No. It isnt science fiction. It has fire breathing dragons which could never evolve on earth, and we already have hard science as to how the dinosaurs became extinct. It is no more science fiction than Prometheus is.
Last edited:
What do you consider GOOD science fiction?
- Thread starter Gatefan1976
- Start date
No. It isnt science fiction. It has fire breathing dragons which could never evolve on earth, and we already have hard science as to how the dinosaurs became extinct. It is no more science fiction than Prometheus is.
I did that exactly. Did you?
No, you want to play your devil's advocate game.
That is a game.
Science fiction has a definition:
sci·ence fic·tion
noun
noun: science fiction; noun: SF; modifier noun: science-fiction; noun: Sci Fi; plural noun: Sci Fis
- 1.
fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
You still have yet to post what your ideas are, instead you are cherry picking parts of other people's responses and then trying to debunk or debate them. Cop out. I was watching science fiction before your daddy made you.
I have been watching it ever since. I have watched it evolve. And you know what? The interpretations that you have made so far (gleaned from only your incessant contrary-ness) tend to reflect poorly on your taste, and on your understanding of what good science fiction is. Give the communications stones in SGU a pass for science? Really?Im not alone in this at all. The people who are most closely aligned with your blurry notion of scifi are still watching the shows on Syfy, making SGU fan films, and suspending belief enough to see magic as scientific. HOWEVER, I can only post what I think because I cannot speak for others as I can for myself.
So again: What would be your definition of GOOD science fiction? Not by providing examples, but by posting a meaningful set of parameters and why you have set them...you know, like I did? Every post you have made so far is bouncing off somebody elses response instead of presenting your own definitions. Care to give it a shot?
And TOS did not explain warp drive as thoroughly as it did in TNG and the other Trek shows, but the principle as described in TOS inspired Alcubierre to find a way to make it real, like so many other pieces of technology presented in Star trek have become already. The theoretical work was done by the time TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise came out.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Ahhh, the Ageist card................
I have seen more scifi, read more scifi than you EVER have or EVER will, because stuff like cartoons, or anime, or books just don't "fit into" your little definitions.
Read any William Gibson?
Watched the Animatrix?
Seen Robotech?
Read any EU Star trek?
Any EU Star wars?
Do you know the Darksword Trilogy?
Read any Lanier?
How about Julien May?
Your understanding of Scifi is limited to the few movies or series you have watched, my playlist blows yours into the dirt, and there are people out there who blow mine into the dirt. Of course, I can accept that fact, you cannot. It's like you arguing with Yong about military stuff and you thinking your 4 years in the marines is more relevant than his 20 years of service, or you "starting to write a book" and arguing with me or Illit about our years of writing. You respond like a CHILD, thinking that because it is "your experience" it is somehow "better" (and do me and all parents here) the favour of accepting the fact that that when it comes to kids, you know VERY little.
Grow up, or better yet, understand your quote in your sig. You belittle those who think differently from you, you do it constantly, yet you take no time to consider that other people simply just know better than you, or because they are younger than you, just CAN'T know better. Experience counts for ALOT, I have no argument there, what I WILL argue is that all peoples experience is the same.
I have seen more scifi, read more scifi than you EVER have or EVER will, because stuff like cartoons, or anime, or books just don't "fit into" your little definitions.
Read any William Gibson?
Watched the Animatrix?
Seen Robotech?
Read any EU Star trek?
Any EU Star wars?
Do you know the Darksword Trilogy?
Read any Lanier?
How about Julien May?
Your understanding of Scifi is limited to the few movies or series you have watched, my playlist blows yours into the dirt, and there are people out there who blow mine into the dirt. Of course, I can accept that fact, you cannot. It's like you arguing with Yong about military stuff and you thinking your 4 years in the marines is more relevant than his 20 years of service, or you "starting to write a book" and arguing with me or Illit about our years of writing. You respond like a CHILD, thinking that because it is "your experience" it is somehow "better" (and do me and all parents here) the favour of accepting the fact that that when it comes to kids, you know VERY little.
Grow up, or better yet, understand your quote in your sig. You belittle those who think differently from you, you do it constantly, yet you take no time to consider that other people simply just know better than you, or because they are younger than you, just CAN'T know better. Experience counts for ALOT, I have no argument there, what I WILL argue is that all peoples experience is the same.
Please reconcile the dictionary definition of science fiction with your statements.
If you are sensing aggravation in my responses, you are correct. It is people who think like you with regard to science fiction that results in shows like SGU, NuBSG and Defiance. The writers throw in a dragon in a movie about Mars, and as long as it is explained (sufficiently for your low standards), its just fine. Throw in an elf and a witch too.
But make SURE you give the scientific explanation for it (or not). In case you hadnt noticed, you are out there alone on a thin little branch with your ideas about what good science fiction is...at least here on this thread. 
The communication stones should get a pass....Just LOL! You argued for the witches in Dathomir in Star Wars, and you stated that science and religion should peacefully co-exist. I dont care how much you have read, when it comes to good science fiction film and TV, you got a lotta learnin' to do.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Err, YES??
No, No I don't.
No, it is not.
Sigh
Then lets go back to ST:TOS.
Rewatch it dude, and tell me how much of it *really* falls into that definition.
Then watch TNG and see how much it falls in that definition as well.
See my other post.You still have yet to post what your ideas are, instead you are cherry picking parts of other people's responses and then trying to debunk or debate them. Cop out. I was watching science fiction before your daddy made you.
I didn't give them a pass you twit, I said they were used in SG-1 and could do the same thing. They sucked is SG-1 as well. The comparison was between the various Khan's.
Learn to read OM, seriously.
Learn English then, or better yet, learn to EXPRESS that when you make a comment it is "your perception only"
This is your basic argument:
"THE SKY IS BLACK"
"ya know, it's not really black"
"YOU ARE AN IDIOT, OF COURSE IT IS BLACK, I SEE IT AS BLACK"
"you do realise that if you sit somewhere else, it looks blue"
"OF COURSE IT CAN BE BLUE BUT THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM"
"you do know that for every *one* who see's it as black, 100 see it as blue?"
"NO IT IS BLACK, YOU DON'T MATTER"
You don't care how other's see things. especially if it does not jive with yours.
[/quote]
I said I agreed with ape, it is a reflection on how technology affects the human condition. lot's of things can fit into that. you want to limit it, and think it is a "good thing". I don't and you see that as crap.
Good luck to ya dude.
PS: All your definitions were was "cause I like it, so it is"
Yeah, no, not gonna do that.
Gatefan76 said:
I watched the Animatrix. Noone of the others because they are not science fiction. I was busy reading Azimov, Bradbury, HG Wells, Jules Verne, Robert Silberberg, Arthur C Clarke...
Those books are all fantasy stuff. Are you classifying any of that stuff as science fiction? NONE of them are. I like fantasy. I can differentiate it from science fiction EASILY. You do not seem to be able to.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Please reconcile the dictionary definition of science fiction with your statements.
If you are sensing aggravation in my responses, you are correct. It is people who think like you with regard to science fiction that results in shows like SGU, NuBSG and Defiance. The writers throw in a dragon in a movie about Mars, and as long as it is explained (sufficiently for your low standards), its just fine. Throw in an elf and a witch too.
The communication stones should get a pass....Just LOL! You argued for the witches in Dathomir in Star Wars, and you stated that science and religion should peacefully co-exist. I dont care how much you have read, when it comes to good science fiction film and TV, you got a lotta learnin' to do.
I am not the one "grabbing at straws" here.
My response *ALLOWS* stuff like SGU and NuBSG to exist, sure, because they explore different things. They do not force me to *like* either of them either. SGU had a great premise, to explore where we came from, to jump onto the voyager probe in some 300 million years after we sent it out, I think how they treated that concept was utter shite.
Idea=GOOD
Execution= CRAP
NuBSG, how would we respond to seeing a few thousand survivors dwindle down day by day of our race, how much would we do to stay alive and viable as a race?
Idea=GOOD
Execution=CRAP.
Don't mistake my liking of a concept to liking how it is delivered.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
William Gibson is not Sci-fi??
You fail, you fail HARD.
Believe what you want dude, I'm done with this, you are clueless.
YES, it does. Very clearly in fact. The preamble in each episode tells you exactly what it is about. Single episodes about something not within that framework does not make the entire show change genres.
See my other post.
They were used in SG-1 in one or two episodes. In SGU they were a core element of the show, replacing the stargate almost entirely for travel to earth.
READ THE THIRD COMMENT IN THIS THREAD.
No.
I let others think as they wish. I am no more special than anyone else here. I only have my own opinion. I simply stand by my statements and stick to convictions unless given a reason to change them. You make a game out of taking a contrary position just for the sake of argument, and that is a game. Especially when there is no real argument you can make. Forget what I said about science fiction. Find a way to make your statements jive with the dictionary definition of science fiction. Show me a secondary or third or fourth definition which includes "emotional impact" or "interpersonal relationships" or "magic". You cant do that...regardless of my comments.
You dont even have the courage to state your own beliefs. Instead, you have spent every post on this thread arguing other people's responses. Start your next post with: Well, I think good science fiction is.......
Um NO. I posted the dictionary definition of science fiction, and your comments just dont jive with it. Your attempt at attacking me personally are a fail.
Last edited:
I havent read anything by him, but I know he wrote Neuromancer. He isnt one of the greats. But if it is GOOD science fiction, I will check him out. The other stuff is definitely not science fiction.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Off-topic but ...
I agree with the bolded above. NuBSG allowed me to explore the limits of my tolerance for stupidity, shitty writing and the amount of angst and melodrama that can be comfortably inserted into a show I was baited into watching by the hyping of a false premise.
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
TNG started in 1987. The theoretical work on the Alcubierre Drive was published in 1994.
PUBLISHED in 1994. But the theoretical work was being done long before then, which is why there is the concept of "warp drive" in TOS to begin with.
Last edited:
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Im referring to science fiction greats. Gibson is not one of the 10 greatest science fiction writers in the vein of Bradbury, Azimov, Wells, etc. But this thread is not about books or about Gibson. It is about what "good" science fiction.
I still feel you asked an EXCELLENT question. But evidently you cannot articulate what you think is good science fiction, since you haven't done so. Any heckler can sit in the sidelines and shout retorts, risking nothing. It takes courage to stand up and have an opinion.
mzzz
Well Known GateFan
*squeezes through the sexual tension in this thread*
Overmind, don't limit yourself to top 10 whatever in anything. People can have good sci-fi works that aren't in some fucking top 10 list. To me, top 10 lists are meant for those novice persons just starting out and trying to figure out what to read or watch or whatever. The notion of top ten list becomes meaningless after you've gone past the novice stage.
Lots of arguing back and forth between overmind and gatefan, you guys should first both settle on what you consider sci-fi to be before continuing the whole back and forth. Settle on the definition before going any further. Don't fucking present some copy and paste from some definition site. No loose "oh I agree with this definition" or some shit. Lot of your back and forth's obviously stem from incongruent definitions of what you two consider to be sci-fi. Settle that first.
Overmind, don't limit yourself to top 10 whatever in anything. People can have good sci-fi works that aren't in some fucking top 10 list. To me, top 10 lists are meant for those novice persons just starting out and trying to figure out what to read or watch or whatever. The notion of top ten list becomes meaningless after you've gone past the novice stage.
Lots of arguing back and forth between overmind and gatefan, you guys should first both settle on what you consider sci-fi to be before continuing the whole back and forth. Settle on the definition before going any further. Don't fucking present some copy and paste from some definition site. No loose "oh I agree with this definition" or some shit. Lot of your back and forth's obviously stem from incongruent definitions of what you two consider to be sci-fi. Settle that first.
I agree! But that whole branch of this thread is a derailment by Gatefan. I went out on a limb and said exactly what I think makes for good science fiction and why. Doing that does not make me any sort of sage or expert, just another GateFans member voicing an opinion as asked by the topic. Throughout the thread, Gatefan76 is just arguing my opinion and others, but not making any of his own. This is no different from a heckler.
Having said that, I like definitions...I like precision. When I am wrong, I defer. But at least I have the courage to give my opinions, as do you.
I do know one thing: the definition of GOOD science fiction does not apply to most of the "science fiction" which has been broadcast on cable or in the movies. Arguing about books and defending opinions presented is not in the spirit of the thread. How hard is it to come out and say:Okay, my opinion of what good science fiction is...
????
Gate_Boarder
Well Known GateFan
I agree! But that whole branch of this thread is a derailment by Gatefan. I went out on a limb and said exactly what I think makes for good science fiction and why. Doing that does not make me any sort of sage or expert, just another GateFans member voicing an opinion as asked by the topic. Throughout the thread, Gatefan76 is just arguing my opinion and others, but not making any of his own. This is no different from a heckler.
Having said that, I like definitions...I like precision. When I am wrong, I defer. But at least I have the courage to give my opinions, as do you.
Okay, my opinion of what good science fiction is...
????
Somebody sent me this. This is as good a place to use it as any.
Have an opinion?