Getting the U.S./Yanks out of our sci-fi

[Hyphen]

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's science fantasy; a thinly-disguised version of the Arthurian tale.

I mean, country bumpkin with a hidden past is givena sword that can cut thru rock by an old hermit-wizard who lives in the hills? then they have to rescue a princess from the evil emperor's fortress? [and so on and so on]

 

[madmike]

British does give Senior Non-Coms sufficient lattitude in Age of Sail era land forces... but then you run into the issue of, aside from the unit SNCO, you have no crossovers in terms of who deals with whom - the officers don't actually direct troops day-to-day, the senior NCO's do, but the officers don't talk with any NCO's except their senior NCO.

At least, that's what the historical texts seem to indicate to me.

Pretty much all of the officers in the English army during the age of sail purchased their commissions. Even the Royal Marine officers purchased their rank.

The only exceptions to this were the Royal Artillery who like the RN earned rank by seniority. That is not to say they did not have their fair share of bad officers, but the chances were far less.

The army's purchase system produced Wellington, so perhaps there is a few shining lights amongst the mediocre "gentlemen"

Enlisted ranks including senior non commissioned officers were considered ill bred scum by most of the officer ranks, who were in the main wealthy "gentlemen" who could afford to buy their commissions. The more you paid, the higher the rank. You could even raise your own regiments and call yourself a Colonel.

Battlefield commissioned NCO's did not amount to much either, not considered gentlemanly enough to socialise with other officers and not allowed to fraternize with enlisted ranks. Most became drunkards or tyrants.

Regardless of all this, the system evolved into the modern rank system we have today. But class was still a major part of the Royal Navy, even through WW2.

with regards to class and social standing, I see the Imperial Navy of Traveller to be similar, less so the army and Marines.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's science fantasy; a thinly-disguised version of the Arthurian tale.

I mean, country bumpkin with a hidden past is givena sword that can cut thru rock by an old hermit-wizard who lives in the hills? then they have to rescue a princess from the evil emperor's fortress? [and so on and so on]

Ultimately what star wars did was borrow from a lot of classic myths to create a new myth for preteens and up, such that when their kids came around, they could then take them to the sequels that are films 1, 2, 3 describing Vader's breakdown and rise to power. Pretty laughable stuff considering the caliber of films 1, 2, 3, but there you have it.

On other topics; I'm not very familiar with the British naval tradition. Could someone enlighten me about their ncos?

 

[Carlobrand]

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's science fantasy; a thinly-disguised version of the Arthurian tale.

I mean, country bumpkin with a hidden past is givena sword that can cut thru rock by an old hermit-wizard who lives in the hills? then they have to rescue a princess from the evil emperor's fortress? [and so on and so on]

I don't believe anyone's called it science fiction. In fact, my words were, "It legitimized the science fantasy genre." Though the general public might make that mistake, I don't think anyone in this forum would consider it science fiction.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I don't believe anyone's called it science fiction. In fact, my words were, "It legitimized the science fantasy genre." Though the general public might make that mistake, I don't think anyone in this forum would consider it science fiction.

I have, and Lucas has as well. True, it falls into a sub-genre of the larger genre, but all the earmarks are there. The difference here is that the emphasis isn't on the science and its ramifications, so much as the science and technology are used as a backdrop for an anti-war theme.

Hollywood's producers and writers have had a certain philosophical bent since the second world war. Not such a big deal. There're other topics that all genres of film can touch on, specifically sci-fi. Which is why I'm wondering why there aren't more traditional sci-fi offerings out there. Stuff that doesn't include the US fighting aliens a-la LA or off the Hawaiian coast.

I remember a tragic TV series entitled "The Starlost", which was kind of out there, but had a real unique premise to it. I wonder why we don't see more of that in terms of story material (not production values) verse an Avatar or Abrams re-imagining of Trek and the like.

 

[Vargas]

I remember a tragic TV series entitled "The Starlost", which was kind of out there, but had a real unique premise to it. I wonder why we don't see more of that in terms of story material (not production values) verse an Avatar or Abrams re-imagining of Trek and the like.

The standard answer is that Hollywood is risk averse when it comes to unique story concepts because it's a lot easier to get funding for Dances With Wolves in Space or the sequel to a proven franchise. (Prometheus not withstanding).

Then again, twenty years ago we wouldn't have had Heroes, Lost, Revolution, Fringe so maybe there's some balance?

 

[Carlobrand]

...I remember a tragic TV series entitled "The Starlost", which was kind of out there, but had a real unique premise to it. I wonder why we don't see more of that in terms of story material (not production values) verse an Avatar or Abrams re-imagining of Trek and the like.

I remember being so excited when the series was announced - and so disappointed when I saw it. It wasn't so much the stories, it was the unbelievably lame acting. I think it could have survived the stories and direction and such if the actors hadn't seemed like they were walking though the lines for a paycheck.

I remember encountering a Starlost graphic novel some time back and thinking, "That's what it should have been." And, maybe it still could be. Maybe someone will show up who can do for it what they did for Galactica.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I think part of the reason sci-fi has such a hard time surviving and striving forward is because it's so hard and expensive to produce. Nowadays it's a lot easier than ever because it's gone mainstream after a certain fashion, but you'd think there would be better stuff being produced because of that.

I streamed "Thor" last night, and thought it was okay. "S.H.I.E.L.D." was in there, a reference to Morton Downey Jr.'s rendition of Tony Stark, and just all around a Marvel comic on screen. But I just wasn't sure what to make of it. It seemed like a dream come true in terms of production values, but now that someone's done it, it seems a little less than satisfying. The real big thing that hit me is that I don't know why.

Getting back to the Starlost; you know I liked the effort put into trying to create that show, but the final product was less than sterling. I think the leads did an okay job with acting, but the supporting cast seemed a little in over their heads. The story material was okay, but the SFX were less than stellar. Still, I like it for what it is.

Battlestar Galactica, to me, always just seemed to be a kids' show, and I liked it on that level. It's decent no brainer entertainment. When the mysticism came into play I tended to tune it out. I think had the original series just been left as an adventure space opera, then it could have survived a few more seasons.

A couple of also-rans in terms of 70s and 80s sci-fi offerings were the "Planet of the Apes" series, and the "Logan's Run" TV series. "Night Gallery", Spielberg's "Amazing Stories", the then new "Twilight Zone", and "Buck Rogers" which also had some production value shortfalls, but was still entertaining.

Focusing on "Buck Rogers" here for a bit; I really liked this show's first season, and I think specifically because it didn't air with an agenda at hand. It was just a series that were the adventures of a 20th century fighter pilot / astronaut in the far future. No anti-war thing going on, no religious thing underlying and coursing through the series; it was just an adventure TV show. I look at it now, and it is campy as hell, but if someone wanted to revisit that show and give it some polish, I bet it would shine in today's market. Moreso than the revised Battlestar Galactica or the upcoming Star Wars' TV series (which was stymied for money last I heard).

There was also that Sea Quest show some ten years back or more. It was an okay show.

 

[Blue Ghost]

The standard answer is that Hollywood is risk averse when it comes to unique story concepts because it's a lot easier to get funding for Dances With Wolves in Space or the sequel to a proven franchise. (Prometheus not withstanding).

Then again, twenty years ago we wouldn't have had Heroes, Lost, Revolution, Fringe so maybe there's some balance?

Maybe. There's certainly some of that there. I think it's more insidious than that. Simply put you can't have two countries fighting each other because it'll eat into international profits the film might garnish. Or, more succinctly, since we are in a global economy, it's bad PR to have old adversaries and traditional enemies fighting on screen.

It's why in Battleship her surface action group goes after a space alien instead of Libya, Syria, or even the Russians or Chinese. It's why the Battle LA movie had aliens as the bad guys instead of Russians or communist Mexicans a-la Red Dawn (the remake of which has the NK as the bad guy).

But again, sci-fi is more than just shoot-em-up stuff. And I'm worried that traditional sci-fi, stuff that has action but where the action isn't just gun play aimed at monsters, comes to the fore.

Well, I'm tired. Time for some shut eye. More later

 

[Timerover51]

Most of this discussion focuses on movies and TV. What is the general view of the state of written science fiction?

 

[aramis]

Most of this discussion focuses on movies and TV. What is the general view of the state of written science fiction?

There is a LOT of apparently military sci-fi out there.

Bujold has moved the Vorkosiverse stories somewhat away from military matters in recent Miles novels, but I've not read Captain vorPatril's Alliance.

Honor Harrington was militarist in the extreme, and may have likewise migrated political... but I rejected reading it further after the 5th book, because any sane military should have ejected her... possibly out an airlock by an angry NCO.

Recent Enderverse stuff is VERY much more militant than Xenocide, Speaker for the Dead, and Children of the Mind were. Some of it actively military, the rest geopolitical with military characters important.

Dune's always been rather militant a setting, what with armed houses and such, but is not properly military sci-fi. Recent novels by Herbert & Anderson are no exception. (Tho' I found "Paul of Dune" too inchoherent to read.)

Falconberg's Legion got recent omnibus re-offerings.

Star Trek novels have multiple subsettings now, but almost all are still active duty Star Fleet.

Star Wars novels are rampant, but I gave up in the 90's, so I can't tell much about the newer ones.

Ringworld recently got another installment, with Fate of Worlds due out in 2012 and appears to have been released. I'll get to it eventually. Not very militarist as a series, but definitely not free of lots of violence.

I see all kinds of military SF covers that I don't bother picking up.

 

[DangerousThing]

There is a LOT of apparently military sci-fi out there.

Don't forget Weber's "Safehold" books. They are SF, though they are set in an age of sail. There is a very strong theme of a currupt church against liberty, along with an alien race that wants to destroy the human race and will if it can detect them (hence the low tech in the books).

 

[aramis]

Don't forget Weber's "Safehold" books. They are SF, though they are set in an age of sail. There is a very strong theme of a currupt church against liberty, along with an alien race that wants to destroy the human race and will if it can detect them (hence the low tech in the books).

Never heard of them.

But I got to thinking about some other Sci-Fi I've read. And realized most of it is military sci-fi of one stripe or another. Like John Ringo's fun-but-militarily-dubious "Bubble" series.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Written science fiction has suffered some. How much, I can't say. The SW and ST franchises dominate if you look at their sections. It's all about marketing, and there's a demand for that stuff. In the 70s and 80s they were healthy niche sections with a variety of authors touching a variety of themes, or just writing stories about all kinds of stuff. Not all of it was good, mind you, but the themes and authors seemed more varied to me.

 

[madmike]

Never heard of them.

But I got to thinking about some other Sci-Fi I've read. And realized most of it is military sci-fi of one stripe or another. Like John Ringo's fun-but-militarily-dubious "Bubble" series.

The Safehold series are typical Weber style books. Lots of explanations, info dumps and complicated names. However the story is excellent.

I just want humanity to go back out there and deal with the bad guys.

 

[Sturn]

Don't forget Weber's "Safehold" books. They are SF, though they are set in an age of sail. There is a very strong theme of a currupt church against liberty, along with an alien race that wants to destroy the human race and will if it can detect them (hence the low tech in the books).

I liked the first book but did not continue reading. I disliked the veiled modern political references/slant being fed to the reader. I guess it depends on your own politics whether this would upset you, but I would prefer the preaching to be kept out of my scifi.

 

[aramis]

I liked the first book but did not continue reading. I disliked the veiled modern political references/slant being fed to the reader. I guess it depends on your own politics whether this would upset you, but I would prefer the preaching to be kept out of my scifi.

Something Webber denies doing, even tho' he lays it on thick in the Honorverse books and the Starfire books. Great game designer, but as a fiction author... :file_28:

 

[madmike]

Highly recommend the "Progenitor" trilogy by Dan Worth.

Superb!

 

[Blue Ghost]

I always liked the late great Harry Harrison, who passed away a few months back His stuff was just generic, though there was one trilogy that I read that had a kind of Bond feel to it.

 

[madmike]

Stainless Steel Rat
Deathworld

Oh certainly!