« first day  last day (15 days later) » 

Adamant
Adamant
02:55
@wetcircuit I don't think you're correct. There really are people who like more scientific works, and there really are people who like less scientific works.
Dismissing all that as mere "posturing and gatekeeping" requires looking at a lot of people's opinions, and postulating that their profferred explanation is the wrong one.
I would think that the obvious existence of writers who prefer to write more science-based stories would make the existence of readers who prefer to read them obvious.
@wetcircuit Yes, I think you already wrote more or less this exact sentence somewhere else. I am not an Expanse fan, but as devil's advocate: 1) The protomolecule isn't scientifically realistic, but for fans whose point of reference is something like Star Trek, the science on the show is much more plausible. Some of the technobabble on the show is actually real, which is fairly different from Star Trek.
2) When you say another white savior farmboy.... They're white, and they're the protagonist. That happens sometimes....
Of course, representation in US television is not even close to equitable, but even if it were, about 66% of the protagonists would be white (although not, admittedly farmers or boys).
Adamant
Adamant
03:25
@wetcircuit As a side note on Worldbuilding, if you're familiar with the Alcubierre drive, don't you think fairy tale isn't an entirely accurate description?
Obviously, it doesn't exist, and it may not be possible for it to exist. But it's not some inconsistent nonsense written by a crank. The theory behind it is based on accurate general relativity, and was published by Miguel Alcubierre in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. It's notable for not violating local subluminal velocity requirements, and only requires one object that may not existence (matter with a negative-mass energy density).
There have been a variety of follow-up papers investigating its plausibility. It's actually pretty decent theoretical physics.
To me, the fact that the Alcubierre drive is considered relatively plausible science fiction is understandable. Consider that its main problems are "We would need a substance allowed by physics but with has not yet been observed and may not exist" and "It would need to be very large and have very precise engineering."
Compare that to something like FTL travel in Star Wars: "We would need, um, an extra universe? With different physics?"
Or Star Trek faster-than-light travel, where propulsion uses dilithium, which is a molecule that doesn't exist and for which no theoretical mechanism has been proposed for it to produce faster-than-light travel.
I agree to an extent with the point I think you made? That often what matters to fans isn't scientific plausibility at all. Sometimes it's just the appearance of it (that temporal and spatial distance you mentioned), and sometimes it's just a cover for sexism, racism, or just plain gatekeeping.
But I don't think it's correct that the entirety of such expressed preferences can be ascribed to all those previous factors. The Martian, The Dispossessed, the Imperial Radch series, and so forth do have at least a portion of their audience that's drawn to them because they make more of an effort to be correct than Star Wars or Doctor Who.
wetcircuit
wetcircuit
04:07
Do you believe that no one would watch The Martian AND Dr Who…?
Alcubierre Drive: "Just needs on element that doesn't exist…" therefore practically doable!

Warp Drive: "requires an element that does not exist…" therefore ridiculous tomfoolery

Ahh, of course. I must have missed that SUBTLE difference there. Please explain string theory in a pompous and condescending voice because the things I bring up which you agree with need to be mansplained like I didn't bring it up. LOL
wetcircuit
wetcircuit
04:38
I'm not going to blame the audience when movies are badly written…. I've walked out of 2 or 3 movies in my life (a Star Wars prequel was one of them), and a handful of stage plays. Usually you are with friends and can't really ditch them (not to mention the expense), but you may be right. If a movie looks too dumb I will pass. That is me as audience pre-judging a movie based (almost always) on how un-intelligent it seems to be. However I don't limit that to the science, but really the characters and the writing in general. I don't confuse production gloss with "scientific realism". The Expa…
Did that answer your question?

« first day  last day (15 days later) »