Fun Stuff > ENJOY
To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
BenRG:
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 17 Nov 2014, 17:54 ---Seriously - if you look at some of the older ST fiction stuff - the "official" stuff that was published by Pocket Books after ST:TMP/ST:TWOK came out - you see some pretty decent sci-fi writing...
--- End quote ---
Yeah, that era has some of my favourite Trek stories, including The Final Reflection, a far better vision of Klingon culture than the canon 'space-Vikings' and Diane Duane's Rihannsu, created with the help of Marc 'Sarek' Lennard, which remains my canon back story for the Romulans.
Thrillho:
--- Quote from: Akima on 17 Nov 2014, 14:04 ---
--- Quote from: Gareth on 17 Nov 2014, 01:08 ---A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.
--- End quote ---
Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.
At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.
--- End quote ---
You're replying to a previous point of mine, though. I agree entirely that a universe should play by its own rules, however soft. Like in Harry Potter magic should always work like magic regardless - not that you cited specific examples of why that makes Star Wars bad sci-fi, but then I don't really much care for Star Wars enough to really mind about that.
My point had moved on not on whether Star Wars was good sci-fi but whether it was sci-fi at all. Based on Garand's earlier definition it isn't, but I don't agree with that definition. Star Wars has futuristic technology, space travel and aliens and shit. By my book that makes it sci-fi. Good sci-fi is a whole other question.
Aziraphale:
--- Quote from: Gareth on 18 Nov 2014, 07:13 ---
--- Quote from: Akima on 17 Nov 2014, 14:04 ---
--- Quote from: Gareth on 17 Nov 2014, 01:08 ---A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.
--- End quote ---
Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.
At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.
--- End quote ---
You're replying to a previous point of mine, though. I agree entirely that a universe should play by its own rules, however soft. Like in Harry Potter magic should always work like magic regardless - not that you cited specific examples of why that makes Star Wars bad sci-fi, but then I don't really much care for Star Wars enough to really mind about that.
My point had moved on not on whether Star Wars was good sci-fi but whether it was sci-fi at all. Based on Garand's earlier definition it isn't, but I don't agree with that definition. Star Wars has futuristic technology, space travel and aliens and shit. By my book that makes it sci-fi. Good sci-fi is a whole other question.
--- End quote ---
I always saw it more as a spaghetti western with spaceships. It's only incidentally -- almost accidentally -- sci fi.
jwhouk:
"Wagon Train to the stars" was how Rodenberry pitched it to NBC.
BenRG:
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 19 Nov 2014, 07:34 ---"Wagon Train to the stars" was how Rodenberry pitched it to NBC.
--- End quote ---
It turned out to be nothing of the kind, although there was a book series in the noughties about the Enterprise-A supporting a colonial expedition - literally a wagon train to the stars. They even had a few local hostile alien species to act as 'Injuns'.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version