PixlBit

I too am frustrated by modern science fiction's need to be plausible.  I want the weirdest shit an author can think of, that's how the sci fi I grew up with was, and that's how i like it.  That's why my science fiction I write isn't plausible at all, and is just out there.  I think this is personified by William Gibson writing real life novels now, and the same for like Bruce Sterling.  Shouldn't these guys be using their imaginations to come up with far out stuff?  Meanwhile Rudy Rucker is still writing the wackness though. 

But yeah, that's one of my pet peeves too. 

I read something recently from back in the 60's. A short little book called simply Space War by Neil R. Jones. The main character died and was frozen floating in the vacuum of space, was picked up by aliens and his brain revived and put into a robot body where he became one of their leaders in a conflict with another aggressive alien race. It was so weird and wonderful. I want more stuff like that.

Honestly, I think most sci-fi is some form of moral tale about the culture of some time period, but it does get to be a bit too on the nose and uninsteresting. My gripe is with bland dystopian futuristic settings instead of interesting, vibrant ones.

I dig the music. 

I don't have much interest in the CGI effects or cheesiness of the Underworld or I, Frankenstein movies (I think the same people made the latter and former), but hope you have a good time.

I read Philip K. Dick's Crack in Space written in 1966 and I saw so many 60's issues in the story. For one it's full of the Civil Rights issues of the day. Also, I remember a fashion designer once saying that all scifi stories are really about the present not the future citing all the sixties style costume and set design in Star Trek The Original Series. It's hard to write outside of the issues of the day, but I enjoy it more when a story achieves that.

Just saw I, Frankenstein. It was based on a graphic novel I found out in the credits. It wasn't bad. I saw it on IMAX 3D and I began to wonder why I would see any big visual movie like this any other way. The effects were stunning. Short synopsis: The Monster and a pretty scientist are caught up in a battle between angelic Gargoyles and Demons in business suits.

I saw Tron: Legacy in IMAX 3D and thought the same thing. Too bad I'll have to watch Gravity on DVD if I do get around to seeing it. 

What sci-fi stories would you say were not really about the present in some way?

Well, one was this story Space War by Neir R. Jones about a guy who dies in space and then gets resurrected by aliens, put in a robot body, and then helps them stop other aliens. It was written in the sixties too and I struggle to find anything related to the times.

Another one was A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay published in 1920 where the main character travels to a distant planet consisting of regions representing different philosophies. It was wild.

I could argue the first story is somewhat akin to a "soldier rebuilt" story like Robocop, only with foreigners using him for their purposes, but I will say I couldn't think of anything based on that theme that necessarily has to be related to the times in which the book was written. With Robocop, it was definitely about 80s excess and other metaphors for that decade, but I don't know about Space Wars. 

The second one sounds a bit Trekky to me, cause isn't that basically what the Enterprise does? Granted A Voyage to Arcturus is different regions of the same planet representing different philosophies, where in Trek it's different philosophies for each planet, but to me, that's mostly an aesthetic difference. I'd say that one is still someone focused on reality, just not necessarily restricted to a particular time in history, since philosophy is something that will always be around in some form. 

I'll check those out if I ever get to, they sound interesting.

It's just when you see really obvious current events weaved into the scifi story that annoys me. I'm not opposed to it really, it's just I've seen it used too much as of late. One in particular that I've noticed in movies over and over and over again is the water boarding thing and interrogation. It's like in every darn movie now. What gives with that? I thought all that stuff was condemned by the public. Do movie makers think we want to see it, or support it in some way?

Living in Texas, I hate to tell you, tons of people still do not see waterboarding as torture and advocate for it. I see where you're coming from on the overused movie plot points, though. Albeit, I did like Zero Dark Thirty and didn't feel it was "conservative propaganda" like others viewed it. That;s beside the point.

The point is, I know what you mean. Philosophy is definitely a reality-based concept, but it certainly doesn't have to be tied to any single current event or even any specific point in history, necessarily. I'm on your side on this.

I was thinking today that movie makers just put whatever they think is in the public mind in their movie, controversial or not. They just want familiar stuff there. 

I was thinking about scifi today too and I think my frustrations are that I'm a little too used to the conventions of the genre and not surprised by it anymore. But there was Snowcrash and Neuromancer which both seemed fresh and interesting to me this past year.

As someone who studies this stuff, I have to contend that while Hollywood always gets labeled "clueless," the public is at least just as guilty for what gets produced. Look up the term "demand characteristics" and a Psychologist named Orne (1969), which I'm getting from my Mass Media Research book by Wimmer & Dominick (Tenth Ed., 2014, p. 28), which says "research studies seeking to find out about respondents' listening and viewing habits always find subjects who report high levels of NPR and PBS listening and viewing. However, when the same subjects are asked to name their favorite NPR or PBS programs, many cannot recall even one." ... granted, it doesn't cite any of those studies. I'm gonna ask my professor about that. Still I tend to believe a large portion of trite crap that gets produced is based on the fact people buy trite crap, and doesn't just get created because Hollywood is "out of touch." Granted, I'm not arguing that that's not a part of it; I am however saying the public has a bigger role in this than they're willing to admit. Anyway, off my ... is it a soap box if I'm not necessarily firmly planted on any side? I mean, I don't necessarily believe media researchers exactly have their fiunger on the pulse at all times, either. Well, anyway ... 

I am still with you on sci-fi. I think it could use some freshening up, and I'm glad you've found some stuff to do that. 

In this day and age of massive data collecting, Hollywood knows more about the public than ever and is determined to please us to gain ticket sales. What we like will be mirrored back at us. But that's entertainment for you. I guess I should look to art to be challenged. That's what it's for after all.

The title of the Halo book makes me think of Mike Ditka. Oh trust me you will get it. I never really got too much into Advanced Wars. Turn based is a blast but it is hard for me to get into it. I guess it depends on the game. How is Borderlands 2? It is on my to play list. 

On the Sci-Fi note it is really hard to write. As a huge fan of it I appreciate books like Neuromancer. And if you're not familiar with Paulson get a glass of orange juice and start reading. My friend told me about him and I read that book and changed a lot for me. Just the way the prose is handled is brilliant. The overall  story is spectacular. But the one book that is teasing me is another Paulsen book. This one is called Snowcrash. Now I am sorry this is long but I gotta told you my adventure with the book. I got a library loan on SnowCrash. I read about 10 pages or 30 and was hooked up to crack. That's how good this book is. They say a good book you can't put down. I was pretty sad when I didn't have time to read it. I like this book so much I am trying to get it back on library loan. Sorry not Paulsen but Stephenson. Paulsen wrote the Hatchet an amazing read on it's own merit.

Oh and I do agree that modern Sci-fi authors tend to throw current events in there. That's awesome you want weird oatmeal in your sci-fi concotion.

Oh please my read my blog if you get a chance.

I'm seeing Halo in a whole new light. The '85 Bears as Space Spartans led by captain Ditka in search of the Championship Ring World. Wow! Mind blown!

Borderlands 2 is pretty cool. I got annoyed at the very same thing I did in the first game, the wobbly aim. At first, I just thought the game was bad, but then I realized I just had to level up. I wish my gaming bud would show up so I can play it some more. It's even better than the first one.

I read Snow Crash just last year. I thought it was really cool. The opening where he's a pizza delivery driver was hilarious, and I use the term Flatland and Metaverse all the time now to refer to 2D and 3D virtual space. Oh yea, and I named all my characters in Etrian Odyssey IV after characters in the book like Hiro, Raven and YT.

An example of the weird I like in scifi was the show Lexx on TV. One of the catch phrases of the show, and one I use in my Twitter profile, is "so far so weird". 

I don't know the last time I even read a newish sci-fi book. I like old stuff best, especially Asimov. And I've never heard of I, Frankenstein but I am intrigued.

I reread Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Asimov's first Foundation book last year. The only other modern scifi I read aside from Halo: Silentium was Farside by Ben Bova about Moon colonies and their struggle for independence from Earth. That one was pretty cool with lots of recent stuff about nanotech in it. I mix it up, old and new. 

I, Frankenstein wasn't bad, but it seems to me perhaps more of a rental type flick than a movie theater one; although, I was pretty wowed by the special effects in the IMAX 3D theater. There's not a lot more to it however. It really seems to channel today's conflicts between economics, religion and science and personify them in the main characters. Acting wasn't as bad as I was fearing and the dialog wasn't as laughable either. but... nothing really stands out strongly in the film. It was just fun and that was it.

I guess that's not a good sign when the best thing going for a movie is that it isn't terrible 

I've been wondering about this time of year for movies. All the Underworld movies (ones often compared to I, Frankenstein) were released at this time of year. What is it with January and Goth fantasies?

Maybe because it's the heart of winter and the cheer of Christmas is past? Everything is just dark and cold.

I think I'll paint my nails black and dye my hair the same and start moping around town in a leather trench coat.

O_O

I am way too naturally optimistic to be Goth, so don't call the local militia or anything. I be singin' happy songs on the corner all day instead and playin' my Gameboy in between sets.

Whew, nightmares averted!

I don't have a problem with real world events being exploring in science fistions themes as long as it's done well.

I agree. It's just that I'm tired of seeing the news recycled in various forms of entertainment media. It seems to be a method to keep things feeling familiar. I look to speculative fiction for something more - something outside the box. I would ask a writer to try and avoid appealing to me in any way. Challenge me.

The weirder Sci-Fi stuff is still out there, it's just drowned out by the more popular stuff. I'd give some reccommendations but I can't remember specific titles right now.

Don't worry, I'll find them. Heck, I might even write one myself.

And the rant. But I can understand the rant. it's a fine line that most writers have to take to make the series plausable/believable while at the same time trying to weave certain social events in a way that makes them seem fresh and realistic in that future setting.

it's the same risk where if you make it too far fetched, suspension of disbelief can only go so far and end up going over the heads of readers. Though I can't think of a good example of such (perhaps because they never made it big) yet the recent Star Trek movie shows how you can blurr the lines with reality and sci-fi themes really easy with the whole drone strike debate.

With that said though I do find it confusing on where the writers of the halo universe are going. In Ghosts of Onyx they made out like Halsey was trying to make ammends and save as many spartans she'd ruined the lives of. Yet in Halo 4 she tires to justifiy her actions by saying her spartans are the next step in human evolution. It makes me wonder what they are making out the spartan program to be now in these newer books.

I need to read this books really, really bad now.

I was thinking today that maybe 'cause I've read so many scifi and fantasy books in my life that I'm questing for something really out there. I say, go over my head writers, I want a challenge. Give me something that's not about the recent future of cutting edge technology or about current politics in a scifi setting.

I think they're trying to undermine the Spartan II program to make way for characters with faces for TV and Film. MC is a video game character. He doesn't translate well to film because you never see his face and he barely talks. He's perfect in a game where you become him and it's all about the action anyway. For film, or this upcoming Speilberg TV show (if it happens), he's too distant and annonymous. They're going to throw MC and Halsey and the whole Spartan IIs out the window and try and foist on us new characters we can see and respond to. It's wholly un-game-like (need a new word for this). 

Basically, I see Halo as an action movie with a stoic hero who quips one liners and blows stuff up. They could just do that, but instead they will probably do something like Star Trek Next Gen or Battlestar Gallactica to try and capture a wider audience. For my money, there's too much talking and romance in those shows for my taste.