What happened to Science Fiction

Article

I have been waiting for something like this since my science fiction class my freshman year of college. When I learned of the Golden Age of science fiction and related that to the Star Trek and Star Wars I had grown up on, I have begun to wonder where all of the science fiction has gone.

Science fiction, especially in the Golden Age (Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury), actually excited people and gave the public incentive to push at programs like NASA. Everyone wanted to reach for the stars. Everyone wanted to be out there.

Now? Not to much.

It's seen as a waste of time and effort. We have lost the hope that there is something spectacular out there and are getting too focused on the material things on Earth. We aren't even focused on the right things here on Earth. We are too busy looking at ourselves to even look around us at the other humans that exist on the surface of this rock speeding through space. We don't have a moment to spare to look up.

But that was only one shift in our perception apparently. This article covers the other.

I do disagree with their continued use of the word 'porn' to describe the content of the films, but they are right about the switch from active intelligence solving problems to using brute force in a futuristic setting. I think the trend starts from a concept I've talked about a long time ago, the introductory character. Writers want to bring in the audience through a character who knows as much as they do. They don't want to be left behind at the very beginning. But unfortunately it seems like this introductory character has been copy/pasted onto the rest of the characters as well. We've even lost the booksmart/streetdumb character for average joes going out and accomplishing greatness. The scenery of the science fiction world is still there. Writers and directors still have grandiose designs for our future cities and impossible to believe devices, but the way the characters interact with them seems to be lacking that futuristic edge. It makes one doubt that humanity will ever reach that stage if their best and brightest are just fumbling around. Even the classics are being rewritten, as subtly pointed out by the article.

Star Trek has always been classed as a team of scientists, explorers, engineers, and technicians led by the brave but worldly captains of the Star Fleet. There was a focus on how the technology affected life and how we would perceive other societies through that lens of technology. They got dozens of seasons over several franchises following that theme. Yes, sometimes it was cheesy and sometimes it connected back to humanitarian themes and sometimes it was the brute force that won out, but not always.

But we've lost a little bit of that with the remake. Everything to me was too shiny and too perfect. There wasn't the grit or wear that I would love to see. Getting into space won't be easy and it definitely won't be so manufactured. But that aside, as the article stated, the focus is on how Kirk isn't suitable for captaincy and that's why he's the best guy for the job. ... Think about that statement. It doesn't work and it definitely wouldn't be allowed. Ever. Yes, it makes a good story, but you lose the coherency of the background setting when you go about breaking the rules like that. And Spock isn't rewarded for his hard work or intelligence but on his emotional outbursts and constant banter with Kirk. Even the engineer only gets lucky instead of outsmarting his opponent. They are all kinda competent at their job, but that's not why they are lauded in the films. The Next Generation comparatively had the characters play to their assigned roles as captain, first officer, science officer, security, therapist, engineer, ensign, etc, before focusing on their personalities and characteristics.

The article goes into the why of this phenomenon. Despite the trend of everyone and their grandmother owning the latest piece of technology, we can't seem to use them. We laugh at those who are technology dumbfounded and then smack our phones/computers/laptops/music playing devices when they don't do exactly what we want. We have generated technology smarter than us. I am speaking in general terms. I understand that there are very intelligent people out there who have never had a technical problem that took them longer than fifteen minutes, but man, I have been reading Not Always Right, and we as a whole don't know how to handle technology. It's this sense of frustration that is pushing writers and directors to make all of the cast into introductory characters despite their intended role so that we as an audience don't feel mocked or ridiculed by the newer technologies. We are comforted when we see people of the future having technical issues and resolving them with brute force because it validates our current behaviors. This contrasts with the competent but modern characters which give us the sense of hope that maybe we haven't let the technology exceed us. We get a sense of "Oh, I could do that if I really tried" instead of a worrying pressure that in the future we'll all have to be naturally good at everything. Which isn't true and why there still needs to be a balance between the everyday heroes and the booksmart/streetdumb and maybe even the streetsmart characters to support the heroes.

But it would be nice to have some competent heroes to look up to. You know, have a brilliant engineer be the star of the show so that people would be inspired to become that engineer. I'm sure there are stories and plot lines that don't revolve around the lead's insecurities, incompetencies, ability to break the rules without real consequence. I mean, do we really want the next generation to look up to those types of characters?

I understand there is the social pressure on the media to feed them what doesn't make them uncomfortable, to give them what they want in return for money, but I think the media also has a responsibility to push back onto society. There is not a doubt that media shapes society as much as society demands of the media. But one of them needs to start standing up and push back at the vicious cycle that we've fallen into. Calling it out is the first step. The next is for people to start listening. To start paying attention. And look at that, I've circled back onto an old argument.