Is fantasy more popular than science fiction? If so why?

[Ian Keldon]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

The Alcubierre metric, while a theoretically interesting speculation, is still pretty implausible, from the humongous energy requirements, to the issue of information transport, to the problem of impacting a speck of dust at superluminal speed. Compared to that, creating an orc with genetic engineering would be rather mundane.

Not so humongous anymore. Refinements to the shape of the toroid have decreased the reaction mass to generate a warp field to that ~ the size of the Pioneer spacecraft (down from a Jupiter-sized planet).

The Alcubierre drive math checks out. What we lack are metallurgy and energy production technology (at present).

[DarthTom]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

And both sci fi and fantasy are popular, just in different proportions by gender and media type. Hard to even tell if one is more popular than the other, overall.

Looking at recent box office figures over the past 5-10 years it seems as though you're generally correct. Avatar tops the list making nearly $800 million, Is Avatar pure sf or a mix of fantasy and sci-fi?

[CorporalCaptain]

DarthTom wrote:

---

Looking at recent box office figures over the past 5-10 years it seems as though you're generally correct. Avatar tops the list making nearly $800 million, Is Avatar pure sf or a mix of fantasy and sci-fi?

Hint: There are humanoid aliens.

[Deckerd]

You made me snigger CC.

[DarthTom]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Hint: There are humanoid aliens.

There are a lot of elements of fantasy IMO in Avatar that fall outstide of the scope of ST type sci-fi. e.g. flying dragons.

[CorporalCaptain]

DarthTom wrote:

---

There are a lot of elements of fantasy IMO in Avatar that fall outstide of the scope of ST type sci-fi. e.g. flying dragons.

Agreed.

[DarthTom]

CorporalCaptain;7016356
There are a lot of elements of fantasy IMO in Avatar that fall outstide of the scope of ST type sci-fi. e.g. flying dragons.[/QUOTE wrote:

---

Agreed.

Star Trek the animated - er cartoons. That's sure reaching at the bottom of the barrel of the Trek canon.

[Deckerd]

I think the general thrust of this gentle exchange is that Trek is fantasy more than science fiction. Like Avatar.

[CorporalCaptain]

Deckerd wrote:

---

I think the general thrust of this gentle exchange is that Trek is fantasy more than science fiction. Like Avatar.

Right. There are many completely fantastic elements in the premise of Star Trek that must be accepted without reason to believe in them, in order to suspend disbelief. The spells are artfully cast using the vocabulary of science to create the illusion of things scientific.

If you want "real" fantasy tropes in Star Trek, how about referring to The Cage, in particular the castle on Rigel VII, for just one example. That was a typical fairy tail setting, with Pike even defending a princess. It was part fantasy within the story-line, but it was also based on events which Pike had just lived.

[DarthTom]

Deckerd wrote:

---

I think the general thrust of this gentle exchange is that Trek is fantasy more than science fiction. Like Avatar.

Meh - that's subjective. Many Trek fans want to
extrapolate science from the series and forget about the fantasy elements. But if you're referring to TOS, I agree it has more fantasy elements than say TNG or DS9

[Deckerd]

They were all based firmly in fantasy. Just because they were set in space doesn't change that. The science elements, remember, were fantasy too.

[CorporalCaptain]

DarthTom wrote:

---

Meh - that's subjective. Many Trek fans want to
extrapolate science from the series and forget about the fantasy elements. But if you're referring to TOS, I agree it has more fantasy elements than say TNG or DS9

Come, now. Don't you think that Q is a fantasy element? The Traveler? What about Wesley Sue?

[iguana_tonante]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

The Alcubierre drive math checks out. What we lack are metallurgy and energy production technology (at present).

So, still pretty implausible. Like orcs.

[DarthTom]

Deckerd wrote:

---

They were all based firmly in fantasy. Just because they were set in space doesn't change that. The science elements, remember, were fantasy too.

I think you're splitting hairs. But my definition of Fantasy would be more akin to Potter or Lord of the Rings whereas Trek is sci-fi

In other words, fantasy employs zero or very little scientific conjecture or reality to the plot where as Trek [or other sci-fi] attempts to make make their 'science,' plausible at some point in the future.

Nonetheless I agree Trek has some fantasy elements - the magical crystals that power the ships being one. And some of the omnipotent beings they come accross through the series.

[Gotham Central]

DarthTom wrote:

---

I think you're splitting hairs. But my definition of Fantasy would be more akin to Potter or Lord of the Rings whereas Trek is sci-fi

In other words, fantasy employs zero or very little scientific conjecture or reality to the plot where as Trek [or other sci-fi] attempts to make make their 'science,' plausible at some point in the future.

Nonetheless I agree Trek has some fantasy elements - the magical crystals that power the ships being one. And some of the omnipotent beings they come accross through the series.

Just to be clear, Dilithium crystals do not "power" the starship, they help regulate and control that matter/anti-matter reaction within the engines.

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.