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

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#71

Post by DanBC »

occultist_throw wrote: post #14
ashark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nod-ignore-and-keep-reading Lit Crit academese filler thing, then? I guess it stood out to me because the review doesn't have much of that, otherwise, and because the paragraph it's in seemed to be making some kind of point, though I couldn't decipher what it was in such a way that that sentence contributed anything.

Truthfully, these days if I see SJW buzzwords, I just skip over the rest of the text. It's not worth subjecting oneself in that sort of groupthink - lest you eat babies. Because if you don't agree with them, you must assuredly agree with rape, sex crimes, and eating babies. There is no middle ground. There is no discussion. Only fuming mouths. Are there wrongs? Absolutely. But we can tackle those when we have clear e…

> I just skip over the rest of the text.

You could also skip over the step of posting in comment threads.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#72

Post by WalterSear »

Jtsummers wrote: post #54
outsidetheparty wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong there. I deleted it so I could take the time to expand on it beyond that glib knee-jerk reaction, which I regret posting even for the very brief period it was online.

Go to your profile, put a number into the "Delay" field. This is how I (usually) deal with my urge to post glib knee-jerk reactions. I have two minutes to edit and/or delete them before anyone else can see them.

Woah! Thanks for this.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#73

Post by cannonedhamster »

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…

The racism that the author sees probably comes from the fact that the Klingons are even darker skinned, not like the civilized and lighter skinned people of The Federation. This was a very common trope during much of Victorian history, leading to roles such as the "savage assistant", the "learned black apprentice", etc. While the civilized colored folks from the white civilization could be reasoned with and would even sacrifice for their master, those even darker dark folk would just attack sight as they were incapable of reason. I haven't seen the show so I'm going off of the article and what I've seen the depictions of the Klingons as, and can't really offer more insight than the translation I've given.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#74

Post by wvenable »

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.

Given how much special effects exist in B-level shows like The Flash, I think CG has made it much much cheaper. It also removes a lot of the need for expensive practical effects -- almost all fire/explosions on television is CG now.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#75

Post by cannonedhamster »

avar wrote: post #48
mikestew wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's advertised as a comedy show and with Seth MacFarlane (of Family Guy) headlining it I also assumed it was some cheap Galaxy Quest-esque jab at Star Trek. There's some of that, in particular taking some jabs at Star Trek tropes (e.g. one situation being neatly resolved by the crew using seatbelts)[1]. But it's not just some cheap comedy. Yes there's campy humor that's basically the equivalent of TOS not taking its…

I've been very pleased with the show as well and don't understand much of the criticism it's received. It's obviously still working out its footing but I've found it far better written than the first season of TNG.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#76

Post by eesmith »

mamon wrote: post #32
TeMPOraL wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"In 1970s you would just create plastic models of spaceships and film them with normal camera"

Are you sure? For example, from the ILM history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_%26_Magic we see:

1975: Resurrected the use of VistaVision; first use of a motion control camera (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope)

Following the link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_control_photography gives us:

> The first large-scale application of motion control was in Star Wars (1977), where a digitally controlled camera known as the Dykstraflex performed complex and repeatable motions around stationary spaceship models. This enabled a greater complexity in the spaceship-battle sequences, as separately filmed elements (spaceships, backgrounds, etc.) could be better coordinated with one another with greatly reduced error.

That doesn't sound like a normal camera.

The text immediately before that quote is:

> The 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey pioneered motion control in two respects. The film's model photography was conducted with large mechanical rigs that enabled precise and repeatable camera and model motion. The film's finale was created with mechanically controlled slit-scan photography, which required precise camera motion control during the exposure of single frames.

And in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the mothership was made of wood, plastic and metal, and wasn't cheap.

Now, to be sure these are high budget movies, but your broad description makes it sound like it was true for all movies in the 1970s.

I think a better comparison would be to look at the model-based special effects in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine with the CGI effects in Babylon 5; both produced at about the same time. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine :

> DS9 was the first TV show in the Star Trek franchise to use computer-generated imagery (CGI) for exterior space shots. Although a few other television series, like Babylon 5, were using CGI exclusively to avoid the high expense of model photography, the Star Trek franchise had continued to use primarily physical models for exterior space shots because producers felt models provided more realism.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#77

Post by ashark »

slachance wrote: post #41
ashark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

Good question. I'd say that the ties back to imperialist days on Earth are there because (1) it's a popular idea to hate this part of history, and (2) despite having lead characters who are asian and black, the show is still implied to be "white enough" for the comparison to be justified. The claim is that Star Trek 's premise is a problem because it makes the flawed assumption that one culture can be better than ano…

Yeah, I glossed over that part with an "uh, yeah, kinda, sure" for the Uhuru and Worf things (the put-upon not-terribly-competent "service worker" in TOS is clearly Nurse Chapel, if it's any named recurring character, and Worf gets punched a helluva lot less than one might think given his role and demeanor—Picard is more often both the physical and emotional punching bag, I'd think), an "I guess..." for the Sisko bits, and a "wait, what?" for the complaint about Janeway (they gave her arguable the toughest circumstances for any captain in episode 1 of their show in a Trek thusfar, but she did fine because it's Star Trek and the good guys may have ups and downs but they do basically fine in the end, and it's sexist somehow that she did really well? That show has some deep problems, even with Janeway's character, but sexism's nowhere near the top of the list) and an "I guess I missed something?" for the reboot movies bit.

That should have primed me for being confused later in the piece, I suppose.

[EDIT] the Sisko thing'd have had more weight if that show hadn't spent so much screen time openly dealing with humans (=the US, mostly, for production and character reasons) racist past (mind you, I like that aspect of DS9, even if it doesn't always make much in-universe sense)

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#78

Post by metaphorm »

krisdol wrote: post #18
occultist_throw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just attributed it to standard SJW virtue signalling. It's meaningless aside to others who understand the same lingo, and agree with it. Edit: Ah, the usual SJW refrain. Silence any criticism via flags, -1's and other tools available, instead of discussing why the quote is right/not and what it means.

Can you rephrase what you said? Whenever I see "SJW" or "virtue signaling" in a post, I immediately stop reading and move on. Those terms are meaningless to those who don't subscribe to the groupthink of a devout cult of sheltered sexists.

you just reflexively accused someone of being a sexist on no evidence

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#79

Post by randallsquared »

mikestew wrote: post #37
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.

More homage than parody. Virtually all the humor is due to the dialogue, but is driven by the sensibilities of the characters involved... so much so that one of my friends said The Orville was "so, basically Star Trek, but with realistic lines". When characters say funny things, they're mostly doing so intentionally, and the range of reactions to it is weirdly realistic.

For a geek who spent some formative years viewing ST:TNG, this show seems like it's about and for my people. :)

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#80

Post by jacobush »

lfowles wrote: post #28
TeMPOraL wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

We also want orders of magnitude more special effects done! See the Wolf of Wall Street VFX highlights: https://vimeo.com/83523133

The production is just as outrageous as the subject matter of that film...
Post reply on HN