Talk:Big Dumb Object

message: Would it be correct to call the monoliths in 2001: A Space Odyssey as being "Big Dumb Objects"?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.195.161.39 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monoliths in 2001 

message: The definition needs some work. Was surprised the Excession from the novel by Iain Banks was included in this list. Acknowledging the precedent, I added The Spin from Robert Charles Wilson's 2005 novel (both refer very current events to an initial historical impact). A Big Dumb Object needs clearer definition. I can imagine The Lazy Gun from Iain Banks’ Against a Dark Background being slotted in here too. The Lazy Gun isn't big per se, but is most certainly big enough to be added to this list. So is the number 42 (the universe is very big). So is the product Ubik, so is Heinlein's stranger, so is Ken Macleod's asteroid, so is Alistair Reynolds’ missing colonization ship. SF is riddled with Big Dumb Objects the way romance is riddled with love triangles. Too many to list, surely. 
In short:
Current definition of Big Dumb Object refers to too much to mean anything.
Not science fiction, perhaps a good example of a BDO is *Joe Dirt*, who finds a 'meteor', is obsessed with it, and hauls it around wherever he goes assuming it is valuable, only to find it to be sewage accumulation that fell from an airplane.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.116.185 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Dumb Object? 

message: Following on from the previous post, I would second the need for a tidy-up here.  I followed a link here from MacGuffin, expecting to learn something, but instead was faced with a very long list of stuff that means absolutely nothing to me.  Could someone please tidy up the definition, and maybe trim the list right down to a couple of examples, with an explanation as to how those fit the definition? StephenBuxton 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up required

message: Would the TARDIS qualify? I'd say that, compared to ships in other TV franchises, such as the Enterprise, it's much more of the "immense size and/or power, causing amazement" variety -- in many ways, it has more in common with the stargates of Stargate than it has with traditional vessels. Thoughts? Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tardis is small on the outside - hence it isn't a 'big dumb object.' 141.166.154.249 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally I would disqualify the TARDIS on the grounds that it it's not at all mysterious or wondrous from the protagonist's point of view — he knows how it works, how to build one in theory, what it's supposed to do but can't. He takes its existence and properties in his stride. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TARDIS? 

message: i'm not sure, but this just doesn't seem right. It seems out of place on Wikipedia, and if it is a quote, put quotes on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.103 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alot of Mass? 

message: I culled the list, adding descriptions to them. Which ones I removed is obviously subjective — I'm not familiar with many of them — so I might have removed some informative examples. I changed the heading to make it clear that the list is not meant to be exhaustive, in an effort to cut down on cruft.
I also generalised two types: Event Horizon and Rama entries to "any ghost ship, in the sense of a vessel found drifting without a crew", which I think are Big Dumb Objects in that they are usually pretty big and always mysterious; and the Monolith and the Excession to "unresponsive alien artifacts", which are pretty much the archetypal BDOs. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost ships 

message: Unless there are sources for some of these examples (e.g., the Lazy Gun), I'd suggest cutting them. Nicholls' SFE entry clearly specifies that a BDO is "vast" or "enormous" or of "gigantic scale," and the examples he offers are environments or habitats. Adding items ad hoc (especially items that are not Big) might be a pleasant parlor game, but it threatens to render the definition/explanation useless and substitutes miscellaneous "hey, I got one" responses for actual research. RLetson (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR run amok 

message: I threw the link to Cthulhu under "See Also" out. The point of a "big dumb object", as I understand it, is that it has been constructed by a civilization. Also Cthulhu would be furious if it found out that you are calling it dumb! ;)
If you think it should stay, please explain. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cthulhu