At this point in history I don't think there's a good reason to artificially separate different varieties of fantasy in commercial media - except for marketing purposes, that is. Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc are all different flavors of fantasy.
Pretty much. But since the discussion was focused on STAR WARS and STAR TREK, I assumed the OP was looking for something more on the SF end of the spectrum. Although, yes, there's no clear line of demarcation between between fantasy and SF, just kind of a continuum.
Didn't Serling say there was a difference between science fiction and fantasy. Let's see. What was that?
The way I've always thought of it is science fiction explains things through science and technology, or even pseudoscience, and fantasy explains things through magic. There are a lot of things that are borderline, like Star Wars.
Oh, countless words have been expended on the subject without any consensus being reached. Trying to "define" science fiction is like trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's a fun intellectual exercise that never yields any practical results. Speaking of Serling, was THE TWILIGHT ZONE science fiction or fantasy . . . or horror? The only honest answer: It depends on the episode.
Or science fiction is the improbable made possible and fantasy is the impossible made probable. Can we make a little way for Serling here. Thanks.
Serling was astonishingly versatile and talented. He could do science fiction ("The Lonely," "The Obsolete Man"), fantasy ("One for the Angels," "The Night of the Meek"), and horror ("The Dummy," "The After Hours"), and all on the same TV show. And I've often argued that PLANET OF THE APES (which he co-scripted) is basically the biggest and most expensive TZ ep of all time, right down to Serling's trademark twist ending.
I always forget that Rod Serling wrote the original PotA movie. Was he involved with any of the sequels?
Not really. I believe he wrote a script for a sequel, but it wasn't used. As I recall, Paul Dehn plotted most of the sequels in the original movie series. At one point, Serling was going to be involved with the TV series, but that didn't happen either..
Maybe Tarantino's rumored project, if it ever happens, will breathe some fresh life into it, but as of now Star Trek has already failed. Star Wars probably has some life left in it. Fans may have hated TLJ (to no one's great surprise), but it made money and normies liked it well enough.
Some fans may have disliked it. Many of us quite liked it. And "normie" eyeballs matter just as much as anybody else', if not more so. None of this stuff is made just for us hardcore fan types. (Nothing personal, btw. I just think fandom needs to get over this whole "us" versus "them" mentality. It's one of my hobby-horses.)
There is a difference between SF and Fantasy. And Trek and Wars are quite clearly Fantasy. Too many people mistaking "I didn't like the most recent incarnation of this thing" with "This thing is dead" to respond to in this thread. Everyone I talked to IRL loved TLJ, I've only ever seen hate for it from internet strangers. But even if it was a disaster, it doesn't matter. A bad movie or bad series isn't stopping anyone from fantasizing themselves into the universe. I love a good scifi series or movie. But the shows that get me emotionally engrossed and spending my free time debating and speculating what's coming next, the fantasy and space operas, they're the ones that really draw me in.
Exactly. People have been pronouncing STAR TREK "dead" for longer than I want to think about. But if THE FINAL FRONTIER didn't kill the franchise, nothing will Hell, I remember when pirate movies were considered box-office poison. Then along came Johnny Depp. Everything old is new again .. . eventually.
Everything comes in waves. Even if franchises take a bow for a while, they'll always come back stronger than ever. We've seen it multiple times with Star Trek. We've seen it with Star Wars, and we've seen it with Dr Who and BSG. They'll ultimately come back for new generations.
Yea, just like Fred Astaire came back to dance with the dust buster. Everything is destined to come back as a simulation sooner or later. They'll all be back, George Burns, Lucille Ball. You just wait, and in prime time too In 4d.
"Star Trek" and "Star Wars" isn't going anywhere but of course things will simply join to their level more than knock them off. DC and Marvel movies are already their. "Doctor Who" has been close for many years and now with diversity it will grow even bigger. The first woman Doctor is just the start. Soon you will see different nationalities and even the America Doctor will happen. The Next Big Thing is going to be "Back to the Future." It hasn't been exploited to it's potential because the creators I believe have final say on making new movies but that won't be the case forever and when some studio does get that power like Disney did with "Star Wars" it's going to sky rocket. Jason
I agree with this although I'd like to add my voice to the 'chorus' who say that 'Dr. Who' is now on a par with 'Star Wars' & 'Star Wars' to the point that one could argue that it is not 'the big two' sci-fi franchises but rather 'the big three'. The show has probably always been, albeit a distant one, although the fact that 'Dr. Who' predates the other two, but since the show's resurrection a dozen years ago its now closed that gap.
Ah but which will see first in terms of character an American Doctor in DW or a British (Lead) Captain in ST. In terms of DW perhaps it's time for another American companion or other nationality (or Alien)