It’s a slightly click-baity title, but as we’re still generating more content for our magazines, this one included, why not?
My Sci-fi unpopular opinion is that 2001: A Space Odyssey is nothing but pretentious, LSD fueled nonsense. I’ve tried watching it multiple times and each time I have absolutely no patience for the pointless little scenes which contain little to no depth or meaningful plot, all coalescing towards that 15 minute “journey” through space and series of hallucinations or whatever that are supposed to be deep, shake you to your foundations, and make you re-think the whole human condition.
But it doesn’t. Because it’s just pretentious, LSD fueled nonsense. Planet of the Apes was released in the same year and is, on every level, a better Sci-fi movie. It offers mystery, a consistent and engaging plot, relatable characters you actually care about, and asks a lot more questions about the world and our place in it.
A thought I’ve been having that might be more controversial: Star Trek isn’t sci-fi.
It’s basically a series of morality fables with magical premises. There’s always a paper-thin sci-fi explanation, but for all that these matter to the story, they might as well just say “fairies did it.”
(And many of Gene Roddenberry’s “godlike being” characters, like Q, are almost literally fairies).
There’s also its treatment of space. Just as Star Wars’ combat was an excuse to do WWII fighter combat in space, Star Trek is an excuse to do WWII submarine combat in space. They’re equally unrealistic in that regard.
I agree on the fable argument but not on having to have a scientific explanation. Scifi is about sense of wonder, societal impact etc. Realism is optional as long as things don’t work in arbitrary ways.