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

I think the conversation for the last few pages is why it's best to just look at the Genre as Speculative Fiction, rather than trying to pigeon hole it into Fantasy, SciFi, Superhero, Action/Adventure, Horror, Space Opera....

Even Pigeon Holing a story/Franchise into one of those categories, you still end up bleeding into others.

Pretty much, all of these sub-categories of Speculative Fiction have the aim to examine The Human Condition within the boundaries of the created world.

 

I've never heard of the "Speculative Fiction" genre before, and I'm not sure what good it does to group everything under that. To me, still, it's the storytelling that counts.

 

Oh, people have been throwing "Speculative Fiction" around as an alternative definition for SF since at least the seventies, and maybe even the sixties. Not sure it ever caught on outside of academic circles . . . .

 

Oh, okay. Do you know why anyone felt the need to come up with that term? Something tells me that bookstores and iTunes aren't going to have a speculative fiction section anytime soon, especially if it's grouping a bunch of other genres together.

 

Because of the bickering about if something is Fantasy with a bit of SciFi, or SciFi with a bit of Fantasy, or Horror with a bit of SciFi.....

 

Well, I can't remember who coined the term, or every critical essay I read thirty-plus years ago, but I suspect the idea was to come up with a more inclusive label that acknowledged that there was more to "science fiction" than just the whole John W. Campbell Astonishing/Analog school of nuts-and-bolts sf. There was also Bradbury and Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sturgeon and Ellison and Spinrad and Silverberg and Delany and LeGuin and Russ and so on, whose work was arguably more about the "fiction" than the "science."

 

Interesting. My money would have been on Moorcock, not Heinlein.

Boy, this whole discussion takes me back. Next we'll be debating the "New Wave" . . .

 

That's basically my attitude, too. Never much seen the point in trying to fit everything into neat little boxes.

I'm intrigued to find out that "Speculative Fiction" dates back so far. I would have guessed the late sixties at the earliest . . . .

 

Does anyone else think it's rather narrow and petty to be arguing over what two or three word catch all label should be applied to various works of film and literature? Works are larger than that, at least the good ones are. Even the bad ones come to mention it.

 

What I remember is the huge push to use the term speculative fiction instead of science fiction which still had a pulp association. Now of course we embrace the pulp. But for a while there it was seen as the way for the genre to be taken seriously.

 

That makes sense, too, especially at a time when science fiction was still considered trashy, B-movie material by most adults.

 

Well if that's what something actually is, so what? It seems to me that the term is too generic to ever catch on, but if some people choose to use it, then okay...

Thanks for the info. The impression I get is that some people just want(ed) to appropriate everything into one category so they could feel better about liking science fiction or to make science fiction seem "normal." Personally, I don't think it's necessary. You just like what you like. Kind of reminds me of what I heard about how the term "trekker" was invented...

 

Had I read these comments, I would not have replied. That sums it up for me, and it fits what my impression is.

@R. Star Very true. Putting everything in one dumpster bin seems like a bad idea to me, but that's just me. If some people want to do that for their convenience, then okay, so long as bookstores, iTunes, etc. don't change because that would be a nightmare for the rest of us, I'd think.

 

Truth be told, the Speculatve Fiction is pretty much together in the Book stores I am familiar with. Down 1 aisle is what they categorize as Science Fiction, down the next aisle is what they categorize as Fantasy, next aisle over is Horror.

Alternate history and Post-Appoclyptic, are generally tossed into SciFi, but, the only thing binding them to SciFi (generally) is the Appolypse was caused by Super Science weaponary or whatever trope is used to justify telling the Alternate History.

I don't believe you'll find Star Wars in Fantasy section, even though many will say it's more Fantasy than SciFi.

So, basically, that's what Speculative Fiction is mostly used for these days, is to encapsulate what folks are referring to when they say "Genre". How many people rail on SyFy CHannel, because all they play is Fantasy and Horror (And Reality)

 

That's because it's usually been housed under sci-fi/fantasy, but you can find it at Barnes and Noble's website under a few different categories. It was number 3 under Action/Adventure with Harry Potter/Snow White and the Huntsman taking the top 2 spots (both, pure fantasy).

Let's just say it doesn't matter as long as you find what you're looking for.

 

Most bookstores I've been in put Star Wars in the science fiction/fantasy shelves but in a separate section with other SF/Fantasy media tie-ins. I get my ST and SW books right off the same shelf. It's ot unusual for me to see a Star Trek and a Star Wars book sitting side by side.

 

I have a feeling that Keenser isn't gonna be in "Into Darkness", since I haven't been able to find any mentions on line about Deep Roy coming back...not in IMDB or Wikipedia or anywhere...

I guess the online issues between Roy and Pegg explain why.

That's too bad...I was hoping that Keenser would come back, and get fleshed out a little more as a character. It would be nice to have another non-human addition to the crew. (Since we aren't apparently even gonna see a nuTrek version of Arex or M'Ress...)

Btw, Deep Roy was also in Star Wars (Jedi, I think)...so he's now one of the very few actors to have played roles in Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who...(though with new Star Wars coming, that list will likely increase...)