 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe we are all in the stars and some of us are looking down in the gutter.i guess it all depends are you more an optimist or a pessimist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I draw the line at building a blinking light life-support chair and driving it around outside where people can see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 7, 2017 - 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
No, I don't think it's just a bunch of social rejects, which is a typically prejudice thing to say.
No, not exclusively, but the ratio between the two groups is more than just coincidental. To quote myself from earlier in the thread:
"My theory is that science fiction operates in a "strata" far away from the bore and mundane quality of everyday life, and most niche fans (or geeks, if you will) are also dreamers. If the world is cruel to them or they don't really understand it, it's easy to dream onself into a world of wizards, spaceships and aliens.
So they channel all their social and creative energy into living, breathing and exploring these worlds."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's simply because they're more fun and interesting. What is film for? Is it so we can watch what is going on in every town or city, or next door? We can watch this whenever we want. We go to work, we come home, we socialise.
Can we go to Mars? Can we travel in time? Can we fight monsters? Of course not. Film and it's variants (not getting into videotape and the digital thing) was invented so we can put on screen what was once purely in the mind and imagination.
This is why I love Ray Harryhausen's work, the Universal monsters, Star Trek, Star Wars, superheroes and Doctor Who (well, at least the last 50 odd years, I'll let you know about the rest). I watch Coronation Street, Eastenders and some shit reality shows for my lovely wife and daughter. But I don't love this tv.
I love sf and fantasy.
How many conventions do we know about soaps? About sitcoms? About straight drama? No. NONE. Even Sherlock only counts because of it's connection to a Doctor Who hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 7, 2017 - 3:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
I think there's a big difference, although I can't really point to any sociological studies on the matter. It's only personal experience. Would love to see one, though.
There isn't really a big difference. Everybody in the world gets turned on by something or other.
And I'm glad you mentioned personal experience.
Whenever someone makes an observation about something, it's always important to recognize that it's almost always according to what the person in question has been exposed to.
For example, someone who thinks all Trek fans are nerdish freaks has probably only ever seen that specific cross-section of Trek-enthusiasts--resulting in a slightly skewed perception.
Note that I'm not necessarily drawing any value judgements here (if so, I would also be judging myself as I'm also very much a sci fi fanboy), but I think it's essential to have a bit of meta cognition and recognize that the genre attracts certain types of people for a reason.
Like I said, it applies equally to whatever floats a person's boat.
I mentioned sports, religion and politics, but it could apply to almost anything.
Everything in the world attracts certain types of people, but I would say that most of them probably function normally in a social setting.
I'm the biggest sci-fi fan I know but I go out with people, have a few drinks, etc., etc., and I have never been to a sci-fi convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Either that or they're supreme optimists who think things can get better with technology. After all, even when sci-fi aliens invade Earth, they do so with fabulous technology. THAT is a very optimistic view of technology.
