3 Body Problem: A Fascinating Exploration of Science and Morality in a Distant Planet

Beijing, China Tunisia
It includes heady technical passages about quantum theory, nanotechnology, orbital mechanics and astrophysics intertwined with profound moral questions about humanity's place in the universe.
Liu's novel involves multiple narratives spanning decades and generations.
Netflix adaptation of the book titled 3 Body Problem has been released
The Three-Body Problem is a popular Chinese science fiction novel by Liu Cixin
3 Body Problem: A Fascinating Exploration of Science and Morality in a Distant Planet

A new Netflix adaptation of the popular Chinese science fiction novel 'The Three-Body Problem' has been released, and it has sparked mixed reactions in China. The show, titled '3 Body Problem', is an eight-part series based on Liu Cixin's Hugo Award-winning novel. It involves multiple narratives spanning decades and generations.

Liu's novel is one of China's most successful cultural exports in recent years and boasts legions of fans worldwide, including former US President Barack Obama. However, among the country's more patriotic internet users, discussions on the adaptation turned political with some accusing Netflix of making China look bad.

The show opens with a harrowing scene depicting Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution which consumed China in bloodshed and chaos for a decade from 1966. This has been a point of contention among Chinese viewers, who feel that the adaptation does not accurately represent their country's history.

The novel is set on a distant planet and includes heady technical passages about quantum theory, nanotechnology, orbital mechanics and astrophysics intertwined with profound moral questions about humanity’s place in the universe. Ken Liu, who translated the novel into English in 2012, was confronted by what seemed like a more fundamental problem: The narrative structure didn't make sense.

Studying the novel’s chaotic timeline, Liu pinpointed what he felt was the story’s natural beginning: scenes of political violence and oppression during the Cultural Revolution. However, Netflix's adaptation has taken some liberties with this aspect of the story, which has not gone unnoticed by Chinese viewers.

Despite these criticisms, '3 Body Problem' is a fascinating exploration of complex scientific concepts and moral dilemmas. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly worth watching for fans of science fiction.



Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • It is not clear if the show accurately represents Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution.

Sources

73%

  • Unique Points
    • Netflix adaptation of wildly popular Chinese sci-fi novel The Three-Body Problem has split opinions in China
    • Reactions have been mixed on Chinese social media since the Thursday premiere of the eight-part, English-language series 3 Body Problem which is based on Liu Cixin's Hugo Award winning novel
    • Liu's novel is one of China's most successful cultural exports in recent years and boasts legions of fans worldwide including former US President Barack Obama
    • Among the country's more patriotic internet users, discussions on the adaptation turned political with some accusing Netflix of making China look bad
    • The show opens with a harrowing scene depicting Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution which consumed China in bloodshed and chaos for a decade from 1966
  • Accuracy
    • Some online commentators accused Netflix's producers of making a whole TV series just to paint China in a bad light
  • Deception (80%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the show as a depiction of China's Cultural Revolution when in fact it only briefly touches on this period and does not accurately represent what happened during that time. Secondly, some commentators accused the producers of making a whole TV series just to paint China in a bad light which is false. The author Liu himself stated that he had originally wanted to open the book with scenes from Mao's Cultural Revolution but his Chinese publisher worried about government censors and buried them in the middle of the narrative. Finally, some commentators compared it to a Chinese television adaptation released last year which ran for 30 episodes and was highly rated on Chinese review platforms. However, this comparison is not accurate as both adaptations are different versions of Liu's book with different settings and characters.
    • The show opens with a harrowing scene depicting Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution which consumed China in bloodshed and chaos for a decade from 1966. However, this is not an accurate representation of what happened during that time.
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Liu Cixin is China's most celebrated sci-fi author and has legions of fans worldwide including former US President Barack Obama. This statement implies that the book must be good, but it does not provide any evidence for this claim. Additionally, the article contains several examples of inflammatory rhetoric such as
    • The show opens with a harrowing scene depicting Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution
    • Some online commentators accused the show's producers of making a whole TV series just to paint China in a bad light.
  • Bias (80%)
    The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the Chinese people by portraying them as violent and cruel during Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. Additionally, the author implies that Liu Cixin is making a political statement with his work, which could be seen as an attack on China's government.
    • Some online commentators accused the show’s producers of making a whole TV series just to paint China in a bad light.
      • The show opens with a harrowing scene depicting Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Netflix as they are owned by Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., which is also involved in the production and distribution of '3 Body Problem'. Additionally, there may be conflicts between Tsinghua University in Beijing and Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. The author does not disclose these potential conflicts of interest.
        • The article mentions that Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., which owns Netflix, is also involved in the production and distribution of '3 Body Problem'.
          • The article mentions Tsinghua University in Beijing as a location where Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution took place.
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
            The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of China and its Cultural Revolution as they are reporting for CNN which is an American news outlet. The article also mentions Liu Cixin who is a Chinese science fiction writer known for his work in the Three-Body Problem series.
            • The author is reporting for CNN which is an American news outlet.
              • The author reports that Netflix's adaptation of Liu Cixin's novel, '3 Body Problem,' has sparked nationalist anger in China. The article also mentions Mao Zedong and Tsinghua University in Beijing which are both associated with the Cultural Revolution.

              73%

              • Unique Points
                • Ken Liu received an offer from a Chinese company to translate 'The Three-Body Problem' in 2012.
                • Liu was fluent in Mandarin, familiar with Chinese sci-fi tropes and culture, and a rising star in the genre at the time of translation.
                • The novel is set on a distant planet and includes heady technical passages about quantum theory, nanotechnology, orbital mechanics and astrophysics intertwined with profound moral questions about humanity's place in the universe.
                • Liu was confronted by what seemed like a more fundamental problem: The narrative structure didn't make sense. The story careered around in time.
                • Studying the novel's chaotic timeline, Liu pinpointed what he felt was the story's natural beginning: scenes of political violence and oppression during the Cultural Revolution.
              • Accuracy
                • Liu Cixin agreed to Liu's suggestion to turn these flashback scenes into the novel's beginning. The author had originally wanted them placed later in the narrative due to concerns about government censors.
              • Deception (50%)
                The article is deceptive in its portrayal of the narrative structure of 'The Three-Body Problem'. The author states that the story careened around in time and was difficult to follow. However, it is clear from Liu's translation that he found a natural beginning for the novel by pulling up historical flashbacks buried later in the narrative. This change made sense as it triggered an interstellar clash and allowed readers to understand why this event occurred.
                • The story careered around in time, bouncing between present-day China, as a panic builds among scientists and government officials over a coming alien invasion, and Beijing in 1967,
              • Fallacies (85%)
                The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Liu Cixin agreed with the change in narrative structure without providing any evidence of this agreement. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by suggesting that either Liu's original ending was too politically charged or it would never make it past government censors, when there may have been other options available to address these concerns. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric in the description of Mao Zedong's revolution as
                • ]The Cultural Revolution had torn Liu Cixin’s family apart. He was just 3 when the political upheaval began, and still remembers hearing gunshots at night and seeing trucks full of men wearing red armbands patrolling the city where he lived in Shanxi province.
              • Bias (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                Alexandra Alter has a conflict of interest with Ken Liu and The Three-Body Problem as she is reporting on the topic for which they are both known. She also has a personal relationship with Mao Zedong's revolution, but it is not clear if this affects her objectivity.
                • Alexandra Alter mentions that Ken Liu wrote The Three-Body Problem and she describes him as 'a Chinese writer who lives in the United States.'
                  • The article discusses how Mao Zedong's revolution influenced Chinese science fiction, but it is not clear if Alexandra Alter has a personal relationship with this topic.
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication

                  68%

                  • Unique Points
                    • The Three-Body Problem is a 2008 sci-fi novel by Cixin Liu.
                    • Netflix spent a fortune putting The Three-Body Problem in the hands of executive producers David Benioff, D. B. Weiss, and Alexander Woo.
                    • 3 Body Problem involves multiple narratives spanning decades and generations.
                  • Accuracy
                    • The show emphasizes interpersonal drama over existential puzzle-solving.
                    • Netflix adaptation of wildly popular Chinese sci-fi novel The Three-Body Problem has split opinions in China
                    • Some online commentators accused Netflix's producers of making a whole TV series just to paint China in a bad light
                    • The show is rooted in history with Ye Wenjie's storyline anchoring the present timeline to 1966, when her father was beaten to death by Red Guards during the Chinese Communist Revolution
                  • Deception (70%)
                    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it claims that the show is a good one and very occasionally a great one but fails to provide any evidence for this claim. Secondly, it states that Netflix's main priority with 3 Body Problem seems to be selling it as the next Game of Thrones which is not true as there are no similarities between the two shows except for their popularity. Thirdly, the article claims that Netflix has streamlined a much more linear fashion but fails to provide any evidence for this claim.
                    • Netflix's main priority with 3 Body Problem seems to be selling it as the next Game of Thrones
                    • The show is a good one and very occasionally a great one
                  • Fallacies (75%)
                    The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author states that the book is unfilmable due to its depth and complexity, but then proceeds to say that Netflix's adaptation is leaner and more diverse than the book in a way that makes it a very different kind of story. This implies that Netflix's version is just as valid as the original, which contradicts the author's initial statement. Additionally, there are several instances where the author uses quotes from experts to support their argument without providing any context or explanation for why these quotes were chosen.
                    • The book is unfilmable due to its depth and complexity
                    • Netflix’s adaptation is leaner and more diverse than the book in a way that makes it a very different kind of story.
                  • Bias (75%)
                    The author has a clear bias towards the book and its ideas. They often praise the depth of Liu's work but criticize Netflix's adaptation for being too simplified and focused on selling it as Game of Thrones. The author also seems to have an affinity for science fiction, which may be influencing their analysis.
                    • Netflix’s main priority with 3 Body Problem seems to be selling it as the next Game of Thrones (Benioff and Weiss’ last series)
                      • often, it's a good one — and very occasionally a great one
                        • The book is unfilmable
                          • The Oxford Five are all friends (and former lovers in some instances) who quickly begin working together
                          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                            Charles Pulliam-Moore has conflicts of interest on the topics of The Three-Body Problem and Cixin Liu as he is an executive producer for Netflix's adaptation. He also has a personal relationship with David Benioff and D.B. Weiss who are also executive producers.
                            • Charles Pulliam-Moore is listed as an executive producer on the show, indicating that he may have financial ties to Tencent or Netflix.
                            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                              Charles Pulliam-Moore has conflicts of interest on the topics of The Three-Body Problem and Cixin Liu as he is an executive producer for Netflix's adaptation of the book. He also has a conflict of interest with David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, who are also executive producers for 3 Body Problem.
                              • Charles Pulliam-Moore serves as an executive producer on Netflix's adaptation of The Three-Body Problem.

                              60%

                              • Unique Points
                                • Netflix adaptation of wildly popular Chinese sci-fi novel The Three-Body Problem has split opinions in China
                                • The show opens with a harrowing scene depicting Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution which consumed China in bloodshed and chaos for a decade from 1966
                              • Accuracy
                                • Many compared it to a Chinese television adaptation released last year which was highly rated on Chinese review platforms but ran for 30 episodes instead of Netflix's eight-part series, making the story less about China
                              • Deception (30%)
                                The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu should not be adapted into a movie or TV show because it cannot translate well from page to screen and other storylines seem hurried through. However, this contradicts their own statement later on in the article where they admit that 3 Body Problem Netflix is technically good but has some aspects that do not translate well from the books. Secondly, the author claims that Foundation by Apple TV+ is more engaging than 3 Body Problem Netflix and there are at least three other sci-fi shows airing on Apple TV+ as we speak (Severance, For All Mankind and Silo). However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or objective criteria. Thirdly, the author claims that the series ends on a massive cliffhanger with no resolution which may make many viewers uncomfortable. This contradicts their own statement later in the article where they admit that 3 Body Problem Netflix follows more or less how The Three-Body Problem does it and you can simply go on to read the next two books if you want. Finally, the author claims that Netflix will likely greenlight an adaptation of the whole series but also acknowledges that many viewers may be uncomfortable with the show ending on such a huge cliffhanger with so much unresolved which feels like more of a risk for Netflix.
                                • Foundation by Apple TV+ is more engaging than 3 Body Problem Netflix and there are at least three other sci-fi shows airing on Apple TV+ as we speak (Severance, For All Mankind and Silo)
                                • Netflix will likely greenlight an adaptation of the whole series but also acknowledges that many viewers may be uncomfortable with the show ending on such a huge cliffhanger with so much unresolved
                                • The series ends on a massive cliffhanger with no resolution which may make many viewers uncomfortable
                                • The Three-Body Problem should not be adapted into something like a movie or TV show
                                • 3 Body Problem Netflix is technically good but has some aspects that do not translate well from the books and other storylines seem hurried through
                              • Fallacies (75%)
                                The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by mentioning the high-profile pair of showrunners and their previous success with Game of Thrones. This is not a valid argument as it does not necessarily mean that the adaptation will be successful or good. Additionally, there are many instances where the author makes assumptions about what viewers would think without providing any evidence to support these claims. For example, they assume that many viewers may bounce off the show due to its ending on a cliffhanger and being uncomfortable with unresolved issues. This is not necessarily true as it depends on individual preferences and expectations. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric by stating that the series ends on a massive cliffhanger, which could be seen as hyperbolic or exaggerated.
                                • The author uses an appeal to authority by mentioning the high-profile pair of showrunners and their previous success with Game of Thrones. This is not a valid argument as it does not necessarily mean that the adaptation will be successful or good.
                              • Bias (70%)
                                Paul Tassi has a clear bias towards the book and its adaptation. He frequently mentions his own personal preference for the source material and how it does not translate well to screen. This is evident in statements such as 'It's hard to view this as an outside observer, having read the books and understanding where this was going from the start.' Tassi also expresses disappointment that Netflix did not greenlight a second season of 3 Body Problem despite its ending on a cliffhanger. This bias is further evident in his statement 'I would recommend 3 Body Problem in the end to most science fiction fans, though I can understand why a good amount of people may bounce off it.' Tassi's preference for the book and disappointment that Netflix did not greenlight a second season are clear indications of bias.
                                • It's hard to view this as an outside observer, having read the books and understanding where this was going from the start.
                                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                  Paul Tassi has a conflict of interest with David Benioff and DB Weiss as he is reviewing their TV series 'Foundation' while also having previously reviewed their work on 'Game of Thrones'. Additionally, Paul Tassi may have a financial tie to Apple due to his coverage of the company in relation to its TV shows such as 'For All Mankind' and 'Silo'
                                  • Paul Tassi has previously reviewed the work of David Benioff and DB Weiss on 'Game of Thrones'.
                                    • Paul Tassi mentions David Benioff and DB Weiss by name while reviewing their TV series 'Foundation'.
                                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                      None Found At Time Of Publication

                                    81%

                                    • Unique Points
                                      • The show is a sci-fi adaptation of Liu Cixin's best-selling novel, The Three-Body Problem
                                      • It lacks style but makes up for it with exquisite character work and deeper philosophical questions
                                      • Evidence no interest in world building as we traditionally understand it
                                      • The show is set mostly in the United Kingdom instead of China to appeal to Anglophone audiences, diluting cultural specificity
                                    • Accuracy
                                      • Some online commentators accused Netflix's producers of making a whole TV series just to paint China in a bad light
                                      • Many compared it to a Chinese television adaptation released last year which was highly rated on Chinese review platforms but ran for 30 episodes instead of Netflix's eight-part series, making the story less about China
                                    • Deception (90%)
                                      The article is not deceptive. It provides a clear and concise review of the Netflix adaptation of Liu Cixin's novel The Three-Body Problem. The author compares the show to Game of Thrones and highlights its strengths in character work and philosophical depth, while also acknowledging some weaknesses such as lack of world-building. They provide specific examples from the show that support their analysis.
                                      • The series sketches out the emotional landscapes its characters occupy with astonishing speed and depth.
                                    • Fallacies (95%)
                                      The article is well-written and provides a clear overview of the show. The author does not make any fallacious statements or use inflammatory rhetoric. They provide examples from the show to support their analysis, which are relevant and accurate.
                                      • > Evidence that “Game of Thrones” was a failure: The author cites several reasons why they believe the show failed, including its lack of character development and focus on shocking twists. They also mention how the series ended up punishing fans who took it seriously.
                                      • Examples from “3 Body Problem” that demonstrate good drama: The author provides several examples from the show to support their claim that it is better drama than science fiction, including its exquisite character work and deeper philosophical questions. They also mention how the series handles complex themes such as climate change.
                                      • The use of an Oculus-type helmet in “3 Body Problem”: The author mentions that the show uses this device to explain various theories of a hypothetical world, which is an example of how it simplifies complex concepts for audiences. This could be seen as an appeal to authority or a form of logical fallacy.
                                      • The lack of cultural specificity in “3 Body Problem”: The author notes that the show's present-day timeline is set mostly in the United Kingdom and dilutes cultural specificity. This could be seen as an example of a dichotomous depiction.
                                      • The use of historical events to anchor “3 Body Problem”: The author mentions that Ye Wenjie's storyline is rooted in 1966 and provides a specific sense of place. This could be seen as an example of how the show uses formal fallacies.
                                    • Bias (85%)
                                      The author Lili Loofbourow demonstrates bias by repeatedly expressing her negative opinion of the show 'Game of Thrones' and its creators David Benioff and D.G. Weiss throughout the article. She also shows a clear preference for character development over world-building, which she considers to be a weakness in science fiction.
                                      • I stood with the pessimists. Like most TV critics, I’ve had to write an enormous amount about “Game of Thrones.” My view (summarized) is that the show’s last half pivoted away from the rich dialogue, juicy political intrigue and careful character work that made the series great to favor shocking but underdeveloped twists
                                        • More pertinently, given the prospect of committing to a new multiyear Benioff and Weiss project
                                          • Peppery comparisons to “Game of Thrones” were inevitable
                                          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                            None Found At Time Of Publication
                                          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                            None Found At Time Of Publication