Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
I would argue that the science does not even have to be "realistic" to an extent, but it has to at least have the veneer of science to it, and within that veneer have enough depth to remain plausible.
I would argue that the science does not even have to be "realistic" to an extent, but it has to at least have the veneer of science to it, and within that veneer have enough depth to remain plausible.
NO! Science fiction must be real science all the time!!
HARD scifi does
I would argue that the science does not even have to be "realistic" to an extent, but it has to at least have the veneer of science to it, and within that veneer have enough depth to remain plausible.
Agreed! Science fiction writers aren't scientists. They are visionaries of what could be possible in the near distance future. That's not to say, you aren't suppose to use science in it!
To me, what makes good science fiction is how I like other genres. I want to be entertaining, memorable, engaging, captivating, funny, serious, though, not melodramatic, strong plot/story/amazing premise and great actors! It's also has to have a STRONG Science aspect to it. I realize nothing is perfect, and even star trek has a lot of plotholes( TNG having the most :p), as you'll see below :p, but don't treat the audience as if they are stupid!
Agreed! Science fiction writers aren't scientists. They are visionaries of what could be possible in the near distance future. That's not to say, you aren't suppose to use science in it!
The pony express riders would say the same to mobile phones with there sounds and pictures. Before the Ancients ascension they created the gates(advanced form of transport) so why not a advance from of communications? The writers sucked at the job of explaining their new tech, so did trek tos. It was the fans that made the connections to plausible science.
It's not so much that I am disagreeing with you, but trying to show that just because one is used as a central element, and one is used as a Macguffin does not mean that the MacGuffin is any more or less science based. There is no hard science behind any method of FTL communication, no matter what you use it for, or how much or little you use it.
One problem that immediately comes to light is how human memory works according to current medical knowledge. There is a neurological process that does involve physiological changes in the brain. How would this be transferred? How would the transferred consciousness call up memories? Basically, this "tech" requires an understanding of human being as having consciousnesses that are utterly divorced from their bodies - a.k.a. fantasy.
Theme is perfectly acceptable.My point of contention has to do with the science fiction premise, or theme if you will.
Not central, no. Still important however. MacGuffin is a term coined by Alfred Hitchcock, not me I feel I should add as well.MacGuffins as you call them aren't central to the theme, they are just sundry lesser side issues,"window dressing" for want of a better term.
Look back on one definition of scifi. It explores the IMPACT of tech on people. SGU explored that impact, it did it badly, it did it under the lens of the "mundane". Just because we may agree that the execution sucked does not change the fact that it did indeed explore the impact of being billions of light years away. (badly or not)But when something becomes the sustained central focus of a story then that basically becomes the premise, or theme, that the writers are working off of. And as we all know the stones became the central focus for a HUGE chunk of SGU, hence my contention that SGU cannot be classified as genuine science fiction.
Theme is perfectly acceptable.
Not central, no. Still important however. MacGuffin is a term coined by Alfred Hitchcock, not me I feel I should add as well.
Look back on one definition of scifi. It explores the IMPACT of tech on people. SGU explored that impact, it did it badly, it did it under the lens of the "mundane". Just because we may agree that the execution sucked does not change the fact that it did indeed explore the impact of being billions of light years away. (badly or not)
Yes, SGU purported to explore the impact of tech on people. In fact I would say the science fiction theme of the show was initially the effect of Destiny on the humans that come to inhabit her. If it wasn't for Destiny these people wouldn't have been introduced to the brand new vagaries of those galaxies (plural, Destiny being an inter-galactic ship).
But the problem is the writers almost immediately dropped the science fiction premise of using Destiny to explore these never before seen galaxies (and situations) in favor of exploring the mundane elements of melodrama that could have occurred in any other genre setting. That's where the show lost its claim to science fiction.
I never said it was good dude. I say, at best it had great concepts poorly executed, or kicked to the side as you say.
HARD scifi does
Yes, SGU purported to explore the impact of tech on people. In fact I would say the science fiction theme of the show was initially the effect of Destiny on the humans that come to inhabit her. If it wasn't for Destiny these people wouldn't have been introduced to the brand new vagaries of those galaxies (plural, Destiny being an inter-galactic ship).
But the problem is the writers almost immediately dropped the science fiction premise of using Destiny to explore these never before seen galaxies (and situations) in favor of exploring the mundane elements of melodrama that could have occurred in any other genre setting. That's where the show lost its claim to science fiction.
You want to make this complex??Okay, but you would disagree that "soft scifi" that includes fantasy is not scifi but actually fantasy with a scifi veneer?
Sure, I would agree with that.Soft scifi is still going to have to have real science in it. Its how things are presented which makes science fiction what it is. Think of some "soft scifi". I would consider a movie like Cocoon (and its sequel) to be "soft scifi" Or a show like Continuum or Helix. They DO have science as an orienting component in the shows, but they are both mainly interpersonal dramas and the science is a sidenote.
See, Here I would put W-13 in the fantasy equivalent of Space Opera. It has Sci-fi *in it* but the fantasy Elements are more important to the setting (the Artifacts). At the end of the day however, the determination is based on what "skin" it relies on more. SHIELD however I would put into the Scifi category because while it has both magic and Science, the science is more prevalent.They still belong in the Science Fiction sub genre of Scifi Drama. However a show like Agents of SHIELD or Warehouse 13 belongs in the Action/Adventure category even though both have "science" aspects in lots of the episodes.
Sure, it is focussed on the End result "feel good" stuff, while D.I. wants to be more realistic. I don't know however if 3 nukes would have the force to deflect or destroy a asteroid that is capable of creating an extinction level event.Movie like Deep Impact is science fiction, whereas Armageddon (same core premise) is action adventure, not science fiction.
You want to make this complex??
What is "Fantasy"
Space opera like SW is still scifi, it's just "space opera" where the story takes center stage over the Scifi or the Fantasy elements. Flash Gordon the movie fits there as well. Movies like those two are when you have to use the "skin" as your determination because they could easily fit into either "Major Genre".
See, Here I would put W-13 in the fantasy equivalent of Space Opera. It has Sci-fi *in it* but the fantasy Elements are more important to the setting (the Artifacts). At the end of the day however, the determination is based on what "skin" it relies on more. SHIELD however I would put into the Scifi category because while it has both magic and Science, the science is more prevalent.
Action adventure is a funny genre, cause you can have Action adventure in damn near anything. Transformers is Action Adventure, so is Die Hard and Indiana Jones, but would any of us say they are remotely the same for sharing a genre?
Sure, it is focussed on the End result "feel good" stuff, while D.I. wants to be more realistic. I don't know however if 3 nukes would have the force to deflect or destroy a asteroid that is capable of creating an extinction level event.