You people have any pet peeves in this genre?
"Something located in the constellation X."You people have any pet peeves in this genre?
Well, maybe aliens as being portrayed as far superior to humans. Would be nice if some sci-fi took place on an alien world that has yet to make FTL travel work and have similar tech to us. Maybe they have electric supersonic airliners, some AI, and photonic computers, but they could have the same struggles as humans do. Only drawback is that the aliens would not be able to contact humans, unless they live close to Earth or future humans visit them."Something located in the constellation X."You people have any pet peeves in this genre?
TLDR: Movies and books need to stop making aliens look like the bad guys or saviors or humanity.
The alien still on their home place and never been off it, but if human go to them or visit with or contact them? The aliens inferior to either us or our technology.
The alien communicate or visit humans on earth, and the human never yet gone to them? The aliens are superior to either us or our technology.
A “constellation” as seen from Earth is a bunch of stars which seem to make a pattern. They may not even be close. One star may be lightyears from another. It’s a real bad measure for localizing anything at all. You dont see that?
EDIT: Sorry if my tone sounded arrogant. It’s the language barrierer.
That is true. But maybe they lack one tech that they struggle with. And also, it would be cool to see a genre of sci-fi where aliens never contact humans, but the story is set on how the aliens go about their lives or solve crises. For instance, humans have mostly solved the ozone hole by the 2000s. What if aliens did not solve their ozone hole issue, cos their fertilizers and cars emit NOx? They would probably need to wear UV suits and have covered sidewalks. Cars would maybe be driveless and drop people off at their locations. Most activity would happen during the twilight. So, ET may have solved CO2 emissions, but they struggle with NOx.The alien still on their home place and never been off it, but if human go to them or visit with or contact them? The aliens inferior to either us or our technology.The alien communicate or visit humans on earth, and the human never yet gone to them? The aliens are superior to either us or our technology.
Another thing: Imagine the alien version of WWII was fought with cloud seeding. That would be an interesting take on ethics of weather control.
In simple terms, sci-fi could explore ethical dilemmas by using isolated alien civilizations with similar tech to ours to push the plot forward.
It's perfectly valid for localizing something "on the sky", as I said. Obviously it doesn't define where it is in the third dimension, i.e. radially. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. If I say an oil well is located "in Texas", that is still useful information even though it doesn't say how deep it is.A “constellation” as seen from Earth is a bunch of stars which seem to make a pattern. They may not even be close. One star may be lightyears from another. It’s a real bad measure for localizing anything at all. You dont see that?EDIT: Sorry if my tone sounded arrogant. It’s the language barrierer.
As history has shown us. The party that show up on the others doorstep is gonn be the superior one. The conquistadores and countless other explorers. Those that arrive will have superior tech.The alien still on their home place and never been off it, but if human go to them or visit with or contact them? The aliens inferior to either us or our technology.The alien communicate or visit humans on earth, and the human never yet gone to them? The aliens are superior to either us or our technology.
The aliens are just humans with a twist.
Hah yeah, or forehead ridgesFloaty rock spaceship design.The aliens are just humans with a twist.
A story of Flint, a genius who lives on a planet full of Ritalin, an ingredient Dr McCoy needs for a life saving drug.
But, in terms of story-telling, how much time should they spend on accuracy, as opposed to keeping the story moving? Is radial distance necessary for the plot?
Before you answer that: let me suggest an experiment: find a doctor-friend or healthcare friend and watch a medical or forensics show on TV with them. Did you notice that, when they swabbed the petri dish for bacteria, they only swabbed one, and not a dozen, for repeatability? No?
Did you notice, in "The Pit", they don't even wear face masks. Like, ever?
Well your medical friend did, and it's killing him.
In CSI, Gil Grissom is God's gift to forensic science, and yet:
- it took him a half an episode to identify a Siamese fighting fish
- he described someone falling off a building as: "well, terminal velocity is 9.8 metres per second, so he should have landed ... there." (Damn near threw the remote at the TV for that one...)
Movies and shows are written for the broader audience, and technical accuracy eats up screen time better left for plot. (books are better for accuracy).
It's just something you have to accept - just one more layer of suspension of disbelief - when watching anything techncal.
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | How Star Trek Writing Needs To Change | 0 | 9.57 | 29-07-2026 |
| 2 | Don’t let AI kill the author | 0 | 16.53 | 24-09-2026 |
| 3 | Open Thread | 0 | 10 | 16-08-2026 |
| 4 | Open Thread | 0 | 10 | 15-08-2026 |
| 5 | Open Thread | 0 | 10 | 14-08-2026 |
| 6 | Where can I go (other than here) for interesting reading? | 0 | 5 | 09-07-2026 |
| 7 | Is the CV dead? | 0 | 8.86 | 05-03-2024 |
| 8 | AI Satire... | 0 | 0 | 09-07-2026 |
| 9 | Вопросы из будущего | 0 | 10 | 27-02-2026 |