Roddenberry and Asimov were friends and corresponded often. I think the relationship went back to TOS.
Asimov & TMP?
- Thread starter DeepSpaceYorks
- Start date
Yes, supposedly the friendship started after Roddenberry told Asimov to shush right before he was screening "The Cage" at a convention.
I think Roddenberry was just referring to getting the basics right, e.g. the speed of light is not 100mph.
No it was whatever the plot required.
Well, the science needs to serve the plot and not the other way around in my opinion.
Which is fine. But lets not make the mistake of trying to sell it as good science.
Agreed and in fact I never presume that the sci in sci-fi is good science. I wouldn't go looking for good science in sci-fi as a hard rule just like I wouldn't go looking for reliable history in historical fiction, although it may be there.
This is a debate that goes back to Jules Verne vs. H. G. Wells. Verne thought that Wells played too fast and loose with science (time travel? invisibility? anti-gravity?) compared to his own books, which were much rigorous and scientifically plausible. A submarine was believable; a time machine was not, etc.
Personally, I think the "fiction" in "science fiction" is as much (if not more) important than the "science," but this is an old, old debate that predates STAR TREK by a long shot--and that is still being argued to this day.
Personally, I think the "fiction" in "science fiction" is as much (if not more) important than the "science," but this is an old, old debate that predates STAR TREK by a long shot--and that is still being argued to this day.
Right. It could be argued that Around the World in 80 Days wasn't even SF at all, because it was based strictly on what was already possible at the time. Indeed, it was inspired by an article saying that it was actually doable at the time. Indeed, just 16 years later, intrepid journalist Nellie Bly achieved a round-the-world journey in 72 days.
As I recall, Verne objected in particular to Wells inventing an imaginary ant-gravity metal, "Cavorite," to justify his fictional voyage to the moon, whereas Verne had taken a more plausible approach in his own novel: by having the ship shot into space by a giant cannon! 
^Yeah, and Verne totally screwed up how gravity and acceleration worked, assuming that the crew would only feel weightless at the point where the Earth's and Moon's pulls cancelled out. Which goes to show, even the best-researched SF will still make mistakes and seem silly to later generations.
Regarding TMP, been working my way through RETURN TO TOMORROW and according to Gene and Isaac, Paramount had some concerns about the scientific basis behind the melding of machine and man (DECKER/ILEA), thinking viewers wouldn't be able to wrap their heads around it. (MHO: Paramount may have been equally skittish about the sexuality of the scene). Roddenberry said, "find an expert and get their opinion" and without prompting by GR (or even realizing the background of who they were asking), Paramount asked his friend Asimov.
Naturally, Asimov deemed it very plausible.
Again, all per the book
Naturally, Asimov deemed it very plausible.
Again, all per the book
Last edited:
