Fun Stuff > ENJOY
To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Thrillho:
--- Quote from: Aziraphale on 18 Nov 2014, 10:47 ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
That doesn't stop it from being sci fi. The Dark Knight is only incidentally a superhero movie.
Edguy:
Rejoice, Orci is no longer directing Star Trek 3. Alas, they are most likely still using his script.
EDIT; a replacement has been found; Lustin Lin, aka the guy who did the majority of the Fast & Furious films.
Edguy:
--- Quote from: Gareth on 24 Nov 2014, 01:23 ---The Dark Knight is only incidentally a superhero movie.
--- End quote ---
I've always said that "superhero movie" isn't a genre, and even if it was, Nolan's Batman movies wouldn't fall under it. It's like grouping Pirates of the Caribbean with The New World (the Terrence Mallick film) just because they both are about people people sailing around a few hundred years back in time.
BenRG:
--- Quote from: Edguy on 05 Dec 2014, 17:58 ---EDIT; a replacement has been found; Lustin Lin, aka the guy who did the majority of the Fast & Furious films.
--- End quote ---
This pedigree tells you essentially you need to know about Not!Star Trek 3. I would now need an absolutely fantastic review to inspire me to see it.
jwhouk:
Does this mean Vin Diesel is going to play a Romulan renegade with a souped up Bird of Prey?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version