this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
729 points (97.6% liked)

Comic Strips

12933 readers
2611 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There are exactly zero minerals available inside planets that are unavailable on asteroids.

Sci-fi will be sci-fi but can we go back to the time it was at least well thought? Can't hurt. If the objective of the movie was to make social criticism, it didn't need to go to such lenghts.

And it was a boring movie; failed to captivate me.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

You're intelligent. Or at least, well read/educated.

I didn't say it was a good plot-device. The entire movie was hamfisted from the world building through the dialog, the character development, and those hamfists evolved into bulldozers to bring the moral home.

The only thing it had going for it was the CGI... which was obsequious.

Regardless, it's their fictional world. They designed it to be stupid and boring so they could make some sort of moral superiority bullshit statement about capitalism while grossing 2+ billion.

Also, I'm just gonna say it. It wasn't even sci fi. sure, sure. it had ships and stuff. but that's not what makes sci fi sci fi.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Aliens, Mech suits and remotely controlled vat-grown body doubles aren't enough to make it sci Fi?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Nope.

Science fiction is an exploration of how science or technology changes society, or how society might respond to stuff, or how a society with a given tech might exist; it’s a form of speculative fiction.

Avatar isn’t that. It’s supposed to be an indictment of capitalist greed.

Just because it has technology doesn’t make it “sci-fi” and the elements that might are just a maghuffin to explain what they’re doing there. It could have just as easily been gold. Or diamonds or alien art.

Take Marry Shelly’s Frankenstein and compare it to say, avengers.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Sorry, no. Genre doesn't require a specific theme. This is some literature vs pulp gatekeeping.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

So.... if it has robots and space and cloning, its science fiction and if it doesn't it's not?

so by that definition Marry Shelly's Frankenstein is not proto-SciFi?

Or Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? The Steam House? Around the World in 80 Days?

Or HG Wells The Island of Dr. Moreau, The Sleeper Awakes, and The Invisible Man are not?

Or maybe Snow Crash? ...Children of Men?

I find it hilarious that you're criticizing me for gatekeeping. Science Fiction as a genre is much broader than just space, or robots, or cloning. or any of the cool, glittery-glowy-things.

Sure, any single work can span a few genres. Even things you might not necessarily think go together like Comedic SciFi as in Red Dwarf, Farscape or Dr. Who. Sure, books and movies don't have to be overt about it, and most the really good ones aren't. The core of Science Fiction is (or any form of speculative fiction, really,) is asking "the question". It's asking "what if..." For example, The World Well Lost; the scifi elements are secondary to the emotional and social aspects.

If you enjoy Avatar, that's great. I'm glad you did. I found it annoying, cliche and trite with terrible plot development and horrible characterization. The science or technological elements in Avatar could easily be removed for more...historic... settings, devices or straight up objects. the Unobtanium could easily be replaced with Lunar regolith or some sort of fancy Martian Marble™️ being sold for countertops. Or Inca gold. Or Peruvian emeralds. or anything to which an obscene value could be placed.

It serves no purpose at all to the plot. none of the technology or science or technology influences the characters, the plot or anything else. The entire movie is an orgy of CGI and an anti-capitalist screed. (nothing wrong with being anti-capitalist, mind.)

Ultimately, genres are delineated not because they're necessary for the art they're describing, but because people want to know what they're getting into before they sit down and watch it. When you tell me something is scifi, and it turns out to be horror with aliens or... a marvel superhero movie... I'm not going to be very happy with you.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago

So… if it has robots and space and cloning, its science fiction and if it doesn’t it’s not?

At no point did I say this. Even remotely.

You can't just inverse something I said and assume it's still equivalent. You'd think someone this passionate about reading would have a higher level of comprehension...

There was no point in me reading past this pathetic strawman. Hope you enjoyed writing that pointless essay.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Usually, at this point, I would say even a broken clock is right twice a day, but I'm trying to get accostumed to receive a compliment, so I'll instead say thank you for those kind words. And that we agree.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

isn't wood a hard to find resource?

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

That depends. Although massive deforestation throughout the planet, tree farms are a thing. So...

But haul wood over who knows what expanses of space? It would be cheaper to build greenhouses on barren planets and moons. The biggest challenge would probably be to prevent the oxygen in those enclosed habitats to eat away the building materials.

I remember following the advances on an experiment, during the 90's, where a team of scientists designed and built a fully self contained habitat, with only plants inside. I think the objective was to measure if the plants could/would survive in very limited resources conditions. Well, the plants survived. After an initial shock, the plants self regulated and the habitat stabilized into a fully enclosed ecosystem. Things became weird when the oxygen levels rose to a point where the ciment of the walls started to come apart. They had to hastily coat the walls with very thick rubber paint to prevent more damage.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You know the point I'm making though: there are indeed precious resources that can't be mined from asteroids. It is not inconceivable that there are organic compounds out there with unique properties that can't simply be made in a lab (e.g. ancient wood properties compared to new forest) and exist in a state that is economical for easy extraction.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 2 points 16 hours ago

It's not inconceivable but I will insist on the point that technology is the right tool to solve such issues.

It was inconceivable a few decades ago - even a couple of years ago! - several medical advances that are today used routinely.

It is a fun theoretical discussion to entertain but we would reach no real conclusion.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are exactly zero minerals available inside planets that are unavailable on asteroids.

Crystallised urea

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nice to cross paths with you again!

I'll grant that but what use for crystalized urea is there? Urea I know a few. And if we already know how to cultivate diamonds and other artificial gems, why bother mining for that?

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Drag was making an allegorical point. Perhaps Unobtanium results from an organic process. In the second movie, the capitalists are killing whales for a substance in their brains that makes people immortal. Can't find that on an asteroid.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

We can save mental effort and just go for the Dune series at this point. What is the point in that? In considering the advances in modern chemistry, there are ever few organic compounds that can not be synthesized.

I fall back to my original thought: is well thought sci-fi so hard to achieve nowadays? If seems there is a fixation about misery and destruction nowadays.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Avatar does have some good science fiction like the idea of a planetary hivemind being worshipped as a god. The Na'vi religion is literally true, it just seems false to humans who don't know anything. That's very different to Dune, where the Fremen religion is true because people like Paul's mum make it true.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll grant that waffer thin idea as a good attempt of putting something akin to good sci-fi into an otherwise solely for visuals work, although I disagree with the notion of deifying something that is tangible, as in the setting put forward in the movie.

And I mentioned Dune because of the immortality mention. The spice is also irreplaceable and unique, produced only in a single planet, through a rather complex organic process, harvested at great risk and cost, then to be synthesized by the tons.

That was good sci-fi, with sound social and religious criticism in it.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you'll allow drag to play devil's advocate, Eywa isn't tangible. Ewya is a mind, and minds are made of electrical signal patterns. You can't touch electricity. And you definitely can't touch a pattern of information, which is essentially made out of maths. That's what a mind is, a bunch of incredibly complex maths.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

allow me to play the idiot-younger-sibling of said devil's advocate and just point out you can absolutely touch electricity, which is why we use safety plugs to keep toddlers from licking electrical outlets.

in any case, I think the biggest problem with the movie is just how... meh... it was. Hive minds have been done before; and that was allegory for the interconnections inherent in a thriving biosphere. The Unobtanium was allegory for greed. (as was whale brains. maybe that explains RFK's antics...?) The capitalist douchenozzles were... well... if I said it was allegory, it was so they could beat us upside the head with it.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 1 points 22 hours ago

Electricity can be felt, but not touched.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 23 hours ago

From what I took from the movie, there was a knowledge that such a collective overarching conscience existed. It wasn't a figment of imagination nor a collective (de)illusion. It was tangible in that way.

And being cheeky: electricty can't be touched? i disagree. Every single time I put my fingers where I shouldn't, it reminded me in very tangible way I wasn't looking at what I was doing.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Dune is a universe where computers are severely limited. The ability to synthesize organic chemicals may be limited by that alone.

IIRC, the Tleilaxu do figure out how to produce spice artificially in their Axlotl tanks, but those are another example of Dune getting weirder and more disturbing as it goes.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

But they do eventually manage, don't they?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Sorta. By then, the rules on thinking machines have been somewhat relaxed, but people still don't like being around computers. There are machines that can navigate FTL safely without relying on spice. The Bene Gesserit are still dependent on it, though, and they don't like how it binds them to either the Tleilaxu or surviving sandworms.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

Doesn't invalidate the point made: at some point, a previously irreplaceable resource was synthesized and mass produced.

I still have to find the time and motivation to read the entire Dune but if at some point they start mass producing the stuff that literally held them prisoners, as there is no going back once spice is first taken, they are literally a civilization of drug addicts, willingly.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

I fall back to my original thought: is well thought sci-fi so hard to achieve nowadays? If seems there is a fixation about misery and destruction nowadays.

considering that mass media will slap a space ship into anything and call it "Science Fiction".... yes, actually. Because they're idiots who will only copy what's already been done because it's a reliable way to make money.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That said, even the masters will fall back on nonsense to make a point. Asimov had coal-powered spacecraft in the Foundation Trilogy to show how technology was slipping backward as if that makes any sense whatsoever.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

gotta make headway before you start backsliding...

otherwise it's just going the wrong way.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 2 points 23 hours ago