Live data from Hacker News

Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

lareviewofbooks.org

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#41
post #21

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…

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 another, and by extension, that all cultures must be valued and respected equally. Without going into the cultures of humanity in Star Trek versus the Klingons, you can examine similar claims closer to home even where some cultures are deeply invested in medieval-level cruelty like stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, female genital mutilation, and inhumane punishment by knife and cane. But these realities don't fit the author's narrative, and therefore must be ignored for the purposes of the thesis. Like Klingons, they're a benign minority who are simply misunderstood by their would-be cultural oppressors.

The article's ostensibility about science-fiction, and managed to stay on point for the first couple paragraphs, but it quickly devolved into the author's pet theories on race and gender. I really had trouble with these sorts of broad and totally unfair generalizations:

> Uhuru was a service worker and Worf was a punching bag; when the show made a black captain, was it a coincidence that the show also became “darker” and less optimistic, when its characters started to be “flawed” and “ambiguous”? Voyager had a female captain, but it marooned her to the farthest reaches of the galaxy (and the less said about the garbage politics of the reboot movies, the better).

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#42
post #27

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.

I would think that practical effects would cost even more due to inflation. Also you may miss how much of the shows are CGI if you aren't looking hard. Watch a few shows from the 70s and 80s, ones with high production values, then watch the average show today and you'll see that audiences demand much more realistic sets and scenery. Just about everything in the background of a sci-fi show is CGI.

Yet in a way it looks shittier. For example, take the two first sets of Star Wars trilogies.

In the originals, the battle for the Death Star holds up.

In the prequels, you can see Jedi wildly waving their lightsabers at nothing because the CGI team forgot to animate in certain places.

In the originals, Yoda was a puppet, and his skin and clothing reflected light realistically. So what if his mouth movements had all of the nuance and subtlety of a novelty nutcracker? Imagination bridged the gap between what we saw and what we experienced.

In the prequels, Yoda was CGI, so he didn't have physical depth in the way the other actors did, and didn't reflect light in the same way as the physical cast, and it gave him an eerie, Photoshopped look.

CGI can make special effects look more realistic, but they also have a way of preventing things from actually looking real.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone equates the later with the former, fwiw.

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

What's more, your deleted comment is why they will continue to have a difference of opinion with you.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#44

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.

You only notice the bad CGI - most TV shows, even a normal sitcom, have a ton of CG that you would never realize unless you saw the raw shots. It's what the audience expects and demands today. Things are getting more efficient but quality level has risen even faster.

Here's a good video, from 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

And 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhN1STep_zk

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#45
post #18

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.

There is no other word to describe the groups behind the wave of petty but vicious activism in the last decade or so. The people calling for "safe spaces" and trigger warnings, literally shaking from micro-aggressions, trying to ruin people's careers for holding common opinions, and always claiming to be the victims of some -ism. What would you call them?

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#46
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.

Wait...Star Trek isn't parody?

snerk

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I see. The temptingly glib response would be to say that those people are wrong, and leave it at that.

Instead I guess I'll say that those people should try to be clearer about whatever distinction it is that they do see between those things, because just using "SJW" as a pejorative without explanation tends to look like a rejection of those ideals.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#48
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.

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 itself quite seriously, but it's in every other way a proper modern day sequel to TNG, and the humor doesn't get in the way of that.

I'm not going to spoil the 3rd episode of it that just came out, but it's a "moral conundrum" episode of the likes TNG was famous for, except it's IMNSHO executed better than any such TNG episode. Those tended to get resolved with some Deus Ex Machina or something resembling a stereotypically happy American ending, but The Orville took the hard way out. I was very impressed.

1. For those unfamiliar with Star Trek: Approximately half of on-screen fatalities could be prevented by some combination of seatbelt usage, and the computer consoles not being powered by 100,000 volts of electricity with no fuses or circuit breakers[2].

2. The other half being prevented by not bringing no-name red shirts along on the away mission.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#49

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…

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.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#50
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.

Less a parody, more a comedy version of Star Trek. A parody implies they're making fun of Star Trek. So far the episodes have been a combination of humor [1] and a more played-straight sci-fi universe and story modeled after TNG.

[0] See Galaxy Quest, which makes fun of the culture around ST as much as ST itself.

[1] Sometimes too much taking me out of it, first episode was the worst for this, it's improving.

Post reply on HN