Re: Is fantasy more popular than science fiction? If so why?
Gotham Central wrote:
Here's the thing about stuff like that, I view that as more of a crutch, than a decent into pure fantasy. We don't know with any certainty how to control such a reaction, so they invent something that might do just that. The same is true of the transporters, the Heisenberg Conpensators are technically fantasy, in that they don't exist. But it is more of an acknowledgement that they don't know how to fix the problem, but say this is what you'd have to have in order to make the technology work. Science Fiction is not science fact. It speculates about the technology without always having the answers.
I'm sorry but that just sounds like huge denial to me. The Heisenberg thing was put in as a joke,
a nod and a wink to physicists. There was no attempt to 'answer' anything. It was the kind of rare self-mockery that saved later Trek from it's own po-facedness.
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.