There is no such thing as science fiction in movies and TV
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, December 31, 2007 16:00
VIEWED: 6534
PAGE 1 of 1
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure I get your distinction...
what written stories would you call sci-fi,
and why do they lose that distinction when they are filmed?
Or am I really not getting your point at all?
Now this is probably not in keeping w/the topic you started...but there is a huge difference to me in Sci-fi that is set in our world (here on Earth, with the physical laws we accept as fact), and those set on other plants, in other universes where the writer can construct a different set of physical 'laws'....
which is a lot like fantasy worlds, naturally....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:SCIENCE fiction deals with how science is applied to fiction- that is, how realistic physical laws apply to the story...movies and TV seem to abandon the realism of events and processes to tell the story efficiently and succinctly therefore letting us down in the science dept. As Finn and Citizen noted, shortcuts are taken to tell the tales, are we too dull as a mass-entertainment audience to accept the nuances of inertia, time, gravity, power curves, etc., to accept a story ensconced in minutia that is scientifically relevant?
Originally posted by embers:
I'm not sure I get your distinction...
That's all I want to explore here...
Late night Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In responce to a post by someone in my other thread, I would say that movies like 2001, Solaris, Gattica, and Star Trek: TMP, qualify as 'real' science fiction...
If you cheer and jump, it's still just fantasy IMO.
Blue Danube Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
SCIENCE fiction deals with how science is applied to fiction- that is, how realistic physical laws apply to the story...movies and TV seem to abandon the realism of events and processes to tell the story efficiently and succinctly therefore letting us down in the science dept. As Finn and Citizen noted, shortcuts are taken to tell the tales, are we too dull as a mass-entertainment audience to accept the nuances of inertia, time, gravity, power curves, etc., to accept a story ensconced in minutia that is scientifically relevant?
That's all I want to explore here...
Sounds a lot like the novels of Robert Heinlein, who would stop the story and take a chunk, or a chapter, to expound on the theory of politics, or economics, or orbital mechanics, or how his FTL drive worked.
And that's fun.
But you can skip those chunks , and he still tells a good story. Some of 'em, he even tells you to skip. They're not for everybody, and if you made a GOOD movie out of one of his novels, you couldn't include the stuff without putting the audience to sleep, and you wouldn't sell tickets after opening day.
Not that I disagree with you about most supposedly SF movies or TV shows. They're often just futuristic action movies, or fantasy sword and sorcery flicks. ( Hell, one of 'em wasn't much more than a Western set in outer space. It got cancelled real quick , though.... :<) )
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for a relevant and oh-so-cool response NOBC!
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Not that I disagree with you about most supposedly SF movies or TV shows. They're often just futuristic action movies, or fantasy sword and sorcery flicks. ( Hell, one of 'em wasn't much more than a Western set in outer space. It got canceled real quick , though.... :<) )
Science-in-the-fiction Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Sounds a lot like the novels of Robert Heinlein, who would stop the story and take a chunk, or a chapter, to expound on the theory of politics, or economics, or orbital mechanics, or how his FTL drive worked.
:<) )
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.
Heinlein does stop and explain a lot of things. However, I don't believe that in say, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, he really wants us to think deeply about cannons that shoot re-entry vehicles into Earth's atmosphere. Instead, the focus is an anarchistic map to social change. When you take it out of the context of the time in which he lived and place it in the future, it allows him to examine his subjects more clearly, unclouded by our own prejudices about real commerce, oppression and rebellion. Science is the trapping. Speculation is the core.
Films have a distinct advantage in that they show the things working. They don't always have to explain, because presto, there it is. How does the spaceship work? Well, there's the engine, it lights up and the ship moves. See? Done.
That said, I believe that there are better and worse speculations on human nature in film. Ingmar Bergman's Shame is a great work of speculation. Twelve Monkeys is a fun look at our relationship to memory, these still moments in time which we see different aspects of as we move through our lives. Gattica, as mentioned, speculates well. 2001. Solaris (both the Russian and American versions for different reasons).
So, I guess I weigh in as believing that there are good movies and books that contain great ideas that make me think about things. Then there are both movies and books that make my brain shut off and let me escape mundane reality for a while. I'm not really concerned that either contains a certain quota of scientific information.
Although I wish there were more intelligent movies and television shows. Doesn't everyone?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow- I love this response!!!! Are you a Nexus 6???
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Although I wish there were more intelligent movies and television shows. Doesn't everyone?
Deckardisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
After watching the director's cut of Blade Runner, I don't think any of us can be sure that we're NOT a Nexus 6.
(And, just to be a pain, Blade Runner, to the best of my recollection never gives us a lengthy explanation about the Nexus series. Are they clones or a robots? Would the explanation make us think more or less about the movie? Hmmmm...)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The point of the movie, F.
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
After watching the director's cut of Blade Runner, I don't think any of us can be sure that we're NOT a Nexus 6.
NexusChrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The point of the movie, F.
Which makes you wonder how we ever suffered through the stock footage and voice over original ending. No matter what the debate on science fiction, I believe we can all agree that studios do stupid things.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Are you trying to say that Alien and 2001 are just horror flicks?
Do you consider Philip K Dick a sci fi writer? then when his works are made into film, they are not SciFi? Do you consider Total Recall to be scifi? Terminator?
I'll go with Narnia, Compass, LOTR, Harry Potter, Conan (and most other comic-based), dragons (except Reighn Of Fire) being fantasy.
But how else do you divide between fantasy and fiction?
The best horror flick of the cinema are all based one one guy, one original story, Ed Gein. (psycho, Texas chainsaw massacre, hitcher, halloween, etc) I don't see those the same as Pitch Black, Alien, Terminator, Star Wars, Firefly, Star Trek..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We part ways here. I pray for your immortal soul.
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Which makes you wonder how we ever suffered through the stock footage and voice over original ending.
SushiChrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Which makes you wonder how we ever suffered through the stock footage and voice over original ending.
We part ways here. I pray for your immortal soul.
SushiChrisisall
Wait, you liked the original ending? With the footage from the beginning of The Shining and where everyone lives happily ever after? Actually, you're right, that might be a pretty good ending. I guess I'm old and cynical.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm with Fellowknee that what we call science fiction is generally not about about pure science as much as using impossible settings to speculate on other issues. Human issues, mostly social ones. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a great example!
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?
Thing is, for science types like me (and I'm guessing like Chris) I lose suspension of disbelief is the writer uses science poorly. I mean, if you're gonna to use space travel to set up the multi-world society you need for your story, have some respect for it! Do a little research, and at least try to make it feasible. Few recent sci-fi shows take the time to do this.
As for why the written word lends itself better to hard sci-fi... maybe the dorks who understand hard physics and such can write books, but don't get spots directing movies real often.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As an example... I'm trying to remember a book... can't recall title or author, but someone else here might. It had some hard science and a fun take on politics that went something like this:
In a near-future alternate reality of our world, the superconducting super collider has been built in Texas, but somehow the smashing of super hot sub-particles calls the attention of horrible critters in some other universe, who tunnel in and eat the world.
So... our intrepid particle physicist manages to escape through another tunnel, to go back in time to our REAL reality with the express intent of getting Bush Sr and Dan Quayle in office so they'll kill the SCSC and save the world.
Brilliant. Make a movie out of that LOL!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:SCIENCE fiction deals with how science is applied to fiction- that is, how realistic physical laws apply to the story...movies and TV seem to abandon the realism of events and processes to tell the story efficiently and succinctly therefore letting us down in the science dept. As Finn and Citizen noted, shortcuts are taken to tell the tales, are we too dull as a mass-entertainment audience to accept the nuances of inertia, time, gravity, power curves, etc., to accept a story ensconced in minutia that is scientifically relevant?
Originally posted by embers:
I'm not sure I get your distinction...
That's all I want to explore here...
Actually, I'd challenge your definition.
The sort of sci-fi you envision, one that really explores the application of hard science (e.g. no FTL) to the world of fiction would be unimaginably dull. That's because, no offense, hard science is not all that interesting, from a narrative standpoint.
I've always maintained that truly great science fiction takes regular human drama and places it in fantastic settings such that it is fresh and different. Firefly is, of course, a great example of this. Trying to eek out a living...in space. The setting gives us a different perspective on what is, in the end, a very old story.
By the by, I've never really understood the insistence on slavishness about scientific accuracy. I always figured that if you wanted a good story, you'd read a story and overlook the not-technically-possible aspects of it, and if you wanted complete devotion to scientific accuracy, you'd read a physics textbook. If that's what you're interested in, more power to ya. But me, I like good stories.
Edited to add: I don't think it's that we're "too dull" to accept a story "ensconced in [ scientific ] minutiae." I think it's that the best stories, and the ones we like the best are about people, not about science. Sci-fi, on my view (and fantasy, too, probably), allows you to tell really interesting human stories that the "real" world otherwise wouldn't. It's not that we're too dull for minutiae. It's that we don't give a damn, because it (mostly) doesn't help tell an interesting story.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You SO don't understand what yer talking about here.
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Wait, you liked the original ending? With the footage from the beginning of The Shining and where everyone lives happily ever after?
Time to die Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Y'know, I also have a problem with movies set way in the past where peeps have pearly white teeth..or movies where regular folk take punisment in stride that would KILL an Olympic athlete...colour me obsessed that way.
Originally posted by Causal:
By the by, I've never really understood the insistence on slavishness about scientific accuracy.
Detailed Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Y'know, I also have a problem with movies set way in the past where peeps have pearly white teeth..or movies where regular folk take punisment in stride that would KILL an Olympic athlete...colour me obsessed that way.
Originally posted by Causal:
By the by, I've never really understood the insistence on slavishness about scientific accuracy.
It must be a real drag going to the movies with you!
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
In responce to a post by someone in my other thread, I would say that movies like 2001, Solaris, Gattica, and Star Trek: TMP, qualify as 'real' science fiction...
If you cheer and jump, it's still just fantasy IMO.
Blue Danube Chrisisall
2001 qualifies as REAL Sci-fi?! And what doesn't....
Blade Runner
Brazil
?
I guess I'm coming to the discussion late...
was this from the Matrix thread, or something I missed?
I'm just trying to get the hang of what qualifies as SCIENCE under your definition and because it all seems fairly fantastical to me....
and too restrictive, when ultimately the physical plane of existence is an illusion and all that really exists are energy particals.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay- let's analyze...example: Mission Impossible 2- I like the film, but recognize that it's pure popcorn nonsense. Imagine for a moment, Mal pulling a back-flip-kick-in-the-face on the Operative like Cruise did to that guard in MI2...tell me it wouldn't have just destroyed the drama of their physical conflict on the spot.
Originally posted by Causal:
It must be a real drag going to the movies with you!
Little things like gravity mean so much to me Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
But how else do you divide between fantasy and fiction?
Just to throw this in, I see sci-fi with the bits that don't exist in the real world being explained by "technology". Like, Firefly, Star Trek, The Matrix, those are all based on the tech avalible in the 'verse that they're set in.
Fantasy has several different characteristics. It can be fantasy because of magic, like Harry Potter. It can be fantasy because of special powers, like The Fantastic Four. It can be fantasy because of, say, vampires, faerys, demons, yada living in the real world.
Both fantasy and sci-fi can have altranate dimensions, but how you get to said dimension is how you distinguish if the story is sci-fi of fantasy.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Y'know, I also have a problem with movies set way in the past where peeps have pearly white teeth..or movies where regular folk take punisment in stride that would KILL an Olympic athlete...colour me obsessed that way.
Originally posted by Causal:
By the by, I've never really understood the insistence on slavishness about scientific accuracy.
That makes perfect sense to me- I also get bugged about that sort of thing. I don't really ask to have an explanation of how to build a spaceship, I just want to have some right-sounding theory. Like in the Ender's Game series, how do we get these gravity machines? We stole them from the Buggers, we don't understand how they work, we just copy them.
@)~*~*~*$)~*~*~*)~(*~*~*~($*~*~*~(@
This feature of this sig will be temporarily off-line untill fixed.
#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#
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
Quote:Em, I'm gonna get all RWED on your a*s in a second if you keep that tone up!
Originally posted by embers:
2001 qualifies as REAL Sci-fi?! And what doesn't....
Blade Runner
?
*smirks*
Just kidding Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Em, I'm gonna get all RWED on your a*s in a second if you keep that tone up!
*smirks*
Just kidding Chrisisall
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here....
oh wait, I totally am! LOL
above you said
Quote:
Little things like gravity mean so much to me Chrisisall
which is very much to the point...
because I am starting to think that that is your whole point?
So in Out of Gas is must have just driven you crazy that the gravity didn't go out on Serenity, huh?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm less a fan of scientific accuracy than I am of consistency.
Think of Mystery books/films/shows. It's an important element of the genre that any clues the detective uses to solve the case must be presented to the audience. Part of the fun is being able to follow along and solve the case along with the sleuth. Sure, you could do an episode of NCIS that focuses entirely on DiNozzo's personal life, but it wouldn't work as a mystery (for that one episode, NCIS would become a drama [or a sophomoric comedy, given DiNozzo]).
I hate shows where I'm expected to just "turn off my brain and enjoy the ride." I like being able to follow along with the characters and the plot. It makes it more engaging.
That's one of the reasons I like Star Trek. Sure, the "science" is all handwaved technobabble, but it's internally consistent. If a warp drive works a certain way in TNG, then I know it'll work the same way in Voyager. When Geordi talks about bypassing the EPS distribution system to feed more power from the M/ARC into the field coils, I know what it means (he's causing shipboard brownouts and risking blowing the warp coils, or the warp manifolds, or both [which would cause flowback to rupture the main plasma conduits, which might set off the core itself and make ship go boom]).
The general concensus in showbiz is that one can either make a scientifically accurate documentary or an emotionally-engaging story, but not both. Science must, therefore, take a back seat to storytelling. It's also a factor that entertainment is made for the lowest common denominator. The people who don't know temporal mechanics from the temp who works at the garage, think silicon-based life is Pam Anderson's boobs, and wouldn't recognize Lisi's unified field theory if it started calculating nonlinear E-8 equations on their collective backside.
The argument is that they don't care about science, so neither should the storytellers. Trouble is that when storytellers do try to pay attention to science, they usually end up saying "hey, look at me being all scientifically-accurate!" That makes stupid people feel stupid, so the producers say "don't."
My argument is that, if most of the audience doesn't care about science, then it shouldn't matter if the science is good. It certainly won't hurt them, as long as we remember that the focus should always be on the characters and the plot, not the foundations and window dressing.
I think it's more fun, both as a writer and as an audience member, to have that clearly-defined set of rules that lets me follow what the characters are doing. It doesn't necessarily need to be explained(*), just so long as it does make sense.
This might be why I'm such a fan of supplemental material (like RPGs, web-content, and tie-in novels) --they allow all that stuff to be explained without tying up screentime.
(* That's my problem with a lot of cyberpunk --let's break this pulse-pounding chase sequence to explain how cybernetic muscular enhancements work, how they've altered cultural mores and regulations involving athletics and medicine, and how our characters are tracking each other through a hyper-reality "head's up display" digitally overlayed onto their retinas. Okay, done? Back to the chase sequence three chapters later.)
I mean, dramatic, exciting events happen in real life, which most certainly does have a rigid set of scientific laws (some of which we don't quite understand, but they exist nonetheless --they have to). There's no reason why they should be thrown out in order for a story to be "dramatic."
If I have a story in New York, I won't have someone walk from the Statue of Liberty to the Empire State Building. I doesn't mean I need to explain that there's water in the way, the ferry schedule, the city layout, its history, the significance of Lady Libby and the Empire State, or the effect of 9/11 on inner-city travel. It just means that time will pass between scenes, and my character will be spotted getting ou
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Great post, cybersnark. I was right with you... until I got to this point LOL! Really, I agree that the characters and plot are the main focus of entertaining stories, and consistency is key. You covered that well.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Someone once asked Alfred Hitchcock why he didn't make Westerns. His answer was to admit that he had no idea what a good hat cost in the old west. Without that kind of attention to detail, a film ceases to be a work of art and becomes simple product.
But if a detail like the cost of a hat is so very important, how about science-y details? I'm just saying, a true work of sci-fi art will marry the pseudo-science and the character/plot/theme, and not just use the funky setting as an excuse for big CGI.
Taking the time to put the characters and plot into a scientifically feasible setting without the three pages of cyberpunk explanation (*yawn*) is where the art comes into it. It can be done without being heavy-handed or intellectually condescending. Just takes thought and creativity. Well... and the writer has to care. There's no rule that says the writer has to give a fig about feasibility. Put in a good space ship chase and a few explosions and the holes in the plot go away!
Seems lost of writers go for that method these days...-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would say each of us may define science fiction as we understand it. There was a time I would go to a book store and there would be a fantasy section and a science fiction section, now when I go to buy a book I see the two combined. The book stores don't bother exploring the difference. Of course there is also the science fiction that has plausable science in it, like simple space flight, to make it a possible future and then there is science fiction that has science that is still pure theory, like time travel, and may prove impossible or never be proved.
So I leave it up to the reader.
If anyone has read Felicity Savages's works like "Humility Garden" and "Delta City" they may place them in either fantasy or science fiction.
It may be that our Universe is created to have all possibilities. There may not be any limits. I'm still scratching my head at String Theory. Have not got a grasp of that one and probably never will.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe that the ships are designed with exotic matter in the lowest hull, providing the 'pull' of Earth-norm gravity without need of a power source. At least, that's my fanboy way of circumventing any annoyance with it. I love our BDH's way too much to let a little science flub stand in the way...
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?
Flexible Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
actually I don't think of it so much as a flub, as a lack of budget...
getting rid of gravity is REALLY expensive!
so we can make up our own excuses (I asked one of the Zoic team and he said that he liked to think at Mal had some magnetic boots on or maybe the artificial gravity some how lasts for a few hours after the power goes out or or or....).
It is easy to excuse the bad Science on the shows we love,
we are ready and willing to come up with theories
(in fact we LOVE thinking up theories)
But when we don't love the show, we are ready to use as the reason for rejecting what is really just a lousy story.
Or that is my theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 sNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
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
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic: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.
Gravity, strange as it sounds, almost seems like a trivial matter in the 'Verse. Could be as simple as electrically fueled gravity mats sewn into the hull, or some such. Well, whatever causes gravity to exert itself, little energy for it seems required. At least I think we can be pretty much certain gravity is not generated by some sort of spinning ring, or a huge, artificially created mass with astroniomically high power needs. There's still electrical power on the boat, so, within the assumption that artificial gravity is a pretty 'low-key' function in their day, I see no reason why gravity would have to fail.
Life-support, however, is a different matter. Like the man said,
"Engine don't turn, life support won't function, we don't breathe."
Well, it wouldn't necessarily be my design, lol, but on cheaper model ship it makes sense to connect any kind of venting system directly to the rotation of the engine (like is often done in cars). This design, of course, like life-support, is based on the assumption that the wheel never stops turning. :) Which is why I would design it a mite different my own self (like I would run it probably off a separate generator). But way it is is the way it is: catalyzer's broke, and they're up shit-creek without air.
--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by asarian:
Life-support, however, is a different matter. Like the man said,
"Engine don't turn, life support won't function, we don't breathe."
Well, it wouldn't necessarily be my design, lol, but on cheaper model ship it makes sense to connect any kind of venting system directly to the rotation of the engine (like is often done in cars). This design, of course, like life-support, is based on the assumption that the wheel never stops turning. :) Which is why I would design it a mite different my own self (like I would run it probably off a separate generator). But way it is is the way it is: catalyzer's broke, and they're up shit-creek without air.
I don't think the design was quite as nearsighted as you make out.
There was, apparently, a back up life support system meant to ensure they would breathe even if the engine didn't turn. The fact that it wasn't an explosion proof back up life support system, and would appear to have been harder to fix than the engine itself (since Kaylee wrote it off well before she determined the engine couldn't be fixed) doesn't make it an ideal back up, but it did exist.
The implication is that whoever designed the Firefly class vessel recognized that the engine might not always turn and did set up life support on a separate generator, just in case. They just didn't do it with main life support, but they did do it.
[Edited and Added:] It seems that the more sleep I miss the less correct and more phonetic my spelling becomes. I apologize if I've left any such mistakes in as I know some people here hate it when people use a homophone instead of the correct spelling.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I always thought it goofy that Joss is writing a scifi verse with things that do not yet exist, but considers mind-reading, psychics, precognition to be "fantasy" although already proven in our current time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
There was, apparently, a back up life support system meant to ensure they would breathe even if the engine didn't turn. The fact that it wasn't an explosion proof back up life support system, and would appear to have been harder to fix than the engine itself (since Kaylee wrote it off well before she determined the engine couldn't be fixed) doesn't make it an ideal back up, but it did exist.
The implication is that whoever designed the Firefly class vessel recognized that the engine might not always turn and did set up life support on a separate generator, just in case. They just didn't do it with main life support, but they did do it.
Well, Mal does mention having the auxilliary life-support system, but Kaylee says: "No. We don't. It ain't even on. Explosion musta knocked it out." So I guess you're right. :)
--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh yeah - I just saw that article in Science magazine...
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
I always thought it goofy that Joss is writing a scifi verse with things that do not yet exist, but considers mind-reading, psychics, precognition to be "fantasy" although already proven in our current time.
*scratches head*
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME