General Discussions

There is no such thing as science fiction in movies and TV

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, December 31, 2007 16:00
VIEWED: 6518
PAGE 4 of 5

Saturday, December 29, 2007 4:12 PM

Power never went completely out in OoG (that we saw, anyway). There were still emergency lights and monitors showing static. It'd make sense that artigrav is designed to be the absolute last thing to die ('cause having gravity would make it easier to repair just about anything else).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:00 PM

I think I see what you're getting at Chris, and if I do, then I agree.

Novels are much more detailed in actual 'workings' of whatever is involved, whereas in movies and TV those things are, at best, used only as a moment of anxiety, i.e. the catalyser in OoG.

And, sadly, I think you're right. We're in too much of hurry to want a longer film that might be more entertaining. Me, personally? I would willing have set through four hours of Serenity, without a worry. But most aren't that way.

If I'm wrong about what you had in mind, then. . . well, I'm just wrong, ain't I

Bad_karma

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I pose the idea that true science fiction remains in the purview of the written word, and that that which we call SF in movies and TV is merely fantasy, or at best, 'speculative fiction'.

Any takers?

Finninspiredthistopicisall




Pheew!

Wouldn't really know what the definitve sci-fi rules and lores are. Also I'm not sure i'd want them (should they exsist) adhered to so rigidly either. Part of what I like about the sci-fi genre (as I understand it) is that it follows a current, usually, scientific trend and then propelles it, specutalively, to where it may possibly go. Within that, the fears and ethics of modern day thinking are juxtaposed with the narrative to put you as a viewer into a position of thinking. Now sometimes those narratives can be cerebral and astute, such as THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN and sometimes they can be losely held together with science to take the audience on a good fun yarn; THE ISLAND though holding little scientific credibility. Both I enjoy. Now are you saying they not be sci-fi? And why not?

I personally have a soft spot for 50's sci-fi. How true to the genre it is I do not know, as I am not an avid reader of sci-fi, in fact I find sci-fi very hard to engage with when I'm reading it. However one thing I wanted to establish is to what extent you regard science as 'science fact'. Because science regularly evolves and re-thinks itself. And presently we are in an age of science where theories are actually undertaken under science-fiction in order to establish science fact... Anyway that aside you may have a point that much sci-fi in film, is just glossed action, and that sci-fi, true sci-fi, can never leave the page... Maybe.

So long as no-one goes making sci-fi musicals I'm good!



NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 9:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Hmmmm...seems to me like you fellows are making up a genre. From my halcyon days of youth I seem to remember that Science Fiction or Sci-Fi is the pejorative description. Most writers preferred speculative fiction, which seems like a better description as the focus (even in Asimov and Clark) isn't really on science which would make these novels into extended Scientific American articles, but in exploring humanity either in the future, following some current trend in human development, or in contact with something new and different, or as an allegory for some aspect of humanity. This speculation on human society makes them into stories.



"The years no doubt have changed me" says SF and fantasy. :P They are not making these terms up, they're just using more current usages of them.

I grew up loving and watching and reading all branches of SF and fantasy, in fact, I also happened to grow up during the '90s, which, despite how much they're maligned for youthful slacking and shallowness, were more experimental and more willing to try new things than people give them credit for (up until 1999, at least...). I also currently hang out in an SF group or two online, and actually keep up with developments and terminology (for instance, Firefly/Serenity is a relatively Naturalistic-style Space Western, while The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr was an anachronism-happy Science Fiction Western with a lot of Steampunk elements... just to name a couple examples of the often bizarrely obscure terms I know).

THIS is how the terms break down NOW, including the best explanations I can come up with:

Science Fiction, often abbreviated to SF - no longer pejorative in the US (though apparently it's still got a stigma in parts of Europe, such as France), but still not as cool as "Fantasy", except when a show really is a fantasy but wants to pretend it's not severely twisting its science around (like Heroes does with genetics and evolution :P). It's either all fiction that speculates on changes to what we know as reality (including Alternate History), or all fiction that is based off of speculative uses of science, depending on who you ask. Some people prefer to consider it "true" Science Fiction only if it lacks Fantasy elements, i.e. is truly "Hard" Science Fiction (see below). Some people in fandom still feel it has too many stigmas attached to it, though, and thus prefer to use...

Speculative Fiction - depending on who you ask, this is either a term that covers all fiction that speculates on differences in reality (Fantasy, Alternate History, all variations of Science Fiction, Magical Realism, etc.), OR an alternate and less-stigmatized term for Science Fiction, OR... a really pretentious term that only snobs use, and then only because they don't actually want to come out and say that they write Science Fiction and/or Fantasy. Some of the older members of fandom use it to avoid older stigmas with the term Science Fiction that existed at the time of this term's creation, while younger members are more likely to either use it as (an admittedly more useful) umbrella term, or to not use it at all because it sounds too snobby. As I recall, both Phillip Pullman and Robert Heinlein prefer or preferred this term, but Asimov actually really disliked it, and preferred the more straightforward term Science Fiction to describe most of his work.

Sci-Fi,Sci-fi, or SciFi - the Unwashed Masses(TM) don't always realize this, but this somewhat diminutive shorthand for Science Fiction is not only the kind of thing that will annoy countless other fans at any given SF con, but is also often mocked, in the form of pronouncing it "Skiffy" (which I've always thought was silly an immature, but oh well). I believe the term was coined by Fred Pohl, in a mirroring of "Hi-Fi", but it sounded so goofy that most serious fans ended up avoiding it like the plague. There's two general perceptions of this term in the parts of fandom that care about this kind of thing: 1.) No real SF fan should EVE

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:04 PM

I got Serenity Found (the latest book of essays edited by Jane Espenson) for Christmas, and started reading it last night.... and the very first essay is exactly on this topic!

Orson Scott Card's essay wouldn't even dignify most of TV and movie Sci-fi as speculative, so much as poorly written and just for the masses (people who don't really read or care about REAL Sci-fi)....
Have you read it?
I encourage you to just pick up the book (ie you can read it in the store, you don't have to buy!) and read that first essay if you haven't because I think you'll find a kindred spirit there....

Of course when I read the second essay I'll probably want to share that one too!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:56 PM

Thanks Emmazule. That was a really informative piece of writing. Although the fact that I fit into the old speculative fiction generation has suddenly made me feel ancient....Maybe I should buy a red sports car! Yeah that would make me feel better.
Thanks again

Fellowknee

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I pose the idea that true science fiction remains in the purview of the written word, and that that which we call SF in movies and TV is merely fantasy, or at best, 'speculative fiction'.

Any takers?

Finninspiredthistopicisall




Speculative Fiction is any fiction where the reality of the story is originated from an author's mind, so that is science fiction among many other genres.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:53 PM

Here is little Christmas story I wrote a couple years ago for the Speculative Fiction Writers Club I belong to. Snugglebunny and Swyzzlestyx are two pen names I use.

Quote:

A Christmas Story on Planet X
By Snugglebunny Claus

For a good part of the Twentieth Century, it was commonly believed that there were nine planetary bodies, one asteroid belt, and two comet belts that orbited the star called Sol. The names of these bodies were as follows; Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, the Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, the Kuiper belt, Pluto, and the Oort cloud. Early in the Twenty-First Century, a new planetary body was found. That new planetary body, named Sedna, exhibited some unusual characteristics which required further explanation. A hasty mission was implemented naming the target, Planet X.


Commander Buck Dodgers prepared to land his interplanetary skiff onto the newly discovered planetoid that orbited near the Oort cloud. Buck suspected that he was given this mission as a joke, due to his name, because it wasn’t his turn to fly an interplanetary jump. The Scientists at headquarters insisted that the pilot whom was supposed to fly this mission was ill, and couldn’t make it. Buck reasoned with them that he wasn’t the next in rotation, but they countered with a response that was un-arguable, even if he didn’t want to fly this mission. They said that the small rotation of pilots at their disposal, were either preparing for other scheduled missions, or recovering from those that were completed too recently, and their health couldn’t be risked. They promised Buck that this mission won’t have any adverse affects on his rotation, so in layman’s terms he was getting an extra flight this year for free. The truth is that Buck loved these missions so much; that if someone was getting a laugh back home, it didn’t really matter to him.

The main reason for Buck’s certainty of this joke is that his entire stay in the academy was peppered with either Duck Dodgers’ the cartoon, or Buck Rogers’s the fictional hero jokes. Not only from his fellow classmates, but also from the cadre, the scientists, and the people at command. Buck had to grin and bare it, but secretly he often cursed his Mom and Dad for saddling him with this name. Heck, Dodgers wasn’t even his family’s traditional last name, it was Smith from back East, but when his father moved to Los Angeles he changed it to Dodgers so he could assume a western identity. Another reason for Buck’s certainty of this joke was his pronounced speech impediment. Well, Buck reasoned with himself, “They may be getting a laugh back home, but I am the one getting to fly this mission and nothing can be more pleasant than that.” Buck had the landing gears lowered, and his retro rockets were automatically firing to make a smooth landing, but then he noticed something odd. Buck’s skiff was using an inordinate amount of fuel for this landing. This puzzled Buck, but right now he had other things to worry about. These landings were all pre-programmed to be automatic, but Buck had witnessed what happens to pilots whom assume they will be, and drop their guard. Buck wasn’t going to let that happen here, so even though his skiff was performing flawlessly, he remained attentive just in case.

Buck’s skiff did land perfectly on the small, cold and dark planetoid, that was named Planet X for this mission, but the amount of fuel it burned to do so, was alarming. Buck made some calculations regarding the amount of fuel burnt, and according to them he just made a landing on a planet with a gravitational pull of one, which was impossible for a planetoid this small with so little mass, but the fact was he burnt the fuel. Buck made some other calculations in his head using a gravitational pull of one for the launch, and as long as nothing else went wrong, he should be able to do it, but his little trip to Pluto on the way back was off. Buck then began to prepare the quantum communications system to tell the people back home the news. While preparing the communications s

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:03 AM

I'd just like to say that even if you have some sci-fi elements in a fantasy novel, it's still fantasy, and should be counted as such.

And I think that a lot of people here are getting carried away with labels. There's no point to having millions of different labels, just a few major subgroupings actually describing the book. For example, the system I use:

Fiction
_____Fantasy
________Urban Fantasy
________Medieval fantasy
________Fururistic fantasy
________Altranate dimension fantasy
_____Science fiction (Sci-fi)
________Futuristic sci-fi
__________Involving aliens
__________Not involving aliens
________Altranate dimension sci-fi
_____Realistic fiction
_____Altranate History
________Ancient
________Medieval
________Relitively recent

Isn't that simple, and not having to involve a lot of debate? I'm sorry, but I hate people having large, complex debates over issues that can be put in a few simple words. Call me simple-minded, but that's the way I am.

Edit: Added the lines, cause the tab button didn't work and when I tried spaces, when posted it didn't show the spaces


@)~*~*~*$)~*~*~*)~(*~*~*~($*~*~*~(@
http://fans4writers.com/ support the WGA writers strike!
#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#
My favorite quotes:

\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by embers:
So in Out of Gas is must have just driven you crazy that the gravity didn't go out on Serenity, huh?


I know it's already been pointed out, but would somebody somewhere explain to me why the gravity not going out is any more problematic than the the fact the lights didn't go out? They were without an engine and without life support. To our knowledge neither of those things is in any way related to the gravity so there is no logical reason I can think of to believe that that the gravity should have gone out. In spite of that many if not most here seem to think the gravity should have gone out.

So, going on the assumption the rest of you are not irrational, there must be a rational reason I have not thought of which would mean that the failure of things apparently unrelated gravity would cause gravity to fail. What is this reason?

-

Anyway, I know I'm a bit late to the conversation, but as it was taught to me sci fi is anything that either:
1 Can happen based on our current understanding of the laws of physics (or more accurately was believed to be physically possible at the time the sci-fi thing was made.)
2 Can be passed off as if it is possible under our current understanding of the laws of physics or under a reasonable modification of said laws.

No spaceships needed, no explanations needed (long or otherwise), though they can help if the fiction is trying to force things on you that are clearly fantasy (like the impossibility transporters being covered via a Heisenberg Compensator.) Of course this defintion covers much of contemporary fiction and historical fiction but at least the contemporary part can be ruled out by saying sci-fi is fiction set in a world not our own such that it obeys the above restrictions.

When I was taught that defintion I was also taught that Fantasy is something set in a world that neither follows the laws of physics as we know them, nor is it made to appear to follow the laws of physics as we know them (usually due to magic.)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME