Is 'Star Trek' science fiction?

[Nerys Myk]

I'm sorry that you view Trek that way. Star Trek has always gone politically, socially, and scientifically where no one had gone before.

No it hasn't. It used a lot of the same plots as the Westerns and Cop shows that came before it. As well a few tropes found in SF literature.(Though it was decades behind in content) It wasn't afraid to borrow from classic literature either. Its main claim to fame is being an hour long adult oriented SF show with continuing characters rather than an anthology. It had variety too: Action adventure, comedy, social commentary and on occasion speculative science. No episode or film needs all of these (or even any ) to be Star Trek or science fiction.

Star Trek explored human nature, and science's impact on humanity. It predicted technological advances such as personal computers. It explored society's ills, such as racism. I'm not going to go into the whole of Trek but the show aside for trying to entertain did more. It brought some intelligence. Was it entirely original? Of course not! Few things are.

Many shows explore human nature and society's ill.(including racism) Not sure how much it commented on the impact of science on humanity. It mosty just gave a 60s issues a glossy coat of paint and commented on them. Did it predict the PC or just work stations tied to a main computer?

 

[bismarck_1892]

No it hasn't. It used a lot of the same plots as the Westerns and Cop shows that came before it. As well a few tropes found in SF literature.(Though it was decades behind in content) It wasn't afraid to borrow from classic literature either. Its main claim to fame is being an hour long adult oriented SF show with continuing characters rather than an anthology. It had variety too: Action adventure, comedy, social commentary and on occasion speculative science. No episode or film needs all of these (or even any ) to be Star Trek or science fiction.

Star Trek explored human nature, and science's impact on humanity. It predicted technological advances such as personal computers. It explored society's ills, such as racism. I'm not going to go into the whole of Trek but the show aside for trying to entertain did more. It brought some intelligence. Was it entirely original? Of course not! Few things are.

Many shows explore human nature and society's ill.(including racism) Not sure how much it commented on the impact of science on humanity. It mosty just gave a 60s issues a glossy coat of paint and commented on them. Did it predict the PC or just work stations tied to a main computer?

I believe you are actually agreeing not disagreeing with me. What makes science fiction - science fiction is the way it does it not the fact that other types of fiction do it too. If thats what you meant.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In some respects I am. Star Trek was a product of it times and was a reflection and commnetary on those times. It was at best only a step or two ahead if its time and often two steps behind.

Science Fiction in Star Trek was used as a sleight of hand to distract people who might raise an eyebrow at some of the issues being discussed. When it did tackle issues head on it often used a sledgehammer , with mixed results. Science was used a jumping off point for many of the stories, but the stories were rarely about the science or even the impact of science.

 

[Sci]

I really wanted to like this new movie. But it is an empty action flick, with no science fiction involved.

Science fiction introduces scientific concepts, real or speculative, in detail and explores their social, political and emotional consequences. It has meaning. Depth.

1. I reject the premise that this film lacks depth. Its depth is emotional and character-oriented, but this does not mean it lacks depth.

2. Science fiction does not necessarily introduce scientific concepts in detail to explore their social, political, and emotional consequences. It can, and it often does, but this is not the defining characteristic of all science fiction, or even all good science fiction.

3. Star Trek did explore the emotional consequences of time travel (discovering that someone you hate is someone who is destined to become your best friend, learning to see past yourself in the process) and of being the child of two alien cultures (Spock's arc).

PLUS, a bit off topic, there was no idealism. Captain Pine is fairly neanderthal towards Chekhov, getting his name wrong, as if he's this strange Russian guy in a monoethnic crew.

Yes, that's right, because someone mispronounced Chekhov's name, this film is promoting anti-Russian ethnocentrism.

 

[Nerys Myk]

At least it was spelled right.

 

[Tentacle]

By the definitions that some of you have posed,
Anything set in space with some form of propulsion that's not employed in real life is science fiction.

 

[Islander]

By the definitions that some of you have posed,
Anything set in space with some form of propulsion that's not employed in real life is science fiction.

No. Imaginative propulsion means are allowed, imaginary ones are not.

Warp travel is explainable, it even is calculable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive). We don't understand how or even IF we can reach this but it follows already established laws of physics and universal constants.

Star Trek having anti-matter reactors powered by dilithium crystals to create a warp bubble is an imaginative solution. Star Trek is science-fiction

Just going to hyperspace is imaginary. Star Wars is fantasy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Commonly, sci-fi films express society's anxiety about technology and how to forecast and control the impact of technological and environmental change on contemporary society.

Then Star Trek, by and large, is not a science fiction series, seeing how it very rarely fits this remarkably narrow definition.

On the other hand, space opera--which is a subset of science fiction--almost never follows this pattern. That Star Trek manages to tie in to present day anti-tech anxieties at all is damn-near miraculous.

 

[Tentacle]

By the definitions that some of you have posed,
Anything set in space with some form of propulsion that's not employed in real life is science fiction.

No. Imaginative propulsion means are allowed, imaginary ones are not.

Warp travel is explainable, it even is calculable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive). We don't understand how or even IF we can reach this but it follows already established laws of physics and universal constants.

Star Trek having anti-matter reactors powered by dilithium crystals to create a warp bubble is an imaginative solution. Star Trek is science-fiction

Just going to hyperspace is imaginary. Star Wars is fantasy.

cue red matter

 

[Gepard]

Just going to hyperspace is imaginary. Star Wars is fantasy.

I see. And what's "subspace," again?

 

[Islander]

Commonly, sci-fi films express society's anxiety about technology and how to forecast and control the impact of technological and environmental change on contemporary society.

Then Star Trek, by and large, is not a science fiction series, seeing how it very rarely fits this remarkably narrow definition.

On the other hand, space opera--which is a subset of science fiction--almost never follows this pattern. That Star Trek manages to tie in to present day anti-tech anxieties at all is damn-near miraculous.

False. Depicting the abolition of violence, money, diseases, ... was a day-to-day expression of our society's anxiety. Having a "happy ending" was an indicator for the need of hope.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Just going to hyperspace is imaginary. Star Wars is fantasy.

I see. And what's "subspace," again?

Where you park your sub.

 

[Islander]

Just going to hyperspace is imaginary. Star Wars is fantasy.

I see. And what's "subspace," again?

Matter itself doesnt' go through subspace. I don't have a link for that one but there are theories where sub-space is a concept of all particules throughout the universe resonating to one-another and can be affected for communication purposes, but not travel.

 

[Gepard]

Matter itself doesnt' go through subspace. I don't have a link for that one but there are theories where sub-space is a concept of all particules throughout the universe resonating to one-another and can be affected for communication purposes, but not travel.

And how does that stop it from being made up fantasy?

Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

By the definitions that some of you have posed,
Anything set in space with some form of propulsion that's not employed in real life is science fiction.

No. Imaginative propulsion means are allowed, imaginary ones are not.

What are you even talking about? Warp drive is explainable only in the context of comparison to a MATHEMATICAL THEORY; how it works is not even remotely explicable, and it is--by definition--imaginary. Just because someobody in the story can recite enough technobabble to make it look like he knows how it works doesn't make it LESS imaginary.

It's a simple matter of style. What differentiates science fiction from ordinary fantasy, however, is generally a sense that the fanciful elements must have some kind of SCIENTIFIC explanation that at least one of the main characters is privy to, even if he doesn't bother to explain it in detail. Hard science fiction is more concerned with how things work and therefore the knowledgeable character/narrator shoots his mouth off whenever he gets an opportunity. Soft sci-fi is more about the characters and events and therefore nobody bothers with a technical exposition, the technology is taken for granted as working the way it does and nobody really thinks about it, unless it's broken.

So in soft sci-fi you hear Doctor Who say "Gravity, shmavity. My people practically invented black holes!" while in (an attempt to be) hard sci-fi you hear Captain Janeway say "If we generate warp particles with the nacelles we can open a resonant fracture in the quantum singularity that will allow us to decouple to our native space time continuum." One is not necessarily more "real" than the other just because the characters and/or narrators spend more time explaining how their technology works.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Red matter is right next to the dilithium and protomatter at your local Wal-Mart.

 

[Tentacle]

Just going to hyperspace is imaginary. Star Wars is fantasy.

I see. And what's "subspace," again?

Matter itself doesnt' go through subspace. I don't have a link for that one but there are theories where sub-space is a concept of all particules throughout the universe resonating to one-another and can be affected for communication purposes, but not travel.

Correct me if I'm wrong. We can all agree that Dune is science fiction.

But didnt dune employ some kind of hyperspace travel, where a navigator, controls the trajectory of one's travel in "hyperspace"?

But then again there are alot more explanation behind the concept. Then the simply RED MATTER creates blackholes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I see. And what's "subspace," again?

Matter itself doesnt' go through subspace. I don't have a link for that one but there are theories where sub-space is a concept of all particules throughout the universe resonating to one-another and can be affected for communication purposes, but not travel.

Correct me if I'm wrong. We can all agree that Dune is science fiction.

But didnt dune employ some kind of hyperspace travel, where a navigator, controls the trajectory of one's travel in "hyperspace"?

But then again there are alot more explanation behind the concept. Then the simply RED MATTER creates blackholes.

Actually, Dune left the explanation at "We can fold space because of the Spice; you literally have to be on drugs to understand how this works."

Remember the Guild Navigators consumed so much Spice they actually evolved into giant seahorses or something. Exactly how THIS happens is left mostly unexplained, and probably for the best, because I think it would detract from the story if Frank Herbert wasted too much page space going into the details on that.

 

[Islander]

Matter itself doesnt' go through subspace. I don't have a link for that one but there are theories where sub-space is a concept of all particules throughout the universe resonating to one-another and can be affected for communication purposes, but not travel.

And how does that stop it from being made up fantasy?

Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

That stop from being fantasy when these theories stand up to our current law of physics and cannot be disproven, even if unlikely.

Also, the setting of a fantasy world is created to serve the story directly. Star Wars needed to travel to different planet, Lucas invented a mean along with the story, for the story.

When Rodenberry wrote Star Trek, he actually had to visualize from what he already knew and make the setting appear like a natural continuity from the present.

 

[Islander]

Matter itself doesnt' go through subspace. I don't have a link for that one but there are theories where sub-space is a concept of all particules throughout the universe resonating to one-another and can be affected for communication purposes, but not travel.

Correct me if I'm wrong. We can all agree that Dune is science fiction.

But didnt dune employ some kind of hyperspace travel, where a navigator, controls the trajectory of one's travel in "hyperspace"?

But then again there are alot more explanation behind the concept. Then the simply RED MATTER creates blackholes.

Actually, Dune left the explanation at "We can fold space because of the Spice; you literally have to be on drugs to understand how this works."

Remember the Guild Navigators consumed so much Spice they actually evolved into giant seahorses or something. Exactly how THIS happens is left mostly unexplained, and probably for the best, because I think it would detract from the story if Frank Herbert wasted too much page space going into the details on that.

But it still provides an explanation. There is nothing within what we currently know that clearly disprove that a certain drug could not alter your brain to the point of generating the ability to fold space allowing massive ships to cross rift and travel faster than light. It is highly unlikely, improbable, but not completely impossible.