Slashdot Mirror


Is Science Fiction About The Future Anymore?

An anonymous reader writes "A recent Globe and Mail article looked at the state of science fiction and concluded that the future is bleak. Fantasy and science fantasy are popular but near-future predictions are not. But author Robert J. Sawyer says, 'Science fiction has never been about the future, it's always been about the present day...' 'People are looking for a simplicity in their fictional worlds where good and evil are clearly delineated, that you can't find in the real world, and that provides an enormous comfort -- and that, I think, has an awful lot to do with the reason fantasy is so popular.'"

7 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Is Science Fiction About The Future Anymore? by jeephistorian · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess only time will tell!

    _________________

    --
    Huh?
  2. Getting Old by MikeMacK · · Score: 4, Funny
    Michael Moore appropriated the title of his classic book Fahrenheit 411 for his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11

    Bradbury must be getting old if he can't remember the titles of his own books.

    1. Re:Getting Old by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bradbury apparently misdialed when getting calling for information on Fahrenheit...

      Tim

  3. Re:This is funny by savagedome · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never predict anything concerning science or science fiction. You will always be wrong.

    Is that a prediction?

  4. Some religions, yes. by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

    Historians have successfully cross-checked so much of the Christian Bible against historical facts that I'd think twice before calling it a fantasy story.

  5. Re:Fantasy vs SF by Toresica · · Score: 5, Funny

    Overall, I think SF has run out of ideas.

    That's why you're not an author.

  6. Re:Hogwash! by koreth · · Score: 4, Funny
    It's just that there have been made so many "crappy" science fiction movies lately

    That's so true. I want to return to the 1930s, when all the science fiction on the big screen was much less crappy. I mean, Flash Gordon. Buck Rogers. Intellectually fulfilling stuff, that -- the men were men, the alien women were knockouts, and the bad guys were Chinese.

    Well, okay, maybe the 1940s. Yeah. "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man." "The Invisible Woman." "One Million B.C." That's more like it.

    No? How about the 1950s, which gave us dozens of cinematic classics about giant ants/scorpions/spiders on a rampage, along with "I Was a Teenage Frankenstein," "Devil Girl From Mars," "Jungle Moon Men," "The Man From Planet X," and "Monster From the Ocean Floor?" (Everyone's from somewhere!)

    But surely the 1960s are the good old days. I mean, hey, "Barbarella" -- no cheese there. "Gill Women of Venus." "How To Make a Doll." "Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster."

    Well, okay. The 1970s gave us "Star Wars," so that's gotta be the oasis in the cinematic desert. Surely that outweighs "Meteor," "Starcrash," "The Giant Spider Invasion," "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth," and "Dracula Versus Frankenstein" (damn that Mary Shelley and her interminable sequels!)

    The 1980s certainly produced a lot more science fiction movies than earlier decades, thanks to "Star Wars." But were they good movies? Some were. But I also remember "Interface." "Alien From L.A." "Space Raiders." And the inimitable Scott Baio's "Zapped!" -- what a masterpiece that one was.

    Then we get to the 1990s. Surely the advent of really good special effects must have led to an explosion of quality in science-fiction filmmaking. But no -- in fact all of your examples of crappy films are from the 1990s.

    So when did "lately" start again?

    Sturgeon's Law doesn't have an expiration date or a start date, I'm afraid.