What recurring tropes in SF annoy you by their silliness or unscientific assumptions?

 

I guess this mostly applies to movies and TV series, books usually have a higher standard, but feel free to include something literary if you want.

 

I'll start:

 

1. space battles with sound-effects, in a vacuum. They all do this. Bugs me every time.

 

2. use of "light-year" as a unit of time.

 

3. confusion of star-system and galaxy.

 

Numbers 2 & 3 are not so common now, but used to be very widespread.

Alright, i'll attempt this. 

 

Green Aliens just annoy me :|

 

When they kill animals

 

Back to the Future

Having some technobabble explanation like reversing the polarity to magically solve every problem

is it space fiction or science fiction?

3 is very annoying, strangle any and all people who do that!

 

just the basic technobabble they talk that backs them into a cornor or is to stupid to run around.

Sci-fi is a great genre that, sadly, has been saddled with many crippling flaws that many works paradoxically hold on to. Other clichés of sci-fi/space-fi include ignoring simple physics, fudging over space travel, inexplicably English-speaking aliens, aliens that inexpicalny worship human deities, bad rubber masks, total disregard of time and distance, and far too many others to list here. It is a good topic,though.

 

Incidentally, if anyone is interested, here's an article on the subject of clichéd sci fi movie tropes that you guys might like: http://www.cracked.com/article_17392_6-sci-fi-movie-conventions-that-need-to-die.html

When the writers just don't know anything about science.

 

My nomination: "Threshold" from Star Trek: Voyager, a show well-known its heavy reliance on technobabble.

http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/v832.asp

Good Sci-fi isn't necassarily about technical accuracy. Hence the fiction. I don't have a problem with impossible. I do with implausibe however. 

 

Take star wars. 

 

Cloning in the manner shown in Attack of the Clones is likely impossible. 

What is implausible is that a single planet could have the production capacity to construct the most powerful army in the galaxy.

 

Hyperspace is likely impossible. 

 

It is implausible that the only large ships in the galaxy are warships-consider our current world where super freighters dwarf supercarriers. 

To my taste the best sf takes real science and pushes the boundaries just a bit to ask "what if?"

 

Steven Baxter is the best current hard-science type sf writer today.

 

I don't think of Star Wars as sf at all, more like space fantasy. Star Trek is better but still full of the technobabble stuff. I used to have a little computer widget that would generate random phrases of ST-TNG babble like "Sir, the cross-polarity of the quantum matrix regenerator is isolating the proton reflux drive." I think the writers had one of these and used to it end almost every episode.

 

Incidentally, there was a great article in Wired some years back on the "Science of Star Trek" and the conclusion was that the one thing which was absolutely impossible is the transporter because it violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The writers were savvy enough to include "Heisenberg Compensators". When asked how they worked, someone on the writing team said "very well thank you."

If you want good, "hard" sci-fi that has at least a semi-realistic touch to it, then Isaac Asimov's works are the ones for you. Just remember that the tech will be little outdated due to him writing in the 1940s-1970s, and you'll love it.

Yeah, Asimov is good. Another one I like is Gregory Benford. His "Timewave" was the best and most thought-provoking time travel story I've ever read.

 

Any recommendations for writers active now of the hard science sci-fi genre?

I like Peter F Hamilton.

Arthur C Clarke is pretty good. He actually come up with the idea of the geostationary satellite. 

 

Aisimov actually wrote about how Sci-Fi writers cannot predict the future. He though their role was to make sure people actually thought about the fact that technology will change society. He is also very good at thinking about people. An example of that is his Nightfall story-see spoiler tags at the bottom. 

 

I always like reading older books and seeing the technology that we already have. Aisimov had e-books. The Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy is essentially wikipedia and a tablet/smartphone. 

 

 

Essentially the way people get freaked out when they first see the stars. I grew up in a fairly heavily urbanised area so even in the countryside I could rarely see them properly. Then I went to the Sahara desert-no light pollution at all and no moon-it was terrifying.

 

What recurring tropes in SF annoy you by their silliness or unscientific assumptions?

 

I guess this mostly applies to movies and TV series, books usually have a higher standard, but feel free to include something literary if you want.

 

I'll start:

 

1. space battles with sound-effects, in a vacuum. They all do this. Bugs me every time.

 

2. use of "light-year" as a unit of time.

 

3. confusion of star-system and galaxy.

 

Numbers 2 & 3 are not so common now, but used to be very widespread.

 

As for point 1. That sound in vacuum does not bother me as much as battles themselves. I always think of it as some kind of sound imaging system (just like proximity sensors in cars). Hearing is after all another sense that can be used as additional data delivery channel for humans.

What bothers me more is side against side engagements of capital ships (it's like XVII century in naval warfare again) and II WW dogfighting. If anything, real space combat would rather be like todays naval engagements (and more likely submarine ones) with key factor being the ability to detect enemy before he detects you.