Superman was actually influenced by the character of John Carter. The writer of the Carter series was actually pretty updated & informed on the latest scientific theories & conjectures of that time.
I haven't read John Carter, but from what I understand the writer did, in fact, properly depict how a human would react in a lower gravity environment. The problem is that Superman took this is absurd heights and used it as a reason for insane levels of strength and other impossibilities - Humans can adapt to living on a world that has a higher gravity than Earth, but they will not be able to then return to Earth and "leap tall buildings in a single bound" or be impervious to bullets. That's what I took issue with.
John Carter, the movie, falls into the similar trap and basically made it seem like a human would get Superman's power to leap tall buildings if he went to Mars. Understandably, many people took issue with this because the century old book series was supposedly far more scientifically accurate on this matter than the modern day movie and because nobody is going to buy that a human can jump higher on Mars than they could on the moon.
Star Trek as well as many other shows is science fiction but at it's core, it is a human story. As such, you can't have a character like the ones from Aliens (even that is based on earth animals which makes it not completely alien) to convey a human ideal. It would be difficult & impossible for people to relate to creatures completely different from our own. Human communication doesn't only rely on language, but also on gestures & facial expressions. This is why disney cartoons anthropomorphizes it's characters, to make them more human. It is inevitable for aliens/others to be portrayed as similar to humans so that we can empathize with them.
You know, I hear this excuse a lot, but I don't buy it. Humans are perfectly capable of relating to and having intense feelings toward other animals. Awhile back, I saw an advert for protecting the environment and what they showed was a polar bear being affecting by melting ice. "She" seemed near death; skinny as could be, huddled on a bit of floating ice and the pain in her eyes and in the way that she cried out was unmistakable. The whole point of the video was to tug at people's heart strings and I found it to be highly successful.
This is hardly the only example. There are plenty of other movies and clips that are meant to get to us by showing us extreme emotions of other animals. Meanwhile, many people who have had cats and dogs will tell you that they have a range of emotions, the same as humans, and they are perfectly able to pick up on them. Not everyone is, but I think enough people are at this point in history that that's not much of an excuse and I think it's an absolutely ridiculous for Disney movies as their audience is too young to have established thoughts on the matter. So, if done correctly, they can be taught to react to whatever you put out there.
Now, unfortunately, if we're talking about something for adults, you have a problem. Relating to a living, breathing being is totally different from relating to a puppet or poorly rendered CGI creation. Kids will relate to puppets, but adults takes greater issue with the fact that they're looking at something fake. So when you put people in makeup, you at least have something real under all of that that people can focus on. I totally understand that, but my point was that was a thing largely of the past. We're not totally there with CGI, but we've come a long way from the clunky looking aliens of a few years ago and so it's only a matter of time before this particular excuse goes away entirely.
Besides, every scifi movie/show will have a problem based on budget, be it now or the future. Makeup will still be based on a human body, skull, it has to accommodate our limbs, eyes, mouth, etc. This is what actors do unless we rely completely on cgi & even then, it would still be anthropomorphize.
I don't know if you read my whole post, but I did mention budget concerns - Absolutely, Sci Fi of the past had no choice but to up people in makeup, but as the technology has improved and it's become cheaper to create better and better looking aliens, I think people are less accepting of the makeup. We're not totally there by any means, but I disagree with your blanket statement that we won't be in "the future." The technology is rapidly improving and I think it's only of time before they get there. Not on a TV show's budget, but absolutely they should be able to get there on a movie's budget in the near future.
If it isn't given human attributes, it will be given KNOWN EARTH ANIMAL attributes, so really, we can never imagine something we do not know about. Everything is after all based on what we know. We cannot think up something based on what we don't know. So in then end, why is Star Trek the worst of its offenders?
I disagree with the notion that we can't think of something that we don't know about. Look at all architectural achievements that we have come up with. At their core, they're based off of various shapes that occur around us, but we have melded those shapes to create some truly unique and impressive works of art that occur nowhere in nature. I think it's the same thing when creating a fictional animal. There's no reason you can't take something basic and meld it into something totally new.
That said, there's limitations when designing an animal and so it's perfectly reasonable to use what we already know exists and incorporating bits and pieces into a new design. That's what science is based on - We see one thing here, so we except to see something like it there. I don't have an issue with that. My issue was only that film has so often used humans and humans only as a base. Again, I get why they do that, but I think they're about at the point where they can catch up to video games, books, and artwork by even just using other animals in their designs to a greater degree.
However, even though they haven't had that option in the past, they were too excessive with it at times. My whole thing with Star Trek, was that they ran wild with it. You want to pass off a human that has been colored white and has some extra bone structure as an alien? Fine, I get that that's the best you can do on TV in the 90s. But you don't need to be going around and calling people aliens because you added a spec of paint between their eyes, put grooves on their ears, or put a gray strip in their hair. The aliens of the week, especially, were so poorly put together that it completely ruined it and this could have been avoided by making better use of their existing aliens and/or creating reasons for finding human cultures at various technological states.
That's why I said credited Stargate with being better about it. They were hardly perfect and they certainly did have "makeup aliens" in the mix, but most "aliens" were simply humans that were taken from Earth and planted on various planets, thousands of years ago. Some even became aliens in disguise (the Goa'uld were parasites that uses humans as host). Thus, they could save money by using human actors in a way that wasn't insanely convoluted. If Star Trek had been planned out better they could have easily done something similar, but I feel like they're now locked into things that was developed in the 60s when it was more greatly restricted by budget and technological issues and only used the future as a backdrop for social issues.
Thus, instead of ignoring that they didn't have a budget to make Klingons until the movies, they've created what I consider to be a pointless explanation for it (and they're sticking with it). But, the truth is that the original movies had the good sense to update their look the second they had the budget to pull it off and they should be doing the same thing now. I'm not advocating that they go completely CGI, but maybe drop the whole humans can breed with aliens trope and update aliens like the Vulcans so they have greater external differences than just their ears and eyebrows. Sadly, as I said in my previous post, the fan base is too well established at this point and would throw a fit simply because it was different.
Besides, how effective would it be to portray a completely alien creature in this film when he is supposed to be a human who tries to blend within Viking culture?
Right, I said in my previous post that this movie handled it better than others have and I was fine suspending disbelief for it. But, it has its flaws and I think they could have found a way, not to use a completely alien creature, but to better insert a human if they really tried (like Stargate did). For example, I have very mixed feelings on time travel, but I much rather he have been from a futuristic Earth civilization than to say that humans evolved somewhere besides Earth and came to live here after an advanced colony fell apart, sending the population back to a hunter-gather state.
reply
share
b198426
11 years ago
Is it so hard to believe that life would follow certain similar traits? The human form is the embodiment of an apex predator. Extraordinarily adaptive, able to survive in almost any environment, rapid cognitive development and the all powerful opposable thumb. We can assume all planet life will begin simple like our own. We can assume plants will be the first dominate lifeforms. Plants will natural rise to higher highest to reach the sun and block out their competition. On and on, the same things that happened on Earth will happen on other worlds. We are not unique, we are just a stage in a universal pattern that follows success. The primate is the peak mammal. No creature can match the primates ability to adapt and survive. There will never be a world were a jellyfish is the dominate lifeform. I imagine when we start our conquest of the stars we will be battling many bipedal, star trek like species.
reply
share
sebaser
11 years ago
Extraordinarily adaptive, able to survive in almost any environment
Only on our safe planet. And even here we are weaker slower less nimble less mobile and less resistant to environmental dangers than other animals. Opposable thumb is only an upgrade over not having one, but you might as well have tentacles that can wrap around objects, or skin that can suck to or connect at molecular level to different objects. By comparison our thumbs would seem laughably ineffective.
We can clearly see animals on 4 legs are faster and more nimble, even an ape half our size would brake a human part like a toy, showing how badly we are build.
Hell, and legs are of any use only in gas environment, a creature developed in a liquid wouldnt have any. Or one that was born in a gas giant. It could levitate using some sort of magnetic force, fly around using wings, or swim around uwing vibration or some kind propellant system.
Take a look at how varied movments methods bacteria have.
Another thing is eyes. Even when compared to squids are eyes seems like something designed as a first prototype, things like blind spot and our small visible light spectrum would imply there is a lot room for improvement. Hell, aliens could have light receptors on every point of their skin, making them eyeless.
Why need mouth when you can breath and eat through your skin ?
We can thank only our intelligence for being apex predator on this planet, not our bodies. But be sure, if lions were the smart ones, they would easily take over this planet.
Aliens would look nothing like us, if they would look at all. We still have no way of detecting dark matter other than the gravitational distortion it produces. It would be ironic if they came and went with no way to communicate with us.
reply
share
b198426
11 years ago
Only on our safe planet.
Incorrect assumption. Earth is one of the most hostile planets a living creature could hope to endure. We live on the ONLY planet known to have fire. Something so simple... but with our atmosphere it allows for something so extraordinarily destructive. The Earth goes with "extinction events" such as Ice ages that wipe out 90% of everything living and in the case when our solar system leaves the galaxy, everything above the cellular level. We have active super volcanoes capable of wiping life out in a matter of days. The Human species was almost wiped out even 80k years ago by one such eruption. Our numbers dwindled to an estimated thousand at best. Yet, we were one of the few species that walked away. Solar flares, asteroids, an active core responsible for tsunamis and earthquakes, opposing weather patterns that result in tornadoes and hurricanes... all dangers that only the planet Earth(as far as we know) has in abundance. Yet we survive and think it safe... what does that tell you?
And even here we are weaker slower less nimble less mobile and less resistant to environmental dangers than other animals.
You fail to see why that makes us the most practical design on the planet. We are not specialist but generalist. Many creatures on this world specialize in one area- hunting, thinking, jumping, swimming, running, climbing, etc- but we Humans are capable of doing all these things which no other animal on this entire planet can match! It's as if we were genetically engineered specifically to survive and thrive on this world.
Opposable thumb is only an upgrade over not having one, but you might as well have tentacles that can wrap around objects, or skin that can suck to or connect at molecular level to different objects. By comparison our thumbs would seem laughably ineffective.
Thumbs/fingers are more effective than tentacles. The human hand is a balance between a paw and tentacle; it can wrap around objects to hold them securely, or it can smash with the blunt force of heavy muscle and bone.
We can clearly see animals on 4 legs are faster and more nimble, even an ape half our size would brake a human part like a toy, showing how badly we are build.
Again, we are generalist not specialist. We do the jobs of everything where as they are regulated to a specific role.
Hell, and legs are of any use only in gas environment, a creature developed in a liquid wouldnt have any. Or one that was born in a gas giant. It could levitate using some sort of magnetic force, fly around using wings, or swim around uwing vibration or some kind propellant system.
Take a look at how varied movments methods bacteria have.
Subjects on speculative worlds is a matter for other discussion. We do not know that life can live on such worlds or if such worlds even exist. It's speculation and only worthy of a good scifi novel. But I can also go as far to say that a creature that evolved in an all liquid or gas environment would not have the physical abilities to survive on land, while we can survive in liquid and gas environments. In fact, we're living in a gas environment now. Bacterial locomotion can also be discarded as we evolved from them and the food chain dictates that only the strongest survive; so no form of propulsion from the microbial level would ever make it to a state of intelligent life.
Another thing is eyes. Even when compared to squids are eyes seems like something designed as a first prototype, things like blind spot and our small visible light spectrum would imply there is a lot room for improvement. Hell, aliens could have light receptors on every point of their skin, making them eyeless.
Eyes were one of the earliest and most ingenious mutations to ever happen. An organ that can detect electromagnetic radiation! I know it's hard for you to realize how amazing this is, but it's such an evolutionary milestone it borders on science fiction. Eyes work just like sonar or radar except we can pinpoint exact, real-time locations at the speed of light as long as there is a source of light. It seems like a boring ability, but it's as extraordinary as it comes. If an alien came to Earth from a planet where light was too weak to be useful and instead required a non visible form of spacial awareness, they would be amazed at us. It would be like finding out there are creatures that can see into other dimensions or forwards in time.
We can thank only our intelligence for being apex predator on this planet, not our bodies. But be sure, if lions were the smart ones, they would easily take over this planet.
How do you know there hasn't been other intelligent life on this world? This planet has been around for quiet some time and it's very probable that other intelligent life has lived and dies here.
I can guarantee you, however, that if a lion was as intelligent as us, it would never survive a war even with an equal population. A lion is a predatory animal designed for killing. A human is designed for any environment, any ecosystem and any situation. We can run up to a 100 miles a day, climb any surface with a perch, wield instruments with destructive force and basically use the environment to our advantage. How do you imagine a lion would create a long range weapon or escape a pack of charging humans when they can only run upwards of 20 minutes?
Aliens would look nothing like us, if they would look at all. We still have no way of detecting dark matter other than the gravitational distortion it produces. It would be ironic if they came and went with no way to communicate with us.
Your finally conclusion seems to sum ALL alien life into your theory which is already incorrect. The basic law of averages, given the number of worlds in our galaxy and the number of galaxies that we know of beg to differ. Even if the odds were one in a quadrillion, they would be out there.
However the odds would be far greater. Given a world with a similar start, micro organism would not form very different than here. Then it becomes a game of chess where incorrect moves are eliminated until only the right moves are left. Species will follow the evolutionary ladder that best suits their world. A world similar to ours would see an intelligent species very similar to us.
Any species not as adaptable as us would find itself wiped out at the next ice age, super volcano or celestial impact.
reply
share
sebaser
11 years ago
Incorrect assumption. Earth is one of the most hostile planets a living creature could hope to endure.
Assumptions.
Our planet is teh only one we know of that has life on it, its obviously has to be very safe. We dont know whats the limit of life, can it exist in something as extreme as liquid metal environment ?
Who knows, maybe it can. We may be shocked how resistant life is on other planets. We just have nothing to compare us to, except the fact other planets near us werent so lucky in those terms.
Also that molten core is the only reason we have an atmosphere, if not for it generating insane amours of magnetic force, solar wind would blow away our air in a day. Few earthquakes is a good computerize if you ask me.
Humans are capable of doing all these things which no other animal on this entire planet can match!
Only partly correct.
Primates like chimps are stronger and as capable as we.
My point was that we are heavily flawed and we can see it right away by comparing our self to animals. Defects in our eyes, weak heart, appendix, ineffective intestines and simillar stuff helps us in no way addapt to anything.
Thumbs/fingers are more effective than tentacles.
In what way ?
Its fragile and very weak. A tentacle could crush a car, how strong is your hand ? Sure we have 5 fingers for tool making. But how is it an advantage over 10 tentacles ?
And again, it was just an example.
Obviously something that can connect and disconnect at a molecular or magnetic level to object would be the best limb.
We do not know that life can live on such worlds
But we do.
We have both seas and sky. We have birds and fish. We have some weird stuff actually in the deep sea.
Proving both that life can exists in a environment of extreme pressure, and in one where there is barely any matter at all.
Exactly like the environments of gas giants and sea only planets.
Hell, to not look far, titan is all water, who knows whats swimming there under the ice.
creature that evolved in an all liquid or gas environment would not have the physical abilities to survive on land, while we can survive in liquid and gas environments.
And we will drown underwater and fall to our death in the sky. Slap wheels on a fish or a bird with no legs and he is as mobile and as technology depended as we.
Eyes were one of the earliest and most ingenious mutations to ever happen. An organ that can detect electromagnetic radiation! I know it's hard for you to realize how amazing this is, but it's such an evolutionary milestone it borders on science fiction. Eyes work just like sonar or radar except we can pinpoint exact, real-time locations at the speed of light as long as there is a source of light. It seems like a boring ability, but it's as extraordinary as it comes. If an alien came to Earth from a planet where light was too weak to be useful and instead required a non visible form of spacial awareness, they would be amazed at us. It would be like finding out there are creatures that can see into other dimensions or forwards in time.
I dont get what you are saying. Everything creates radiation, no additional light source is not needed if you have eyes that can see lower into the spectrum. Infrared microwave radio. With tech precise enough even we can see in the dark.
Sure aliens can have radars for eyes or be blind altogether, but might a well have eyes that are far superior to ours, even octopus eyes are a huge improvemnt over ours.
My point was that human eye is very primitive in their design even by earths standards.
How do you know there hasn't been other intelligent life on this world?
You mean sentient ? Who knows, we dont even know what it really means to be.
I can guarantee you, however, that if a lion was as intelligent as us, it would never survive a war even with an equal population
Yeah a lion, but try a chimp.
We already reached a level of intelligence that allows us to use and build tools. Now it would turn into an arms race, who can build a better weapon. Since be sure, if slugs could build nuclear rockets and remote controlled drones, even our hands and legs would help us if all we had were bows and swords.
And a lion would eat you early into human evolution anyway, only now, while building traps and weapons we can match them.
Any species not as adaptable as us would find itself wiped out at the next ice age, super volcano or celestial impact.
Unless it didnt have any of those events. On a very boring planet where nothing ever happens any life can live by and not get wiped out.
Anyway.
Im not saying there cant be any aliens similar to humans ( with as much as 1 septillion planets and moons out there who knows), what im saying is that meeting aliens looking like us have very low probability no way how we look at it. Not only they would have to evolve on a world similar to ours, have similar evolution direction, and be at the same stage in evolution, and even be build of the same matter as us.
Its quite a stretch we would have this much luck ...
Its more likely than not they would look nothing like us.
reply
share
NewtyWewty
10 years ago
I haven't read John Carter, but from what I understand the writer did, in fact, properly depict how a human would react in a lower gravity environment. The problem is that Superman took this is absurd heights and used it as a reason for insane levels of strength and other impossibilities - Humans can adapt to living on a world that has a higher gravity than Earth, but they will not be able to then return to Earth and "leap tall buildings in a single bound" or be impervious to bullets. That's what I took issue with.
John Carter, the movie, falls into the similar trap and basically made it seem like a human would get Superman's power to leap tall buildings if he went to Mars. Understandably, many people took issue with this because the century old book series was supposedly far more scientifically accurate on this matter than the modern day movie and because nobody is going to buy that a human can jump higher on Mars than they could on the moon.
Just want to say, as someone who's recently been reading the Barsoon/John Carter books, the novels are no less ridiculous than the film. In the book Carter leaps hundreds of feet in a single bound.
reply
share
Xaeden
7 years ago
Figures. Fans on the John Carter board were insisting that the original books depicted a more believable level of jumping and that the movie deviated from them by going overboard with his strength level. Although why those books would have gotten how high someone would be able to jump on Mars when written in the early 20th century I have no clue.
I suppose then that goes to one of my original points about the dangers of staying true to the source material despite time changing what audiences will accept as believable. I'll make a point to look into it more one day but for now my understanding is that John Carter was supposed to represent a level of plausibility that new scientific developments have shown to be untrue. Everyone who has seen astronauts jumping on the moon know that someone on Mars cannot jump as high as he could in the movie even if they don't have a scientific understanding about gravity and after all the probes and research done into Mars nobody (who's sane, obviously) thinks that it's possible that it could have been habitable to human life in modern times.
There's no reason they couldn't have honored what I perceive to be the original intent by toning down the strength to believable levels and, hell, making it a different planet in another solar system that John Carter dubbed Mars because of an initial misunderstanding on his part about where he was based on his 19th century perspective. It would have made it more interesting, in my view, to skew toward a grittier approach to his capabilities where he struggles more as opposed to going all fantastical, early Superman on Earth with it.
reply
share