 |
|
Brent
|
|
Star Wars is for everyone (so far), which is good. Star Trek is for not quite everyone. Enterprise is very questionable, DS9 and Voyager still questionable, but less so.
There are those who say no onscreen SF is good SF. There are novels.
Why Miss Bloom, if I didn't know better, I'd wonder if you're racist against Austrians...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Molly Bloom is a dude
and Enterprise was better tha DS9 and Voyager (but still not good enough to get me to watch)
JM
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Brent
|
|
Actually I had gathered that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Brent
|
|
It's a traditional Austrian hairdo.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Brent
|
|
fictional robots and fictional spaceships are science fiction. Science Fiction is fictional science, not always scientific fiction. Star Wars is best labelled as space opera, but it is not incoorect to call it science fiction. The Force is fictional theological science. The politics of star wars are fictional political science. Just because they don't try to explain things scientifically, or just because they try not to, does not mean that aliens and alien worlds d o not make it science fiction. Star Wars is in some ways more scientifically sound than Star Trek.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:16
|
|
the force went poof in episode one! OMG ITS MICROBES!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Brent
|
|
Never gave B5 much of a chance. Too much time already devoted to Wars and Trek. Not really interested in trying the new BSG. Stargate's good though, and I may watch some DrWho in the future.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Brent
|
|
So what if it's microbes?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Brent
So what if it's microbes? |
It completely ruined the mystique and mysticism of it. some things are better left ot the imagination.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Brent
fictional robots and fictional spaceships are science fiction. Science Fiction is fictional science, not always scientific fiction. Star Wars is best labelled as space opera, but it is not incoorect to call it science fiction. The Force is fictional theological science. The politics of star wars are fictional political science. Just because they don't try to explain things scientifically, or just because they try not to, does not mean that aliens and alien worlds d o not make it science fiction. Star Wars is in some ways more scientifically sound than Star Trek. |
Having robots does not make you science fiction- you could theoretically have magical robots- the Science in Science Fiction does mean something, and its not just using the tools of science- after all, that would make any modern war story science fiction, since tanks and planes are objects of science.
There is also no such things as "fictional pol sci"- monarchies and oligarchies and republics are old hat, Star Wars did not invent of imagine anything new in the realm of politics- the only "pol sci ci" I can think of are Utopia by More, Res Publica by Plato.
The basis of science fiction is to explore our society by using theoreticals to speculate- hence 1984 is classic sci fi, ditto the foundation series that postulated a science of history and how that might play out, or the robot series that thought what if we made automatons and how would we live with them.
In terms of being "scientifically sound", neither SW nor ST has much claim to that period, but in the end its not even necessary- you can have sci fi with the smallest shred of plausible science and still work-but the point of the story has to be daring or trying to explore something by suing the theoretical.
Just having robots does not make you sci fi, anymore than just having wizards makes you fantasy, which is why I think the works of Terry Pratchett are sorely miscategorized, since they are clearly satire and NOT fantasy.
So, again, SW is not sci fi at all, while ST began as sci fi but has strayed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
you hacen't read that much sci fi have you?
JM
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
I have read loads of it, I have many many dozens of paperbacks. It is because I have read so much, and thankfully a lot of GOOD sci fi that I can say that SW is NOT sci fi. For good sci fi look at Asimov, Lem, Clarck, Brin, heck, even Chriton's earlier works are very good sci fi. |
'I was not arguing that Starwars was good sci fi
I was arguing that there is lots of sci fi that is poly sci sci fi
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|