View Single Post
Old November 24 2012, 12:13 PM   #29
Rear Admiral
stonester1's Avatar
Re: Is The Science Channel after our hearts?

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
I've never met a single person in my life who said they expected to learn science from sci fi on TV or in movies.

People may assume that TV and movies reflect reality rather than being a lot of BS created for the purpose of entertainment, but let's face it, those people are probably hopeless and their idiocy shouldn't impact how shows and movies are created. And again, I don't actually know people who are that dimwitted, although that might be more a result of my selectiveness in who I associate with, than anything else.

In my experience, people do understand that just because Ross on Friends has a huge apartment, that doesn't mean every person with a moderate salary in Manhattan has a huge apartment. And just because the Enterprise flies faster than light, that doesn't mean it will ever be possible in reality.

JD wrote: View Post
I'm starting to think Syfy should change their name to something more fantasy based, since other than Defiance, which doesn't even air until April, and Alphas, most of their stuff is more fantasy (Lost Girl, Merlin, Warehouse 13) or reality (Ghost Hunters, Face Off, Hot Set).
I thought that was the reason behind the silly name change, to signal that they're not "just" sci fi (and also have something copyrightable). I currently don't watch anything on SyFy, because nothing appeals to me, although I'm not positive that would change if they had more sci fi content.

Exactly. "Real Science" in science fiction is fine, but science fiction, regardless of the sub genre, is about "ideas". Never mind the moving target that real science is (what is possible, never mind what is "real" is constantly changing or being reconceptualized), science fiction is more about provoking thought. And even the "hard science fiction" variety should be more about our current conceptions about what is real and what is possible. It should be about the limits, the edge about it, speculate beyond it, and mediate about what it means for us, humanity and the future.

It should make me ponder, make me feel, make me wonder.

And that is about far more than what goes on in the lab. Like the special effects, as interesting as it all is, it is just a prop. Not the point.

Now, I will grant you that incorporating "real science" can add a grounding as well as a gee whiz factor. And I'm all for it, as long as you accomplish the REAL mission of good science fiction, be entertaining and thought provoking, both of the latter two in equal measures.
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline   Reply With Quote