Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I'm often not too happy at a lot of things labeled SF. But I have to be
> honest with myself and say that I like a number of stories that are
> considered SF, that I consider to have an SF "feel" about them, but yet
> have little to do with science (you know, lots of space stories,
> including a lot of Asimov's stuff). 

Sure, me too. I also enjoy a lot of stories about magic.  Or about 
technology that might as well be magic.  Or about stuff that isn't magic or 
technology but might as well be either. (Like "Hopscotch" (apparently not 
the popular one tho) wherein most everyone in the world in their teens 
learns to voluntarily swap bodies with whomever they touch.)

I'd just like to know what I'm buying.

> Although I'm not sure why you'd object to 1984 as SF. It wasn't the
> point of the book, but science/technology played a key role.

As you say, it wasn't the point of the book.

Contrast with, say, some of Niven's stories about Beowulf Schaeffer or some 
such.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> I'd just like to know what I'm buying.

Read a review.<G>

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
news:87z### [at] festercom...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

> Eh? It's rarely been /in/ fashion. Both in recent history and long term
> history. People have been disposable in the past. I fail to see any
> fundamental reason for that not happening again.

It's one thing to routinely dispose of employees by firing them, it's
another to literally dispose them into the garbage chute. The latter, if you
have noticed, is not all that common.

> I'm sure 99.9% of people surveyed will say lots of things are
> unethical. Yet, when the opportunity arises, that number drops. Or
> rather, they claim an exception.

And it's the moviemakers' responsibility to convince me that that
opportunity (& more importantly, the motive) arose. That the company
operates on the moon instead of on earth is not enough excuse for me to buy
that.

> After all, are clones really people?

The movie was too simpleminded to go into that.

> > It's an observation, and a very trivial one. I know you like being
contrary,
> > but surely even you are not going to argue that the robot (among many
other
> > things) is not a direct rip off from 2001? And I am sure opening the
scene
> > with an astronaut on a threadmill was also a coincidence.... etc

> Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt that you've read much SF.

That has precious little to do anything with the amount of "borrowed"
material in this movie.

> > It's a movie. It's self contained. And it's sufficient information. If
I'm

> Movies are self contained?

Sure (or they should be). There's a definite start, and a definite end to a
movie. You call what goes in between the movie. You can *speculate* on your
free time about what the director *did not* put in a movie, but that is not
part of the movie.

> Well, not relevant to the *story*. If I made a movie about a company
> that mistreats its workers, you're suggesting it's my duty to point out
> the details of what the workers actually /do/?

In that case, no. We *know* that workers are needed for our companies and we
know more or less what workers do in a typical business. I don't know that
humans are needed on the moon moving a caniester from point A to point B,
much less why human *clones* are needed. It's a premise unfamiliar to the
viewer (or to me at least, you may have more firsthand experience with moon
operations), and that is why an explanation is in order. One doesn't need to
explain the mundane, but extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary
evidence. It's where a lot of movies (sci-fi or not) fail, for they take
suspension of disbelief for granted. It's typical Hollywood attitude to
assume that the audience will eat with a spoon whatever is put in front of
them. When you ask an innocent "why" or "how", the whole storyline collapses
like a house of cards. Avatar was like that too. Spectacular technology, but
ultimately hollow inside.

> And I just can't see Earth-like gravity and faster than light
> communication as being relevant to the plot of the story. Along with a
> lot of your other complaints. Sure, with some of them, one /could/ have
> come up with an interesting story, but it would likely be a different
> one.
>
> You know, it's OK to simply say you didn't like it. You don't have to
> construct a whole theory of story-telling and SF to defend it.

No, I don't have to. But isn't it better to back one's viewpoint?

Post a reply to this message

On 6/17/2010 11:38 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  writes:
>
>> I'd just like to know what I'm buying.
>
> Read a review.<G>
>

That's too practical of a suggestion. ;)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   It all comes down to one's *definition* of "sci-fi". Basically sci-fi
> has a wide scale of "hardness", and where people put the line between
> "real" sci-fi depends on personal opinion.

There are some who distinguish between sci-fi and science fiction.

Science fiction is reserved for those tales in which the author both 
believes that the science in the story is possible, and is also 
technically competent enough to know what is possible and what is not.

The term "sci-fi" refers to all works having the trappings of science 
fiction (the ships, robots, aliens, etc.), but which contradicts what we 
know about the laws of nature at some point.

The third category that winds up on the same cable channel and in the 
same rack at the bookstore is fantasy; that which is clearly impossible, 
according to our understanding of nature, happens in fantasy.  The main 
distinction between fantasy and sci-fi is that in sci-fi, the amazing 
powers are the result of forces that in the tale are understood on a 
scientific basis (i.e., they can show you the math), whereas in fantasy 
the powers are the result of forces that are, for the most part, 
mysterious and not terribly well-understood.

It is my observation that science fiction (or sci-fi) is best adapted 
for tales of a political nature, while fantasy is more adapted to tales 
about good and evil; which is why Star Wars is essentially a fantasy 
tale, and Trek is primarily a political one.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

>> Eh? It's rarely been /in/ fashion. Both in recent history and long term
>> history. People have been disposable in the past. I fail to see any
>> fundamental reason for that not happening again.
>
> It's one thing to routinely dispose of employees by firing them, it's
> another to literally dispose them into the garbage chute. The latter, if you
> have noticed, is not all that common.

I wasn't talking about firing.

>> I'm sure 99.9% of people surveyed will say lots of things are
>> unethical. Yet, when the opportunity arises, that number drops. Or
>> rather, they claim an exception.
>
> And it's the moviemakers' responsibility to convince me that that
> opportunity (& more importantly, the motive) arose. That the company
> operates on the moon instead of on earth is not enough excuse for me to buy
> that.

Yes, we do have different notions on what a movie/story is.

>> After all, are clones really people?
>
> The movie was too simpleminded to go into that.

Awesome way to defend any point you make, without actually saying
anything.

>> > It's an observation, and a very trivial one. I know you like being
> contrary,
>> > but surely even you are not going to argue that the robot (among many
> other
>> > things) is not a direct rip off from 2001? And I am sure opening the
> scene
>> > with an astronaut on a threadmill was also a coincidence.... etc
>
>> Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt that you've read much SF.
>
> That has precious little to do anything with the amount of "borrowed"
> material in this movie.

Oh, I don't know. Your statement reminds me of a friend who'd accuse any
movie that had a robot and took place in space as being ripped off from
Star Wars.

>> > It's a movie. It's self contained. And it's sufficient information. If
> I'm
>
>> Movies are self contained?
>
> Sure (or they should be). There's a definite start, and a definite end to a
> movie. You call what goes in between the movie. You can *speculate* on your
> free time about what the director *did not* put in a movie, but that is not
> part of the movie.

Yep, we have different views on what a story/movie is. Or rather, how to
enjoy one.

>> Well, not relevant to the *story*. If I made a movie about a company
>> that mistreats its workers, you're suggesting it's my duty to point out
>> the details of what the workers actually /do/?
>
> In that case, no. We *know* that workers are needed for our companies and we
> know more or less what workers do in a typical business. I don't know that
> humans are needed on the moon moving a caniester from point A to point B,
> much less why human *clones* are needed. It's a premise unfamiliar to the
> viewer (or to me at least, you may have more firsthand experience with moon
> operations), and that is why an explanation is in order. One doesn't need to
> explain the mundane, but extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary
> evidence. It's where a lot of movies (sci-fi or not) fail, for they take

Perhaps one of the reasons they didn't go into details is that it would
take a significant amount of time to explain it, yet contribute only a
minuscule amount to the actual story they're trying to convey. 

You must have really disliked Ray Bradbury's stories. And many low
budget movies, for that matter.

>> And I just can't see Earth-like gravity and faster than light
>> communication as being relevant to the plot of the story. Along with a
>> lot of your other complaints. Sure, with some of them, one /could/ have
>> come up with an interesting story, but it would likely be a different
>> one.
>>
>> You know, it's OK to simply say you didn't like it. You don't have to
>> construct a whole theory of story-telling and SF to defend it.
>
> No, I don't have to. But isn't it better to back one's viewpoint?

Since when was constructing a whole theory needed to back one's
viewpoint? There's a difference between saying "I prefer movies that
have X (because ...), and dislike movies that have Y, because they don't
satisfy X", than saying "All movies should conform to X, because ...,
and movies that don't do so are fundamentally weak."

The former is an opinion, and acknowledges that there may be valid
reasons to like Y, even if you don't. The latter assumes absoluteness in
the issue, and is an argument borne from insecurity.

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
news:87h### [at] festercom...

> > No, I don't have to. But isn't it better to back one's viewpoint?

> Since when was constructing a whole theory needed to back one's
> viewpoint? There's a difference between saying "I prefer movies that
> have X (because ...), and dislike movies that have Y, because they don't
> satisfy X", than saying "All movies should conform to X, because ...,
> and movies that don't do so are fundamentally weak."
>
> The former is an opinion, and acknowledges that there may be valid
> reasons to like Y, even if you don't. The latter assumes absoluteness in
> the issue, and is an argument borne from insecurity.

Surely, you meant to say: "I think the former is an opinion, and in my
opinion,
acknowledges that there may be valid reasons to like Y, even if you don't.
I dislike the latter because it assumes absoluteness in the issue, and is an
argument borne from insecurity."

I don't need to pepper my prose with "I like"s and "I dislike"s and "I
prefer"s
and "I think"s to feel secure. But if that's what you like and prefer, feel
free to
do so.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/13/2010 8:32 AM, somebody wrote:
> The drawers full of clones in the hidden chamber was so ridiculous
> on so many levels that I laughed out loud.

I agree the size of the clone storage area was a bit questionable.

-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

On 6/14/2010 12:05 PM, Darren New wrote:
> He called his wife and daughter when he found out he was a clone. It
> wasn't the sort of scene that would have the same kind of punch if you
> put a three-second delay into the conversation.
>

Forgot about this part too. I don't think adding a three second delay 
would have hurt the scene. In fact I think it would have added to the 
sense of "distance" (temporally, spiritually, and in this case also 
physically) between the clone's notion of reality and the reality he is 
facing.

-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

On 6/18/2010 7:56 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> There are some who distinguish between sci-fi and science fiction.
>
> Science fiction is reserved for those tales in which the author both
> believes that the science in the story is possible, and is also
> technically competent enough to know what is possible and what is not.

I thought the distinction was based on literary/artistic merit alone? 
I.e. not on the quality of the "science".


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message