Sci-fi vs Sci-Fantasy

[JeffinOakland]

726 episodes in 6 tv shows (if you count TAS...and I do). Its pretty much impossible to maintain the sci-fi aspect of a sci-fi tv show over that many episodes without sacrificing the "science" of sci-fi to plot drama (fantasy). The teleporter, holodeck, and warp coil are just 3 aspects of the ST universe that blur the lines between magic and sci-fi whenever the plot needs them too. When is sci-fi really fantasy?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

When it gets to the other side.

 

[JeffinOakland]

like a chicken crossing the road?

 

[Melakon]

When it's Star Wars.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

It's not hard sci-fi, but for me Trek isn't about the science but the characters. The tech is there to forward on the story not be the entire plot, so long as they avoid needlessly excessive technobabble.

 

[JeffinOakland]

It's not hard sci-fi, but for me Trek isn't about the science but the characters. The tech is there to forward on the story not be the entire plot, so long as they avoid needlessly excessive technobabble.[/QUOTE

I agree with everything you say. I think as the episodes mounted, it became harder and harder to reinvent the creative wheel. Consequently, for instance (particularly in VOY and ENT) the transporter works when the plot need it to and doesn't work when the plot needs it not to and the "reason" in often explained in some obviously contrived techno-babble bullshit.

 

[Melakon]

Cranky transporters existed in TOS as early as "The Enemy Within".

 

[Harvey]

Indeed. It's in the tradition of the original that the technology at hand works at the speed of plot.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Indeed. It's in the tradition of the original that the technology at hand works at the speed of plot.

So plot is more important than science-fiction? Makes sense to me from a ratings pov.

 

[Melakon]

You seem to be interpreting science fiction as hard science fiction, which usually only exists in literature. Hard science fiction is rare in visual forms of presentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

 

[T'Girl]

a sci-fi tv show

Star Trek does contain some science fiction elements, but it's never been purely a "sci-fi show." It's action-adventure, drama, fantasy as well.

It's not hard science, it's not supposed to be.

 

[JeffinOakland]

a sci-fi tv show

Star Trek does contain some science fiction elements, but it's never been purely a "sci-fi show." It's action-adventure, drama, fantasy as well.

It's not hard science, it's not supposed to be.

pretty much..one can fairy argue its "science fantasy" most of the time...which is why it amuses me when the hard-core trekkies get uptight when the science is obviously BS.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

There's science?

 

[Silvercrest]

Apparently it's not rocket science.

 

[JeffinOakland]

There's science?

I think it was sold as sci-fi back in the 60s. It has strayed so far from that path in the last 50 yrs, the last 20 yrs or so might as well be Star Wars as far as plausibility. That's not to say it cant be enjoyed as is but the hard-core trekkies who looked to the stars and saw something akin to Star Trek have long since been sold out to the almighty dollar.

 

[Melakon]

Those Wiki links I posted list Star Trek as soft science fiction.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The science in science fiction is fantasy science. It's stuff we can't do, don't have a real explanation for in the story, and are asked to take on as fact. Fly faster than the speed of light. Transporters. Slingshot 'round the sun for time travel. None of this makes it any less science fiction rather that is what makes it science fiction in the first place. SCIENCE that is FICTION.

It is no less science fiction in the spin offs than in TOS.

So no nothing was sold out. I think you are trying to make Star Trek into something it never was.

 

[JeffinOakland]

The science in science fiction is fantasy science. It's stuff we can't do, don't have a real explanation for in the story, and are asked to take on as fact. Fly faster than the speed of light. Transporters. Slingshot 'round the sun for time travel. None of this makes it any less science fiction rather that is what makes it science fiction in the first place. SCIENCE that is FICTION.

It is no less science fiction in the spin offs than in TOS.

So no nothing was sold out. I think you are trying to make Star Trek into something it never was.

I enjoy it for the character development and the idea that space exploration might be possible. I was referring to the trekkies who take it too literally. Why do you like it?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

There's only a few people I've ever come across who take it literally to the point of not being able to enjoy bad science in later series. Really they just don't like a particular series so get hung up on the science in that series while excusing it in the series they do like.

It's a good thing we only got horses in two of the movies otherwise it might get accused of being a space western. You really have to be careful how many horses and how much dust you put in a thing if you don't want to attract such slurs.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There's only a few people I've ever come across who take it literally to the point of not being able to enjoy bad science in later series. Really they just don't like a particular series so get hung up on the science in that series while excusing it in the series they do like.

It's a good thing we only got horses in two of the movies otherwise it might get accused of being a space western. You really have to be careful how many horses and how much dust you put in a thing if you don't want to attract such slurs.

Horses are canon. TOS had horses* in at least three episodes ("The Menagerie" & "Shore Leave" & "Spectre of the Gun").

* - All fake horses, though, so TOS "dodged that bullet."