What do you consider GOOD science fiction?

[Gatefan1976]

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.

 

[Bluce Ree]

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!!

 

[Gatefan1976]

NO! Science fiction must be real science all the time!!

HARD scifi does

 

[Bluce Ree]

HARD scifi does

 

[heisenberg]

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!

 

[Gatefan1976]

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!

They Extrapolate based on what we know. They "dream the dreams" of our future as a species, they ask the questions that make theoretical physicists try to make those dreams a "Possible reality", who in turn need engineers to make the machines to realise those dreams.
It's a cycle.

 

[Overmind One]

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!

Yep! Remember Starman the movie? What he did in that movie was magic. And the story was a love story AND science fiction, but mostly interpersonal drama. I could accept the powers of the Starman as being alien powers. But I do not accept Q as a legitimate "alien being" because he is omnipotent.

 

[Overmind One]

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!

Exactly. That is why good science fiction producers of TV will consult scientific experts/sources before portraying something they know nothing about. I liked SG-1 especially because the military guidance and scientific explanations written for Daniel were the real thing...at first. By Season 6, treknology came into the picture along with the Asgard who jumped the Taurii into full on Trek mode. The introduction of the Ori and ascended Ancients ruined it for me. A being that evolves to require "worshippers" to function? Such an evolutionary path is ridiculous. Much like the TOS episode where there was a Jack the Ripper character who was really an alien whose sustenance was "the emotion of fear". . Ventures into those fringes is eyeroll inducing.

 

[Overmind One]

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.

Actually, lots of work was done by Roddenberry with the Navy, scientific sources, etc. Read The Making of Star Trek

 

[shavedape]

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.

My point of contention has to do with the science fiction premise, or theme if you will. 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. 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.

 

[shavedape]

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.

Excellent point!

From a biological standpoint the "transfer" of consciousness would be impossible. Every brain is literally wired differently than others. Neurons and synapses are unique to each person. Our thought patterns follow specific biological pathways that have individually developed.

I've got a great article on brain biology from a few years back but am not sure where I stored it. Hopefully I can find it for reference material. At any rate, the gist of one part of it was that it takes, on average, one month for a brain to create new neural pathways, i.e. for "neurogenesis" to occur. And this is just for your average mouse learning a new maze to crawl through. So who knows how long it would take for a person's brain to acclimate to the downloading of another person's entire consciousness (the real answer being never of course).



*My God, that stupid show has been off the air for several years now and yet it still manages to irritate the living hell out of me.

 

[Gatefan1976]

My point of contention has to do with the science fiction premise, or theme if you will.

Theme is perfectly acceptable.

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.

Not central, no. Still important however. MacGuffin is a term coined by Alfred Hitchcock, not me I feel I should add as well.

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.

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)

 

[shavedape]

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.

 

[Gatefan1976]

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.

 

[shavedape]

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.

Good or bad, SGU wasn't science fiction.

 

[Overmind One]

HARD scifi does

Okay, but you would disagree that "soft scifi" that includes fantasy is not scifi but actually fantasy with a scifi veneer? 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. 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. Movie like Deep Impact is science fiction, whereas Armageddon (same core premise) is action adventure, not science fiction.

 

[Overmind One]

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.

That is the core of the problem right there. And Ronald Moore did it to us in the second half of season 2 of NuBSG, and he is doing it for Season 2 of Helix. I really believe that the main reason we are getting all these melodramatic scripts in every genre is because that writer is the most common type of writer in the Writers Guild and in Hollywood. Those writers are the ones who went on strike, and they should have been fired. Where do you think all the hacks who used to write Archie Bunker and Happy Days went? The sitcom is dead, and soap operas have waned because the "housewife" is now working soccer mom. Those writers are in a UNION. The studios have to use them, plain and simple. OR, they can hire "production companies" which are independent, and those production houses can use non-union writers (sometimes).

There is this marketing thing too. Why hire the unproven newbie when you can bank on Abrams, Michael Bay and Ronald Moore? Joss Whedon is conspicuously missing. p

 

[Joelist]

So is Trancers Science fiction?

 

[Gatefan1976]

Okay, but you would disagree that "soft scifi" that includes fantasy is not scifi but actually fantasy with a scifi veneer?

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".

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.

Sure, I would agree with that.

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.

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?

Movie like Deep Impact is science fiction, whereas Armageddon (same core premise) is action adventure, not science fiction.

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.

 

[Overmind One]

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".

Good examples. But I would still put Star Wars in the Space Fantasy genre. That could change, if they start explaining some of the stuff we see in it. In TCW, I got to see a light saber actually assembled, with little screws and bolts and a crystal. Some of the parts actually had names! One of the young Jedi assembling his got some doohickey "reversed" in his light saber, which he used to kill enemies by making it discharge. To me, the light saber became "plausible" (kinda) at that point. But the presence of the Force, along with "sensing disturbances in the force" and other stuff like Jedi mind tricks and robots with feelings and a sense of humor are pure fantasy. Any outright fantasy cannot be in science fiction as a central component. In Star Wars, anything "science-y" is a sidenote. Flash Gordon was also fantasy. When I make these classifications, I am not saying one is better than another. But to throw them together creates fuzziness. Its like having a "MISC" file in your file cabinet. . They actually DO have separate definitions. Why not use them?

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?

Okay, I agree on Warehouse 13. I even agree on Shield. The fantasy elements in Shield are actually few and far between, but they have them in spades. The show always makes certain that they TRY and explain everything. They have not one, but TWO geeks there to do that for us! I think the formula is brilliant. Fresh and new. It defies classification. I could do with a bit more of that.

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.

Yes, it could if they were detonated almost in the core of the thing, and they were. BTW, there were actually 4 nukes, not 3. The smaller the space where the explosion takes place, the stronger the force will be. Think of a firecracker wrapped in newspaper. They were each 5000 megatons for a total combined explosive force of 20000 megatons (within a confined channel in the asteroid). It could be done.