|
Post by Bomblast on Jun 27, 2019 18:21:12 GMT -5
*Inhales sharply*
TRANSFORMERS/GHOSTBUSTERS!!!!
*Ahem*
The crossover event I never knew I was waiting for is here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 18:06:54 GMT -5
This post is probably going to be controversial and attract hate from binary thinkers, but I used to love IDW until it started to become clear that the writers pushing agendas was more important than even solid universe building.
Initially we had Furman giving us a very solid concept of an originally built universe. Yes Revelations had pacing issues and yes, AHM was not without its problems, but the series itself was trying to push for more of the harder science fiction. The Transformers had no gender and the only reason it was introduced was because Jhiaxus experimented on Arcee to alter their RNA. Yes Arcee was made female, which by extension, made every single other transformer male. At the same time, had Jhiaxus made Arcee male however, every single other transformer would have been male. However the very act of giving any transformer gender was in and of itself, to draw on the analogy of another franchise, best compared to one of the experiments on the Island of Dr Moreau. It was an interesting approach and it was trying to be something different - to really explore Cybertronian Society through alien eyes, rather than anthropomorphising it through human eyes. While James Roberts has done things which grate for me like nails on a chalkboard, his entire notion of functionalism and exploring it was brilliant. That is precisely the kind of bigotry and politics you would expect to see in a society of alien races who change shape and therefore have alternate forms which give them different functions. The bigotry and doctrine of functionalism was brilliantly insightful and it was what should have been the norm, rather than the exception.
Then when you get to Windblade and Lost Light, all of that starts to go to hell in a handbasket. You have Mairghread Scott attacking Simon Furman and accusing him of misogyny, because how gender works in a completely alien race is somehow an attack on women. You have James Roberts writing both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, for an alien race which doesn't even sexually reproduce, let alone sexually. Certainly you can argue that there is a precedent for male and female transformers, as well as relationships, in things like the the Sunbow Cartoon and Beast Wars. We even saw them in the Unicron Trilogy. However the IDW continuty is fundamentally different to the Sunbow Cartoon continuity, the Beast Wars continuity and the Unicron Trilogy Continuity.
In the Sunbow Continuity, the Transformers were either robot soldiers in the case of the Decepticons and robot butlers, maids and laborers in the case of the Autobots. Gender made no sense with the Decepticons, but it makes perfect sense with the Autobots. Given that some people may have wanted to purchase them as companions, them being programmed to wish to pair bond is also reasonable to infer from it. Sexual function might even have been built into them. However as I recall Anthony Daniels noting of C3P0, he is built to feel and behave in certain ways, but he doesn't know what they mean; by extension, they are there for the sake of others, but they are more a case of a being going through the motions. Certainly Autobots and Decepticons evolved past being mere robotic pets and playthings - but their very gender and interpersonal relationships are essentially a simulation rather than a manifestation of biology.
Likewise in Beast Wars you have an increasing fusion of animal DNA. In Season 1 it is established that Maximals and Predacons not only take on board the physical characteristics of an animal, but also their typical personality traits. This is also going to be something that is gendered. So while this isn't fully biological, it is based on organic biological instincts. Beast Machines however is the most organic manifestation of gender and relationships in Transformers, with the Maximals being technorganic and therefore, fully biological in their relationships - right down to presumably sexual reproduction. And yes, that does mean that there were probably plant/rat and falcon/spider fuzor babies at some point after Beast Machines ended.
The Unicron Trilogy never gave us an answer one way or another. Gender and even relationships may work or it may be just as big a train wreck as IDW is; I'm open to it being covered at some point - if it ever is.
Then there is IDW. We know that in the IDW continuity, Cybertronians are a species which are reproduced gaiasexually - that is that the transformers themselves do not reproduce, but rather they are essentially sterile and genderless, with the planet asexually giving birth to them - either as fully formed cybertronians who are forged, or as sparks where their bodies are artificially constructed cold. This is a radically different form of biology to not only human beings, but most other life forms on this planet. Our sexuality, our relationships and even our gender, exist as they are because we are a bisexually reproducing species. All of our sexual pair bondiong exists because sex produces oxytocin, which creates pair bonding, which exists to maximise the survivability of any offspring. Likewise gender certainly exists on a spectrum, but the borders of that spectrum are both sexes. The same is true of sexual orientation. The moment you start talking about asexually reproducing species or in the case of the ST: ENT episode "Cogenitor", trisexually reproducing species, the nature of sex, relationships and gender, radically alters. With the Sunbow, Beast Wars and Unicron Trilogy, these things can fit in a manner which parallels human beings and other bisexually reproducing life forms. However they don't with IDW.
Certainly some people might enjoy the feeling of representation and be glad that issues facing human beings are being addressed and I get the sense that the writers certainly are. However for anyone who appreciates good universe building, it just comes across as sloppy. Yes there's the retcon about the Solus Prime Colony, but not only does that not reconcile the fact that gender makes as much sense with spark hotspots, as God needing a starship, but the fact is that even the notion of Gender among the 13 primes itself is, at best, an incredibly shaky concept.
What you have here is something which started out as being utterly brilliant, but has since deteriorated to "agenda first and everything else second" - everything else sadly, including something as fundamental as good universe-building and maintaining established cannon and continuity. If the universe building was there, the agendas also being there wouldn't matter. However when what you have is bad story-craft that is clearly there, simply to push an agenda, what you wind up with, is a rich universe of stories being reduced to nothing more than a vehicle to push agenda. Even then, considering that those who push such agendas are often the first to cry "racism", "cultural appropriation" and "racism", it is incredibly telling that those who adopt such a position, have either created or support this status quo are blind to their own hypocrisy.
As a brief aside, quantum theory states that there are an infinite number of alternate universes with an infinite number of possibilities. As such a reasonable argument could be made that there is a universe which does exist, where Cybertronians are physical, living beings. Ergo what I am about to say, doesn't simply apply to a work of fiction, but quite possibly, actual living beings, but I digress.
The hypocrisy is that in abaondoning universe building, in favour of such extreme anthropomorphising, what the writers have actually engaged in, and continue to engage in, racial paternalism. In much the same way that racial paternalism forced the cultural norms of Western Society upon indigenous cultures and destroyed them - both in their lives and how they were depicted - so too the writers of IDW have created an ongoing, racially paternalistic depiction of Cybertronians, which forces an alien race of sentient beings to adopt the customs and behaviours of our human society, simply to emotionally gratify us as human beings.
Is it any wonder why alien races haven't made first contact yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jazzman Crothers on Apr 2, 2020 18:45:14 GMT -5
Quick question, do you believe Transformers can have sex and have babies? And do you go by the name of Tramp anywhere else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 19:35:14 GMT -5
Quick question, do you believe Transformers can have sex and have babies? And do you go by the name of Tramp anywhere else? I have no idea who Tramp is. As my response should have shown, that all depends on which continuity you're talking about, because you're dealing with very different xenobiologies. It's been established in the Generation 2 continuity for example, that Transformers can and do asexually reproduce through the process of budding. With the Sunbow continuity, while reproduction didn't exist, given the pair bonding tendencies of the Autobots, were first generation Autobots, or "consumer goods" as they were originally known, were they also built by the Quintessons to also function as sex robots. If that seems bizarre, just consider the science fiction show "Humans". Remember, in this continuity, the transformers were originally intended to be sold to organic life forms - including bisexually reproducing alien life forms; where their functions start and end, really depends on how much the Quintessons maximised their profit margins. By the time you get to Beast Machines though, what Cybertronians (at least in terms of Maximals) are actually flesh and blood, technorganic beings, rather than mechanical life forms, and so given that they clearly have 2 sexes and that they are biological, the answer there is probably no different to if you were talking about actual human beings. Like I said, it all depends on which Cybertronian xenobiology you're talking about, because it does wildly vary between continuities. Therein lies the problem. Everything about us humans about our relationships, our sex and our gender -even having a civilisation as we do today and the formation of that society - all stems from the fact that we are a bi-sexually reproducing species. The only way another civilisation would look like ours in these fundamental ways, was if it was also a bisexually reproducing species. In short, my answer to your first question is neither "yes" or "no", but rather "how long is a piece of string".
|
|
|
Post by Jazzman Crothers on Apr 2, 2020 19:51:34 GMT -5
I have no idea who Tramp is. Yaa! With the Sunbow continuity, while reproduction didn't exist, given the pair bonding tendencies of the Autobots, were first generation Autobots, or "consumer goods" as they were originally known, were they also built by the Quintessons to also function as sex robots. So besides the Autobot's bonding tendencies, what else makes you say that the Autobots functioned as sex robots?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 21:53:43 GMT -5
With the Sunbow continuity, while reproduction didn't exist, given the pair bonding tendencies of the Autobots, were first generation Autobots, or "consumer goods" as they were originally known, were they also built by the Quintessons to also function as sex robots. So besides the Autobot's bonding tendencies, what else makes you say that the Autobots functioned as sex robots? When talking specifically about the Sunbow continuity, I'm not necessarily saying they do, just that the the probability is high. The fact is that you have gendered consumer products, and when we're talking about "consumer product", we're talking essentially about the NDR-114 from Bicentennial Man and the synths from Humans. These are essentially made to perform a range of domestic tasks. These can range from domestic chores, such as with Andrew in Bicentennial Man, to companionship, such as with Simon in Humans, to companionship combined with being a sex robot, such as with Anita/Mia in Humans, to even being used as a prostitute, such as with Niska in Humans. Data in the case of Star Trek: The Next Generation, was also created with full sexual functionality. The question ultimately comes down to what motivates the creation of an artificial life form. Dr Noonien Soong for example, wanted to create the perfect artificial life form, so he strove to build what have ultimately evolved into synthetic life forms. NorthAm Robotics strove for the NDR-114s to simply have their creations perform menial labour, with the enough of a personality. The company responsible for producing synths in Humans on the other hand, sought to produce synthetic humanoid life which would carry out every single function possible, including both emotional and sexual companionship. We know by way of the Autobot propensity for pair bonding, that something core in an Autobot's programming and the parameters by which Vector Sigma was programmed to program the Transformers, that there was at least emotional companionship built into the Transformers by the Quintessons. We didn't see it on screen, however this was also a program aimed at 5 year olds so it not being on screen cannot be taken as evidence of it not being there. That leaves us with the motivations of the Quintessons themselves. We know from "The Quintesson Journal" if I remember correctly that the Quintessons were so driven by profits, in a manner divorced from ethics and morality, that they once industrialised a planet in a manner which completely destroyed its ecology - just so they could then sell them artificial atmospheric processing machinery in the form of "plantobots". As such, the question is "If the Quintessons saw there was a market for making the Autobots to be part sex robot, would they do it?" The answer is that they absolutely would - furthermore if this led to clients being severely injured from using them as such, the Quintessons would simply had then sold the race cybernetic replacement limbs and organisms.
Like I said, I'm not saying it's a definite, just that when you look at how synthetic humanoids have been protrayed in other science fiction and the business acumen of the Quintessons, there's definitely a high probability of the answer being "yes".
|
|
|
Post by Jazzman Crothers on Apr 2, 2020 22:10:25 GMT -5
So you're saying, based on other sci-fi fiction, where robots, androids and other mechanical beings who have been created by humans, chances are they would be designed and crafted to do the nasty. With other humans and robots then. So if the Transformers was a little more 'adult' then it's possible that we would have seen the Quintessons give the Autobots the ability to do the nasty, especially to sell them to other aliens races who liked to do the nasty as much, or even more, as us humans. Correct?
|
|
Thundercat
Minicon
Posts: 115
RP Faction: Autobot Renegade; Queen of the Munchkincons
|
Post by Thundercat on Apr 3, 2020 14:16:37 GMT -5
I’m sorry but...what exactly are you trying to get across here? If anything, this seems as much of an agenda-pushing, one sided rant as the things you are arguing against are. And that, from my view at least, seems you’re exceptionally hyperfocused on something that seems quite personal to you as an individual. But like you said, this sort of topic seems purely from your point of view and beliefs. And sorry to say, IDW is hardly the only source of media you could have a long rant about in terms of pushing some form of agenda becaus I can argue there is a lot of that in all forms of media that are fictional as this universe.
For you, this is obviously something personal and I can see why you wouldn’t particularly like the direction IDW went with some of its character writing and story building. For me, everything seemed to be fine. Course there are issues, there is always going to be, but it doesn’t seem that extreme to have to zero in on just a few key things, IE: robot sexuality or how they identify themselves. They’re alien lifeforms, science fiction characters that everyone will interpret differently. So as I suppose as a binary thinker (what does that even mean by the way???) this seems just as pushy about a point as you saying IDW is pushing an agenda. Way I saw it, they just seemed to be adapting some of society’s serious problems we are facing now and adding them to the universe, and much of this could probably be explained in trying to be “more relatable” even if realistically it likely and doubtfully would be as such in real life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 21:34:25 GMT -5
So you're saying, based on other sci-fi fiction, where robots, androids and other mechanical beings who have been created by humans, chances are they would be designed and crafted to do the nasty. With other humans and robots then. So if the Transformers was a little more 'adult' then it's possible that we would have seen the Quintessons give the Autobots the ability to do the nasty, especially to sell them to other aliens races who liked to do the nasty as much, or even more, as us humans. Correct? What I'm saying, as I feel this has gone off on a tangent, is that different continuities give the Transformers very different xenobiologies and that some xenobiologies are completely compatible with exploring sex and gender issues and others aren't. I'm saying that the IDWverse Cybertronian xenobiology is incompatible with overtly exploring sex and gender issues. I'm saying that Transformers has always been Science Fiction, meaning that universe building is crucial to it. I'm saying that the moment that universe building is handled badly, what you wind up with is bad science fiction and therefore bad storytelling for anyone who understands the genre. This is typically what someone says when they're not sorry at all. Given that what follows from this a passive-aggressive, veiled ad-hominem and appeal to the masses laden rant, which is to discourse made in good faith, what zero degrees kelvin is to the temperature of a supernova, that much is patently obvious. what exactly are you trying to get across here? If you were engaging in rational independent thinking rather than trying to coerce binary group-think in others, you'd have already answered your own question. If anything, this seems as much of an agenda-pushing, one sided rant as the things you are arguing against are. So according to this argument, because I take issue with people who write science-fiction like rank amateurs, I must hate LGBTIQ+ representation and gender representation, which by extension amounts to a veiled accusation of calling me a homophobe and woman hater. Guess I must have imagined loving The Orville, its depiction of the Moclans and the exploration of LGBTIQ+ issues. Guess I must have imagined loving Alara, Talla and Kelly on there too. And that, from my view at least, seems you’re exceptionally hyperfocused on something that seems quite personal to you as an individual. Last I checked, good storytelling was important to everyone. However if good storytelling was just important to me, then why are so many franchises who are making the mistake of seeing franchises as simply vehicles to unintelligently push agendas, doing terribly at the moment. If good writing in science fiction is only important to me, then why do the Saturn Awards exist? But like you said, this sort of topic seems purely from your point of view and beliefs. Firstly, I didn't say that, you did. Secondly, the fact that you continue to say it, simply demonstrates that you don't understand science fiction as a genre or its conventions. And sorry to say, IDW is hardly the only source of media you could have a long rant about in terms of pushing some form of agenda becaus I can argue there is a lot of that in all forms of media that are fictional as this universe. Firstly, learn the difference between a rant and a screed; what I typed was a screed – get it right. Secondly, I never said it was the only place this has happened. Star Wars has done it too and they're in damage control. Doctor Who went there and they've got the lowest ratings in 35 years. Star Trek has been there and the franchise is suffering. The same is true for parts of the Arrowverse. COVID-19 has probably put the final nail in the coffin in the comics industry. As for IDW specifically, anyone looking at their financials can see that they've been in dire straights for the past few years. Thirdly, you know what hasn't helped the reaction to this bad story telling? Responses like yours here to said criticism by these industries and their dogmatically unthinking stans. For you, this is obviously something personal No, this is an issue for anyone who understands science fiction and its conventions and expects a science fiction story arc to maintain its quality. But hey, if you telling yourself that makes you feel better, then you do you. and I can see why you wouldn’t particularly like the direction IDW went with some of its character writing and story building. No, you think you can see why, but you can't, because you're too blinded by binary thinking, combined with a secular dogmatic zeal. Star Wars was diverse long before the Sequel Trilogy, Comics was progressive well before they chose to “go woke”, Star Trek the Next Generation and Doctor Who have always been progressive. The Orville actually explores these issues (as opposed to pushing agendas, presuming you're capable of grasping that distinction). The difference is that with these examples, the writers understood the difference between using good storytelling and allegory to impart social lessons through osmosis, as opposed to using bad storytelling and beating someone over the head with a sledgehammer. For me, everything seemed to be fine. This is because as your response proves in spades, you clearly don't understand science fiction as a genre. Course there are issues, there is always going to be,but it doesn’t seem that extreme to have to zero in on just a few key things, What there are, are fundamental universe building flaws, which is a major problem for a piece of science fiction; once again, you call taking issue with that “extreme” because you clearly don't understand science fiction. IE: robot sexuality or how they identify themselves. They’re alien lifeforms, science fiction characters that everyone will interpret differently. This is a completely asinine response. As you pointed out, they're aliens, meaning that unless they're xenobiology is identical to ours, their society is going to be radically different. However their society is still going to be defined by their biology and environment. Take humanity for example. Gender issues in humans existed because of reproductive differences between men and women and how they impacted on the survival of the human race. Human sexuality in all its forms is primarily determined by us being a bisexually reproducing species. The nature and production of oxytocin in humans is precisely why romantic relationships exist. The spectrum of gender in human beings is determined by us being a bisexually reproducing species. Human civilization formed as the bi-product of realising that humans hunting in groups could bring down proportionally bigger prey than hunting individually. Xenophobia (ie “fear of the other) was something which evolved as a survival mechanism from when we lived in caves. These are just some of the examples of how bisexual reproduction and the Earth's environment shaped humanity as a race. These are just a few examples of how humanity's environment and biology have shaped it. The moment a race: - doesn't reproduce at all but rather the planet does, like in the case of IDWverse's Cybertron;
- mono-sexually reproduces, or;
- in cases like the Enterprise episode “Cogenitor”, trisexually reproduces, the nature and culture of that race are going to fundementally change.
Likewise, that race's environment is radically going to shape its nature. The notion that there is any valid answer to how an alien society should look that is divorced from the biology of that race or its natural environment, is completely asinine. So as I suppose as a binary thinker (what does that even mean by the way???) this seems just as pushy about a point as you saying IDW is pushing an agenda. Binary thinkers think only in absolutes. The moment someone even partly disagrees with their thinking, they are "othered" by the binary thinker as thinking the complete opposite to them in the worst possible way. It's how religious fanatics behave. Take your initial response. Despite the fact that my issue was bad storytelling being used as a vehicle to push agendas (as opposed to having no issue with, and even enjoying good storytelling which explored these issues), you immediately jump to the conclusion that I must hate LGBTIQ+ individuals. After all, you make this patently obvious when you say: If anything, this seems as much of an agenda-pushing, one sided rant as the things you are arguing against are. Responses like this are the very reason why the comment of “anyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler” has surfaced. The irony is that you and everyone who thinks like you fails to grasp that you're actually the ones who are sexist and homophobic; you're engaging in a very specific form of bigotry – the bigotry of low expectations. You're operating from a position “of any old thing is good enough” - like the groups being represented should just jump for joy at whatever table scraps they happen to be fed with. What you're doing is essentially supporting someone claiming to feed these groups a gourmet meal, and then handing them pig slop. Way I saw it, they just seemed to be adapting some of society’s serious problems we are facing now and adding them to the universe, and much of this could probably be explained in trying to be “more relatable” even if realistically it likely and doubtfully would be as such in real life. Of course you do, because you clearly don't understand science fiction. If this were about exploring current issues and adding them to the universe, through good storytelling, it wouldn't have panned out anywhere near how it did. If Maighread Scott and James Roberts actually understood science fiction as a genre, or had even a shred of respect for the property they were writing for, they would have seen that the xenobiology of the Transformers in the IDW continuity was completely incompatible with the issues they wished to explore. From there they would have realised that the solution was to introduce a completely different and more compatible xenobiology, without removing the existing xenobiology. At that point it would have very quickly dawned on them that introducing parellel universes was the way to do it and that Dark Energon, given its instabilities, could easily have been the means to do it. Never mind the fact that the Dead Universe already existed in IDW, which set the precedent for parallel universes anyway. If you really cared about these issues as much as your response claims you do, then surely you'd want them to be done well, by writers who actually understand the genre they're working in. The fact that you would libel someone who does as a bigot, speaks volumes.
|
|
Thundercat
Minicon
Posts: 115
RP Faction: Autobot Renegade; Queen of the Munchkincons
|
Post by Thundercat on Apr 3, 2020 22:10:09 GMT -5
You are quite literally twisting my words.
First off, yes you are exceptionally hyperfocused on something that does not bother some people as it might bother you and others. They are damn aliens in a fictional world, seen through the eyes of a human so there are going to be writers who will associate humanized characteristics to them. That doesn’t mean the writing is going to suffer, be flawed, is terrible writing, it again depends purely on perspective which is exactly what I said. One of which I see you failed to read or didn’t understand what I was getting across. Perhaps yes, its not going to cater to everyone, this isn’t just a science fiction concern.
Second, yes you are just as bad as the problems you are claiming I’m putting forth. You read far too deeply into what I was actually saying and that you are doing exactly what you’re accusing me of. You are toting about the concept of gender in xenobiology, stating that by science fiction terms it has to be strictly taken a certain way. What part of what I was saying was binary thinking? What does it matter if an alien race as a gender concept? Yes, I don’t mind there being a concept of gender or certain identification of sexuality in fiction, that is up to the writers who are writing any story. I don’t have to understand the entire genre as a whole to know that. That is the only thing you remotely said that was true. But what does having to know science fiction have to do with any of this?
Which brings me to three: I clearly addressed that your view is not going to be shared by everyone just as you wouldn’t obviously agree with mine and some others. You are overreacting and dissecting my words to accuse me of something you are quite clearly doing yourself. “This post is probably going to be controversial and attract hate from binary thinkers”, this is just as bigot sounding than anything I said and more passive-aggressive than a simple “I’m sorry” from genuine confusion, which I still don’t see how having a different opinion to what you stated earlier is being a bigot. I never said you hated LBGTQ+ or any group for that matter, much less implied it. You said that yourself and are assuming without clarification. But seeming as I have to clarify what I’m stating: For me, as a writer, I think IDW handled the matter decently in being able to cover the concept of prejudice, different types of relationships, and tackling new ideas or old ones with a new twist, better than most in fact. It’s not shoved down our throats or lacks an explanation, they at least try to do that where most other shows or writing these days it’s sort of forced or comes off as unnatural.
Again, your opinion on how the writing was handled is not the for all answer for everyone. Others like myself may find the writing was fine, flawed of course, but hardly to the extreme you are tackling.
|
|
|
Post by Jazzman Crothers on Apr 3, 2020 22:32:59 GMT -5
You are quite literally twisting my words. Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with my homegirl here. I've read everything, agree and disagree with some things, some stuff mentioned might be interesting, but she's right. Whether it's a just a conversation or an argument of ideas, twisting up what one's says ain't cool.
|
|
|
Post by Hoist on Apr 3, 2020 23:09:10 GMT -5
Alright, putting my foot in. Everyone calm down
This is my only warning - don't using a passive aggressive attitudes to anyone that disagrees with you or challenges you. Or accuse others of the way of the way they reply if you are doing exactly the same. Express your comments whether you agree with them or not in a civil manner, or elsewhere - period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 23:52:56 GMT -5
You are quite literally twisting my words. No, you're simply arguing in bad faith in a manner that is completely loaded with logical fallacies. First off, yes you are exceptionally hyperfocused on something that does not bother some people as it might bother you and others. This is a glaring bandwagon fallacy; just because you and others don't understand science fiction as a genre or don't see a problem, doesn't mean the problem isn't there. Oh and before you try and throw that back at me, no the reverse doesn't apply. The story and character changes were made in a manner which can objectively be evaluated as bad universe building. As universe building is a critical element of science-fiction and this clearly is science-fiction, it can objectively be stated that this is a problem and bad storytelling. They are damn aliens in a fictional world, seen through the eyes of a human so there are going to be writers who will associate humanized characteristics to them. That doesn’t mean the writing is going to suffer, be flawed, is terrible writing, it again depends purely on perspective which is exactly what I said. This is a blatant strawman and if you were being intellectually honest here, you'd admit that. Good science fiction is far more layered than you clearly think it is. Good science fiction should start with building a universe in a manner that is as divorced from the human perspective as possible. Like you said, these are alien races, not humans. In some cases an alien race will be completely alien to us in every way. In other cases they will be incredibly simiar. How immediately relateable or unrelateable that alien race is rto us as human beings in the universe building stage, is irrelevant. Once the universe building stage is done and dusted and you move on to actually telling that story, in the universe you have created, then and only then do you worry about how relateable it is – ensuring that in the process of doing so, the actual universe building isn't altered for the sake of relateability. Oh and guess what, sometimes that means that an alien race isn't going to be completely relateable to us in terms of its customs and culture and that's perfectly fine. Good science fiction isn't afraid of making that choice if need be. Failure to do that, when you're specifically writing science-fiction, is objectively bad writing. That stays true regardless of the numbers of people who enjoy it. The fact that you appear to remain incapable of grasping this, simply further demonstrates that you don't understand science fiction. Perhaps yes, its not going to cater to everyone, this isn’t just a science fiction concern. When an approach to storytelling can be objectively evaluated to fail in adhering to the conventions of that specific genre – specifically science fiction in this case – then it is absolutely bad storytelling. And I agree, terrible storytelling isn't going to appeal to a lot of people. Some people conversely don't hateread and hatewatch, while others don't care about how much something fits within a genre. Whether people do them though, doesn't change the fact that the stories in question fail as science fiction. Second, yes you are just as bad as the problems you are claiming I’m putting forth. This is a blatant middle ground fallacy and a strawman. There are two clear positions currently being discussed. My position is one which takes issue with the quality of the story-telling, and claims that all that matters is representation, even at the expense of the story-telling quality. Conversely, yours is one which values representation at the expense of everything, even-story-telling quality, and either directly or indirectly brands anyone who takes issue with that for any reason as an ismphobe. You even said: I can see why you wouldn’t particularly like the direction IDW went with some of its character writing Yet as my posts have clearly shown, my issue was not with the fact that the representations and issues were there, but rather the rank-amateurish universe building that was used to put them there. To conflate the two is a bad faith argument and a blatant strawman. You read far too deeply into what I was actually saying and that you are doing exactly what you’re accusing me of. While I get why you might feel the need to tell yourself that, this simply doesn't hold up. You've engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy here, in order to push a binary thinking narrative and where you've made veiled strawmans that anyone who takes issue with bad storytelling used to explore gender and LGBTIQ+ issues, must take issue with the exploration of those issues in and of itself. I've simply called you out on that after you chose to bring a knife to the gun fight you chose to start with me. You are toting about the concept of gender in xenobiology, stating that by science fiction terms it has to be strictly taken a certain way. Firstly xenobiology is a critical part of any science-fiction which explores alien races, by nature of the subject matter. The moment you introduce gender and sexuality in an alien race in a work of science fiction, discussing whether the storytelling is consistent with that zenobiology is fair game – especially when it isn't. Furthermore, the fact that you're bringing this up, suggests that you don't understand the concept of suspension of disbelief. When you have a science fiction work depicting an alien society as existing in a certain way one minute, and then showing that they reproduce in a manner that is completely incompatible with that society, then you have destroyed the suspension of disbelief. What you have then is canon that is completely irreconcilable with itself and therefore bad science fiction writing. Certainly you can “cheat” to get around that and I'm fine with those cheats if they work, but What part of what I was saying was binary thinking? You mean besides the part where you argue that because I take issue with how the story which explores issues of gender and sexuality in an alien race is constructed, that I must have an issue with the exploration itself – even when I've clearly shown examples of it that have been very well written, which I do enjoy? What does it matter if an alien race as a gender concept? All alien races of some kind in science fiction are going to have gender of some kind – as gender is ultimately sex identity. What matters, and this is something which good science-fiction writers understand by the way, is that the gender and sexuality portrayed matches their biology. Yes, I don’t mind there being a concept of gender or certain identification of sexuality in fiction, that is up to the writers who are writing any story. Again though the issue here is the execution of that storytelling, not the issues it explores. Furthermore, yes the writers can and do get to make creative decisions, just as the audience gets to critically pan and praise those choices – including on the grounds of whether they are good or bad storytelling in terms of the genre. I don’t have to understand the entire genre as a whole to know that. That is the only thing you remotely said that was true. But what does having to know science fiction have to do with any of this? This part of your response is asinine and a complete oxymoron. You're posts have clearly shown that what you understand about the conventions of science-fiction, is but a drop in the ocean compared to what you don't know. That means you have no credible or informed opinion on whether what I am saying about the stories which Maighread Scott and James Roberts have written, as pieces of science-fiction is accurate or true. Furthermore it has everything to do with this discussion. Which brings me to three: I clearly addressed that your view is not going to be shared by everyone just as you wouldn’t obviously agree with mine and some others. There's a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. There is also a difference between opinion and fact. Liking or disliking something is an opinion; objectively evaluating something, based on how well it does or does not adhere to conventions it is supposed to adhere to, is addressing a fact question. They are radically different things. The fact that you're incapable of grasping the distinction, speaks volumes. You are overreacting and dissecting my words to accuse me of something you are quite clearly doing yourself. No, I'm addressing your arguments on their merits – or lack there of – including the continual use of logical fallacies. You're the one who argued that because I must take issue with the story-craft used to explore certain issues, that I must object to the exploration of those issues. Remember, you were the one who said: I can see why you wouldn’t particularly like the direction IDW went with some of its character writing Yet this clearly isn't the case. In fact the full quote is more disinegneuous, as it conflates taking issue with the exploration of these issues with the storycraft used to explore them: For you, this is obviously something personal and I can see why you wouldn’t particularly like the direction IDW went with some of its character writing and story building. Yet if this were the case, I wouldn't love the Orville or other well written and progressive Science-fiction which managed to explore these issues while engaging in skillful storycraft. Clearly your narrative doesn't hold up here. “This post is probably going to be controversial and attract hate from binary thinkers”, this is just as bigot sounding than anything I said and more passive-aggressive than a simple “I’m sorry” from genuine confusion, Firstly that disclaimer is simply a recognition that it was going to attract bad faith arguments trying to shut it down; way to prove it right with your responses by the way. Secondly, it's quaint that you keep lying to yourself that you were actually confused. Your confusion clearly stems from your binary thinking. After all, you've made it clear that anyone who takes issue with the story-craft used to explore these issues here, must take issue with the exploration of the issues themselves. which I still don’t see how having a different opinion to what you stated earlier is being a bigot. I never said you hated LBGTQ+ or any group for that matter, much less implied it. Having a different opinion doesn't make you guilty of bigotry; supporting the bigotry of low expectations makes you guilty of bigotry. If you weren't supporting it then you wouldn't be ok with such rank-amateurish science-fiction writing being passed off as “representation”. You said that yourself and are assuming without clarification. But seeming as I have to clarify what I’m stating: For me, as a writer, I think IDW handled the matter decently in being able to cover the concept of prejudice, different types of relationships, and tackling new ideas or old ones with a new twist, better than most in fact. It’s not shoved down our throats or lacks an explanation, they at least try to do that where most other shows or writing these days it’s sort of forced or comes off as unnatural. If you want to bring up your qualifications as a writer, then you should understand the conventions of science-fiction as a genre. You should understand that as a gender, science-fiction requires at the bare minimum, a believable pseudo-science behind it and a consistency to that science or pseudo-science. You should understand that good science-fiction usually has a massive “bible” in terms of what is and is not consistent to that science or pseudo-sceince and that changes to that “bible” need to be done in a manner which adds to it without causing contradiction. Stories are either told within the boundaries of that framework and are good science-fiction, or ignore said boundaries and are poor science-fiction. In this case, the writers failed to make compatible changes to canon and their retcons completely ignored the boundaries of that framework, so it was bad writing. Period. The irony is that between the Dead Universe and the unstable macguffin of Dark Energon, the answer of alternate universes with different xenobiologies, was right in front of them the entire time, and they ignored it from something which was completely rank-amateurish. Again, your opinion on how the writing was handled is not the for all answer for everyone. Others like myself may find the writing was fine, flawed of course, but hardly to the extreme you are tackling. All I'm doing is holding a piece of science-fiction up to scrutiny, by evaluating how well, or poorly it adheres to said conventions. People who cannot recognise that for what it is, clearly don't have a firm grasp on science-fiction as a genre. People are entitled to like or dislike it regardless of that, however whether they like or dislike it has no bearing on whether it is well crafted in terms of its genre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 23:58:33 GMT -5
Alright, putting my foot in. Everyone calm down This is my only warning - don't using a passive aggressive attitudes to anyone that disagrees with you or challenges you. Or accuse others of the way of the way they reply if you are doing exactly the same. Express your comments whether you agree with them or not in a civil manner, or elsewhere - period. Honestly, I'm out. It's ironic that I post a disclaimer that I was going to cop hate from the "if your opinion doesn't fall lock and step with mine, then you're an ismphobe" crowd; that was exactly what happened. It's happened in far too many places in far too many franchises, where simply wanting good storytelling apparently makes you the second coming of Adolf Hitler. I honestly thought this place was going to be different, based on nostalgia, but it seems I was wrong. Feel free to delete my account. I wont be coming back.
|
|
|
Post by Hoist on Apr 4, 2020 0:05:42 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm out. It's ironic that I post a disclaimer that I was going to cop hate from the "if your opinion doesn't fall lock and step with mine, then you're an ismphobe" crowd; that was exactly what happened. It's happened in far too many places in far too many franchises, where simply wanting good storytelling apparently makes you the second coming of Adolf Hitler. I honestly thought this place was going to be different, based on nostalgia, but it seems I was wrong. Feel free to delete my account. I wont be coming back. Shame since your no doubt going to be lurking reading this as a guest. I don't state which side I fell on and acted in a purely professional way as site owner. The only one making "second coming" liking - is yourself. Again you accuse others of "if your opinion doesn't fall lock and step with mine" yet your doing exactly the same thing unless everyone agrees with you. Take care.
|
|