Timeline for The unknown and unexplained in science fiction
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2019 at 17:05 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 13:08 | comment | added | wetcircuit | MCU falls under leave it unexplained (I specifically used an MCU example: distraction dance from Guardians1). Those stories are not sci-fi, not even "bad" sci-fi. Genre is defined by a lot more than just "at some point someone says a pseudo-science explanation". Genres have inherent themes, stock characters, archetypes, specific universal rules…. The OP is about breaking one of those rules within a specific genre…. We approach the questions here as writers, not as fans debating the validity of summer blockbusters. "As Seen on TV" is not an excuse for poor writing. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 12:59 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | I'm speaking as someone who actually doesn't like hard sci-fi much, in the present or thousands of years in the future. I only watched a few MCU movies after they tossed out the science veneer with Doctor Strange. I guess I would "boycott" (not watch) an MCU film that tried to be like the The Martian. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 12:54 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | It seems like we're talking past each other. I wasn't calling the MCU good science, quite the opposite. I don't think there would be a boycott, but don't you think that fans of the MCU and fans of "hard sci-fi" might have different preferences or expectations for scientific plausibility, independent from that time factor you mention? That's why I mentioned Leckie as someone whose work is set in the far future but is still (fairly) hard sci-fi. I could also mention the Culture novels or whatnot. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 11:38 | comment | added | wetcircuit | LOL! Do you believe MCU fans would reject the franchise and stage a boycott if those scripts made an attempt to be more than magic people chasing magic candy crystals? No one considers those movies "sci-fi", anymore than Scooby-Doo is "sci-fi" for having a talking dog. Harry Potter is closer to sci-fi than the MCU. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 2:16 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | I'm not sure what you're saying. Some of the technology in Star Wars is thousands of years off, some is decades off, some is impossible. Although the series is actually set in the past. But I wasn't talking about that: I was saying that perhaps there are actually differences between audiences in how much deviation from the established principles of science they're willing to accept. I could have mentioned the MCU (extremely loose "science" set in the present) vs. Ancillary Justice (more solid science set in the far future) to illustrate the point about different audience expectations. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 2:01 | comment | added | wetcircuit | @Obie2.0, your comment falls under time. The first man on Mars is maybe a few decades away.... Star Wars isn't relatable to our time at all – aside from being a fairy tale with anachronistic elements, the "technology" is (maybe) thousands of years off (if not tens of thousands). | |
| May 7, 2019 at 0:32 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | Fair, but don't you think that this might depend on the audience a work is trying to reach? If a work is going for the Star Wars audience, it can say that the "technology" is created by exotic crystals from the Big Bang, and the viewers or readers will accept that it can do anything. If the work is going for the The Martian audience, it could give the equations of motion and the audience might still complain. | |
| May 6, 2019 at 22:44 | comment | added | Monty Harder | A suggestion for handling the infodump is to write an appendix that explains such things for those who want to read them, but leave it out of the main flow of the story other than a footnote upon the first use of the technology referencing the appendix. . | |
| May 6, 2019 at 19:09 | history | edited | wetcircuit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 188 characters in body
|
| May 6, 2019 at 17:26 | history | edited | wetcircuit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 6, 2019 at 17:18 | history | edited | wetcircuit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 6, 2019 at 17:11 | history | edited | wetcircuit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 129 characters in body
|
| May 6, 2019 at 16:34 | history | answered | wetcircuit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |