I think sci fic tv series are getting main stream.
But all too often I see just action films masking as sci fic such as the current star trek incarnation.
I want those space opera and space ship and hard stuff.
I've been watching The Expanse on SyFy lately and it's quite good! I enjoyed it so much I'm now reading the book series it's based on, and really enjoying that as well. They're slightly different, but both good in their own way.
I really enjoyed the first 3 so was disappointed. Does it get better? Was it a temporary drop?
Thanks!
Things get rather interesting in 5&6 though. Scale gets quite good!
As for the world, there seems to be a lot of nonsense tech such as see-through cell-phones? No way to even hide what you are doing, even crucial characters and VIPs have see-through communication devices, whilst they steal/look at top secret information? Why is AR (using HUGE eyeglass-like devices) reserved only for very special engineers/scientists? Haven't the shows creators heard of Hololens? It's like they took VR/AR and took it back to the 80s. Why do they need to do so many things manually, yet not completely manually e.g. control an antenna, but they can do it remotely they just have to be within 20 meters? How can they open solid metal doors without electricity in zero-g? It feels a bit like Star Trek back in the 60s, before they had any clue about what was to come, except it's 50 years later and they are still using similar ideas without adding anything new. I understand compromises need to be made to adapt to the screen so that viewers can understand the world, but it seems like there are tons of areas where a bit more creativity should be order.
I'm sure that's just for TV viewers to be able to see their screens. It is better than projecting the screen over the face or reflecting it on the glasses of the actors like other TV shows do.
If you don't like it, that is OK, no one is forced to like anything. I don't like The Walking Dead, and it doesn't mean a lot of people is wrong, just that we have different tastes.
But to be fair the show is ages ahead of Star Trek TOS in terms of plausibility.
In fact, the lack of the fantastic technologies indistinguishable from magic that are present in Star Trek is very much part of the appeal. Is what makes the show more real. There's no faster than light space travel for a start. They have to use orbital mechanics to move around. They have to accelerate half of the way and deccelerate the other half. They have to dock very carefully instead of saying 'beam me down'. It is a very welcome change.
But I agree, there are some pretty bad films being made under the science fiction genre. I want movies referencing hard science fiction (was wondering the other day what an adaption of 'The Three-Body Problem' might be like) and space operas too (Culture series is dying for a film adaption).
But in terms of science fiction, I think it's great seeing non-space material being made too. Stuff like 'Dark Mirror', 'The Man from Earth', and 'Safety Not Guaranteed' are pretty good indicators to me that good science fiction has gone mainstream.
There was a recent discussion in /r/TheCulture about who Culture fans would like to see direct a movie adaptation of one of the books [1]. I'm dubious a live action film could be successful and at the same time live up to one of the books; it would take some mighty fine screenwriting to not slip into excessive expository minutiae about The Culture, and so much of the attraction of the books to many fans was the reader wasn't repeatedly hit over the head with explanations of the setting.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCulture/comments/62g6mk/if_you_c...
After posting that comment I spent a while wondering which novel would be best to jump start that sort of franchise and agree it's tricky to condense a novel into a movie. A lot of science fiction probably works better as a mini series or full TV series (could be interesting to have Culture take an approach like American Horror Story where each season is a self-contained story)
If only animation automation got sufficiently good and economical enough that long-form (40+ hours) video storytelling was practical for more stories. I sometimes wonder if there is a Sapir-Whorf-style equivalent hypothesis for how we exchange our stories, where the storytelling modality (starting with just the time length our formats allow, but going much further afield with complexity management/expectations, formulation of models, etc.) shapes how our aggregate civilization thinks.
I do think Use of Weapons could make a splendid movie - but it might be tricky hiding the basis for the twist at the end?
Any movie treatment of The Culture runs the constant risk of only getting the glossing highlights reel version that Dune received, and I'd be concerned that the mechanics of the story setting, neat as they are, in a movie would get in the way of telling the real story of Banks' more interesting themes via his incisive commentary delivered by holding up The Culture mirror-like, comparing to our own civilization.
The earliest science fiction I recall set in a post-scarcity environment is "Star Trek: TNG". Granted, the socio-economic impact of replicators is not a focus of the series or the movies, replicators are more of background/world-building device ("Tea, Earl Grey, hot")
Even more important than the sheer existence of the Minds was their egalitarian disposition and relationship to their pan-human co-citizens, and interesting tangentials like the Minds' polite yet firm declination to Sublime. I will sorely miss Banks' weaving of the tales of the proto-Culture, and how the early Minds came about to that position.
Post-scarcity and post-singularity are orthogonal - The Culture is both, Star Trek TNG is post-scarcity only, Rapture of the Nerds[1] (Stross & Doctorow) is post-singularity only.
1. http://craphound.com/rotn/Cory_Doctorow_and_Charles_Stross_-...
Use of Weapons might work too. I can't see Player of Games translating to the big screen well, though. So much of it is about the game itself and the protagonist's thinking around it. And I do think the rest would be hopeless.
It's how they deal with not having the budget to actually put people in a desert so it's rather visibly a desert backdrop at some points, it's why the lighting is often so strong and monochromatic like a theater's lighting, it's why the acting is with all the characters projecting as if they are speaking to an audience rather than in a TV production. At one point they even use a very theatrical special effect based on backlighting through a thin cloth representing a tent to show Paul's hallucinations/thoughts, rather than even a simple bluescreen or conventional image compositing effect.
The effort is interesting, but I'd have to call it ultimately a failure (even if I personally ultimately enjoyed it) as it almost completely failed to speak to its audience. I also think you can't really follow it if you didn't read the books, which I consider a major flaw of an adaptation.
Yeah. The "mainstreaming" of sci-fi has been kind of a mixed blessing. We got all the PEW PEW PEW lasers and blinking computer lights but none of the thought-provoking stuff.
God, I want some space opera. Doesn't even have to be "hard" sci-fi that aspires to realism (though it's a bonus)
I liked the first Star Trek reboot movie, but I saw STAR TREK EXTREME or STAR TREK BEYOND or whatever it's called a few weeks ago and it was just atrocious. Just mind-numbing, generic action. Reminded me of the Transformers movies. I love me some giant robot fights, but the Transformers movies are just a big visual mess to me.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but then I also saw a couple of big Hollywood sci-fi movies this winter that were actually thought-provoking.
1. Arrival - adaptation of a really challenging short story. Drops most of the physics stuff, but keeps the linguistics, and the human element. Only adds a little action.
2. Passengers - lots of action, but centers around an ethical conundrum that will give you plenty to talk about afterwards.
Agree on the new Star Trek reboot. It really offers me nothing of what I like about Star Trek.
Hollywood has a real problem with science fiction. It almost always waters it down into a creature-feature, with the usual generic sex and weapon play.
Deeper questions about culture, mystery, and identity tend to be removed at the screen writing stage.
There are exceptions - Contact and Arrival - but the trend at the moment seems to be towards shallow empty spectacle with a lot of running, jumping, shouting, shooting, and CGI. Add a few wisecracks and skin-tight costumes and you're done.
For a different take I'd recommend anything by Tarkovsky. Stalker and Solaris are brilliantly imaginative masterpieces with no modern CGI at all.
But definitely not science and hardly fiction (as in fiction books).
They're in same category as Twin Peaks or Lost - an unencumbered and hardly explained flights of imagination.
I've enjoyed the new Star Wars movies so far and I'll go see the next one, but I can't shake the feeling that they're sucking up the oxygen that might go to something better. Out of the whole list, the only one that really interests me is Valerian.
Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Battlestar Galactica, Space 1999, Buck Rogers in 25th Century, ET, Back to the Future...
And I'm going to get massively downvoted if I don't mention Dr. Who....
Only to the extent that any actual science fiction of substance has been watered out to the point that its just gloss, a layer of paint on top of something utterly conventional.
There's rarely any mainstream movies which are science fiction at core.
It's a pity that establishment literary circles still mostly ignore it outside of a few token examples. This drives educational circles and now most literary curricula (even K-12) leave any kind of serious analysis or discussion off the list.
Science Fiction requires some very different analysis tools than many other literary genres and as a result, readers (consumers) are so ill prepared that they often can't even recognize it when they're consuming a genre piece, or consuming something with science fiction elements, if it doesn't explicitly involve Star Wars like space opera cliches. But literary criticism, by largely ignoring the genre, is failing to develop those analysis tools.
There's plenty of people who'll say "I hate sci-fi" and then go on to binge watch several seasons across several shows that are all members of some sub-genre of sci-fi.
Note: IMHO I have a very expansive view of what Science Fiction is. I consider the genre to be basically any story where some non-existent "technology" (or science, or engineering or medicine, etc.) exists, and the story is set in motion around that technology. The technology can be as inconsequential as a grain of sand in the story, or a major plot driver. It can be so important to the story that the entire setting of the story becomes incomparable to anything that we can currently experience, or so mundane that the world of the story is exactly our world, but with this one twist. And I assume technology can be anything from physical stuff to cognitive concepts.
As an example of how expansive my view on this is, I would consider a show like NCIS to be sci-fi because many of the plots can only exist or move forward based on some impossible or non-existent forensic or cyber technology.
"Walking Dead", sure I consider that sci-fi because it relies on the assumption of some nonexistent disease to drive the entire show.
The "James Bond" series (and many spy movies and series) are basically sci-fi because the stories can only function in the presence of non-existing or impossible technology.
An amazing number of Horror, Spy, Police, Thriller and Action stories all fall into the same category.
If you disagree with me on this, that's fine. But I'll put this another way, "The Man from Earth" is a movie that essentially takes place in one room of a small house. There's no technology, gizmos, spaceships, aliens, or other things that can't exist in this world. It relies on a single premise, an improbably genetic condition, that without which the entire story can't exist. Every other single thing in the story is entirely plausible as a small-set drama and if you conclude that the main character is lying or crazy, then the story is still science fiction because it still causes the viewer to consider an improbable science. In fact, I think the genetic condition is only mentioned once in the entire movie.
So if NCIS can get away with 15-20 minutes of impossible forensics and hacking per episode and not be sci-fi, then "The Man from Earth", which dwells on the genetic twist for a few moments can't be either.
Lit Fic people don't often understand this.
When you find politics in Lit Fic it's usually historical and/or located in a distant country, and provides a backdrop for the personal lives and emotions of the characters.
In Science Fiction the politics is often the main point, and the characters are there to dramatise the political and social reality they live in.
Huh?
The set that manages to overcome those hurdles and achieve the sublime—feelings of awe, of sudden revelation, of such beauty in the use of language that you have to stop reading and just absorb it for a minute—with fair frequency is much smaller still.
But hey, it manages to produce good (in a literary sense) stuff at a better rate than some genres (ahem, fantasy) at least. In fact I can't think of any other "genre" fic that beats it.
I don't mean, of course, that deliberately "literary" work, especially of the last few decades, doesn't have its own problems. Lit journals often read like self-parody, certainly.
It is true that if your fiction has more to do with sociology or political philosophy than individual psychology you're already fighting an uphill battle if you want recognition from academics. It's been decided, rightly or wrongly, that the proper place for those topics is in works of history—plenty of which end up as honorary entries in the canon of "literature", even! The strongest reason I can think of for this (in the whopping few minutes I've been thinking about it, just now) is that the personal perspective on which fiction thrives isn't nearly as useful for revealing insights about objects of that perspective—especially the more distant and abstract they become—as it is the subject in relation to those objects.
The problem is anytime you pick up one of these sci-fi works that's supposed to be a deep philosophical masterpiece it is really not that and could only be thought of as that by someone who only reads genre fiction.
Don't get me wrong. I have read the entirety of (and enjoyed most of) the Sherlock Holmes books. But I'm not convincing myself that they were deep and challenging works.