Common Sci-Fi tropes that annoy you!

[Thaluikhain]

Though, it should be noted that the PROTON torpedo of Star WARS suffers from the same problem being a weapon that, if I recall correctly, uses an anti-matter charge as it's payload which annihilates more than a kilogram of matter in total - enough that all the nuclear weapons ever used in human history to date would look like mere firecrackers.

Not true, totally converting 1 kilogram gets you just over 22 megatons. Now, if you have a kilogram of antimatter, for that to be totally converted it requires another kilogram of matter, so 2 kg, or 44-45MT.

The largest nuclear device ever initiated was the Tsar Bomba, with a test yield of around 50MT.[footnote]It was planned that it'd have 100MT, but they ran out of uninhabited USSR to test the thing in (!), and the plane wouldn't be able to get away, so they scaled it down. There is some debate over whether or not the full yield would have reached 100MT, building the thing bigger and bigger keeps getting you a less and less increased yield, there comes a point where there's no point making it any bigger. The Tsar Bomba might have reached that point before it hit 100MT.[/footnote]

Third is the idea** that far-future humans will remain essentially unchanged from the current variety. I understand relatability and all that, but humans are capable of a very broad circle of empathy. It's traits that are relatable.

In theory...not so much in practice. They still have to have the hero be a straight white male, religion christian or not mentioned because people wouldn't relate otherwise. Audiences presumably relate to aliens more than minorities.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Not true, totally converting 1 kilogram gets you just over 22 megatons. Now, if you have a kilogram of antimatter, for that to be totally converted it requires another kilogram of matter, so 2 kg, or 44-45MT.

I just did the math and this entirely checks out (2kg would be 44.9 MT). Regardless, considering these were common weapons loaded on everything from fighters and bombers and up, the fact that a non-doomsday weapon is something on the order of a thousand times more powerful than the only two weapons thus far fired in warfare, the gist of my point still stands.

I think the reason this bugs me is simply that the energy output of these weapons is such that if a ship was capable of withstanding a direct hit, there is literally nothing stopping it from flying through the outer layers of a star or some other fairly absurd feat. We are talking about a weapon that is releasing something on the order of 90 petajoules of energy. Even badly without any attempt to direct the blast for greater effectiveness (and, really, why bother when dealing with such energy levels) that amounts to roughly the total energy of the sun that strikes the earth in a second being directed to a particular spot of a thing. So staggering is the energy in question that the only defense you could reasonably muster against it is simply not being anywhere near the blast.

They, like Star Trek, hand wave this by saying "well, shields". Had they simply used something even remotely reasonable for their weapon systems (like not arming the smallest vessels with poorly guided weapons of mass destruction) we wouldn't have a problem. Even the lesser weapons of either universe (Phasers, various large scale blasters) suffer a similar problem as they both have absurd energy outputs.

The only advantage to this sort of scale of weaponry is that it makes the notion of destroying a planet seem fairly reasonable. After all, it doesn't take much to destroy a city and if a run of the mill fighter can carry six weapons capable of the task, it stands to reason you'd be able to easily muster the absurd firepower necessary to actually destroy a planet. Hell, a small fleet in that universe would be capable of blanketing every inch of a world the size of earth (and all but assuring complete extinction of all life) in fire.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think the reason this bugs me is simply that the energy output of these weapons is such that if a ship was capable of withstanding a direct hit, there is literally nothing stopping it from flying through the outer layers of a star or some other fairly absurd feat. We are talking about a weapon that is releasing something on the order of 90 petajoules of energy. Even badly without any attempt to direct the blast for greater effectiveness (and, really, why bother when dealing with such energy levels) that amounts to roughly the total energy of the sun that strikes the earth in a second being directed to a particular spot of a thing. So staggering is the energy in question that the only defense you could reasonably muster against it is simply not being anywhere near the blast.

They, like Star Trek, hand wave this by saying "well, shields". Had they simply used something even remotely reasonable for their weapon systems (like not arming the smallest vessels with poorly guided weapons of mass destruction) we wouldn't have a problem. Even the lesser weapons of either universe (Phasers, various large scale blasters) suffer a similar problem as they both have absurd energy outputs.

The only advantage to this sort of scale of weaponry is that it makes the notion of destroying a planet seem fairly reasonable. After all, it doesn't take much to destroy a city and if a run of the mill fighter can carry six weapons capable of the task, it stands to reason you'd be able to easily muster the absurd firepower necessary to actually destroy a planet. Hell, a small fleet in that universe would be capable of blanketing every inch of a world the size of earth (and all but assuring complete extinction of all life) in fire.

The other problem, is who regulates this stuff? What's to stop any terrorist or criminal organisation getting their hands on one? How do any cities exist?

Having said that, that's also a serious problem with any spaceship, the amount of power required to conveniently travel from planet to planet, let alone from star to star isn't something you'd entrust...anyone, really, to have.

If any random can have a spaceship, then mass murder happens regularly...until there aren't facilities left to allow every random to have one, I guess.

 

[Tassit]

Speaking of this, there's a book called "The Forever War" where the main character, due to traveling and cryosleep manages to skip large time periods. There's a point where population control is mandatory, then it's relaxed, then strongly encouraged, then finally there are so many people Homosexuality is the norm and to not be "Homolife" is considered perverse. It's really quite interesting.

Or.. I think that's the name of the book lol

The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman.

IIRC, he wrote it, at least in part, as a response to Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". Also, IIRC, both Heinlein and Haldeman served in the US military, however, there wasn't a war going on while Heinlein served, which is given as a reason for rather different views about the military.

Hah well, good to know my memory isn't so bad considering I read the book about 14 years ago.

 

[K12]

Human-alien half breeds annoy me a bit. There is no way for this to be biologically feasible. Why would we even assume that aliens would produce sexually like we do? They could have 9 different genders as far as we know.

Pretty much all the scientifically implausible stuff that is just assumed for no real reason(e.g. sound and explosions in space) irritates me a bit. I'm fine with this stuff if it's for story reasons (I'm not going to begrudge faster than light travel in an intergalactic show) or if it's cool enough but I'd like a little nod towards the fact that they know this is wrong otherwise I just feel like I'm celebrating ignorance.

The general assumption that "we will be psychic in the future" I find rather baffling as well. Why does this seem to be such a standard idea? So much so that it can be a tiny little background (oh by the way psychics) kind of deal rather than the main focus of the story.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Human-alien half breeds annoy me a bit. There is no way for this to be biologically feasible. Why would we even assume that aliens would produce sexually like we do? They could have 9 different genders as far as we know.

The general assumption that "we will be psychic in the future" I find rather baffling as well. Why does this seem to be such a standard idea? So much so that it can be a tiny little background (oh by the way psychics) kind of deal rather than the main focus of the story.

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 life as we think it will be lived in the future and the 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.

And anyway, if you want to talk about (the completely boring topic of) scientific possibilities, it's not impossible that similar conditions give rise to sexually compatible life on two different planets. Very unlikely, but then so is FTL travel.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

 

[hermes]

Human-alien half breeds annoy me a bit. There is no way for this to be biologically feasible. Why would we even assume that aliens would produce sexually like we do? They could have 9 different genders as far as we know.

The general assumption that "we will be psychic in the future" I find rather baffling as well. Why does this seem to be such a standard idea? So much so that it can be a tiny little background (oh by the way psychics) kind of deal rather than the main focus of the story.

...And anyway, if you want to talk about (the completely boring topic of) scientific possibilities, it's not impossible that similar conditions give rise to sexually compatible life on two different planets. Very unlikely, but then so is FTL travel.

Sexually compatible is still not the same as breeding compatible. Other species having the equivalent of human erogenous and genital organs is not statistically rare (after all, there are thousands of widely different species on earth that have the equivalent of two genders, one with a penis and one with a vagina), but having compatible genetic material, reproduction processes and life cycles, while not technically impossible, it is pretty damn close to statistically impossible. It would be like having sex with an alligator and giving birth to a Werealligator.

Hybrids in scifi are close to wish-fulfillment, like having a future where we cured every single disease and affliction. Sure, it makes for some interesting (and some really bad) what-ifs, but I don't see why its not a valid trope that annoys some people.

 

[mistahzig1]

The not-too-distant-future thing.

Stories where 200 years from now, we have 15 new colonies in interspace... my suspension of disbelief takes a beating with that.

A few thousand years, authors... a few THOUSAND years in the future!!!

 

[CHUD]

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.

 

[Alcamonic]

In the year ca 2400, we have the same fashion as we do now. Who knew!

 

[Thaluikhain]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

Spoiler

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]

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]

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)