Millennials can't write sci fi?

[burrunjor]

Millennials for those of you who don't know are those who were born between 1980 and 1999.

Don't worry I am not a self loathing Millennial. I think in a lot of ways Millennials are better than previous generations, (for instance on average they do have a more accepting attitude towards certain minorities like trans people, and politically they are overall more genuinely left wing. Millennials made up the bulk of Jeremy Corbyn's supporters and on average voted against Brexit.) I also think that Millennials get a hard time for things you can criticise them for. SJWs for instance are not an exclusive thing to Millennials. Every generation has its poseur, upper middle class, neo liberals. In the 60s they were the hippies who became bank managers in the 70s, (just listen to we don't get fooled again by The Who. Sadly we did. Twice!) Whilst in the 80s they were the Ricks who shouted Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out, Out, Out, but then formed New Labour. 

Also I'm not saying that Millennials can't produce great art either. Amy Winehouse, Lady Gaga, Paloma Faith, Caro Emerald, Florence Welch, my generation of female singers ALL Millennials. 

However when it comes to sci fi and fantasy, I'm not saying that all Millennials can't write it obviously, but on average, I'm sorry I think this is an art form that has been lost. 

Look at things like the Arrowverse, She Hulk, Superman and Lois,, Once Upon A Time, Chibnall era Who, they all have one thing in common. The sci fi in them is very average or pushed to the background for the most part. Now that doesn't mean that they are all bad. The Arrowverse for instance has still done a lot of good work and there is some great sci fi in things like Legends and Flash, but overall I think most people like these shows for other things like shipping, relationship drama, etc. 

Now I'm not saying you can't and shouldn't merge sci fi and soap opera. The likes of Buffy, and Spider-Man are classic examples of this. Still this style has definitely become the most popular in mainstream popular culture for Millennials, and the danger of this type of genre fiction, is that obviously it can just become a complete soap opera, same way the danger with an action sci fi adventure for instance is that it can just become a big dumb, action flick. Sadly most of these genre shows, either written by or for the Millennial audience are guilty of that. 

I think this is because Millennials are a bit more aware of their surroundings because they have grown up in a shittier time. Boomers during the 50 sand 60s thought they were living in a golden age, in the 70s and 80s meanwhile things weren't quite as bleak as they are now. I think it was the 90s that this style started to come in. 

Millennials always want to talk about their problems, raise awareness for issues, and I'm not even talking about political things, even just things like how hard it is to get old, be a single woman, be a sensitive guy etc. Millennials want to bring these things into everything, and just don't know how to do escapist, Terry Nationesque fantasy anymore IMO. 

It'll be interesting to see if the next generation goes completely the other way in an effort to rebel against us, and we do see a return to the escapist sci fi. 

[rushy]

Funny you should mention that, cause I'm currently writing a sci-fi book directly inspired by Nation lol

[burrunjor]

Jan 8, 2023 10:49:44 GMT rushy said:

Funny you should mention that, cause I'm currently writing a sci-fi book directly inspired by Nation lol

LOL well obviously I don't mean every single individual millennial. Nothing ever applies to every member of a group. As soon as you start thinking that, then it leads to eugenics crap. I more just meant on average that culturally Millennials have to drag things into their personal lives. 

I'm also an aspiring Millennial sci fi writer too.

[zarius]

It is pretty odd. You would expect Millennials raised in the wilderness for a lot of franchises at the time to have been raised on "pure" and "untainted" interpretations of the franchises that many (rightly or wrongly) complain about now.

[burrunjor]

Jan 9, 2023 12:06:47 GMT zarius said:

It is pretty odd. You would expect Millennials raised in the wilderness for a lot of franchises at the time to have been raised on "pure" and "untainted" interpretations of the franchises that many (rightly or wrongly) complain about now.

I know and there is less of a stigma around the genre now too. You'd think we would finally be the generation that doesn't have to compromise a genre show or film?

Again though I think that it is reflective of the world they grew up in. 

Boomers from the 40s to the 60s grew up thinking that the world was becoming a better place, and that space travel might actually be possible. The silent generation meanwhile before that had conversely lived in such a chaotic, destructive time that they really needed escapism more than anything. As a result both generations fiction was more about leaving the earth, exploring other worlds, either out of optimism, or to get away from it all LOL.  

Millennials meanwhile haven't grown up in a horrible climate like the silent generation, but it's been a more cynical, apathetic time than the boomers. IE we now know there are no civilisations on the moon or Mars like Dan Dare, and whilst there isn't a war on, things are still pretty horrible. Prejudice, poverty, exploitation, elitism, still abounds and this was after a whole generation believed they'd be living in a Star Trek/Dan Dare style utopia.

Dan Dare was optimistically set in the 1990s! With this in mind I'm not surprised that millennials sci fi tends to be a bit more down to earth and reflective of how dreary everything is nowadays. Again there is a place for that kind of sci, but I just wish that the Terry Nation style, let's just completely escape would come back too, and honestly I don't think it will for a long time in any major way, outside of a few exceptions. 

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2023 10:39:02 GMT burrunjor said:

politically they are overall more genuinely left wing. Millennials made up the bulk of Jeremy Corbyn's supporters and on average voted against Brexit.

How is this a good thing lmao

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2023 10:39:02 GMT burrunjor said:

Look at things like the Arrowverse, She Hulk, Superman and Lois,, Once Upon A Time, Chibnall era Who, they all have one thing in common. The sci fi in them is very average or pushed to the background for the most part. Now that doesn't mean that they are all bad. The Arrowverse for instance has still done a lot of good work and there is some great sci fi in things like Legends and Flash, but overall I think most people like these shows for other things like shipping, relationship drama, etc. 

Ok now I'm done with the political potshots and I'll try to answer the question lol. 

Freud once stated that archaic concepts, once spent, tend to find themselves in the nursery or on the school playground. This can be said of such things as bows and arrows, swords and shields, mythological creatures such as dragons and unicorns, cowboys and Indians, and even the Phrygian cap of Mithras which has been a popular headgear for dwarfs and pixies and whatnot for a couple hundred years now; in modernity they are all the playthings of children. This is because, as such things are stripped of their practical use, they remain in our collective unconsciousness as archetypal structures and ancestral memories, and it appears that in children are expressed the most sublime pangs for these primal dreams of archaic man: all children are dreamers and thus mythmakers. We might apply this concept to more recent inventions, such as what you call 'good' sci-fi. I believe it's starting to go through a similar process. Daleks? Sure, they were terrifying in the 60s, but no one's scared of them now. In all honesty, I have to try hard to take them seriously myself. And what famously happened with the Daleks? Kids played as them in the school playground. Why? Well, we can reasonably assume that they were genuinely scared of these new, bizarre creatures way back in the olden days, so it's a weird choice to imitate them in play. But is it? Ancient humans imitated deadly animals in order to convey information to their fellow tribesmen; I think here we have a common link. All play is practice for hunting and warfare, and so these children, totally unconsciously, were in essence 'practicing' for when they might come across a Dalek foe in real life. Ridiculous, right? Yeah, well it's a little silly but that's exactly it. The threat has in essence been pacified in the mind and subsequent appearances on the TV only serve to draw up reminders of the 'practice' encounters, and therefore children's play; thus, the Daleks always seem childish and silly. This example can be applied to all monsters and villains, but the Daleks are perhaps the most apposite example due simply to the massive extent of children's imitation that went on. If there's no tangible threat, then the story just doesn't quite work. I love Classic Who but I admit it is a little difficult to watch the characters get all worked up over what is ostensibly a man with a carpet on his head. Of course, that brings us to the old suspension of disbelief.

Why were people of earlier eras able to adequately suspend their disbelief, while younger people seemingly can't? Honestly, I have no real idea but it's definitely true. I meet a lot of people who exclusively watch movies for the CGI and won't touch older films just because the special effects are dated. Perhaps this is the cause for the rejection of classic science-fiction. "It's old, clunky, and slow, therefore bad and I am going to avoid." Such an attitude seems a reasonable thing to expect from entertainment officials, especially in this day and age. Perhaps it is this simple. One of RTD's objectives for the return of DW was to make it "up-to-date, for modern audiences". Seems like by this he simply meant "fast-paced and flashy", though certainly the soapy stuff you mentioned also comes to mind. Another thing is that modern writers fear 'goofiness' like the plague. Unless you're writing an abject comedy film, 'goofiness' is to be avoided entirely. Well, 'goofiness', in my opinion, is only the expression of that which has been infantilised by way of the actualisation of the collective unconscious, having claimed aspects of recent modernity, in children. Think of old epic movie soundtracks: they're amazing, but they do have that slightly 'goofy' vibe to them, because they have been digested and regurgitated by the realm of childishness and play. It's the same with sci-fi. What seems goofy now was terrifying 50 years ago. I'm talking about modern preconceptions of goofiness derived from old and serious material here, not the poppy Marvel bullshit. Rocket-ships, flying saucers, computers, androids? All silly and dated, according to those who cannot suspend their disbelief.

This might all be bollocks but for now it's all I can say on the matter. It's why Kurtzman Trek is so dark and depressing, why modern Doctor Who is wonderless, why modern Star Wars is just f*cking empty. These franchises' core archetypes have been cast into the realm of the child's playpit, and the writers are wary to indulge on them for this reason, because a large portion of the audience would find it silly and laugh it off. 

[RobFilth]

Read some 2000AD.

It might change your opinion.

[iank]

Oddly enough, I am of a similar mind with CGI, in that its abundant overuse makes my eyes glaze over and my interest plummet. There's something far more magical to me about matte paintings and practical effects than the latest video game whizzery compiled in a computer. But that's just me.

[burrunjor]

Jan 26, 2023 9:20:11 GMT @theyakemperor said:

Jan 8, 2023 10:39:02 GMT burrunjor said:

Look at things like the Arrowverse, She Hulk, Superman and Lois,, Once Upon A Time, Chibnall era Who, they all have one thing in common. The sci fi in them is very average or pushed to the background for the most part. Now that doesn't mean that they are all bad. The Arrowverse for instance has still done a lot of good work and there is some great sci fi in things like Legends and Flash, but overall I think most people like these shows for other things like shipping, relationship drama, etc. 

Ok now I'm done with the political potshots and I'll try to answer the question lol. 

Freud once stated that archaic concepts, once spent, tend to find themselves in the nursery or on the school playground. This can be said of such things as bows and arrows, swords and shields, mythological creatures such as dragons and unicorns, cowboys and Indians, and even the Phrygian cap of Mithras which has been a popular headgear for dwarfs and pixies and whatnot for a couple hundred years now; in modernity they are all the playthings of children. This is because, as such things are stripped of their practical use, they remain in our collective unconsciousness as archetypal structures and ancestral memories, and it appears that in children are expressed the most sublime pangs for these primal dreams of archaic man: all children are dreamers and thus mythmakers. We might apply this concept to more recent inventions, such as what you call 'good' sci-fi. I believe it's starting to go through a similar process. Daleks? Sure, they were terrifying in the 60s, but no one's scared of them now. In all honesty, I have to try hard to take them seriously myself. And what famously happened with the Daleks? Kids played as them in the school playground. Why? Well, we can reasonably assume that they were genuinely scared of these new, bizarre creatures way back in the olden days, so it's a weird choice to imitate them in play. But is it? Ancient humans imitated deadly animals in order to convey information to their fellow tribesmen; I think here we have a common link. All play is practice for hunting and warfare, and so these children, totally unconsciously, were in essence 'practicing' for when they might come across a Dalek foe in real life. Ridiculous, right? Yeah, well it's a little silly but that's exactly it. The threat has in essence been pacified in the mind and subsequent appearances on the TV only serve to draw up reminders of the 'practice' encounters, and therefore children's play; thus, the Daleks always seem childish and silly. This example can be applied to all monsters and villains, but the Daleks are perhaps the most apposite example due simply to the massive extent of children's imitation that went on. If there's no tangible threat, then the story just doesn't quite work. I love Classic Who but I admit it is a little difficult to watch the characters get all worked up over what is ostensibly a man with a carpet on his head. Of course, that brings us to the old suspension of disbelief.

Why were people of earlier eras able to adequately suspend their disbelief, while younger people seemingly can't? Honestly, I have no real idea but it's definitely true. I meet a lot of people who exclusively watch movies for the CGI and won't touch older films just because the special effects are dated. Perhaps this is the cause for the rejection of classic science-fiction. "It's old, clunky, and slow, therefore bad and I am going to avoid." Such an attitude seems a reasonable thing to expect from entertainment officials, especially in this day and age. Perhaps it is this simple. One of RTD's objectives for the return of DW was to make it "up-to-date, for modern audiences". Seems like by this he simply meant "fast-paced and flashy", though certainly the soapy stuff you mentioned also comes to mind. Another thing is that modern writers fear 'goofiness' like the plague. Unless you're writing an abject comedy film, 'goofiness' is to be avoided entirely. Well, 'goofiness', in my opinion, is only the expression of that which has been infantilised by way of the actualisation of the collective unconscious, having claimed aspects of recent modernity, in children. Think of old epic movie soundtracks: they're amazing, but they do have that slightly 'goofy' vibe to them, because they have been digested and regurgitated by the realm of childishness and play. It's the same with sci-fi. What seems goofy now was terrifying 50 years ago. I'm talking about modern preconceptions of goofiness derived from old and serious material here, not the poppy Marvel bullshit. Rocket-ships, flying saucers, computers, androids? All silly and dated, according to those who cannot suspend their disbelief.

This might all be bollocks but for now it's all I can say on the matter. It's why Kurtzman Trek is so dark and depressing, why modern Doctor Who is wonderless, why modern Star Wars is just f*cking empty. These franchises' core archetypes have been cast into the realm of the child's playpit, and the writers are wary to indulge on them for this reason, because a large portion of the audience would find it silly and laugh it off. 

Sorry I disagree with a lot of that. 

I don't have any problem taking the Daleks seriously. I think they are among the greatest sci fi villains of all time. I believe there is so much that could be done with them to make them a legitimately menacing villain again, same with the Cybermen and the Master.

I admit though to not finding them scary per se, but it's not because they are a joke. It's because I love watching them on screen so much. That's not a bad thing though. It's the same with the Joker and other great villains. You want to see them on screen again, and again because they are charismatic and enjoyable, but you can still recognise them as a legit threat in the show. 

I still say the problem with the Daleks and the Cybermen and the Master is the millenial approach to sci fi limiting all three. 

The Daleks are a big intergalactic force that you can beat back in individual cases, but they will always have power in the universe. IE save one planet, another 6 are still under their control. They work best when they are shown as a threat to the universe at large. Obviously most stories will still take place from a human perspective, but still you can show other races be just as threatened, IE you can show the Daleks ruling over alien planets like Spirodon, Kembel, enslave other races like Ogrons, Exxillons, Aridians, you can show them in combat with other alien races like the Draconians, Thals, Movellans, or their allies in Daleks Masterplan, and when they do fight humans you can have it be in the future where they can win, conquer the earth, or at least slaughter lots and lots of people like in Power of the Daleks.

Of course this is not to say that you can't do a great Dalek story set on modern earth, like Remembrance, but the point is you shouldn't limit them to that. Sadly however because New Who embraces the millenial approach to sci fi where everything has to be relatable and take place in modern surroundings, that's exactly what it does for the most part. Most New Who Dalek stories take place modern earth where they can't cause too much damage or else earth will be unusable for future stories, and they have to be resoundly defeated too undermining them. They also look like less of a big deal if earth is their "ultimate destiny." Parting of the Ways is the only story that comes close to say Dalek Invasion or Power in terms of having the monsters really devastate a planet. 

Also as millenial sci fi focuses on real world issues, and shipping. There is no room to explore the lore and backstory of the Daleks, who again thrive in those types of stories, like the first appearance and Genesis. 

Basically in New Who they are just another race of human obsessed alien invaders, with no distinct lore anymore, who show up to get defeated trying to conquer one planet, again and again and again. 

The Cybermen meanwhile don't work in the millenial style, as the millenial style prefers really emo villains, which obviously is counterproductive to the Cybermen. Look at their attempt at a Cyber controller, Mr Clever who dances on tables and flirts with Clara, then there is Danny Pink beating them with the power of looooooooovvvvvvveeeee. (It seems Cybermen just really fancy Jenna Coleman. Maxil would fit in with them. This is also another millenial trope where the badguy has to be in love with the hero.) To be fair the original fell into this too in the 80s and the 70s, making the Cybermen too emotional, but just because Classic who got it wrong doesn't mean it's okay for New Who to do so. Also even then having a Cyberman want to torture the Doctor is not the same as having it flirt with the attractive female companion, or be defeated by looooove.

The Master meanwhile, well he is a prime example of another thing I HATE about modern fiction. Two things actually. First, it's the way every archenemy has to be a third rate Joker knock off. I love the Joker to be clear, and I think that using him as inspiration can be a good thing depending on the story like Callisto, but it gets frustrating when every single villain from Moriarty to Lex Luthor to The Master has to be that, when they all had different characters. 

Another is this emo bullshit of having a villain and a hero be at least friends or lovers. It seems modern writers sneer at the idea of a villain just being an enemy and it's annoying. I've often joked if Hitler and Churchill were fictional characters, these writers would add a gay subtext between them and argue it was always there LOL. 

The Master should not be the Joker as he is a suave manipulative villain at his core and one obsessed with power. Also whilst he and the Doctor were meant to be friends years ago, they clearly aren't now and given how evil and destructive the Master has been, it is utterly inappropriate to have the Doctor want to have anything to do with him. If you are going to have a hero and villain still want to be friends, then the villain has to have some redeeming traits, like Catwoman who isn't so evil, or Ares who is a necessary evil, or Magneto who is fighting for his people. 

The Master is just an asshole who murders puppies and helpless old granny's! Ironically the only way you could possibly have the Master and the Doctor still have any kind of connection is to use Delgado's idea of them being brothers. That way at least you can understand the Doctor being reluctant to kill him, as he is family, but still being prepared to to stop him. That makes him more sympathetic than wanting to still be friends with a genocidal monster because they used to play together after school. 

At the end of the day to me DW just doesn't suit this style, but that doesn't mean that millenials can't enjoy it. DW could have I feel been a success by standing out from the usual millenial style and earning a reputation as a somewhat darker show, and also win round people from other demographics and generations. Sadly however I feel the writers just went for the millenial style which limited it in terms of its scope and ultimately audience as I'd wager that millenials make up 90 percent of its fan base now.

[rushy]

They should just get Michael Rosenbaum back to do Lex Luthor.

[Deleted]

Yes Mike is awesome as Lex he is my favorite him and Clancy brown then hackman.

[logopolitanicecream]

I happen to like John Shea the most. And of course, Clancy Brown goes without saying.

[mott1]

Jan 26, 2023 8:42:35 GMT @theyakemperor said:

Jan 8, 2023 10:39:02 GMT burrunjor said:

politically they are overall more genuinely left wing. Millennials made up the bulk of Jeremy Corbyn's supporters and on average voted against Brexit.

How is this a good thing lmao

Yes, Brexit's really proving quite the triumph...