We need to talk about "realism" in sci-fi

[MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai]

Okay this as a topic I just wanted to get out of my chest for a long time, but as a mecha fan I get increasingly iritated at coments from a vocal subset of sci-fi fans that want almost every aspect of modern sci-fi series to be as "realistic" as possible.

What I mean is when I watch some youtube clips for some mecha shows like Patlabor II you can´t help but notice that there is a sizable ammount of people that cry out how "GIANT HUMANIOD ROBOTS ARE SO UNREALISTIC, TANKS ARE SOOO MUCH BETER BLAH BLAH BLAH."

You can also see similiar comments when watching some cool clips from the Expanse, a sci-fi shows that leans toward more hard sci-fi that tries to present a more grounded universe that:

Spoiler

ironicaly also has a magical alien tech in later seasons

and most of the people while corectly praising the show for it´s cinematography and depiction also say that it´s BETTER than for example Star Wars, because it is more "REALISTIC".

This to me is an extremely ignorant worldview that excludes other excelent work´s of sci-fi that lean with their science on a more softer side, I repeat just because a work of fiction has a space magic or giant robots wielding a oversized machine guns, does not mean that it is inherently worse than other more realistic series.

 

Look guys I love the Expanse like any sci-fi geek, what I don´t want is to have every spaceship to look like this:

I want more out there sci-fi designs you know? Realism is fine and does work but scifi should be primarily about transporting us to strange new world full of wonderfull technology.

What I´m saying is that we should embrace the more "out there" side of sci-fi and stop be so ashamed of it´s pulpy history, like:

 

[Murdoch]

Complaining about a lack of realism in any form of fiction but especially sci-fi is like bitching about how wet you are after dive bombing into a pool from the top diving board. Unless the creators in some way make it clear that are trying for a more grounded and/or realistic approach for whatever reason in which case, sure, OK. But generally fiction is supposed to be exactly that, fiction. If you want reality, watch a documentary.

[Dusty_Rhodes]

2 hours ago, Murdoch said:

Complaining about a lack of realism in any form of fiction but especially sci-fi is like bitching about how wet you are after dive bombing into a pool from the top diving board. Unless the creators in some way make it clear that are trying for a more grounded and/or realistic approach for whatever reason in which case, sure, OK. But generally fiction is supposed to be exactly that, fiction. If you want reality, watch a documentary.

Absolutely agree. A work of fiction being entirely accurate to real life would be boring, tedious, and painful. Not that existence is, but fiction works because of suspension of disbelief in some way or another. Of course, some people complain about realism when they mean lack of internal logic consistency. As long is the internal realism of the fiction is solid and consistent, it's generally considered "realistic". Games that do this well are Fallout New Vegas, Morrowind, Halo CE, Far Cry 2, and Minecraft. None of these games are realistic, but they have a consistent, hard rule set they follow, so they seem "realistic".

[Daytime Waitress]

The American Dream hit the nail on the head with that there internal coherence: that is what makes enjoyable, memorable and, yes, believable fictional settings, not adherence to certain facets of reality.

 

But I do find it strange how so little pulp material (probably in the public domain) isn't just straight up mined. So we've got a zeitgeist filled with sterile, hyper-realistic cruise liners instead of dudes/chicks without space-helmets wandering the surface of Venus weilding broadswords. Truly the worst timeline.

[Murdoch]

55 minutes ago, Dusty_Rhodes said:

Games that do this well are Fallout New Vegas, Morrowind, Halo CE, Far Cry 2, and Minecraft. None of these games are realistic, but they have a consistent, hard rule set they follow, so they seem "realistic".

 

Yes, I would agree. A fictional work should maintain an inherent coherency and consistency.

[Hawk of The Crystals]

I can very much agree. We need more pulpy, yet consistent sci-fi stuff, even more within this era in which the 'subversion' has become the norm.

[hybridial]

7 hours ago, Murdoch said:

Yes, I would agree. A fictional work should maintain an inherent coherency and consistency.

 

The Disney Star Wars films fuck this up on a level that's almost hard to believe. 

 

3 hours ago, Crystal-Hawk_D00M said:

I can very much agree. We need more pulpy, yet consistent sci-fi stuff, even more within this era in which the 'subversion' has become the norm.

 

And this is where Star Trek is currently (well, at least Picard) and it's even worse. I fucking hate it. 

 

It'll be some time before I get to it but I do have a sci fi idea I want to write, without giving too much away I would consider Macross, Babylon 5 and Mass Effect to be inspirations, I've been thinking of where the balance of tone should go; I don't mind if it leans heavily into mecha and schlocky alien races. However the rules of the problem that is faced in the story would definitely need some strong internalisation given the scale of it and how much it drives the story. 

[Mr. Freeze]

Science Fiction's visual elements aren't even worth debating if whatever we're watching/playing isn't telling us something meaningful about the human condition. 

[MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

Science Fiction's visual elements aren't even worth debating if whatever we're watching/playing isn't telling us something meaningful about the human condition. 

While I agree with you that any fiction should also tell about human condition otherwise it is empty that does not mean that talking about visual elements doesn't matter since a skilled an imaginative fillmaker can use cool scifi concept to subconciously comunicate with audience.

The creature from Alien is a good example, it's a strictly fantastical monster that visualy represents rape and animalistic desirey (head shaped as a phalus, penis like tongue that "penetrates" gead of it's victims etc.)

[gwain]

just enjoy science fiction who cares about a certain group of fans

[hybridial]

27 minutes ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

While I agree with you that any fiction should also tell about human condition otherwise it is empty that does not mean that talking about visual elements doesn't matter since a skilled an imaginative fillmaker can use cool scifi concept to subconciously comunicate with audience.

 

I have one major observation on this in regards to Star Trek. In Season 1 of Picard most of the scenes involved groups of federation ships made them universal in design which was probably due to budget/laziness.

 

And maybe it seems minor but to me it really wasn't. The Federation's whole idea is acceptance of alien races different from them. They employ different classes of ship generally speaking because the different classes have different focuses, and the Defiant was cited as the "only" new ship class built expressly for combat.

 

Starfleet being comprised of varying designs sells the idea of variety and of openness, it gives the opposite feeling that seeing a fleet of Star Destroyers does; and the Star Destroyers are very on point in design and intention. 

 

Otherwise, just in terms of realism, I saw a discussion that basically said from a utilitarian perspective all space vessels would be spheres.

 

That's not very interesting to look at. And that is enough of a reason to do something else. Showmanship is important to a degree. 

[CrocMagnum]

On 3/28/2022 at 9:18 PM, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

...What I mean is when I watch some youtube clips for some mecha shows like Patlabor II you can´t help but notice that there is a sizable ammount of people that cry out how "GIANT HUMANIOD ROBOTS ARE SO UNREALISTIC, TANKS ARE SOOO MUCH BETER BLAH BLAH BLAH."...

 

On a side note I’m surprised with the remarks about Patlabor being unrealistic. It’s one of the most down to earth anime I’ve ever watched. This is a show that justifies the existence of these Mechs -the Labors- in society and make most things relatively believable.

 

There's the usual distinction between Real Robots (Gundam) and Super Robots (Mazinger) but I feel Patlabor is its own thing.

 

I still remember Chief Goto -a very crafty captain despite his deceptive looks- reprimanding his crew for their recklessness:

 

"What do you think you’re piloting? Great Mazinger? Dangaioh? For Pete’s sake, this isn’t some mecha anime whose main character is an autistic kid or some punk." (Patlabor Early Days OVA 4)

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by CrocMagnum

[Sena]

I personally think the opposite notion seems to be more common (in sci-fi and elsewhere), if a series does not entirely adhere to realism, then people will use that to ignore any criticism. But I guess it all comes down to some bizarrely common petty tribalism, where people will have a franchise they like, and adamantly defend it and refuse to acknowledge any shortcomings. And the real irony in that is that in mecha especially, most these shows usually preach against the politics and war, which is what a lot of people seem to view defending 'their' franchise as.

[7Mahonin]

If you want realism in sci-fi watch the movie Outland from 1981. It takes place in a future where mankind has ventured beyond earth, and in this case they have a mining operation on the gas giant Jupiter’s moon known as Io. Sean Connery plays Marshall O’Neil, who has been left behind by his family for his year-long tour of duty, but soon after his wife and son leave for the transport back to Earth.. something is happening to the workers. Each month the amount of workers that have died from “suicide” has risen significantly, and while I don’t want to give the plot away, it is up to the Marshall to find out what is going on, and he soon realizes he is the only one who is willing to truly do anything to stop this. It also has shotguns as the only weapon available, which is quite realistic because shotguns would honestly be the best weapon in space. So it doesn’t feel too futuristic, and is almost like high noon in space only far better. It’s much more believable than High Noon. 
 

Personally I like there to be some basis in reality with sci-fi. Let’s put it this way.. Junior is a sci-fi. A man can give birth to a child, but there is no chance they’d survive child birth. This movie makes that known, but obviously Ahhhnold isn’t going to die and he’s going to get to the choppa with his newborn baby. I think it’s still fairly believable it could happen if the tech was there, such as in real life. People can live for about a minute with their head cut off, but there is no way for doctors to put your head back on quickly enough for you to survive, yet… so I like it when sci-fi shows stuff that isn’t realistic, but very well could be long after we’re all dead and future generations are running the world. I mean, movies have done that already for decades. Total Recall, among others, sort of predicted we’d be able to do video-calls or cars that drive on their own, and that’s just two examples of many.

[Rudolph]

12 hours ago, 7Mahonin said:

If you want realism in sci-fi watch the movie Outland from 1981.

Well, except for its depiction of death by explosive decompression...

 

Still a good movie, mind you.

 

12 hours ago, 7Mahonin said:

A man can give birth to a child, but there is no chance they’d survive child birth.

That is where you are wrong! ;)

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-dads-tell-doctors-you-can-be-man-have-baby-n1006906

[Doomkid]

“Realistic” Sci-Fi can be great, 2001: a space odyssey feels pretty grounded in reality compared to some other flicks, and it’s a classic - but the idea that realism makes movies “better” strikes me as closed minded. Some of the most entertaining Sci-Fi pictures are totally unrealistic, pulpy as all Hell, and sometimes both!

 

On 3/30/2022 at 3:33 AM, gwain said:

just enjoy science fiction who cares about a certain group of fans

Well, fan feedback matters now more than ever. I think it’s a valid concern that those with the desire and means to make movies might see all this “real = good” chatter on the net and try to shape the films they’re working on accordingly, taking out the more “fun” parts in hopes of pleasing some demographic.

[cybdmn]

It is fiction first, and science second. The science in SciFi is just as the mythology etc. in fantasy, it is just a vehicle to transport a story. Best scifi always cared about a good solid story and great characters first, and the science stuff second. The realism, or better call it believability could improve the story, and depending on what you're gonna tell your audience may be even essential.

[Captain Ventris]

Yeah I agree completely. In my novels there are PLENTY of hard scifi elements, but I never dedicated myself to realism. The story always comes first, and a little space magic never hurt anyone.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Captain Ventris

[Liberation]

Realism in scifi is pretty hard to do, since we don't actually know half of it.

Case in point, what happens to the human body during explosive decompression, since it's not actually happened yet, we can only really speculate, hence why everyone does it differently.. Common consensus atm seems to be you will be unconscious within 15 seconds and dead within 30 seconds, at which point your body will bloat due to a lack of pressure.

But a 2nd case is rotating hull sections in space ships providing a artificial gravity for the crew.