This should make some people mad... I thought The Dispossessed was an awful book. The characters were flat and the way Le Guin explored the themes had all the nuance and subtlety of a Garfield comic. It's the only book of hers that I've read, put me off exploring the rest of her work.
Characters were mostly bad and uninteresting - they had to bring back worf. Limited plots stuck on a station - they had to add a ship. Then start a war just to have something to do.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is highly overrated!
The main characters were obnoxious, I didn't end up caring about any of them, and quite frankly, I wished the towel guy had died at the beginning along with everyone else on Earth (except the dolphins). I wasted hours of my life over those 3 books!
I think sci-fi writers constantly make their stakes far too high, stack the odds far to heavily against the protagonists, and go for a scope far to broad. I don't need 3 people to save the entire intergalactic population from a super mega back hole bomb with .002 seconds to spare. I've seen it and read it a thousand times.
Give me the guy who thinks maybe his spaceship could take on exploring one planet, tell me what he finds and why it was wise for him to run home and call for extra resources to be redirected to that planet. Tell me how the technology of your imaginary world brought 2 characters together and allowed them to build a beautiful life together.
That's why I adore The Martian and can't get excited about Star Wars.
Not sure if this is a hot take or not, but modern Star Trek sucks arse. The magic died with voyager, everything after that has been trite and forgettable. And I’m not even talking about those god awful movies.
A lot of sci-fi (at least where TV/Films are concerned) keeps getting too bogged down in what it thinks that it should be, and doesn't actually try to explore new possibilities or expand much, which generally means that the quality of sequels progressively gets worse, and the show ends up being a sort of even mush vaguely resembling the original.
The main example I could think of is probably Star Trek. It's too fixated on everything as it is, so even things that are supposed to be radical changes just re-establish the status quo with a new coat of paint. A radical show with radical viewpoints would never take off, as newer iterations would try to emulate the success of the show, and keep to the old.
It's part of why later Star Trek shows seem to be a bit more conservative, by comparison. Sure, values have changed since the original show, but the level of radical progressiveness has also gradually wound down too. Compared to the original show, which tried to push things from all angles, something like Star Trek: Discovery would seem almost conservative. Most of its more progressive elements are fairly standard for the time period it is set in, rather than pushing the envelope like the original did.
Similarly, all the shows end up trying to emulate the same formula, and even the same rough starship design. The Enterprise was originally specially designed and built to seem future-y, but many other of their starships since them seem to just be iterative designs on the original. Even one of them set 900 in the years in the future seems to have almost identical technologies, polities, and culture as one set in the 24th century. The visuals are different, but everything seems to be effectively the same under the coat of paint.
Not having that baggage is probably why up-and-coming shows, like The Orville, tend to be able to get away with more, since there isn't a previous Orville that it keeps trying to recapture, just yet, which should mean that it gets more leeway.
From a non Star Trek standpoint, it's also rather happened to Star Wars. The newer films are just trying to recapture the older films, rather than expand into their own thing, to the detriment of the films as a whole. The latest trilogy seems like a rehash of the old ones, down to having what is basically another death star, Rebellions, Vader-ish Masked Sith Lord, and Friendpatines.
I don't really have much of a solution, besides wanting the shows to just branch out more. I think Star Trek in the 32nd century should have gone with a brand new slate, where everything was different (from both an ideological, political, and technological standpoint), and the 23rd century ship that ended up there would be woefully outdated, not just on paper, but with the technology it was fitted with.
Star Wars has a bunch of interesting things that it could run with, such as the aftermath of the major wars, where the Rebellion is now having to deal with multiple smaller wars from various factions under the splintering empire, or have to secure its place in the resulting power vacuum.
One show that hasn't succumbed to this as much is Doctor Who, but that had a major revamp in its 2005 revival which drastically changed the nature of the show itself. Still, it doesn't seem to be particularly immune to it either. Behind-the-scenes, they're suddenly going back to the old composer and old showrunners, and the main character doesn't seem to evolve too much beyond "conflicted, but brilliant and eccentric hero". It also seems to be slowly settling into its own ruts, as well, with the most recent run rather resetting a redeemed villain's character development suddenly.
As a slight tangent, I also feel like that considering the messaging of the show itself, there could be quite a bit of interesting mileage that could be achieved by having a companion who is a species that is normally an enemy. Maybe something like a Dalek.
Although I'm rather of the opinion that the "magic" died sometime before Voyager. It was already on the way out when the network executives tried to recapture The Next Generation with it, and also launch a new television network with it at the same time.
It just ended up trying to be both its own show, and a copy of another, not succeeding particularly well at both.
And when the majority of someone's body is replaced by artificial limbs/organs/etc. At what point are they still human.
The Cyborg of Theseus?
Both it (and the original) also raise the subtle question of, if cybernetics are owned by a business, at which point are they considered a person in their own right, or just another piece of company property?
As someone who's old enough to remember seeing 2001 on a huge screen when it was first released, it's hard to express how monumentally spectacular the effects were. It brought the moon and space alive in a way that no movie had done before. The closest comparison I can make is with the first Jurassic Park movie, which was the first time movie audiences experienced living, breathing dinosaurs.
The whole psychedelic transit thing, hotel room/zoo and star baby was pretty obtuse for most audiences. You really needed to read the book to suss out what happened.
Interesting thought that is definitely worth considering. I used the term “Reddit refugee” in reference to my status. I am a little hesitant to shrink language by turning it into a competition or making words political. Refugee legitimately has multiple definitions, and the appropriate course of action would be to qualify the term; political refugee or Reddit refugee.
This sort of concept leads to all sorts of other similar issues. If I am having difficulty making it through a hike and I comment that I need to just “soldier on”, does that make light of the sacrifices of real soldiers who are dying all over the world? Should most people be disallowed from saying that they are starving because there are people in the world who are actually starving and not just hungry? Is it insensitive to say that I’m struggling to make it through the day at work when others, somewhere, are struggling to even stay alive?
For what it is worth, I’m okay with “refugee” by itself implying “political refugee”, and requiring other forms to be qualified.
Yeah, that seems like exactly the kind of selfserving virtue signaling that makes the left look like a bunch of edgelords.
But I guess, it's easier to start such "actions" to feel like you're doing something than actually doing something. (not that I'm actually doing something, but I'm not pretending either)
In German, there's a relatively new phrase for that: Gratismut, free bravery. On the surface it looks "brave", but it's actually 100% riskfree and has no consequences whatsoever. But you do look brave.
“Reddit refugee” is a metaphor that conceptually makes a lot of sense and sounds good to the ear. No one using this term is making a political statement about asylum seekers.
Kbin Cafe, a fun, general-purpose instance, is now open for registrations ☕ (kbin.cafe)
Hi all,...
r/pics calls out spez' history as jailbait moderator, a former sub dedicated to actual CP. the post hit the front page with 15k karma in 4h, then got removed earlier today (old.reddit.com)
😂 amazing act of malicious compliance! fuck spez
What's your Sci-Fi unpopular opinion? (kbin.social)
It's a slightly click-baity title, but as we're still generating more content for our magazines, this one included, why not?...
Let's Not Throw The Word "Refugee" Around To Describe Having To Switch Social Networks (sea-watch.org)
We live in a world where 500+ refugees just drowned off the coast of...