Big SF intellectual screwups

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
BustaMike, did you know that all the 'commercials' are actually Nazi war propaganda, with the word 'russian' replaced with 'bug'?

That said, horrible horrible movie.

I forgive you, for you do not know what you say...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sikander


God, has anyone else read Farnham's Freehold? It's a look into a very sick man's mind.

Is that the one in which a nuclear attack propels the hero into a future where dark skinned people had taken control of the world and made whites slaves? He could have made a statement about race relations, but instead decided to imply that blacks, Indians and Chinese would have made worse masters than white people were, and that they were essentially incapable of running a democratic society.

[Dr Strangelove]

One of the more famous SF writers once stated that Sci- Fi after all was not really about science, but about people. Does anyone know which one said this?

[loinburger]

Don't get me wrong people, I liked the movie Starship Troopers. I just didn't think that it was very good. (What made the movie for me was that Doogie Howser was a Nazi. )

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Is that the one in which a nuclear attack propels the hero into a future where dark skinned people had taken control of the world and made whites slaves?

Not slaves. FOOD. Whites were raised for eating and did slave work till eaten.

I figure Heinlein have been having one of his health problems when he wrote that.

He could have made a statement about race relations, but instead decided to imply that blacks, Indians and Chinese would have made worse masters than white people were, and that they were essentially incapable of running a democratic society.

Actually Heinlein didn't think ANYONE can run a democratic society. He had the odd idea that humans should still be living in small groups no larger than a small town to function well. That was where his ideas of the Crazy Years came from. He really expected the US to break up from what I can tell. Maybe he said otherwise somewhere but I haven't gotten around to looking at Grumbles From the Grave which is a postumously published collection of private writings.

I just looked at Amazon.com for Heinlein. First thing in books was Star Ship Troopers which has a movie image on the cover. The first customer review is bad.

Not really a story, this is really basically the whinings of a man still petulant over Vietnam and the loss of the draft.

Skipping on a bit

In the end, reading this book straight, I have to say that not only was it a waste my time, but that it left me more stupid than I was before I read the book.

I think he must have started out pretty darn stupid. SST was writen in 1959 IIRC. It certainly was written before The Viet Nam War was an issue in the US. Can't find my copy but Stranger in a Strange Land, which was written after SST, has a 1961 copyright for the original version.

[Hueij]

Technically, it is against forums rules. MarkG revised the policy to say that you can't have bare breasts covered by hands... But this picture is soooooooo boarderline and since it is artwork and not a photo... what the heck.

*plus, I am a SF addict, and actually own a copy of that book*

Hmm... I think Markos is a little too strict when it comes to nudity. But then again these are his boards and knowing what I would do if I had the age of the mean (in the statistical sense) poster here

Good thing I didn't post one of Frazetta's "John Carter of Mars" drawings And I guess I will forget about the "Deep Throat" poster in the poster thread

[MosesPresley]

My pet peeve with SF is in the films. Why is it so noisy in space? Every film, except for 2001, Alien, and there are probably one or two others, act like sound waves travel through space.

[GePap]

Half the thread about a second rate Sc-Fi flick from a dutchman.... what can one expect from the OT?

On the Borg question: Obviously the notion of the creation of a single groups offends our ingrained belief in individual rights (if you don't want to be assimilated, you shouldn't be). At the same time, the Borg do incorporate things from everyone- they are a cultural hegemony, but one that always changes- it seeks to incorporate, digest, ake others part of it, not simply destroy and conquer. Also, if the Borg have been incorporating the best of countless species, how can one set of individuals defeat them? Why the notion of drones that move so slowly- they couldn't get better cybertronic parts? And the notion of the queen was just insulting- again, the borg don't destroy, the incorporate, they aren't an an farm.

[Sandman]

The Star Trek crews routinely come across excellent alien technology, which they almost always fail to utilise. Silly. In real life we'd be all over it like flies on a picnic.

I agree about the Borg. They've gotten consistently sillier, and greener.

[BustaMike]

I still think you guys are missing the point.

BustaMike, did you know that all the 'commercials' are actually Nazi war propaganda, with the word 'russian' replaced with 'bug'?

Duh! That's why it's funny. Fascists vs. Commies.

I understand he was trying to make a satire, but he was so bad at it.

Hey, lots of great stuff gets made by accident. The fact that the director didn't know what he was doing only adds to the greatness of this movie IMO.

I'll try and explain why I love it one more time.

Great special effect +
cheezy plot with outrageous plot holes that are intentional (at least partially) +
Nazi's (kind of) - if there's one thing Indiana Jones taught us it's that Nazi's make good movies (no Nazi's in TOD thus not as good) +
Doogie Howser dressed as Hitler!!! +
T&A + ...

If you criticize this movie for not making a point (or at least a good one)... you are right, but you're also watching it under the wrong premise. People should watch Starship Troopers like they would watch Army of Darkness. Come on... look at where it says I live. That's funny. The fact that the camera man was in battle at the front line saying that stuff in the first place is funny. The whole freakin' movie is awesome. WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!?!

Yelling is funny, too... or maybe my sense of humor is just warped and I'm totally wrong.

[DanS]

"Doogie Howser dressed as Hitler!!! +"

You have a point there...

The book has more interesting SF ideas. The powered armor jumpsuits is an idea created out of whole-cloth.

[Wraith]

--"Why is it so noisy in space?"

Because there's no air to get in the way of the sound, duh...

--"Great special effect"

Odd, I managed to miss all those. Nothing shown was particularly "great" for the times, and if they wanted a special effects movie the powered armor would have done wonderfully.

--"If you criticize this movie for not making a point (or at least a good one)"

No, I just criticize it for sucking. It doesn't make a point, either, but that's not the root of the problem. This is one of those movies that very much deserve to appear on Mystery Science Theater 3000, where it will almost certainly become a fun thing to watch.

--"Yelling is funny, too... or maybe my sense of humor is just warped and I'm totally wrong."

Nothing wrong with a warped sense of humor, but I will agree with you being totally wrong

Wraith
"The trouble with lessons from history is that we usually read them best after falling flat on our chins."
-- Juan Rico ("Starship Troopers")

[Tuberski]

I saw Starship Troopers the day it came, when I was still living in Utah.

When Doogie appeared on the screen, the entire audience yelled"DOOGIE!!!".

The other thing that got us was the "mormon extremists" part, eveybody thought that was very funny.

Of course, being an R-rated movie, no good mormons were present.

[St Leo]

One of the more famous SF writers once stated that Sci- Fi after all was not really about science, but about people. Does anyone know which one said this?

One of the bad ones. Duh!

Sci-fi that focuses on characterisations misses the point.

That is why Greg Egan's Diaspora and Larry Niven's Ringworld are better reads than Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars even though Red Mars is just as hardcore.

[Skanky Burns]

I prefer Red Mars to those.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Is that the one in which a nuclear attack propels the hero into a future where dark skinned people had taken control of the world and made whites slaves? He could have made a statement about race relations, but instead decided to imply that blacks, Indians and Chinese would have made worse masters than white people were, and that they were essentially incapable of running a democratic society.

No, in this one a nuclear blast propels the hero, his negro employee (it was written in the 60s), his wife, his son and his daughter and her friend into an alternate universe. They have to survive off of the land, and immediately the wife and son prove their worthlessness. That's ok, because the daughter and her friend both want to sleep with the dad / hero. Son and mother defect to some aliens who turn up, and are imprisoned, and the son castrated for his efforts.

Dad ends up regretfully (because he wants to sleep with her, not because of race) giving his daughter to his negro employee who has turned out to be quite a man, and settles in with her friend who is 20+ years his junior. A pathetic story which reads like pornography without the sex. Yuck!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by St Leo
One of the more famous SF writers once stated that Sci- Fi after all was not really about science, but about people. Does anyone know which one said this?

One of the bad ones. Duh!

Sci-fi that focuses on characterisations misses the point.

That is why Greg Egan's Diaspora and Larry Niven's Ringworld are better reads than Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars even though Red Mars is just as hardcore.

I think I just heard Faulkner turning over in his grave.... Yup.

"Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat."

I seriously doubt that he would have enjoyed the direction that literature and all "fictional" arts (cinema, theater, TV shows) have taken in the last 40 years. I really don't know if he was referring to SF when he wrote the "When will I blow up" line, but I'm sure that he'd put it in that genre.

Science Fiction (and the same applies to Fantasy as well, but I'm more of a SF fan) is, sadly, is a victim of its own success. From being a doormat on the arts/media scene back in 1950 (when Faulkner said the above) sf/fantasy is now the dominant theme in book sales, movie tickets, and cable TV. For example, take a look at the following link (scroll down a bit) of the top-grossing movies of all time ( http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html ), and you'll see that 6 of the top 10 are fantasy/sf. If you scroll through the entire list, you'll be hard pressed to find a top-100 movie (non-adjusted) that even remotely meets Faulkners criteria for good fiction (Tootsie? Rain Man?).

And the damning thing is, most people who profess to like the genre wouldn't know good science fiction if they saw it. Starship Troopers was a fun movie, ok, but it sure wasn't science fiction. Change the bugs into Nazis, meteorites into A-bombs, and Doogie and Rico into William Holden and Henry Fonda, and you got yourself a standard run-of-the-mill WW2 flick. That's not sci-fi, regardless of how many starships get destroyed, that's just a re-hashing of a movie plot that was old back when your parents were young.

No, good science fiction (Sorry Mr. Faulkner, but here's where you and I digress a bit) has at it's basis not products of the heart but products of the mind, of rationality. Good science fiction is an extrapolative exercise, fiction based upon the "what-if?". If it is not rational in nature, if the story doesn't stand to reason (ala Starship Troopers the movie), then it cannot be truly classed as sci-fi.

But GREAT science fiction deals with both subjects, the mind and the heart. The aforementioned Hyperion is an example of science fiction that succeeds on both counts, as is Sheri Tepper's Grass, Sagan's Contact (the book, not the movie!), the works of Robert Sawyer, Willis's Doomsday Book and Michael Flynn's Firestar. These are the type of books that will sit on your shelves year after year, being re-read time and again because they are worthy not only intellectually, but emotionally.

In short, characterization counts because the problems of the human heart truly do make for the best stories. Sorry, St. Leo.

[JohnT]

By the way, I think the person who said that sf is about people and not about things is Harlan Ellison, the premiere fantasist of the 50s-70s, and a man who has forgotten more about good writing than any of us will ever learn.

[loinburger]

Was he the author of I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream?

[Ethelred]

Yes. That was Harlan. AKA The Mouth that Roared. He is the Science Fiction equivalent of a celebrity. Yes he wrote some good stuff.

Calling him the best fantasist is a bit over the top. He has a lot of awards though. Catch is from my point of view he didn't write stuff that interests me. I like novels and he only wrote three and those early in his career.

He wrote a lot of screenplays though, many short stories. Like the one for Star Trek. The time travel one with Joan Collins as a pacifist in the 30's.