Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#31

Post by alexasmyths »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #17
micheljones wrote: post #4

Because it became saddled with SJWism and PC culture.

That totally makes sense. The original Star Trek, of course, was completely unconcerned with issues like race relations, social justice, equality, multiculturalism, and all that other socialist garbage. If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!

The original Star Trek I think did it with reason.

I think 2017 is not the 1960's - and the problem is 'populist social leftism' is still using the 1960's playbook.

It's tired, it lacks nuance. The new Star Trek's remind me of the Canadian government's 'soft propaganda' in 'Degrassi Street' - which is lampooned spectacularly well on 'Kroll Show'. And I don't use the term 'propaganda' lightly - it's state sponsored 'youth education' - again, which can be positive, but it's always going to be a hint 'North Korea' no matter how you cut it.

I think motives are not so bad ... but we live in a new world. It's not so easy as 'putting a traditionally marginalized person in a leading role' anymore. That's all fine, but it's not thoughtful. It's Disney. And lazy.

As evidence of this culture - here you have a show that puts extraordinary attention on putting 'marginalized people into leading roles' - and yet the storyline is 'still racist'. This is getting ridiculous.

How about 'it's just not good'. Because it's not?

Coen Brothers said it right - while 'diversity might be important' - the most important thing is the story'. Start with the story, focus on the story. If you start with a social objective, it's just going to come out all wrong, and be 'bad'. Like the new Star Trek. Sadly.

"If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!"

It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something. It's not common, but nobody will bat an eye, and I really don't think the vast, vast majority of people care one way or another. It's not the 1960's.

There are a lot of interesting stories to tell, that may very well involve 'non classical' views, so let's tell them.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#32

Post by mamon »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #12
maxlybbert wrote: post #9

Based on the website address, I thought the article would be about written science fiction, which continues to move forward if you ignore recommendations from people who don't actually like science fiction. I think "The Martian" counts as moving forward, but I'm much less happy with most of the books Amazon recommends for me. But the article is about television. I really am not qualified to say much about television…

> even if hard science fiction fans can be perfectly targeted through Netflix or Amazon, special effects will keep production costs high It's a thing I've been wondering about - what makes special effects cost so much, compared to previous decades? I mean, everything is done with CG now, that's supposed to be orders of magnitude cheaper than what people did in the XX century.

>> that's supposed to be orders of magnitude cheaper than what people did in the XX century.

I think it's the opposite. In 1970s you would just create plastic models of spaceships and film them with normal camera. That's as cheap as creating plastic models can get. Of course end result wasn't that great, but it was enough to get by.

Now you can create pretty much anything you can imagine, and generate it as CG so it looks perfect on the screen, but you need expensive equipment and even more expensive people to operate it.

The point I'm trying to make is that 40 years ago we did simple effects with simple (and cheap) tools. Now we use advanced effects created with the expensive tools. Increased cost is justified by increased quality.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#34

Post by avar »

If you're a fan of classic Trek check out The Orville. There's just 3 episodes out but so far it's shaping up to be a true spiritual sequel to 90s Trek in ways the JJ Abrahams-esque Discovery show won't be, judging from the first two episodes.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#35

Post by WalterSear »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #26
WalterSear wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone equates the later with the former, fwiw.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this?

That some people perceive a distinction to between "race relations, social justice, equality, multiculturalism, and all that other socialist garbage," and SJWism and PC culture.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#36

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

ashark wrote: post #21
cannonedhamster wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that the Victorian appeal of claiming oneself above the "savages" of wherever the British Empire was conquering. The writer is equating the story of Discovery with the story the British told themselves about colonialism. The reference is that The Federation is the British and the Klingons are the savages.

(Belief in) cultural superiority as racism, then? OK. I'd be (genuinely) curious to see what form Klingon-hating in the show could have taken that would have been similar in form but different enough that the writer'd not have labeled it white and Victorian . I'd like to know what the diff looks like between the two. Is "they have always attacked us before, so better to start shooting if you see them and skip the try…

> white and Victorian

Those are racist/culturalist jabs meant to signal ingroup status to other bigots.

There is no deeper meaning behind why white and Victorian as opposed to Arab and working to establish the Caliphate or numerous other examples we can draw.

It's simply safe to express that kind of bigotry (and even popular in some groups).

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#37

Post by mikestew »

avar wrote: post #34

If you're a fan of classic Trek check out The Orville. There's just 3 episodes out but so far it's shaping up to be a true spiritual sequel to 90s Trek in ways the JJ Abrahams-esque Discovery show won't be, judging from the first two episodes.

Umm, isn't The Orville a parody of (primarily) Star Trek? (I have not watched it.) I can't reconcile "parody" with "spiritual sequel". One would possibly make me laugh, the other is often a metaphor for more serious issues IRL.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#38

Post by outsidetheparty »

alexasmyths wrote: post #31
outsidetheparty wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That totally makes sense. The original Star Trek, of course, was completely unconcerned with issues like race relations, social justice, equality, multiculturalism, and all that other socialist garbage. If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!

The original Star Trek I think did it with reason. I think 2017 is not the 1960's - and the problem is 'populist social leftism' is still using the 1960's playbook. It's tired, it lacks nuance. The new Star Trek's remind me of the Canadian government's 'soft propaganda' in 'Degrassi Street' - which is lampooned spectacularly well on 'Kroll Show'. And I don't use the term 'propaganda' lightly - it's state sponsored 'y…

> It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something.

I completely agree! But neither is it "saddling the show with SJWism and PC culture." It's just... a normal, unremarkable thing, which as you say the vast majority of people won't care about one way or the other.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#40

Post by pixl97 »

>feel like a single continuous 1990’s moment, a moment that began in a renewed liberal optimism for multiculturalism and progress and the general advancement of humanity.

and

>Why did science fiction stop moving forward.

Maybe because lots of sci-fi was optimistically wrong about the future of humanity? Or should I say that sci-fi covers both the good and bad things that could potentially happen. Some people don't realize the federation in Star Trek story was born from the ashes of a world war 3. If they made a show that covered that point of ST history it would still be science fiction, it would just be rather dark.

Also on the points of multiculturalism. When Star Trek was originally airing, there was little else on the air broadcasting a similar message. Now a large portion of TV is very multicultural, some of it to the point it forgets to have a story about anything else.

Post reply on HN