Science Fiction; books, tv, films and games.

[Kaamos_Llama]

Forum seems to be moderating itself again. Gold stars all round.

I dont think there has been any disrespect in this thread so far towards religion or each other, so I dont see a problem. No rules have been broken.

However I think we should keep references general in the same way we try to with politics to avoid any unnecessary friction. And we definitely dont need a thread dedicated to debating religion or politics.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

The question, "How did life begin" isn't answered by, "It began on Mars." If we find a remnant of life on Mars, I'm not sure that actually tells us anything.

I know this might be a little off-the-wall and not exactly in line with what you guys were talking about, but what if people have it backwards when they talk about trying to find life on Mars? What if they're thinking in the wrong direction? Here's a thought. Through a mixture of the sun growing bigger and its gravity very slowly pulling the planets closer (very slowly), maybe at one point Venus was the planet that was in the perfect position for life. Then everything got pulled in, and the earth took over that place. If that's the case, then maybe we shouldn't expect to find life on Mars yet because it's going to be the next habitable planet way down the road when the earth isn't habitable anymore.

 

[ipman]

We don't need to start a new thread, and I'm not going to continue derailing this one. I've just noticed a trend of people basically calling people who believe in God stupid, and I just don't think that's a good mindset or attitude to have. But it wasn't just this thread, and I'm sorry I chose your thread to finally say something.

That's alright @WoodenSaucer , I actually think the main benefit of religious teachings was to elevate Humans in terms of morality. Much of that coming from the ten commandments.

So in a way that aspect does fit with this thread as a human society that is working at a higher level of morality is more likely to be a utopia for all.

 

[ipman]

Why do you think humans have dreamed of or speculated about alien life for so long?

It's seems to have been an idea that has been around for millenia. Is it because humans don't want to be unique and alone in the cosmos, and are desperate for meaning . Some seem to believe that contact will change life on Earth in terms of rapid advancement in technology, bringing about a new evolution. Of course the belief in alien life has gained more traction through Sci Fi.

I mean as far as I know there is absolutely no evidence that alien life exists elsewhere, although many theories surround such things as the Nazca drawings and early structures. Humans even send out probes referencing our DNA, Tech and culture, and search the cosmos through advanced telescopes and audio signals.

I personally think life on Earth is very unique and if life on another planet was found it would be so completely different that we not recognise it as such.(just take the coronavirus, it's RNA structure means it can't replicate itself and requires a host).

There are a few images in Sci Fi which should stand as a warning. The military in colaboration with tech industries are making rapid progress in developing autonomous warring robots which will and are changing the nature of warfare. So when war robots are being constructed in factories by robots, they may prove to be our greatest threat.

And the military have always been at the forefront of advancing technology, it's always given one country the edge over another.

Aloy discovers the true nature of the Zero Dawn project in HZD.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuvfj3HwXT4&ab_channel=dekett

 

[Alm]

I agree that robots are likely to enter war in the future. I think to get a Skynet scenario they would have to get an AI run hive mind that also has become self aware, or at least anti-human. Hopefully the films will make people pause before trying to go down that route. I would not be surprised if other countries didn't have the same concern of consequence as you and I.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Why do you think humans have dreamed of or speculated about alien life for so long?

It's seems to have been an idea that has been around for millenia. Is it because humans don't want to be unique and alone in the cosmos, and are desperate for meaning . Some seem to believe that contact will change life on Earth in terms of rapid advancement in technology, bringing about a new evolution. Of course the belief in alien life has gained more traction through Sci Fi.

One interesting thing is that there are Native American cave paintings from thousands of years ago that look very similar to how some people who have never seen those paintings have described aliens in the past century. I think it's possible that something is out there. But personally, I don't believe these UFO and alien encounters are beings from other planets many lightyears away. We could talk about the possibility of wormholes and such things, but I still think there are better explanations. I have my own thoughts on the matter, which I won't get into, other than to say, what if rather than being from other planets, they are from another dimension that is parallel to ours?

I haven't followed this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned. But if you have any interest in UFOlogy, there is an awesome drama series that is on Peacock, called Project Blue Book. They only made 2 seasons before it was cancelled, but it's an awesome show. It's a fictionalized show that is based on the actual cases of Dr. J. Allen Hynek from the Air Force's Project Blue Book, looking into UFO sightings in the 1950s. I'm about to finish it up and watch the last episode tonight.

 

[ipman]

One interesting thing is that there are Native American cave paintings from thousands of years ago that look very similar to how some people who have never seen those paintings have described aliens in the past century. I think it's possible that something is out there. But personally, I don't believe these UFO and alien encounters are beings from other planets many lightyears away. We could talk about the possibility of wormholes and such things, but I still think there are better explanations. I have my own thoughts on the matter, which I won't get into, other than to say, what if rather than being from other planets, they are from another dimension that is parallel to ours?

I haven't followed this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned. But if you have any interest in UFOlogy, there is an awesome drama series that is on Peacock, called Project Blue Book. They only made 2 seasons before it was cancelled, but it's an awesome show. It's a fictionalized show that is based on the actual cases of Dr. J. Allen Hynek from the Air Force's Project Blue Book, looking into UFO sightings in the 1950s. I'm about to finish it up and watch the last episode tonight.

It is bizarre isn't it the amount of literature, films, tv series , documentaries, speculation and claims of sightings there have been dedicated to UFO's and aliens over the years. I wonder if the US would prefer the sightings released by the Pentagon to be extraterrestrial rather than advanced Russion or Chinese missiles.

Navy pilot's footage

I'm fascinated by how aliens and alien civilisations that no one knows for sure exists have been imagined by humans. The sheer number, some having human form, like aliens were anthropomorphized, but many not as well.

One of my favourite depictions of an alien was in a film called Stargate and they weaved that together with how advanced Egypt was in 2500 BC.(silly fun)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFnVG-NFvbo&ab_channel=HoliDay

 

[Alm]

I love the film Stargate. I felt that the TV series didn't have the same vibe and that put me off it. But most people I've spoken to prefer the series as they watched that first.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

About good sci-fi shows, did anyone see the Amazon show called Night Sky? That was a great show, and I'm bummed they canceled it after one season.

If anyone watched Outer Range with Josh Brolin, they finally picked it up for a second season. It's a great Western/Sci-Fi show.

 

[ipman]

@WoodenSaucer I haven't seen Night Sky but after watching the trailer I can see how it may influence your thinking as to how they may travel.

I think if you think about human explorers on Earth, travelling in small wooden boats across vast wild oceans and encountering civilisations or almost 'alien' tribes, then space travel is just an extension of that human need to explore further.

Also in much Sci Fi aliens are often portrayed in that binary way, some good many dangerous, but sometimes just as a singer as in the Fifth Element>

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnTE2h0ZY74&ab_channel=ScreenThemes

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Mila Jovovic back then 🔥🔥🔥

 

[ipman]

Mila Jovovic back then 🔥🔥🔥

Her and her Jean Paul Gaultier bandages. I think Sigourney Weaver in Alien film deserves a mention.

 

[ipman]

Quick let's get this back on track

One point that's often made about the Star Trek series is how the crew were diverse , and knowing that 'NASA hired actress Nichelle Nichols... to embark on a four-month recruiting campaign across the country' to encourage women and different minorities to apply to become astronauts of the future is significant.

So there was a Vulcan, Lt Uhuru, Scotty who although played by a Canadian represented Scotland because Doohan believed the best enginers came from there, Chekov represented Russia and Sulu who represented the Asian community and LGBTQ community.

 

[Brian Boru]

let's get this back on track

Ah boo, why? This tangent looks much more wholesome than the last one

Scotland because Doohan believed the best enginers came from there

Ding ding, Watt was he thinking? Germany, surely…

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I didnt watch much of TOS, but was Sulu openly gay in the show, or was George Takei out at that time?

 

[ipman]

I didnt watch much of TOS, but was Sulu openly gay in the show, or was George Takei out at that time?

I think it was like an open secret because of the times. But he became an activist for rights. I was just thinking that while rich white men seem to be the ones boldly going these days, Star Trek promoted a sort of galactic democracy.

Family Guy often reference Star Wars Sulu

 

[ipman]

So USS Callister was in some ways a satire of Star Trek but also a look at the mind of a megalomaniac programmer, Robert Daly. Seen as creepy by his co workers he steals their DNA and clones them into his virtual domain.

When he clones co worker Nanette Cole into his game she refuses to yield and encourages the other virtual clones to overthrow Daly and they trap him in the game. Disturbing satire, Black Mirror.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgTtyfgzGc0&ab_channel=Netflix

 

[SleepingDog]

I think it was like an open secret because of the times. But he became an activist for rights. I was just thinking that while rich white men seem to be the ones boldly going these days, Star Trek promoted a sort of galactic democracy.

Family Guy often reference Star Wars Sulu

I watched TOS in the 1970s and 1980s and I was not aware that GT was gay so it may of been "an open secret" but there are at least a few of us that did not know it.

If we go off on a tangent I seem to recall that GT spoke recently about his talk with Gene Roddenberry. It was around the issue of internment of Japanese- Americans in WW2 and how badly they were treated. GR was sympathetic but told him that he could not do a show about it as he was having to deal with the fallout associated with the famous on-screen kiss. There was a limit how far GR felt he could go and not have the programme "cancelled". Perhaps this may of been a reason that there were no gay coupes in TOS?

 

[ipman]

I watched TOS in the 1970s and 1980s and I was not aware that GT was gay so it may of been "an open secret" but there are at least a few of us that did not know it.

If we go off on a tangent I seem to recall that GT spoke recently about his talk with Gene Roddenberry. It was around the issue of internment of Japanese- Americans in WW2 and how badly they were treated. GR was sympathetic but told him that he could not do a show about it as he was having to deal with the fallout associated with the famous on-screen kiss. There was a limit how far GR felt he could go and not have the programme "cancelled". Perhaps this may of been a reason that there were no gay coupes in TOS?

It doesn't really matter, I just had read this, 'Invited by both the Asian-American and Pacific Islander and the LGBTQ Employee Resource Groups, Takei spoke of leadership and inclusiveness, including overcoming challenges while in Japanese-American internment camps during World War II and as a member of the LGBTQ community. He noted that Star Trek was ahead of its time in creating a future when all members of society could participate equally in great undertakings, at a time when the country was struggling through the Civil Rights movement and the conflict in Southeast Asia. Takei was greatly inspired by the inclusiveness that is part of NASA’s culture'.

It's just when you think of that time, actors like Nichelle Nichols and George Takei showed that the future in the year 2265 crews on Starships would be made up of people from across the Earth and beyond. It just showed that it was progressive for it's time and was thinking ahead. And how NASA embraced that.

Okay from George Takei interview, George suggested to GR as the show had dealt with many social issues and had he considered the gay issue. GR responded that he'd like to do that 'but was walking a tightrope' after the interracial kiss, and he didn't want the show cancelled. Times have changed but Star Trek was pushing at boundaries.

George Takei interview

 

[SleepingDog]

You are missing the point - to me and my social group we were not aware of the civil liberties thing. It may of been an open secret in your social group - but not mine. You can not make a statement for me.

I also know that our memories tend to be selective and that we tend to re-write history to our best advantage (I believe it is regarded as a survival trait).

It was a move in the right direction, with hindsight, but participate equally? Really? I remember the main characters being Kirk, Spock, and Bones. Look at that white and male. A bit of Scotty - the rest supporting actors.

 

[ipman]

You are missing the point - to me and my social group we were not aware of the civil liberties thing. It may of been an open secret in your social group - but not mine. You can not make a statement for me.

I also know that our memories tend to be selective and that we tend to re-write history to our best advantage (I believe it is regarded as a survival trait).

It was a move in the right direction, with hindsight, but participate equally? Really? I remember the main characters being Kirk, Spock, and Bones. Look at that white and male. A bit of Scotty - the rest supporting actors.

I wasn't aware that Star Trek was addressing as many social issues as it was at that time. It didn't cross my mind that casting Nichelle Nichols as Nyota Uhura was controversial or that GR used her character to represent the African continent. I was a boy and just took it at face value.

Who would have thought that Sci Fi could be pushing so many social boundaries, but as it's set in the future it is in many ways the perfect cultural form to do that.

So one of my original premises was, 'It's culture that drives change in societies and the way we humans think collectively'. That's based on my studies of culture as a progressive force for humanity.

Hikaru Sulu wasn't portrayed as gay and George Takei hadn't admitted his sexuality. It never crossed my mind to think about the characters sexuality except that maybe Kirk was a lothario.

So yes I'm looking back retospectively, and when I say that it was an 'open secret' that Gerge Takei was gay, I mean among his circle of friends and maybe a few actors.

Just like many male actors who were gay had to hide it to get roles that required men to to inhabit the macho construct to get parts in tv and films. The fact that he discussed addressing the 'gay issue' with GR suggests he was not really trying to hide it, but wanted to bring it to the mainstream.

I think in the same way that casting Nichelle Nichols was viewed as a breakthrough by the African American community, when George Takei admitted his sexuality that was seen as a breakthrough for the gay community, just as his ethnicity had been seen as a breakthrough because that was obvious.

Of course later as tribute to George Takei, in 'Star Trek Beyond' Sulu is portrayed as a gay character by John Cho.
Although George Takei reportedly wasn't happy about that as it in many ways it reflected the fact that he had to hide his own sexuality for so long.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Hikaru Sulu wasn't portrayed as gay and George Takei hadn't admitted his sexuality. It never crossed my mind to think about the characters sexuality except that maybe Kirk was a lothario.

I kind of wish we could get back to that. It seems like today, they have to force sexuality into everything, and sometimes it really just doesn't matter. Back then you didn't have to care about Sulu's sexuality because that's not what his character was about. And I'm not talking about keeping homosexuality out of everything. I'm saying not everything needs to have sex in any way forced into it. There are other things about life.

 

[ipman]

I kind of wish we could get back to that. It seems like today, they have to force sexuality into everything, and sometimes it really just doesn't matter. Back then you didn't have to care about Sulu's sexuality because that's not what his character was about. And I'm not talking about keeping homosexuality out of everything. I'm saying not everything needs to have sex in any way forced into it. There are other things about life.

I think it depends on your perspective. So when Star Trek was made the norm generally was heterosexual white male and female characters playing standard roles and following standard plot lines.
Which means that not only did those from ethnic minorities and LGBTQ not feel repesented they also felt that they were being excluded from aspiring to say become a member of a star ship crew.

Also producers of tv, films and games want the whole population to be intereted in and buy their products. You really see this in many games now, more inclusivity and diversity.

So if you look at it from a woman's perspective, an ethnic minority perspective, or a gay person's perspective then being represented is very important. And GR showed how progressive he was and so did NASA.
NASA and other companies also want to employ the most talented people from a larger pool as possible and get their unique input.

It's not really that sexulality variations are being forced (although I understand why you might think that), it's just that gay people are no longer being criminalised, excluded, or being made to feel they should be ashamed of who they are. It's termed 'the rise of the repressed'.

Two important things that have unexpectedly appeared in this thread. Everyone should respect other people's belief systems and other people's differences from the old norms(incl: sexulality) should also be respected.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Two important things that have unexpectedly appeared in this thread. Everyone should respect other people's belief systems and other people's differences from the old norms(incl: sexulality) should also be respected.

Absolutely. But you don't get what I'm saying. I wasn't even talking specifically about homosexuality. What I'm saying is that sex and/or sexuality, in general, isn't needed to be a part of things as much as it is, whether that's heterosexual, or whatever. Sexuality wasn't Sulu's character's purpose, no matter what his sexuality may have been behind the scenes. We didn't need to know or care because that wasn't the purpose his character served. We don't have to sexualize everything. Some people can just be people when it comes to entertainment. It's fine if someone else's character does serve that purpose, but we don't need everything sexualized all the time. I just feel like in the wake of sexual freedom, we're overcompensating and swinging to the other end of the pendulum. Sometimes a little balance is good.

 

[ipman]

Absolutely. But you don't get what I'm saying. I wasn't even talking specifically about homosexuality. What I'm saying is that sex and/or sexuality, in general, isn't needed to be a part of things as much as it is, whether that's heterosexual, or whatever. Sexuality wasn't Sulu's character's purpose, no matter what his sexuality may have been behind the scenes. We didn't need to know or care because that wasn't the purpose his character served. We don't have to sexualize everything. Some people can just be people when it comes to entertainment. It's fine if someone else's character does serve that purpose, but we don't need everything sexualized all the time. I just feel like in the wake of sexual freedom, we're overcompensating and swinging to the other end of the pendulum. Sometimes a little balance is good.

I don't think that sex is often shown in films or tv until recently, unless it was a film exploring that like Fellini's Casanova.
But attractive female and male characters being sexualised has been one of the main promotional hooks used by creators and directors for decades.
Also remember sex is instrumental to life, so omitting reference to it seems prudish.

Which sort of programmes or films are you thinking of?

While you consider here's Barbarella, including the Orgasmatron.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXVUva_q1SY&ab_channel=ChiefScheider