Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
In Defense of Dharavi
Mitu Sengupta argues that Slumdog Millionaire, Oscar's favorite film of last year, doesn't respect the poor people it purports to be defending:
The film's depiction of the legendary Dharavi, which is home to some one million people, is that of a feral wasteland, with little evidence of order, community or compassion. Other than the children, the "slumdogs," no-one is even remotely well-intentioned. Hustlers, thieves, and petty warlords run amok, and even Jamal's schoolteacher, a thin, bespectacled man who introduces him to the Three Musketeers, is inexplicably callous. This is a place of evil and decay; of a raw, chaotic tribalism.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Dharavi teems with dynamism and creativity, and is a hub of entrepreneurial activity, in industries such as garment manufacturing, embroidery, pottery, and leather, plastics and food processing. It is estimated that the annual turnover from Dharavi's small businesses is between US$50 to $100 million. Dharavi's lanes are lined with cell-phone retailers and cybercafés, and according to surveys by Microsoft Research India, the slum's residents exhibit a remarkably high absorption of new technologies.
Governing structures and productive social relations also flourish. The slum's residents have nurtured strong collaborative networks, often across potentially volatile lines of caste and religion....Although it is true that these severely under-resourced self-help organizations have touched only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, it is important to acknowledge their efforts and agency, along with the simple fact that these communities, despite their grinding poverty, have valuable lives, warmth, generosity, and a resourcefulness that stretches far beyond the haphazard and purely individualistic, Darwinian sort portrayed in the film.
Caveat: I haven't seen the movie yet! If Sengupta is ignoring scenes that cut against her thesis, you'll have to tell me in the comment thread.
|3.4.09 @ 10:18AM|#
What Hollywood gave an Oscar to a movie that dehumanizes poor people? Never!! Next you are going to tell me they gave an Oscar to a movie that portrayed a concentration camp guard as a sympathetic victim.
|3.4.09 @ 10:28AM|#
I don't believe the article, as I just saw about the woman what cut off her man's stuff and fed it to a dog. These Hindu extremists must be stopped!
|3.4.09 @ 10:28AM|#
I guess the question I have is not what the area is like now,
but what it was say 10 to 15 years ago (where the bulk of the
really bad stuff happens). My sense of the portrayal is that the
disconnect in time (20 to 25 years) appears larger than the amount
the characters have actually aged (10 to 15).
Also there's a scene late in the movie where the two brothers look
down at their old neighborhood and marvel at how much (and
therefore how quickly) it has changed. The main character also
works at a call center before going on "Millionaire."
|3.4.09 @ 10:29AM|#
Um, but was any (much less all) of that true 20-25 years ago,
when all of the childhood scenes were set? India now is much
different (i.e. more entrepreneurial) place than India during the
end of the cold war. The scenes with an adult Jamal were not about
the slums, they were about 4 specific individuals.
But hey, somebody's gotta be kneejerk contrarian.
The Angry Optimist|3.4.09 @ 10:32AM|#
ProL - provided you aren't beholden to hipster boredom with rags-to-riches, feel-good stories, then hell yeah it's a good movie.
|3.4.09 @ 10:33AM|#
"Is the movie any good?"
I enjoyed it. I'm not sure it was all it's being cracked up to be,
but it was very enjoyable.
|3.4.09 @ 10:40AM|#
I'm beholden to no man or doctrine! Actually, the happy success story doesn't bug me if it's good. Trouble is, you can't go by what's popular or critically acclaimed. And often, an Oscar for Best Picture is the true kiss of death for quality.
|3.4.09 @ 10:44AM|#
What? The movie portrayal of [fill in the blank] is exaggerated
and inaccurate? I'm shocked and dismayed. If you can't trust the
movies, who can you trust?
These sorts of quibbles are like complaining about historical
inaccuracies in Titanic or scientific inaccuracies in
Star Wars.
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 10:47AM|#
India now is much different (i.e. more entrepreneurial)
place than India during the end of the cold war.
Yeah, but India's "liberalisation"* has not really made it to the
slums or villages. Just because it is now easier to open a call
center or a new factory, does not mean it is easier to start a food
truck. The licensing culture and laws that stifle entrepreneurship
and encourage corruption still exist for India's poor.
* Because unlike some other former British colonies I could speak
of, we Indians still spell our words correctly, Godsdammit!
D.A. Ridgely|3.4.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Caveat: I haven't seen the movie yet!
You haven't missed much. And while we're reviling the movie for
this and that, what about the Indian Regis Philbin character who
permitted his skepticism and class hatred of Jamal to jeopardize a
perfect ratings bonanza!?! Hey, I can believe a trio of slum
dwellers could keep bumping into each other year after year in a
city of 13 million people, I can even believe that true love would
find a way even Frank Capra would have said "the audience will
never buy it!" But a television celebrity intentionally sabotaging
his own show? Never!
|3.4.09 @ 11:05AM|#
It's good. It's not "best picture" good (in that it doesn't suck like so many of the past have, nor is it particularly excellent like a best picture theoretically should be), but it's good.
|3.4.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Ah, but Legate, "good" is the new "excellent". When most films
are so bad they make Michael Bay movies seem sensible, you've got a
serious quality problem.
By the way, they're
remaking Total Recall. Soon every movie made in
Hollywood will be based on a prior movie.
|3.4.09 @ 11:17AM|#
When they remake Big Trouble in Little China without Russell, Carpenter, and Hong, I'm giving up Hollywood altogether for Bollywood.
Mad Max|3.4.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Next thing you'll tell me is that American movies give a distorted picture of life in the U.S.
|3.4.09 @ 11:23AM|#
By the way, they're remaking Total Recall. Soon every movie
made in Hollywood will be based on a prior movie.
Huh. Well I actually approve of remaking crappy movies. You can
make it better. Making a crappy remake of a great movie is what
grists my gears.
I think every movie has been based on either a remake, comic book,
or TV show for some time now.
|3.4.09 @ 11:24AM|#
"By the way, they're remaking Total Recall. Soon every movie
made in Hollywood will be based on a prior movie."
In Hollywood's defense, there were so many nuances and un explored
ankles in the first, it was just begging to be remade.
FWIW, the fact that Mongol wasn't given a best picture award pretty
much shows the awards are BS, as if that wasn't already
established.
|3.4.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Well I actually approve of remaking crappy
movies.
I'm curious, Warren. Was your taste in movies always this bad or
has the current state of the economy warped your mind? Or is it
just the alcohol talking?
|3.4.09 @ 11:28AM|#
there were so many nuances and un explored ankles in the
first
I'm not an ankle guy myself, John. But I do understand that some
people have this fetish.
|3.4.09 @ 11:34AM|#
"I'm curious, Warren. Was your taste in movies always this bad
or has the current state of the economy warped your mind? Or is it
just the alcohol talking?"
That whole "it is great to remake a crappy movie" thing goes back
to the 90s and Cape Fear. Cape Fear was a crappy 60s movie that
Martin Scorcazi remade and then the smart thing to say about movies
was how great it was to remake crappy movies. I have never bought
it. I can't think of one crappy movie that has ever been remade
into a good one, even Cape Fear sucked I thought. In fact, I can
think of several great movies that were remade into good movies;
the Seven Samuri into The Magnificent Seven, The Frontpage into His
Girl Friday just to name two. No every remake has to be The
Manchurian Candidate.
Warty|3.4.09 @ 11:34AM|#
How could they possibly top a three-tittied chick? Hollywood's hubris will doom it.
|3.4.09 @ 11:41AM|#
"In Hollywood's defense, there were so many nuances and un
explored ankles in the first, it was just begging
to be remade."
A rated X remake for foot fetishists perhaps?
Jesse Walker|3.4.09 @ 11:41AM|#
That whole "it is great to remake a crappy movie" thing goes
back to the 90s and Cape Fear. Cape Fear was a crappy 60s movie
that Martin Scorcazi remade
I think the original version is better.
I can't think of one crappy movie that has ever been remade
into a good one
I guess you've never seen Satan Met a Lady, a pre-Bogart
attempt to film The Maltese Falcon. I haven't seen the Roy
Del Ruth version of Falcon, which came out even earlier,
but I hear it's mediocre too.
|3.4.09 @ 11:42AM|#
I'm pretty excited about the Samuel L Jackson's
nine-picture Nick Fury deal.
Not so much for him in particular, but I love the idea of a new
"universe" with continuity across many movies.
It makes my nerd parts tingle, but also seems like something new
under the sun.
|3.4.09 @ 11:44AM|#
It wasn't a documentary, it wasn't intended to be "everything you'll ever need to know about India". If the only movie about the US you'd ever seen was "Taxi Driver", you'd probably have an inaccurate image of life in the US. So what? Creative works of art are not the same thing as civics textbooks.
|3.4.09 @ 11:48AM|#
I can't think of one crappy movie that has ever been remade
into a good one
The
Thing from Another World was mediocre and John Carpenter
turned it into pure awesome as The
Thing.
It happens, but it is rare. Mostly because Hollywood usually wants
to remake hits to cash in on their name value, instead of remaking
a dud that nobody has heard of.
robc|3.4.09 @ 11:57AM|#
Making a crappy remake of a great movie is what grists my
gears.
Yep.
Im looking at you Planet of the Apes.
Elemenope|3.4.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Speaking of movies that may or may not be crappy, I am relieved by the pre-reviews of Watchmen, in that the negative reviews primarily were people who whined that the movie was too complicated and hard to follow, while the good reviews were people lauding the movie for being uncompromising. And Emmie Levy liked it; as much as I often disagree with him, he's no slouch, and he's usually very informative on the technical points.
Jesse Walker|3.4.09 @ 11:58AM|#
The Thing from Another World was mediocre and John Carpenter
turned it into pure awesome as The Thing.
I like the remake, but c'mon. The original is great.
robc|3.4.09 @ 11:59AM|#
I can't think of one crappy movie that has ever been remade into a
good one
Im willing to let them try, yet again, for Dune.
Also, for Starship Troopers, but thats because I want a movie with
the damn suits.
Xeones|3.4.09 @ 11:59AM|#
...before they remake Taxi Driver
Starring Ashton Kutcher as Travis Bickle. Coming in 2011!
|3.4.09 @ 12:02PM|#
The handful of decent (or superior) remakes that exist usually
seem to be tied to an underlying book or story. The Thing
comes to mind.
I'm with Jesse--the original wasn't bad at all. I like evil James
Arness!
|3.4.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Didn't they already remake Taxi Driver with Jimmy Fallon and
Queen Latifa?
That was actually an edgier remake of Driving Miss
Daisy.
I like the remake, but c'mon. The original is great.
I was unimpressed. There's something about Hawks' directing style
that makes me sleepy.
|3.4.09 @ 12:02PM|#
"I guess you've never seen Satan Met a Lady, a pre-Bogart
attempt to film The Maltese Falcon. I haven't seen the Roy Del Ruth
version of Falcon, which came out even earlier, but I hear it's
mediocre too."
I have never seen it Jesse. I guess that is the exception that
proves the rule.
Robc,
I liked the 80s Dino DeLaurentus Dune. I may be the only one, but I
liked it. I am willing ot live with a re make though because I
would like to see the next two books get made as well.
robc|3.4.09 @ 12:02PM|#
There is no imdb listing (that I could find) for the hypothetical Tim Robbin's 1984 remake, so that is a positive.
robc|3.4.09 @ 12:06PM|#
I would like to see a remake of Sometimes a Great
Notion. I have no idea if Never Give An Inch is good
or bad, I havent seen it, but it needs to be remade just to
uncorrect the proper grammar in the title.
Okay, after hitting imdb, I am confused. It is listed under
Sometimes a Great Notion and the movie poster linked shows the
correct "never give a inch", but Im pretty sure it was originally
released as Never Give An Inch.
Anyone know the story?
|3.4.09 @ 12:07PM|#
I thought the 70s remake of invasion of the body snatchers with Donald Southerland was good. But that was a good movie to begin with. If we had a real no kidding creative and subversive Hollywood, it would get remade today with the allusions to Communism replaced by allusions to Obama.
|3.4.09 @ 12:08PM|#
rob, do you like any David Lynch movies? I've generally found
that if you like Lynch, you like Dune.
And I forgot Cronenberg's The
Fly. The original is great (Vincent Price!), but
Cronenberg really brought his mutation obsession to the table with
that one.
robc|3.4.09 @ 12:09PM|#
In 1977, the film was released on television under the title
Never Give an Inch. It was subsequently re-released theatrically
under its original title
Okay, question solved. TV stupid.
robc|3.4.09 @ 12:16PM|#
Epi,
do you like any David Lynch movies? I've generally found that
if you like Lynch, you like Dune.
Not really. I was okay with season 1 of Twin Peaks, but other than
that, not a fan.
The problem is, Im a huge Dune fan. Ive wondered why with new
editions, they have never fixed the duplicate line error and also,
would miss it if they did. :) I doubt a version could be made that
would satisfy me, to be honest. It would have to be done in
mini-series form and would have to be better than the Sci-Fi
channel mini-series, although I liked that better than the Lynch
version.
Now, the director's cut is much better than the original release,
which was absolute crap.
I have argued before and still think is true, that Dune wins the
contest for greatest
Value(book) - Value(movie)
in the entire history of making movies from books.
LarryA|3.4.09 @ 12:16PM|#
I think every movie has been based on either a remake, comic
book, or TV show for some time now.
Or a children's book.
Also, for Starship Troopers, but that's because I want a movie
with the damn suits.
Hollywood will never make a movie where the suit covers the lead
actors' faces. Check all the war movies featuring fighter pilots,
and how much time they spend with their oxy/commo masks flopping on
their shoulders. They simply must be able to
emote. Especially if they aren't very good at it.
|3.4.09 @ 12:17PM|#
The Fly was a good remake of a good movie. Remakes can work if
the orignal idea is good and the remake adds an interesting twist
or update to the plot. For example, His Girl Friday took the Front
Page and made one of the characters female. The Fly added a ton of
good special effects and explored the love relationship more.
The worst remakes take a good movie that is still relevent and dumb
it down to today's standards. The Bad News Bears is probably the
best example of this. I don't think any movie from the 70s is more
relevent in todays world of helicopter parents and nanystates gone
wild than BNB. All the remake did was sanitize all of the bad
language and realism while adding nothing to the original.
robc|3.4.09 @ 12:19PM|#
LarryA,
Very little of the book has the characters in the suits, however,
so I dont see the problem.
|3.4.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Now, the director's cut is much better than the original
release, which was absolute crap.
Are you referring to the 4-hour version? Lynch hated that and took
his name off it (it's an Alan Smithee film). Yes, that was
terrible.
Lynch tried to make a standard length movie out of a ridiculously
dense tome with mid-80's special effects. I think he did reasonably
well, and he did it the Lynch way, which I am a fan of.
..|3.4.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Slumdog Millionaire, Oscar's favorite film of last
year
Don't you mean "Oscar's®"?
They're very picky about that.
fyodor|3.4.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Just got here and haven't read much of the thread, but
regardless of whether there are scenes that contradict Sengupta's
thesis per se, I think it's both an exaggeration and unrealistic.
It's a fictional movie, not a documentary, and I think it's a
little silly to criticize it for not giving a fully comprehensive
account of its subject matter. Did Fagan dehumanize the
poor of 18th century London? It's a good guy/bad guy movie more
than anything else (even if typically a bad guy turns good just in
time).
That said, I did find myself wondering if Hindu slaughters of
Muslims was some kind of regular occurence! I'm guessing probably
not, to the extent that it's a social ill to be associated with
living there, anyway.
|3.4.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Late to the party, but John @ 11:24 is an early front-runner for
RC'z Law Award Winner of the Year.
In Hollywood's defense, there were so many nuances and un
explored ankles in the first, it was just begging
to be remade.
|3.4.09 @ 12:56PM|#
"[S]ome kind of RC award"?!?
I suppose you consider the Grand Canyon "some kind of gorge"!
|3.4.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Yo, fuck Sci-Fi's Dune. The Sardaukar, the terror
troops that held a entire galaxy at bay, are not supposed to be
dressed like French waiter.
(X's perfect refrain.)
Mike Laursen|3.4.09 @ 1:50PM|#
I can't remember any scenes in the movie that portray the positive spontaneous order aspects of Dharavi, but I've heard Danny Boyle (is that the right name) talk about it in interviews.
|3.4.09 @ 1:50PM|#
I never watched the sci fi Dune. They really did that to the Sardukar? For shame.
|3.4.09 @ 1:52PM|#
Dune wouldn't be a remake, because it hasn't been made
yet. I have spoken.
Speaking of science fiction novels and movies, why can't I get a
(good, please) movie version of Foundation, or, while
we're on Asimov, The Caves of Steel? The latter in
particular seems amenable to film (it would technically be a
remake, too, if you count the Peter Cushing BBC version).
|3.4.09 @ 1:54PM|#
John,
It is seriously terrible. And every outdoor shot is a soundstage.
Gack.
I'm hoping that BSG teaches people that you can set stuff in a
science fiction setting without having everyone dress up like a
fashion victim doofus. The nadir of this idea being, of course,
The Fifth Element.
|3.4.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Dune wouldn't be a remake, because it hasn't been made yet.
I have spoken.
Word. I have a certain affection for the Lynch version, but it is
fairly terrible adaptation of the novel. It's like they wrote the
script from the Cliff Notes.
|3.4.09 @ 2:03PM|#
There were certain scenes and certain looks that were okay in
the Lynch version, but, taken as a whole, it sucked.
I'll grant it's a hard, hard book to make into a film, so it's
going to take one hell of a screenwriter, director, budget, and
cast to make it ever work. Maybe as an HBO miniseries? They spend
movie-like money on those.
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Yes, Dune the book. I mean, there's this elaborate backstory and
mythology (which provided source material for several truly crappy
prequels) all of which only exists to explain why they're fighting
with swords and knifes in an age of spaceflight.
And the sequels are just the worst. For example, what was the point
of Children of Dune exactly? What happened there? It was nothing.
Its only function was to serve as a link between Dune Messiah and
God-Emperor of Dune, both of which were themselves craptacular in
their own right.
|3.4.09 @ 2:26PM|#
Kunal,
I see. Except for agreeing with you about Brian Herbert's prequels,
I think you may be insane. And you're likely going to get the
gom jabbar from SugarFree or from that old crone
Episiarch.
|3.4.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Slumdog is a fairy tale and as such, it works. I thoroughly
enjoyed it, and so did my husband, who had no idea what it was
about and who typically goes for either straight science fiction or
shoot em up action movies (we went to see Shoot Em Up at my
suggestion and he spent the next four days telling his guys what an
awesome wife I am.)
You're talking about a movie where a barely literate kid beats
millions of other callers to get on a game show and then just
happens to have life experiences that apply to every question he
gets asked. And someone is bitching that the depiction of the slum
is unrealistic? I didn't think Mila Jowhatever's character was a
terribly realistic depiction of an angel, but that's not what made
Fifth Element suck.
I hate Dune the movie and I hate Dune the book. There. I said it. I
hate Dune. Took the husband a while to get past that one.
|3.4.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Wait, wait... I will stipulate that the prequels suck. And that anyone who doesn't like Messiah or Children has a point. I also think they only detract from the main novel. But the first book is one of the finest pieces of world-building SF ever written. To not like it is madness.
kinnath|3.4.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Dune is magnificent. The fact that the sequels do not equal it does not matter. It is extremely rare for an author to create an entire series that excels.
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 2:48PM|#
I could spend a lot of time telling you why Dune is utter
rubbish. Instead, I will just ask you to open your (doubtless
dog-eared) copy of Dune to the glossary, and consult this graph.
Chaumukry. Gom-jabbar. Prana-bindu. Fraufreluches. Kwitsatz
Haderach. Kanly. I'm typing these up from memory (three years after
I last read the book), and I've already exceeded Herbert's quota
for one book.
Jesse Walker|3.4.09 @ 2:50PM|#
There's something about Hawks' directing style that makes me
sleepy.
You are insane.
Also, you can count me as someone who likes David Lynch movies, and
likes Dune the book (*), but hates Dune the
movie.
(* To the extent that I can definitively say I like something that
I read before puberty.)
|3.4.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Kunal, you're nothing to me now. You're not a brother, you're not a friend. I don't want to know you or what you do. I don't want to see you at the hotels, I don't want you near my house. When you see our mother, I want to know a day in advance, so I won't be there. You understand?
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 2:56PM|#
You know, I wasn't going to say it because I like you guys but
now you push me too far so I will:
The Dune series is to SF what TWOT is to Fantasy.
|3.4.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Robert Jordan? Oh, my, you are looking for a thrashing.
Episiarch alone may author a novel of abuse in your name.
Suffice it to say that your invitation to the Bene Gesserit orgy
has been canceled.
kinnath|3.4.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Of course, if there's a dragon on the cover I probably haven't bothered to even pick up the book and read the title.
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 3:03PM|#
I'm sorry, perhaps you say WoT. Yes, WoT. That is the thing that is to fantasy what Dune is to Sci-Fi.
|3.4.09 @ 3:04PM|#
But it is fantasy - Robert Jordan fantasized that he would finish it before he died!
|3.4.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Kunal,
Your basic ignorance reverberants through space and time. It will
be studied by our descendants.
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Your basic ignorance reverberants through
space and time.
See? Even you can't stop making up nonsense words. Dune has marred
you forever.
kinnath|3.4.09 @ 3:13PM|#
Contest: Best Author / Invented World (sustained -- so more than
one book)
I bid Terry Pratchett and Discworld
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 3:17PM|#
I bid Terry Pratchett and Discworld
You lessen him merely by mentioning him in the same thread as
yahoos such as Jordan and the Herberts.
LarryA|3.4.09 @ 3:17PM|#
It's like they wrote the script from the Cliff
Notes.
Novels are far longer than movies. Graphic novels are closer to the
right length.
Yes, Dune the book. I mean, there's this elaborate backstory
and mythology (which provided source material for several truly
crappy prequels) all of which only exists to explain why they're
fighting with swords and knives in an age of
spaceflight.
I read Dune while I was a Boy Scout in Barstow, California. Barstow
has two seasons; the dry season and the day it rains. That's what
ruined the story for me. If you actually go out in the desert in a
suit that won't let your sweat evaporate, you broil.
|3.4.09 @ 3:26PM|#
SF worlds wherein people fight with bows and arrows and guns and swords normally bug me. The only ones I can think of that worked well were Firefly (of course) and Bujold's Vorkosigan novels and in both cases, the backstory involved the deterioration of civilizations. They made it to the stars, ran out of money or got into wars or fell into some sort of trouble, and the science and the toys fell out of use. In Bujold's universe, I think Barayar actually lost the knowledge of space travel for a few generations. So the horses and swords and shit make sense. In general, though, if the story is set among the stars and there are kings and empires and people running around with medieval weaponry, it sucketh.
|3.4.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Shows what you know. "Reverberants" refers to the artificial people in Dick's classic, Is Sex with Electric Sheep Illegal?
|3.4.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Episiarch,
Liar. I'll bring joe back to bury you in your 10,000 past
statements to the contrary. That, or I'll have Yoo force you to
read all 500 Robert Jordan books, including his famous The War
on Terror.
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 3:30PM|#
SF worlds wherein people fight with bows and arrows and guns
and swords normally bug me.
You know whats the worst universe in this repect? Star Wars. The
Wookies actually use crossbows that use force-fields in place of
bowstrings. The lightsaber is actually one of Star Wars' most
sensible weapons.
kinnath|3.4.09 @ 3:39PM|#
SF worlds wherein people fight with bows and arrows and guns
and swords normally bug me.
There was a line from a story (can't remember which one at this
point) where the protaganist states the most efficient way to kill
a human is to make a hole in 'em and let the life run out.
For all our high technology, I think this is going to be true for a
very long time.
|3.4.09 @ 3:47PM|#
ProL, I have previously stated my
opinion on Dune.
Besides, I'm a fickle bitch.
The only ones I can think of that worked well were Firefly (of
course)
Laser guns exist in Firefly, they're just really
expensive.
People also don't realize that a laser is not just a "blaster".
Lasers are a durational weapon, meaning that it is on for a fixed
amount of time. A laser pistol would presumably fire, say, 100
milliseconds of laser. Is this enough to burn far enough into a
body to kill? If longer is needed, you'd have to hold the beam
steady for the whole time. A laser wouldn't knock down a target
because it has no kinetic energy. And it would be useless against
anything with high albedo.
Ballistic projectile weapons will most likely never go out of style
because they have certain characteristics that make them very
useful. They dump kinetic energy into the target, they are
immediate, and they require a lot of armoring to be stopped.
Don't knock guns in scifi.
Kunal|3.4.09 @ 3:50PM|#
And you love Robert Jordan.
Episiarch does not love Robert Jordan. He is a decent family
man.
|3.4.09 @ 3:55PM|#
And you love Robert Jordan.
You might want to read further down the link I just posted above to
see what I think of Jordan. Here's a sample:
"At least he's dead."
|3.4.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Why do I need credibility when I have a gun? A projectile gun, of course, and not one of those sissy laser guns.
|3.4.09 @ 4:06PM|#
Oddly, while a spectacularly underwhelming playing experience,
the video game Too Human handled the duration aspect of
laser weapons very realistically.
(Srsly, 2Hooman sux.)
|3.4.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Needleguns are for pussies, ProL. Though I did like the gun the main character had in The Practice Effect. You shove anything metal that you can fit into the handle and it shaves off a piece of it for each shot and fires it at the target.
LarryA|3.4.09 @ 4:15PM|#
SF worlds wherein people fight with bows and arrows and guns
and swords normally bug me.
Then there are the end-of-civilization stories where everyone's
using a compound bow because they've lost the technology to make
firearms. Except the materials necessary for compound bows weren't
available for fifty years after machineguns were commonplace.
Ballistic projectile weapons will most likely never go out of
style because they have certain characteristics that make them very
useful. They dump kinetic energy into the target, they are
immediate, and they require a lot of armoring to be
stopped.
Add to that "requires no external power source." The novel I'm
currently writing uses that thought.
|3.4.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Alistair Reynolds' Chasm City featured a cultured
diamond clockwork handgun that fired a shard of diamond. It was an
assassin's weapon to get through security scans.
The novel also outlines what happens when you sever a space
elevator at its base with a nuclear weapon. Think "cutting a 62,000
mile long rubber band."
|3.4.09 @ 4:27PM|#
It's a dart gun, dude. I seem to recall Asimov having needle
guns in the Lucky Starr series. Anyway, I agree.
Too bad it's so late in the thread and in the day, because what
would be nice is to. . .launch a threadjack on The Best Personal
Firearm in Science Fiction! I'm not even sure I have a personal
favorite, but there are so many to choose from!
Speaking of lasers and other seemingly less than impressive
weapons, the dynamics change somewhat if your pistol has some sort
of massive power supply--like a fusion or matter-antimatter
reactor.
There's Niven's soft/slaver weapon, by the way.
robc|3.4.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I like the Fifth Element.
Ditto. Plus Leeloo Dallas Multipass is the hottest sci-fi movie
chick ever.
|3.4.09 @ 4:29PM|#
I'm okay with The Fifth Element, but I don't agree with the rest of your assessment.
robc|3.4.09 @ 4:29PM|#
But the first book is one of the finest pieces of
world-building SF ever written.
Im willing to argue over the words "one of" in there.
kinnath|3.4.09 @ 4:34PM|#
Plus Leeloo Dallas Multipass is the hottest sci-fi movie
chick ever.
Huzzah!
|3.4.09 @ 4:34PM|#
Too bad it's so late in the thread and in the day, because
what would be nice is to. . .launch a threadjack on The Best
Personal Firearm in Science Fiction!
Do it tomorrow. You could expand it to "Coolest Sci Fi Weapons",
and it would include C+ cannons from Saberhagen.
robc|3.4.09 @ 4:37PM|#
From one of the Falkenberg's Legion stories:
Every soldier thinks his will be the last war in which bayonets are
useful.
|3.4.09 @ 4:39PM|#
I recall some other killer (sorry!) weapons from the
Berserker series, too, now that you mention it.
I have to say, as weak as Trek is from the hard science
fiction viewpoint, I do like the phaser. Adjustable death and
nondeath. Nice.
zoltan|3.4.09 @ 5:54PM|#
Contest: Best Author / Invented World (sustained -- so more
than one book)
I bid Terry Pratchett and Discworld
Give that Marxist China Mieville some time and he will surely
overtake this "Pratchett" you speak of.
|3.4.09 @ 10:55PM|#
Ballistic projectile weapons will most likely never go out
of style because they have certain characteristics that make them
very useful. They dump kinetic energy into the target, they are
immediate, and they require a lot of armoring to be stopped.
Don't knock guns in scifi.
You're so smart. I can never remember if it's you or ProL I have a
mind crush on. I think it's you for the humor and ProL for the
erudition.
Mieville is a guy? Why'd I always think he was a chick? I tried a
couple of his books and couldn't get into them. Meh.
Even when (God forbid) Pratchett's Alzheimer's begins to noticeably
affect his work, he'll still be better than any other
fantasy/SF/satire author writing today.
|3.5.09 @ 4:16PM|#
I like Mitu Sengupta's criique. The childhood scenes were set in the 90s, not "20-25 years ago." Americans should learn the history of some other country other than theirs!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245