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

138

What's your Sci-Fi unpopular opinion? (kbin.social)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Anomandaris@kbin.social to c/scifi@kbin.social

335 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] StaggersAndJags@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shared universes between franchises are a bad idea. I don't mean commercially. They're a great idea if you want to make a billion dollars. But they're bad for storytelling.

Reason 1 is that the story being told is always in service to some other story. By which I mean, the writer has to make decisions that aren't about making this story the best it can be, but about making it make sense in context with everything that's come before it. For example, Batman can't just be a story about a smart, athletic vigilante in a costume. He has to be the smartest, most athletic human being who has ever lived, because he has to compete with, and remain relevant amongst, actual superheroes and supervillains.

Reason 2 is that it undermines the impact of each story because, again, the stories have to be considered within a massive context. In Watchmen, we can imagine the awe and horror people felt about Dr. Manhattan because, like in our world, nothing like him had ever existed. If you put him in the same universe as Superman, he's just another superhero.

Obviously I'm talking about large comic-book style shared universes with multiple authors and largely independent stories. I have nothing against franchises that use other works to expand on previously introduced concepts and do it in a coherent way.

[–] techno156@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

At the same time, they can also be interesting in their own right, especially if you want to see how different things might merge and interact with each other.

Would Captain Kirk be very confused by Doctor Who, or Optimus Prime showing up on his ship, yes. Would it be interesting, but also cause the writers no end of headaches? Also yes.

I think Reason 2 might actually be a fairly good story in and of itself. You have someone who was an extraordinary being in their originating universe, suddenly finding out that they're just another superhuman in another. That would be an excellent point of character development, and a way for them to be suddenly placed into a completely new perspective.