I think the difference is that in sci fi stories they always have a scientific explanation for things. Star Trek is a good example of this. Tricorders, shields, phasers, warp drive, impulse drive, and replicators all have in-universe scientific explanations. They might be made up, but there is no element of magic in any of it.
Star Wars, on the other hand, doesn't really get into those things. Yes, there are technical manuals, but we don't see engineers on the Death Star reversing polarity. And nobody liked it when they tried to have midichlorians be a scientific explanation for The Force.
So I would agree with Mr. Hodgman that Star Wars is, in fact, a fantasy. It's a space fantasy, but it definitely lacks the "science" part of "science fiction."
I have very little to add to the overall discussion regarding SW being fantasy. But I think its important that you bring up the Tricorder as to me that one piece of Treknology DEFINES Trek as a scifi film/tv series and I want to add my completely unsolicited take on it.
Of all the popular science fiction franchises out there you often see the usual components; space ships, FTL travel, sophisticated weaponry of some kind. And usually these elements all get lots of screen time and attention. They have special names, special abilities, rules and constraints. Time is taken to explain these to you either through dialogue or on screen examples. They get nice big close ups either of the prop itself or of the actor using it.
And its true that most scifi I’ve seen has featured some form of handheld sensor data acquisition and display device, but never is it a main stage prop. Its usually just a repainted PDA or UMPC, or failing that just a box with some lights and a screen that some extra waves over something in the background. I can’t think of any show or movie that gives the lowly scanning device as much love as Star Trek. Right from 1969 its been an integral part of Star Trek storytelling. Sure usually just as plot conveyance, but still. It has a name, it has abilities that are reasonably explained. Its a device which has a singular purpose of using technology to demystify the unseen world around us.
I think the Tricorder tells you everything you need to know about the difference between Wars and Trek. Im a bit obsessed with them, tbh.
You're absolutely right about that. The tricorder is hugely important to Trek, and I think there's another reason that makes it the most "sciencey" of sci fi: When someone on Trek sees a weird thing, what's the first thing they do? Scan it with their tricorder. Why? Because they're scientists first, and scientists know not to trust human senses.
in sci fi stories they always have a scientific explanation for things
I think there are two issues with this: it’s not a requirement that sci-fi explain things; and it’s not clear what would qualify an explanation as “scientific”.
I would say, rather, that the implicit set of laws governing a sci-fi world are a superset of those currently understood to govern ours, while in a fantasy world the governing laws contradict those governing ours.
I would say, rather, that the implicit set of laws governing a sci-fi world are a superset of those currently understood to govern ours, while in a fantasy world the governing laws contradict those governing ours.
I like this a lot. It covers really old sci fi like Mary Shelley or Jules Verne, and reinforces the idea that fantasy stories (good ones, anyway) need to also have laws.
Yes, I agree with this. I've thought about this before, and Star Wars doesn't really qualify as "Science Fiction", because we never learn about the science of anything. It's just there - part of the scenery. That's the fantasy aspect; we're not thinking about realism or how things work, we are just fantasizing about a cool futuristic space setting with space magic and swords with blades made of light.
My favorite part of that episode is right after Picard gets there and finds out what's going on. He takes one look at the ghost and is just like "Come on Beverly, we're getting out of here."
Daisy Ridley is far from making the list of things the sequels did poorly. She herself would be on the list of positives. JJ on the other hand…
It’s very sad that she people can’t separate the actors from a story. The actors very rarely have anything to do with the story on screen. The only thing they control is their performance.
I hope she pulls down some big roles that leave a more positive experience for her.
More seasons than TOS, TAS, Enterprise, or Picard.
I didn’t watch the whole show; it didn’t really seam to know what it wanted to be, or how to get there. But I watched waaaay more of Discovery than Picard. Picard was awful, but it doesn’t seem to get as much flak as Discovery.
Picard had the retrospect to notice that fans didn't want new experiments with old figures and then they did their latest season and it was brilliant. The rest of Picard was very decidedly Trek but so awfully slow paced that I can't blame anyone for giving up on it.
Do you not have the belief that you should watch every bit of canon Star Trek that’s available, no matter what? I do. It doesn’t take much time. Now that Picard 3 is out, I’m going to do a fast rewatch of all three seasons and see if I can understand it better, because I sure as hell didn’t the first time through S1 & 2.
I don’t think that there really can be cannon for media projects with this many different leaders at the helm, made so far apart, and without a strong source material. There’s so much media to watch out there that if I don’t like a show, I am not going to watch it just because I liked other shows with a similar naming scheme.
There is also a lot of time travel and “mirror universing” in Trek, so whatever could be considered cannon might not have happened in the same timeline as other events that are also considered cannon.
I’ve seen a lot of these, but not lately. The two standouts for me were absolutely HATING “Runaway” and being rather impressed with “The Quiet Earth”. That one has stuck with me for decades and I’ve only seen it twice. I’m not sure how well any of these will work in current times, but if I was going to recommend any, “The Quiet Earth” would be first on my list. I agree with the praise for “Enemy Mine” and “Starman”. I’d also suggest a double feature of ‘Buckaroo Banzai’ with the unlisted “The Brother from Another Planet” – no idea how that one missed the list. Speaking of which, where’s “Liquid Sky” and/or “Le Dernier Combat”? Maybe those last two aren’t listed because they’re too low-budget/art-school.
Star Wars fans who want good stories and characters: “They just told me you were a shite producer. The fact that you’re a woman never came up.”
Also, remind Kennedy that the first and biggest reason good fans hate her is because she hired a white guy …who’s also shite at his job and fucked up a lot of good things about Star Wars lore.
scifi
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.