Is 'Star Trek' science fiction?

[Brutal Strudel]

The dominant Gene of Trek was a New Agey atheist--he believed in higher states of being but he had bno time or respect for the, in his words, "Stone Age myths" of thhe Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths. The recessive Gene, who many credit with giving Trek much of its best qualities, was very much a Christian.

 

[stonester1]

Exactly.

 

[Overgeeked]

How typical. Ignore the evidence to cling to your belief.

Every god encountered in TOS was some kind of advanced alien. Every god in TNG was an alien, or had access to advanced technology and used it to dupe a less sophisticated species. In DS9 (easily the most religious series) the gods are all aliens. In VOY... wait for it... the gods are all aliens. In ENT the religious zealots ignored the evidence before their eyes (and sensors) and started blowing themselves up (and killing others) to 'prove' they were right. Then there's ST5. "What does god need with a starship?" Hmmm... I'm sensing a pattern of evidence here.

Further, the only human with religion explored is Chakotay. The only other religions explored are alien religions with little to no similarity to real world Earth religions. Every human encounter with religion (save Chakotay) is viewed skeptically and later found to be the work of aliens.

This is a great article about Trek and God, but since it disagrees with your position, I'm sure you'll find 'reason' to refute it. There's also this article from a Trek fan.

"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will -- and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."

 

[stonester1]

Then there's ST5. "What does god need with a starship?" Hmmm... I'm sensing a pattern of evidence here.

That the Trek universe is full of pretenders, yes. But as the movie concludes, there is NO conclusion that "there is no god", in the final discussion. According to Kirk, "Maybe God isn't out there, but in here, in the human heart."

Of course God, however he/she/it exists, isn't going to be stranded on a planet someplace. And of course, the best way to search is down in your soul.

That you no doubt don't believe you have.


Thank you, I will, as there is plenty of evidence to cling to my "point of view". I've already pointed to some, hell, you mention a bit in your screed above.

But don't let me dissuade you of your view that Star Trek is a non-stop unequivocal secular-humanist, no compromise, no grey area screed.

 

[erebus]

soul...That you no doubt don't believe you have

I get the feeling this is meant as an insult (correct me if i'm wrong), but surely it's a compliment to not believe in something that there is no evidence for?

 

[charliehorse43]

Star Trek is space opera.
A western set in space. Roddenberry pitched it as a wagon train to the stars.

 

[stonester1]

soul...That you no doubt don't believe you have

I get the feeling this is meant as an insult (correct me if i'm wrong), but surely it's a compliment to not believe in something that there is no evidence for?

It's not meant as either. It's merely a supposition, based on the comments of the poster in question to date. It is not an "insult" or a "compliment" to believe or disbelieve in such. It is just belief.

As for what evidence, that's only if you consider what the labcoat boys have to say on the subject, in consensus, as evidence.

I don't.

Feel free to believe that, but to say there is "no evidence" is to discount much in the way of evidence.

Just not the kind you are willing to buy.

And that's fine, but that's not the same thing as being able to truthfully say there is "none".

 

[erebus]

I guess thats true, no one can prove a negative. But you must admit the boys in the lab coats have their moments.

I guess its time i left this bbs. Good luck all

 

[Balrog]

Taking the strict definition of "science fiction", not much of Star Trek is actual "science fiction", especially the movie franchise. TMP comes the closest.

It's "space fiction", or even "Space Opera" given Nero and such.

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

Politically and socially - that's a "morality play". The fact that it uses futuristic "science-y space stuff" doesn't make it true "science fiction".

 

[Islander]

Look, I do not wish to be the next 3D_Master but Star Wars is fantasy and Star Trek is science-fiction. That's just how it is.

I was thinking of a different way to better identified sci-fi vs fantasy. Take the technological details out of the equation. If the story remains, it's fantasy. If not, it's sci-fi.

Examples:

Take the ships and planets and the force out of Star Wars, make it a setting of Lords of the ring-like with castles and magician, or even a real-like setting in a war-struggled jungled with milice factions and a bunch of martial artist sects. The rebels still fight oppression and eventually defeat the empire, Darth Vader is still Luke's father... The story remains. Everything about the universe is made out purely for the settings, for the decor.

Now take V-Ger out of the Motion Picture. A MAN-MADE PROBE CONFUSED ABOUT ITS OWN PROGRAMMING returning to fullfil its purpose but destroying its very creator in the process, thus preventing its own purposes. It's not just a dangerous dragon, it's created by man, by technology. The story is no longer the same without this element. Khan is genetically-engineered. The impact of the story would'nt be the same even if it was Darth Vader himself instead. Every single Trek movie has such an element.

Using ships and planet is what may bring confusion about Star Wars's genre but it is fantasy. And, unlike previously quoted, this is not something I make up to classified what I appreciate, I actually liked Star Wars very much at the same level as Lords of the ring, but the settings stimulate only my imagination, my fantasy. The right side of my brain.

Sci-fi does that to a little bit too, but it does so for me because it also stimulate the left side. The mechanics of things, the evolution of mankind, science. That's something I'm really insterested in and I found it very exiting for that aspect.

Dune was pointed earlier as a point of contention on this matter stating that it's drug enduce space folding capability is completely made-up. It's not. If you have read all 6 original dune novels and its 3 prequels along with 3 other novels written by Herbert's son after his death, you would know this has evolved over 200 centuries (not 23rd century, not 24th century, not even 34th century, the 230th century approximately) and describe how mankind had highs and lows throughout its evolution and banned computers and nuclear power. The spice itself is an analogy of our dependance to petroleum. It's definetely a hardcore sci-fi.

Star Trek is abviously not as heavy and Rodenberry wanted to adress more social issues like racism and foreign relation. The mistake is limiting the science portion of sci-fi to technology, to applied science. It's not. Medicine, psychology, anthropology, economy, ... those are all sciences that don't necessaly have machines. There are nonetheless issues that plague our society and create uncertainties about our future.

 

[cmdrbolly]

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

That's bullshit piled so high even Tenzing would lose his way to the top.

 

[Phily B]

It has about as much science fiction in it as First Contact/TWoK/TUC.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's like that old movie "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" -- it's just "Robinson Crusoe" ... on Mars. "Robinson Crusoe" isn't a science-fiction story, so setting it on Mars does not make it a science-fiction story.

Yes. Yes it does. In the exact same capacity that "A western in outer space" is, also, a science fiction story. All that is required for a story to be in the genre of science fiction is for it to prominently feature sci-fi elements in its setting and premise. Hence Firefly--a space western in the most literal sense--is indeed a science fiction story for the same reason as some of the cornier episodes of TOS.

That's true about a lot of "Star Trek" episodes. Just because you set a detective story, or a Western story, or a gangster story in space, doesn't make them science-fiction stories.

Yes it does. In fact these will continue to BE science fiction stories even after gangsters actually start operating in space, for the same reason "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" is considered science fiction despite the fact that real submarines now exist that far surpass the capabilities of Captain Nemo's little boat.

If you can tell the same exact story WITHOUT the science-fiction elements, it's not a science-fiction story.

Correction: if you DO tell the same story without science-fiction elements, then it isn't science fiction. Adding those elements changes the genre, subtracting them puts it in a different genre. Thus a hackneyed love triangle and somebody's long-lost identical twin makes for a run-o-the-mill soap opera; when you do it on a space station, it's a sci-fi soap opera.

 

[bismarck_1892]

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.

I think my posted definition was a bit larger then the one quoted.

Also, I think we have moved away from the original question: Is Star Trek sci-fi? And it appears, after reading many of the posts, that most would agree that Star Trek was sci-fi.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Look, I do not wish to be the next 3D_Master but Star Wars is fantasy and Star Trek is science-fiction. That's just how it is.

I was thinking of a different way to better identified sci-fi vs fantasy. Take the technological details out of the equation. If the story remains, it's fantasy. If not, it's sci-fi.

Now you're just reasserting your original point, without a great deal of support. Again: the wide range of productions widely described (by people other than you and me) as "sci-fi" include a lot of things that DO NOT expound on the technical details behind them. Sci-fi productions don't have to, and failing to do so makes them "soft" by definition.

Hard sci-fi may include things like detailed (made up) explanations of the technology and its workings, and some may even attempt to include a tech manual or supplemental source materials. But that is not a requisite for science fiction, only that someone in the story is aware that science--not magic or mystery or divinity--is responsible for the devices provided.

Star Wars is commonly described in mainstream media as "sci-fi fantasy" which is basically extremely soft-science fiction. Sci-fi action adventure tends to be harder, since these are usually set closer to present-day settings. Sci-fi drama is usually hardest of all, but only because the kinds of people who watch dramas are assumed to be more sophisticated in the first place and won't be swayed so easily be kewl explosions and one-liners.

So let's take some examples--REAL examples--and you can find me a source somewhere that describes them as something other than Sci-fi.

The Divine Invasion - Science fiction or fantasy?
The Martian Chronicles - Science Fiction or fantasy?
Dune - Science fiction or fantasy?
Childhood's End - Science fiction or fantasy?
Snow Crash - Science fiction or fantasy?
Neuromancer - Science Fiction or fantasy?
The Matrix - Science fiction or fantasy?
Strange Days - Science Fiction or fantasy?
Contact - Science fiction or fantasy?

Each of these stories hinges on the development of technology--in some cases HUGE and widespread applications thereof--whose actual workings is left completely unexplained and nobody has any idea how it works except the characters who designed it. The Divine Invasion actually describes a plot by Jesus Christ to smuggle himself past an interplanetary embargo in the womb of a virgin. Childhood's end is little better, and depicts the human race destroying their planet after the inexplicable development of godlike psionic powers.

I have never heard ANYONE describe these novels as something other than science fiction; it would be absurd to do so, as in the case of "Electric Sheep" where the creation of the androids is described in only the most abstract terms and is implied to be at least partially biological, but never articulated in any meaningful way.

Of course, I could use one of your own examples:

Now take V-Ger out of the Motion Picture. A MAN-MADE PROBE CONFUSED ABOUT ITS OWN PROGRAMMING returning to fullfil its purpose but destroying its very creator in the process, thus preventing its own purposes. It's not just a dangerous dragon, it's created by man, by technology...

And it is--like Commander Data and other android stories--merely a rehash of the old Pinochio archetypes: a man-made creation that becomes sentient and seeks to become "real." Pinochio, in turn, is a rehash of the old Grimoires where the Golem gains a soul after its creator gives it the ability to speak, and it then learns the art of sorcery in order to become an actual living person.

When your creation is a wooden doll that has magically gained self-locomotion, or even a clay mannequin animated by a spell, what you have is fantasy. Replace the doll with an android, a space probe, a clone, a hologram, or even a sophisticated AI in a similar environment, you have science-fiction. This is why "A.I." is considered a science fiction movie despite the fact that it's basically a modernized Pinochio story. We don't know how David works, and we don't care, because we know he's an android and we know that he was created using science. We know this because David's creator knows this, and that makes this the science fiction version of Pinochio.

Dune was pointed earlier as a point of contention on this matter stating that it's drug enduce space folding capability is completely made-up. It's not.

Uh huh... because it's perfectly grounded in scientific theory that if you smoke enough marijuana you will gain the ability to create warps in the fabric of space time with your mind.

That the concept is highly important to the progression of the story doesn't change the fact that it is COMPLETELY MADE UP. That it's analogous to something realistic doesn't change this either. You seem to have overlooked the fact that the Spice--and Arrakis, and the sand worms that are central to the whole process--are also completely made up.

The mistake is limiting the science portion of sci-fi to technology

No. The mistake is confusing science fiction with technological futurism. Science fiction as a genre describes the setting and background, and little else. Sort of like how "realistic fiction" implies settings grounded in mundane reality or "historical fiction" implies settings intertwined with historical events or set in the past. Pure fantasy requires only the removal of scientific explicability from the story; Lord of the Rings would indeed make the jump into sci-fi fantasy (an extremely soft variety thereof) if Sauron was reveled to be some type of alien intelligence bent on conquering their little planet (Like Krull, for example, generally considered a sci-fi fantasy story).

 

[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.

I think my posted definition was a bit larger then the one quoted.

To be sure: that science fiction explores anything having to do with SOCIETY is usually accidental (that is to say, it is the intent of the author, not a requirement of the genre). Quite a few sci-fi stories make no attempt to explore the implications of technological development or society's attitudes or reactions to them, in fact some of the harder science fiction writers (Larry Niven et al) are alot more concerned with a political and social message with the technology being used as simply a means to an end.

Let's put that another way: "The Hunt For Red October" would have been a sci-fi novel if it was written in the 1930s. Since it wasn't, it is generally listed in thriller/adventure/military fiction genres with a handful of shallow sci-fi elements. It explores alot of concepts in the novel, societal, political, economic and so on, but none of these things make it a sci-fi novel despite the fact that much of the action takes place on a submarine.

Also, I think we have moved away from the original question: Is Star Trek sci-fi? And it appears, after reading many of the posts, that most would agree that Star Trek was sci-fi.

Sure. The question is whether or not it still IS sci-fi. At issue here is whether or not it makes sense to say a story depicting a fictitious space vessel traveling through space, encountering alien life forms hundreds of years in the future and exotic spatial/political/environmental phenomena of all shapes and sizes is NOT science fiction. It seems to me you're saying that it isn't sophisticated enough or political enough or sociological enough... my point is none of these things are inherent or even overly common in science fiction stories.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Star Trek and the future of science fiction

Interesting article yesterday:
Star Trek and the future of science fiction
Published May 24 2009
http://energybulletin.net/node/49004

As we enter what may be the greatest crisis, Star Trek’s optimism might have reached right across the decades to again find its moment.

 

[Islander]

Hard sci-fi may include things like detailed (made up) explanations of the technology and its workings, and some may even attempt to include a tech manual or supplemental source materials. But that is not a requisite for science fiction, only that someone in the story is aware that science--not magic or mystery or divinity--is responsible for the devices provided.

What you must understand is that magic is science in some fantasy universe. It's a trade that can be learned. That doesn't make it science-fiction because it's not science in OUR universe.

Star Wars is commonly described in mainstream media as "sci-fi fantasy" which is basically extremely soft-science fiction.

No, that's fantasy that looks like sci-fi.

Uh huh... because it's perfectly grounded in scientific theory that if you smoke enough marijuana you will gain the ability to create warps in the fabric of space time with your mind

No, but there isn't any grounds to claim with 100% certainty that there is no substance capable of this. There's already theories of the humain brain capabilities, including telekinesis. Space folding is just a lager scale.

I never said science-fiction must be provable or even possible, just that it cannot be currently be disproven given our knowledge BUT WOULD EVENTUALLY BE. Which eliminates all theological aspect.

That the concept is highly important to the progression of the story doesn't change the fact that it is COMPLETELY MADE UP. That it's analogous to something realistic doesn't change this either. You seem to have overlooked the fact that the Spice--and Arrakis, and the sand worms that are central to the whole process--are also completely made up.

Of course they're made up. Vulcans are made up too like the Bond girls and EVERYTHING produce by holywood that doesn't have the notice "based on true events". That's beside the point. WHEN these were made up, how they were possible was kept in mind by their writters. And I'm sure some made mistakes and created something that was eventually proven impossible. It doesn't change the original intention.

Pure fantasy requires only the removal of scientific explicability from the story; Lord of the Rings would indeed make the jump into sci-fi fantasy (an extremely soft variety thereof) if Sauron was reveled to be some type of alien intelligence bent on conquering their little planet (Like Krull, for example, generally considered a sci-fi fantasy story).

That would not have affected the story overall, it remains fantasy. Again, looking like real science and taking it into matter is not the same things. If Sauron is a conquering alien AND the fellowship is the UN, then it's science-fiction. Being alien is not pivotal to the story as it bring a REAL science element. And not just a technological one put a political one as well. How we would react to aliens comming to earth is something on our minds that we might fear. It doesn't involve any of our technology but it invole the faith we have (or we lack) in our leaders.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Hard sci-fi may include things like detailed (made up) explanations of the technology and its workings, and some may even attempt to include a tech manual or supplemental source materials. But that is not a requisite for science fiction, only that someone in the story is aware that science--not magic or mystery or divinity--is responsible for the devices provided.

What you must understand is that magic is science in some fantasy universe. It's a trade that can be learned. That doesn't make it science-fiction because it's not science in OUR universe.

Indeed. What makes it "science in our universe" is that the author intends it to be understood as such.

Star Wars is commonly described in mainstream media as "sci-fi fantasy" which is basically extremely soft-science fiction.

No, that's fantasy that looks like sci-fi.

If it looks like sci-fi, smells like sci-fi, tastes like sci-fi, sounds like sci-fi... well, my friend, it's sci-fi.

No, but there isn't any grounds to claim with 100% certainty that there is no substance capable of this.

Irrelevant. There isn't any grounds to claim with 100% certainty that the Dark Lord Sauron didn't almost destroy the Earth twenty thousand years ago. The only difference is Tolkien didn't intend Lord of the Rings to be read with any degree of even speculative scientific plausibility, hence the genre is fantasy and nothing else.

I never said science-fiction must be provable or even possible, just that it cannot be currently be disproven given our knowledge BUT WOULD EVENTUALLY BE. Which eliminates all theological aspect.

That's easy to quantify. If something is meant to be explainable, it's science fiction. If something is meant to be unexplainable, it's probably fantasy. Again, it doesn't matter if the explanation is actually included in the story, because science fiction isn't actually about the science.

WHEN these were made up, how they were possible was kept in mind by their writters. And I'm sure some made mistakes and created something that was eventually proven impossible. It doesn't change the original intention.

Perfect. We agree then that the ORIGINAL INTENT of the author is what defines the genre, not the structure or quantity of technobabble spouted by key characters.

So if George Lucas intended Star Wars to be a sci-fi/fantasy story (and he did, obviously) then that's exactly what it is. And every writer for 40 years has intended Star Trek to be a sci-fi/adventure series, and that's exactly what it has always been, even today.

That would not have affected the story overall, it remains fantasy.

It doesn't have to affect the story. Inclusion of scientific elements--in any way--portrudes into the genre of science fiction. The importance of those elements only tells you what the emphasis was, or whether or not it's soft or hard science fiction or sci-fi/fantasy.

Which, in the end, goes to the overall point. Star Trek IS a science fiction story because it includes scientific elements--even made-up ones--in a fictional context. Whatever hairs you want to split about whatever else it fails to provide, that it is a science fiction story is not up for debate.

 

[VulcanJedi]

Lower on the scale of pure science fiction for sure---but can I point out an example of sci-fiction fun from the film?

The motocycle looked normal---until we got close and then you could see it had no spokes holding it to the frame. Simple--but science fiction. Taking a common technology and imagining advances in the future.