Why is so much TV and movie Sci-Fi invariably the armed forces in space?

[Wat_Tyler]

Most of the US shows are basically the Navy in space. Why is that? Why so militarized?

[happyslug]

1. Post WWII phenomena only

If you look at Sci-Fi from the 1930s it is Scientist and Adventurers that are going into space Not Soldiers or Sailors (Flash Gordon for Example, he was College Student who went with a Scientist on a Rocket Ship to the plant "Mongol").

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century is another example (Through when made into a TC Series in the 1970s Buck Rogers became an Air Force Officer).

And who can forget Duck Dodges in the 24th and a half Century, he was sent on a mission but not on military lines.

[Wat_Tyler]

4. That's quite true.

Don't you mean 'Flash Gordon'?

Is the militarization of TV and movie Sci-Fi a cold-war phenomenon?

[happyslug]

8. I corrected my mistake

Given that my sister has a box set of Flash Gordon on DVD how could I make THAT MISTAKE.

[spunky]

2. Probably because most science fiction worlds

are futuristic and sci-fi authors tend to construct rather totalitarian, warring worlds.

I guess sci-fi writers all suffer a uniquely bleak view of the future and where technology is taking us.

That, and because wars and military provide easy opportunities for technology. The military/wartime is where many of our technological breakthroughs come from.

[Wat_Tyler]

6. True - but I'm more thinking of the characters involved.

Star Trek, Andromeda, Babylon Five, the Alien movies - they're all members of some sort of paramilitary organization.

[spunky]

11. Because the military (or paramilitary) are most likely to have the

opportunity to go into space. And because alien races are usually created as hostile, thus people with military training are more likely to survive out there? (And I guess to defend earth from the evils of the aliens)

[Wat_Tyler]

12. Maybe I'm asking 'why isn't on-screen SciFi more creative with character'?

I'm quite bored of characters who are members of some form of paramilitary organization. It's been done enough, in my opinion.

[spunky]

14. I agree. If you want good, non-military sci-fi, check out

Philip K. Dick

While wars with alien planets often factor into the story, his protagonists are almost never members of the military. :)

[Wat_Tyler]

16. Yeah. I've read a few, and it's very well written stuff.

Characterization is often lacking in SciFi.

[spunky]

21. I think sci-fi wrtiers tend to be more interested in overarching,

societal/cultural issues and less interested in individuals. Maybe it has something to do with the personality type that is drawn to sci-fi. They see something wrong with this world, so they create another. But they don't bother to create very deep characters because individuals aren't what intrest them, mankind as a species is what intrests them.

[Wat_Tyler]

24. That rings true.

[Dufaeth]

3. They know it sells?

eom

[AllegroRondo]

5. It was thought only the military had the budget to do it

just like much of human exploration, it is usually the goverments, through their military, that have the resources to do something that big.

[redqueen]

7. Why are so many toys militaristic? n/t

[Wat_Tyler]

9. An equally interesting point.

[Lone Pawn]

10. Name a new transport paradigm that wasn't immediately militarized.

Horse? Wheel? Boat? Ship? Steamship? Airplane? Rocket? Satellite?

What will make space travel different?

[Wat_Tyler]

13. True, but aren't there other stories to tell -

about say, non-military travellers, commercial pilots, criminals, intergalactic musicians, anything other than soldiers? There's a whole universe - not just the military one.

[Lone Pawn]

17. Those usually make the best sci-fi stories, yes.

It's harder to write that and avoid it being "XYZ in space" though. With military stories, you're always referring to special tech that keeps readers in the new world. You've got to try in any other setting, though.

[Kellanved]

15. Because there is a large supply of military stories.

Most SF Series are just Hornblower adaptations (which isn't too original to start with).

The stories work in almost any setting and it's easier to find a producer with something not too original.

[Wat_Tyler]

19. Great point, Kellanved

it’s the same stories in a different setting, all the old war movies set in space. I wonder what the SciFi equivalent of Sven Hassel is?

[tigereye]

25. "speculative fiction"

the less hard science version of sci-fi often has those qualities you are talking about. Tends to be more interested in sociology and anthropology or religion. Like LeGuin, the cyberpunk guy ( whose name always escapes me), Sherri Tepper ( usually the militaries get their butts kicked in a lot of her books), etc.

Oh, but you are talking about on-screen. I don't think the full breadth of sci-fi makes it on-screen, unfortunately.

[spunky]

26. William Gibson? (cyber-punk) n/t

[tigereye]

28. right I always forget his name

Thanks.

[Placebo]

18. Because it's more fun than a bunch of stoned dirty hippies...

with backpacks lallygagging around the cosmos in search of their next fix! :D

[asthmaticeog]

20. Actually, I'd watch that.

Doesn't sound too far removed from "Hitchhiker's Guide," anyway.

[Wat_Tyler]

22. Sounds like 'Dark Star' to me.

[spunky]

23. I was thinking the same thing. lol. n/t

[Igel]

27. There was some sci-fi show on tv a couple of years ago...

Firefly? Something like that. Basically traders set in some kind of picaresque narrative.

The problem is multifold. You can't have a static story: it leads to cultural implications new viewers can't follow, and old viewers don't want have explained. No cultural explanations --> no cultural differences ... so why put the story in the future? We that means plots are needed.

Plots usually involve some sort of conflict, competition, or mystery. You can put them on one world (Logan's Run, and the mystery-driven Earth: Final Conflict early on). But that gets old: new tech isn't introduced every show, and it gets harder to be novel overall. So it's easier to bounce around. Most large-scale exploration has been military, or conceivably could be mega-corporation funded (as in Alien).

You can bounce characters between world's (Andromeda was a quest, as was ST: Enterprise for a while; ST: TNG is frequently picaresque). Babylon 5 went back and forth between war, quest, mystery, and even romance--but it made new viewers suffer in ignorance after season 2. You can bounce them around in time (Sliders). And you can even do both (Doctor Who).

Wasn't there a show called Firefly that featured independent traders of some sort getting into scraps? (I found it boring ...)

[spunky]

29. yup. made by Joss Wheedon, who did Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Very short lived, but a few extra eps that didn't air were put out on DVD. I've heard that a movie is in the works.

I thought it sucked. It was cowboys in space.

Farscape was good. The main character was from a a future version of NASA (IASA) and so wasn't strictly military, but was a scientist. He did run into evil military guys once shot into space and military/battle type scenarios dominated the show. But despite the military dominance of the show, it was quite character driven.

[Igel]

30. I forgot about Farscape.

I liked the first few seasons.