Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Sci fi tropes that annoy you?


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#61
razer1994

razer1994

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts

Actually, the small single piloted ships are a trope, espicially when they engage in dog fights in space while larger ships fight each other. In naval battles, you don't see speed boats fighting each other as battle ships also engage.

But you do see fighter jets and bombers attacking other fighter jets and ships that were launched from a carrier :p

True but that is almost in different mediums. In deep space combat over extremely large distances I think it would be limited to the larger ships.

#62
CamGoldenGun

CamGoldenGun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • LocationFort McMurray, AB. Canada.
True but that is almost in different mediums. In deep space combat over extremely large distances I think it would be limited to the larger ships.

You don't think those little ships could disperse and fly around the large laser beams? There's a reason you don't see speedboats going up against battleships on the ocean (they don't have the room to house large weaponry to bring it down and they go too slow), but a well placed bomb from a bomber that took off from a carrier certainly can.



#63
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,740 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA
A realist senario is where the aliens conquer humanity, kill 40% of us directly and another 50% die from societal breakdown. The survivors are integrated into the alien civilization as a lower class in society.

 

That gives me another one: The aliens attempt an invasion, steal a whole bunch of resources, take out a whole bunch of population centers, and topple governments, then Randy Quaid gunks a plane all up in their junk and trashes their entire effort. Then the people of Earth rejoice and party, and everyone lives happily ever after as the audience learns a valuable lesson about the tenacity of the human spirit.

 

Everything will not continue happily ever after. Society is in ruins; the world has basically been reduced to a state of anarchy due to the collapse of world governments, and hundreds of millions of people have died. Humanity's victory is a phyrric one at best, and a possible scenario is that the alien force they encountered was just a scouting fleet for the REAL DEAL invasion, one humanity truly stands no chance against. This goes for any alien invasion flick.

 

The concept of an alien invasion is what bugs me. If you want to destroy a race to cultivate its planet's resources (why? Just use any planet and convert it into whatever you freakin' need! You traveled from the stars, right? Surely atomic reconstruction can't be too hard!), you don't invade.

If we Americans wanted to kill every last Iraqi, the last thing we'd do is invade. We'd have: dropped several atomic bombs; introduced nerve agents; cut off all resources... But invading the place would've been the absolute dumbest thing to have done. Fortunately, we're not so amoral as to have wanted to kill all Iraqis (although some people said "Kill all them sand-n*****s!, I do remember; still do) but instead lust for oil, but if we wanted to take over a planet, just wipe you out from afar. An asteroid approx. the size of the moon would suffice.

They say humans can't go extinct. Frickin' melt the surface of the planet, we're dead. Irradiate the place until the atmosphere ignites, we're dead.

 

Also, how robots remain so "robotic" even hundreds, thousands of years, just plain far in the future; how laser guns remain "pulse guns"; the prevelence of the problems of today in a society that clearly exhibits the ability to have move past them (I suspend my belief if it's supposed to be a "our world in a different setting" trope, however; if that's not the intention, then no holds barred...); how transhumans and cyborgs always have very obvious- and limited- cybermechanical add-ons (like a robotic arm obviously being a robotic arm at all times; common sense dictates we'd have created enhanced skin to cover it); the flying cars, obviously, but I can deal with those. It's what someone else said- when we still do the same thing we do with our cars today, short of traffic, that I wonder.

 

Someone else mentioned space battles. I only let it pass because a 'realistic' space battle probably wouldn't be all that exciting, should you seriously consider all the facets and elements.

 

Back to robots, remember when I said that they are so robotic? I meant in actions, tone, etc. Within 10 years, we should have realistic vocal construction technology; not every robot or AI in the future should sound like Microsoft Sam/Samantha. However, also in build. Even in a film set in the 3400s, you see robots that look like one step above Asimo. Like I was saying in the Mother Meki thread, we have claytronics in theory and in the works, right? SO why do sci-fi media keep claytronics to 'spectacle' items, but then segregate it from where it might be most necessary- such as said robots, and homes, and vehicles? I guess it's mainly for audience connection.

 

And where's the nature? What would the natural world be like in the future? Like it is now, I suppose, but I'd love to see a buncha transhumans and cyborgs and androids doin' their typical stuff outside a blatantly post-futuristic metropolis. Does sci-fi HAVE to always take place in a city or in space when no battles are being fought???

I guess it would be weird to have futuristic characters in a Hallmark movie, I suppose... But it has been done before, quite well. But mainstream audiences are unused to such sights.

 

 

 

But all of this is just blind ragin'...


Edited by The Young Homo Maximus, 17 April 2013 - 04:36 PM.

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#64
razer1994

razer1994

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts

True but that is almost in different mediums. In deep space combat over extremely large distances I think it would be limited to the larger ships.

You don't think those little ships could disperse and fly around the large laser beams? There's a reason you don't see speedboats going up against battleships on the ocean (they don't have the room to house large weaponry to bring it down and they go too slow), but a well placed bomb from a bomber that took off from a carrier certainly can.

They would not use laser beams but instead nuclear missiles and rail guns. And the combat would take place maybe 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles apart, so small ships would be obliterated before they could reach the enemy ship field line. And I am talking about deep space combat. If a planet were being invaded certainly small ships would be in use, though they would most likely engage in dogfights in the atmosphere or be sent to strategically strike ground targets.

#65
zen_mutiny

zen_mutiny

    Post-Singularitarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts
  • LocationIndiana, United States

 

True but that is almost in different mediums. In deep space combat over extremely large distances I think it would be limited to the larger ships.

You don't think those little ships could disperse and fly around the large laser beams? There's a reason you don't see speedboats going up against battleships on the ocean (they don't have the room to house large weaponry to bring it down and they go too slow), but a well placed bomb from a bomber that took off from a carrier certainly can.

 

They would not use laser beams but instead nuclear missiles and rail guns. And the combat would take place maybe 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles apart, so small ships would be obliterated before they could reach the enemy ship field line. And I am talking about deep space combat. If a planet were being invaded certainly small ships would be in use, though they would most likely engage in dogfights in the atmosphere or be sent to strategically strike ground targets.

If you are in a spaceborne capital ship and expect a confilict with another, why even move into weapons range, when you can send drones to do the dangerous work? My guess is, if your capital ship is a potential military target, it would be surrounded at all times by a network of automated defenses that should warn the ship and even fight on its behalf should anything enter their sensor range. War is becoming more and more automated. Drones are already replacing Earth-bound fighter pilots. My guess is, the fighter pilot occupation may not last to see the days of space warfare.


Edited by zen_mutiny, 22 April 2013 - 06:09 PM.


#66
stuffed_leader

stuffed_leader

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Locationprescott, AZ

 

True but that is almost in different mediums. In deep space combat over extremely large distances I think it would be limited to the larger ships.

You don't think those little ships could disperse and fly around the large laser beams? There's a reason you don't see speedboats going up against battleships on the ocean (they don't have the room to house large weaponry to bring it down and they go too slow), but a well placed bomb from a bomber that took off from a carrier certainly can.

 

They would not use laser beams but instead nuclear missiles and rail guns. And the combat would take place maybe 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles apart, so small ships would be obliterated before they could reach the enemy ship field line. And I am talking about deep space combat. If a planet were being invaded certainly small ships would be in use, though they would most likely engage in dogfights in the atmosphere or be sent to strategically strike ground targets.

 

Why send dog fighter to take out strategic ground targets when you could hit them from space with your ship?

 

Space battles would employ "one and done" weaponry so most of the battle would be about actually ordaining position . Deep space battles would take place millions of miles apart and the use of small unmanned ships to inject code, assault engines, or at least ordain actual enemy position would make small ships essential. 


Omega point or extinction.

#67
razer1994

razer1994

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts

 

True but that is almost in different mediums. In deep space combat over extremely large distances I think it would be limited to the larger ships.

You don't think those little ships could disperse and fly around the large laser beams? There's a reason you don't see speedboats going up against battleships on the ocean (they don't have the room to house large weaponry to bring it down and they go too slow), but a well placed bomb from a bomber that took off from a carrier certainly can. 

They would not use laser beams but instead nuclear missiles and rail guns. And the combat would take place maybe 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles apart, so small ships would be obliterated before they could reach the enemy ship field line. And I am talking about deep space combat. If a planet were being invaded certainly small ships would be in use, though they would most likely engage in dogfights in the atmosphere or be sent to strategically strike ground targets.

 Why send dog fighter to take out strategic ground targets when you could hit them from space with your ship? Space battles would employ "one and done" weaponry so most of the battle would be about actually ordaining position . Deep space battles would take place millions of miles apart and the use of small unmanned ships to inject code, assault engines, or at least ordain actual enemy position would make small ships essential. 

I think the ship sensors would be able the locate the enemy ships without the use of spy drones.

#68
zen_mutiny

zen_mutiny

    Post-Singularitarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts
  • LocationIndiana, United States

 

 

 

True but that is almost in different mediums. In deep space combat over extremely large distances I think it would be limited to the larger ships.

You don't think those little ships could disperse and fly around the large laser beams? There's a reason you don't see speedboats going up against battleships on the ocean (they don't have the room to house large weaponry to bring it down and they go too slow), but a well placed bomb from a bomber that took off from a carrier certainly can.  

 

They would not use laser beams but instead nuclear missiles and rail guns. And the combat would take place maybe 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles apart, so small ships would be obliterated before they could reach the enemy ship field line. And I am talking about deep space combat. If a planet were being invaded certainly small ships would be in use, though they would most likely engage in dogfights in the atmosphere or be sent to strategically strike ground targets.

 

  Why send dog fighter to take out strategic ground targets when you could hit them from space with your ship?   Space battles would employ "one and done" weaponry so most of the battle would be about actually ordaining position . Deep space battles would take place millions of miles apart and the use of small unmanned ships to inject code, assault engines, or at least ordain actual enemy position would make small ships essential. 

 

I think the ship sensors would be able the locate the enemy ships without the use of spy drones.

That may be true, but why rely only on your ship's sensors when you can use drones to extend your sensor range? Better to put a drone in danger than the ship, no?



#69
razer1994

razer1994

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts

 

 

 

True but that is almost in different mediums. In deep space combat over extremely large distances I think it would be limited to the larger ships.

You don't think those little ships could disperse and fly around the large laser beams? There's a reason you don't see speedboats going up against battleships on the ocean (they don't have the room to house large weaponry to bring it down and they go too slow), but a well placed bomb from a bomber that took off from a carrier certainly can.

They would not use laser beams but instead nuclear missiles and rail guns. And the combat would take place maybe 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles apart, so small ships would be obliterated before they could reach the enemy ship field line. And I am talking about deep space combat. If a planet were being invaded certainly small ships would be in use, though they would most likely engage in dogfights in the atmosphere or be sent to strategically strike ground targets. 

 Why send dog fighter to take out strategic ground targets when you could hit them from space with your ship? Space battles would employ "one and done" weaponry so most of the battle would be about actually ordaining position . Deep space battles would take place millions of miles apart and the use of small unmanned ships to inject code, assault engines, or at least ordain actual enemy position would make small ships essential.

I think the ship sensors would be able the locate the enemy ships without the use of spy drones.

That may be true, but why rely only on your ship's sensors when you can use drones to extend your sensor range? Better to put a drone in danger than the ship, no?

Well, I mean the ship could sense the other ships while staying in safe range. But yes, scouting drones, espicially for cameras, will probably be used.

#70
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

We're going to need some big ships when we start colonizing other planets. With a population size of atleast 12 billion by the time it happens, i'm sure we'd want some ships that could carry 5,000 + :)


What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#71
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

what's interesting is that if you needed to attack an enemy ship in outer space you may not even approach them, you could warp-drive your missiles to the enemy location.

 

I think the alcubierre drive is how long distance futuristic warp drive will be done, atleast at first, i see alot of promise there it just makes sense; expand behind contract infront. I wish more sci fi movies used this or went into depth with the way the space travel is done, rather than just say "Engage Warp drive!" It just makes the story more believable

 

Alien invasions don't make sense, but alot of them make for very cool movies. I like AVATAR, it played a twist to where we were the actual invaders, invading because we desired unobtanium, which was a rare super conducting compound. Makes complete sense because we definitely would do something like that to a planet with an abundant super conductor.

 

If aliens invaded earth, it'd be total annihilation. We don't even have ANY weapons in space, yet they can traverse lightyears through space WHILE carrying their weapons with them. They could literally destroy us from space and watch the show unfold. Ofcourse why would they? there's nothing really to gain. for all we know atleast. And there's no point to destroy us. They could literally come to earth and say "You have something that we want, Give it to us or we will destroy your civilization" and we'd have no choice but to comply. Ofcourse they could negotiate, or if they wanted a planet they could terraform their own. We already have plans for terraforming and we're nowhere near long distance space travel!!!


What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#72
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon

OK a few points on all of the above

 

- All future space combat vessels would be drones, humans would not go anywhere near combat, and computers would be able to strategize far better than we can. 

- We wouldn't "invade" planets. The use of resources to invade a planet would be huge. At most we would do small strategic placements to pick up anything we need from the surface then just destroy it from orbit. These placements would not be humanoid, they would be mechanised. 

- Unless FTL speeds are capable (via Alcubierre drive for instance) space warfare would be incredibly risky. So much so that it would rarely happen, unless you far far out number your opponent. The reason being that it would take so long to travel between solar systems you couldn't use all your ships. Due to transmission speeds, you can't really predict where people are in the universe, because you're actually looking at the past. This would result in you having to be very defensive at all times of your territory, and use scouts to watch enemy troop movements. 



#73
NightWolf235

NightWolf235

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • LocationSouth Brunswick, NJ
Alien invasions don't make sense, but alot of them make for very cool movies. I like AVATAR, it played a twist to where we were the actual invaders, invading because we desired unobtanium, which was a rare super conducting compound. Makes complete sense because we definitely would do something like that to a planet with an abundant super conductor.

 

Funny thing is, even AVATAR can be inaccurate. One thing a lot of people questioned is why make a big invasion risking soldiers. Just nuke the Hometree from orbit. Nuke all their population centers. Or at the very least send in drones rather than men and women to bleed and die.



#74
zen_mutiny

zen_mutiny

    Post-Singularitarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts
  • LocationIndiana, United States
Alien invasions don't make sense, but alot of them make for very cool movies. I like AVATAR, it played a twist to where we were the actual invaders, invading because we desired unobtanium, which was a rare super conducting compound. Makes complete sense because we definitely would do something like that to a planet with an abundant super conductor.

 

Funny thing is, even AVATAR can be inaccurate. One thing a lot of people questioned is why make a big invasion risking soldiers. Just nuke the Hometree from orbit. Nuke all their population centers. Or at the very least send in drones rather than men and women to bleed and die.

Ah, but then we wouldn't have a story now, would we? That's the problem with accurately portraying the future in science fiction. So many plot points are laid to waste by logical reasoning.

 

I vote we devote a thread to crowdsourcing a believable sci fi narrative. We can do it here, or start a new thread. I might do it myself if no one beats me to it.

 

Suggesting this makes me think of something. In the book, Present Shock, the author discusses how, in the future, even today, everything is right now. All of your friends from every stage of your life are on your Facebook page. Aided by the ubiquity of information at our fingertips, all trends are present and ongoing, everything retro is in style at the same time. Everything is now.

 

With this being said, also consider the fact that with virtual reality, all of our fantasies are fulfilled as well. We are not very far from that future. It is very possible we will attain that reality before any major breakthroughs in manned spaceflight. And even then, once we have made those breakthroughs, who will care? Who will care what some robot has done on Saturn, when they're living their dream, quite literally, having all of their wildest fantasies fulfilled at a whim in virtual reality? 

 

Historically, computer advancement in mainstream sci fi has been far less visionary than the space trravel aspects. 50 years after the debut of Star Trek, we have already surpassed the communicator and the computers on board the Starship Enterprise, but we still have not set foot on the closest planet to our own. Even its followup in the 80's, Star Trek: The Next Generation is looking dated. Why communicate using a badge on your chest for all to hear, when you can communicate "telepathically" and discreetly with no obviously visible technological apparatus involved? That reality is feasible within the next 20 years, far earlier than the aforementioned series, which takes place in the 24th century. 

 

Storytelling will have to evolve around these technological advances. Granted, the fiction of a time is a reflection of the time, displaying in hi-def glory whatever fad the public is fixated on at that particular point in human history. My goal here is to predict the next advances in fiction, which will undoubtedly be molded around whatever technological breakthroughs next become widely available to the public. 

 

In predicting that advance, we can be ahead of the curve. We can produce fiction that is far less susceptible to Zeerust, or at least has a newer, shinier coat of paint, and will last many years to come, even as the current tropes fall into disrepair and decay.

 

With this website, we have everything we need to produce great fiction that also has a great chance of accurately depicting the future. 

 

That being established, what stories can be told in the world that we see on our future timeline? What drama can unfold in a world of plenty, or a world of tumultuous  change? How will we depict those stories and still be on the cutting edge, withstanding the criticism of even the most jaded of experts?


Edited by zen_mutiny, 24 April 2013 - 05:57 PM.

  • Rkw likes this

#75
CLB

CLB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
I second that! We should start a new thread though, to make it easier.
  • Rkw likes this

If something I say sounds like trolling/being stupid/offensive, please forgive me. I'm bad with people.


#76
CamGoldenGun

CamGoldenGun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • LocationFort McMurray, AB. Canada.

I completely forgot about drones. Agreed, drones would be the "dogfighters" (whether they're remote-piloted or controlled by AI is another question).

 

 

 

I think the alcubierre drive is how long distance futuristic warp drive will be done, atleast at first, i see alot of promise there it just makes sense; expand behind contract infront. I wish more sci fi movies used this or went into depth with the way the space travel is done, rather than just say "Engage Warp drive!" It just makes the story more believable

Voyager did an episode on this I believe... Warheads with an AI and warp drive. Their conclusions for this being a pretty dumb idea are valid I believe. http://en.memory-alp...rhead_(episode)

 

Alien invasions are cool on film and as you all stated, if it did happen we'd be completely done for. But think of this as a perspective that we're the aliens and move in, not realizing those "flowers" that are growing over there are actually sentient. Depending on the level of the alien invader's civilization advancement, they may not recognize incumbent species on a planet as sentient or even if they do - worth saving.



#77
zen_mutiny

zen_mutiny

    Post-Singularitarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts
  • LocationIndiana, United States

Very well. I will start a new thread. It will be up momentarily.

 

EDIT: The new thread is up here. Please, feel free to come and share your suggestions.


Edited by zen_mutiny, 24 April 2013 - 06:25 PM.


#78
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon

It's funny, I was just checking out Star Trek warp drives the other day. They're really not that fast at all, not on the scale of shows like Stargate at least. We couldn't feasibly leave our galaxy with the technology shown in Star Trek, it would just take far too long. Makes me realise now how advanced the "Asgard" on Stargate really were. I wonder how long it will take us to get to that sort of capability travel wise. The universe is so huge.... It really is astonishing. 


  • CamGoldenGun likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users