I posted the literal definition.
This:
"In other words, the fact that the setting is an interstellar spaceship means genre = science fiction."
...is not true.
Star Trek 3 to be like TV series
- Thread starter shavedape
- Start date
I posted the literal definition.
This:
"In other words, the fact that the setting is an interstellar spaceship means genre = science fiction."
...is not true.
Where did you get that re-defined definition? It is very detailed but unclear. The best part of that definition is: "It usually eschews the supernatural, and unlike the related genre of fantasy, its imaginary elements are largely plausible within the scientifically established context of the story." The definition I used came from here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science fiction
Full Definition of SCIENCE FICTION
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component
We have had this debate about what science fiction is right here: http://www.gatefans.net/gforums/threads/what-do-you-consider-good-science-fiction.27341/
Science fiction writers along with scientists are groaning at what passes for "science fiction" today.
Last edited:
Literature textbooks are not language dictionaries.
. Brad Wright thought he would be given license to write interpersonal drama and then place the characters on a spaceship billions of light years away AND still call it Stargate. But neither Brad or Cooper said they were writing a science fiction series with SGU. It wasn't until the shitstorm started that they tried to slather some scifi sauce on it (season 2) to get some of the viewers back. It didnt work.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
As OM1 pointed out you're contradicting yourself here. In one post you claim this:
"...the fact that the setting is an interstellar spaceship means genre = science fiction"
but then in a later post you go on to say that SGU, Star Wars and NuTrek are "fantasy" despite all of them meeting your criteria for science fiction. What gives?
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
Ummm
Can you make up your mind please.
There's no dichotomy here, no contradiction. OM1 is saying that interstellar spaceships are a science fiction device. That doesn't automatically make the story that they appear in science fiction in toto; especially if the spaceships in question are used as props and/or window dressing.
What makes a story science fiction is the over-arching theme. For instance, the theme for Star Trek TOS could be described as "the effects and ramifications of warp drive on the human race". The episodes for the show by and large showcased how humans were exposed to unknown situations and alien characters due to use of warp drive, i.e. due to the use of a fictional science-based device.
Contrast this to SGU where they could have used the theme of "the effects of an advanced alien-built device (Destiny) on the humans who discovered it" but they didn't go that route. The writers decided instead to make interpersonal melodrama (and inanity, and banality) the central theme of the show. Destiny literally became window dressing for the inane story lines that played out on it.
And therein lies the difference.
No contradiction there. If you just open your story with people on a spaceship, the default assumption would be that they got there because their species built the ship using technology and flew it into space after their technology reached that point. It's purpose would default to being either a exploratory scientific mission or a military mission (just like we do it today).Ummm
Can you make up your mind please.
But that is not the premise of SGU or Ascencion. There is a spaceship, but the way it came to be and the way the crew got there and ESPECIALLY the mission changes the premise completely. No technology (even imagined) can do things in real time across that distance because the laws of physics (even theoretical physics) prevents it. The whole 9th chevron thing is ridiculously over the top.
I still recall your notion that the communications stones in SGU should "get a pass" as technology.
I maintain that if one does not have a working knowledge of the basic laws of physics, they will not notice when their "scifi" becomes fantasy and magic. You have attempted to compare it to "subspace" in Star Trek, but subspace had limitations. And sometimes communications were reduced to audio only. Communications could be blocked and also intercepted. The subspce communications infrastructure is much like our global communications today and had the same limitations (only applied to more advanced technology). The communications stones were complete fantasy.The problem with SGU's "science" was it's lack of science. No type of science can explain real time communications of any type over billions of light years. We are talking about a "signal" which would have to travel BILLIONS of times faster than light just to reach the receiver. And we are not just talking about a signal, we are talking about consciousness.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Oh really.
Lets go to OM's vaunted Dictionary definition:
I don't see the word -realistic- in that description.OM said:
If you want realism:
TOS was not scifi as when the show was made, warp drive was as fantastical as magic, and lets not get into time travel and multiple dimensions.
Stargate: Not possible, as wormholes have no basis in functioning the way that they do in SG.
Joe -tried- to show you how things work with settings and content in a work of fiction, but even that was not good enough for you two. I would ask Illit to explain it, but I doubt she would give a rat's arse in bothering to do it.
Nor could I anymore.
As OM1 pointed out you're contradicting yourself here. In one post you claim this:
"...the fact that the setting is an interstellar spaceship means genre = science fiction"
but then in a later post you go on to say that SGU, Star Wars and NuTrek are "fantasy" despite all of them meeting your criteria for science fiction. What gives?
After I got out the literature textbook and found the definition I later realized I spoke too quickly on the interstellar spaceship = science fiction. So I looked at each one more closely using the literary definition of "science fiction" and had to change my position based on it. Sorry if I did not make the changing position clear. My bad.
All I was trying to do was get to a definition of science fiction that was objective so we don't potentially get caught in the whole "if I like it it's science fiction" trap.
Last edited:
Here's a different case: The Will Smith "I, Robot" film. Is it Science fiction?
)
I have to say yes in this case. It has the speculative science, futuristic setting and such and also passes the filter in the literary definition which separates it from fantasy - the imaginary elements are contextually plausible and it is not supernatural.
Would you agree or disagree?
)
I have to say yes in this case. It has the speculative science, futuristic setting and such and also passes the filter in the literary definition which separates it from fantasy - the imaginary elements are contextually plausible and it is not supernatural.
Would you agree or disagree?
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
No worries. I wasn't trying to "trap" you with your own words or anything like that. Just wanted clarification though.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
Yes, I, Robot (both the book and the Will Smith film) is (are) science fiction. Even though it's conducted as a detective story the premise depends upon the use of fictional futuristic technology, i.e. speculative science. (And as science fiction premises go it's quite good. Asimov did a great job of raising the question of sentience verses programming. Lot's of food for thought there, all because of a well-crafted science fiction premise. :encouragement: )
Yes, I Robot is definitely science fiction. Science starts at the very beginning and continues uninterrupted throughout the entire movie to the end. HOWEVER, it is also social commentary, an interpersonal story and has comedic elements. This is a good example of science fiction even if it wasnt one of my favorite films.
That is the beauty of science and definitions. You do not get to make things up and change them according to a whim (like today's fantasy writers claiming they are writing science fiction when they are not). The dictionary definitions are all quite similar. We should not be using any textbook explanations at all, literary or otherwise. There are textbooks which state that Moses is a Founding Father of the US (true in Texas).
Dictionaries provide an easily understood definition we can use. In the Scifi debate thread, I provided 4 different links to 4 different dictionaries.But remember, this thread is supposed to be about Star Trek 3. Should we pick this discussion up in the older thread?
Last edited:
No, it was not. Magic was magic...like Bewitched (which was being aired at the same time). Warp Drive and the theory behind it is explained in The Making of Star Trek book published when the show came out. Not only that, but the actual dimensions of the ship, the systems and means of power generation were also created before the show came out.
We do not know if wormholes even EXIST, let alone artificial ones. But the theory behind the stargate is still scientific. The initiating stargate generates an artificial wormhole with a specific frequency which when tuned to another gate resonating with the same frequency (the gate address), creates the exit arpeture. Not magical. Q popping on and off the bridge in TNG is magic. The Force is magic. Jedi Mind Tricks are magic.
You are not really a scientifically oriented person. Not a problem, most people are not which explains why the newer movies lack hard science and technical explanations of things used in the films. But because you are not really interested in scientific knowledge, you do not understand why the communications stones in SGU can never be technology or why Q is magical but a Klingon is not (even though both are imagined). You see no difference between the imagined subspace communications network being used in Trek and the Force in Star Wars because you do not care about how they should work.
Congratulations, you are indeed part of the "mainstream" youth who are very okay with the removal of "technobabble" from TV and film. You are okay with everything being "social commentary" or interpersonal stories. I am in the minority and I know that. But the definitions remain no matter how few actually know what the definitions are.
More on this movie. The title is Star Trek Beyond, and Justin Lin is starting to talk about it. Also flying around is the rumor that the additions from Simon Pegg are not very Trek-like. Besides that, Lin assures us that we are going into space on the 5-year mission. Also being rumored is the introduction of new aliens and maybe a new planet. 
If they wanted to add new shit into Trek, they needed to pick up in the Prime universe and be out of the Alpha Quadrant. All the planets in the Alpha Quadrant have been mapped and the ones who do not belong to the Federation would either belong to the Romulans or Klingons or Cardassians or the Breen or Andorians or the Tholians or....you get the idea. The Alpha Quadrant is not explored in this Trek, but later in the timeline the other planets are known. You cant just put new star systems into the mix. That would be like adding in a new continent between Europe and the United States in some movie about the colonial period.
But whatever...
If they wanted to add new shit into Trek, they needed to pick up in the Prime universe and be out of the Alpha Quadrant. All the planets in the Alpha Quadrant have been mapped and the ones who do not belong to the Federation would either belong to the Romulans or Klingons or Cardassians or the Breen or Andorians or the Tholians or....you get the idea. The Alpha Quadrant is not explored in this Trek, but later in the timeline the other planets are known. You cant just put new star systems into the mix. That would be like adding in a new continent between Europe and the United States in some movie about the colonial period.
But whatever...
Last edited:
As I feared...Pegg is the one who will ruin Trek 3, not Justin Lin. Even if it makes a billion dollars, it will still be Star Dreck, and I will not be seeing it in a theater:
Pegg plays Chief Engineer Scotty in the movie and is also one of the writers of the script. According to the Guardian, the actor said that the studio felt the previous script was “too Star Trek-y” and wanted it changed (many corroborating sources on this, I am just posting one of them).
http://www.ibtimes.com/star-trek-3-script-changed-make-1b-more-writer-actor-simon-pegg-1932275
Comparing the success of the Marvel movies at the box office with that of “Star Trek” movies, Pegg pointed out that “Avengers Assemble” made $1.5 billion and “Star Trek: Into Darkness” made $500 million. So the studio apparently feels that there is an additional $1 billion that can be made. [Readers should note that the Marvel movie being cited here is the 2012 “The Avengers.” “Avengers Assemble” is the name of an animation series of the franchise. The actor may have been misquoted.]
Explaining why the "Star Trek" franchise hasn’t been more successful, Pegg said the movies were not “fun, brightly colored, Saturday night entertainment like 'The Avengers.' ” The solution was to come up with a script for “a western or a thriller or a heist movie” and then “populate” the script with “Star Trek” characters.
No more benefit of the doubt. From a Trekkie perspective this movie is going to suck worse than any of the NuTrek films. It will likely make lots of money, it may be a box office success, but it still will not be Trek. I dont even care if Idris Elba is going to be in it (and he will be). Damn Simon Pegg.
Trek does not need this kind of energy. Here is Pegg creating the script. Hope he remembers not to flush, he wouldnt want his ideas to go down the drain...
Pegg plays Chief Engineer Scotty in the movie and is also one of the writers of the script. According to the Guardian, the actor said that the studio felt the previous script was “too Star Trek-y” and wanted it changed (many corroborating sources on this, I am just posting one of them).
http://www.ibtimes.com/star-trek-3-script-changed-make-1b-more-writer-actor-simon-pegg-1932275
Comparing the success of the Marvel movies at the box office with that of “Star Trek” movies, Pegg pointed out that “Avengers Assemble” made $1.5 billion and “Star Trek: Into Darkness” made $500 million. So the studio apparently feels that there is an additional $1 billion that can be made. [Readers should note that the Marvel movie being cited here is the 2012 “The Avengers.” “Avengers Assemble” is the name of an animation series of the franchise. The actor may have been misquoted.]
Explaining why the "Star Trek" franchise hasn’t been more successful, Pegg said the movies were not “fun, brightly colored, Saturday night entertainment like 'The Avengers.' ” The solution was to come up with a script for “a western or a thriller or a heist movie” and then “populate” the script with “Star Trek” characters.
No more benefit of the doubt. From a Trekkie perspective this movie is going to suck worse than any of the NuTrek films. It will likely make lots of money, it may be a box office success, but it still will not be Trek. I dont even care if Idris Elba is going to be in it (and he will be). Damn Simon Pegg.
Trek does not need this kind of energy. Here is Pegg creating the script. Hope he remembers not to flush, he wouldnt want his ideas to go down the drain...
Last edited:
Creeeeepy.