• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Irrational Science Fiction & Fantasy Clichés

marhawkman said:
One of the better things in Babylon 5 is that there are multiple grades of psionic talent. Sure there are guys like Alfred Bester who can read your mind like a book, but Bester is one of the best of the best. Apparently the majority of the people with psi talents struggle with making out individual words in the minds of other people.
Click to expand...
Am I right in remembering that, in Babylon 5, there was a plot about the Psi-Corps giving people drugs to increase their psychic powers? It's a long time since I watched it.
 
PeteByrdie said:
Am I right in remembering that, in Babylon 5, there was a plot about the Psi-Corps giving people drugs to increase their psychic powers? It's a long time since I watched it.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, the drugs had nasty side effects sometimes though. Also they could give people with latent psi ability temporary access to actual psi powers. One ep has G'Kar take the stuff and use it to mentally torture Mollari…. which somehow resulted in the two of them becoming friends. I forget the details, but IIRC G'Kar was forcing Mollari to relive his failures, but in the process he learned thing she didn't know about WHY Mollari failed, or something.

At any rate it was suggested that it made G'Kar sick for several days afterwards, and could have killed him. Which is why he never did it again.
 
IbisNibs said:
It's amazing you could still spell!
Click to expand...
I'm ashamed to admit that, since lockdown started, I've frequently bought a fifteen pack of Guinness and woken in the morning to find only four left. Eleven seems to be my limit. I'm now endeavouring to modify this behaviour before work begins once more.

If nothing else, this thread coupled with lockdown has prompted me to catch up on The Expanse, of which I'd previously seen only the first two seasons, and the entire of Farscape, of which I'd only ever seen snippets. The two series are miles away from one another in terms of their visual styles and approaches to science, yet also have many similarities. I recommend them both.

Okay, last one.

Parallel Universes I'm talking here specifically about those parallel universes in which all the main characters of a TV show are present, but in different capacities than in the main universe of the show. It strikes me as highly unlikely that such a universe would be discovered by our heroes. Worse, in Deep Space 9 they have dealings with a parallel universe that we know separated from the main one at least as far back as the original series, yet somehow all the same people found themselves on this same space station in both universes. It strikes me everytime that they couldn't afford a separate cast for an alternative universe. It always seems unlikely to me, and yet any science fiction show that runs for a couple of seasons seems destined to throw in parallel versions of the characters at some point.

Also, I have another issue with including parallel universes in my fiction, because I think far too much, and I don't see why only my viewing should be ruined by that...

Most of the time, parallel universes are explained by the 'every chance event or decision plays out in alternate universes' reasoning. So, our heroes go to another world that split from their own at some point in the past. Once this has been introduced into the narrative, it ruins everything else we watch them achieve from that point on. Every time they think of a risky solution and it's barely carried out in the nick of time, all we're doing is following the myriad branching pathways that happen to lead to their success, and ignoring the, probably, vast majority in which all our beloved characters die. Remember that Lieutenant Whatsername that we all like so much who barely survived that thing? She died of it in most realities, and we just watched one of the few versions in which she survived. How do our heroes get in so many scrapes and survive? What are the odds? Pretty high if you're only following through the branching paths that lead to them succeeding. Ah, people might think, but the universe we're watching is the prime universe. But that's not how the explanation for parallel universes works in these things. Every moment throughout an episode, the universe is split into infinite possibilities, all as valid as the one we're watching. So, what are the stakes in a TV show that has flirted with this idea? Bit of a rant tonight.
 
PeteByrdie said:
I'm ashamed to admit that, since lockdown started, I've frequently bought a fifteen pack of Guinness and woken in the morning to find only four left.
Click to expand...
Can I stop by and drink the other four?
I'll be a quiet drunk, I promise.
 
PeteByrdie said:
How do our heroes get in so many scrapes and survive? What are the odds? Pretty high if you're only following through the branching paths that lead to them succeeding. Ah, people might think, but the universe we're watching is the prime universe.
Click to expand...
And then there are those who watch the Amazon Prime universe. (Amazon Prime = Netflix for free. I avoid Amazon like, well, like I avoid the current plague!)
 
PeteByrdie said:
I'm ashamed to admit that, since lockdown started, I've frequently bought a fifteen pack of Guinness and woken in the morning to find only four left. Eleven seems to be my limit. I'm now endeavouring to modify this behaviour before work begins once more.

If nothing else, this thread coupled with lockdown has prompted me to catch up on The Expanse, of which I'd previously seen only the first two seasons, and the entire of Farscape, of which I'd only ever seen snippets. The two series are miles away from one another in terms of their visual styles and approaches to science, yet also have many similarities. I recommend them both.

Okay, last one.

Parallel Universes I'm talking here specifically about those parallel universes in which all the main characters of a TV show are present, but in different capacities than in the main universe of the show. It strikes me as highly unlikely that such a universe would be discovered by our heroes. Worse, in Deep Space 9 they have dealings with a parallel universe that we know separated from the main one at least as far back as the original series, yet somehow all the same people found themselves on this same space station in both universes. It strikes me everytime that they couldn't afford a separate cast for an alternative universe. It always seems unlikely to me, and yet any science fiction show that runs for a couple of seasons seems destined to throw in parallel versions of the characters at some point.

Also, I have another issue with including parallel universes in my fiction, because I think far too much, and I don't see why only my viewing should be ruined by that...

Most of the time, parallel universes are explained by the 'every chance event or decision plays out in alternate universes' reasoning. So, our heroes go to another world that split from their own at some point in the past. Once this has been introduced into the narrative, it ruins everything else we watch them achieve from that point on. Every time they think of a risky solution and it's barely carried out in the nick of time, all we're doing is following the myriad branching pathways that happen to lead to their success, and ignoring the, probably, vast majority in which all our beloved characters die. Remember that Lieutenant Whatsername that we all like so much who barely survived that thing? She died of it in most realities, and we just watched one of the few versions in which she survived. How do our heroes get in so many scrapes and survive? What are the odds? Pretty high if you're only following through the branching paths that lead to them succeeding. Ah, people might think, but the universe we're watching is the prime universe. But that's not how the explanation for parallel universes works in these things. Every moment throughout an episode, the universe is split into infinite possibilities, all as valid as the one we're watching. So, what are the stakes in a TV show that has flirted with this idea? Bit of a rant tonight.
Click to expand...
Heh. There's some fictional settings where alternate universes are simply... alien. But the reasons for the way alternate universe vary is a narrative one. Telling a cool story about the path not taken is a very common story device. The fictional settings where I've seen truly alien alternate universe were always ones where the story was about the dangers of the unknown and unexplored.
 
The speed of light. Oh ferchrissakes so often the speed of light comes up. (anyway, what's the speed of dark?).

I have a separate question about the speed of light anyways.
It's relative to the observer right?
So (and here's a 'thought experiment').....Imagine I'm standing on the nose of a spaceship travelling at 1mph under the speed of light (TSOL) , ok. (Yes yes yes I know it's not possible but just for the purposes of this 'thought experiment' imagine a situation in which it was possible).
So I'm stood up there, going through space, and you're on a nearby planet, stationary, watching me go past (again, just suspend your disbelief for this).
Now, I've got something in my hand (ooh err missus!)....no, not that....., something like, I dunno, a basketball, say.
And I throw that basketball out n front of me.
So here's the thing.
To me as the observer of the basketball, even though I'm travelling at 1mph less than TSOL, it just travels away from me predictably, according to how hard I throw it, and I watch it moving away, and I can see it perfectly normally.
But what about for you, the observer on the planet?
As soon as I throw that ball it then travels ahead of me faster than TSOL according to your viewpoint........so can you no longer see that ball?
And doesn't it defy the laws of physics as nothing can move faster than TSOL? So does the ball become nothing? In which case, how comes I can still see it from the nose of that spaceship?
My brain hurts.
 
No, 'lightspeed is the one thing that's not relative.
 
Trevp666 said:
The speed of light. Oh ferchrissakes so often the speed of light comes up. (anyway, what's the speed of dark?).

I have a separate question about the speed of light anyways.
It's relative to the observer right?
So (and here's a 'thought experiment').....Imagine I'm standing on the nose of a spaceship travelling at 1mph under the speed of light (TSOL) , ok. (Yes yes yes I know it's not possible but just for the purposes of this 'thought experiment' imagine a situation in which it was possible).
So I'm stood up there, going through space, and you're on a nearby planet, stationary, watching me go past (again, just suspend your disbelief for this).
Now, I've got something in my hand (ooh err missus!)....no, not that....., something like, I dunno, a basketball, say.
And I throw that basketball out n front of me.
So here's the thing.
To me as the observer of the basketball, even though I'm travelling at 1mph less than TSOL, it just travels away from me predictably, according to how hard I throw it, and I watch it moving away, and I can see it perfectly normally.
But what about for you, the observer on the planet?
As soon as I throw that ball it then travels ahead of me faster than TSOL according to your viewpoint........so can you no longer see that ball?
And doesn't it defy the laws of physics as nothing can move faster than TSOL? So does the ball become nothing? In which case, how comes I can still see it from the nose of that spaceship?
My brain hurts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the point where you said you were travelling 1mph below the speed of light and that you know that's not possible, well it's not, and that's where the whole thing falls apart. It doesn't matter how fast you're moving, light is still moving at the speed of light from your perspective relative to you. Space and time both change, but the speed of light remains the same.
 
PeteByrdie said:
Yeah, the point where you said you were travelling 1mph below the speed of light and that you know that's not possible, well it's not, and that's where the whole thing falls apart. It doesn't matter how fast you're moving, light is still moving at the speed of light from your perspective relative to you. Space and time both change, but the speed of light remains the same.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, from my perspective, so I still see the ball, but what about matey-boy watching me going past at (from their POV) 1mph less than TSOL? Does he see the ball disappear when I lob it in front of me or not?
 
This is how it works.
If you are travelling at the speed of light minus 1mph (we'll call this speed c-1 for short) and you throw it forward at 10mph, it does not travel faster than light. Because of time dilation and length contraction, the ball appears to be travelling at 10mph away from you in your frame of reference, but in the frame of reference of an observer on a passing planet, the ball and the distance it travels is contracted in the direction of movement, so the actual speed as measured by the distant observer is only the speed of light minus 0.5 mph (c-0.5) (a very rough approximation). So the 10mph you see has been contracted down to a mere 0.5mph.

If you throw the ball at 20mph in your frame of reference, the speed gets contracted down to 0.75mph. So the ball is now travelling at c-0.25. (another very rough approximation). You can throw the ball as hard and as fast as you like but it will never reach the speed of light.

In fact, relativistic speeds are not added arithmetically- they add as
6eb3091ed58441a1f81b65cdc3911cc471084ee4

(if you like, you can plug the correct values into that equation and find the real values which I guestimated above).
 
Last edited:
Aaaaaah.

Now it all makes sense.

So expanding on that then......If I was travelling towards someone doing exactly the same as me, and we threw our balls towards each other, would they hit each other? And if so would the resultant mess involve some bits that were travelling away at angles in a combined speed greater than TSOL?
And if they didn't hit each other, and just brushed past each other, would their speeds relative to each other be greater than light speed?


(I think there's some blood coming out of my ear.)
 
Because of the equation I posted above, the speeds of the balls would still add up to less than the speed of light. Adding two speeds together using the relativistic equation always adds up to less than c.
 
Trevp666 said:
Nobody ever goes to the toilet unless it's necessary for the plot. You don't even see a 'gents' sign on any doors of any spaceships. I mean what's happened in the future - have we evolved a way to 'bake it' all day or something?
I imagine Star Trek TNG would be a bit different if Picard said to Riker "You have the chair, Number One, while I go for a number two....."
Click to expand...

On the subject of science- fiction and defecation...

 
You can dodge laser weapons. Even though they’re essentially light, you can roll out of the way. And space technology that has computers that can calculate space warp exit and entry points across huge distances seem unable to target a simple thing like a moving fighter at close range. Plus. Stormtroopers can’t use the weaponry for shit.
With this in mind, I’ve redesigned the gun. Put a set of mirrors at the front that automatically reflect the beam directly into the target. Honestly. It’s not rocket science.
 
Trevp666 said:
Aaaaaah.

Now it all makes sense.

So expanding on that then......If I was travelling towards someone doing exactly the same as me, and we threw our balls towards each other, would they hit each other? And if so would the resultant mess involve some bits that were travelling away at angles in a combined speed greater than TSOL?
And if they didn't hit each other, and just brushed past each other, would their speeds relative to each other be greater than light speed?


(I think there's some blood coming out of my ear.)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they just teleport out of your rectum?
 
Analogue Boy said:
You can dodge laser weapons. Even though they’re essentially light, you can roll out of the way. And space technology that has computers that can calculate space warp exit and entry points across huge distances seem unable to target a simple thing like a moving fighter at close range. Plus. Stormtroopers can’t use the weaponry for shit.
Click to expand...
Well there's more to hitting a target than just aiming. I mean, firing ballistic weapons at close range at a moving target accurately also requires more than just aiming. Muzzle velocities on hand guns are high enough that you can't react to the gunshot itself. But if you see the weapon aimed at you, you can move before the weapon is fired. The gunman has to adjust the aim to track your movement or miss. For a computer, you need to have it programmed to anticipate the movement direction and speed or it'll miss. As Mr. Miyagi said "Best block no be there".
 
marhawkman said:
Well there's more to hitting a target than just aiming. I mean, firing ballistic weapons at close range at a moving target accurately also requires more than just aiming. Muzzle velocities on hand guns are high enough that you can't react to the gunshot itself. But if you see the weapon aimed at you, you can move before the weapon is fired. The gunman has to adjust the aim to track your movement or miss. For a computer, you need to have it programmed to anticipate the movement direction and speed or it'll miss. As Mr. Miyagi said "Best block no be there".
Click to expand...

It's a laser. Firing hot light. it's not like it's a Blunderbuss creating an explosive kick.

To put it all into perspective, I like the comment on Jodie Whittaker's use of the sonic screwdriver... 'There's no need to clench your buttocks - It's not a trumpet'.
 
Analogue Boy said:
You can dodge laser weapons. Even though they’re essentially light, you can roll out of the way. And space technology that has computers that can calculate space warp exit and entry points across huge distances seem unable to target a simple thing like a moving fighter at close range. Plus. Stormtroopers can’t use the weaponry for shit.
With this in mind, I’ve redesigned the gun. Put a set of mirrors at the front that automatically reflect the beam directly into the target. Honestly. It’s not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Stormtroopers are pretty poor. In Rogue One they can be beaten up with a stick. What exactly is that armour for? They inability to aim is famous. I'm with you on dodging lasers in space combat. Targeting should be computer controlled, as it would be even with our own technology were we to build a space warship. And they'd be no missing a target with a weapon firing energy at light speed or near to it, even over kilometres of distance.
 
Okay, because I'm bored, I'm delving into fantasy. Most fantasy is, after all, set on other worlds, or fictional pasts of our own. So, it's still kind of science fiction. But it's not fertile enough ground for a new thread. So, the rules are the same. Whatever appears in one or two franchises is just the rules of that franchise, and that's fine. Whatever cliches make sense anyway in the context of a fantasy story are fine. But things we see frequently in fantasy stories that make no sense are suspect.

Muscle-Bound Barbarian Type Heroes So, you're wandering through the untamed wilderness of a fantasy world slash primitive version of Earth. You're searching for adventure and profit. You slay a monster every month or two, but you live on whatever nature provides. You eat the odd rabbit, deer or bonnacon if you can kill one, bearing in mind you have only a sword, so protein rich food is rare. You'd expect to be sinewy. Why, then, have you the body of someone who spends two to three hours a day training and eats a whole chicken for a snack?

Back Scabbards I know the arms and armour community have a major problem with this, and have talked about it endlessly, but it fits the topic so I'll rehash it. Back scabbards for swords look cool, so they're popular in fiction. But unless you want to draw your sword from behind your head by feeding the blade through your hands, which is slow and probably painful, you can't draw a sword of any reasonable length from a scabbard on your back. This problem is compounded by the popularity of what we, these days, call 'longswords' in fiction. These are longer, two handed versions of arming swords, the cruciform swords one associates with medieval knights. Longswords are popular in visual media (more so than they were historically) because they offer the most cool variety of poses for a character. But, the longer a sword blade is, the more difficult it is to draw from a scabbard on ones back. So, when you see your favourite fantasy hero grab his sword hilt behind his head and draw his sword, ask yourself from where exactly the blade has swung.
 
There must be sound from objects in space. If there is no atmosphere/air/gas then there is no sound (unless you are inside an object in space with air available, and another object hits yours, you may hear sound).

The only film I can think of that actually got it right was 2001. Even documentaries about space probes have put 'space shippy' sounds in.

Edited to add: I see @Trevp666 already got there before me on page #1 :)
 
AnonyJoolz said:
There must be sound from objects in space. If there is no atmosphere/air/gas then there is no sound (unless you are inside an object in space with air available, and another object hits yours, you may hear sound).

The only film I can think of that actually got it right was 2001. Even documentaries about space probes have put 'space shippy' sounds in.

Edited to add: I see @Trevp666 already got there before me on page #1 :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't know how to feel about this. We all know you won't hear an explosion or a ship's engines as it travels past in space. But because we're used to sound accompanying events on Earth, the lack of sound robs events of a certain tangible quality. I accept the sound in space operas as an artistic choice, I think.
 
It's difficult to read this thread and not want to go "Ah, but that got explained like this..." every post :)

WARNING : There now follows a load of rubbish, sleep-deprived ramblings and hypothesising.

Force fields : There are "force fields" in development, using plasma held in a magnetic field. Potentially useful for deflecting matter, e.g. preventing micrometeorite impacts on spaceships.

Sound in space : I have a theory about this. The prime offender, Star Wars... it's set in another galaxy. What if a great deal of that galaxy's space is not near-vacuum (like our galaxy) but low-pressure air? That way, spaceships act like they're in an atmosphere, sound travels, fighters don't need advanced life support systems and the crew of the Millennium Falcon are able to walk about a cave on an asteroid just wearing breath masks without getting the bends. The galaxy is smaller and denser, allowing spaceships to, if for example stuck without a hyperdrive, make it to the Bespin system on regular drive within weeks/months.

(I recall Babylon 5 was pretty good when it came to the momentum of fighter craft in space)

Slavery : Kidnapping a bunch of sapient lifeforms and working them to death is cheaper than building high-tech robots, which require precision components, rare metals and patented technology. Plus, the slave-owners get to be thoroughly beastly to their slaves because they are not nice people who enjoy that kind of thing.

Star Trek toilets : Pretty sure there's a specialised function on the transporter system that just beams bodily waste straight out of the body. (There's no evidence for it, but it's scientific fact) Sadly, there were no episodes exploring this, nor what would happen if the system goes wrong, unlike the holodeck which went wrong every other week.

Hologram projectors : There's a variety of commercially-available and in-development devices that can project a 3D illusion in the air (not necessarily using true hologram tech).

And for the Aeryn Sun fans... if you play PC games, try Dragon Age : Origins. Claudia Black gets some great lines in that.

Automatic doors that go whoosh : They're spaceship doors. They need to be lockable and secure against depressurisation. Making them go whoosh suggests they're powered by some heavy-duty machinery that can survive the rigours of alien invaders with crowbars or random hull breaches. Plenty of eps across the Trek shows in which they had great difficulty gaining access through a stuck/sealed/locked door. And they know when someone wants to enter because they're smart doors (the doors on the Heart of Gold, Hitch-hiker's guide, could even engage one in conversation).
 
PeteByrdie said:
Okay, because I'm bored, I'm delving into fantasy. Most fantasy is, after all, set on other worlds, or fictional pasts of our own. So, it's still kind of science fiction. But it's not fertile enough ground for a new thread. So, the rules are the same. Whatever appears in one or two franchises is just the rules of that franchise, and that's fine. Whatever cliches make sense anyway in the context of a fantasy story are fine. But things we see frequently in fantasy stories that make no sense are suspect.

Muscle-Bound Barbarian Type Heroes So, you're wandering through the untamed wilderness of a fantasy world slash primitive version of Earth. You're searching for adventure and profit. You slay a monster every month or two, but you live on whatever nature provides. You eat the odd rabbit, deer or bonnacon if you can kill one, bearing in mind you have only a sword, so protein rich food is rare. You'd expect to be sinewy. Why, then, have you the body of someone who spends two to three hours a day training and eats a whole chicken for a snack?

Back Scabbards I know the arms and armour community have a major problem with this, and have talked about it endlessly, but it fits the topic so I'll rehash it. Back scabbards for swords look cool, so they're popular in fiction. But unless you want to draw your sword from behind your head by feeding the blade through your hands, which is slow and probably painful, you can't draw a sword of any reasonable length from a scabbard on your back. This problem is compounded by the popularity of what we, these days, call 'longswords' in fiction. These are longer, two handed versions of arming swords, the cruciform swords one associates with medieval knights. Longswords are popular in visual media (more so than they were historically) because they offer the most cool variety of poses for a character. But, the longer a sword blade is, the more difficult it is to draw from a scabbard on ones back. So, when you see your favourite fantasy hero grab his sword hilt behind his head and draw his sword, ask yourself from where exactly the blade has swung.
Click to expand...

Great post.

MBB type heroes. We have Robert E Howard to thank for this. Although to Conan's credit he also spends a lot of time gorging in taverns when he's not roaming the wastes. I think Howard addresses Conan's size as he can eat a phenomenal amount as well as drink gallons of ale and wine. He's never depicted eating his veggies, just meat and occasionally grapes. He's going to be a big guy. Other writers don't really talk about this side of their character Lin Carter and Thongor, for example.

If we think that Howard probably got his inspiration for his Conan-types from factual depictions of Barbarians then a lot of ancient writers described them a big people. Tacitus - https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/tacitus-germania-excerp.asp. Again it's all down to food. The more protein the bigger you are going to grow. Henry the VIII was huge for his time.

(Didn't Howard believe he channeled an ancient spirit that inspired his Conan stories?)

A few of Howard's other characters would have fit your description of someone living off the land. Wiry, lithe, and compact. El Borak and Kirby O'Donnell for example.

Back scabbards - there are enough depictions from the Japan showing nodachi being carried in back scabbards. I just think that it was an easy way to carry it and the blade would-be protected from the elements. I don't think anyone would attempt to draw from the back as it would be impossible.

In the West, I think those greatswords/medieval claymores/zweihanders would have been carried on the shoulder. As in the drill - slope shoulders for swords and rifles.

Most people carrying those sorts of weapons are going to place to fight a battle. They'll be carrying the rest of their kit too, possibly a version based on Marius Mules. They form a camp and then draw up the battle lines.

Totally agree with what you are saying though regarding fantasy depictions. If you are carrying a long sword on your back then it's probable you'll have something much shorter at hand hanging from the waist if you are expecting a nasty surprise.

City watches/militia in fantasy novels also carry spears a lot when a club would be a more sensible weapon if you a breaking up a fight in a tavern.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top