is "Into Darkness" Quinto's last as Spock?

[teacake]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

HARRY POTTER - FANTASY (There's absolutely not science involved)

THE HUNGER GAMES - CREATIVE SPIN ON REALITY TV (No one considers this Science Fiction that I know of. I guess you could say that because they use technology to create/manipulate the "game" that this makes it Sci-Fi (which is setting a low threshold for what makes Sci-Fi), but I wouldn't call it Sciene Fiction, and I don't most people see it that way. And how they actually get technology to create an entire forest and alter it at will is not even attempted in terms of explanation/plausibility. We're just supposed to believe that "some time in the future" this can happen. That's more fantasy to me than anything.

PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN - FANTASY (Absolutely no science is involved.)

AVATAR - FANTASY/sci-fi (The upper/lower case is on purpose. The Na'vi are beautiful, fantastical, aliens in what seems like a magical world. The fantasy/love aspects of this story take over the science aspects overwhelmingly, and I'd suppose this is by design.)

STAR WARS - FANTASY/SAGA (There are tech things, like light sabers, that are used, but they may as well be powered and designed by magic for as much scientific explanation they get. And magic is used with "the force" and all that.)

THE AVENGERS/IRON MAN - SUPERHERO MOVIES (There are both some fantasy and sci-fi aspects to these films, but I'd say that the superhero film is a "type" of film, and these movies are more that than anything else.)

STAR TREK - SCIENCE FICTION/fantasy (The upper/lower case is on purpose. This is a science fiction movie, but there's no scientific basis for a couple of things, like Vulcan Mind-melds... That's more a fantasy element.)

I think the recurring theme here is FANTASY, not sci-fi. And no one ever said fantasy wasn't popular, at least not that I know of. It's very popular. Always has been.

All those films listed are in the same genre. It's only fans that debate fantasy vs sci fi vs superheroes and argue about how to categorize and where is space opera and all that cud chewing. It's all stories told outside of the real world and it's all in the same category as far as media and the public goes.

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Keenser was in uniform in his last scene, IIRC. "Get down!"

In the earlier scenes, we aren't supposed to realise if Keenser is Starfleet. Or whether Keenser is male or female. Or whether in charge, or an underling, or even very sentient.

Therin, you are very late to this part of the discussion. Perhaps if you read from here...

And if we weren't supposed to know if Keenser was Starfleet for some unknown reason, then they did a hell of a job because I don't think most people knew he was Starfleet after the film was over.

UFO wrote:

---

Hmmm, well ...

PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN and HARRY POTTER aren't Sci-fi in my book either. But except for THE AVENGERS, I would say the rest mostly are, even if some have a certain crossover appeal. By the way, there doesn't have to be an explanation in SF, particularly not sci-fi, that's more hard science fiction as I see it. The important thing is how the universe is presented generally. Unless of course someone makes a point of saying something is magical in an otherwise SF outing.

I don't know anything about THE HUNGER GAMES but if the world is being portrayed as being the result of technological manipulation, then its sci-fi. If they are casting spells, its fantasy.

It's not the entire "world" that is being portrayed that way. They live in some sort of post-apocalyptic Earth. And the way the "game" exists still leads me more into fantasy than sci-fi because the "technology" is casting spells. It's that unreal.

AVATAR looked to be as much sci-fi as "Starship Troopers" etc. While some of the styling had a softer aspect (to make the natives more likeable no doubt) the only thing that looked fantasy-like were those floating hill things? I don't recall much about those. Still, it was overwhelmingly sci-fi. Magic was not explicitly use that I can remember. Strange you should think there is some conflict with having love in a SF story. Its not an either/or situation.

STAR WARS: Again, explanations aren't necessary. In the original movies I think the only questionable thing was the "Force" (which was later portrayed as SF), admittedly very important. By the way, you forgot "robots", "aliens" and "space ships", which are SF staples.

THE AVENGERS/IRON MAN: Both, particularly Iron Man, relied on scientific causes for the creation of the super hero(s) I believe. However I would say Iron Man is sci-fi (he is just a man apart from his suit), The Avengers, not so much.

STAR TREK: Mind-melds are "explained" by the fact that Vulcans are an alien race. Nowhere that I know of, is it suggested they are some sort of magic. Like if or not, and I personally don't (except in things like Star Wars), ESP etc is often invoked in SF. But its not usually explicity viewed as magic.

So overall, SF has become more mainstream. Certainly not as "despised" as it once was in the 50's and 60's for example.

We'll just have to disagree. Science fiction, at least to me, is Science Fiction because there is some kind of scientific plausibility to what is going on, even if we haven't gotten there yet. I'll give you Iron Man, as I think of the plot of that movie, and say that it is a superhero film with a sci-fi mechanism (the suit technology) attached. The rest of my assessments I stand by.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

I don't think so. Scotty and Keenser bicker, yeah, but more like old cops or something.

Their bickering must be in the deleted scenes I didn't catch.

[Greg Cox]

UFO wrote:

---

I don't know anything about THE HUNGER GAMES but if the world is being portrayed as being the result of technological manipulation, then its sci-fi. If they are casting spells, its fantasy.

It's about a dystopian future society, just like Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Fahrenheit 451, Brazil, The Handmaid's Tale, 1984, etc.

Which is a time-honored strain of sf.

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

^ and out of the stories you mentioned that I know, both 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale are scientifically plausible (especially 1984--a good portion of that is actual reality now). So, the sci-fi title would apply. The Hunger Games, not so much.

Edit: And now that I think of it, I'm not sure about The Handmaid's Tale. I'll have to revisit that one of these days.

teacake wrote:

---

All those films listed are in the same genre. It's only fans that debate fantasy vs sci fi vs superheroes and argue about how to categorize and where is space opera and all that cud chewing. It's all stories told outside of the real world and it's all in the same category as far as media and the public goes.

Yes, and that genre is really the merging of two separate genres: Sci-Fi/Fantasy. The slash mark is there for a reason. I have no problem with how they are categorized because the categorization is correct. It just so happens that almost all of those films are either purely fantasy or mostly fantasy, that is all. This is also probably the reason why the categories are housed as one, for Sci-Fi's benefit, because giving Sci-Fi its own section would mean that not much would be there.

EDIT: And actually teacake, they are not all housed under the same genre, nor should they be. I just thought about some of these films, and where I would likely put them (especially the superhero films), and it would be Action/Adventure.

I used iTunes as a test, and yup:



That's not to say that sci-fi/fantasy doesn't still apply to some extent.

[Greg Cox]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

^ and out of the stories you mentioned that I know, both 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale are scientifically plausible (especially 1984--a good portion of that is actual reality now). So, the sci-fi title would apply. The Hunger Games, not so much.

So we're not counting Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Fahrenheit 451, and so on as science fiction anymore? That would probably come as a surprise to most people, including the folks who made the films!

How strict are we going to be about "scientifically plausible"? I doubt that many people really think that gorillas are going to take over the world, but PLANET OF THE APES is generally regarded as a science fiction classic. And what about BARBARELLA or THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN?

And STAR WARS may be more Flash Gordon than hard sf, but any definition of "science fiction" that excludes STAR WARS bears no relationship to the way the term is actually used by ninety percent of the world. Ask the man on the street to name the five most famous science fiction movies, easy money STAR WARS is going to be high on the list. And, hopefully, a STAR TREK movie, too.

It's not just about what's "plausible." Science fiction is a broad tent that includes everything from Buck Rogers and Godzilla to Heinlein and Asimov.

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

So we're not counting Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Fahrenheit 451, and so on as science fiction anymore? That would probably come as a surprise to most people, including the folks who made the films!

Good Lord, Greg, read the quote. I said "out of the stories you mentioned that I know," which means just that. I cannot rate something I have not seen or read. It's that simple. I was not speaking at all to those stories.

How strict are we going to be about "scientifically plausible"? I doubt that many people really think that gorillas are going to take over the world, but PLANET OF THE APES is generally regarded as a science fiction classic. And what about BARBARELLA or THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN?

First, let me make it clear to you that I have not seen Barbarella or The Incredible Shrinking Man. So, I am not going to mention them in my comparison. Planet of the Apes basically dealt with evolution (which is a real concept/belief). The new Rise of the Planet of the Apes dealt with genetic manipulation, from what I can recall, and that is something that is done in Science today, has been done in the past, and will probably continue.

And STAR WARS may be more Flash Gordon than hard sf, but any definition of "science fiction" that excludes STAR WARS bears no relationship to the way the term is actually used by ninety percent of the world. Ask the man on the street to name the five most famous science fiction movies, STAR WARS is going to be high on the list.

It's not just about what's "plausible." Science fiction is a broad tent that includes everything from Buck Rogers and Godzilla to Heinlein and Asimov.

If someone wants to call Star Wars Science Fiction, okay. There are sci-fi elements involved, but for me, it's more fantasy than anything else. That is all. You don't need to get in a huff over this. It's not that big of a deal, at least not to me. I know you are a writer, and so perhaps this matters more to you than it does to me.

[teacake]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

Their bickering must be in the deleted scenes I didn't catch.

They bicker over the food. The bean scene. And where Keenser sits.

I have a feeling Scotty knows just what Keenser is going to say about everything and Keenser likes to rile him up.

[Greg Cox]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

Good Lord, Greg, read the quote. I said "out of the stories you mentioned that I know," which means just that. I cannot rate something I have not seen or read. It's that simple. I was not speaking at all to those stories.

Oops! I admit I missed the "I know" part. I plead distraction and multi-tasking; I'm in the middle of writing a complicated action scene, while helping my girlfriend set up a website, and this thread is just my way of procrastinating . . .

Don't worry. I'm not in a huff. I've probably just had too many debates with people who insist that hard sf is the only real sf. Personally, I tend not to split hairs between sf, fantasy, and horror . . . it's all the same to me.

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

teacake wrote:

---

They bicker over the food. The bean scene. And where Keenser sits.

I have a feeling Scotty knows just what Keenser is going to say about everything and Keenser likes to rile him up.

I don't know. I only remember Scotty spouting off in the bean scene about how much he wanted to eat real food and then telling Keenser that he didn't eat much and that a bean would satisfy him. Keenser seemed to just sit there. He told Keenser to get down from where he was sitting, and iirc, Keenser just shook his head. None of that seemed like bickering to me. It's kind of hard to bicker with someone that barely talks, I'd think.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Oops! I admit I missed the "I know" part. I plead distraction and multi-tasking; I'm in the middle of writing a complicated action scene, while helping my girlfriend set up a website, and this thread is just my way of procrastinating . . .

Don't worry. I'm not in a huff. I've probably just had too many debates with people who insist that hard sf is the only real sf. Personally, I tend not to split hairs between sf, fantasy, and horror . . . it's all the same to me.

No problem, Greg. I've done the same thing myself. I hope all goes well with your writing and I also send my best wishes with your gf's website. Categories are categories, but it's the storytelling that counts. Don't work too hard.

[Relayer1]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

I don't know. I only remember Scotty spouting off in the bean scene about how much he wanted to eat real food and then telling Keenser that he didn't eat much and that a bean would satisfy him. Keenser seemed to just sit there. He told Keenser to get down from where he was sitting, and iirc, Keenser just shook his head. None of that seemed like bickering to me. It's kind of hard to bicker with someone that barely talks, I'd think.

No problem, Greg. I've done the same thing myself. I hope all goes well with your writing and I also send my best wishes with your gf's website. Categories are categories, but it's the storytelling that counts. Don't work too hard.

You've written a complicated action scene while helping Greg's girlfriend set up a website ?

[Greg Cox]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

I don't know. I only remember Scotty spouting off in the bean scene about how much he wanted to eat real food and then telling Keenser that he didn't eat much and that a bean would satisfy him. Keenser seemed to just sit there. He told Keenser to get down from where he was sitting, and iirc, Keenser just shook his head. None of that seemed like bickering to me. It's kind of hard to bicker with someone that barely talks, I'd think.

No problem, Greg. I've done the same thing myself. I hope all goes well with your writing and I also send my best wishes with your gf's website. Categories are categories, but it's the storytelling that counts. Don't work too hard.

Tell that to my editors!

Plus, of course, I was probably showing my age by assuming that, of course, everybody has seen all the old classics like Barbarella and The Incredible Shrinking Man . . . .

[teacake]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

I don't know. I only remember Scotty spouting off in the bean scene about how much he wanted to eat real food and then telling Keenser that he didn't eat much and that a bean would satisfy him. Keenser seemed to just sit there. He told Keenser to get down from where he was sitting, and iirc, Keenser just shook his head. None of that seemed like bickering to me. It's kind of hard to bicker with someone that barely talks, I'd think.

Scotty's tone is one of bickering and these scenes show us that these guys have been stuck together for a long time. You don't have to have literal back and forth bickering to see that there's some good natured ribbing going on.

[UFO]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

It's not the entire "world" that is being portrayed that way. They live in some sort of post-apocalyptic Earth. And the way the "game" exists still leads me more into fantasy than sci-fi because the "technology" is casting spells. It's that unreal.

Even with your and Greg’s assistance, I feel I can only say that if the fantasy is underpinned by technology, its science fiction of some sort, not fantasy.

Actually, when I am not trying to be so diplomatic , I have no difficulty distinguishing between SF and Fantasy at all. In fact it annoys me that they lump them together in libraries!

1) If the work is supposed to be based on a scientific framework in some way then its SF (either sci-fi, hard SF or something in between.)
2) If it is based on magic, its Fantasy.
3) If it doesn’t seem scientifically plausible then it could be "bad SF" as far as its science goes anyway, but its still SF (So long as there aren’t explicit fantasy elements. Ie. Things the audience is intended to view as magical). This rule is supported by Arthur C Clarke’s famous statement concerning a sufficiently advance technology being indistinguishable from magic. Otherwise we would have to make the SF/Fantasy call base on our personal opinions about scientific plausibility, and that’s just silly.

In short one is fiction* based on the real world or extensions of it and the other is based on the supernatural. Also, SF is known for examining the human condition in different environments. It isn't often anyone says that about fantasy, even though it may happen.

* Edited

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

If someone wants to call Star Wars Science Fiction, okay. There are sci-fi elements involved, but for me, it's more fantasy than anything else.

In what way? Apart from the "Force" which I think someone said has now been explicitly "sci-fied" via small bugs of some sort, what makes it Fantasy? Because there is a princesses involved. We have those in real life. Because its an adventure story? That covers a lot of SF.

To be honest I have tended to regard it as fantasy myself but I am probably thinking of the first three. But that only depends on whether the "Force" is amenable to scientific study or not (and the jury is out). Apparently it is in the prequels.

So going back to Greg’s list:

SF: AVATAR, THE HUNGER GAMES (by the sound of it), the STAR WARS prequels, THE AVENGERS (Technically SF. Ie. In the same way Superman and (I think) Spiderman are. What?), IRON MAN, the last STAR TREK (Fascinating that Greg separated the last ST movie from the rest though ).

Fantasy: HARRY POTTER, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

Easy!

[Greg Cox]

UFO wrote:

---

the last STAR TREK (Fascinating that Greg separated the last ST movie from the rest though.

In context, I was just singling it out as an example of an sf movie that was a recent commercial success, to support my argument that today's top-grossing films are often sf/fantasy.

I wasn't commenting on its degree of sf content, compared to any other Trek film. Just that it was one of several recent science fiction blockbusters that appealed to a large mainstream audience.

You could probably say the same about FIRST CONTACT or THE VOYAGE HOME, but that's going back a few years . . .

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

@UFO

I'm not going to argue with you about this. Like I mentioned before, we just have different views.

There is something you said that I find so incredulous that I do feel the need to say that it's just "off."

UFO wrote:

---

... Also, SF is known for examining the human condition in different environments. It isn't often anyone says that about fantasy, even though it may happen...

Really? I think fantasy examines the human condition quite a bit, and it is often our first way of examining the human condition and learning lessons. Ever read a children's book/fairytale? That's fantasy, and there's usually some kind of lesson to be learned about what the characters go through. From Dr. Seuss to Lord of the Rings, I think fantasy does a pretty good job of examining the human condition, and whether you notice or not, people say that a lot...