this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
138 points (100.0% liked)

Science Fiction

173 readers
1 users here now

This magazine is aimed at fans and creators of sci-fi and related media of all kinds. It includes all content related to the sci-fi genre and only content related to the sci-fi genre. The goal is to build a community for everyone who enjoys science fiction and related topics. This includes the obvious books, movies, and TV shows, but also original writing, the discussion of writing SF, futuristic art and designs, and the science and technologies that inspire the sci-fi genre. **Team Top 20**

founded 1 year ago
 

It's a slightly click-baity title, but as we're still generating more content for our magazines, this one included, why not?

My Sci-fi unpopular opinion is that 2001: A Space Odyssey is nothing but pretentious, LSD fueled nonsense. I've tried watching it multiple times and each time I have absolutely no patience for the pointless little scenes which contain little to no depth or meaningful plot, all coalescing towards that 15 minute "journey" through space and series of hallucinations or whatever that are supposed to be deep, shake you to your foundations, and make you re-think the whole human condition.

But it doesn't. Because it's just pretentious, LSD fueled nonsense. Planet of the Apes was released in the same year and is, on every level, a better Sci-fi movie. It offers mystery, a consistent and engaging plot, relatable characters you actually care about, and asks a lot more questions about the world and our place in it.

It insists upon itself, Lois.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social 51 points 1 year ago (12 children)

My sci-fi unpopular opinion is probably that I don't consider Star Wars to be sci-fi. It shares more with fantasy in that it's more character and story driven and less about philosophy and the way technology changes the human experience which imo is what defines sci-fi.

[–] techno156@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't it not sci-fi? It's usually more classed as sci-fantasy, if memory serves.

[–] plactagonic 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True sci-fi is rare most of it is sci-fantasy. Great recent sci-fi is Expanse - author was pissed about these warp nonsense so he grounded it in physics and only added few technologies which could be made in future.

[–] ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, usually sci-fi has a point to make about the human condition or some underlying philosophy that guides all of it, or at least a philosophical idea that guides each episode. I find if you ask yourself to finish the phrase "What would society/humanity look like if we had to access to _______?" if the answer to the blank is clear then it's sci-fi. Some sci-fi goes the opposite route though "What if we did NOT have access to ______?"

[–] 1bluepixel@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Unpopular opinion: Star Wars is in space and has spaceships and aliens. Good enough, it's sci-fi.

People attribute these silly, gatekeepy characteristics to sci-fi, but sci-fi doesn't need to be about anything. Sci-fi is allowed to be shitty or irrelevant.

[–] Egavans@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Sci-fi and fantasy are genres that naturally bleed into one another, and everyone will draw the lines differently. I'd personally agree that Star Wars is more fantasy than sci-fi, but I wouldn't want to gatekeep anyone who called it their favorite sci-fi franchise.

[–] drifty@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I agree with this so much, I have just been afraid to say it online ahah

[–] StaggersAndJags@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A thought I've been having that might be more controversial: Star Trek isn't sci-fi.

It's basically a series of morality fables with magical premises. There's always a paper-thin sci-fi explanation, but for all that these matter to the story, they might as well just say "fairies did it."

(And many of Gene Roddenberry's "godlike being" characters, like Q, are almost literally fairies).

There's also its treatment of space. Just as Star Wars' combat was an excuse to do WWII fighter combat in space, Star Trek is an excuse to do WWII submarine combat in space. They're equally unrealistic in that regard.

[–] joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

I agree on the fable argument but not on having to have a scientific explanation. Scifi is about sense of wonder, societal impact etc. Realism is optional as long as things don't work in arbitrary ways.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I think it is sci-fi, but “old sci-fi” and “for the masses”. Because if that, it is just not so good as sci fi.

[–] lowdownfool@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Is that unpopular? It's usually considered sci-fantasy.

[–] AmidFuror@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Plus it isn't futuristic. It happened a long time ago.

[–] albinanigans@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Wow, never thought of it from that angle!

[–] fsniper@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I agree so no upvote for you.

[–] lamentforicarus@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I honestly consider it more of a space western, but I also find them boring so have not delved too deeply into them.