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

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#121

Post by tzs »

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.

I read an article that I cannot find now that quoted its creators as saying that current incarnations of Star Trek have moved to darker and grim settings. They wanted to make a show that had the bright optimism toward the future that the original Star Trek had.

It's also a comedy, but the comedy is not parodying Star Trek. It's more like what Star Trek might have been if Star Trek had been meant as a comedy-drama instead of just a drama.

The first three episodes had some good jokes, and have took on a couple serious issues. They were OK, but not great, but that's fine. The first episodes of a show are more about building up background and establishing characters.

There were enough good elements in these episodes to hint that given time it can develop into a great show. But its on Fox, which is notorious for not giving science fiction shows enough time (see Firefly and Terra Nova).

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#122

Post by micheljones »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #109
micheljones wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear Sir, thank you for your valuable snarkasm. You have proven me wrong on all accounts. The neoreligion of SJWism and PC culture that you subscribe to cannot be wrong in any way, and is always 100% right. I have seen the error of my ways and humbly accept my punishment.

Yes, I can definitely tell you're interested in having a serious and thoughtful discussion about these issues, and can see that it would really be worth my time to engage with your nuanced opinions on the matter.

Nice reversal attempt. Keep that snarkasm going!

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#123

Post by micheljones »

eesmith wrote: post #104
micheljones wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guilty of the original sin. I have made my provocative comment before reading the article - I assumed it's about SF in general, primarily written SF based on the domain name.

Or reading the comments. I wrote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15332868 precisely to prevent that mistake from happening.

I will try to develop my skill of reading not-yet-posted comments more.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#124

Post by mikeash »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #60
mikeash wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was putting a Russian guy and a black woman on the bridge of the Enterprise a nuanced thing? It strikes me that the original Star Trek was fairly blatant in this respect. It may seem nuanced looking back because we see nothing special about something like a white man and a black woman kissing on TV, but at the time it was about as subtle as a stick of dynamite.

Still, they also had a solid story to tell .

I agree that a solid story is key, but I don't see the connection. Maybe for a setting where diversity is fundamentally part of it (the Discovery cast might not work well in a production of Macbeth, say) but for something like Star Trek it seems completely separate. You need a good story with a diverse cast, and you need a good story without a diverse cast.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#125

Post by krisdol »

IncRnd wrote: post #103
krisdol wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Is it rude to say whoosh on hn?

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#126

Post by krisdol »

metaphorm wrote: post #115
eesmith wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you tell? Perhaps he's using the language because he really thinks it's meaningful? How do you know there isn't only one group of extremist trolls? If two groups disagree, they don't have to be balanced yin and yang. If two groups disagree, the real answer doesn't have to lie in the middle. In the 1850s US, there were pro-slavers and anti-slavers. Who was in the middle, and were they right? But hey, I watch D…

> In the 1850s US, there were pro-slavers and anti-slavers. Who was in the middle, and were they right? Abraham Lincoln

So the middle between "pro-slaver" and "anti-slaver" is "anti-slaver". Got it

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#127

Post by metaphorm »

eesmith wrote: post #118
metaphorm wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the 1850s US, there were pro-slavers and anti-slavers. Who was in the middle, and were they right? Abraham Lincoln

And was he right? Because he seems to have changed his mind.

was he right? he's one of the most historically examined leaders of all time and we still don't know. In the present we have the benefit of hindsight and can more easily see that war was inevitable and we might even think Lincoln was foolish to initially pursue a policy that sought to avoid war. Was that so obvious in his own time though?

Lincoln did change his mind but he seems to have changed it not because he had an epiphany about the evil of slavery, but because he became convinced during the war that it would be a total war and not a containable skirmish. once that logic was in play the Emancipation Proclamation made sense to issue. It also bolstered his support with abolitionists.

Today we have no ambiguity about the evil of slavery and view it as one of the greatest moral failings in our history and a legacy we are continuing to face down and one which has caused huge misery for millions of African-Americans. Even with this modern perspective, it's hard to view Lincoln as anything other than a conflicted man trying to weigh very heavy decisions indeed. So I dunno if he was right. I don't think Lincoln knew in his own time and I don't think we will ever be able to adequately judge. We know what happened but we don't know what else could have or should have happened instead.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#129

Post by krisdol »

IncRnd wrote: post #103
krisdol wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

for what it's worth, I was poking fun at the knucklehead I was responding to, because they said this in a branch of the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15332975

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#130

Post by krisdol »

metaphorm wrote: post #78
krisdol wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

for what it's worth, I was poking fun at the knucklehead I was responding to, because they said this in a branch of the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15332975
Post reply on HN