What tropes in science fiction annoy you?

One that comes to mind to me actually deals with the mind. I'm not much into whenever an episode takes place inside someone's mind. I can deal with some dream episodes or movies like Inception or Dreamscape, but the venturing into someone's brain episodes can be grating.

 

Stars are another one. You shouldn't see stars if you are looking at a sun-lit planet or ship. The contrast range is too great.

 

Is that true for the human eye, or just for cameras?

 

YMMV but realism in fiction isn't as important as how the scenes appear. Eye candy make reviewing shows multiple times more fulfilling. I don't want scenes I watch once and see everything, leaving nothing to appreciate in future reviews except how "real" it looks.

 

Definitely true for cameras, from Apollo 8 "Earthrise" to the Shuttle era to Dragon. Probably true for human eyes otherwise astronomers wouldn't have to allow for their eyes to adjust to the darkness. I know that I have to block out any street light and porch light in my field of vision in order to see any stars above the roofs of my neighbors. And still allow time for my eyes to adjust.

------
Edit to add: While I'm on the subject of stars, if they are going ignore what sixty years of space travel has shown us and add stars, don't use a random star field when showing Earth. We should see Earth's effing sky here, for Pete's sake.

 

That reminds me; how can a humanoid's mindscape include an accurate representation of one's back that cannot be seen directly on a regular basis without tools?

And relatedly, why would you intentionally program a military-grade hologram with the limitation of only being able to "see" with the two humanoid eyeballs? Why not grant 360 degree vision, such as for holograms repurposed for mining where workplace safety might be useful?

 

Just a bit of trivia... in real-world security systems that would be considered a "fail safe" system since it unlocks when the locking mechanism loses power and fails. The opposite would be "fail secure" which stays locked when power is lost. And this would only affect traffic one way, such as allowing or preventing entry into a building, while it's always possible for someone already inside to exit out for safety. There are a number of reasons why you would choose fail safe vs. fail secure. But in the real world, fail secure is more common to prevent unauthorized access. So it's rather unrealistic for doors in sci-fi to always unlock when destroying the controls.

Kor

 

I have precisely the opposite view.

I'm not a big fan of moral ambiguity. I like to know exactly who is good and who is evil. Much easier that way.

Besides, just because somebody BELIEVES they're the good guy, doesn't mean they actually are...

 

Once in a while I enjoy a good old-fashioned mustache-twirling villain who relishes being evil. But if every movie had that, it would indeed get tiresome.

Kor

 

This reminds of another one, it isn't speific to sci-fi, but it does pop up there a lot. When the creators deal with something they know nothing, but don't actually do any research and end looking ridiculous. It's really not that hard to at least do enough research that you don't make yourself look completely clueless when whatever your working on is released. If you are going to call something a x, then at least make sure it actually works like a x, and not a y or z.

 

They don't even need to do the research themselves; just hire a consultant who can double check for accuracy.

Kor

 

Fair enough - you appear to be a moral absolutist whereas I am not. To me, good and evil are purely human constructs in an impersonal universe. I don't really subscribe to Nietzsche's philosophy (as espoused in The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and Beyond Good and Evil) either though. Even if eternal recurrence were real, it's meaningless if you can't recall passing through the same loop multiple times. I know what I like and I also know what I dislike about others' behaviour and actions, especially if it affects me or people that I care about.

 

Has anybody compiled a list of all these annoyances within this thread?

 

I'm getting sick of the predestination paradox time travel loop stuff, where the crux of the story is changing something so the protagonist or another character doesn't die. That's been done to death in so many science fiction stories and films it's old.

 

You realize the Terminator franchise is built around lampshading that.

 

I am reminded of an episode of the old "Man From Atlantis" series where he somehow ends up in the middle of the story of "Romeo And Juliet" (we don't really know if it's time travel (which would be absurd since the story is fiction) or parallel universe because they never bother to give any explanation whatsoever ) Anyway, in the episode MFA manages to save the lives of Romeo and Juliet ad they live happily ever after...

Of course, he somehow manages to get back to the "real" world... not that it matters...

I mean an episode from "Bewitched" where characters from a child's book become real makes just about as much sense but at least it's played for laughs.

 

I wonder if I've now seen/read every trope and every possible combination of such trope that can be used in an SF story, either literary or in other media. Probably not, but it feels like it. Time to die?

 

There are always new twists on old tropes, usually because of the era in which stories are written. If you break things down to their basic elements though I am sure you could take any plot or story element made today and trace it back decades or centuries.

Sally Rooney who is supposed to be the big millennial writer has been compared to Jane Austin for example.

 

Check out Dark Matter. For this and a number of cool reasons.

 

Yes Decker. It's time to die.