f13.net

I was watching SG:Atlantis earlier tonight, and trying to figure out why I don't give a damn about it, and about a lot of other Science Fiction TV and film.  I mean, they've got fancy technology, fantastic settings, impressive special effects, butch military guys in leather uniforms, hot girls in tight skimpy outfits, hot butch military guys and girls in tight skimpy uniform outfits... Why don't I care?

Then it hit me.  These Science Fiction shows don't have any Science.  Not that I want Bill Nye In Space, but they completely fail to actually grapple with the concepts underlying all that stuff they show on the screen, no matter whether or not the universe they work in has any relation to real science.  None of that matters, because they aren't making Science Fiction, they are making Action Adventure.  And making good Action Adventure is actually pretty hard.  If you shoot first and ask questions later, the conversation tends to be rather one-sided.  With Science Fiction, you can explore how people change to deal with an uncooperative universe, rather than presenting a de-gored ILM version of a teen slasher flic.  You can confront moral questions on topics that in our current world we take for granted.  You can talk about things that matter, rather than about the monster in the closet.

My reason is a lot simpler. Sci-fi shows do one of three things:

1. Take themselves way too seriously.
2. Don't take themselves seriously enough.
3. Fill my tv with shitty campy humor.

I've yet to see a show break that paradigm on a regular basis.

Firefly struck a pretty good balance IMO.

Cue schild and Margalis responses in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..

To address the original post, the science in the two sci-fi shows I've watched regularly didn't go very deep.  Firefly and Battlestar Galactica did and do a rather decent job at exploring the interplay between advances in technology, a strange new world and the moral consequences of progress.  Of course, too often BSG's science is just bottled deus ex machina and they tend to have their episodes where blowing shit up is the only order of the day.

Farscape was interesting scientifically and morally, but really on in a Star Trek: TNG way, where you had an episode for just about every sci-fi cliche and many dealt finding a way around an issue without blasting a hole in it.  Problem is with Farscape is that not may people will give it a chance past the first season, which IMO isn't very good compared with the rest of the series. It really doesn't pick up until part of the way into 2.

I have no real opinion on Firefly.

Anyway, I have a simpler explanation: Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Altantis are not good shows.

Even though they are action adventure there is no sense of adventure, they both feel very ordinary. The shows are very low-concept, real paint-by-numbers stuff with a lack of charm to boot.

BSG and shows like Babylon 5 and ST:TNG are high-concept shows. Even though the science may be be all over the place most espisodes have some attempt at storytelling and some concept behind them. What if stories, cautionary tales, etc.

SG:Atlantis is mostly "how can we justify a firefight this week?" It's just boring. I don't think more science would help. They aren't even trying to tell good stories. Sci-fi is more than spaceships and monsters and cool FX.

This can all be explained very simply. Firefly, SG1, Atlantis, and their ilk are fantasy, not sci-fi.

BSG is sci-fi. Star Trek: TNG was the last great sci-fi. Since then, the best you'll get is by reading Cryptonomicon.

Babylon 5?

Personally, I hated Babylon 5. It's up there with Atlantis and CSI New York on the list of things I refuse to watch. For any reason.

Bah, B5 was great and was fun without slipping into the preachy melodrama TNG sometimes suffered from.  Farscape was the same way and I wish the DVDs for both weren't fucking $120 a season.

 
I agree with this for SG1 and Atlantis, not so sure on Firefly though. Wheadon likes to do Fantasy (as shown by previous projects) and does it fairly well, but I haven't seen all of the Firefly series so I'm not sure why you lumped it in here.

The problem with most Sci-Fi is that it uses tech so advanced you could call it 'magic' without using the other usual Sci-Fi hallmark of character/ morality exploration.  Sci-Fi with a hero story?  Just throw in an elf you're 90% of the way there anyway.

Basically you want Phillip K. Dick in a comfortable 60 minute televised format?

The reason you don't see it on TV very often is probably because it's really hard and requires true genius and a lot of time and resources.

I mean heck, they fucked up I Robot with a 100 million dollar budget and years of production time.

I am not sure if I would classify Firefly as sci-fi either.  It did have some sci-fi elements due to the setting, but it was more about telling a story with action, humor and serious moments.  They intentionally avoided trying to explain things beyond a level that let us understand what happened.

This is much like people classifying Star Wars as space opera or science fantasy and not sci-fi, and that is even more futuristic in setting.

Despite the poor execution the star-wars prequels certainly have a high-concept plot, it's kind of hard to see for the stepping in doodie jokes but it's there.  More so than eps IV - VI anyways.

Sadly that is true. There is an pretty decent plot buried there somewhere, trying to get out from under overused CGI, bad dialog, terrible pacing and a host of other problems.

Let's take an academic angle for a moment.  It's pure anecdote, but at my age - 39 - I have been concerned that in book stores the shelf space to science/nature books has been getting smaller and smaller.  On the other hand, New Age book materials has grown substantially in terms of shelf space for the public.

It's just anecdotal observation on my part - but my impression is that the public is becoming less interested in science and more focused on fantasy/new age/tabloid material.

Science didn't have the answers. The world is a scary place and science is the one asking the scary questions these days. Best to abandon it for the new messiah with all the answers.

Mainstream sci-fi has always been rubbish which is why even science fiction fans use the term "sci-fi" in a derogatory manner. All ST-TNG was was rubbish with Patrick Stewart in it, which made it entertaining rubbish. What were you folks expecting, faithful TV adaptations of Philip Dick, John Brunner or Greg Benford stories?

And yes, its gone from occasional mainstream rubbish to masses of formulaic mainstream rubbish, where each series is barely indistinguishable from the previous series. This truly is the TV equivalent of the 1950s "golden age", where it was even possible for L Ron Hubbard to get printed in publications he didn't own.

edit: -- Theodore Sturgeon.

BSG is sci-fi? My ass, it's sci-fantasy. Cylons went from androids to all-but indetectable human clones? That show lost me the instant they did that, so basically right away. I watched the first season, but it was just too ridiculous. Show would have been great without that plot device.

The market doesn't want sci-fi.  So what we have left is sci-fi lite plus action-adventure.  At least its better than another cop/law show.

Does anyone else see Stand Alone Complex as good sci-fi?  It deals with complex issues of technology in a plausible future.

I think the market wants more intelligent shows that explore underlying concepts and science.

A great model for this concept would be the "CSI" shows. Take the standard crime drama and add in real'ish science, and you get a hit. People like reality, and they like feeling like they have learned something while being entertained (see also Da Vinci Code).

The Mythbusters show is another good example. It's a show based on real science and experimentation, but it's damn entertaining.

Alton Brown's "Good Eats" is another good example. It's a science-based, learning-focused cooking show, and it's really good.

I think near-future sci-fi would be the best, and there is definitely room for educating the audience on what's going on. I would love to watch a sci-fi show that was entertaining while teaching me a little bit about how this future or alien place actually works.

You truly have no fucking soul.

Also, science fiction doesn't have to be about science, but it should have something to do with how the advances in science make us as humans relate to the new world, and how such tecnology changes us. As has been said, most of the sci-fi on TV and in movies is really just action-adventure in sci-fi-y trappings. The Stargate movie (and I assume by extension the series) was just that. It was fine for what it was trying to be, but unfortunately, it's pretty common for those mediums. Real sci-fi asks for a little more on the part of the viewer, and most viewers and executives shy away from that.

I watched the entire series of B5 for the first time over Christmas - yup all 5 years.  It was great - I thought they did superb job.  Still, I miss the days when Kirk would scrap it out with 2 guys in the hallway :)

I think the world of the first season haven't seen the second yet.  Just the minor storyarc with the Tachcomas (no idea on the spelling) made it better sci-fi then the Stargate crap.

SAC is alright, some of it is really slow though.

Best Sci-fi from my formative years was Space 1999, which now that it is 2006 kinda makes it look a bit wonky.  Firefly was great space opera in my book, and honestly I thought Star Trek kicked TNG's ass.

Firefly was more about the characters than anything else, and in my mind is rather similar to Cowboy Bebop for that reason.  Being space-mercs is just an extra parallel.

Since you've been reading the EvE forums, don't follow the sig-link of the guy who has the Tachkoma in it.  It spoils the entire run of SAC's 2nd season for you, and is minorly depressing.

That said, I liked SAC a lot better than GiTS and I'm enjoying the 2nd season as well. Very good sci-fi anime.

This talk of SciFi and anime has me wanting to watch Starblazers (Space Battleship Yamato) for some reason.  Hmmm.. wonder if netflix has that.

Lost is some pretty good sci-fi.

Lost and good don't belong in the same sentence together.

You guys are over-analyzing. I like sci-fi stuff, that doesn't mean I have to like every sci-fi show. Most TV shows are bad - sci-fi included. Disliking most of sci-fi on TV is normal if *most of the sci-fi on TV is bad.*

SG-SG1 and SG:Atlantis are both plain awful shows.

I just dont think "hard" science fiction will ever translate to good American TV in a million years.  That doesn't mean there can't be good sci-fi but it does mean people can say things like:  well that is really just <insert some other genre> in space.  Not that I agree with those sentiments but I see where they are comming from.

To me science fiction is all about taking an aspect of humanity (almost always a flaw) then extrapolating the mistakes we will make if we continue to be that way for X years into the future.

Hmmm, been out of town, just got back.  Interesting thread.

I'll try this by responding to what Hoax said, although I'm really just blathering my own thoughts.  I'd argue that any show can be 'hard' SF, even if it's premise isn't scientifically supportable, if it takes a core premise and examines the impact that interacting with that premise has on the characters and setting.  In that respect, there are a fair number of hard SF shows out there.

The one I'm going to draw on, partly because I really thought tonight's episode was good in a queasily disturbing way, is Medium.  For any who aren't familiar, the core concept is that this woman, who is not incidentally the wife of a almost perfect marriage and family, near saccharine suburban perfection, can intereact with the dead, and has dreams of the past and future, which dreams may be real, allegorical, or simply directive, but which always turn out to have important meaning, generally about matters of life or horrible death.

The core characters of the show all have to deal with this condition, first by coming to terms with it, and then by fitting it into their world.  The medium of the title accepts it most easily, it has been something she has had as long as she can remember, but it's still pretty damn disturbing to her to dream of abduction, rape, murder, and death on a nightly basis.  Her character's attempts to cope with this emotional load while converting the dream knowledge into information that will be meaningful to a skeptical world generally comprise the core of each episode's plot.

The District Attorney, who the central character works for, has come to a fairly easy settlement with this.  After initial skepticism, he has come to regard her as another sort of informant, valuable, but not entirely reliable, and possessed of her own set of agendas, like any other informant.  The police detective whom she commonly works with has, after initial strong suspicion, come to regard her as a technical crime specialist, like a forensic technician, and groups her abilities with his own hunches and intuition, which he relies on.

Then there is her husband, an aerospace engineer with a very technocratic world view, trying to deal with the fact that his wife and daughters are clearly manifesting abilities that are inexplicable to the scientific world view his life is built on.  His sometimes dispassionate attempts to analyse his wife's frequently nightmarish dreams and visions is a real contrast to her own highly emotional reaction to what are indisputably highly emotional events.  His tangents are the most analytical and scientific element of the show, and do an excellent job of something that The X-files was also good at; presenting the events of the show as both indisputably true and inherently inexplicable to anyone who wasn't a direct party to the event.

The other aspect of the show that makes it good SF, at least to me, is that the visions aren't a convenient plot device, but rather are the core issue of the show, even though they are also an indisputable plot device.

Let me expound, taking tonight's episode as an example.  It begins with a typical vision sequence, in which the main character perceives herself as beginning a typical day, going into the kitchen to find her husband at the stove making bacon.  But when he turns to face her, she discovers that he is only someone similar to her husband, and becomes wildly fearful, which brings in her daughters, who turn out to be only very similar to her real daughters, at which point the vision ends, and we discover that she has fallen and hit her head, which leaves her with very minor memory problems.  Her husband insists on applying technology, beyond the simple ice pack that she favors, and arranges an MRI.  There she meets a kindly man who is a regular study subject due to a major head wound suffered some years ago, which also resulted in serious memory loss.  While he is getting his MRI, she experiences visions of the kindly man as a kindly serial killer, suffocating bound prostitutes, who look like the kind of prostitutes one gets if recruiting from a Hollywood casting call.  She pursues her visions through to the fateful conclusion, which results in the guilty being brought to justice, even though even the DA seems less than eager to achieve that justice, and it appears that no one is saved in the process, the only tangible result being the destruction of two happy and useful lives which had been previously saved from the worst sort of existence.

Of course, it is worth noting that the writing here was tight and powerful, with the 'badguy gets caught in the end' cliche being emptied of all it's formulaic Law & Order righteousness and handed to you at the end as a stinking mass of sorrow and regret.  As MMOs have taught us all, it doesn't matter how good the premise is if it isn't executed well, so that can't be discounted, but, still, I think the real power of this episode in particular, and Medium in general, is that it focuses on the core rules of reality (the science in the fiction) and what those rules mean to the characters involved.  This is Science Fiction in kind with the classic "Cold Equations".  (and if you don't know that short story, go find it and read it.)

Lets look at it another way.  Science, as science, is boring to most people.  Sci-fi in general is nothing more than using technology to help tell a story from a different angle, not to teach science.  Asimov didn't teach people how to build robots, he just assumed the reader could grasp that they work, for most people, much on the same level as toasters do.  They just "work".  Anytime a sci-fi writer lets the reader/audiance in on "how it works", it's nothing more than a techie gag of sorts.

Far as sci-fi goes then, it's still a matter of how you tell the story.  The story is never about the technology, afterall.  Foundation was a compelling series not because you had spaceships and a galactic empire, but because of what it said about human nature, government, and the whole thought-experiment of their situation.  Technology - the "science" of it all - was only an assist for telling the human story, one that's not as easily done without.  It still comes back to a story of human stuggles, just that technology can allow for a whole new approach to the humanity against humanity theme.  It introduces new takes on the creations of man or man-as-god, as well as innumerable new problems posed by being under the thrall of or lord over the power, responsibility, and opportunity generated by technology.  What you will always still come back to though are the same core concepts, whether it's shooting through hordes of Go'aould troopers or comming to terms with your evil empire-ruling father, it's still the human story that captures an audiance.

Yes, but the technology can be used to highlight how a society changes. While I like ST: TNG, technology was just a gag for them. They were asking the same moral and ethical questions we were asking in the real world. And their lines about "we're just about exploring" were mostly throwaway. Finally, the part of TNG most people liked begins with 'Best of Both Worlds', when the series got even more formulaec.

Good sci-fi, to me, is something like Dan Simmons Endymion series or Peter K Hamilton's Reality Dysfunction. I don't think this is high concept per se, but it features high tech stuff and real impacts on how society has changed in ways no show I've seen has come close to doing.

I also like BSG, but it's not sci-fi in my book. Neither was Star Wars. They are fantasy stories with sci-fi trappings, a way to iterate conventional storytelling without being too derivative. Fairly typical love/hate/protagonist stuff going on. Entertaining of course, and I particularly like BSG because no topic is unsafe and no character safe from death. But otherwise, it's rehashed stuff shown with a shaky cam.

I agree that the general populace doesn't want real sci-fi though, probably any more than they want real fantasy or real history or real, well, anything. They want good and evil and solid plot closure. Anything that supports that is fair game.

I like Star Trek: Voyager, and none of you can ever take that from me.

I don't care what anyone else thinks, I find the series to be entertaining.

"Of course I'd say that Strazos deserves this show. We like Voyager; we really do. That sagging, old rust bucket is designed like a garbage scow. Half the quadrant knows it. That's not why they're learning to speak Klingonese."

"Laddie, don't ya think ya should--rephrase that?"

"You're right. I should. I didn't mean to say that Voyager should be hauling garbage. I meant to say that it should be hauled away as garbage!"

I like science fiction best when the science is implicit, not when I'm being beat over the head with it.  In ST:xx technobabble was fun since it was mostly an inside joke with fans - but the jarring implausibility of transporters always bugged the hell out of me and was why as much as I loved ST:C it was never much more than a WW2/Cold War series with scifi fantasy elements.

BSG works for me precisely because it does make more sense the Cylons would parallel track to an organic but enhanced lifeform - it's just enough science (biological systems more adaptive than machines) to support the theme that the Cylons executed insurrection but still are devoted towards species convergence.  It works for me that the humans are forced to revert to mostly non-digital tech since it's susceptible to attack from the sentient computers they created. In a recent episode a plot complication revolved around nested firewalls that were immediately attacked and nearly penetrated before a crucial event happened - that to me is the perfect balance of implicit science and entertaining plausibility.  Sure they still have their moments of handwaving but at the end of the day the goal is entertainment.

B5 was admirable for doing the same thing, and they didn't flinch from exploring Clarke's dictum "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", all the way down to providing a natural history explanation for the common myths found across all races.

Which similarly is why I admired Tolkien's works even if today it's so culturally pervasive as to have lost its impact - he too built upon an implicit history without forcing the reader to rehash every detail.  Explicit science just leads to silliness like Scott storing himself in a transporter buffer until he was rescued a few decades later, or Wesley's nanobots escaping an open dish and starting a new civilization in the space of 24 hours.  Ugh.

No, it doesn't always. Here's a nice short story about Bose-Einstein condensates. (http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/shaw/shaw1.html)

But we have communicators now and we have succesful Quantum Teleportation.

It's all about scale...

Voyager had a great plot design, and Kate. :)  BSG and SAAB (Space Above and Beyond) appeal much more to me than most of the fluff.  STNG got into so much damned "Q", DS9 and SG(x) decided to throw all powerful gods into the picture way too fast (IMHO), and I'm really tired of entertainment in any form where the ultimate objective keeps being becoming a god-like figure.

Funny enough, Farscape always seemed much more the action adventure than just a sci-fantasy.  The writing (past season 1) really kept you wanting for next week to get here.

     I thought the first season or two of Andromeda were decent, but then they sort of lost sight of where they were going or what they were doing and every season had a new big bad - and you can't do that for more then 2 seasons.

 :sad_panda:

I happen to like both hardtype science fiction(the Dick-Asimov-Heinlein trinity, for example), and also popcorn variety like Stargate and The Fifth Element.

I just watched Firefly and Serenity, and enjoyed them immensely.  The western theme bothered my husband, as did the Chinese.  Didn't bother me a bit, I just enjoyed the hell out of the characters.  Wish it was still on, although I heard they will be making more episodes for DVD or something.

You're quoting the same longhairs you derided in our string theory thread some time back. Brian Greene wants to deep throat your credit card.

Now.  Seriously.  Put slow glass into a longrunning TV series that has any hope of retuning its production costs.  The production costs of a 5 kbytes short story on a web page is an orange fixed by rare gases in a single shipping carton marked Producto Grande Del Peru.  BSG is Northern Michigan's entire harvest of autumnal Indian summer apples.  The former may be unusually tasty for the lucky endowed few but the latter pleases tens of thousands for no more than the price to the local supermarket.

What the fuck are you on about Sally? It's an entertaining story that isn't full of silliness. I don't give a rats arse about your extensive TV production resume or your detachable penis. Leave it alone.

I liked the story, partly because it supports the point I want to make.  I used Medium as an example for the same reason, and because the episode I had just seen was pretty good, IMO.  And I'm going to throw in The Mote in God's Eye, by Niven and Pournelle, who were all about hard SF when I was young.  Jigsaw Man, there is another good hard SF short story.  But I need to digress a second.

I've just started reading Chris Crawford, On Interactive Storytelling, 2005.  If he has anything interesting to say, and if he doesn't, I've bloody well wasted time and money I don't have to spare, but if he does have anything interesting to say, I'll do a short review when I finish.  If he doesn't have anything interesting to say, I'll get bored and put empty pop cans on the book and never finish it.  Anyway, early on he points out that one problem games have with telling stories is that games tend to be about things, and stories are always about people.

Now, back on the topic at hand, I'd point out that this bit about stories being about people and not things would seem to undercut the worth of the whole Science Fiction as a Literature of Ideas bit, where stories are based around Science.  Except they aren't, really.

Look at Mote.  Sure, it's really about two different species which have very different reproductive processes, and who both assume that the other's processes are the same as their own.  Except they aren't, and that scientific detail drives the entire plot from start to finish.  But the story is about the characters, human and Motie, and what they do under the pressures of their biological differences.

So too with that story Righ linked to; it isn't about the properties of exotic matter states, it is about what those properties mean to people.  And it is the same with Medium.  It is not about the premise that there exist people who are sensitive to death, the energies of death, and the dead themselves.  It is about what, given that premise, happens to people who are confronted with the results of that premise every day of their lives.

Medium does not look like what we think of as Science Fiction.  There are no tight uniforms, no shiny space ships, no unusual aliens, no ray guns, no explosions.  But there is a consistant central premise about the nature of the universe that drives the entire story, through the interaction of the characters with the realities of that premise.  Science Fiction does not have to have any relation to actual 'valid' science to be Science Fiction.  It only has to have a consistant central reality which is different from our daily reality and which produces a meaningful effect on the lives of its characters.  And it is this core of genuine alternate reality that is missing from almost everything that is currently calling itself Science Fiction.

Heh.

You guys have really caused me to examine what Sci-Fi is.

For me, it's always been pretty simple:  magic = fantasy, science = sci-fi.  Force = magic, so Star Wars was fantasy.

Basically, if I can kinda imagine it being a plausible technology, it's sci-fi because the craziness that makes the genre is man made.

That distinction breaks down when you get into the science as magic crowd.  Zelazny, Wolfe, Drake's "Northworld", etc.

The beautiful thing about scifi/fantasy is that,  by throwing in aliens or elves,  we suspend disbelief.  This can allow us to look at moral/ethical/societal issues without our kneejerk reactions or preconceptions.

Hard sci fi, in my mind,  is generally tied with future societies that are either utopian or distopian.  Fantasy/science fantasy more towards moral and ethical choices.

Sci fi on TV is generally more a setting against which you have an action-adventure show (Stargate) or drama (BSG, Farscape).

I think Whedon does do a decent job of threading in moral/societal issues (hard scifi) in his dramas/action stories.  I just wish the guy could move a plot a tad bit faster,  and stop writing his dialogue all in the same voice....

But then, I always liked the space show with muppets,  so I have no taste.

Yes, that's exactly what good science fiction is about, "hard" or otherwise. The genre encompasses all manner of speculative fiction that asks the question "what if?" whether or not it involves science or the future. Brunner examines the social dimensions of an overcrowded world in "Stand on Zanzibar", Dick examines how things would have been had the Axis powers won WWII in "The Man In The High Castle", Miller examines matters of faith and knowledge in a post-apocalyptic setting in "A Canticle for Leibowitz". Taking a step further away from alternative realities and futures, there are novels like Christopher Priest's "The Affirmation" which examines a protagonist that imagines his future in a contemporary setting and the imagined and real world start to connect - this being a study of the psyche's descent into madness. However, including hard science, whether it be practical science or fanciful extrapolations does not require that the story degrade into whimsy.


Indeed - the author asks "What if?" and the characters are set in motion. That's what speculative fiction is about, be it considered Science Fiction, Fantasy or Horror.

Preservers!

Oh wait, wrong license :)

Otherwise, I continue to wish I could finish a Heinlein book. The only success I had was "Methuselah's Children", and I attribute that entirely to the length of the book. I always like his ideas, but find his storytelling technique plodding and directionless. I assume there's a point in there somewhere, with something resembling a synopsus and ending, but I can never get through the weed of words that precede it. I'm probably missing out on stuff or something.

I have a more subtle determinant for whether something is science fiction or science fantasy. What drives the plot and provides the resolution?

If it's a god/alien, magic/the Force, an ancient inexplicable enchanted item/technobabble device, or similar deus ex machina, it's science fantasy.

If it's a person, it's science fiction.

Science fiction is what people do to themselves and each other when exposed to something wondrous, not what the something wondrous does to us.

It's not a perfect definition, but it seems to cover most of what I like about science fiction.

As a tangent, thank you for linking that because i remeber reading it about fifteen years ago or so and could never remember what it was called or who wrote it.

It's scandalously difficult to find Bob Shaw's books these days. However, if you can find the novel "Other Days, Other Eyes" where Shaw makes slow glass the focus of murder investigations, you'd probably enjoy it.

But, but, Midichlorins r teh science!1one!