How many SciFi stuff that suffers from being not far enough in the future could be fixed with a new

willpittenger · Aug 16, 2008

Example: Arthur C. Clarke started his famous Space Odyssey series in 2001.  That year has come and gone, gone, gone.  Yet, what do we have on the moon?  The lunar colonies and stations in the film and book?  Nope.  Nothing but some antiques.  Do we have computers like HAL?  No.  Nothing close.  Are we ready to send men to Jupiter?  No.  We are settling for going back to the Moon—and that is far from a sure bet.How many such Sci Fi story (book, movie, or TV show; series or one off) could be simply moved forward in time and not lose much?  If you have to change too much, you end up with a totally new concept.  Which story?  What would be the changes? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Example: Arthur C. Clarke started his famous Space Odyssey series in 2001.  That year has come and gone, gone, gone.  Yet, what do we have on the moon?  The lunar colonies and stations in the film and book?  Nope.  Nothing but some antiques.  Do we have computers like HAL?  No.  Nothing close.  Are we ready to send men to Jupiter?  No.  We are settling for going back to the Moon—and that is far from a sure bet.How many such Sci Fi story (book, movie, or TV show; series or one off) could be simply moved forward in time and not lose much?  If you have to change too much, you end up with a totally new concept.  Which story?  What would be the changes? Posted by willpittenger</DIV>This is something I run into a lot.A great many science fiction shows and books overestimate what we would be capable of given xx amount of time.  There are all sorts of things that older science fiction has "gotten wrong" about present day Man and many things they would never have dreemed of. For instance, in your suggestion about 2001, what did they get right?  Well, aside from something like the Shuttle, they got nothing right.  But, that doesn't detract from the story and there were small bits they got right.  One was videoconferencing.  That wasn't something common back then.  Another was computers that could comprehend voices and speak.  That wasn't around either.So, there are tidbits here and there that some stories manage to predict and others they're woefully wrong about.My general opinion is that just about any Science Fiction we can come up with will be the exact same way.  Even pushing some science fiction books and "re-dating" them would end up with the same type of thing.  For instance, let's say we move up 2001 another 100 years.  I think that would be about right for the main storyline elements.  By then, we should have a decent space station and a long-term habitat on the Moon.  Although, I think the Moon habitat might be a little more spartan than the one in 2001.  But, the rest of it?  Would we have an AI like HAL?  Well, we may have that before we have anything else.  So, if we had HAL, why send a man to Mars to investigate something?  If you can send an AI that, maybe, has Earth citizenship as well, there's no need!  In that case, the entire story would change and it would be intelligent probes and robots reporting back to Earth.  Instead of humans getting mixed up in the politics of a vastly superior race, it could be HALs. There's so much we're not able to predict these days.  It's obvious that there are many things we've always been unable to predict regarding technological achievements.  I think that type of thing will continue.  Futurists can come up with some pretty interesting ideas but, I haven't seen many that I agree with.  Most are always predicting things that I believe will take much longer than they think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

lampblack · Aug 19, 2008

While we're at it, we could rename George Orwell's 1984 to something more realistic.Say... 2012? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

tom_hobbes · Aug 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Example: Arthur C. Clarke started his famous Space Odyssey series in 2001.  That year has come and gone, gone, gone.  Yet, what do we have on the moon?  The lunar colonies and stations in the film and book?  Nope.  Nothing but some antiques.  Do we have computers like HAL?  No.  Nothing close.  Are we ready to send men to Jupiter?  No.  We are settling for going back to the Moon—and that is far from a sure bet.How many such Sci Fi story (book, movie, or TV show; series or one off) could be simply moved forward in time and not lose much?  If you have to change too much, you end up with a totally new concept.  Which story?  What would be the changes? Posted by willpittenger</DIV>None, read it as an alternative history.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

willpittenger · Aug 22, 2008

Ok.  What series, books, or movies would you like to see updated with a move, um, back into the future? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

tom_hobbes · Aug 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok.  What series, books, or movies would you like to see updated with a move, um, back into the future? Posted by willpittenger</DIV>I have difficulty remembering actual dates, let alone fictional dates! I honestly never suffer from this, I read them as happening in a parallel universe. As you've already identified it's only really a problem when you have the date in the title, Space 1999 being an example from television.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

willpittenger · Aug 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have difficulty remembering actual dates, let alone fictional dates! I honestly never suffer from this, I read them as happening in a parallel universe. As you've already identified it's only really a problem when you have the date in the title, Space 1999 being an example from television.Posted by tom_hobbes</DIV> I disagree.  Star Trek has never had a date in the title.  Yet I have to question that we will have FTL technology, for data (transmission) or actaul travel by 2400 (beyond most of the Star Trek adventures, let well before by the end of this century as Star Trek postulates.  (Star Trek: First Contact has scenes set in 2063.)Besides, as ALP noted, many shows used something that conflicts with what we now know.  Habitible planets in the Centari system?  Not likely. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

tom_hobbes · Aug 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I disagree.  Star Trek has never had a date in the title.  Yet I have to question that we will have FTL technology, for data (transmission) or actaul travel by 2400 (beyond most of the Star Trek adventures, let well before by the end of this century as Star Trek postulates.  (Star Trek: First Contact has scenes set in 2063.)Besides, as ALP noted, many shows used something that conflicts with what we now know.  Habitible planets in the Centari system?  Not likely. Posted by willpittenger</DIV>Interesting points. Let me digress for a few moments.I tended to be a bit of a purist as a Science Fiction fan, that's why I'm not naturally drawn to media Science Fiction, Sci Fi I suppose.I became an avid reader at the age of four and by the time I saw Star Wars in the cinema, age seven or eight, I remember being vaguely uncomfortable with this idea of 'The Force.' I was naturally suspicious of this story development even then and quickly warmed to Han Solo's scepticism. I was already conflicted by the supernatural intrusions into an otherwise science fiction fable. As I grew older this became further refined and I began to discriminate between plausible science and science which quite frankly was 'magic' in all but name.Of course, as I became more aware of meaning in the stories I read, I could begin to enjoy fantasy (though rarely high fantasy) so long as the creator knew what he was doing and clearly had a purpose. But I still carry this prejudice with me to this day, even though I love horror/ghost stories and such! Anyway, for this reason I never became a huge fantasy reader and never really warmed to Star Trek for instance, initially it felt wrong on so many levels. So, I'll start getting to the point, this built in conflict has always plagued me, and indeed forced me to become a creative reader, if I'm enjoying the narrative but it conflicts with my understanding of the universe in some fundamental way, I simply began to create a rationale outside the narrative. Sounds bizarre, I know, but I've never actually thought of it this way before, purely in response to your thread.So given that I don't really like Star Trek anyway and have rarely watched it, at some level, I might have in mind that this is a parallel universe very similar to ours, but that here some small initial event before the formation of the Centauri system led to a vastly different outcome there that allows the story to have habitable planets or whatever. Now, I don't do this consciously, I'm not that anal! But at some level I suppose I allow the inconsistencies to be acknowledged and then ironed out in my mind in some way, something like this.Seems mad, I know, probably is. But you see, for me, the power of a good narrative overcomes all such obstacles.  It's funny, I've never actually analysed this rationalisation process before...So, dates don't bother me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...So, I'll start getting to the point, this built in conflict has always plagued me, and indeed forced me to become a creative reader, if I'm enjoying the narrative but it conflicts with my understanding of the universe in some fundamental way, I simply began to create a rationale outside the narrative. Sounds bizarre, I know, but I've never actually thought of it this way before, purely in response to your thread....Posted by tom_hobbes</DIV>I call it "Suspending Disbelief."When I open the pages of a Science Fiction book or a Fantasy book, even if it isn't "high fantasy" (which is usually centered on more mundane human issues than just fantastical/mystical magical things) I am making an agreement with the author: "If you act within the structure you develop and your reasonings seem sound, I will not throw the labor of your efforts into the garbage."To this date, there are very few Sci-fi/Fantasy type books that I detest due to the author's inability to get me to "Suspend Disbelief."  The ones that come to mind now actually center on various authors and not, necessarily, all their works:1) The Sword of Truth Series - Terry Goodkind - To be honest, the whole stupid drawn out disgusing "reluctant hero whining" thing just got to me.  After the third book (IIRC), I refused to read anything else in that series.  Why?  Because, quite frankly, nobody with that much power and that much success having used it would continue with his little sniveling "But, I don't wanna be a hero!" crap.  My Disbelief was broken.2) The Anita Blake Series - Laurell K Hamilton - The first three were decent.. but, Hamilton's a sex-starved twisted weirdo and should start writing "Blue" books instead of Gothic Horror/Fantasy.  I've also found that Hamilton's favorite mechanism is the constant use of "deus ex machina" in every single book along with filling as many pages full of penises as is inhumanly possible.  My Disbelief was broken and ran away screaming into the night.3) The Southern Vampire Series - Charlaine Harris- Most definitely the worst writer it has ever been my misfortune to have not avoided reading.  Suspension of disbelief was only possible for limited amounts of time and was finally overwhelmed and driven away by the disgusting, putrid stench wafting up from the diseased scribblings oozing across the fetid pages of her first book.  Charlaine Harris is living proof that if you have no ability to write, no imagination and have absolutely no idea how to tell a story, someone will buy your books and HBO will make a miniseries out of your work.  She gives hope to millions of illiterate no-talent drool gobbling sub-morons that they too can become a successful author if they can figure out how to use the crayon sharpener...  I didn't like her book... Why did I list these?  Well, in part because I wanted to find out what makes it impossible for me to "Suspend Disbelief." I wanted to write it out and examine it.  And, thanks to your post and the construction of my response to it, I have figured it out!When characters behave out of character and seem to have no firm footing or when the plot of a story is non-existent or makes no internal sense, then I am completely unable to Suspend Disbelief.  It doesn't matter how fantastic it is, how far removed different elements are from their probable timelines, how wrong some Sci-Fi story is concerning Science or how out of place or strange something appears - I can deal with all of those.  BUT, if the characters are not "in character" or at least acting sensibly and the plot doesn't make sense within itself, then I can't enjoy the book.  I can deal with everything else except for mistakes and bumblings with the characters as they move the plot forward.  THAT destroys my ability to "Suspend Disbelief." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

tom_hobbes · Aug 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I call it "Suspending Disbelief." Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV>Willing suspension of disbelief, that's the fella, I was just trying to get to the nub of that specific thing in my own round about way, why the date thing doesn't bother me too much, but yes.You're right, good story telling is probably what I'm talking about, I love it wherever I find it, whether it's James Lee Burke, Carl Hiaasen, James Ellroy, Saul Below or Greg Bear. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

coeptus · Aug 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Example: Arthur C. Clarke started his famous Space Odyssey series in 2001.  That year has come and gone, gone, gone.  Yet, what do we have on the moon?  The lunar colonies and stations in the film and book?  Nope.  Nothing but some antiques.  Do we have computers like HAL?  No.  Nothing close.  Are we ready to send men to Jupiter?  No.  We are settling for going back to the Moon—and that is far from a sure bet.How many such Sci Fi story (book, movie, or TV show; series or one off) could be simply moved forward in time and not lose much?  If you have to change too much, you end up with a totally new concept.  Which story?  What would be the changes? Posted by willpittenger</DIV> How about one that wasn't set far enough back in time ??  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/4/15/9474add2-a304-42b4-8fae-309a10a3839e.Medium.jpg" alt="" />    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> If not for bad Pluck, I'd have no Pluck at all . . . This is your vogon, posting under coeptus, and trying IE and Firefox to see if either is faster with fewer misloads. Erf !! </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Willing suspension of disbelief, that's the fella, I was just trying to get to the nub of that specific thing in my own round about way, why the date thing doesn't bother me too much, but yes.You're right, good story telling is probably what I'm talking about, I love it wherever I find it, whether it's James Lee Burke, Carl Hiaasen, James Ellroy, Saul Below or Greg Bear. Posted by tom_hobbes</DIV>Exactly.  A good "story" is what I want.  So what if they flubbed Physics 101?  Sure, some things can be a big distraction but, if they detract from the story so much that you are no longer able to enjoy it then it wasn't a good story to begin with! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Limo_God · Aug 24, 2008

A good story is always preferable to being right... except in historical presentations, don't change the facts to fit the story. But that isn't a problem in sci-fi/fantasy... the world presented is just the vehicle the author uses to deliver the story itself. I liked the Ringworld stories by Larry Niven. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Sermo datur cuntis; animi sapientia paucisSpeech is given to many; intelligence to few </div>

Search

How many SciFi stuff that suffers from being not far enough in the future could be fixed with a new

willpittenger

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

lampblack

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

coeptus

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Limo_God

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page