 |
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
PRECISELY!!!!!!
|
quote:
Btw, I'm wondering what the SF reading habits are of those who argue for/against? |
Sci-Fi and Fantasy, high and low of both.
Asimov, Clarke, Egan, Bear, Benford (how many Gregs are there??), ****, Adams.
McCaffrey, Tolkein, Goodkind, Pratchett(?). (Still refusing to submit to pressure and read Weis/Hickman and the like)
And all sorts in between.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
I think saying star wars is a western is far more inaccurate than saying its Sci-Fi |
I'm not saying that it's a western, I'm just saying its a western dressed up in outer space garb. Anyway, I'm not the only one who has noted the connect-the-dots analogies between SW and your typical Western - even this original review mentions SW western ties: " He has achieved a witty and exhilarating synthesis of themes and cliches from the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comics and serials, plus such related but less expected sources as the western, the pirate melodrama, the aerial combat melodrama and the samurai epic."
Anyway, you can Google as good as I can, though I will admit that most serious film criticism can only be found in books (especially those works written before 1994-ish).
Love the word "cliches". Lets be honest: SW brought back the same damn cliches that many serious fans and authors of SF were trying to wean from the genre, especially the aforementioned Harlan Ellison starting with his Dangerous Visions collection (well, not all his; he was editor and contributed a story). Luckily the film hasn't had that bad an effect on SF literature but the damage caused to literate, adult American cinema has been immense.
Last edited by JohnT on 23-12-2002 at 19:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Luckily the film hasn't had that bad an effect on SF literature but the damage caused to literate, adult American cinema has been immense. |
Let's face it JT, the average american movie goer doesn't go to the movies to think. Then again, looking at international movie sales that may be true across the world. In the US thought provoking movies went out of style by the end of the Vietnam era. I think that's changing somewhat. In the past few years the number of movies that are not "thrillers" that have done well has increased quite a bit I believe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
There have been a few, interesting sci-fi movies in the last few years: actually, one of the better ones stared Marissa Tomey and D'inofiro (Or whatever his name is, "Albert' from Men in Black) but I can't even begin to remember the title: The vast majority of the movie feels like a romance between a woman and a man who might be mentally unstable, until you discover that the man is a time traveller. The movie has zero special effects and other 'Sci-Fi" movie conventions, yet it teels a good story, with a very interesting set of questions at the end.
Ramo: the part of 'fiction' in science fiction does not refer back to the 'science' part, but the the narrative, which is, aftre all, a story that did not happen (hence fiction). Yes, most science fiction, specially older novels, use theories of science now discredited, but those stories that are sci-fi still attempted to explore worlds and human beigns somehow transformed by science, either directly, or by a change in society. {i]Star Wars[/i] never attempts to explain how these characters have been affected by science. The very fact that Lucas decides to separate thse characters completly from man and history (hence the long long ago, and far far away bit) shows that he did not mean to delve into the effects of science, but use space themses for his myth story.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Let's face it JT, the average american movie goer doesn't go to the movies to think. |
That's why most science-fiction fans don't like sci-fi movies. Movies excel at being visual, viceral and emotional. Good science fiction, though, is extremely cerebral. Cerebral is hard to show on the big screen.
Books are the rhelm of good science fiction; while the movies excel at explosions, special effects and pronounced silliness.
For my detractors, above:
Frankenstein is indeed science fiction. It was written in the early19th Century at a time when scientists had just discovered that, if they shocked a frog's leg, it would jump. Shelly made a scientific leap to envision collecting body organs, re-assembling them, and re-antimating them with electricity.
.....................[Spoiler].............................
1984 is also science fiction. It was written in 1948, at the dawn of television, and envisioned a worldwide network of spy cameras watching the populous. And if you'll remember the climax, O'Brien used scientifically applied torture to force Winston Smith to actually see that he had six fingers on one hand, as Smith was mentally disassembled and then reassembled to love Big Brother. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hueij
Isn't Star Wars just cowboys and Injuns in space? |
I believe the original star trek was origially pedalled dsold as a "Wagon train" to the stars series.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
"First anything that does not happen on mother earth is SCI-Fi" |
Many fantasies don't necessarily exist on mother Earth - does that automatically make them Sci-Fi? Me thinks not.
quote:
"second Star Wars could only exist in an alternate reality, and but for that reason alone must be considered Sci-Fi." |
See above.
Btw, are those quoted statements BAMS?
Edit: quote:
Also In F451 I thought centered more on the evils of thought police and the dangers of censorship, Very similar with 1984 in that respect |
.
Yes, but the crucial difference is the fact that they used technological advances to acheive their means.
If 1984 had been written with Winston Smith using spells and dragons to maintain order, then it would've been fantasy. If he had used means known and capable to the people of 1948, then it would've been "plain" fiction. But to get to the world of 1984 Orwell had to extrapolate trends that he saw in 1947/8, and it is this extrapolation that makes 1984 science fiction. It is as much a sf novel as David Brin's Earth, but far, far less self-consciously so.
Btw, I always thought Orwell's thought police had a kind of big flaw. Sure they went and replaced all the copies in the libraries and such (what a tremendous waste of resources and time!), but I don't recall any mention of replacing those copies that people had purchased/received.
Last edited by JohnT on 24-12-2002 at 04:26
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tinyp3nis
|
 |
compensate this!!
May 2002
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
If he had used means known and capable to the people of 1948, then it would've been "plain" fiction. |
Hmmm? If they would make a film about a guy who is a clone, in present day world, wouldn't that be sci-fi (no, not sixth day, it had different type of cloning process, it's not possible yet)? It's quite possible with current tech, but hasn't been done yet (If there are baby clones, they don't count because I mean life of a mature person). Would you consider this fiction or science fiction?
quote:
So, in essence, Star wars,Empire and Return are fantasy because the Force makes thing happen by going "POOF" I.E. "these aren't the droids your looking for."
Episode 1 and 2 are Sci-fi because they use "midichlorians" as the basis of the force.
|
4,5,6 are not sci-fi but 1 and 2 are? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Hmmm? If they would make a film about a guy who is a clone, in present day world, wouldn't that be sci-fi (no, not sixth day, it had different type of cloning process, it's not possible yet)? It's quite possible with current tech, but hasn't been done yet (If there are baby clones, they don't count because I mean life of a mature person). Would you consider this fiction or science fiction?
4,5,6 are not sci-fi but 1 and 2 are? |
By his definition, not mine. 
 ACK!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Btw, I'm wondering what the SF reading habits are of those who argue for/against? I read a LOT of SF, even moderate a SF novel discussion group here in Knoxville. I don't read novelizations and I don't read books based upon movies/games/TV shows. Otoh, I read some truly great science fiction authors (as opposed to creative typists like Timothy Zahn) like Iain Banks, Dan Simmons, Robert Sawyer, and Peter F. Hamilton. |
FWIW, I'm an avid sci-fi fan, and my favorite sci-fi authors are Isaac Asimov and Vernor Vinge. Come to think of it, the Foundation wouldn't fit under your definition of science fiction. Place an extraordinarily brilliant mathematician during the rise of the Roman Empire, and the basic story concept works just fine. I guess that makes the Foundation, not science fiction, but in the same genre as the movie Gladiator. 
quote:
the part of 'fiction' in science fiction does not refer back to the 'science' part, but the the narrative, which is, aftre all, a story that did not happen (hence fiction). Yes, most science fiction, specially older novels, use theories of science now discredited, but those stories that are sci-fi still attempted to explore worlds and human beigns somehow transformed by science, either directly, or by a change in society. {i]Star Wars[/i] never attempts to explain how these characters have been affected by science. |
On, a side note, your example 1984 does not explain how society is affected by science, but technology. Orwell didn't begin to describe the science behind all of the neat examples of technology used in the novel. And Shelley's attempt to do so was simply ludicrous.
quote:
The very fact that Lucas decides to separate thse characters completly from man and history (hence the long long ago, and far far away bit) shows that he did not mean to delve into the effects of science, but use space themses for his myth story. |
Lucas speculates on what happens when you throw space travel, androids, alien societies, etc. together. Granted, this speculation is rather superficial, but it is objectively no less science fiction than any example you can come up with.
quote:
If he had used means known and capable to the people of 1948, then it would've been "plain" fiction. |
Ummm.. he did. The ideas of video cameras and video transmission, etc. were well-known to the people of 1948.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
Hmm. Given the mention of alternate history in another thread, what do people think about an alternate history story which doesn't feature anachronistic technology or aliens or whatever, but merely takes a possibility (what if person X chose to do Y instead of Z, with large consequences.) and explores what the future of that timeline would be (wherein it has enough differences that it can't be the same as our timeline). Would that be sci-fi or not?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
Ramo: "The ideas of video cameras and video transmission, etc. were well-known to the people of 1948."
Hmmm. I don't recall any ability then (or today) to make the past so malleable with mass production and replacement of information, especially material information. It has been quite a while since I've read 1984, so I'm not getting into a pissing contest over details.
Anyway, one could also argue that the science that 1984 extrapolates from is political science, but if I do that, y'all will likely start pelting me with rotten bananas. 
"On a side note, your example 1984 does not explain how society is affected by science, but technology."
Two sides of the same coin, Ramo? Perhaps there needs to be a redefinition of terms, science fiction for fiction dealing with science and technical fiction (tech-fi) for fiction that deals with gadgets.
Nawwwww.
"Come to think of it, the Foundation wouldn't fit under your definition of science fiction. Place an extraordinarily brilliant mathematician during the rise of the Roman Empire, and the basic story concept works just fine. I guess that makes the Foundation, not science fiction, but in the same genre as the movie Gladiator."
Fine: So now we have mathematical fiction as well. Jeez, how many definitions do we need guys? Damned reductionists!! Anyway, see below for more about Foundation.
Edan: "Hmm. Given the mention of alternate history in another thread, what do people think about an alternate history story which doesn't feature anachronistic technology or aliens or whatever, but merely takes a possibility (what if person X chose to do Y instead of Z, with large consequences.) and explores what the future of that timeline would be (wherein it has enough differences that it can't be the same as our timeline). Would that be sci-fi or not?"
Currently in bookstores it is classified as science fiction, but that is because there isn't enough of it being currently produced to warrant it's own shelving. You can probably place alternate histories (AH) in any one of 4 categories:
1. science fiction
2. fantasy
3. historical fiction
4. "plain" fiction
One's immediate impulse is to put it in historical fiction, until you realize it is another name for "Romances." It doesn't really fit science fiction, but it fits fantasy even less so it is currently being marketed as SF. A few AH's get marketed as "plain" fiction, including Kingsley Amis's The Alteration, which is based in an England where Luther made his peace with the Pope. It sounds like a fascinating read:
quote:
The year is 1976 and we are alive in an all-Catholic world. The Reformation never took place because Martin Luther made a deal with Rome and became Pope Martin I. The "alteration" proposed to Hubert Anvil, brilliant 10-year-old boy soprano, is that most feared by all males. Pope John XXIV wishes Hubert to preserve the purity of his voice to glorify the Church on a permanent basis; Hubert wishes to share his talent but he has some disquieting thoughts about Pope John's proposal. |
SF doesn't necessarily have to be about the hard sciences, it can also deal with the social (or "soft") sciences like history, sociology, psychology, economics and etc. AH's and other works including Foundation and The Demolished Man are of this type. If you then want to argue that these subjects really aren't science, well, then, I think we have found our divergence point!
small ****: "Hmmm? If they would make a film about a guy who is a clone, in present day world, wouldn't that be sci-fi (no, not sixth day, it had different type of cloning process, it's not possible yet)? It's quite possible with current tech, but hasn't been done yet (If there are baby clones, they don't count because I mean life of a mature person). "
Define "mature" person. 25? That makes the clone formed around 1975, which would make it science fiction. If the clone is formed today, meaning you have a baby today, then it is still a science fiction novel, but not one based upon the hard science of cloning, but the soft sciences of psychology and sociology.
Tuberski: "So, in essence, Star wars,Empire and Return are fantasy because the Force makes thing happen by going "POOF" I.E. "these aren't the droids your looking for."
Episode 1 and 2 are Sci-fi because they use "midichlorians" as the basis of the force."
 Obviously the midchlorians exist in the first three movies if they existed in the last two, they were just unmentioned.
[off topic]I will argue that the use of the midochloridian (or whatever) hand-waving device detracts greatly from the SW universe by diluting the meaning of the "Force" into nothing more than just another technology. I never thought about this before, but midochlorans essentially turn the Force from a (and I'm going to use SF terms here - it's what I know) universe spanning force that can be accessed by anyone through the continued devotion to pure good or pure evil, to a jackpot ability like ESP in The Demolished Man where some people were born with the ability and developed it, most weren't born with it and could never be an Esper. [/off topic]
Great thread, GePap!!!! 
Last edited by JohnT on 24-12-2002 at 18:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Currently in bookstores it is classified as science fiction, but that is because there isn't enough of it being currently produced to warrant it's own shelving. You can probably place alternate histories (AH) in any one of 4 categories:
1. science fiction
2. fantasy
3. historical fiction
4. "plain" fiction
One's immediate impulse is to put it in historical fiction, until you realize it is another name for "Romances."
|
Well, I think Historical Fiction is a little more inclusive than that - for instance, Steven Saylor's series of books about a detective in ancient Rome would undoutably be considered HF (and indeed the series appears to be well reserched). However, I tend to consider books HF if they could take place in our past (but are obvious fiction), and try to be accurate (author's goofs aside).
quote:
It doesn't really fit science fiction, but it fits fantasy even less so it is currently being marketed as SF.
|
Well, I think it does fit into speculative fiction quite easily (for obvious reasons).
quote:
SF doesn't necessarily have to be about the hard sciences, it can also deal with the social (or "soft") sciences like history, sociology, psychology, economics and etc. AH's and other works including Foundation and The Demolished Man are of this type. If you then want to argue that these subjects really aren't science, well, then, I think we have found our divergence point!
|
Hey, I'm open enough to include social sciences, at least in this context.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
This all reminds me of a discussion on another forum where somebody with a master's in English was insisting that any story or game that involved firearms (of any sort) or 'steamtech' and called itself 'Fantasy' was misusing the term. |
SteamPunk? (or is that merely an alternate-history genre where the "sciences" of jules verne, hg wells, etc, are all true (and expanded on))
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-12-2002 13:19
|