Should they make sci fi more accessible to the mainstream?

[CmdrShep2183]

The people who watch NCIS are supposed to be the pro military type people. What would they think of a spaceship show about a badass military commander fighting aliens and evil humans?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvqYN2RJfVA

I loved The Expanse but can't see the mainstream getting into it.

The NYT ran an article about how TV viewers reflect our cultural differences. Urban viewers preferred Modern Family while rural people preferred Duck Dynasty and The Walking Dead. Perhaps people are not interested in space.

[Celestia]

They did. It's called "Star Wars."

[BWR]

What she said.

SF and fantasy are more mainstream and popular than they have ever been. How much more mainstream do you want it?

[Hopeless]

Makes me wonder how they'd handle a series like Babylon V now?

Start off small have it be about a ship trying to earn their keep travelling across say the French Arm of a Traveller 2300 setting and eventually reveal there's a lot we don't know about our past and our future is dependent on learning from the mistakes of our past before we end up having no future!

If Rogue One looks more like a d6 game coming to its climax then what we need is a Matt Mercer running a Traveller campaign set in the Mass Effect Universe!

Seriously there are Fate based games already and with even Pathfinder about to release a science fiction version entitles Starfinder its hardly that unlikely there's another science fiction series due!!

[Aotrs Commander]

I would prefer they just made Good Things and if they happen to become popular, so much the better.

Trying to pander to the lowest common denominator (i.e. to make the most money) is why there has been so little Hollywood has released (with a few rare exception like Pacific Rim - or the new round of Star Wars) that is not an adaption of something else in the last decade or two, for one. (Also, see the computer game industry.)



Though frankly, I would settle for somethning with some PROPER FRAGGING STARSHIP BATTLES IN IT, since neither the scale of Shadow Raider's fighter combat (a nominally children's CGI animation) nor the intensity of Babylon 5's capital ship engagements have been even equalled in TWENTY FRACKING YEARS. And that is as damning an inditement as I can make.

[Celestia]

What she said.

SF and fantasy are more mainstream and popular than they have ever been. How much more mainstream do you want it?
Kinda hard to get more mainstream than "most culturally important movie ever made in the history of cinema." *nods*

[CmdrShep2183]

What she said.

SF and fantasy are more mainstream and popular than they have ever been. How much more mainstream do you want it?

We still don't have a HBO quality space opera that is just as big as Game of Thrones.

[Darth Ultron]

Perhaps people are not interested in space.

It will still take another generation, maybe two, for Sci Fi to loose it's stigma as ''dumb stuff for little kids''. So at least a couple more years.

Sci Fi got tagged with the ''kid stuff'' label and ''mainstream'' will not drop the idea.

People like interesting things, but sadly most ''mainstream'' people just go all ''oh it's dumb kid stuff'' when they see an alien or space ship. Though most people born in the last couple decides have a different idea...and once the old guard is gone, then it won't matter.

[CmdrShep2183]

It will still take another generation, maybe two, for Sci Fi to loose it's stigma as ''dumb stuff for little kids''. So at least a couple more years.

Sci Fi got tagged with the ''kid stuff'' label and ''mainstream'' will not drop the idea.

People like interesting things, but sadly most ''mainstream'' people just go all ''oh it's dumb kid stuff'' when they see an alien or space ship. Though most people born in the last couple decides have a different idea...and once the old guard is gone, then it won't matter.

That is ****ing stupid! Is it the fault of Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars? I still love SW and GOTG.

[Aotrs Commander]

People like interesting things, but sadly most ''mainstream'' people just go all ''oh it's dumb kid stuff'' when they see an alien or space ship. Though most people born in the last couple decides have a different idea...and once the old guard is gone, then it won't matter.

The popularity of stuff like Star Wars (esp. Force Awakens), the superhero movies (which is sort of close to scifi and, if anything, had more of that attitude directed towards it) and even fantasy, which also got tarred by that brush rather in ages past, suggests that kinda did already happen with that paricular attitude.

It would seem rather that is more that superheroes are the "in" thing at the moment (and have been for the past decade or so). Whether TFA and such will start a new round of scifi is an open question. (Hollywood might be more inclined to think about it, given thta success. Heck, there is that one with the cold-sleep passenger ship and Mystique and Starlord being advertised; though granted, it looks pretty terrible (but perhaps in more keeping with "traditional sci-fi" mas opposed to the "starships shootin' each other" sort of scifi)...

[dps]

Just look at the lists of movies released in the last few years. Just by volume, SF couldn't be more mainstream.

Now if you're talking literary SF, that might be a different issue. But even there, if you look at Fantasy and SF rather than just SF, the volume is pretty impressive (though I will admit that the sales figures, rather than just the number of titles published, is weighted heavily toward Fantasy rather than SF). But the real problem with literary SF becoming mainstream is that people read so little any more that I'm not sure that any adult literature is really mainstream nowadays.

[Darth Ultron]

That is ****ing stupid! Is it the fault of Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars? I still love SW and GOTG.

It is not the ''fault'' of SW and GOTG, they are just the modern examples of ''Sci Fi is silly stuff for kids''. Of course both of them are now Disney...and Disney only makes stuff for kids.


The popularity of stuff like Star Wars (esp. Force Awakens), the superhero movies (which is sort of close to scifi and, if anything, had more of that attitude directed towards it) and even fantasy, which also got tarred by that brush rather in ages past, suggests that kinda did already happen with that paricular attitude.

That stuff puts it close. But there are still a huge chunk of the ''mainstream people'' that will never, ever give it a chance. Basically it comes down to: if you saw Star Wars as a kid. You can peg 1970 or so. If you were born after 1970, then you most likely think of Sci Fi as Mainstream. Any one older won't even give it a chance.

But the pre 1970's folks time is just about over....they have a couple more years of power and control, but then they will be gone. Then the guy that watched The Sound of Music in a drive in and thinks noting can ever come close to that movie.....will be replaced by a guy that saw Star Wars in a normal theater and grew up with the movies and toys and culture.



It would seem rather that is more that superheroes are the "in" thing at the moment (and have been for the past decade or so)....

But, Sadly, Super Heroes will always be kids stuff to the older generations. When they think ''super hero'' they are thinking '60's Batman were the Bookworm trapped Batman in a giant book..yuck..yuck.

[WhovianBeast]

I'd say the general corniness, often ridiculous plotlines, and terrible special effects of many seasons of what are likely the some of the largest sci-fi shows ever (Star Trek and Doctor Who) have majorly contributed to this. Some people saw these shows as kids, thought "sci-fi=wacky+corny formulaic fantasy kid's stuff" and haven't given it a second thought, even though many other people have seen them and actually gotten into them. This probably explains the love for the dozens of crime shows (Sherlock, NCIS, CSI, Law and Order, Blue Bloods, Dexter, The Mentalist, Elementary, Rizzoli and Isles, Castle, etc) not to mention the endless spinoffs of successful shows) many adults seem to have, as they see these equally formulaic shows as being more entertaining simply because of the murder, blood, grit, "reality" displayed.

If you want to make sci-fi in general more accessible, try to cut down on the invented words. Really drives people away when they need to look up every other noun.

[Cespenar]

If you want to make sci-fi in general more accessible, try to cut down on the invented words. Really drives people away when they need to look up every other noun.

Technobabble in corny scifi is surely a turn-off, but in others, a single made up word can make up for a lot of world-building even if the author doesn't go and explain it. See Gibson's most stuff, or things as simple as "soykaf" or "recaff" (from Shadowrun and WH40K respectively).

[Peelee]

It is not the ''fault'' of SW and GOTG, they are just the modern examples of ''Sci Fi is silly stuff for kids''. Of course both of them are now Disney...and Disney only makes stuff for kids.

Tron: Legacy. Prince of Persia. National Treasure. The Lone Ranger. None made as kids movies. None marketed as kids movies.

[Lethologica]

I would prefer they just made Good Things and if they happen to become popular, so much the better.

Trying to pander to the lowest common denominator (i.e. to make the most money) is why there has been so little Hollywood has released (with a few rare exception like Pacific Rim - or the new round of Star Wars) that is not an adaption of something else in the last decade or two, for one. (Also, see the computer game industry.)
Blockbusters, practically by definition, have to have broad appeal, and therefore have to appeal ('pander') to some common denominator. The only way to get an original property blockbuster is if there is some other known successful quantity leading the way.

Disney can make original blockbusters. James Cameron and Christopher Nolan can make original blockbusters. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney combined can lead an original blockbuster. Most everyone else can either make smaller movies, or make sequels and adaptations.

Lots of people just make Good Things. They generally don't become popular (by blockbuster standards) because you can't beat the things engineered to be popular without doing that engineering yourself--at least not by popularity metrics. There exist just enough exceptions to prove the rule.


We still don't have a HBO quality space opera that is just as big as Game of Thrones.
Westworld. And I see our friendly neighborhood bot, who has learned to reply, still hasn't been programmed with a memory...


The popularity of stuff like Star Wars (esp. Force Awakens), the superhero movies (which is sort of close to scifi and, if anything, had more of that attitude directed towards it) and even fantasy, which also got tarred by that brush rather in ages past, suggests that kinda did already happen with that paricular attitude.

It would seem rather that is more that superheroes are the "in" thing at the moment (and have been for the past decade or so). Whether TFA and such will start a new round of scifi is an open question. (Hollywood might be more inclined to think about it, given thta success. Heck, there is that one with the cold-sleep passenger ship and Mystique and Starlord being advertised; though granted, it looks pretty terrible (but perhaps in more keeping with "traditional sci-fi" mas opposed to the "starships shootin' each other" sort of scifi)...
I'd call Passengers a stumble for any hypothetical new wave of traditional SF. On the other hand, Arrival is still in theaters. We're only a year removed from The Martian and Ex Machina, too.


Tron: Legacy. Prince of Persia. National Treasure. The Lone Ranger. None made as kids movies. None marketed as kids movies.
Well...let's say it's not an accident that Tron: Legacy and National Treasure are rated PG. But yes, Disney does have a broader audience than it used to.

[DavidSh]

We still don't have a HBO quality space opera that is just as big as Game of Thrones.



Westworld. And I see our friendly neighborhood bot, who has learned to reply, still hasn't been programmed with a memory...


Not what most SF fans would call "space opera". Not much evidence it isn't set on Earth. Maybe "robotic horse opera".

[Tvtyrant]

Scifi was mainstream between 1980 and through the 2000s. Star Trek, Dr. WHO, back to the future, the matrix, robocop, the terminator, mad max, firefly, etc. Its position has declined in the same way that the 90s and 2000s vampire and zombie craze has, or dinosaurs.

Just look at the change in slang over time. When was the last time someone said "far out!" Aironically?

[Peelee]

Scifi was mainstream between 1980 and through the 2000s. Star Trek, Dr. WHO, back to the future, the matrix, robocop, the terminator, mad max, firefly, etc. Its position has declined in the same way that the 90s and 2000s vampire and zombie craze has, or dinosaurs.

Yeah. Shows like Star Trek TOS, Star Wars, and Dr. Who were pretty unpopular before the 80-2000s period.

[Tvtyrant]

Yeah. Shows like Star Trek TOS, Star Wars, and Dr. Who were pretty unpopular before the 80-2000s period.

I do believe you missed my point entirely. Things go in and out of style, and there is no control over it. When I was a kid ninjas were unbelievably popular, and were shoehorned into things that they have no place in. Now they are out of style, while teens running through mazes is very trendy (or was up until 6 months ago?)

Sci-Fi has been trendy before, and it will be again, it just isn't right now.

[BRC]

How are you defining Sci-Fi?

Looking at the Top Box Office list on Rotten Tomatoes, out of the ten movies, three of them could reasonably be considered "Sci-Fi" by some common definitions, Rouge-One, Passengers, and Assassin's Creed. Of those, Rouge-One is really more "Space Fantasy', and Assasin's Creed mainly uses pseudoscience as a framing device, but they still count. Passengers is billed as a romance/drama, but it's very much a science-fiction romance/drama, right down to it's basic premise.

Looking at popular TV, of the top 10 I see Westworld, Black Mirror, and Travelers, another 3 sci-fi shows.

Sci-Fi is very much in the mainstream.


What I think we're dealing with is kind of the opposite, the thought that "Sci-Fi" and "Mainstream" are inherently EXCLUSIVE categories.

I once heard a story about a literature teacher who argued that there were no great science-fiction novels. When a student countered by bringing up Slaughterhouse Five, the teacher replied that Slaughterhouse Five was not "Sci-fi", but "Literature", as if it's greatness elevated it beyond "Mere" Genre fiction.

And I think we have a habit of seeing sci-fi shows and movies in the same way, but from the other direction. Weird shows about space and lasers designed for a niche audience, separate from "Mainstream" media. Hipster-Nerds that we are, carving out a separate category for media that only we are enlightened enough to enjoy. "our" Sci-Fi and fantasy shows, vs "Mainstream" Shows that might happen to be set in the future/dealing with advanced science and technology.


"The Expanse" is really only not a "Mainstream" show because it's on SyFy, a niche channel that markets itself to niche nerd audiences. Because of that, the show spends more time than it otherwise would dealing with the worldbuilding bits and pieces of life in space, stuff that the nerdy "Niche" audience enjoys. If you had a different channel make The Expanse, you would have a very similar show. Perhaps more screentime for character drama, less focus on how low-gravity has affected people, but mostly unchanged.

Heck, I think you could put The Expanse, exactly as it is today, on HBO or something, and it would become wrapped into the "Mainstream", its worldbuilding is hardly less complicated than that of Game of Thrones, which is a massive hit.


Edit: This is using the more general, popular definition of "Sci-Fi" (Stuff like Star Trek), as opposed to the much more stringent "Hard Science Fiction" label, in which the work itself is primarily concerned with exploring the ramifications of some realistic, or semi-realistic, technological advancement, as opposed to "Adventures in Space with Lasers". Hard-Science Fiction is mostly about looking at the present, then writing about a possible future that could very easily come true.

I guess the Expanse counts, it's fantastical elements are pretty slim, but it's focus is really more on the drama and mystery than on exploring how people might live in space.

[Peelee]

I do believe you missed my point entirely. Things go in and out of style, and there is no control over it. When I was a kid ninjas were unbelievably popular, and were shoehorned into things that they have no place in. Now they are out of style, while teens running through mazes is very trendy (or was up until 6 months ago?)

Sci-Fi has been trendy before, and it will be again, it just isn't right now.

I did indeed. Sorry!

[WhovianBeast]

I'd count at least the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and perhaps the rest of the series) as a great sci-fi book. Maybe not the most intellectually stimulating or the 'deepest' of books, but certainly hilarious and detailed. And what about the Michael Crichton books? Prey? Jurassic Park? Micro? The Lost World? The Andromeda Strain?


Speaking of TV, what of the shows that have been showing up like Intelligence, Limitless, and especially Person of Interest? Those are all based around a science fiction 'gimmick' but are set in 'the real world'. Are they considered sci-fi?

[Lethologica]

Not what most SF fans would call "space opera". Not much evidence it isn't set on Earth. Maybe "robotic horse opera".
Heh. Well, he can have everything space-opera-adjacent, from Westworld to Interstellar to Arrival to Gravity to Avatar to The Martian, even bona fide space opera in nuTrek and Star Wars and The Expanse, and complain that they haven't remade Babylon V or gotten anywhere with that Mass Effect adaptation they were planning, but he'll be doing himself a disservice.

[A.A.King]

Apart from the obvious points that there already exists some pretty famous and mainstream Sci Fi, what would "making it more accessible to the mainstream" even entail? Surely when you like something that isn't considered mainstream you don't want to make it more mainstream? I mean, surely (one of) the reason(s) that what you like isn't mainstream is because the thing that you like isn't liked by most people? It would be nice if more people liked what you liked but to make the Show/Genre that you like more accessible would probably require losing parts that you like to make sure that other people who don't like it now will like it then, and who would like that?

[Rodin]

How are you defining Sci-Fi?

Looking at the Top Box Office list on Rotten Tomatoes, out of the ten movies, three of them could reasonably be considered "Sci-Fi" by some common definitions, Rouge-One, Passengers, and Assassin's Creed. Of those, Rouge-One is really more "Space Fantasy', and Assasin's Creed mainly uses pseudoscience as a framing device, but they still count. Passengers is billed as a romance/drama, but it's very much a science-fiction romance/drama, right down to it's basic premise.



I'm curious as to your definition of Space Fantasy for Rogue One. The original trilogy fits for sure - space peasant gets a magical space sword and learns space magic to confront the evil overlord. Rogue One barely features the Force and fits far more comfortably into the War Movie genre - outside of the events taking place in space, you could easily have told the same plot in a World War II setting. Most of the plot elements match up with classics like the Guns of Navarone or The Dirty Dozen - ragtag bunch of commandos infiltrating deep into enemy territory to help destroy an important military installation.

[BRC]

I'm curious as to your definition of Space Fantasy for Rogue One. The original trilogy fits for sure - space peasant gets a magical space sword and learns space magic to confront the evil overlord. Rogue One barely features the Force and fits far more comfortably into the War Movie genre - outside of the events taking place in space, you could easily have told the same plot in a World War II setting. Most of the plot elements match up with classics like the Guns of Navarone or The Dirty Dozen - ragtag bunch of commandos infiltrating deep into enemy territory to help destroy an important military installation.

Fair enough, I'm used to classifying all of Star Wars as "Space Fantasy", that I didn't really think about whether that label applied to Rogue One on it's own.

I guess it's "Space Fantasy" in that it's setting is Space Fantasy, and there is a bit of on-screen Space Magic at the end?

To me anyway "Space Fantasy" is any setting/story that uses the trappings of science-fiction purely for visual aesthetic, with absolutely zero interest in the whole "Exploring this potential future" thing.

Science Fiction: Our guns shoot Lasers because in the future we think that portable energy weapons will be more effective than ballistic weapons, and whether or not it's a big focus, we're going to acknowledge that these energy weapons are distinct from conventional firearms. For example, Firefly's Laser gun being a battery-powered weapon that fired a steady beam, or setting phasers to overload in Star Trek.
Space Fantasy: Our guns shoot lasers because it looks cool. Pew Pew Pew.


Now, this isn't to describe Space Fantasy stuff as "Lesser" than Science Fiction. Sure, technically Star Trek does explore some of the unique situations created by a spacefaring civilization (First contact with non-space faring species, transporter malfunctions, holodecks ect), but 90% of the time that's just a framing device to get us to the action or drama of the episode, and let us enjoy the Fantasy of being a starship captain shooting lasers at evil robots or whatever. In fact, Space Fantasy is often more honest. A lot of harder sci-fi bills itself as some sort of speculative fiction thought experiment, but then gleefully throws logic away in the name of having fun and indulging in the fantastical.

Because, when you get down to it, lasers are cool. Pew Pew Pew.

Star Wars explicitly takes place in the Past, there is no pretense of "One day, this may be our future". It has as much implied connection to our world as Westeros or the forgotten realms.

[Peelee]

To me anyway "Space Fantasy" is any setting/story that uses the trappings of science-fiction purely for visual aesthetic, with absolutely zero interest in the whole "Exploring this potential future" thing.

Science Fiction: Our guns shoot Lasers because in the future we think that portable energy weapons will be more effective than ballistic weapons, and whether or not it's a big focus, we're going to acknowledge that these energy weapons are distinct from conventional firearms. For example, Firefly's Laser gun being a battery-powered weapon that fired a steady beam, or setting phasers to overload in Star Trek.
Space Fantasy: Our guns shoot lasers because it looks cool. Pew Pew Pew.

I've always thought of Science Fiction as any fiction that requires technology not yet existing as a main component to the story. Space Fantasy et al. are just subsets in the science fiction umbrella.

Many people may not agree with me, but it's one of the simplest explanations I know of, and draws a clear line of inclusion.

[BRC]

I've always thought of Science Fiction as any fiction that requires technology not yet existing as a main component to the story. Space Fantasy et al. are just subsets in the science fiction umbrella.

Many people may not agree with me, but it's one of the simplest explanations I know of, and draws a clear line of inclusion.
Me too, but it gets confusing trying to come up with different names for everything, since a lot of the sub-terms (Space fantasy, "Hard' Sci-fi, ect) are just used to differentiate that particular style from some, not-yet-agreed upon "Standard" Science Fiction.


If it has technology we don't yet have, it's Science Fiction.
If it's science fiction, but it's just using that stuff because it's cool, it's Space Fantasy or whatever.
If it's Science Fiction, but some of it's technology has no basis in our understanding of science (teleporters, Warp Speed, ect), it's soft science fiction.
Ect Ect.

Imagine Science-Fiction is a line, with Star Wars on one end (Literally space magic, zero interest in exploring tech), and 1984 on the other (All the tech used is entirely possible, even if it wasn't fully realized when Orwell wrote it in 1948. Applications of improved surveillance technology is a central theme).

What I say "Space Fantasy" I mean "Space Fantasy, not to be confused with all the other types of science fiction that are not space fantasy", which gets really confusing.

[Peelee]

Me too, but it gets confusing trying to come up with different names for everything, since a lot of the sub-terms (Space fantasy, "Hard' Sci-fi, ect) are just used to differentiate that particular style from some, not-yet-agreed upon "Standard" Science Fiction.


If it has technology we don't yet have, it's Science Fiction.
If it's science fiction, but it's just using that stuff because it's cool, it's Space Fantasy or whatever.
If it's Science Fiction, but some of it's technology has no basis in our understanding of science (teleporters, Warp Speed, ect), it's soft science fiction.
Ect Ect.

Imagine Science-Fiction is a line, with Star Wars on one end (Literally space magic, zero interest in exploring tech), and 1984 on the other (All the tech used is entirely possible, even if it wasn't fully realized when Orwell wrote it in 1948. Applications of improved surveillance technology is a central theme).

What I say "Space Fantasy" I mean "Space Fantasy, not to be confused with all the other types of science fiction that are not space fantasy", which gets really confusing.

Well, to be fair, Star Wars (which I absolutely think is space fantasy) relies on non-living droids who actively seek out the main characters to kickstart the story. The non-living part is necessary, because it's how the plans get off the ship, and the autonomous part is necessary to bring Luke into the story. It's not doing it just because it's cool (well, these parts, at least), but because they are necessary for the plot to advance.

[BRC]

Well, to be fair, Star Wars (which I absolutely think is space fantasy) relies on non-living droids who actively seek out the main characters to kickstart the story. The non-living part is necessary, because it's how the plans get off the ship, and the autonomous part is necessary to bring Luke into the story. It's not doing it just because it's cool (well, these parts, at least), but because they are necessary for the plot to advance.

It's more of a gut feeling thing.

Star Wars has droids and spaceships, impossible technologies that are necessary for the plot. But it's not really interested in exploring the idea of sentient droids as anything other than another type of person in this setting.
It's not asking what would the world be like if we had sentient robots?"
It's saying "Hey, robots are cool. Let's put Robots in this setting".
There are not discussions (At least in the base movies, I don't know about the extended universe) of why some droids can speak human languages, and others simply beep, or a Droid's place in galactic society, or anything like that.

There are Droids, they do things. It's cool. Pew pew lasers.

[Peelee]

There are not discussions (At least in the base movies, I don't know about the extended universe) of why some droids can speak human languages, and others simply beep, or a Droid's place in galactic society, or anything like that.

Imean, presumably, that's because they're in a galaxy so used to droids that everyone knows why some speak in non-human languages, or know their place in galactic society. That makes it more immersive. It'd be like if someone shot a movie of current-day America, and wondered why Apple computers don't have Microsoft Word. It's common knowledge.

Yes, it doesn't explore the ideas, but it's because that isn't the theme. Does why they were put in affect it in any way? Star Trek transporters were put in because dude couldn't afford to make landing shuttle shots of all the planets. It was purely budgetary. Does that impact the episodes where they explore the reality of being trapped in a transporter? Of course not, but it's because Star Trek's theme was exploring the current world through the scope of a future world, not because of why it was implemented.

[BRC]

Imean, presumably, that's because they're in a galaxy so used to droids that everyone knows why some speak in non-human languages, or know their place in galactic society. That makes it more immersive. It'd be like if someone shot a movie of current-day America, and wondered why Apple computers don't have Microsoft Word. It's common knowledge.

Yes, it doesn't explore the ideas, but it's because that isn't the theme. Does why they were put in affect it in any way? Star Trek transporters were put in because dude couldn't afford to make landing shuttle shots of all the planets. It was purely budgetary. Does that impact the episodes where they explore the reality of being trapped in a transporter? Of course not, but it's because Star Trek's theme was exploring the current world through the scope of a future world, not because of why it was implemented.
And that's why I classify Star Wars as Space Fantasy.





Pew pew lasers

[Knaight]

Imean, presumably, that's because they're in a galaxy so used to droids that everyone knows why some speak in non-human languages, or know their place in galactic society. That makes it more immersive. It'd be like if someone shot a movie of current-day America, and wondered why Apple computers don't have Microsoft Word. It's common knowledge.

Yes, but there were decisions made to make them background societal elements instead of the fulcrum around which several philosophical themes are explored. That it at least made sense in setting is just clearing one low bar, it doesn't actually change the point of the argument.

[Peelee]

And that's why I classify Star Wars as Space Fantasy.





Pew pew lasers


.....no.

Imean, you're not wrong, Star Wars is space fantasy. But that's because it's a fantasy story in the framework of science fiction, not because pew pew lasers.

[BRC]

.....no.

Imean, you're not wrong, Star Wars is space fantasy. But that's because it's a fantasy story in the framework of science fiction, not because pew pew lasers.

I classify it as space fantasy because, as you said


Yes, it doesn't explore the ideas, but it's because that isn't the theme.
Science Fiction, at least in my mind, is about exploring a potential future. Star Wars shows no interest in that.


I just felt like saying Pew Pew lasers.

[Peelee]

Yes, but there were decisions made to make them background societal elements instead of the fulcrum around which several philosophical themes are explored. That it at least made sense in setting is just clearing one low bar, it doesn't actually change the point of the argument.

Exploration not being the theme does change the point of the argument, though. It's space fantasy because it takes fantasy elements - mainly, Magic, seen as the Force - in the framework of a science fiction story.

Back to the Future similarly does not have an exploration theme. Is it similarly space fantasy? I would call that pure science fiction, since there are no fantasy elements at all.

[Knaight]

Exploration not being the theme does change the point of the argument, though. It's space fantasy because it takes fantasy elements - mainly, Magic, seen as the Force - in the framework of a science fiction story.

Back to the Future similarly does not have an exploration theme. Is it similarly space fantasy? I would call that pure science fiction, since there are no fantasy elements at all.

I didn't say anything about an exploration theme - I was talking about the use of technology and science to explore themes (which can be all sorts of non-exploration things). Star Wars having them as a background element for a fantasy story is what disqualifies it. I'd argue that Back to the Future is similarly disqualified, and that it better fits something like a coming of age movie. I personally classify it as a bad movie which might technically be science fiction, but while bad movies are effectively a genre the critical consensus isn't there for BTTF qualifying as one.
*It's a classification it shares with Sharknado.

[Peelee]

I didn't say anything about an exploration theme - I was talking about the use of technology and science to explore themes (which can be all sorts of non-exploration things). Star Wars having them as a background element for a fantasy story is what disqualifies it. I'd argue that Back to the Future is similarly disqualified, and that it better fits something like a coming of age movie. I personally classify it as a bad movie which might technically be science fiction, but while bad movies are effectively a genre the critical consensus isn't there for BTTF qualifying as one.
*It's a classification it shares with Sharknado.

But I fully agree that Star Wars doesn't use technology and science to explore themes? My argument is "not using technology or science to explore themes" is not the sole qualifier for space fantasy.

I'd not call BttF a coming of age movie, because who comes of age? George is the closest, but it's still a bit of a stretch, to me. Also, I'm very intrigued to hear why you think BttF is a bad movie. If you think it's too derail-y, feel free to PM me. If you want.

[BRC]

Exploration not being the theme does change the point of the argument, though. It's space fantasy because it takes fantasy elements - mainly, Magic, seen as the Force - in the framework of a science fiction story.

Back to the Future similarly does not have an exploration theme. Is it similarly space fantasy? I would call that pure science fiction, since there are no fantasy elements at all.

Expand your definition of "Exploration" beyond the act of going to new, physical places.

Back to the Future Explores the concept of Time Travel. It's interested in exploring how Time Travel might be used, and the ways it manifests. Biff using the sports almanac to change the present and make himself rich is exploring a consequence of time travel. Marty McFly accidentally erasing himself from time by preventing his parents from meeting is another exploration of time travel.

I Robot Explores the concept of sentient robots. The book presents the concept (Sentient Robots, which are governed by the Three Laws), and then presents a series of scenarios in which that concept is explored. The various edge cases of the Three Laws (For example, Robots were interfering with a scientific experiment that involved the scientists being exposed to some radiation. The exposure itself was minimal enough to be harmless, but if it continued it would be harmful, so the First Law "Do not harm a human, or by inaction allow a human to be harmed" forced them to drag the scientists out of the lab), the way sentient robots might impact society, ect.

Star Trek has plenty of examples of "Space Magic", with vulcan mind melds and telepathic betazoids and giant space jellyfish that turn energy into matter, and the all-powerful Q, all doing things no less fantastical (and in fact, sometimes far more fantastical, with the Q) than anything we see the Jedi doing.
And yet, Star Trek is Science fiction despite these elements, because it's primary theme is exploration, not just of space, but of concepts, stuff like Teleporter Malfunctions, or Holodecks accidentally creating a self-aware Professor Moriarty, or a species that speaks entirely in cultural references. Even less-fantastical questions like "How might a government legally classify an apparently self-aware android", or "What sort of technologies might a blind person use in this distant space future". Star Trek is interested in exploring those themes.

Star Wars has just as much potential fodder for this sort of exploration, but it's really not interested in that, so it doesn't get explored. Hence, Space Fantasy. A Fantasy story told with the trappings of science fiction.


An example of the opposite sort might be something like the Mistborn Books, with their clear-cut (And rather limited) magic system allowing for an Exploration of the consequences of these powers, A Science Fiction story with the robes and swords of Fantasy.

[Rodin]

Exploration not being the theme does change the point of the argument, though. It's space fantasy because it takes fantasy elements - mainly, Magic, seen as the Force - in the framework of a science fiction story.

Back to the Future similarly does not have an exploration theme. Is it similarly space fantasy? I would call that pure science fiction, since there are no fantasy elements at all.

I guess the distinction I would make here is a sort of "High Art" vs. "Low Art". Back to the Future is pure entertainment without major discussions of the impact of time travel, hence gets categorized as low. 1984 has heavy focus on teaching lessons based on a surveillance state, hence gets high art.

Just to be clear, I'm not being judgmental when I assign those terms - I greatly enjoy both and both have their places in our culture. You just gotta call them something and Hard and Soft are already taken. Space Fantasy is also already taken for the reasons discussed above - it should follow the arc of a Fantasy story to count as such, as well as having other fantastical elements disguised by Clarke's Third Law.

[hamishspence]

I'd not call BttF a coming of age movie, because who comes of age?
BttF II and III could be summarised as "Marty matures" - he stops reacting like a child toward accusations of "chicken" at least.

[Peelee]

Expand your definition of "Exploration" beyond the act of going to new, physical places.
I have, long ago. I disagree with the vast majority of your claims about the exploration of time travel in Back to the Future.

BttF II and III could be summarised as "Marty matures" - he stops reacting like a child toward accusations of "chicken" at least.
My fault; I should have been more clear. I'm speaking of only Back to the Future, not the trilogy (since the original was a standalone movie, and I'm not too big on the other two that were clearly unplanned, and happened to suffer for it). I now realize that considering the trilogy as a whole, yes, you are correct.

[Darth Ultron]

Some people saw these shows as kids, thought "sci-fi=wacky+corny formulaic fantasy kid's stuff" and haven't given it a second thought,

My point exactly. Star Trek, Star Wars and Dr Who make up a good chunk of the ''silly kids sci-fi''. Of the three, only Star Trek even comes close to ''adult things'', and even then they are in barley ''pg-13 land''.



If you want to make sci-fi in general more accessible, try to cut down on the invented words. Really drives people away when they need to look up every other noun.

True, and this is exactly what Star Wars does and why it's the most mainstream sci-fi.


Tron: Legacy. Prince of Persia. National Treasure. The Lone Ranger. None made as kids movies. None marketed as kids movies.

Well, Tron and Ranger were sure kids stuff. And even if you want to say the whole two other movies were ''adult'' by being like PG-13, that is still two vs like a hundred.


Speaking of TV, what of the shows that have been showing up like Intelligence, Limitless, and especially Person of Interest? Those are all based around a science fiction 'gimmick' but are set in 'the real world'. Are they considered sci-fi?

It depends. If it's ''just on an alien planet'' then it's CSI Whereever....that is not much sci-if. And the best case is that sci-fi just drags the show down. You can make the best show every, but the curse of sci fi will always be with it.


I've always thought of Science Fiction as any fiction that requires technology not yet existing as a main component to the story. Space Fantasy et al. are just subsets in the science fiction umbrella.

Might be better to say ''requires science not yet existing'' or in other words ''fictional science''. That includes technology and more.

[Peelee]

Well, Tron and Ranger were sure kids stuff. And even if you want to say the whole two other movies were ''adult'' by being like PG-13, that is still two vs like a hundred.

All were geared towards and marketed towards general audience, not kids. If you call them kids movies, we clearly have very different definitions of kids movies.

Also, all are recent movies, which indicate a current change in style, regardless of the ratio.

[Knaight]

I'd not call BttF a coming of age movie, because who comes of age? George is the closest, but it's still a bit of a stretch, to me. Also, I'm very intrigued to hear why you think BttF is a bad movie. If you think it's too derail-y, feel free to PM me. If you want.

The short version is that the movie ties everything to Marty McFly as a character, leaving everything else underdeveloped. Enjoyment of the movie is then heavily predicated on enjoyment of Marty McFly, and he made Holden Caufield seem like a sympathetic protagonist.

[Peelee]

The short version is that the movie ties everything to Marty McFly as a character, leaving everything else underdeveloped. Enjoyment of the movie is then heavily predicated on enjoyment of Marty McFly, and he made Holden Caufield seem like a sympathetic protagonist.

I can understand that. Mostly because of my feelings towards Holden Caufield.

[Darth Ultron]

All were geared towards and marketed towards general audience, not kids. If you call them kids movies, we clearly have very different definitions of kids movies.

Also, all are recent movies, which indicate a current change in style, regardless of the ratio.

Sure, I'd say an adult movie must deal with adult drama and such things that would not be appropriate for kids. Deadpool, for example, was an adult super hero movie. Guardians of the Galaxy was kids stuff.

[Lethologica]

Well...both of those movies were made by a Disney subsidiary. Does that count? And both are movies without clear analogues in Disney's past work (say, pre-2000), at least as far as I know. I think that's a more relevant question than the question of how to define the term 'adult movie', given that the question is whether Disney's target audience has shifted, and not specifically whether Disney is making more adult movies.

[dps]

Sure, I'd say an adult movie must deal with adult drama and such things that would not be appropriate for kids.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think a movie is an "adult" movie if it deals with its themes in a mature, intelligent manner. Those themes don't have to be inappropriate for kids. OTOH, a movie may have material that's inappropriate for children but deal with that material in a juvenile manner (a lot of R-rated comedies, for example).

And that's without getting into the discussion of what is or isn't appropriate for kids (which let's not get into).

[Peelee]

Sure, I'd say an adult movie must deal with adult drama and such things that would not be appropriate for kids. Deadpool, for example, was an adult super hero movie. Guardians of the Galaxy was kids stuff.

First off, I was clearly and specifically talking about general audience movies vs kids movies, not adult-only movies vs kids movies.

Second, by your argument, Casablanca and Dr. Strangelove are kids movies. 1984 and Count of Monte Cristo are kids books.

[Darth Ultron]

I think that's a more relevant question than the question of how to define the term 'adult movie', given that the question is whether Disney's target audience has shifted, and not specifically whether Disney is making more adult movies.

Well Disney=Kids stuff, is very basic.




Second, by your argument, Casablanca and Dr. Strangelove are kids movies. 1984 and Count of Monte Cristo are kids books.

Well, it has changed over time....and gotten worse. A ''kids movie'' from even the '80's has a lot more adult things then any kids movie 2000 +. It's really amazing what they could do in a movie in the past and what they can't do today to be kids stuff.

The future of Sci-fi needs to go adult. Get some shows on HBO, Showtime, Starz or such where they can go ''very adult''. But not just like new Battlestar where it was a drama show with a tiny footnote that, oh, they were in space.

The kids stuff is fine for kids, and others that like such stuff, but there needs to be more then that.

[Keltest]

Well Disney=Kids stuff, is very basic.

And also wrong. Disney is a huge company with fingers in a lot of pies. Just because theyre well known for their children's programming doesn't mean its the only thing they do.

[Peelee]

Well Disney=Kids stuff, is very basic.



Well, it has changed over time....and gotten worse. A ''kids movie'' from even the '80's has a lot more adult things then any kids movie 2000 +. It's really amazing what they could do in a movie in the past and what they can't do today to be kids stuff.

The future of Sci-fi needs to go adult. Get some shows on HBO, Showtime, Starz or such where they can go ''very adult''. But not just like new Battlestar where it was a drama show with a tiny footnote that, oh, they were in space.

The kids stuff is fine for kids, and others that like such stuff, but there needs to be more then that.

So, you agree that you think Casablanca is a kids movie, then?

[WhovianBeast]

First off, I was clearly and specifically talking about general audience movies vs kids movies, not adult-only movies vs kids movies.

Second, by your argument, Casablanca and Dr. Strangelove are kids movies. 1984 and Count of Monte Cristo are kids books.

I fail to see where D_U ever claimed that something similar to Casablanca or TCOMC (fictional works but definitely not sci-fi) is to be regarded as kids' stuff. TCOMC is not a kid's book by any argument. A stepmother systematically murders her extended family before killing herself and her only son? A man dies of starvation? One contemplated suicide (1), two actual suicides(2), many murders (most of them in cold blood, even excluding the aforementioned stepmother)(3), psychological manipulation(4), false imprisonment(5), conspiracy(6), arson(7), rape(8), theft(9), slavery(10), torture(11), revenge(12), a very detailed explanation of a man tripping on hashish(13), adultery(14), embezzlement(15), duels(16), two women eloping(17), and a graphic description of a man being beaten to death(18). The target audience was adults, the subject matter is adult (even by most previous standards), and the sheer length of the book excludes it from most kid-friendly reading material.

1. Monsieur Morrel
2. Fernand Morcerf and Madame Villefort
3. Benedetto, Bertrand, La Carconte, Vampa, Cucumetto...
4. Mostly by the Count
5. the Count
6. Fernand, Danglars, Caderousse
7. Vampa
8. Cucumetto
9. Caderousse, Benedetto, Baron Danglars
10. Haydee
11. Benedetto and friends against his adoptive mother
12. Count+Albert, Noirtier and General D'Epinay
13. Franz D'Epinay
14. Madame Danglars
15. Danglars
16. Albert, Count
17. Eugenie Danglars and Louise D'Armilly
18. The mazzolato in Rome

[GloatingSwine]

I fail to see where D_U ever claimed that something similar to Casablanca or TCOMC (fictional works but definitely not sci-fi) is to be regarded as kids' stuff.

DU was clearly equating "adult" with "blood, tits, and swearing" (things children can't have) rather than "contains themes of intellectual interest to adults" (things children aren't interested in).

Y'know, the teenager version of adult not the adult version of adult.

[An Enemy Spy]

DU seems to believe that there's a sharp dividing line between adult movies and kids' movies, which is just not true. Guardians of the Galaxy for example is a movie that was made largely for adults, but is also accessible to kids. Many of Pixar's movies are marketed toward a younger audience but no less(and often more) enjoyable for adult viewers because they engage you on multiple levels.

Your dismissal of movies as being mere "kid's stuff" is how a thirteen year old sees the world.

[Darth Ultron]

And also wrong. Disney is a huge company with fingers in a lot of pies. Just because theyre well known for their children's programming doesn't mean its the only thing they do.

Sure it's only say 80% of what they do....''Family Friendly Kids Stuff'', but sure it's not everything they do.


So, you agree that you think Casablanca is a kids movie, then?

It's sure safe for a kid to watch...will put them to sleep almost as fast as Dr. Zhivago.


DU was clearly equating "adult" with "blood, tits, and swearing" (things children can't have) rather than "contains themes of intellectual interest to adults" (things children aren't interested in).

Y'know, the teenager version of adult not the adult version of adult.

I must have missed where I posted that. It's always amazing that people see stuff I did not post.


DU seems to believe that there's a sharp dividing line between adult movies and kids' movies, which is just not true. Guardians of the Galaxy for example is a movie that was made largely for adults, but is also accessible to kids. Many of Pixar's movies are marketed toward a younger audience but no less(and often more) enjoyable for adult viewers because they engage you on multiple levels.

Your dismissal of movies as being mere "kid's stuff" is how a thirteen year old sees the world.

Woah.... Guardians of the Galaxy is a movie made for kids. You know, from the comic made for kids. But it's also accessible to adults as they did not dumb it down to ''Y7'' level, but kept it like ''12''. Pixar makes movies for kids, but they are clever enough to sprinkle in nostalgic stuff for adults..aka parents.

[An Enemy Spy]

I don't even think you know what is and is not for kids. In fact, I'm not positive you even exist in the same reality as the rest of us. And once again, another thread has fallen down the black abyss of everyone trying to apply some kind of reason to whatever nonsense Darth Ultron is spouting out this time. You are the death of intelligent discourse on this site.

[Kitten Champion]

I don't even think you know what is and is not for kids. In fact, I'm not positive you even exist in the same reality as the rest of us. And once again, another thread has fallen down the black abyss of everyone trying to apply some kind of reason to whatever nonsense Darth Ultron is spouting out this time. You are the death of intelligent discourse on this site.

Who cares? CmdrShep will be back in a few weeks with the same thread that's been slightly reworded and the flames of nerdom will alight anew.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think a movie is an "adult" movie if it deals with its themes in a mature, intelligent manner. Those themes don't have to be inappropriate for kids.

The problem is ''kid'' is anyone under 18. But 13-18 year olds can deal with lots of ''near'' adult stuff. But things made ''for kids'', like most sci-fi and superhero movies, is targeted more at the ''under 12'' kids.


You are the death of intelligent discourse on this site.

Nicest thing anyone has ever said about me...I'd ask you if I could sig this if I knew how.

Anyway....To make Sci Fi more accessible to the mainstream it just needs to grow up and be more adult. But yes you can keep all the stuff for kids and the adults that are kids at heart like Star Wars and most superhero movies. But, in addition to the kids stuff, they must also make more adult stuff. But not just ''a soap opera'' or ''21 century drama''.....in space. But things that are really Science Fiction and can not be told in any other format.

[Divayth Fyr]

things that are really Science Fiction and can not be told in any other format.
Like what for example?

[An Enemy Spy]

Nicest thing anyone has ever said about me...I'd ask you if I could sig this if I knew how.

I can believe this. Call it a hunch, but I bet people don't say many nice things to you. Or talk to you at all. You'd probably have some basic social skills if that were the case, and wouldn't think everyone around you is a brainless sociopath, like you've said in at least one other thread.

And just so you know, my problem with you isn't that I disagree with your notions, it's because you don't treat other people on this site with any respect.

[Squark]

Relevant C.S. Lewis quote; "When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

Focusing too much on an "adult" theme is pointless and frequently leads to stories that struggle to clear the level of quality set by the Teletubbies. Writers should focus on telling a good story. If the story they want to tell ends up involving things not appropriate for kids? That's fine. But blood and sex for the sake of adultness is where we got the more regrettable parts of 90's comics.

Regarding the obvious example that you've touched on, Darth Ultron- Game of Thrones is not good simply because of the secondary and violence. It is good because J.R.R Martin crafted a well created world in which he tells an incredible story. That story happens to be dark, violent, and full of sex, but that by itself does not make the books/show great.

[Darth Ultron]

Like what for example?

Aliens, time travel, other dimensions, robots and that sort of thing. Though again not just ''write a story'' and then say ''oh, they are on Mars, so it is Sci-Fi''. You want stories that go beyond just adding ''in space'' or ''in the future'' to them.


I can believe this. Call it a hunch, but I bet people don't say many nice things to you. Or talk to you at all. You'd probably have some basic social skills if that were the case, and wouldn't think everyone around you is a brainless sociopath, like you've said in at least one other thread.

And just so you know, my problem with you isn't that I disagree with your notions, it's because you don't treat other people on this site with any respect.

People say nice stuff to me all the time and want to talk to me all the time. I'm a social butterfly. Though I'm pick about who I associate with, and that is the thing about online is I would not even slightly deal with most posters in real life.

Not really sure where the respect thing comes from, as I talk about topics and not people.

[Rodin]

Aliens, time travel, other dimensions, robots and that sort of thing. Though again not just ''write a story'' and then say ''oh, they are on Mars, so it is Sci-Fi''. You want stories that go beyond just adding ''in space'' or ''in the future'' to them.



Aliens - fantasy races like Orcs, goblins, whatever. Alternately, exploration fiction. Aliens are replaced by Native Americans, Africans, yadda yadda.

Time travel - equally attainable via magic in a fantasy setting. Or any setting, just make it a superpower.

Other dimensions - portals to other planes, heaven, hell, etc.

Robots - golems.

-----

All of that is simply setting. In terms of actually telling a story, I struggle to think what Sci-Fi only can tell us. Thought-provoking fiction is rooted in the real world, because that's what we draw reference to. Sci-Fi is as good a tool as any to handle that, but it's not the only way. Take time travel - it's often a tale of wanting to change the past to correct previous mistakes. A Christmas Carol covers exactly the same ground, time-traveling via magic instead. Or it can be done via showing a character's memories, no magic needed.

I would wager that any cited Sci-Fi story has an entirely mundane counterpart that covers the same themes and lessons. This is not a criticism - a well written Sci-Fi story is no less worthy for that, and frankly I tend to prefer the Sci-Fi one. But that's because I'm me, a geeky guy that loves Sci-Fi. There are many others with the opposite opinion.

I guess the one place Sci-Fi can teach uniquely is in dealing with a very specific form of technology that we theorize is possible, but is not currently available. The example I'm thinking of is Gattaca, a movie which very directly deals with the consequences of designer babies and the social consequences. There are similar plots about the dangers of conformity and the perils of a caste system, but the danger of gene editing is very specifically Gattaca's.

[Kato]

I Can't believe I'm saying this but... for the usual forum tone this is starting to get out of hand. I know in other places this is still far from getting heated but please keep it civil, guys...

That said... I agree with Rodin. This is a terrible reply:

Aliens, time travel, other dimensions, robots and that sort of thing. Though again not just ''write a story'' and then say ''oh, they are on Mars, so it is Sci-Fi''. You want stories that go beyond just adding ''in space'' or ''in the future'' to them.


Instead of saying what things should "not" be, say what they "should" be. And more concrete. I still have no idea what exactly you're definition of kids stuff is and what "adult" is, and also not just "space opera" etc. Is "all you zombies" adult? Rick & Morty? Doctor Who? Nothing you said gave me the slightest impression what is... except that it is apparently "very little".

[Darth Ultron]

All of that is simply setting. In terms of actually telling a story, I struggle to think what Sci-Fi only can tell us.

You can replace ''sci-fi'' with ''fantasy'' some of the time, but not all the time. Star Wars is Space fantasy, after all.

But a story about a guy that programs an AI and they fall in love is Sci Fi and only works in fantasy with the vague ''make a construct'' as you can't ''program'' something made of magic exactly the same way you'd write a program...so it does not work.





I would wager that any cited Sci-Fi story has an entirely mundane counterpart that covers the same themes and lessons.

This is true of all fiction, even more if you go with the there are only seven basic plots. And like a robot going to high school and trying to be popular is the same as a story set in the modern day with a kid doing the same thing.

But like a story about a robot that must reduce it's abilities to an ''average high school level'' to go to high school can't be done outside of sci-fi/fantasy, because you can't push a button and make a person dumb. And without some sci-fi/fantasy you simply can't do the story of the ''person that must turn their brain off to go to school''. You can get close with a ''super human kid'' that is told to ''not use their powers'', but it's not exactly the same. You can get the vague theme of ''you must lower yourself and your abilities to fit in'', but can't duplicate the robot being an artificial thing and the press a button to be dumb.


Instead of saying what things should "not" be, say what they "should" be. And more concrete. I still have no idea what exactly you're definition of kids stuff is and what "adult" is, and also not just "space opera" etc. Is "all you zombies" adult? Rick & Morty? Doctor Who? Nothing you said gave me the slightest impression what is... except that it is apparently "very little".

Well, Star Wars and Doctor Who(at least NewWho, and specifically from Doc 11+) is kids stuff. Star Trek skims around ''teen stuff'' but rarely goes full adult level. The vast majority of Disney Marvel Superhero movies are all kids stuff....like aliens attack New York and don't hurt or kill a single person. Most of the DC superhero shows are kids stuff.

Adult would be Westworld(TV show) or Blade Runner or Looper. There is not much....

[russdm]

I would say that thanks to certain new material, all future Sci-Fi is going to get ruined. Thanks to GOTG and Star Wars, we get varying degrees of good Science Opera; The Martian, Interstellar, Passengers, and Arrival will give us more chances for good Sci-Fi.


Game of Thrones is not good simply because of the secondary and violence. It is good because J.R.R Martin crafted a well created world in which he tells an incredible story. That story happens to be dark, violent, and full of sex, but that by itself does not make the books/show great.

Disagree with this. If you removed the adult material, then there would be nothing left. Not sure how you identify a story there considering the entire story is the adult material of Blood, Sex, Tits; Game of Thrones is essentially Fifty Shades of Gray Medieval Style. To be honest, seeing anything relating to quality while mentioning GoT makes me wonder if I am reading a cracked article.

I think an example of good Sci-Fi would be DS9, which covered some adult themes. I think of "adult" meaning that it covers adult themes, as opposed to just using adult material that GoT is famous for.

Blade Runner was a good example of adult material, while Battleship and Pacific Rim fall into kids zone material. I think Hollywood took Science Fiction to big budget, and thanks to GoT, we are going to get lousy Kid's intellectual material with Adult advertising material (blood, sex, Tits) trying to portray itself as being highly intellectual when it is not.

Foundation sounds like it could work, but given that it is HBO, who did GoT, I have strong doubts about it's quality. I worry that it will start out being a rendition of Foundation, but HBO will simply apply the GoT template to it, and since GoT is so popular, clearly that would work out perfectly (Sarcasm)

Before GoT, the chances of real adult intellectual science fiction was high; post GoT, the chances are really low now. Since GoT appeals to the widest range of the possible lowest common denoimator of viewers (especially those who enjoy watching Reality TV), which gives it the ratings it gets, then more Science Fiction and Fantasy while made similar because Hollywood.

[TeChameleon]

You can replace ''sci-fi'' with ''fantasy'' some of the time, but not all the time. Star Wars is Space fantasy, after all.

But a story about a guy that programs an AI and they fall in love is Sci Fi and only works in fantasy with the vague ''make a construct'' as you can't ''program'' something made of magic exactly the same way you'd write a program...so it does not work.
... I... uh... you do realize that you just summarized the plot of Pygmalion (ca. 10 BC), aside from a weak caveat about programming being 'different', right?


This is true of all fiction, even more if you go with the there are only seven basic plots. And like a robot going to high school and trying to be popular is the same as a story set in the modern day with a kid doing the same thing.

But like a story about a robot that must reduce it's abilities to an ''average high school level'' to go to high school can't be done outside of sci-fi/fantasy, because you can't push a button and make a person dumb. And without some sci-fi/fantasy you simply can't do the story of the ''person that must turn their brain off to go to school''. You can get close with a ''super human kid'' that is told to ''not use their powers'', but it's not exactly the same. You can get the vague theme of ''you must lower yourself and your abilities to fit in'', but can't duplicate the robot being an artificial thing and the press a button to be dumb.
The content may not be identical, but the general themes- which could be summed up as 'reducing your abilities to fit in' could be explored without the slightest trace of fantastical elements. A bright kid pretending to be dumber than he is so that he won't get beat up, for example. No, there's no 'push-button dumbness', but at the same time, the core theme can be identical. Themes =/= content.


Well, Star Wars and Doctor Who(at least NewWho, and specifically from Doc 11+) is kids stuff. Star Trek skims around ''teen stuff'' but rarely goes full adult level. The vast majority of Disney Marvel Superhero movies are all kids stuff....like aliens attack New York and don't hurt or kill a single person. Most of the DC superhero shows are kids stuff.

Adult would be Westworld(TV show) or Blade Runner or Looper. There is not much....
Doctor Who was originally conceived as a children's programme; I'm not sure why you'd think NuWho was more kiddie somehow. And Peter Capaldi's Doctor doesn't seem to me to have a lot of kid appeal, but that could just be me getting older :-/ And a lot of your criticisms seem to be based on... let's call it incomplete observation. For example, lots of people died during the Chitauri attack on New York in Avengers- it's actually a major plot point in Civil War. The movie simply didn't choose to focus on that. *shrug*

[Razade]

Doctor Who was originally conceived as a children's programme; I'm not sure why you'd think NuWho was more kiddie somehow. And Peter Capaldi's Doctor doesn't seem to me to have a lot of kid appeal, but that could just be me getting older :-/ And a lot of your criticisms seem to be based on... let's call it incomplete observation. For example, lots of people died during the Chitauri attack on New York in Avengers- it's actually a major plot point in Civil War. The movie simply didn't choose to focus on that. *shrug*

I think we should (or really probably shouldn't) focus more on Darth Ultron's really simple measuring stick. It's only "Adult" if there's a lot of violence apparently. Debbie Does Dallas is an Adult Film and it doesn't have any violence at all unless you consider its portrayal of Debbie as a poor gender representation and thus "violent" towards women in general. But certainly none in the movie itself.

[eggynack]

@Darth Ultron: I have one pretty simple question of your position that I don't think has been asked yet (though I may have missed it). This categorization system you have here, where MCU is a "kid's" movie, and Trek is a work for "teens", does it matter? Like, do you care which category a particular work falls in? Does it inform your opinions on the works? And, moving beyond your personal stance, does it mean all that much to its impact on culture or whatever?

[BRC]

I would say that thanks to certain new material, all future Sci-Fi is going to get ruined. Thanks to GOTG and Star Wars, we get varying degrees of good Science Opera; The Martian, Interstellar, Passengers, and Arrival will give us more chances for good Sci-Fi.



Disagree with this. If you removed the adult material, then there would be nothing left. Not sure how you identify a story there considering the entire story is the adult material of Blood, Sex, Tits; Game of Thrones is essentially Fifty Shades of Gray Medieval Style. To be honest, seeing anything relating to quality while mentioning GoT makes me wonder if I am reading a cracked article.

I think an example of good Sci-Fi would be DS9, which covered some adult themes. I think of "adult" meaning that it covers adult themes, as opposed to just using adult material that GoT is famous for.

Blade Runner was a good example of adult material, while Battleship and Pacific Rim fall into kids zone material. I think Hollywood took Science Fiction to big budget, and thanks to GoT, we are going to get lousy Kid's intellectual material with Adult advertising material (blood, sex, Tits) trying to portray itself as being highly intellectual when it is not.

Foundation sounds like it could work, but given that it is HBO, who did GoT, I have strong doubts about it's quality. I worry that it will start out being a rendition of Foundation, but HBO will simply apply the GoT template to it, and since GoT is so popular, clearly that would work out perfectly (Sarcasm)

Before GoT, the chances of real adult intellectual science fiction was high; post GoT, the chances are really low now. Since GoT appeals to the widest range of the possible lowest common denoimator of viewers (especially those who enjoy watching Reality TV), which gives it the ratings it gets, then more Science Fiction and Fantasy while made similar because Hollywood.

Can't say I agree with your take on GoT. For most people I've talked to, the writing and engaging character drama has been the main draw of the show. The sex and violence is certainly part of the draw, as much as people won't admit it, but discussions of the show usually focus on plot speculation or character development, not rehashing that episode's beheading.


But besides that, I think you're overlooking something.

GoT is nerdy, really really nerdy. Yes, it's got gratuitous sex and violence and all the stuff that makes something "Adult" without making it more Mature. But, it's also a swords-and-horses medieval fantasy with an overstuffed world that asks it's users to keep track of Dragons and White Walkers and a dozen noble houses, that wants them to be invested in a death-worshiping assassin cult and the power struggles of a bunch of pseudo-vikings.

Compare that to your average cop show, which might ask the audience to remember a dozen characters and a few basic details about New York City.

Lord of the Rings was also a very nerdy mainstream smash hit, but the time investment in a series of movies, even epic-length ones, is much less than for a single season of a TV show.

Game of Thrones has proved, better than anything else, that whatever public stigma once existed against "Nerd Culture" is gone. That the Mainstream, specifically the coveted 18-45 demographic, is willing to shamelessly spend time on money on a show that would once have gotten kids shoved into lockers.

But, I will admit that Game of Thrones, while nerdy, is directionless nerdery. While it requires considerable acceptance of "Nerd Stuff", It doesn't really touch on or explore any big questions or themes the way Blade Runner does about transhumanism. But, "Smart" shows have existed in the past and been popular, now "Nerdy" shows exist and are popular, whose to say we can't get a smart-sci fi show?


Speaking of which. You bring up Blade Runner as a prime example of "Adult" Science Fiction. Blade Runner mainly deals with the question of what is the nature of humanity (Are the replicants any less human) as its big intellectual exercise.That's what separates it from being just a sci-fi movie about a guy with a big gun.

Doesn't Westworld cover basically the same ground?

[russdm]

Can't say I agree with your take on GoT. For most people I've talked to, the writing and engaging character drama has been the main draw of the show.

I had to hold back the laughter on this point. I think you can easily describe GoT as just being a soap opera write up of some history that got embellished by the Writer. I think I have seen kids cartoon shows that had better writing and engaging character drama. If GoT has that, then how far our television and the audience has fallen. How much more stupid we have become.

The Sole reason I can see to watch this show is because of the blood, sex, tits, because I could read a history of certain historical leaders that has everything GoT contains except Dragons and Zombies. I have seen nothing in GoT to suggest it is worth considering, as opposed to something like Breaking Bad, which seems to actually have characters that have arcs.



Speaking of which. You bring up Blade Runner as a prime example of "Adult" Science Fiction. Blade Runner mainly deals with the question of what is the nature of humanity (Are the replicants any less human) as its big intellectual exercise.That's what separates it from being just a sci-fi movie about a guy with a big gun.

Doesn't Westworld cover basically the same ground?

I have not watched Westworld, yet. I don't think having multiple stories cover the same ground is bad if those stories employ some differences.

Because of it's popularity, Any new Fantasy/Sci-Fi that appears will be heavily influenced by GoT meaning any new material will be filled with the same, aka the GoT Template of Blood, Sex, Tits, and little plotting/characters because the Blood Sex Tits was more successful in drawing attention. Hollywood will play follow the leader and follow GoT off a cliff. That's the kind of material to attract more mainstream audiences.

Is that the kind of audience we want for future fantasy / science fiction productions? And what we want to encourage that future fantasy / science fiction to be like?

[Lethologica]

I think you can easily describe GoT as just being a soap opera write up of some history that got embellished by the Writer.
See also: The Bard.

Described uncharitably enough, nothing is worthwhile. Breaking Bad included, no matter that it seems to have escaped your judgment.


The Sole reason I can see
Well, maybe that's the problem. If your sight is such that when other people present information conflicting with it you laugh and deride rather than considering whether you should update your view, little wonder that your vision narrows to an absurd degree. If you can't even admit that GoT has characters that have arcs, you're not being serious and there's no reason to give your opinion any weight.


Because of it's popularity, Any new Fantasy/Sci-Fi that appears will be heavily influenced by GoT meaning any new material will be filled with the same, aka the GoT Template of Blood, Sex, Tits, and little plotting/characters because the Blood Sex Tits was more successful in drawing attention.
Yeah? You're gonna go through all the SF/F media discussed in this thread that was released after GoT became popular and prove to us that it's all "blood, sex, tits, and little plotting/characters"? Was that the problem with Disney's Star Wars movies? Does NuWho suffer from this? Did it ruin Black Mirror and The Expanse? Did The Martian and Arrival fall prey to this insidious dynamic? How about MCU?

Of course you can't make this argument about Westworld, since you admittedly haven't seen it. All you can do is extrapolate from...what? The existence of GoT, and your own cynicism?

[BRC]

I had to hold back the laughter on this point. I think you can easily describe GoT as just being a soap opera write up of some history that got embellished by the Writer. I think I have seen kids cartoon shows that had better writing and engaging character drama. If GoT has that, then how far our television and the audience has fallen. How much more stupid we have become.

The Sole reason I can see to watch this show is because of the blood, sex, tits, because I could read a history of certain historical leaders that has everything GoT contains except Dragons and Zombies. I have seen nothing in GoT to suggest it is worth considering, as opposed to something like Breaking Bad, which seems to actually have characters that have arcs.

You're assuming that because YOU don't like the writing on the show, nobody else could possibly enjoy it, and therefore the show's massive audience must consist of simpletons simply watching for the sex and violence.

The fact remains, that I've met a lot of people who enjoy the show. I can't say a single one of them was "just watching for the sex and violence".

[russdm]

Am I wrong in saying that the TV networks are looking for the "the next GoT"? The "Next Breaking Bad"? For a show that will bring in as much strong Nielson ratings as these shows have? Hasn't that been mentioned by the media in talking about others shows and if they could be the next one of those?

I can recall discussions about whether a show would be considered the next Lost, thanks to the popularity? Doesn't Hollywood/TV networks commit to copying what works? Doesn't GoT work, according to you? Doesn't that mean they will try to copy GoT, and as shown previously, they will screw up at times doing so?

How really popular would the show be without the adult material? Would it have as much popularity? Good Character Arcs can only go so far, considering that Firefly got canceled, along with other shows that had great potential were canceled. Would people really have continued watching without the adult material? After all, isn't GoT infamous for creating what has been dubbed, "Sexposition", or the telling of plot exposition when sex is happening on screen?

Isn't all of the adult material crammed into the start, meaning you have to go through all of that before you reach any of the "character" development?

GoT is a political thriller at it's heart, with the fantasy bits added on, and a lot of adult material. The more popular it becomes, the more TV networks are going to want to copy it. Has anyone else forgotten about how the networks were searching for the "Next Lost" after that show was over?

Does quality TV need BST (Blood, Sex, Tits) in order to be worth watching? Is that where we have come? or are shows like DS9, old Battlestar Galactica, TNG, still capable of being made? Would people still be watching GoT if you removed all of the BST from it? Would it still be as popular as it is?

Are we capable of having shows with Adult Intellectual material without adult physical material, or is that simply no longer possible these days? Is it even considered possible to tell stories without it?

Yes, I know about the Martian, Interstellar, and the others. Isn't that what we want more of compared to shows made in crappy copy of GoT with less capable writers?

[An Enemy Spy]

If by "adult material" you mean blood, sex, and swearing then yes, many many shows have become popular that aren't chock full of these things.

Of course, I'm sure the instant anyone said anything good about Game of Thrones you wrote them as an LCD moron, so why do you care about our worthless opinions anyway?

[Lethologica]

Am I wrong in saying that the TV networks are looking for the "the next GoT"? The "Next Breaking Bad"?
That's not what you said. If you would like to admit that your previous claims were totally false, and start over, that's fine by me.


How really popular would the show be without the adult material? Would it have as much popularity?
Again, "the adult material generates a non-zero amount of interest" and "the show has little to offer besides adult material" are materially different claims, and if you are surrendering the claim you made previously, I'm fine with that, but it leaves you with little in the way of actual criticism.


Good Character Arcs can only go so far, considering that Firefly got canceled, along with other shows that had great potential were canceled.
Cherry-picking.


Isn't all of the adult material crammed into the start, meaning you have to go through all of that before you reach any of the "character" development?
No.


Does quality TV need BST (Blood, Sex, Tits) in order to be worth watching? Is that where we have come? or are shows like DS9, old Battlestar Galactica, TNG, still capable of being made? Would people still be watching GoT if you removed all of the BST from it? Would it still be as popular as it is?

Are we capable of having shows with Adult Intellectual material without adult physical material, or is that simply no longer possible these days? Is it even considered possible to tell stories without it?

Yes, I know about the Martian, Interstellar, and the others. Isn't that what we want more of compared to shows made in crappy copy of GoT with less capable writers?
Pointless bias notwithstanding, you've answered your own question. We are perfectly capable of having such shows, as evidenced by all the examples of such shows that have been provided. Just because you want to bang on about how GoT is ruining media doesn't mean you actually have a case.

[Chen]

Game of Thrones definitely had a ton more nudity and sex in the early seasons. Those have been pretty dramatically toned back in the last few seasons and viewership has increased or at the very least remained constant. Sorta says that people are watching for reasons other than just the "adult" content.

Really looking at the top TV shows this last year, crime dramas and comedies tend to be the top places. The Walking Dead is also quite high up and it does have its fair share of gratuitous violence, but for the most part heavy gore/violence/sex doesn't seem to be the distinguishing characteristic of the top shows.

[Lethologica]

Game of Thrones definitely had a ton more nudity and sex in the early seasons. Those have been pretty dramatically toned back in the last few seasons and viewership has increased or at the very least remained constant. Sorta says that people are watching for reasons other than just the "adult" content.
This is true. The notion that character development was correspondingly shoved to later parts of the show is what I objected to.

[Darth Ultron]

@Darth Ultron: I have one pretty simple question of your position that I don't think has been asked yet (though I may have missed it). This categorization system you have here, where MCU is a "kid's" movie, and Trek is a work for "teens", does it matter? Like, do you care which category a particular work falls in? Does it inform your opinions on the works? And, moving beyond your personal stance, does it mean all that much to its impact on culture or whatever?

My point, the one everyone ignores, is that for Sci-Fi to be more mainstream, it needs to be more Adult.

[Razade]

My point, the one everyone ignores, is that for Sci-Fi to be more mainstream, it needs to be more Adult.

No one is ignoring your point, people have addressed your point as absurd and meaningless based on distinctions you've failed to quantify or expand on and have thus moved on because there's nothing to discuss. If you'd like to change that, I'm sure people would be more inclined to ruminate on your opinion. I doubt you'll do so and I doubt there will be much there to discuss anyway because what you find "adult" is meaningless because there's already popular Sci-Fi things out now. Star Wars: Rogue One was the second highest earning film in 2016 despite only being shown for 18 days of the 31 days in said month and while internet nerds will disagree that it's Sci-Fi the majority of the population won't because they don't care what Sci-Fi/Space Fantasy breaks down to. And honestly, neither do I.

[eggynack]

My point, the one everyone ignores, is that for Sci-Fi to be more mainstream, it needs to be more Adult.
But why would there be a connection between a work containing material fundamentally unsuited for children and a work being more accessible to the mainstream? I don't think your definition of adult corresponds all that well with what I can only assume is the generic definition of mainstream. Arguably, there could be some definition of adult that does have such a correspondence, but the one you seem to be establishing doesn't seem to be it.

[Peelee]

My point, the one everyone ignores, is that for Sci-Fi to be more mainstream, it needs to be more Adult.

Aside from what others have said, the two biggest sci-fi media that have inarguably done far and away more to make sci-fi more mainstream than any other media are Star Wars and Star Trek, which both are "kids stuff" according to you.

So no, you're objectively wrong here.

[tantric]

back in the 90s, me and my peeps were talking about the possibility of a LotR movie. one guy said, 'yeah, but do you really want to see Galadriel on a mcdonald's cup?' we decided not.

[Kato]

My point, the one everyone ignores, is that for Sci-Fi to be more mainstream, it needs to be more Adult.
Well, and yet you failed to say explicitely why. Apart from "some things need to be adult to be told properly". Like what? A kid's show can't have death? Well, plenty of things you considered for kids or soap operas etc have death. Because it needs to handle complex ideas? What does that have to do with adult? :smallconfused:

Your examples for adult material don't help me understand your point, sadly:

Adult would be Westworld(TV show) or Blade Runner or Looper. There is not much....
I can't comment on the former (yes, I know, everyone keeps bugging me about it. Frankly, it doesn't help)
But BR and Looper? BR has lots of blood. Wow. That's a twelve year olds definition of grown up. Okay, it also has lot of people dying but so have other things and apart from that...? And Looper? How is Looper either a prime example for adult or even for a good movie? I mean, it's decent. But nothing far above average in either story telling or presentation. Yeah, people die, but... well, I think I commented on that enough.

[Chen]

My point, the one everyone ignores, is that for Sci-Fi to be more mainstream, it needs to be more Adult.

But the examples you gave of adult Sci-fi are VASTLY less popular and mainstream than the ones you labeled as "kids stuff". Wouldn't that imply the opposite?

[sktarq]

Ok in the top 20 grossing movies of 2016- "Domestic Market" (which is either USA or USA+Canada because sales types like remaking words in meanings that conflict with previous ones)

1-Finding Dory Kids movie? Don't tell but lots of adults went and enjoyed it for themselves
2-Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Sci-Fi? well Space Fantasy -NC
3-Captain America: Civil War Need special technology we don't have? Iron Man, Cap's Serum by some measures its sci fi NC
4-Secret Life of Pets
5-The Jungle Book
6-Deadpool well it needed super tech to get him his powers and is most certainly not for kids - so it needs a reason to not include it or its in SciFi NC
7-Zootopia
8-Batman v Superman NC
9-Suicide Squad NC
10-Dr Strange NC
11-Fantastic Beasts NC
12-Moana
13-Star Wars VII - The Force Awakens More Space Fantasy NC
14-The Revenant - Hey look our first "adult" not nerd culture movie and it came out the year before
15-Sing
16-Jason Bourne
17-Star Trek Beyond Sci Fi? Go ahead and tell trekkies its not sci fi. NC
18-X-Men Apocalypse NC
19-Trolls I have no idea what this movie was - it could be super hard sci fi with weird hairy doll creatures but I guessing not
20-Kung Fu Panda 3

So first off half of the top twenty are in some way related to "Nerd Culture", of comics, sci fi, fantasy etc. This whole collection of ideas were considered kids stuff once but looking at the fact of Deadpool and the in TFA EVERYONE DIES I'd say they are not kids movies any more. This IS maintream. In fact it dominates the mainstream. Things that were "kids stuff" a couple of generations ago are now the norm.

and there at least as much sci fi and science fantasy up there than adult drama, adult comedy, etc. So it is more mainstream than that entire genre

So Sci Fi is a very solid part of the mainstream.


as for TV well making sci-fi can be expensive. lots of CGI, complex sets with low re-usability etc. The amount of time to work on an episode of a show vs. movie in man hours is tiny so similar scope is difficult. This doesn't encourage risk taking. Sure Sci Fi like Andromeda Strain would be pretty easy but that kind of sci fi (which was an incredibly detailed in its science in the book) is barely acknowledged as sci fi anymore and only makes a percentage of the sci genre anyway.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Reading through this thread, I'm a little confused by the casual assumption made by a few that "nerd culture" is now mainstream. Nearly every time I see depictions of things which I know just a little about, everything is wrong. Wrong on a level that screams, "The writer/producers/whoever don't think this field of knowledge is important." Often, it's so wrong that critical elements of the plot should not be taking place.

That kind of thing isn't a dealbreaker for a story, but it does tell me that I'm at least not in the target audience for that story. I am by no means any sort of sciences or humanities savant, but I have a hard time imagining that other fields of knowledge aren't being similarly botched.

Nearly every time I see an interesting speculative fiction premise that could be explored for philosophical, sociological or other consequences, it's left totally ignored. Sometimes I wonder if the creators and/or writers realized that they just skipped over an interesting idea.

It's possible I'm just not a nerd. I haven't ever been a fan of comic books nor anime, and I don't play videogames that much anymore. So if those things define nerdiness, I'm definitely an outsider.

[Razade]

Reading through this thread, I'm a little confused by the casual assumption made by a few that "nerd culture" is now mainstream. Nearly every time I see depictions of things which I know just a little about, everything is wrong. Wrong on a level that screams, "The writer/producers/whoever don't think this field of knowledge is important." Often, it's so wrong that critical elements of the plot should not be taking place.

That kind of thing isn't a dealbreaker for a story, but it does tell me that I'm at least not in the target audience for that story. I am by no means any sort of sciences or humanities savant, but I have a hard time imagining that other fields of knowledge aren't being similarly botched.

Nearly every time I see an interesting speculative fiction premise that could be explored for philosophical, sociological or other consequences, it's left totally ignored. Sometimes I wonder if the creators and/or writers realized that they just skipped over an interesting idea.

It's possible I'm just not a nerd. I haven't ever been a fan of comic books nor anime, and I don't play videogames that much anymore. So if those things define nerdiness, I'm definitely an outsider.

Do you want to give examples?

[BRC]

Reading through this thread, I'm a little confused by the casual assumption made by a few that "nerd culture" is now mainstream. Nearly every time I see depictions of things which I know just a little about, everything is wrong. Wrong on a level that screams, "The writer/producers/whoever don't think this field of knowledge is important." Often, it's so wrong that critical elements of the plot should not be taking place.


That's not what people are referring to by "Nerd Culture". That sounds more like movies having bad science or historical inaccuracies. And yeah, there's certainly a flavor of nerdery focused around knowing exactly how hypothetical spacecraft would need to work, but that's not really what we're talking about when we say "Nerd Culture is Mainstream". Hollywood is always going to have inaccuracies.

When we say "Nerd Culture", we're referring to that loosely-defined collection of genres and tropes that it was previously considered childish or embarrassing to be interested in. Stuff like Science Fiction and Fantasy that, in prior years, was assumed to only apply to a limited, relatively demographically homogeneous group (nerds). Members of this group may have accepted, or even taken pride in this identity, but most people (The Mainstream) would strive to avoid any association.

Consider. Once upon a time, if you were over the age of 16 and an enthusiastic fan of a book series about a young boy who discovers he is a wizard, then you would have been shunned as Childish, Weird, and, yes, Nerdy.

Then, Harry Potter happened, reshaping the cultural landscape as it did so. Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, ect.

Imagine, if you will, two lunchtables in a cafeteria. At one, they are discussing an upcoming football game. At the other, they are discussing the latest episode of Game of Thrones.

These days, not only is neither conversation considered "Less Acceptable" than the other, but I don't think anybody would bat an eye at hearing that somebody move between the two tables.

[Aotrs Commander]

That's not what people are referring to by "Nerd Culture". That sounds more like movies having bad science or historical inaccuracies. And yeah, there's certainly a flavor of nerdery focused around knowing exactly how hypothetical spacecraft would need to work, but that's not really what we're talking about when we say "Nerd Culture is Mainstream". Hollywood is always going to have inaccuracies.

When we say "Nerd Culture", we're referring to that loosely-defined collection of genres and tropes that it was previously considered childish or embarrassing to be interested in. Stuff like Science Fiction and Fantasy that, in prior years, was assumed to only apply to a limited, relatively demographically homogeneous group (nerds). Members of this group may have accepted, or even taken pride in this identity, but most people (The Mainstream) would strive to avoid any association.

Consider. Once upon a time, if you were over the age of 16 and an enthusiastic fan of a book series about a young boy who discovers he is a wizard, then you would have been shunned as Childish, Weird, and, yes, Nerdy.

Then, Harry Potter happened, reshaping the cultural landscape as it did so. Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, ect.

Imagine, if you will, two lunchtables in a cafeteria. At one, they are discussing an upcoming football game. At the other, they are discussing the latest episode of Game of Thrones.

These days, not only is neither conversation considered "Less Acceptable" than the other, but I don't think anybody would bat an eye at hearing that somebody move between the two tables.

My sister informed me some time ago (to my abject horror) that thanks to the likes of Big Bang Theory et al, that among teenagers and tweenagers, I can now be classified as "cool."

I think that any time that happens it either means a) there has indeed been a cultural shift in the last twenty years or so as above stated and b) the apocalypse has already happened, no point in even killing yourselves now, it is already too late, everything is doomed, doomed I tell you, doomed inc ase you weren't listening the first time.

[Ceiling_Squid]

If this thread has taught me anything, it's that genre snobbery is still alive and well.

There's a great deal of hair-splitting on what is and isn't sci fi, with lots of vague genuflection before the altar of "BIG THEMES", and fear of the mainstream "ruining" a genre.

Guess what - we aren't the gatekeepers of an entire genre. It doesn't work that way.

Worst of all, some people are overly concerned with being seen as "adult" in their tastes, which is about as far from the point as you can get. It's not a distinction worth making, unless you want to talk purely in terms of marketing.

Bring on the accessibility, please.

[Knaight]

If this thread has taught me anything, it's that genre snobbery is still alive and well.

There's a difference between genre snobbery and wanting some precision in genres. Classifying Star Wars as fantasy and not science fiction is only snobbery if you work from the assumption that science fiction is better than fantasy, and not merely different. The same thing applies to classifying the various superhero things listed as superheroes instead of science fiction. If you're looking for a romance Novel and you pull Sherlock Holmes off the shelf of the romance section, being annoyed with the sorting is reasonable. Pointing that out doesn't make one a genre snob.

[russdm]

I think you are forgetting about Fads and human social reasons to jump onto bandwagons. The desire to be part of the "In" Crowd. Like earning "Geek/Nerd Cred" to show how "In" that you happen to be. Like saying you like something where before you thought it was lousy, because Likening it was "In".

Popular material that everybody is watching is a way of having social interactions, so if everyone you know is watching and discussing Lost but you, then you would feel left out. So you get involved so you can be "In" the group again. If out of a group of 10 (Any number really bigger than 2), most say that they like something, then the "In" thing is to say you like it too. Or that if you state you dislike something that most of group likes, that you are not considered "In"?

I can bet that table of harry potter fans aren't really going to sit down with your GoT table without already liking GoT. Or a table of football fans with a table about GoT without members at both tables liking both. What if neither fan at either table likes the subject of the other table?

For something to be truly "Mainstream", It has to appeal the widest possible audience, because the widest possible audience is "Mainstream". That "Mainstream" audience is usually depicted as being 18-25 (45? Cuts off a certain age) with certain features that encourage repeated viewing, as displayed by the Nielson ratings.

Remember that adage, "Don't re-invent the wheel"? Why go with something new when you just repeat what worked and just make money? After Lost, TV studios were trying to find the next Lost; and mainstream media called Breaking Bad, some form of the Next Lost if I can recall correctly.

[BWR]

There's a difference between genre snobbery and wanting some precision in genres. Classifying Star Wars as fantasy and not science fiction is only snobbery if you work from the assumption that science fiction is better than fantasy, and not merely different.

And this is exactly what I have experienced from a couple of people. Strangely enough, it was always in relation to Star Trek, and how that was real SF.

[GloatingSwine]

Classifying Star Wars as fantasy and not science fiction is only snobbery if you work from the assumption that science fiction is better than fantasy, and not merely different.

Trouble is that SF and Fantasy aren't even all that different. They're both genres that start with the question "what if?". Sci-fi usually does the "what if" with technology, fantasy usually does it with non-technology, but they're fundamentally very very similar. So similar that it's not really all that productive to try and draw strong distinctions between them.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Do you want to give examples?

It's late for me, so I can't really go into much right now. I recently witnessed an episode of Black Mirror titled, "Hated in the Nation".

Something the size of a bee killing people? Yeah, maybe someone could build a specialized thing that looks like part of the overall project, but is only meant to deliver some deadly payload. Or maybe swarm people with lots of them at once and make their batteries explode, burning them to death, (some very high capacity batteries required, but still something). Wait... Drilling into skulls to tunnel into the brain to achieve a very specific result? No.

Wait, so they're trying to protect the people who they know are going to be targeted next. Makes sense. Just put them in a confined space and surround the area with powerful electromag- wait, what? They're just trying to have them run? Why? They know magnets can affect them. Why aren't they even trying to use electromagnets? Are they just stupid? They're all morons, aren't they...

Boy, better not let anyone borrow my phone in the future.

In general, anything which references nanotechnology, quantum mechanics, or has a character who's supposed to be a scientist. Nanotechnology can turn elements into other elements. Quantum mechanics isn't understood by anyone, so it's just magic. And "scientist" characters usually don't come across as intelligent.

With regards to the "scientist". It's the same sort of thing as when a soldier character doesn't have trigger discipline.


That's not what people are referring to by "Nerd Culture". That sounds more like movies having bad science or historical inaccuracies. And yeah, there's certainly a flavor of nerdery focused around knowing exactly how hypothetical spacecraft would need to work, but that's not really what we're talking about when we say "Nerd Culture is Mainstream". Hollywood is always going to have inaccuracies.

When we say "Nerd Culture", we're referring to that loosely-defined collection of genres and tropes that it was previously considered childish or embarrassing to be interested in. Stuff like Science Fiction and Fantasy that, in prior years, was assumed to only apply to a limited, relatively demographically homogeneous group (nerds). Members of this group may have accepted, or even taken pride in this identity, but most people (The Mainstream) would strive to avoid any association.

Consider. Once upon a time, if you were over the age of 16 and an enthusiastic fan of a book series about a young boy who discovers he is a wizard, then you would have been shunned as Childish, Weird, and, yes, Nerdy.

Then, Harry Potter happened, reshaping the cultural landscape as it did so. Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, ect.

Imagine, if you will, two lunchtables in a cafeteria. At one, they are discussing an upcoming football game. At the other, they are discussing the latest episode of Game of Thrones.

These days, not only is neither conversation considered "Less Acceptable" than the other, but I don't think anybody would bat an eye at hearing that somebody move between the two tables.

I was under the impression that a nerd was someone who liked a particular topic a lot. What you're describing sounds like adults enjoying as entertainment the things they liked when they were kids. I don't find that notion particularly surprising. Isn't nostalgia a thing that every generation of people feel?

[dps]

I was under the impression that a nerd was someone who liked a particular topic a lot.

Well, there's your problem. That's not what a nerd is. A nerd is someone who is socially inept, and has a hobby that doesn't involve sports or a lot of physical activity that he obsesses over, sometimes to the point of not even noticing that he's socially inept.

You can be into SF or other interests that nerds might often be associated with without being a nerd yourself, as long as you're a well-rounded individual with other interests. Just like you can be into sports without being a stereotypical dumb jock as long as you have other interests.

[Liquor Box]

That's not what people are referring to by "Nerd Culture". That sounds more like movies having bad science or historical inaccuracies. And yeah, there's certainly a flavor of nerdery focused around knowing exactly how hypothetical spacecraft would need to work, but that's not really what we're talking about when we say "Nerd Culture is Mainstream". Hollywood is always going to have inaccuracies.

When we say "Nerd Culture", we're referring to that loosely-defined collection of genres and tropes that it was previously considered childish or embarrassing to be interested in. Stuff like Science Fiction and Fantasy that, in prior years, was assumed to only apply to a limited, relatively demographically homogeneous group (nerds). Members of this group may have accepted, or even taken pride in this identity, but most people (The Mainstream) would strive to avoid any association.

Consider. Once upon a time, if you were over the age of 16 and an enthusiastic fan of a book series about a young boy who discovers he is a wizard, then you would have been shunned as Childish, Weird, and, yes, Nerdy.

Then, Harry Potter happened, reshaping the cultural landscape as it did so. Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, ect.

Imagine, if you will, two lunchtables in a cafeteria. At one, they are discussing an upcoming football game. At the other, they are discussing the latest episode of Game of Thrones.

These days, not only is neither conversation considered "Less Acceptable" than the other, but I don't think anybody would bat an eye at hearing that somebody move between the two tables.

In my opinion it is still a bit childish, weird and nerdy for a person to read (or see) Harry Potter for the first time as an adult and be an enthusiastic fan. That is because it is children's series though, not because it is fantasy. Being a fan of Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones is ok though, because they are about adults, aimed at adults and have adult content.

[Ceiling_Squid]

In my opinion it is still a bit childish, weird and nerdy for a person to read (or see) Harry Potter for the first time as an adult and be an enthusiastic fan. That is because it is children's series though, not because it is fantasy. Being a fan of Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones is ok though, because they are about adults, aimed at adults and have adult content.

On the contrary, I believe that being overly concerned about whether entertainment is "adult" enough is a pretty sure sign of immaturity or insecurity on the part of the person drawing the distinction.

Let people enjoy whatever they want. Entertainment is entertainment.

This is what I'm talking about. Textbook snobbery.

[Peelee]

On the contrary, I believe that being overly concerned about whether entertainment is "adult" enough is a pretty sure sign of immaturity or insecurity on the part of the person drawing the distinction.

Let people enjoy whatever they want. Entertainment is entertainment.

This is what I'm talking about. Textbook snobbery.

Technically, textbook snobbery would be something like only accepting un-used Pearson material.

I'll see myself out.

[Liquor Box]

On the contrary, I believe that being overly concerned about whether entertainment is "adult" enough is a pretty sure sign of immaturity or insecurity on the part of the person drawing the distinction.

Let people enjoy whatever they want. Entertainment is entertainment.

This is what I'm talking about. Textbook snobbery.

Well that may be, I wasn't commenting on whether it was appropriate or snobbish to judge people on what they watch.

I was only responding to BRC's comment that social attitudes to certain genres of TV have changed. I don't think they have changed as much as he thinks they have.

I tend to agree with you, there are sometimes examples of media snobbery on this forum. What comes to mind was that thread about how 'wrong' it was that an Adam Sandler film outperformed a Sci-Fi film at the box office.

[The Glyphstone]

Well that may be, I wasn't commenting on whether it was appropriate or snobbish to judge people on what they watch.

I was only responding to BRC's comment that social attitudes to certain genres of TV have changed. I don't think they have changed as much as he thinks they have.

I tend to agree with you, there are sometimes examples of media snobbery on this forum. What comes to mind was that thread about how 'wrong' it was that an Adam Sandler film outperformed a Sci-Fi film at the box office.

That thread was also started by our friendly bot, so I'm not sure it 'counts' as far as the opinions of the forum go.

[Aotrs Commander]

In my opinion it is still a bit childish, weird and nerdy for a person to read (or see) Harry Potter for the first time as an adult and be an enthusiastic fan. That is because it is children's series though, not because it is fantasy. Being a fan of Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones is ok though, because they are about adults, aimed at adults and have adult content.

Hi.

I was an adult when I first read Harry Potter (slightly before the forth book came out), I was an adult when I started watching and playing Pokémon (which almost immediately became a major influence on me) and I was into my thirties when My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic started (which became another major influence); and between the latter two, the major influences were Naruto and Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha.

Lords of the Rings is my second-favourite book (which I read when I was a child), I wouldn't ever give Game of Frozen Singing King Chairs on Fire (of either version) house-room and my favourite book of all time and very actual single biggest influence (which was read to me as a child) is basically a space Jane's Guide to starships.)

(And my day job is making starships.)

Not real point, just sayin'.



I think it very much depends where you live. In the UK, it appears, from the context of Children and Teenagers I know (which stretches beyond family, since Panto) there has been a considerable shift like BRC says in my lifetime.




That thread was also started by our friendly bot, so I'm not sure it 'counts' as far as the opinions of the forum go.

I keep waiting for CmdrShep2183 to come in and say "guys, c'mon seriously, quit it, I'm not a bot."

'Cos y'know, CmdrShep2183, people will probably stop saying you are if you do. And the longer you go without doing so, the more even I am becoming convinced and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, dude slash dudette slash dude-small-furry-creature-from-Alpha-Centauri...

[Peelee]

(And my day job is making starships.)

So, uh, you guys hiring? 'Cause that sounds awesome.

[Aotrs Commander]

So, uh, you guys hiring? 'Cause that sounds awesome.

Not at the amount of pennies I make...

But, if Glyphstone will forgive me a momentary brief of shameless self-promotion of the Aotrs Shipyards (https://www.shapeways.com/shops/aotrs_shipyards)...

(I generally avoid doing such on the basis of the whole not advertising thing.)

[Liquor Box]

That thread was also started by our friendly bot, so I'm not sure it 'counts' as far as the opinions of the forum go.

Well that jokes on me then, because I didn't realise.

[dps]

My point, the one everyone ignores, is that for Sci-Fi to be more mainstream, it needs to be more Adult.

Why would anyone think that? There's very little indication that mainstream entertainment is, in general, oriented towards adults. Which makes sense--adults, as a group, have less leisure time than teenagers and children.

[Darth Ultron]

Why would anyone think that? There's very little indication that mainstream entertainment is, in general, oriented towards adults. Which makes sense--adults, as a group, have less leisure time than teenagers and children.

Mainstream is adult entertainment. The 18-100 year olds that read and watch and buy things. The vast majority of things made, other then sci fi, fantasy and cartoons are for adults. Sure there is a ''mainstream for kids'' and it is called Disney. And ''family'' stuff is for kids, period(it's just rebranded to fool parents and/or make them feel good).

You might note that anything not targeted to kids/families will have adult things in it...as you, know they want to relate to adults. Your average CSI type show is full of death, murder, crime, drugs and lots of real life like hard not happy ending consequences....because they are targeted at adults. The same holds true from movies.

[Keltest]

Mainstream is adult entertainment. The 18-100 year olds that read and watch and buy things. The vast majority of things made, other then sci fi, fantasy and cartoons are for adults. Sure there is a ''mainstream for kids'' and it is called Disney. And ''family'' stuff is for kids, period(it's just rebranded to fool parents and/or make them feel good).

You might note that anything not targeted to kids/families will have adult things in it...as you, know they want to relate to adults. Your average CSI type show is full of death, murder, crime, drugs and lots of real life like hard not happy ending consequences....because they are targeted at adults. The same holds true from movies.

Yes, I suppose if you define Scifi and Fantasy as "not mainstream" then it would seem like they aren't mainstream.

Suffice to say, your worldview is very different from the majority of people who enjoy media.

[eggynack]

Mainstream is adult entertainment. The 18-100 year olds that read and watch and buy things. The vast majority of things made, other then sci fi, fantasy and cartoons are for adults. Sure there is a ''mainstream for kids'' and it is called Disney. And ''family'' stuff is for kids, period(it's just rebranded to fool parents and/or make them feel good).
Okay. So, assuming all that is true, why wouldn't a 20 year old want to watch something that a kid would be allowed to watch, because that's your current definition of "adult", as far as I can tell. Cause, realistically, most of the stuff I watch is stuff a kid would probably be allowed to watch too. Do you really spend all your time watching things that you'd have to kick kids out of the room to watch?

Beyond that, again, your baseline argument is clearly statistically wrong. However you put the numbers together, things that you classify as "adult" are getting watched more than things you classify as "kid". This is what the box office says, and it's what the ratings say. Maybe merchandising numbers are different? But honestly, the things I see the most merchandise for is stuff that's kid friendly, whether the merchandise itself is for them or not.

[BeerMug Paladin]

This may be just me, but it seems that mainstream entertainment is juvenile in nature, not adult.

One inculcated entirely within movie culture with no connection to the outside world may be shocked to learn a majority of life's problems are not solved via punching or gunplay. Juveniles often think punching a problem can make it disappear.

Reality is messy. Fiction can be clean and tidy. The trend to make things clean and tidy can make fiction tightly plotted, but it can also make fictional worlds hollow, vapid things.

There's a vast difference between the maturity level of say, the animated Avatar: The Last Airbender and Django Unchained, and it's not in the direction the audience guidelines indicate.

[Lethologica]

Mainstream is adult entertainment. The 18-100 year olds that read and watch and buy things. The vast majority of things made, other then sci fi, fantasy and cartoons are for adults. Sure there is a ''mainstream for kids'' and it is called Disney. And ''family'' stuff is for kids, period(it's just rebranded to fool parents and/or make them feel good).
You can't define mainstream as "the 18-100yo that read and watch and buy things" and then arbitrarily exclude "family" stuff that 18-100yo read/watch/buy. And it's not "fooling" anyone to, for example, appeal to adults in Up with material clearly targeted to older demographics ("Mommy, why are you crying?") in a family film.

PG-13 has been the mainstream rating (https://stephenfollows.com/which-mpaa-rating-earns-the-most-money/) for a generation (http://www.the-numbers.com/market/mpaa-ratings). This is even while the 25-39 demographic continues to be the largest share of the box office pie (www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2014.pdf). Obviously adults are not just watching 'adult entertainment'.

[dps]

You might note that anything not targeted to kids/families will have adult things in it...as you, know they want to relate to adults. Your average CSI type show is full of death, murder, crime, drugs and lots of real life like hard not happy ending consequences....because they are targeted at adults. The same holds true from movies.

Meh, I watched a lot of cop shows as a kid. Overall, I don't find CSI, NCIS or Hawaii Five-O (new version or old) any more or any less adult than Star Trek, Babylon 5, or Stargate SG-1.

[Darth Ultron]

Okay. So, assuming all that is true, why wouldn't a 20 year old want to watch something that a kid would be allowed to watch,

A 20 year old adult can watch whatever they want, including kids stuff.



But honestly, the things I see the most merchandise for is stuff that's kid friendly, whether the merchandise itself is for them or not.

Well, you just about only see merchandise for kid friendly things. This is true. The adults that watch adult type things don't buy very much merchandise about those things. They don't make Snowden action figures or the Das Boot submarine or the Dexter victim's boxed set.


Meh, I watched a lot of cop shows as a kid. Overall, I don't find CSI, NCIS or Hawaii Five-O (new version or old) any more or any less adult than Star Trek, Babylon 5, or Stargate SG-1.

Well, of course Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Stargate SG-1 are right at the same ''PG-13'' level as cop shows on TV. Network TV can't go adult until late at night and they have to too up the big ''viewer discretion advised'' label a lot. So you see the same lame ''pg-13 '' guy gets hit with a laser beam and falls down bloodlessly to ''go to sleep'' the same way a gunshot does it on CSI:Someplace.

[Keltest]

A 20 year old adult can watch whatever they want, including kids stuff.



Well, you just about only see merchandise for kid friendly things. This is true. The adults that watch adult type things don't buy very much merchandise about those things. They don't make Snowden action figures or the Das Boot submarine or the Dexter victim's boxed set.



Well, of course Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Stargate SG-1 are right at the same ''PG-13'' level as cop shows on TV. Network TV can't go adult until late at night and they have to too up the big ''viewer discretion advised'' label a lot. So you see the same lame ''pg-13 '' guy gets hit with a laser beam and falls down bloodlessly to ''go to sleep'' the same way a gunshot does it on CSI:Someplace.

That would seem to be an argument against mainstream media being "adult" if they aren't actually able to show it to the non-nocturnal populace.

[eggynack]

A 20 year old adult can watch whatever they want, including kids stuff.
So then why would being "kid's stuff" stop a thing from being mainstream, as you argued?



Well, you just about only see merchandise for kid friendly things. This is true. The adults that watch adult type things don't buy very much merchandise about those things. They don't make Snowden action figures or the Das Boot submarine or the Dexter victim's boxed set.
This sounds like you're agreeing with me that you were wrong in your initial comment. So, cool.



Well, of course Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Stargate SG-1 are right at the same ''PG-13'' level as cop shows on TV. Network TV can't go adult until late at night and they have to too up the big ''viewer discretion advised'' label a lot. So you see the same lame ''pg-13 '' guy gets hit with a laser beam and falls down bloodlessly to ''go to sleep'' the same way a gunshot does it on CSI:Someplace.
Again, pretty direct agreement. Does this all mean you think you were mistaken in at least the second half of your argument, that sci-fi being limited to kid's stuff is keeping it from being mainstream somehow?

[An Enemy Spy]

Darth Ultron's idea of adult entertainment seems to be predicated on the amount of blood, sex, and swearing invloved, irrespective of considerations like the overall tone of the work. It may be that graphic violence, explicit sex, and excessive swearing are only allowed in adult material, but the absence of them doesn't in any way make a work non-adult. It's obvious that nothing anyone else says has any impact on you, so I'll just say that maybe when you're older you'll get it. Or not.

[dps]

Darth Ultron's idea of adult entertainment seems to be predicated on the amount of blood, sex, and swearing invloved, irrespective of considerations like the overall tone of the work. It may be that graphic violence, explicit sex, and excessive swearing are only allowed in adult material, but the absence of them doesn't in any way make a work non-adult.

Yep, but some people just don't get it.

[Liquor Box]

Why would anyone think that? There's very little indication that mainstream entertainment is, in general, oriented towards adults. Which makes sense--adults, as a group, have less leisure time than teenagers and children.

In terms of fantasy, Game of Thrones definitely has a more adult tone than most, and it appears (could be wrong, not sure of the figures) to have more of a mainstream following than most other fantasy works.

[Knaight]

In terms of fantasy, Game of Thrones definitely has a more adult tone than most, and it appears (could be wrong, not sure of the figures) to have more of a mainstream following than most other fantasy works.

It's also a high budget production based on a series of popular books. That's a winning formula regardless - Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter don't have a particularly "adult" tone, but they weren't exactly box office failures.

[Liquor Box]

It's also a high budget production based on a series of popular books. That's a winning formula regardless - Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter don't have a particularly "adult" tone, but they weren't exactly box office failures.

That's true.

My impression though is that GoT is popular among people who are not typically fantasy fans. It is frequently discussed at my work by people who would not have seen LotR. I suppose Harry Potter is similarly mainstream (in terms of being popular among people who are not ordinarily fantasy fans), but I think most of its fans are children. In terms of viewers/performance, not simply to compare movies to a tv series.

[Razade]

That's true.

My impression though is that GoT is popular among people who are not typically fantasy fans. It is frequently discussed at my work by people who would not have seen LotR. I suppose Harry Potter is similarly mainstream (in terms of being popular among people who are not ordinarily fantasy fans), but I think most of its fans are children. In terms of viewers/performance, not simply to compare movies to a tv series.

Neither of the things Knaight gave as examples did poorly outside markets where Fantasyfare is typically consumed. You don't get to be a series of blockbuster movies by appealing to a small demographic. Game of Thrones isn't any more popular than either Harry Potter o Lord of The Rings.

[Knaight]

That's true.

My impression though is that GoT is popular among people who are not typically fantasy fans. It is frequently discussed at my work by people who would not have seen LotR. I suppose Harry Potter is similarly mainstream (in terms of being popular among people who are not ordinarily fantasy fans), but I think most of its fans are children. In terms of viewers/performance, not simply to compare movies to a tv series.

Most of the people who are currently fans of those two are fantasy fans. When they came out though? I guarantee that plenty of people who otherwise had no interest in fantasy watched them and talked about them. IMDB box office data on LotR* puts US box office earnings alone at 314 million, 340 million, and 377 million. The entire population of the country at the time of these movies was about 288 million (by 2002 data; the movies came out 2001, 2002, and 2003). Averaging more than a dollar per person on tickets is indicative of massive appeal, niche audiences do not spend that much money on tickets by themselves. GoT's specific popularity might be because it, specifically has "adult" stuff. That's part of the identity of the show and the novels on which it is based, and it's an important aspect in both. It clearly isn't necessary for everything though.

*I would check both, but it's easier to check 3 movies than 11.

[Liquor Box]

Most of the people who are currently fans of those two are fantasy fans. When they came out though? I guarantee that plenty of people who otherwise had no interest in fantasy watched them and talked about them. IMDB box office data on LotR* puts US box office earnings alone at 314 million, 340 million, and 377 million. The entire population of the country at the time of these movies was about 288 million (by 2002 data; the movies came out 2001, 2002, and 2003). Averaging more than a dollar per person on tickets is indicative of massive appeal, niche audiences do not spend that much money on tickets by themselves. GoT's specific popularity might be because it, specifically has "adult" stuff. That's part of the identity of the show and the novels on which it is based, and it's an important aspect in both. It clearly isn't necessary for everything though.

*I would check both, but it's easier to check 3 movies than 11.

Fair point

[Darth Ultron]

So then why would being "kid's stuff" stop a thing from being mainstream, as you argued?

Because kids stuff is a separate silly category.


Again, pretty direct agreement. Does this all mean you think you were mistaken in at least the second half of your argument, that sci-fi being limited to kid's stuff is keeping it from being mainstream somehow?

No, I said before that stuff like Star Trek is ''close to teen'' stuff then kids stuff. You know on Star Trek they will like kiss and hold hands...in a very Pg-13 teen like way. Though this is the limit of most nextwork TV anyway.


Darth Ultron's idea of adult entertainment seems to be predicated on the amount of blood, sex, and swearing invloved, irrespective of considerations like the overall tone of the work. It may be that graphic violence, explicit sex, and excessive swearing are only allowed in adult material, but the absence of them doesn't in any way make a work non-adult.

You can say ''tone'' or whatever else you want to say, but there is a difference between kids/family and adult type entertainment. And it is not just the ''shock'' stuff, it's a lot of things.

[eggynack]

Because kids stuff is a separate silly category.
That doesn't seem like an answer. Anyone can and does watch stuff from any category they're generally allowed to, silly or not, so silliness wouldn't imply that something can't be mainstream.




No, I said before that stuff like Star Trek is ''close to teen'' stuff then kids stuff. You know on Star Trek they will like kiss and hold hands...in a very Pg-13 teen like way. Though this is the limit of most nextwork TV anyway.

But, like, Star Wars. Tons of merch. Kids only according to you. Toy Story. Tons of toys, obviously (or not so obviously, cause they apparently didn't expect as much demand as they got). Clearly kid's stuff if Star Wars is. Merchandise is most closely associated with what you define as kid's stuff, so listing that as an asset to works that are teen and up seems nonsensical.



You can say ''tone'' or whatever else you want to say, but there is a difference between kids/family and adult type entertainment. And it is not just the ''shock'' stuff, it's a lot of things.
That's not even remotely what you were expressing previously.

[Razade]

You can say ''tone'' or whatever else you want to say, but there is a difference between kids/family and adult type entertainment. And it is not just the ''shock'' stuff, it's a lot of things.

What are those things? What are they? Come on, you have to have a list. What. Are. Those. Things.

[An Enemy Spy]

What are those things? What are they? Come on, you have to have a list. What. Are. Those. Things.

You're never going to get a straight answer from him. He'll just repeat the same lines over and over and try to obfuscate the fact he has no ground to stand on by using vague terms that can't be assigned concrete definitions.

[Razade]

You're never going to get a straight answer from him. He'll just repeat the same lines over and over and try to obfuscate the fact he has no ground to stand on by using vague terms that can't be assigned concrete definitions.

Oh, I know. I recall the last Sphrd thread about animation with Ultron. Good times, should go check that thread out. You'll get a chuckle too no doubt.

[Lethologica]

Really, it's like D_U follows this bot around to derail its threads.

[Razade]

Really, it's like D_U follows this bot around to derail its threads.

All forces in the Universe need something to balance them out.

[Kitten Champion]

All forces in the Universe need something to balance them out.

He's more of an amplifier though. Several of these threads - I believe this is the third - would have died out quickly if DU wasn't around to emphatically agree with the good Commander and provoke the forum.

Sci-Fi has been mainstream in television/cinema since pretty much the inception (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNLZntSdyKE) of their respective mediums - hell, since radio, comics, and pulp - but as genre enthusiasts apparently we have to feel like we're part of some repressed misunderstood minority of such sublime taste that we'll vaguely codify real sci-fi is only being X, Y, and Z and that's totally not respected by our collective Dads so we're going to throw a fit and stomp away into our bedrooms and slam the door on the cretinous masses for their vanilla simpleton Midwestern American tastes.

**** this bot.

[Darth Ultron]

But, like, Star Wars. Tons of merch. Kids only according to you. Toy Story. Tons of toys, obviously (or not so obviously, cause they apparently didn't expect as much demand as they got). Clearly kid's stuff if Star Wars is. Merchandise is most closely associated with what you define as kid's stuff, so listing that as an asset to works that are teen and up seems nonsensical.


The problem is people. If person a likes Star Wars that will want it to be considered ''the greatest thing ever'' and they feel very insulted when they are told ''Star Wars is kids stuff''. They think that as they are biologically an adult that anything they like must be adult stuff. You hear the same cries from the adults that like Harry Potter or Twilight.


What are those things? What are they? Come on, you have to have a list. What. Are. Those. Things.

Asking me to list what things exactly?

[Razade]

Asking me to list what things exactly?



You can say ''tone'' or whatever else you want to say, but there is a difference between kids/family and adult type entertainment. And it is not just the ''shock'' stuff, it's a lot of things.

You cannot, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, be this oblivious to things you've already said. I know it's a dodge because you won't ever be pinned down and answer in anything but the most bare, most generic terms possible for risk of being called on your constant, unmitigated stream of bull but I'm an optimist so there are your own words. What is "the lot of things"that separate kid and adult entertainment.

[Lethologica]

The problem is people. If person a likes Star Wars that will want it to be considered ''the greatest thing ever'' and they feel very insulted when they are told ''Star Wars is kids stuff''. They think that as they are biologically an adult that anything they like must be adult stuff. You hear the same cries from the adults that like Harry Potter or Twilight.
On the contrary, the only person who seems to be insulted here is you, with your adamant denial that your favorite genre is going mainstream thanks for the most part to that lame "kids stuff" you so despise.

[BRC]

Pulling back a bit, let's examine the use of the phrase "Adult Content" vs Things that Adults Like.

"Adult Content" as it's generally used, isn't so much used to refer to content that Adults want to see (Although some of them certainly do), it's used to describe content that we, as a society, have deemed unsuitable for children.

It is entirely possible to have a film that appeals to adults that contains very little, or no, "Adult content".

Off the top of my head, the 2005 film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, contains neither graphic violence nor anything sexual. So, while it would be acceptable to show an eight year old Pride and Prejudice, they're unlikely to especially enjoy the experience. That said, it's got pretty good reviews, so clearly it's not just a terrible movie.

On the opposite spectrum from "Adult Content" you have "Kid's Stuff", which once again, is not synonymous with "Stuff Kids Like", so much as "Stuff that Adults find unpleasant", either because we find it annoying, or more commonly, because we deem it "Childish" and shameful to enjoy.

Recently, we've seen a ton of media with considerable crossover appeal. Stuff like Adventure Time, which managed to exclude both "Adult Content" and a good deal of "Kid's Stuff", and thus create what was ostensibly a "Kid's Show", that still appealed to a larger audience. Admittedly, it did this in part by alternating between appealing to it's two audiences, mostly having basic "Crazy Magic Adventure" episodes, while occasionally switching to episodes with a more in-depth focus on character or backstory that might be lost on it's youngest viewers.

But, I would argue that Science-Fiction has already occupied that space for quite a while. Just look at Star Wars, while it was certainly popular among children, I don't think it was ever considered exclusively a "Children's Franchise", the type of thing that parents suffer through for the sake of their children, and even if it once was, it certainly is not nowadays, as the people who were children when it came out are now adults, sometimes with children of their own.


That said, a lot of the prior stigma against "Nerd Culture" was that it was inherently childish and immature. So, as it has become more socially acceptable to enjoy "Nerdy" things, I think it has also become socially acceptable to enjoy "Childish" things.

Hrmmm, I wonder if a connection could be made to the destigmatization of "Children's Entertainment", and The Simpsons. When you have a wildly popular animated sitcom that regularly deals with adult themes, you can't exactly argue that cartoons are inherently childish.

[snowblizz]

Hrmmm, I wonder if a connection could be made to the destigmatization of "Children's Entertainment", and The Simpsons. When you have a wildly popular animated sitcom that regularly deals with adult themes, you can't exactly argue that cartoons are inherently childish.

For me it was Southpark. I had only seen some of the silly juvenile stuff in parts so dismissed it as "that kind of cartoon I don't care for" (there's a lot of it, for some reason the cartoons I enjoy aren't hip enough or something, I'm odl I guess). For some reaons I ended watching an entire episode once. It happened to be the one where the parents are upset about T&P and the kids watching inappropriate stuff that they end up catapulting themselves into the network's offices. I ends with the SP kids musing over how adults must care so much about what's on tv since they aren't around to raise the kids themselves. And in that moment I realsied this was definitely not just "children's entertainment" but a deep adult satire about the genre. I've been hooked ever since.

[Knaight]

On the opposite spectrum from "Adult Content" you have "Kid's Stuff", which once again, is not synonymous with "Stuff Kids Like", so much as "Stuff that Adults find unpleasant", either because we find it annoying, or more commonly, because we deem it "Childish" and shameful to enjoy.

I'm not so sure that the shameful to enjoy chunk is the large factor in "Kid's Stuff". It might be what prompts the use of "Kid's Stuff" as a dismissive term, but there is a lot in the way of shows and books that just don't appeal to adults but that kids manage to enjoy. Maybe they're just too simple and too shallow, maybe its the inclusion of messaging that kids might notice as a subtle background thing that instead comes off as ham-handed propaganda for adults, maybe it's that kids in general haven't developed standards yet due to having read/seen a smaller body of work and having lived less life and that there is genuinely a lot of lazy garbage that sticks around much better than it should, maybe it's that all flash and no substance plays better with a younger audience (although this gets back into the standards category). In any case, there's a large body of works appreciated by kids that adults are extremely unlikely to like.

[Darth Ultron]

Hrmmm, I wonder if a connection could be made to the destigmatization of "Children's Entertainment", and The Simpsons. When you have a wildly popular animated sitcom that regularly deals with adult themes, you can't exactly argue that cartoons are inherently childish.

There is a difference between Animation and Cartoons. And it's mostly right on the kid/adult split. Animation-Simpsons, Southpark, Archer Cartoons-Anime, Disney movies, everything on Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon.

[Keltest]

There is a difference between Animation and Cartoons. And it's mostly right on the kid/adult split. Animation-Simpsons, Southpark, Archer Cartoons-Anime, Disney movies, everything on Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon.

Given that you have yet to define the kid/adult split for anybody, that is a meaningless distinction.

[DoctorFaust]

Given that you have yet to define the kid/adult split for anybody, that is a meaningless distinction.

And given that cartoons are just a subset of animation, it's an even more meaningless one.

[Friv]

There is a difference between Animation and Cartoons. And it's mostly right on the kid/adult split. Animation-Simpsons, Southpark, Archer Cartoons-Anime, Disney movies, everything on Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon.

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

[Lethologica]

There is no 'split'. There is a broad overlap between material suitable for kids and material suitable for adults.

[Aotrs Commander]

Isn't Adult Swim on Cartoon Network, or is that not a Thing anymore stateside? (I ask since we've neve really had it at all over here.)

Was anime supposed to be classified in "cartoons?" Because combined with rhe implication of the aforemention statement would suggest anime is "kid's stuff" (sic) and... I'm pretty sure a lot of anime... Really kind of isn't...?



Also, before CG, the only animation that was not cartoons would be, like, stop motion and such... I.e. every, like, children's television ever. I mean, you can make an argument that 'pon a time animation was entirely assumed to be kid's stuff, but I'm not sure you can say Bagpus or the Clangers is really on the "adult" side of the animation=>adult/cartoon=>children split if we were to assume we want to make one....?

Actually... Come to that, pretty much even CG tends to used for the majority of what by D_U's definition is "kid's stuff."

So, what does that classfy was, since it forms the majority of non-cartoon animation, but is decidedly not "adult" (sic).




'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

*tips helmet*

[Razade]

There is a difference between Animation and Cartoons. And it's mostly right on the kid/adult split. Animation-Simpsons, Southpark, Archer Cartoons-Anime, Disney movies, everything on Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon.

Hey. Hey, still waiting for your answer to my question.