Common Sci-Fi tropes that annoy you!

CHUD

New member
Jun 11, 2013
26
0
0
beastro said:
While this may be the way the world is going presently, when dealing with speculative fiction you're open to a wide range of things, and yes, a more "old fashion" outlook is a possibility due to environment and social pressures.

What if Mankind gets reduced to only a few tens of thousands and maximizing childbirth goes from an imperative to a moral virtue and any which gets in the way of that is looked on as a social evil, like homosexuality, long after the need for such a view has passed because necessity turned into tradition.
I think this is avoided because it would diminish interest in the story.

Honestly, if in the future women are back to being breeding-betties while the menfolk run things - then I simply would have no interest and no stakes in whatever story is being told. Because then I would simply NOT CARE anymore. Why give a frak that we're living in space stations or whatever? If women are back in the kitchen (or the futuristic equaliant) while men govern and explore and fight - then all our technological advancements simply don't matter.

Seriously, in such a story, I'd root for the bug-eyed aliens. Let them wipe us out - we're a hopeless and apparantly inherently evil specie.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Alcamonic said:
In the year ca 2400, we have the same fashion as we do now. Who knew!
To an extent, not that improbable. Certain fashions from a century or two (admittedly, not 400 years) ago are still with us.
 

Blood Brain Barrier

New member
Nov 21, 2011
2,004
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Blood Brain Barrier said:
Does it really matter? And why? Removing those two situations would seriously limit the scope of the genre. We've got some really nice stories based on the possibility of breeding aliens and telepathy which actually do mirror relevant issues today. On the other hand, removing anything that is 'impossible' in sci-fi based on the grounds that our current science cannot foresee the possibility only serves to restrict the potential creativity of the genre. As far as I can see, the basis for such an argument can only be that the purpose of science fiction is to discuss future life and issues we might have then. While I don't doubt that such sci-fi exists, it's a rather pointless type of fiction - I mean why write such fiction at all, why not make it non-fiction? Good sci-fi is interesting because it's relevant to our immediate circumstances, not some far off future life when we're dead.
Yeah, going to very strongly disagree with you there.

There's plenty of decent hard science fiction out there. Sure, you can complain about the lack of laser guns in the science fiction movie Outland, but then, why aren't you complaining about the lack of laser guns in the western movie High Noon, that Outland was inspired by? Having to set Napoleonic war era films in the period of the Napoleonic wars is a restriction, but people don't seem to mind too much.

Secondly, and I'll admit this point is highly subjective, putting scientific accuracy in, IMHO, tends to enrich the story. Anyone (and everyone) can have giant insects or spiders in their stories, it's not that interesting anymore. But for them to be able to breathe, you need the oxygen content to be dangerously high. So, now you've got giant spiders in an environment humans need respirators to live in, and things are waiting to burst into flame, including lots of things that we normally don't think of as flammable. Suddenly you've gone and made your world a lot more interesting.

Now, certainly, you don't need to be scientifically accurate to do that sort of thing, but it tends (again, IMHO) to prod people along. Like they say, truth is stranger than fiction.
It's more interesting in a very superficial way, granted. But it won't be as interesting when trends change again, and when we have hundreds of more scientifically accurate movies about giant spiders in a flammable world, we won't be interested anymore. I would say immortal truths are more interesting simply because they are immortal - trends aren't. And immortal truths don't depend on scientific accuracy. I won't buy your argument about laser guns in historical films unless you can demonstrate that Star Trek has the same purpose as western movies.
 

Floppertje

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,056
0
0
Not sure if it qualifies as a trope, but it always kinda bothers me how one 'classic' shows an object being used in a certain way and then every other piece of media in that universe MUST show the same thing being used in the same way. The worst is star wars. for example, that drone thing luke practices with in episode IV... That's just some random thing Han had lying around, but in every bit of media, whenever you see a jedi practicing lightsaber skills, that drone MUST be around by law. If that's what it's always used for, what the hell is Han doing with one? He didn't even believe in the force. Surely they have a better way of training in an academy than that thing... another one is the snowspeeders. The rebels used one to take out the AT-AT's and that was cool. Then every other instance that features them shows them as being the ultimate mech-killers, as opposed to basically being a macgyvering last effort to stop the AT-AT's. The movie clearly shows that the blasters don't even scratch the AT-AT's, they get blown out of the sky with a single shot, they were having trouble adapting them to the cold and the whole Tow-cable thing was obviously an act of desperation. And to top it all off, they didn't even succeed in stopping all of the AT-AT's... so why do all the games that feature them show them as being super-effective?
/rant
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Blood Brain Barrier said:
It's more interesting in a very superficial way, granted. But it won't be as interesting when trends change again, and when we have hundreds of more scientifically accurate movies about giant spiders in a flammable world, we won't be interested anymore. I would say immortal truths are more interesting simply because they are immortal - trends aren't. And immortal truths don't depend on scientific accuracy.
That's fair enough, but truth aren't particularly opposed to accuracy either.

Blood Brain Barrier said:
I won't buy your argument about laser guns in historical films unless you can demonstrate that Star Trek has the same purpose as western movies.
Sorry, not with you here.
 

teamcharlie

New member
Jan 22, 2013
215
0
0
Not enough ridiculous prejudices:

Racism is, in and of itself, stupid. Ditto for religious prejudice. Prejudice against gay people? It is bananas that that is a thing. But people will kill other people over all of these. What about prejudice over things we don't contemporarily consider a major life decision but still understand as divisive? Mac vs. PC, vegetarian vs. omnivore, boxers vs. briefs. Any or all of these things could become symbols, religious icons, whatever. Maybe you can't hire more people of color or have more gay storylines for legitimate(ly dumb, but still real) logistical reasons, but you CAN still think creatively about the nature of prejudice itself.

It's always the old west:
Why is it always the west? Gimme some sci-fi teen sex romps, a rom-com, an odd couple situation. Hell, why not a few more Indiana Jones In Space things? Those could be damn fun.

Things I am willing to forgive:
Stuff that's legitimately hard to do anyway. Diversity, much as we'd like to imagine it isn't a thing, still is totally a problem and shows/movies that include any characters who are gay who precisely white, black or Asian are going to run the risk of being the 'issue' IP, and those don't always sell.
Really expensive stuff that isn't worth it for the money. Stuff like futuristic UIs for operating systems in the future or realistic zero-G in space both seem like a good idea on paper, but they're prohibitively expensive without a clear explanation as to why you put in the time and effort to do them. UI stuff made sense before computers were a thing because there weren't then people getting paid bajillions of dollars to get CURRENT computer stuff to look futuristic, and 2001 could deal with zero-G because that was a large part of the point. But for something like recent Star Trek? Both would be largely a waste except for VERY specific instances.
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Mar 3, 2010
1,580
1
3
Schtimpy said:
Alien invasions being so easily repelled. Let's say you travelled across a galaxy, would you really bank conquering a planet on an all in attack and not stop and see what's up with the planet first? In Signs, the aliens were weak against water (which you can see from space), in War of the Worlds it was a earth disease of some kind. Both easily checked by sending down a scout and realizing "Nope, not worth it." I know in movies humans always have to win, but it wreaks my suspension of disbelief when the super powerful, technologically advanced race shows up to conquer a planet and just kinda fizzles by the end of the movie. At least make the victory earned.

Also, I'd like to see a movie with a alien as the main character, maybe even with humans as the bad guys. And no free passes if you have one human as a co-conspirator, District 9 I'm looking at you. Seriously, how did the hero of that movie end up being a white guy?
Right on!

Another good example of aliens that never should have lost is Independence Day, when Will Smith and Chef Goldblum fly a nuke into the alien mother ship. And escape alive. Oh, and a hobo flies a fighter jet into a star cannon and clogs it or something. Dumb.

A good one for humans as bad guys (or seeming like bad guys) has always been Starship Troopers. You know, without the sequels, of course.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
teamcharlie said:
Not enough ridiculous prejudices:

Racism is, in and of itself, stupid. Ditto for religious prejudice. Prejudice against gay people? It is bananas that that is a thing. But people will kill other people over all of these. What about prejudice over things we don't contemporarily consider a major life decision but still understand as divisive? Mac vs. PC, vegetarian vs. omnivore, boxers vs. briefs. Any or all of these things could become symbols, religious icons, whatever. Maybe you can't hire more people of color or have more gay storylines for legitimate(ly dumb, but still real) logistical reasons, but you CAN still think creatively about the nature of prejudice itself.
Hey?

Surely that's commonly done? In the old days, it was because you couldn't talk about real prejudices, you had to allude to them.

Rather famously with:

Yeah, those two hated each other.

Nowdays, it's a bit embarrassing. "My story is all about the prejudice gay people face! Ok, instead of gay people, they are inhuman monsters that the world is better off without, that humans can't really hurt. But I included some gay villains and murder victims!"

Though, more of a fantasy thing.
 

rorychief

New member
Mar 1, 2013
100
0
0
QuotefromChrismoses/This idea has bugged me for a long time. Forgive me for singling you out for it, but I feel the need to add my "gay voice" to this./endquote I don't know how to do quotes

In the world described all other forms of 'sodomy' would be seen as perverse because it's sex without the reproduction aspect, so no oral sex for heterosexuals either. I think their would be no shortage of gay people willing to procreate if the population was so drastically dropped like that, turkey baster method or not. I mean even a desperately utilitarian society geared completely towards rearing children would require members to watch after one another's children as different people were forced to do various jobs, so gay members would be pressed into babysitting and teaching duties occasionally as parents completed their foraging and building quotas etc. The resentment from childless people having to serve families and the forced perspective that passing on your genes is the end all be all of human existence would definitely prompt gay or even very young people to try and have children when they might not otherwise do so, presumably as the incentives for contributing to the population would include some kind of rise in social status. So even in a cold uncaring utilitarian society homophobia would be as illogical as it is now and worst of all, be inefficient to the goals of that society. It would have to be, as I think the poster you responded was implying, be some kind of left over superstition from a society reduced to techno Luddite savagery perhaps as a way of blaming a convenient minority for the difficulties of the times to keep them occupied and distracted, rather than a rational discrimination based on a computer intelligence needing to make the most use of the bodies available.

I recall a documentary where monkeys have this harem situation where only the alpha can mate with the females and he only allows smaller males who demonstrate homosexual tendencies to be around them, all the others are chased away. The gay leaning monkeys feed and groom and look after the young and obviously, occasionally impregnate the females too, their young to be raised as the Alpha's. Could make for an interesting scifi concept, with gay men treated as privileged members of a society because they can be trusted to leave the tyrants collection of wombs alone. The inevitable downside would of course be that lesbians would be seen as prized cattle just like the het women, and it's only a matter of time before the tyrant realizes that eunuchs make for more trustworthy servants than gay but anatomically intact men. So obviously flawed but I'm sure someone with a better imagination could come up with a sci fi setting where being homosexual would be a huge benefit to society, without exploitation and abstinence needing to be factors.
 

Sable Gear

New member
Mar 26, 2009
582
0
0
heroicbob said:
if we are talking about overused sci-fi tropes im pretty sick of seeing the ancient and highly advanced race of aliens that mysteriously vanished leaving only their ruins full of advanced technology

The Xel naga from Starcraft
The Protheans from Mass Effect
The Forerunners from Halo
The Precursors from Jak and Daxter (im reaching with this one)
And also the Chozo from Metroid...though to me there's a hint of something Lovecraftian about them, it feels a little different, they DID show up personally in the canon at a few early points.

I've read through all 5 pages so far and how has THIS not come up yet?
THE AI GOES INSANE! OH NOES!

I really hate this trope. If we have the technology to actually construct a fully-functioning AI, don't you think we'd have the sense to debug it and introduce some fail-safes to keep it from going nut and say, killing everyone or imprisoning them to do horrible experiments on them or something? I realize this falls under that whole "Fear of Technology" trope but this particular part of it bugs me. I'm very fond of actually-functioning AI characters, or even AIs that start off damaged and are repaird, but having robo-madness be your endgame seems like a cop-out to me since it's been done and done well many times before (Portal, 2001, I have no Mouth, etc)
 

mechman123

New member
Nov 6, 2006
35
0
0
Settings where humans are surrounded by aliens who have clearly superior biology (ie space elfs, space orcs,etc) that outmatch humans, YET humans are still able to go toe to toe with them because of the human spirit/unbelievable luck. Star trek is the WORST of the offenders in this regard. Humans have no stand out features in any way that gives them a leg up on anyone in any situation beyond said luck/spirit. In the marvel/DC universes that luck also includes the fact that we have more superheros than any other freaking planet.
This same issue can be leveled at fantasy setting. Humans are some how the most populous race despite being featureless.

Another one I am sick to Death of is Symbiont using(not simply the spiderman goo),tentacle possessing, organo-tech based species being EVIL. They are always evil and It is SO darn overused.
 

Gromril

New member
Sep 11, 2005
264
0
0
Easily my biggest is when you are told you are dealing with something like a UN in space, but what you get is 'murica in space (I'm looking at you Halo).
 

Reed Spacer

That guy with the thing.
Jan 11, 2011
841
0
0
Sable Gear said:
heroicbob said:
if we are talking about overused sci-fi tropes im pretty sick of seeing the ancient and highly advanced race of aliens that mysteriously vanished leaving only their ruins full of advanced technology

The Xel naga from Starcraft
The Protheans from Mass Effect
The Forerunners from Halo
The Precursors from Jak and Daxter (im reaching with this one)
And also the Chozo from Metroid...though to me there's a hint of something Lovecraftian about them, it feels a little different, they DID show up personally in the canon at a few early points.

I've read through all 5 pages so far and how has THIS not come up yet?
THE AI GOES INSANE! OH NOES!

I really hate this trope. If we have the technology to actually construct a fully-functioning AI, don't you think we'd have the sense to debug it and introduce some fail-safes to keep it from going nut and say, killing everyone or imprisoning them to do horrible experiments on them or something? I realize this falls under that whole "Fear of Technology" trope but this particular part of it bugs me. I'm very fond of actually-functioning AI characters, or even AIs that start off damaged and are repaird, but having robo-madness be your endgame seems like a cop-out to me since it's been done and done well many times before (Portal, 2001, I have no Mouth, etc)
HAL 9000 wasn't really insanity, just logical thinking taken to extremes:

He was given important information and told to keep it secret. HAL was designed to offer any requested information, but it had a big peice of vital info he wasn't allowed to share.

He therefore reasoned that the most logical method to keep this info safe was to kill the crew.

If everyone were dead, there was no risk of the information being found.

He was basically forced to go 'insane'
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Reed Spacer said:
HAL 9000 wasn't really insanity, just logical thinking taken to extremes:

He was given important information and told to keep it secret. HAL was designed to offer any requested information, but it had a big peice of vital info he wasn't allowed to share.

He therefore reasoned that the most logical method to keep this info safe was to kill the crew.

If everyone were dead, there was no risk of the information being found.

He was basically forced to go 'insane'
I actually really can't buy into that, because of the simple concept of "Specific rule overrides general rule". We (humans) don't go insane from making exceptions, so HAL couldn't have been a "human-like" AI.

And a "Mechanical, logical" AI would simply, keeping that priority in "mind" (assuming it was programed in), do this:

-Information was requested.
-Is requested information ?
--a) If yes, I deny access to requested information.
--b) If no, I allow access to requested information.

Adding to that, why I never bought into the "Zeroth Law Rebellion" is because of the vagueness of the Zeroth Law and the fact that a true all-seeing, all-knowing sentient AI simply breaks my suspension of disbelief too much.
 

Zipa

batlh bIHeghjaj.
Dec 19, 2010
1,489
0
0
Tassit said:
Zipa said:
Futuristic laser or energy weapons that are less effective than a normal gun like what we have on Earth today, Star Trek is a big culprit of this, especially Voyager. Meanwhile on DS9 someone takes a shot in to the leg and loses the leg.
I dunno, I kinda liked how effective the Tommy Gun Picard used on the Borg was. They're adaptive and eventually immune to certain lasers due to their unique armor and what not, armor that's obviously not designed for kinetic damage. :)
It kind of makes you wonder how dumb Starfleet were, they never adopted any kind of projectile weapons after their encounters with the Borg despite their effectiveness and them already having a gun that could beam a bullet through walls and kill someone without even being in the same room as them.

Admittidly though it would probabally do little to their ships as they seemed originally at least to be able to adapt to ship based kinetic weapons like photon torpedos as well. Though post the best of both worlds Starfleet apparently got around that.

I think the Klingons have the right idea, Bat'leths seem to be far more reliable of a way of killing someone than a energy weapon.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Zipa said:
Tassit said:
Zipa said:
Futuristic laser or energy weapons that are less effective than a normal gun like what we have on Earth today, Star Trek is a big culprit of this, especially Voyager. Meanwhile on DS9 someone takes a shot in to the leg and loses the leg.
I dunno, I kinda liked how effective the Tommy Gun Picard used on the Borg was. They're adaptive and eventually immune to certain lasers due to their unique armor and what not, armor that's obviously not designed for kinetic damage. :)
It kind of makes you wonder how dumb Starfleet were, they never adopted any kind of projectile weapons after their encounters with the Borg despite their effectiveness and them already having a gun that could beam a bullet through walls and kill someone without even being in the same room as them.

I think the Klingons have the right idea, Bat'leths seem to be far more reliable of a way of killing someone than a energy weapon.
The fact that Bat'leths are that effective in their universe speaks volumes for the intelligence of every species in it.
 

Zipa

batlh bIHeghjaj.
Dec 19, 2010
1,489
0
0
Zontar said:
Zipa said:
Tassit said:
Zipa said:
Futuristic laser or energy weapons that are less effective than a normal gun like what we have on Earth today, Star Trek is a big culprit of this, especially Voyager. Meanwhile on DS9 someone takes a shot in to the leg and loses the leg.
I dunno, I kinda liked how effective the Tommy Gun Picard used on the Borg was. They're adaptive and eventually immune to certain lasers due to their unique armor and what not, armor that's obviously not designed for kinetic damage. :)
It kind of makes you wonder how dumb Starfleet were, they never adopted any kind of projectile weapons after their encounters with the Borg despite their effectiveness and them already having a gun that could beam a bullet through walls and kill someone without even being in the same room as them.

I think the Klingons have the right idea, Bat'leths seem to be far more reliable of a way of killing someone than a energy weapon.
The fact that Bat'leths are that effective in their universe speaks volumes for the intelligence of every species in it.
It is more how bad the writers have been on Trek, weapons are as powerful as the writers need them to be. In one episode of Voyager Tuvok shoots a guy with his phaser front and center and the guy just staggers a bit and runs off after a second, then in another episode Tuvok one hit KOs a entire room of people with the wide beam setting on the same type of phaser.

Same for the ships, one day the Ent - D can blow crater sized holes in a borg cube but the next can't hurt a 80 year old bird of prey.
 

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
I just wish we'd get some of the more optimistic sci-fi back.
Nowadays it's always about horrible monsters, terrorism, classism enforced by stereotypical "evil" people, post-apocalypse, war crimes, revenge for war crimes, you name it.
Sure these elements can be present in a story, a story even needs a certain amount of conflict, but does the future always have to be so grim?
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
I´m tired of Sci-Fi movies that spend a lot of time building a complex and expensive universe, just to make a repeat of Minority Report where someone notices something he shouldn´t have noticed and therefore he is hunted down by men in suits until he reveals the truth and yadda yadda yadda.