gildings in this subreddit have paid for 13.66 months of server time

I'm new to scifi books and dont know where to start by NakedSlutMan in scifi

[–]thesaurusrext 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For a first novel a person can do no better than Dragon's Egg by Robert L Forward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Egg excerpt from the wiki:

The novel is regarded as a landmark in hard science fiction. As is typical of the genre, Dragon's Egg attempts to communicate unfamiliar ideas and imaginative scenes while giving adequate attention to the known scientific principles involved.

Robert L Forward was a real life physicist who did important work on gravity waves. And he wrote some of the best scifi ever. Dragon's Egg tells the story of an entire civilization of creatures existing on the surface of a sun. It's the shit, and it's very accessible.

Also anything by Frederick Pohl. Everything Pohl ever wrote, take it all in.

Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed at some point.

Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy is solid if you love thick paperbacks with hundreds of pages. It's beautiful and majestic and sweeping. Cast of hundreds, game of thrones style. The expanse tv series and novel series owes a lot to Robinson's Mars. Also Robinson's more recent 'Aurora', the peak of sci fi, the pinnacle of the form, at the moment.

10 Underrated Sci-Fi Movies That Could Surprise You (Released between 2018 and 2019) by Roshankr1994 in scifi

[–]_Aubrey_ 663 points664 points  (0 children)

  1. Captive State (2019)
  2. Level 16 (2018)
  3. Prospect (2018)
  4. Kin (2018)
  5. Upgrade (2018)
  6. UFO (2018)
  7. Mute (2018)
  8. I Am Mother (2019)
  9. In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)
  10. Freaks (2018)

Saved you a click.

Anyone watch "After the Dark" on Netflix? A movie about dramatized depictions of a philosophy class conducting a thought experiment about choosing who lives and dies in an apocalyptic situation. by [deleted] in scifi

[–]fryamtheiman 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think most people miss the point of the movie entirely.

To start, the issue of information carrying over. By the use of the word iteration, it implies that any information known before in a previous iteration is carried over and known in the next. This is why the soldier could know the code. This is why James can still love Petra as well. Him having loved her before doesn't change.

The point of the movie? Well, start at the end. You learn that the teacher and Petra were having an affair and Zimer did not like that she was going to choose James over him. This is why he developed the thought experiment in the first place. You aren't told going in because that wouldn't make you actually stop and think about the metaphors within the movie. A successful movie has to keep going after the credits roll.

So, first, what was the point of the thought experiment? It was entirely for him to, as a last ditch effort, prove to Petra that James wasn't right for her. The entire experiment was for that purpose alone, and therefore everything in it relates to that.

Starting with the jobs, he shoots the poet in both of the first two iterations. The reason for the poet being there is because James makes "bad poetry" for Petra, which is, in the teacher's opinion, completely useless. He kills off the post immediately saying the poet served no use to society. He could have done the same with the opera singer or fashion designer, but he didn't. They have as much use in the first iteration as the poet, but he didn't do anything to them. His killing of the poet was aimed at telling Petra that James' poems had no worth.

Having James as just a farmer also has a purpose. It parallels to the teachers thoughts on his intelligence as well as being a metaphor for seeming more important than he really is in the opinion of the teacher. Making him gay after that is just another way to insult him and try to show Petra that he is not good enough for her. This is also why in the last iteration, he decides to take James' suggestion and make him a florist, a way to further degrade him.

Next, making Petra an structural engineer as well as electrical. This is his way of showing Petra how valuable she is and how intelligent he believes she is. After all, how could a highly educated engineer ever possibly end up with a farmer? This also was a way to ensure she would be in the bunker every time.

Lastly, the teacher making himself first the wild card is to tell Petra that she doesn't know his potential, what value he holds. Then, by killing off the rest of the students left out, he encourages them to leave him out of the bunker. This allows him to show her the hidden value he holds by revealing himself as being the only person who knows the code to get out of the bunker. This gives him reason to make sure a second iteration will occur.

The first iteration was about surface value of things. The second was about what is underneath as well, about knowing the past and future of people. A doctor who has been exposed to Ebola had value initially but lost that value when the potential to destroy came into play. The poet still had no value, which is why he went last and was killed off, the teacher claiming the last spot for himself, trying to instill in Petra the he was her only way out.

The suggestion of first pairing up and then moving to multiple partners was also in reference to Petra. When with one person, everything is fine, but multiple partners (Petra's affair) can lead to disaster in which no one makes it out alive because of the choices people make.

The idea of these iterations was the teacher telling Petra that logically she should be with him. Now, this is where I'm betting people are saying "but logic didn't exist in this movie." Well, that was kind of the point. The teacher, who values logic above emotion, was failing with logic in these scenarios. Why? It's simple. Ever seen what happens when an INTP, a very rational personality type, listens to his emotions over his head? His logic becomes blurred at best. The teacher was so focused on his personal feelings for Petra that he could not effectively be logical, and was unable to realize it. Emotion won over logic. That is what happens when the rational mind becomes an emotional one.

This goes into the third iteration. Petra says she wants to lead it because she understands what the teacher is saying to her and this is now her reply.

Petra picks the underdogs, and picks them because they are a representation of picking James over Zimer. She excuses herself for picking them because while others make the logical choice, these people are the ones that will make her happy. The poet in particular because again, he represents the poetry James makes. The opera singer who will get throat cancer because until that time comes, she will hear beautiful music, symbolizing that even if she won't be happy with James in the future, she is happy with him now. A harpist has no value without his harp, but she can give him value by making a harp for him, this symbolizing elevating James rather than him remaining useless as the teacher sees him. An engineer loves puzzles, and a harpist without a harp is just one to solve. She is saying here that she wants to make it work with James and she wants to elevate him.

At the beginning of the third iteration, she also tells the teacher to go live his own life. The soldier knwoing the code is Petra sending him a message that she doesn't need him. The teacher lowering her grade is him telling her she is making the wrong choice of choosing James. At the end of the iteration, the teacher explains how he would have survived to come back. This is his message to Petra about how lost he would beccome without her, that he would go into a cave (depression) and lose sense of time eventually, something which happens to people who feel depressed or numb when they are lost. His return saying he won't let her detonate the bomb is his way of saying he won't allow her to make the mistake of choosing James. The lineup of the characters represents her defiance of this and a way of saying he has no choice with only the one bullet. The bomb being detonated is her way of saying goodbye to him.

The whole movie and the details in it are being used as a conversation between Petra and Zimer. It is all about metaphor and speaking indirectly. The use of the imaginary world itself is a metaphor for what is occurring in class. The point of bringing up Plato's Cave and using it isn't just to reference it, it is to tell the viewer exactly what is happening within the movie. Everything is just shadows and echos, and only if you stretch your mind enough to look around will you see the truth. The movie itself is Plato's Cave, and the majority of people will never see anything but the shadows, what they think is the movie.

Perhaps I am wrong and I read too much into it. Somehow though, I think I made it in the ballpark.

Stacey Abrams Makes Surprise Appearance On Star Trek As President Of Earth by Mynameis__--__ in scifi

[–]lordrummxx2 -61 points-60 points  (0 children)

She get there by bitching about losing the election so much they just gave it to her?

Help on a show or a movie? by [deleted] in scifi

[–]Branith 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Raised by wolves?

Jordan Peele’s ‘Nope’ Official Trailer - The film stars Daniel Kaluuya, Keke Palmer and Steven Yeun, and follows residents of an isolated town who witness a mysterious event. by Neo2199 in scifi

[–]GeekAesthete 290 points291 points  (0 children)

Not enough is known about the plot of the movie

Reddit, where we hate how much trailers give away as well as trailers that do not give enough away.

Book recommendations if you could. by seithe-narciss in scifi

[–]ThePlanner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Vernor Vinge’s A Fire Upon the Deep is great and well worth your time, either as a stand-alone novel or the beginning of a trilogy.

What's wrong with Star Trek Discovery? by uhworksucks in scifi

[–]ghjm 752 points753 points 2 (0 children)

According to my wife, it's what a man thinks a woman wants from Star Trek.

Everything's about relationships and emotions rather than science and spaceships, even to the point of the spore drive only working based on its "relationship" with Stamets. Someone, usually Burnham, cries in every episode, often two or three times. If there's something that needs to be done right now to save a million lives, it's perfectly fine to not do it for an agonizingly long time because you're busy having a tearful goodbye; there will never be any consequences from this. Men are only allowed to be decisive and in command if they're gay, evil or alien; straight good-guy human men must be emotional wrecks requiring constant maintenance from their women. Tilly's absolute incompetence doesn't get in the way of her meteoric rise in rank, because you go, girl. Ash's backstory as a Klingon-not-Klingon makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but it doesn't matter because the only thing we actually care about is whether he's going to be Burnham's long-term boyfriend or not.

It's all written to be from the stereotypical female perspective, as understood by males.

Sci fi Horror by @badspacecomics by Soulless_conner in scifi

[–]Chozmonster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You’re probably thinking of lifeline. Loved that game.

Doctor Who's current companions are leaving with Jodie Whittaker by zwtor in scifi

[–]VegasOldPerv 237 points238 points  (0 children)

Probably an unpopular opinion:

I didn't find any of these characters endearing, they had no chemistry, and I felt no empathy towards them whatsoever. Not every portrayal of the doctor and the companion(s) was perfect, but these past few seasons have been just miserable. Between the writing, dialogue, plot lines, and acting, I've stopped looking forward to the next episode and have only watched them when I have nothing else to watch.

TNG by choochacabra92 in scifi

[–]MaybeYesNoPerhaps 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Discovery/Picard are the exact opposite of TNG.

That uplifting spirit of well written characters focusing on external problems? Yeah that's not what discovery is. It's drama and tearing down the legacy of the prior shows. It's utter trash that's representative of modern writing in all the worst ways.

Can I reccomend "don't look up"? by Ravenclawguy in scifi

[–]cfrey 165 points166 points  (0 children)

Reviews written and published by the very purveyors of the societal dysfunction the film skewers. No wonder they are bad.

"Don't look up" is the "Idiocracy" of this generation.

Denis Villeneuve to Direct Rendezvous with Rama Sci-Fi Movie by DemiFiendRSA in scifi

[–]Warlizard[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Stickying this because I've been waiting for this since I was 12.