Part of scifi fluff that really annoys you

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**HawkWall**

Rented Tritium wrote:
HawkWall wrote:
3 annoying things in certain Scifi shows.

1. In Stargate for example. WHY are all the aliens speaking english??
I mean its just so very stupid.
the show 'Farscape' had a simple but effective way of explaining this in the form of 'translator microbes'.

2. In the majority of Scifi shows, almost all the aliens are basically 'Humans with masks on'
why is that?? Everyone has 2 legs, 2 arms and the facial features are mostly the same.
Why not somehing like the Shadows from Babylon 5, Elcor or Hanar from Mass effect.

3. In independence Day, the virus uploading was just so stupid.. *sigh*.. So stupid..

1. Tiny translators in the comm badges, in the equipment, embedded in the ear are generally the explanation in all of these shows. It's just not said out loud in every episode. Usually it's mentioned once and that's it

2. Because these shows aren't real and have budgets to meet. Sad but true. Starfish aliens are more common in CGI heavy shows and videogames. Facts of life here.

3. That was actually explained. All human computer technology was reverse engineered from the alien ship in the independance day universe. This means that the apple computer is literally alien technology already.

1. How was it explained in Stargate?
2. They could have even made the masks more 'non-human'. It would have required less make up and lookes cooler.
3. Oh yeah, i remember now. My bad.

**CthuluIsSpy**

1: It wasn't.

All aliens could speak english, because they could...well, most human "aliens" anyway.

The "true" aliens (like those fish men and the spider aliens) needed some sort of ambassador to communicate (Jackson for the fishmen and this clone for the spiders), and the Goald have been in contact with humanity long enough to know their language.

The Aschen, those medieval peasants on that one world and other Tau'ri derivatives? They can all speak English.

**Compel**

I explained the reason back on page 4.

It's simply because the creators decided:

"Do you want an episode of 40 minutes of Daniel learning ancient language A, then 5 minutes of plot? Then doing the same thing the next episode."

I find that refreshingly honest for a tv show as opposed to shoehorning in some technobabble.

**insaniak**

HawkWall wrote:
2. They could have even made the masks more 'non-human'. It would have required less make up and lookes cooler.

The more non-human you make them, the more involved the make-up process gets. It hasn't been as simple as putting a rubber mask on and calling the job a good'un since probably the 70s.

And the more involved the make-up process gets, the more time people spend in the chair instead of on set... which pushes out production times, which pushes out costs.

**SilverMK2**

Not to mention that someone in a mask is someone in a mask - doesn't really matter what the mask is.

"Oh, look, another humanoid alien with a funny head!"

**CuddlySquig**

Has anyone mentioned the Sith Rule of Two from the Star Wars expanded universe? Holy cow, is that ever stupid.

**SilverMK2**

CuddlySquig wrote:
Has anyone mentioned the Sith Rule of Two from the Star Wars expanded universe? Holy cow, is that ever stupid.

Care to expand on that?

**CuddlySquig**

In short, the Sith order of the Star Wars world was forcibly confined to just two individuals (a master and an apprentice) by an ancient edict called the Rule of Two. Hence Vader/the Emperor being the crux of the dark side.

**insaniak**

That wasn't from the EU. It was from the Phantom Menace.

The EU has fairly universally ignored it, or found 'creative' ways around it.

**CuddlySquig**

Might have first been hinted at in the Phantom Menace, by a throwaway line by Yoda at the very end of the film. But in the Expanded Universe didn't they go like "look at how many Sith there were before Darth Bane did this Rule of Two order."

**AegisGrimm**

Even discounting the wildly deviating cost of a mass-produced targeting computer versus a human life, Ship-to-Ship Missiles trump Space Fighters because of one very important term in space: "Bingo Fuel".

There's a point where if your buddy doesn't turn back, you either have to spend exorbitant amounts of fuel using the mothership to pick them up, or they spend an eternity floating through space at the speed they ran out of fuel at, where if a missile misses the target, you shrug and fire another one.

**prime12357**

AegisGrimm wrote:
...where if a missile misses the target, you shrug and fire another one.

Of course, I would assume that you'd tip the thing with a nuke, and then you could just give it a magnetic influence detonator and have it detonate if it missed. The detonation would not be appreciated by anything.

Another bit about the fighter v. missile thing that should be touched upon is armament. If the fighter is shooting off nuclear weapons, they're going to need quite a bit of shielding and whatnot, if it's lasers or what have you, power becomes a concern, etc. For missiles, it's a lot easier to just have the damn thing accelerate to 0.9c and just smack into whatever you're shooting at, depending on propulsion.

**insaniak**

CuddlySquig wrote:
Might have first been hinted at in the Phantom Menace, by a throwaway line by Yoda at the very end of the film. But in the Expanded Universe didn't they go like "look at how many Sith there were before Darth Bane did this Rule of Two order."

They stuck with the Rule of Two for a while, because they had to... Film stuff is canon, regardless of how silly it is, or how much it contradicts anything that was written previously.

So they created a set period in which the Rule of Two applied... but even within that period, there were often more than two Sith running around at once.

After all, you can't really expect the bad guys to follow the rules all the time... Even when those rules are their own.

**generalgrog**

Jon Conner could never have sent Kyle Reese to protect Sarah Conner because Jon Conner couldn't have existed without Kyle Reese impregnating Sara Conner first. So in other words, Kyle Reese couldn't have been Jon Conners father.

GG

**insaniak**

generalgrog wrote:
Jon Conner could never have sent Kyle Reese to protect Sarah Conner because Jon Conner couldn't have existed without Kyle Reese impregnating Sara Conner first. So in other words, Kyle Reese couldn't have been Jon Conners father.

It was the midiclorians.

**RiTides**

I'm sure it's been mentioned numerous times, but... noises in space/ vacuum!

**insaniak**

RiTides wrote:
I'm sure it's been mentioned numerous times, but... noises in space/ vacuum!

I don't have a particular problem with it, but the silent space scenes were one of the things that I really enjoyed about Firefly.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

CuddlySquig wrote:
In short, the Sith order of the Star Wars world was forcibly confined to just two individuals (a master and an apprentice) by an ancient edict called the Rule of Two. Hence Vader/the Emperor being the crux of the dark side.

The reason for creation made complete sense though, the Sith leaders kept getting ganged up on and killed by their minions.

**malfred**

For some reason, I am immune to the pull of tvtropes.

In the Star Wars Expanded Universe, they explained that it
was Darth Bane that made up the Rule of 2, not because
they were getting ganged up on, but because he wanted
them to consolidate their power and not act all nice nice like
the Light Side.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn, I hated that book.

**Ratbarf**

Rule of Two? I rather liked both of the Bane books personally.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Frankly, I'd rather have the Sith be more like they were in SWTOR... ya know, more like a bad episode of Game of Thrones with everyone plotting and scheming to move up in the world.

**purplefood**

Personally I'd rather have the Sith be crazy, nutcase, balls out insane psychopaths.

**Laughing Man**

prime12357 wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:
...where if a missile misses the target, you shrug and fire another one.

Of course, I would assume that you'd tip the thing with a nuke, and then you could just give it a magnetic influence detonator and have it detonate if it missed. The detonation would not be appreciated by anything.

Another bit about the fighter v. missile thing that should be touched upon is armament. If the fighter is shooting off nuclear weapons, they're going to need quite a bit of shielding and whatnot, if it's lasers or what have you, power becomes a concern, etc. For missiles, it's a lot easier to just have the damn thing accelerate to 0.9c and just smack into whatever you're shooting at, depending on propulsion.

Nukes are actually fairly ineffective in space, due to the lack of a shockwave. Better to use bomb pumped lasers.

**Alfndrate**

Ratbarf wrote:
Rule of Two? I rather liked both of the Bane books personally.

The concept that there can only be 1 master and 1 apprentice at any one time in the universe...

>_> If I remember correctly.

**Selym**

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
ProtoClone wrote:
Germs, and how little they play a part in encountering alien species.

Using "War of the Worlds" as an good example of poorly planned alien enviroment preperation. In most other sci-fi settings, you never see something like this happening. It's like the go waltzing through a biological fire fight and manage to not get hit by anything.

That was one thing I priased Enterprise for was their emphasis on making sure no one brought anything back with them when they would go to alien worlds.

Actually, seeing as how the inside of living creatures forms one of the most hostile environments on earth, with bacteria and virii only able to inhabit/attack species they've specifically adapted to, it's so unlikely as to be impossible for alien diseases to effect humans, and vice-versa.

The worst trends in sci-fi are, first off: using alien species as a hamfisted metaphor for racism: racism isn't wrong because it's mean or intolerant, it's wrong because it's factually incorrect and grossly detached from reality; when you introduce beings that genuinely are of a fundamentally different nature, pretending they shouldn't be treated any different because "TOLERANCE!" is outright gibbering lunacy.

The second is treating humans as "weak but clever", or levelheaded to a fault; we're physically large and powerful creatures possessed of incredible endurance and general resilience, ridiculous adaptability, an instinctive grasp of basic tactics, and a propensity for extreme violence in the face of danger.

Which is why I like 40k, whenever humans are threatened, we go crazy and beat the living hell out of whatever alien provoked us (Major example being the great crusade, and every toughened guardsman ever).

**Ratbarf**

Alfndrate wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:
Rule of Two? I rather liked both of the Bane books personally.

The concept that there can only be 1 master and 1 apprentice at any one time in the universe...

>_> If I remember correctly.

There are two Darth Bane books, one of which is called Rule of Two. I was asking if he didn't like either books, just the one, or the whole concept. Rule of Two does make a certain amount of sense as has been stated. It also allowed the Sith to go underground, as the Jedi thought them extinct.

**Vaerros**

While not annoyed per se, I find it disagreeable(from a realism standpoint, depending on the IP) when certain works include a focus of any sort on melee weaponry or rather a contrived justification for the use of melee weapons in combat.

40k, while not contemporary sci-fi, is a prime example, but there are traces of this in other works -- Protoss zealots and dark templar in Starcraft, lightsabers and vibro-weapons in Star Wars, energy swords in Halo, omni-blades in Mass Efffect.

**purplefood**

I never understand this problem.
If you have armour that can reliably withstand most ranged weapons and a melee weapon that can penetrate this armour melee is a viable prospect.

**Vaerros**

purplefood wrote:
I never understand this problem.
If you have armour that can reliably withstand most ranged weapons and a melee weapon that can penetrate this armour melee is a viable prospect.

It's not simply an issue of a melee weapon defeating armor(generally there are ranged weapon options available as good or better at defeating armor and *from cover*), but things like getting in range in the first place, dealing with the problem of being caught in the open and out-flanked, not being able to maneuver with the benefits that modern armies seem to have, not being able to adequately retaliate against a foe using ranged weapons.

**insaniak**

Vaerros wrote:
...but things like getting in range in the first place, dealing with the problem of being caught in the open and out-flanked, not being able to maneuver with the benefits that modern armies seem to have, not being able to adequately retaliate against a foe using ranged weapons.

None of which are really a big issue for a trained Jedi with a lightsaber.