#in sci fi like Star Wars for example

[asteroids-and-tractorbeams]

Just a PSA to anyone talking about alien life forms, the terms “sentient life” and “intelligent life” refer to different things and should not be used interchangeably.

Sentient life refers to consciousness and the ability of a life form to react to and make decisions based on stimuli. Generally anything with a brain is considered to be sentient, however depending on the exact definition of sentience you’re working with, arguments can be made that insects and certain kinds of plants and fungi are sentient as well.

Intelligent life on the other hand, refers to life forms with “human-like” intelligence. The exact criteria differs between scientists but it’s generally understood to be life that exhibits higher level thinking which is indicated by things like being self-aware, having the ability to learn and use tools, being able to communicate, and having some form of culture or society. At the moment, humans are considered to be the only intelligent life in the universe, but many animals such as octopi, dolphins, some monkeys, elephants, and some corvids also exhibit some of these traits.

[ilovettrpgs]

What's ttrpgs?

I just stared at my screen like this

[the-uncanny-dag]

If there's literally any lesson a budding writer should learn from the many failures of pop sci-fi and fantasy, it's that, most of the time, everything and everyone being connected to everything and everyone... is worse

[aethersea]

another thing fantasy writers should keep track of is how much of their worldbuilding is aesthetic-based. it's not unlike the sci-fi hardness scale, which measures how closely a story holds to known, real principles of science. The Martian is extremely hard sci-fi, with nearly every detail being grounded in realistic fact as we know it; Star Trek is extremely soft sci-fi, with a vaguely plausible "space travel and no resource scarcity" premise used as a foundation for the wildest ideas the writers' room could come up with. and much as Star Trek fuckin rules, there's nothing wrong with aesthetic-based fantasy worldbuilding!

(sidenote we're not calling this 'soft fantasy' bc there's already a hard/soft divide in fantasy: hard magic follows consistent rules, like "earthbenders can always and only bend earth", and soft magic follows vague rules that often just ~feel right~, like the Force. this frankly kinda maps, but I'm not talking about just the magic, I'm talking about the worldbuilding as a whole.

actually for the purposes of this post we're calling it grounded vs airy fantasy, bc that's succinct and sounds cool.)

a great example of grounded fantasy is Dungeon Meshi: the dungeon ecosystem is meticulously thought out, the plot is driven by the very realistic need to eat well while adventuring, the story touches on both social and psychological effects of the whole 'no one dies forever down here' situation, the list goes on. the worldbuilding wants to be engaged with on a mechanical level and it rewards that engagement.

deliberately airy fantasy is less common, because in a funny way it's much harder to do. people tend to like explanations. it takes skill to pull off "the world is this way because I said so." Narnia manages: these kids fall into a magic world through the back of a wardrobe, befriend talking beavers who drink tea, get weapons from Santa Claus, dance with Bacchus and his maenads, and sail to the edge of the world, without ever breaking suspension of disbelief. it works because every new thing that happens fits the vibes. it's all just vibes! engaging with the worldbuilding on a mechanical level wouldn't just be futile, it'd be missing the point entirely.

the reason I started off calling this aesthetic-based is that an airy story will usually lean hard on an existing aesthetic, ideally one that's widely known by the target audience. Lewis was drawing on fables, fairy tales, myths, children's stories, and the vague idea of ~medieval europe~ that is to this day our most generic fantasy setting. when a prince falls in love with a fallen star, when there are giants who welcome lost children warmly and fatten them up for the feast, it all fits because these are things we'd expect to find in this story. none of this jars against what we've already seen.

and the point of it is to be wondrous and whimsical, to set the tone for the story Lewis wants to tell. and it does a great job! the airy worldbuilding serves the purposes of the story, and it's no less elegant than Ryōko Kui's elaborately grounded dungeon. neither kind of worldbuilding is better than the other.

however.

you do have to know which one you're doing.

the whole reason I'm writing this is that I saw yet another long, entertaining post dragging GRRM for absolute filth. asoiaf is a fun one because on some axes it's pretty grounded (political fuck-around-and-find-out, rumors spread farther than fact, fastest way to lose a war is to let your people starve, etc), but on others it's entirely airy (some people have magic Just Cause, the various peoples are each based on an aesthetic/stereotype/cliché with no real thought to how they influence each other as neighbors, the super-long seasons have no effect on ecology, etc).

and again! none of this is actually bad! (well ok some of those stereotypes are quite bigoted. but other than that this isn't bad.) there's nothing wrong with the season thing being there to highlight how the nobles are focused on short-sighted wars for power instead of storing up resources for the extremely dangerous and inevitable winter, that's a nice allegory, and the looming threat of many harsh years set the narrative tone. and you can always mix and match airy and grounded worldbuilding – everyone does it, frankly it's a necessity, because sooner or later the answer to every worldbuilding question is "because the author wanted it to be that way." the only completely grounded writing is nonfiction.

the problem is when you pretend that your entirely airy worldbuilding is actually super duper grounded. like, for instance, claiming that your vibes-based depiction of Medieval Europe (Gritty Edition) is completely historical, and then never even showing anyone spinning. or sniffing dismissively at Tolkien for not detailing Aragorn's tax policy, and then never addressing how a pre-industrial grain-based agricultural society is going years without harvesting any crops. (stored grain goes bad! you can't even mouse-proof your silos, how are you going to deal with mold?) and the list goes on.

the man went up on national television and invited us to engage with his worldbuilding mechanically, and then if you actually do that, it shatters like spun sugar under the pressure. doesn't he realize that's not the part of the story that's load-bearing! he should've directed our focus to the political machinations and extensive trope deconstruction, not the handwavey bit.

point is, as a fantasy writer there will always be some amount of your worldbuilding that boils down to 'because I said so,' and there's nothing wrong with that. nor is there anything wrong with making that your whole thing – airy worldbuilding can be beautiful and inspiring. but you have to be aware of what you're doing, because if you ask your readers to engage with the worldbuilding in gritty mechanical detail, you had better have some actual mechanics to show them.

[tyrantisterror]

There was a writer at io9 who I lowkey viewed as my nemesis despite never interacting with him in any way because whenever I encountered an article with an absolutely dogshit shallow take on pop culture 9 tiems out of 10 it was written by him, and generally in mindless praise of Star Wars. I bring this up because before I quit reading the site he posted an article called "I don't get why geeks don't like sports" or something like that, and the thesis of the article was that geeks who love sci-fi and fantasy fiction should LOVE sports because they're basically the same thing - that everything one loves about sci-fi and fantasy fiction can be found in sports. To which I say:

No the fuck it can't

You, a man who is paid to write about geek shit for geeks to read about because your editors inexplicably believe you know why geeks like what they like, clearly lied on your resume

The argument went that sports have everything sci-fi and fantasy fans like, which it specified were, like, stakes, and drama, and people to root for and against, which is basically all it takes to make a sci-fi story, right? Like Jesus Christ it was so stupid, like, Jeff Bezos described how easy it is to make a great TV show stupid.

BUT! It did give me an idea. See, one of the big appeals to me about sci-fi and fantasy stories is the fantastical shit that shows up in them, like monsters, for example. Another big appeal is to see a how our current world can be reflected in the fantastical one - whether we see a better world, or one that's worse in a very dramatic way.

So, here is my suggestion for making sports just like fantasy and sci fi fiction: we add a new position to every single sport called The Minotaur. The Minotaur wears heavy body armor as well as a big, intimidating horned helm, and brandishes an axe with deadly efficiency. The Minotaur is a free agent, allowed to wander in and out of the stadium/ice rink/golf course/what have you as he pleases, but he must attempt to kill one player per game. The players are not allowed to take weapons into the game to defend themselves - only through sheer athleticism can they either evade or disarm the Minotaur, and in doing so save themselves.

If they did this, then finally they'd have everything I love in my sci-fi and fantasy movies in sports.

[david-talks-sw]

Hello. You and GFFA are probably the two most reliable blogs I know when it comes to what GL actually intended with star wars and also have the most on point finger on the pulse of fandom and such without letting the discourse get to you. So I just have to ask. Where does the idea of the jedi being space cops come from in canon? Especially in more left leaning circles. Haven't they seen that there are indeed actual cops in SW? And who are portrayed like how leftists view cops?

Hey there!

Firstly, it's always an honor when someone puts me and Lumi in the same sentence 😃 been a while since I reminded people, but my blog started because I read hers (and a few others) and I was like "oh shit she makes great points!" and started doing the research on my own.

I mostly attribute my rediscovering my childhood love for the Jedi to her early meta posts. Like, you think I'm good, wait til she gets started again! So thank you, for that!

Onto the subject itself: I've seen the notion pop up in all circles. And it's not exactly wrong, it's just not entirely accurate.

You can find a large collection of George Lucas quotes here, about the Jedi's place in the Republic.

You will see that he uses varying terminology and that's what I think partially muddies the waters.

For example, early on, Lucas describes them as "police officers", but years later he says "they're not cops, they're Marshalls of the Old West" but actually "they're mafia dons" or "intergalactic therapists."

But the one that explains it best, for me, is the following:

"They're not like [the kind of] cops who catch murderers. They're warrior-monks who keep peace in the universe without resorting to violence. The Trade Federation is in dispute with Naboo, so the Jedi are ambassadors who talk both sides and convince them to resolve their differences and not go to war. If they do have to use violence, they will, but they are diplomats at the highest level. They've got the power to send the whole force of the Republic, which is 100,000 systems, so if you don't behave they can bring you up in front of the Senate. They'll cut you off at the knees, politically. They're like peace officers. As the situation develops in the Clone Wars they are recruited into the army, and they become generals. They're not generals. They don't kill people. They don't fight. They're supposed to be ambassadors." - The Star Wars Archives: 1999-2005, 2020

Bottom line: yes, they're authority figures. But they're not "beat cops" chasing after robbers and criminals.

They're, first and foremost, ambassadors/negotiators/diplomats. They're police for planets and their governments, not the people of the Republic. Again:

They're peace officers.

Now, they can investigate and take more active "police-like" roles during their mandate, but they're not gonna be called upon to investigate a murder (unless that murder is very strange and local authorities are unable to make sense of it).

It's why, when Anakin is talking about "we'll search for the killer, Padmé" Obi-Wan is like "uuuuh... no we won't?"

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Errors, “Errors,” and Sci Fi

@strawberry-crocodile

tvtropes calls stuff like the wolf example "science matches on" which I think is a pretty fair shake

This.  This is what’s got me thinking so much about errors.  There’s a certain danger, here.  A certain way that this particular effect — delicious dramatic irony — tempts the mind when reading old stories, even true ones.

What do you know about R.M.S. Titanic? I ask my class every year, and the first hand rises.  “It was unsinkable,” the student inevitably says, and everyone is nodding, “or so they thought.”  I write the word UNSINKABLE on the board, underneath my crude drawing of a ship with four smokestacks.  It will be crossed out before the end of the hour, but not for the reason they expect.

“I find no evidence,” Walter Lord, preeminent biographer of the ship’s survivors, wrote, “that Titanic was ever advertised as unsinkable. This detail seems to have entered the collective mind so as to create a more perfect irony.”  Indeed, historians’ examinations of White Star Line documents show the shipbuilders themselves worried it would be so large as to risk collision; they stocked several more lifeboats than 1910s regulations required.

The War to End All Wars (deep breath, satisfied exhale), also known as World War ONE. Chuckle.  Shake of the head.  What if I told you that this phrase, used primarily in American newspapers after the fact, wasn’t meant to be literal? Nowadays we’d say The Mother of All Wars, or One Hell of a Fucking War, but we wouldn’t mean literal motherhood, literal intercourse.  What if I said the armistice and the Lost Generation and the Roaring 20s were all braced for another outbreak of European conflict, and yet we still failed to prevent it?

Did you know they were so confident in the safety of the S.S. Challenger that they put a civilian schoolteacher onboard? I do, because I’ve heard that one repeated many times.  Only, see, it’s got the cause and effect reversed.  Challenger launched on a day the shuttle’s engineers knew to be dangerously cold, because the first civilian in space was on board. And NASA knew its shuttle project would be cancelled entirely, if they couldn’t get that civilian’s much-delayed entry into space in the next two weeks.  So they launched on a cold day, and killed her instead.

These are all what cognitive science calls Hindsight Bias on the personal level, what sociology calls Presentism on the cultural level.  Social psychology’s a little of both, is primarily interested in why you’re sitting on your couch in a Colonize Mars shirt watching PBS and chuckling at the fools who believed in El Dorado.  It wants to know why the mind flees straight from “marijuana will kill you�� to “marijuana will cure cancer” without so much as a pause on the middle ground of its real benefits and drawbacks, its real (mild) risks and rewards.

And they can paralyze the sci-fi writer, if you think too much about them. Jetsons is futurist one decade, retro the next.  “There are no bathrooms on the Enterprise,” the creators of Serenity say smugly, as if Gene Roddenberry should’ve simply known that decades later it’d be acceptable to show a man peeing in full view of the camera, nothing but the curve of the actor’s hand to protect his modesty.  “No sound in space,” the Fandom Menace says, “No explosions in space,” and “A space station can’t collapse in zero-G.”  Only then NASA burns a paper napkin outside of atmosphere, transmits music using only the ghost of nearby planets’ gravities, and logs onto Reddit long enough to point out the Death Star would implode in its own gravity field.  And now we’re the ones pointing, the ones laughing, at those earlier point-and-laughers.  Self-satisfied, smug in superiority.  As if we did the work to find out ourselves, instead of just happening to be born a little later than George Lucas.

[specialagentartemis]

Inspired by @clonerightsagenda’s thoughts about the Ambiguously Brown Spacefuture trope, I kinda want to see more creativity with how Earth is treated in spacefuture sci-fi.

There are plenty of examples where Earth is the center of everything. Star Trek is the obvious one: it’s a bustling interstellar multispecies space society, and Earth is where Starfleet is headquartered and it’s often reflexively and unthinkingly treated by the narrative like it’s the most important planet in the Federation. (Most of our main viewpoint characters are Human, so it’s the most important planet to THEM because it’s their home, but even beyond that, Earth is treated as critically key to the Federation in a way that, say, Betazed is not.)

More recently, the common trope is that the centers of society and culture and economy and politics are elsewhere. Other planets are important, and Earth is either an unimportant backwater that no one really cares about, or galactic humanity has nearly forgotten about it entirely. This is explicit in Becky Chambers’s Wayfarers, strongly implied in The Murderbot Diaries, and one line in Ancillary Justice suggests that too. Ofc this isn’t entirely new—from what I understand it’s what’s going on in Dune too.

And they do this for obvious reasons: the authors are all interested in social and political worldbuilding that is not tethered to real Earth nations, politics, prejudices, and general baggage. Second-world fantasy authors are allowed to do this with no strings attached, but sci-fi authors who want to do social worldbuilding from the ground up have to justify why people don’t appear to identify as Chinese or Latino or Hopi or American anymore (and more often than not, not Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or Hindu or Baha’i or whatever either), why those identities don’t come into conflict with the new planetary identities and spacefuture religions the author wants to write about. It’s been so long that the origin of humanity is forgotten or irrelevant.

Star Wars is honestly underappreciated for the bold, creative, unique choice to have a bustling interstellar multispecies space society with lot of humans… and no Earth. At all. Where do humans come from? Irrelevant. Not Earth though.

And honestly I wish more sci-fi that wants to write in this space took more of a cue form Star Wars to just own it. (I actually thought the Imperial Radch HAD done the same thing—functionally a second-world fantasy, but in a spacefaring setting���until Kat pointed out the reference to arguing over which planet was the real origin of humanity.) If you posit your space future as our future, but Earth is no longer relevant and is generally forgotten… I guess it depends on how far out it is, but it strains my credulity that no one remembers or cares! The Jews in the spacefuture don’t know/remember/care where Jerusalem is? Muslims in the spacefuture decided that going to Mecca just kinda isn’t worth it? The spacefuture Papal seat is no longer in Rome and the future Catholics don’t know or care that it was ever anywhere else? All the Hopis left the Three Mesas and all the Navajos left Dinétah and all the Māori left Aotearoa and then just… forgot about it? Really? That isn’t true after hundreds and even thousands of years today; why would it be true hundreds or even thousands of years in The Spacefuture?

There are some works that do a little more complexity with spacefuture planetary societies and cultures vs. memory of Earth—the Vorkosigan Saga positions Old Earth as a culturally important memory even if it’s not a politically important planet, and The Locked Tomb makes Earth a holy center place that is mythicized more than it’s known or inhabited, for magic necromancy reasons.

I’d like to see more of that, Earth holding some sort of unique place in spacefuture humans’ culture in a historically informed way, even if you actually want to write about other things. Or go the Star Wars route and proudly proclaim that this takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, don’t worry about it.

[oldschoolfrp]

Denizen Miniatures created several ranges of true 25mm fantasy figures in the 1980s, including adventurers, dwarves, and the Legion of the Damned -- the latter seemed to have normal human bodies but skull faces a la Skeletor. Most were compatible in size to their Ral Partha counterparts. There also was a nice line of 25mm sci-fi figures, comparable to other small 25s like GZG's Stargrunt or Grenadier/WEG's Star Wars miniatures.

I used one of their dwarves as my PC miniature during a long AD&D campaign in the late 80s. Some of their sculpts looked better than others in the raw metal, but most were well detailed and came alive when painted. The examples here from their website show the relatively muted natural hues typical of many manufacturers' catalog painters in the 70s and early 80s.

Their old site is still up at http://denizenminiatures.co.uk though the fantasy range is not currently available. The sci-fi range apparently is being put back in production in original true 25mm and upscaled 28mm versions.

[boxofbonesfic]

𝐵𝑜𝓍𝑜𝒻𝒷𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓈 𝒫𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓈:

𝒯𝒽𝑒 𝒯𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒞𝒽𝒶𝓁𝓁𝑒𝓃𝑔𝑒

divider by @firefly-graphics

Maybe it’s you. 

Maybe you’re the problem, you know? It’s like you don’t feel at home in your clothes, like they grate and itch against your prickling skin. Possibly it’s your skin itself, that it doesn’t fit quite right anymore. Could be there’s someone—or something—in there with you, whispering, watching, yearning. Perhaps you are that slithering darkness waiting deep, deep inside to blossom into something new and terrible. 

And I want you to tell me about it. 

For my spooky season challenge this year, I’d like my participants to write about Transformation. Spiritual, emotional, physical, psychological—go crazy, and hopefully your characters will too. Have they been bitten and infected? Or did they trust the wrong stranger, invite the wrong “friend” into their home? Have they fallen to the curses of the werewolf, or vampire? It doesn’t matter how we get there, but by the end of your story, your character must be utterly transformed—whether that is physically, psychologically, or spiritually, your characters must end in a completely new place from where they began. They must transform. 

As people, or perhaps…as monsters. 

 You can, of course pick your own poison, but if you need assistance, I have  categories below to choose from. But first, the rules. The fundamentals are this: 

This is a HORROR challenge. I will not be accepting any out of genre submissions. No exceptions. If that isn’t your speed, I have other non-spooky challenges coming up, so feel free to join one of those! Any horror sub-genre is acceptable—sci-fi, physiological horror, eco-horror, supernatural, comedy horror, body horror, cosmic horror etc, etc. If you aren’t sure, just shoot me a message. It will be running and active from Friday, October 11th to Midnight, February 1st 2025.

Because of the themes, and my own blog’s content, this challenge is obviously 18+ only. No exceptions. Smut is obviously fine (if not encouraged LOL). I do encourage thorough tagging, but it is not a strict requirement. Darkfics accepted and actively encouraged. 

For this challenge I am accepting both fandom specific and original work. Fandoms I am accepting submissions for the following: Marvel/MCU, LOTR/The Hobbit, Star Wars, Chris Evans Characters, Sebastian Stan Characters, Henry Cavill Characters, Pedro Pascal Characters, Oscar Isaac Characters, Chris, Hemsworth Characters. If it’s not on here, just ask!

You may not submit any previously written work for this challenge—that’s why it’s a challenge. If you’re new to writing horror, I encourage you to check out my Horror Recommendations list for a genre-specific (and growing) list of movies, books and graphic novels! If you’re an old hat at horror, pick a sub-genre you don’t normally explore and see what sparks your fancy! If you are inspired by something, remember to give credit where it’s due!

You may submit a maximum of three entries for this challenge, capped at 10k words per submission. Please put your work under a cut if it is longer than 500 words. You may tag me in every submission, feel free to shoot me a message if I don’t see it. 

Submissions I will not be accepting: DDLG, Toilet Play, Minors in sexual situations, RPF, Bestiality

Have fun! That’s the most important and key part of this challenge. Have lots, and lots of fun. 

And get scared. 

If anyone needs prompts, I am more than happy to come up with a few personalized ones. ❤️

Horror Genre/Sub-genre example list below the cut. It is by no means exhaustive, but it should give you a general idea of what story beats to aim for if you’re unfamiliar. Happy writing, friends!

Supernatural Horror

-Horror that includes ghosts, demons, werewolves, vampires, and all other creatures of myth or folklore. 

Psychological Horror

-Horror with a heavy focus on the mental, emotional and psychological states of the subjects, often uses mystery elements and unreliable narrators. 

Sci-Fi Horror

-Horror that generally involves impossible or unethical experimentation, alien abduction or invasion, and the horrific applications of science to the natural order. 

Slasher Horror

-Horror that is characterized by a killer who violently dispatches a cast of varied characters, whittling them down to a surviving character—usually deemed the Final Girl—goes head to head with the killer and either walks away or not at all. 

Body Horror

-Horror that involves the disfigurement or corruption of the physical body, whether due to science, supernatural causes, or disease. Often crosses into psychological horror territory.

Monster Horror

-Usually a cross between either supernatural or sci-fi horror, monster horror denotes the presence of some kind of non-human creature that generally antagonizes the main cast through violent or supernatural means. 

Cosmic Horror

-Lovecraftian inspired work that emphasizes the horror of cosmic dread, the dichotomy of genius and madness, as well as concepts of forbidden knowledge and the dangers of discovery. 

Folk-Horror

-Folk-Horror often uses rural settings and themes of superstition, cults/folk-religion and sacrifice. They usually juxtapose the modern and the traditional, pitting the in-group against naive outsiders.

Fantasy-Horror

-A sub-genre that contains key elements of both larger genres: fantastical elements and settings with the darker, often more violent and disturbing themes of horror. 

Comedy-Horror

-Horror with a comedic twist. Often the best comedy horror successfully combines the funny punchlines with real, meaningful scares. 

[butchniqabi]

fantasy and sci fi has a huge problem with the homogenized Great Evil in stories that even tolkien saw a problem with (towards the end) because in order for murder to be justified uncritically the murdered must be irredeemable and made incapable of readers' sympathy. not only is it, to me, lazy storytelling, but it is more often than not racist because of how Orcs and Trolls came to be in high fantasy canon. so many stories rely on the audience's perfunctory analysis of The Implications of a story. like take the sequel trilogy of star wars for example, we're shown that stormtroopers are capable of defecting, yet our heroes continue to mercilessly mow them down and we're expected to just ignore that (that is merely one problem with that trilogy but if we talk about all of them we'll be here all day), they show no hesitation or remorse and because they're the evil Stormtroopers we are just supposed to accept their death as natural and just. their existence is merely an impediment to the protagonists and thats what many Great Evils are functionally, just obstacles to get in the way of the heroes. they dont get the sympathy of other beings because even within their canon they are not beings, but hurdles to overcome and things to conquer. with righteousness of course. how it been decades and this is still a problem is honestly beyond me

[scifigeneration]

Blade Runner soundtrack at 30: how Vangelis used electronic music to explore what it means to be human

by Alison Cole, Composer and Lecturer in Screen Composition, Sydney Conservatorium of Music at the University of Sydney

In June 1994 the late composer Evangelos Odysseas Papathanassiou – better known as Vangelis – released his soundtrack for the 1982 film Blade Runner. It would go on to become emblematic of his skills, with only a handful of soundtracks reaching a similar level of cult status.

Prior to this, sci-fi film scores tended to be characterised by orchestral sound palettes. For instance, John Williams’ 1991 Star Wars soundtrack leaned on the London Symphony Orchestra to communicate the vastness of a galaxy far, far away.

Vangelis, on the other hand, used an electronic approach to bring a subtlety and complexity that shifted the focus inwards. His ability to communicate deep emotion, alongside expansive philosophical concepts, was perhaps his greatest achievement with Blade Runner.

Missing pieces

Director Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner was adapted from Phillip K. Dick’s 1968 sci-fi novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? – which itself was a thoughtful examination of empathy and what it means to be human. The emotional gravitas of the original story, along with Vangelis’ accompanying timbral exploration, created an aural experience that was new to sci-fi films at the time.

Vangelis began work on the score in 1981. He received edited footage scene-by-scene on VHS tapes and created live takes in his studio with his synthesiser collection.

However, the first official soundtrack was delayed some 12 years after the film’s release, due to what was reportedly an ongoing disagreement with producers.

When it finally was released, purists viewed it as more of an album than a soundtrack. They criticised it for not having much of the music used in the original film, and for including pieces that never appeared in the film, such as Main Titles and Blush Response.

While the 2007 version (a 25th anniversary edition) included some unreleased material, parts of the original soundtrack remain unreleased even today.

A symmetry between newness and nostalgia

By emphasising longer drawn out notes, rather than thick instrumental combinations, Vangelis thoughtfully taps into the atmosphere of Scott’s visual world to create something truly unique.

Early sci-fi movies such as Forbidden Planet (1956) and The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) often used electronic instruments developed in the early to mid-1900s, such as the theremin and the modular synthesiser. While these instruments helped augment concepts such as aliens, spaceships and robots, they did this somewhat simplistically.

A more sophisticated perspective pervades through Blade Runner, which combines film-noir instrumentation with classical, electronic, jazz and Middle Eastern music genres.

Specifically, Vangelis leverages the different sound qualities of synthesisers – such as bright and airy, thin and cold, or dark and thick – to at once capture emotion and highlight the complex ideas in the film’s narrative. In the final act, expansive synths dominate as the film reaches an intellectual and emotional climax.

While the synthesisers lend an artificial timbre to the score, the musicality simultaneously communicates life and feeling. In this way the foreign and familiar became enmeshed.

The film’s retro costuming and brutalist architecture also set up an expectation for the soundtrack. At times, the score will meaningfully go against this expectation by delving into a more nostalgic sound. The track Love Theme is a perfect example.

Innovative takes

Vangelis’ innovative use of dialogue in the soundtrack also helped to translate the complexities of the human condition. The tracks Main Titles, Blush Response, Wait for Me and Tears in Rain all feature dialogue in a way that makes them feel like a part of the film’s DNA.

The soundtrack’s arrangement was also uncommon for its time, as it mirrored the action narrative sequence. Tracks 1 through 4 are mixed as a single ongoing track. Tracks 5 through 7 are separated by silence, while tracks 8 through to 12 are also combined into a single piece. While this technique is common in electronic composition now, it was unique at the time.

The films dark, fraught and sad dystopian themes are further highlighted through collaborations with Welsh singer Mary Hopkins in Rachel’s Song, and Greek singer Demis Roussos in Tales of the Future.

Today, the Blade Runner soundtrack remains the most beloved of Vangelis’ works by his ardent fans – and it continues to commands its place in the 20th-century electronic music canon.

[pikahlua]

I've been in the dkbk fandom for 3 years and my husband is an anime only. We just watched the new episode and he was disappointed. He predicted that Star will die and the plot won't really move forward. He's a sci-fi fan and he's seen many a series fall apart after more characters, complexity, and a war are introduced. I've been avoiding spoling the manga for him but since he's lost interest, I spoiled him and confirmed that the manga has been in a holding pattern for 2-3 years with this final arc. I told him what you said about Bk's death and Deku losing his arms as being symbolic but he said those actions being reversed lowers the stakes and it's hard to maintain emotional investment if you know that major plot points will just get reversed. I wanna believe in Hori but I'm waiting for payoff instead of enjoying the story. Is what's happening really good storytelling if this final battle has been dragging on so long and Deku's characterization has come to a halt?

I’m hesitant to answer this. I said I wouldn't answer any asks that were looking to me for reasons to keep liking MHA, and I really don't want to encourage more asks like this--and yes OP, I don't know if you realize it but that's basically what you're asking. You've framed this question around your husband's opinions, but you're couching your own thoughts inside.

If your issue is that you and your husband like different media, then that's a marital issue to resolve; accept that you shouldn't always watch all media together, particularly if doing so isn't fun for both of you. But your husband doesn't like what's going on in MHA, and this is enough to make you doubt whether or not MHA is written well? Despite the fact that many, many people like MHA in its current form? That sounds more to me like you agree with your husband. It certainly doesn't sound like you tried to sell this story arc to him.

I decided I'll answer a question like this this one time because it'll help me summarize my feelings on these topics, though I'm sorry to say the topics I address may not be what you expect.

"We just watched the new episode and he was disappointed. He predicted that Star will die and the plot won't really move forward."

Is this really a surprise? I don't remember anyone being all that into this arc when it first came out. Everyone was saying Star would die, and yet most people did not correctly predict the actual outcome of this fight--that Star's quirk would be eliminated and Tomura would be weakened. Most guessed Tomura would steal Star's quirk and become overpowered.

"He's a sci-fi fan and he's seen many a series fall apart after more characters, complexity, and a war are introduced."

You mention sci-fi but uh, has your husband watched like...any other anime? Ever? At all? MHA is far from the first shounen anime to do this. You can't really make your husband like MHA if his problem is that he came to an anime restaurant and got upset when there was nothing but anime on the menu.

Seriously, MHA is not doing all that much different with its ending than what Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood did, and that's one of the most critically acclaimed shounen anime of all time. If he's predisposed to dislike the stuff anime does, that's not a writing problem. That's a mismatch of anime with his tastes.

It strikes a nerve with me because I grew up loving anime and was bullied for it by people with opinions such as your husband's. Now, the mainstream-ification of anime has drawn those same sorts of people to anime for whatever reason, and all they seem to wanna do is complain about anime being anime. Take sci-fi for example: I typically hate outerspace-themed media and the concepts such media often explore, and you know what I do? Not watch it. I've decided such media is not for me. Honestly, the same is true for a lot of anime too. I am very picky about anime because there are some tropes or themes I'm just sick of.

"I've been avoiding spoling the manga for him but since he's lost interest, I spoiled him and confirmed that the manga has been in a holding pattern for 2-3 years with this final arc."

This is where it sounds like you primed him with your own feelings, because it certainly doesn't sound like you were selling him. I don't even know what this means. "A holding pattern"? Do you mean the arc has just been going on a long time (see: welcome to anime being anime)? Or do you mean not much has happened with Izuku? Because I am getting a bit of a sense that your issue is you're an Izuku fan and his growth has been slow because the arc has had to wrap up all the other characters' arcs first. Because a lot HAS been happening with all the other characters (and we recently got some Izuku progression too).

The only other thing I can think of is an opinion I've had for a long time. I think a lot of anime fans don't realize they're not actually manga people. You watch an anime you like a lot and you wanna get up to speed, so you go to the manga not understanding that the manga is different from the anime. The pacing is different, as is the presentation and focus on details. The manga presents one or two story points per chapter, whereas anime episodes are 2-3 chapters compressed into one sitting. The anime's major selling point is its fast pacing, but this is not a selling point of the manga--of ANY weekly manga. "2-3 years" means very little in the context of a 15-page-a-week-AT-BEST manga.

"I told him what you said about Bk's death and Deku losing his arms as being symbolic"

The symbolism angle is one thing. I've never really understood why people like any media without symbolism--that's what gives a story its flavor, isn't it? If we're talking about tropes and familiar story structures, the artist's approach to familiar items is precisely what makes it unique and interesting to me. I wouldn't become invested enough to care about Katsuki's death if all that mattered to me was the surface-level event.

But are you saying you spoiled the fact that Izuku lost his arms? That's...not that big of a plot point to spoil if you ask me. Certainly not one I'd bring up as one of the greatest hits of this arc. This is another detail that makes me feel like you're particularly focused on Izuku, which is not a bad thing nor is there anything wrong with that, but Izuku doesn't actually feature very much in this anime season all things considered. It's hard to sell anyone on what's currently happening with Izuku in the manga since we just got to his stuff and it's not complete.

Again, this was what happened with Fullmetal Alchemist. The last arc covered the events of one day that ended the final war. The main characters were only occasionally featured and didn't do all that much in the season until the very end, as one would expect. When it was coming out in manga form, the pacing was admittedly very weird because of this storytelling choice, albeit it felt a bit different from MHA since it was a monthly manga and covered more ground per chapter. But when the same arc was adapted to anime, the feeling and pacing were very different, and a lot of iffy elements improved on me as a result.

"he said those actions being reversed lowers the stakes and it's hard to maintain emotional investment if you know that major plot points will just get reversed."

Is your husband someone who watches things only once and then can't rewatch and enjoy them ever again? Does he only watch stories for plot twists and once he knows the twist he stops liking it?

I don't understand this general obsession with consequences and stakes a lot of people have. Sure, they are elements that can contribute to a mood or feeling in a story, but they're far from the make-or-break linchpins so many people make them out to be. The "reversals" are major plot points too. I find much more enjoyment in trying to follow why a writer would do such things and what they're trying to say than wondering how likely some character is to die or how many people will be brutalized.

I'm in the camp that believes spoilers should not make a difference in whether or not I find a series "good" or whether or not I can invest in it. I personally have played video games specifically BECAUSE they were spoiled for me and it sounded like I would like them, and having those major things spoiled for me did not detract from my enjoyment at all. I'm not saying everyone has to be like me, but I do certainly think a story's ability to persist as an impactful and memorable work has very little to do with its stakes and everything to do with how it handles its story and characters. Was Star Wars memorable and beloved because of how many people were at risk of dying in it? Was something taken away from the story when Luke got a robotic replacement for the hand he lost?

Goodness, didn't the MHA fandom predict for years that Dabi was Touya Todoroki? And wasn't everyone just waiting for the reveal to fucking happen already so we could get it over with? And wasn't the entire fandom surprised and enthralled when the Touya reveal did happen precisely because it was handled in such a unique and cool way with Horikoshi's flair? Did predicting that twist really ruin anything for the story?

A good story is a good story.

"I'm waiting for payoff instead of enjoying the story."

I can't know what payoff you're waiting for. I've enjoyed all the events and details along the way, even if there were some expected dips here and there. When I went back and reread the entire arc in one go, the pacing really hit me differently and I got a lot out of it. If you're not enjoying the story, that's not about whether or not the story is employing "good storytelling." I've enjoyed plenty of stories that were told poorly and sloppily because there were other redeeming features that appealed to me. This is about preference. You and your husband have your own personal preferences, and that's okay! But you both have to manage your preferences with respect to each other and to yourselves.

"Is what's happening really good storytelling if this final battle has been dragging on so long and Deku's characterization has come to a halt?"

If you're actually interested in whether or not MHA has "good storytelling," I'd suggest you take a creative writing class or otherwise learn about the way stories are told in different media i.e. novels vs comics vs TV shows vs movies vs video games. But I honestly don't think that's what you mean. I think you're looking for permission to keep liking MHA even if you personally don't like its storytelling or how Izuku's character is currently being handled. I can tell you from experience that yeah, you can. Plenty of people do it all the time. Some people get so frustrated with the stories they like they write fix-it fanfiction. Some people appreciate the way a story is so perfectly written that they cannot build a fandom around it because they can't come up with anything to add. It's going to depend on you and how you want to approach the situation, and while I'm happy to talk about what I like about MHA and which writing choices I think are well made, that's not going to get us very far if you don't like the same things.

I do often find media that I personally think is not written that well, and like I said, sometimes I like it and sometimes I hate it, but if it's a piece of media with a large fanbase like MHA, I have a hard time calling its writing universally "bad." If it speaks to that many people in some way, clearly there's something about it that reaches people effectively, and who am I to judge? I'm certainly no expert in quality of writing. All I have are what I've taken away from my education in literature/writing, my years of experience with many anime that came before MHA, and my thoughts on all the other media I've enjoyed. My experiences will lead to different conclusions than others'. I know I don't like a lot of what's popular with most people, so I certainly can't hold myself out as some paragon of good taste.

It's okay to like or dislike whatever for whatever reason. I don't always stay with the same fandom. I move around when I find new and good things. I sometimes come back to old things I loved and like it anew or find it underwhelming as I currently am. As of right now, I'm actually willing to say something I never was before, which is that MHA might be one of the best-written manga if not the best manga I've ever read. While FMA is top-tier, its themes are a lot safer than MHA's ambitious goals. MHA was always going to be controversial in some ways just because of what it attempts to do, such as telling its story through comic book-themed superheroes. It also says a lot of political things that risk alienating readers. The levels of risk MHA takes are part of what makes it amazing to me and what makes it a worthwhile piece of art to enjoy. I'm so happy it exists, flaws and all. No story will be universally loved, and that's something I accepted a long time ago when I decided I wouldn't let the bullying stop me from liking anime. All I can hope to do is have the courage to love the things I love and the grace to leave alone the things I dislike for others to enjoy.

[agentem]

future of the wanda-verse in the mcu

so next up is the vision show tentatively titled "vision quest." recently there were rumors of an actor being considered for a role. the article said it was tommy maximoff, but now I think that was a lie.

because now it's being reported that jac schaeffer is developing a series about the search for tommy tentatively titles "wiccan" (which seems exlusionary to both agatha and speed, not gonna lie) and that they are hoping to get it to be on TV before secret wars which is kind of a crunch.

whereas "vision quest" is scheduled to go into production at the beginning of 2025 and is scheduled for 2026. its showrunner is terry matalas (known for "star trek: picard"). so i am guessing "vision" or "vision quest" or whatever they call it will lean more sci-fi and less fantasy.

my guess is that the actor they said was being considered for tommy is actually being considered for Vin Vision (Vision's other son) and that the show might be loosely adapting Tom King's run on Vision with Ultron thrown in there? (if it's sitcomy: he should be the cranky grandpa like archie bunker; if it's serious: maybe the ultron programming is trying to take over and vision really needs to remember he's on the side of life)

that's interesting to me because some of that run was part of WandaVision. Sparky the dog who dies was from there, for example. So I hope it doesn't feel like a retread of wandavision. though the concept of an emotionless vision trying to regain (for lack of a better word) his humanity and emotions through a fake family--because he was probably the best version of himself when he was in the hex--makes a level of sense.

or maybe wanda and vision are a perfect match because they both love creating fake families to solve their emotional problems.

somehow this will dovetail into the "wiccan" show. If they are able to get it completed before Secret Wars then I certainly hope Vision and his sons (and maybe his daughter too?) are a united front going into what I can only assume will be a subplot adaptation of Children's Crusde, where Billy and Tommy discover that Doctor Doom is engaged to an amnesiac Wanda who wants to use her power.

i will miss the fact that magneto and quicksilver participate in children's crusade in the comics. idk, I like grandpa magneto. but vision being included is a bonus.

and agatha.

i mean victor von doom is a genius, a prolific sorceror, head of state and sometimes a god emperor, but I bet mcu ghost agatha could bully him until he cries. i have a lot of faith in her ability to find a weakness and exploit it.

this won't happen, but imagine if the big final battle is just agatha goading doom into attacking her, and her stealing his power to becoome alive again ? to me, that is the dream.

[blindbeta]

hi! i'm currently writing a blind character in a futuristic sci-fi setting (think fifth element). some backstory just so there's additional context: she's orphaned as a baby, and while very young, contracts a virus that leaves her with minimal light and shadow perception. she later gets adopted, and her father acts as her guide until she's 12. when she turns 12, she's gifted a droid who acts as her mobility aid (visually, her droid is similar in design/size of r2-d2 from star wars). i thought this fit the futuristic setting. here's my question. originally, i had her (let's call her C) commission a special pair of glasses that connect to her droid so it can see what she sees and better help it guide her in public spaces, especially if it's too loud for her to hear it or if they get separated somehow, because the glasses have an auditory link for them to communicate with each other. after doing more research, i've learned that the "blind character covering their eyes" trope is super common and kind of looked down upon in the blind community. i'm really worried now, as someone sighted, that i've fallen for it by designing C's mobility aid this way. have i? and if i have, what is some advice or tips for ways i could alter this to where it doesn't come across as trope-y? should i get rid of the glasses, scrap the droid idea completely, etc?

Guide Droid And Character Covering Her Eyes With Glasses

The glasses remind me a bit of the OrCam My Eye, which is a pair glasses and an ear piece. You have an already-existing precedent for this. Additionally, my main concern with covering eyes, which I discuss here, [link], is that there is often no thought or explanation behind why a character’s eyes must be covered. Narratives often twist themselves into knots simply to cover a blind person’s eyes with something like sunglasses or a blindfold, which the character never removes.

Regular glasses are, however, a different story. Regular glasses are transparent. They are usually for protection of the eyes. They may also make objects slightly clearer, which can reduce eye strain. Not that your character will need to worry about that.

The glasses are not able to correct vision. They serve a purpose, and one that isn’t covering the person’s eyes.

My suggestion is to provide an explanation for the glasses and make sure they are see-through. They shouldn’t be sunglasses unless she has transition lenses, which can protect her from damaging UV rays.

The key is not to cover up your character’s eyes. Especially for no particular reason.

However, if you are worried about the glasses, you can also simply have bone-conducting ear piece that sits on top of her ear. Avoid implants or anything that might disrupt her hearing or other senses.

The Guide Droid

Speaking of senses, having a droid as her guide means she will miss out on a lot of tactile information provided by a cane and, to a lesser extent, a guide dog. For example, a handler can feel elevation.

Walking behind a droid is not going to provide that same information.

Yes, there is a step down, but where? Is it an even step or does it curve? Are the steps the same width?

I suggest giving her a cane, as they can be used with sighted guide and to a lesser degree, service animals. Her using a cane won’t interfere with a droid the same way it might with a guide dog or horse.

Alternatively, you can also find a way to connect them so she can get tactile information. Another, cuter option might be a droid service animal with a more futuristic harness.

About Using Sighted Guide Until She is 12

Something about this bothers me.

Sighted guide is a legitimate form of O&M and can increase independence in a way only blind folks can relate to. I also know that sighted guide may be more encouraged in some cultures that value interdependence. Sighted guide is a great and should be used more in fiction. I personally prefer it in unfamiliar areas and at night time.

However, it also feels off to me that she so happens to use a human guide all her life and not a cane. It may be because I am imagining times where her father may not be able to accompany her. Or perhaps I am sensitive to the lack of mobility aids in fiction that feature blind characters.

Lastly, cane skills are a part of O&M, which is needed before being able to work properly with a guide animal. I think she should have at least some cane skills and some navigation techniques even if she prefers to have her father guide her. This also gives her more agency to experiment and choose what is comfortable for her.

Here is a post I made about mobility aids that might help.

I hope this helps.

[david-talks-sw]

Woah there. Coming in a little hot. Take a step back, take stock, and chill. Even when we're discussing (read: "arguing") about stuff, it's Star Wars. It's a fictional universe. We're talking about movies and TV shows and comics aka... having fun.

(Which is advice that applies to me too, for the record)

That said, you trimmed out what I said, so I'll copy-paste it below (blue text) before expanding.

For context, someone said that (paraphrasing) the clones are referred to as “property of the Republic” by Shaak Ti in an argument with Nala Se regarding Fives and there is no rejoinder, so this acknowledgment of the clones being property of the Republic makes the Jedi complicit in their enslavement, as they partake in a flagrantly immoral command structure that sent slave soldiers to their deaths.

My response:

Tone and context are everything. There's an intonation on the word "property" when Shaak Ti says it. She isn't saying:

"Fives is property of the Republic."

She's saying:

"Correction! Technically, Fives is 'property' of the Republic."

She's taking Nala Se's cold, callous term and turning it around on Se with a technicality to score a point and pull rank, in order to save Fives' life. The subtext isn't "Fives is my slave," it's "you don't get to take this living being's life without my say-so."

Ti is regurgitating Nala Se's lingo to tell her to shut the fuck up.

In-universe, "there is no rejoinder" because Fives is aware of this subtext and knows Shaak Ti's in his corner. His life was on the line and Shaak Ti saved him.

Out-of-universe, "there is no rejoinder" because it's the ending of a 22-minute episode from a children's TV show 😃 and the point of the scene isn't to argue semantics about the ownership of the clones it's to save Fives' life. The beats of the scene can be boiled down to:

Nala Se argues fervently for Fives to die.

Shaak Ti is like "stfu no, I'm taking him to Coruscant"

Fives is grateful that Shaak Ti saved his life.

If the argument Nala Se used was, I dunno... "he must be terminated because the virus is contagious" then the beats of the scene would play out the same. Because again: the narrative, the story being told in this episode, ends with Shaak Ti coming in with the clutch and saving Fives.

The lore/sci-fi-ness of it all are mere details to move this children's story along.

You can read the rest of my response here, but since then, the user expanded on their point, explaining that while they acknowledge that Fives knows Shaak Ti's in his corner, what they meant is that there is no rejoinder from Nala Se. If it wasn't true that Fives was "property of the Republic", Nala Se would have said so in her cold and clinical terms.

Thus, for them, the point still stands.

And, uh, I'm not sure it does. Because the episode right before, Nala Se does counter Shaak Ti's argument by saying "nu-uh, the clones are property of the Kaminoans and we're leasing them to you."

So at some point, we either:

Point and go "IT'S A PLOT HOLE, BAD WRITING!" and acknowledge the point is thus moot.

Headcanon our way through this, theorizing that this point of semantics was argued by Shaak Ti and Nala Se and subsequently solved off-screen, in-between the two episodes. In which case, Shaak Ti's word on the subject is indeed final.

Acknowledge that this is a 22-minute story for kids, it was the end of the episode, and they needed Shaak Ti to come up with a technicality so as to save Fives without seeming unreasonable, and this is the best the writers could come up with.

I'm gonna go ahead and take option #3.

But, anon, this reaction of yours does open the door on a bigger point I've argued before.

All I did was bring proper context back to Shaak Ti's words, when they had been taken out of it.

And in discussion about the Jedi, this gets done very often. A sentence - or even words within one - will get plucked out of context and lore or fanon will form around it.

Here's some examples.

"Obi-Wan said that Anakin is pathetic!"

Context:

A pathetic life form.

He's comparing Anakin to Jar Jar, y'all.

AKA someone who had been exiled and was later about to be executed when they found him. AKA someone who has pathos, who inspires pity. Aka someone PATHETIC.

George himself describes Vader as pathetic.

That's because "pathetic" isn't just a judgmental term.

Resulting interpretation: Obi-Wan isn't saying Anakin is "ew, pathetic!" he's disagreeing with Qui-Gon's tendency to pick up strays and fails to see the point of them tagging along on the mission. He is proved wrong later and this ties in to his character arc about learning to see the value in listening to Guide archetype characters like Jar Jar or Ep. 1 Anakin.

"Yoda said the Jedi are arrogant."

Context:

Obi-Wan is bitching about Anakin being arrogant due to being so skillful, and Yoda tells Obi-Wan:

Resulting interpretation: Yoda is speaking in riddles, as per usual. He's being cheeky and implicitly telling Obi-Wan that he can be arrogant too sometimes, in his own Yoda-esque way.

Yoda is not "lamenting how far the Jedi have fallen". It's just another way of saying "we're all human, nobody's perfect."

"Mace said he doesn't trust Anakin."

Context:

Obi-Wan: “Anakin did not take to his assignment with much enthusiasm.” Mace: “It’s very dangerous putting them [Anakin & Palpatine] together. I don’t think the boy can handle it.”

Resulting interpretation: Anakin - not, by his own admission, the most subtle Jedi - is being asked to secretly spy on someone he considers a close friend, a mentor, a father even... aka someone who'll read Anakin like an open book (which is exactly what ends up happening).

Would you trust Anakin with that mission?

Because I sure as hell wouldn't. And that's what Mace is saying.

If it's "fucking disgusting" to point out the context in each of the above situations, during a Star Wars analysis or discussion, I fail to see why.