, and by the time you've see it for the fourth time, you immediately say, "Next episode! I've seen this one already."

Perhaps the space exploration genre isn't for you?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Well the basic premise of Star Trek and 'Gate is visiting new planets; in Star Trek it's all spelled out in the intro (the whole "boldly going" thing) and in Stargate it's literally all their sci-fi tech is good for. I'm not sure what you're getting at with Bab 5, it was rare for them to visit any planet and most of the episodes took place on the station or in the space immediately surrounding it.



Perhaps the space exploration genre isn't for you?

Arrh! Your not getting the point!

The point is that it's executed the exact same way every, single, time! It's not the plot, or the characters, or the writing that's the problem, but how they went about executing the episode.

[Dhrizzle]

Arrh! Your not getting the point!

The point is that it's executed the exact same way every, single, time! It's not the plot, or the characters, or the writing that's the problem, but how they went about executing the episode.

The thing is they aren't executed the exact same way, at least not to the extent that requires bold and italics. They all follow the same theme, but that's kind of the point of the genre.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I can name of the top of my head; Red Sky and Instinct from the Stargate series, which was pretty much the exact same in execution. Sure, they told different stories, but the overall gist of it ends up in non-stop eye rolling.

[Trubo]

A bit off topic but digital hacking/decrypting whenever it's portrayed in film/tv. It just doesn't happen that way and good luck finding that USB port on something 40+ years old (DIE HARD).

[Val the Moofia Boss]

A bit off topic but digital hacking/decrypting whenever it's portrayed in film/tv. It just doesn't happen that way and good luck finding that USB port on something 40+ years old (DIE HARD).

LOL so much. But apparently plot is more important the logic in story writing.

[Clockwork Pinkie]

The whole problem with this is thinking it's only one writer. It's not. They're not going to credit every writer. They bring in dozens just for one movie sometimes. Most of them don't even read the script before adding their 2 cents. Add that to the pressure of the producers and the studio and you have your issue. It's not the writers, it's the fact that the producers want to bring on dozens of writers to edit a script that's already been edited to death, taking out detail and adding more moneyshots.

[Johnkie]

Sci-Fi or not Hollywood mostly spills out crap. Have so for quite some time now.

[haxartus]

Alien subtitles ? Why do you think that they will communicate with words ?
Sound is an awfully inefficient way to exchange information. Electromagnetic radiation is much better. It would allow the aliens to exchange several million books worth of information per second. Subtitles would be fun.

[Clockwork Pinkie]

The Writers Give No Thought to the Story Logic of their Creation, and the Shows and Films are Produced without Passion.

We (Not "I" this time) have entered a loop gentlemen; the writers are blindly creating worlds that, although they strive for originality, are just flat out not; and the production companies give not thought themselves to how they run the show.

It's the same formula in episode format over, and over again. This is the design process for a TV show: "1. Establish an awesome opening pilot detailing our world, then introduce our immortal characters and futilely explain why we should care for them. 2. Make each episode a (Mostly) standalone adventure so that the audeince can drop in any time without going 'Waagh? They are treating me like I should know this crap.'; where our heroes discover some strange, new world or uncover an evil plot that they shall stop. 3. Insert some random two-parter where someone dies, but we keep the actor on the payroll so we can bring him back later after we've figured out some @#%&y way to explain his resurrection. 4. Rinse and repeat."

Or, if it's a movie: "1. Establish an awesome opening sequence that'll be better than the climax of the film to instantly 'wow' people with lasers and giant exploding thingies. 2. Take an hour and a half to develop our stock characters so that our stupid audience will attach to them. Also, send those characters on some journey typical of the Sci Fi genre. 3. Dramatic plot twist! Kill one or two characters, hero goes off to sacrifice himself to save the 'verse. 4. Leave a secret ending in the credits to tell the audience that we'll be producing more @#$& for next year."


*Whines* I hate it when they do that! *Whines more*


Seriously, almost every single Sci Fi production does that now. In fact, I can't name one in the past ten years that didn't do that.

The shows; their all reskinned Star Treks. Bablyon 5, Stargate, Farscape...even Battlestar: Galactica...

The movies; their all reskinned Star Wars'. Elysium, Prometheus, Oblivion...

*Wails* I'm sick and tired of it! And damn it man, you better be too! (Don't take that too seriously)

So...let's break this down, shall we?

Yes, lets break it down. Given the basic, very basic ladder of Hollywood. A show will have the same skeleton as the writer's original dream, but if he sells the script. It will get seen by everyone above him. Director, Producer, 20+ other writers, studio heads, and if you're into that sort of stuff, the all seeing eye. . . . With that in mind, every single person that see's the original script will edit as they please, have a few suggestions, merge those suggestions together, and you will get a shitstorm of a script. Producer see's money, studio heads agree, director just does his job directing and the writer either agrees or gets fired, name removed, and hardly gets paid. Writers are replaceable, once they have your idea, you're done for. And this is just, if it's a TV show, the first episode.


It's the same formula because of what's above. It guarantee's them money and viewers. They don't want to take risk. There's too much complaining from the masses when they see or hear something original come out. "Sounds confusing" "This looks stupid" "It's a (sci-fi of choice) rip off merged with (other sci-fi of choice)" Not to mention trying to explain the damn thing to someone.

Or, if it's a movie. One of the two will have to be more awesome than the other. Stellar beginning random ending, slow beginning, amazing ending. Either or. Character development is character development, if it's a movie that has everything perfect, yet you care less about the characters, it will fail, hard. Or just be a summer blockbuster where it barely gets above 30% on Rotten Tomatoes but is the highest grossing movie of that year. Only way a twist can be a twist is if something happens to the good guy. No one will care if something dramatic happens to the good guy. Just nod our heads, yea, ok, cool. And the secret ending is usually better than the whole movie. "OMG IT'S whatshisface !!!"

Failing to see how Oblivion is a rip off of Star Wars. There is no clone wars here, it's just 1 clone vs 1 massive robot god thingy. No force, no superpowers, no lightsabers. No sith vs jedi. Same with Elysium, Elysium is more of a rip off of any story about rich vs poor and the poor always winning.

It's all about the action. All about the money shots, or all about the actor carrying the movie. They don't spend millions upon millions to make a good plot, they spend millions on CGI that takes you from one plot point to the other, and making sure the actor/s get enough screen time, and of course, having their big head on a poster because most of the time, people are seeing a movie for the actor involved, not the story. This is why they get paid more, if they have a name and a pretty face, they can make or break a movie. Imagine if Edge of Tomorrow had Robert Downy Jr, the most overrated actor currently. It wold of been the highest grossing movie of all time, but instead it's Tom Cruise, it is a good actor even at his age, but they're still lol @ his way of life and his moments of batshit craziness.

To end it all. It's been fun, but the studio knows what their main audience wants. They've given up on trying to make a movie with a good story because their audience just does not care. If it's there, it's an added bonus, but not a reason to see a movie, or tell anyone to see the movie. They're seeing it on the big screen to see some actor or actress's pretty face in the largest format as well as some kick-ass sci-fi action.No actors, no action, best you'll get from it is if you're lucky over 30 mil total boxoffice. Otherwise the masses will "Meh, I'll watch it on Netflix". Seriously, you can't blame the studios for doing this when the audience is willing to fork over 100+mil opening weekend to see, a reskin, and non-original plot because "it looks pretty" and "it has Guy McDudeman in it!!!11!" or my personally favorite that I've still fall guilty on "Well, I've seen the first few, so I might as well see this one". Truely, it's touch, but the only place to get a good story is within a book, but that'll run the risk of being a huge waste of time. Also, the easiest way to enjoy the movie is to not compare it to anything.... it's impossible trying to enjoy anything when you're trying to compare it to something you already love.