Sci-Fi

[pyramid33]

Do you get into sci-fi?

 

[PsychoSarah]

A little bit

 

[Solomon Kane]

It would be fair to say that I am a fan of sci-fi.

 

[Hishandmaiden]

I prefer fantasy over sci-fi.

 

[miss-a]

I like clean syfy. No sexual stuff pretending to be necessary, and the bad guys can't win. The bad guys can be bad, but they can't over-the-top sadistic, a mistake many writers make with bad guys. I once read that we need to see some good in the bad guy, they can't just be bad, that's too one dimensional. A flashback of when they a chid and untainted or a look into the tragic events that turned them bad.

 

[RDKirk]

I've enjoyed science fiction for about 50 years now, but I'm more confortable with the classic stuff (and the classic definition of "speculative fiction") than what is often categorized as "sci-fi" today (in the past, we sniffed at the term "sci fi").

I mostly also agree with miss-a, although her comments apply to all fiction.

As an example of what I consider a well-done villain, "Magneto" of the "X-men" comics and movies. Classically, it would be both Gully Foyle and his antagonist Olivia Presteign of "The Stars My Destination."

 

[Blue Box]

I love Doctor Who!

 

[DennisTate]

I like clean syfy. No sexual stuff pretending to be necessary, and the bad guys can't win. The bad guys can be bad, but they can't over-the-top sadistic, a mistake many writers make with bad guys. I once read that we need to see some good in the bad guy, they can't just be bad, that's too one dimensional. A flashback of when they a chid and untainted or a look into the tragic events that turned them bad.

I am of the opinion that semi-reality Christian science fiction is a genre that could be used to address some of the colossal problems facing humanity at this time.

If you are interested just Google….."Canada's Worst Politician, the film series concept" to get an explanation on one possible way that this might work to save the lives….. for example……. of Christians or Ba'hai's who are in danger of being murdered in Syria or Iraq. They might just be able to be hired as actors….. playing the role of 937 refugees on a ship…… back in 1939???????

 

[LadyNRA]

I've been a Sci-fi fan for 50 years and then some. Aside from movies and TV, I was heavily into fantasy adventure and sword and sorcery stories. Started with ERB and his Carter of Mars/Carson of Venus etc etc. Read everything I could get of his including most of the Tarzan books. Then I got into Robert E. Howard and everything he did...Conan, Kull, Solomon Kane etc. On to Lin Carter's books and Andre Norton books and all the Dragonriders of Pern books. Too many to remember now. I loved the adventures. People surviving in 'alien' environments or post apocalypic environments. Now I like authors such as Alan Dean Foster, Orson Scott Card, and Peter David.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I like clean syfy. No sexual stuff pretending to be necessary, and the bad guys can't win. The bad guys can be bad, but they can't over-the-top sadistic, a mistake many writers make with bad guys. I once read that we need to see some good in the bad guy, they can't just be bad, that's too one dimensional. A flashback of when they a chid and untainted or a look into the tragic events that turned them bad.

I agree that one-dimensional characters are boring.
But so are predictable stories. I don't see why the bad guys cannot win.

Imagine if Hamlet wasn't a tragedy. Imagine if it had a happy ending. That would be awful !
And indeed, if the characters are really fleshed out, you shouldn't have "bad guys" you should have complex characters that all make sense. Some happen to be in opposition to other characters.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree that one-dimensional characters are boring.
But so are predictable stories. I don't see why the bad guys cannot win.

Imagine if Hamlet wasn't a tragedy. Imagine if it had a happy ending. That would be awful !
And indeed, if the characters are really fleshed out, you shouldn't have "bad guys" you should have complex characters that all make sense. Some happen to be in opposition to other characters.

But the point is that Hamlet is a tragedy, classically so. When the protagonist overcomes his internal flaw and ultimately succeeds, that is the expected moral outcome. When the protagonist fails to overcome his internal flaw and fails--the classical tragedy-- that is also the expected moral outcome.

BTW, "The Lion King" is Hamlet with a happy ending.

 

[Hoshiyya]

But the point is that Hamlet is a tragedy, classically so. When the protagonist overcomes his internal flaw and ultimately succeeds, that is the expected moral outcome. When the protagonist fails to overcome his internal flaw and fails--the classical tragedy-- that is also the expected moral outcome.

BTW, "The Lion King" is Hamlet with a happy ending.

I think people get tired of the predictability of happy endings. "Every" movie nowadays has a happy ending, and it gets boring. No characters are ever in real danger anymore, so I never fear for their death when they are threatened.

Also you don't need it to be a Tragedy to for example have a protagonist die halfway through the story.

As an example, I love that Final Fantasy 7 dared to make Aerith die permanently. That is far more bold storytelling than we are used to in that particular medium, and it is not a Tragedy stylistically speaking either, but dared to be creative.

 

[RDKirk]

I think people get tired of the predictability of happy endings. "Every" movie nowadays has a happy ending, and it gets boring. No characters are ever in real danger anymore, so I never fear for their death when they are threatened.

Also you don't need it to be a Tragedy to for example have a protagonist die halfway through the story.

As an example, I love that Final Fantasy 7 dared to make Aerith die permanently. That is far more bold storytelling than we are used to in that particular medium, and it is not a Tragedy stylistically speaking either, but dared to be creative.

You're talking about several different things.

1. Well-fleshed, rounded characters...not really an argument about that. Most people do not demand flat characters, but do relish characters with inner conflict when they can get them.

2. Morally acceptable resolutions versus morally unacceptable resolutions. Not really a contest here, either. Although personal morals differ, most people still prefer a story that fits their overall moral context. Good guys--even conflicted good guys--should win; bad guys--even conflicted bad guys--should lose. Notice that the bad guy who repents but must yet die as a consequence of his prior actions is still a morally acceptable resolution, as would also be a happy ending for him--repentance is the morally acceptable resolution, regardless of whether that character lives or dies. As well, the hero (whether conflicted or not) who dies heroically is also a morally acceptable resolution, the idea being that the protagonist could not totally escape the evil of his past even though he had repented.

3. Happy endings. People can accept both comedies and tragedies (by their classical definitions) as long as their morality is not upset. "Shane" did not end happily for the protagonists, but it was still morally acceptable.

This is not to say that there can't be successful stories seem to be morally successful, although those tend to by Dystopian stories which are actually social tragedies. The protagonist of the story is actually society, which has failed to overcome its flaws and ultimately fails...which is still the moral outcome.

"Level 7" and "On the Beach" were nuclear apocalyptic novels in which everyone died...the result of society failing to overcome its tragic flaw, a moral ending. Less apocalyptic was "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," but still, revealing the Dystopic ultimate failure of a society that was not overcoming its flaws.

 

[Hoshiyya]

You're talking about several different things.

1. Well-fleshed, rounded characters...not really an argument about that. Most people do not demand flat characters, but do relish characters with inner conflict when they can get them.

2. Morally acceptable resolutions versus morally unacceptable resolutions. Not really a contest here, either. Although personal morals differ, most people still prefer a story that fits their overall moral context. Good guys--even conflicted good guys--should win; bad guys--even conflicted bad guys--should lose. Notice that the bad guy who repents but must yet die as a consequence of his prior actions is still a morally acceptable resolution, as would also be a happy ending for him--repentance is the morally acceptable resolution, regardless of whether that character lives or dies. As well, the hero (whether conflicted or not) who dies heroically is also a morally acceptable resolution, the idea being that the protagonist could not totally escape the evil of his past even though he had repented.

3. Happy endings. People can accept both comedies and tragedies (by their classical definitions) as long as their morality is not upset. "Shane" did not end happily for the protagonists, but it was still morally acceptable.

This is not to say that there can't be successful stories seem to be morally successful, although those tend to by Dystopian stories which are actually social tragedies. The protagonist of the story is actually society, which has failed to overcome its flaws and ultimately fails...which is still the moral outcome.

"Level 7" and "On the Beach" were nuclear apocalyptic novels in which everyone died...the result of society failing to overcome its tragic flaw, a moral ending. Less apocalyptic was "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," but still, revealing the Dystopic ultimate failure of a society that was not overcoming its flaws.

Yes I am talking about several different things.

I also mentioned that no characters are ever in danger anymore. Like, I should fool myself into pretending James Bond even has a chance of NOT making it ?

When Shakespeare puts his protagonists in danger, they are in actual danger, and may die. But if Bart Simpsons has to wear leg braces, you can bet they're coming off by the end of the episode. That's why serialization/syndication is the end of meaningful storytelling.

Personally, I never, or almost never, include the same character in two stories. Their story is told in the story they were created for, and nowhere else.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I think this is one the reasons people are flocking to the horror genre, because there is an actual threat to the character there. Even picking out "who is the main protagonist" can be a challenge in some horror films, which adds to the effect.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes I am talking about several different things.

I also mentioned that no characters are ever in danger anymore. Like, I should fool myself into pretending James Bond even has a chance of NOT making it ?

When Shakespeare puts his protagonists in danger, they are in actual danger, and may die. But if Bart Simpsons has to wear leg braces, you can bet they're coming off by the end of the episode. That's why serialization/syndication is the end of meaningful storytelling.

Depends on what you find meaningful. In some genres, the personal safety of the protagonist is hardly the point of the story at all, such as many mysteries. Science fiction is a fiction of ideas, not so much the personal danger of the characters. Personal danger can be there, but it's not the point.

Serialization is, of course, an old commercial ploy--over a hundred years old (although arguably, there are some examples thousands of years old). If serialization is the end of meaningful storytelling, then meaningful storytelling is taking an awful long time to die.

But we do see some nice changes even there. It seems to have started with the old television series, "The Fugitive," which was the first series that was brought to a definite conclusion. Defying predictions, writing a conclusion did not prevent the series from being successfully syndicated, and since a few more series have had conclusive finales. Some, like "Babylon 5" were written from the outset to be merely long stories with specific "acts" leading to a conclusion. "Babylon 5" scored a first in that the primary writer--J. Michael Straczynski--had an active "blog" on the GEnie online service on which he conversed with fans (including me) about the series even as he was writing it. We could ask questions (and usually sometimes get answers) and give him his attaboys right after a good episode aired.

In the cases of ensemble casts, we do see sometimes unexpected deaths and character reversals that are just as meaninful as deaths. I'm still saddened, for instance, at the suicide of the character "Anastasia Dualla" in "Battlestar Galactica," and in fact, there was no reason to presume any of those characters could not have been killed off or suffered some kind of dramatic character reversal. The same was true of "Babylon 5." Or really, any ensemble cast.

But then, with an ensemble cast, it's the cast itself that is the "protagonist," not a particular character. There aren't too many stories that continue after the true protagonist has been killed, and I'd argue that even when it appears so, the true protagonist was never that particular character, but some concept the character represented that continued in some way beyond the life of the character.

 

[Hoshiyya]

"If serialization is the end of meaningful storytelling, then meaningful storytelling is taking an awful long time to die."

When I say serialization or syndication is the end of meaningful storytelling, that doesn't mean meaningful stories cannot still be told in non-serialized or non-syndicated form. But I personally consider non-serialized stories, and especially Tragedies, to be a much higher degree of storytelling than weekly sci-fis or cop shows or sitcoms, to say the least.

I know there are many series and syndicated shows that are entertaining. I watch many things I don't consider to be genuinely good or meaningful, because it is nevertheless entertaining. And yeah I know that some are quite good.

I do like it when a show has a definite end in mind from the onset, I think it usually leads to better stories and characters, which we find in a lot of British programmes.

Maybe that's why I prefer SW to Star Trek, or LOTR to Game of Thrones. I haven't watched Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica, but maybe I should check them out.

 

[miss-a]

But the point is that Hamlet is a tragedy, classically so. When the protagonist overcomes his internal flaw and ultimately succeeds, that is the expected moral outcome. When the protagonist fails to overcome his internal flaw and fails--the classical tragedy-- that is also the expected moral outcome.

BTW, "The Lion King" is Hamlet with a happy ending.

Happy ending or I want my money back! That's just the kind of girl I am.

 

[Trakk]

Do you get into sci-fi?

Yes indeed. Speculative fiction is just about the only sort of fiction that I have much taste for, and that includes science fiction.

 

[keith99]

Yes I am talking about several different things.

I also mentioned that no characters are ever in danger anymore. Like, I should fool myself into pretending James Bond even has a chance of NOT making it ?

When Shakespeare puts his protagonists in danger, they are in actual danger, and may die. But if Bart Simpsons has to wear leg braces, you can bet they're coming off by the end of the episode. That's why serialization/syndication is the end of meaningful storytelling.

Personally, I never, or almost never, include the same character in two stories. Their story is told in the story they were created for, and nowhere else.

Uh, James Bond is not the only character in a James Bond film. Characters die all the time in Bond stories, characters the viewer cares about. Of course the title character is in little danger in any series. Well at least of death, but then there are worse things then dying.