The difference is that sci fi is an exclusive genre.
In fantasy you can have science, harry potter can do a physics equation and hop on a broom the next minute.
The idea that sci fi would allow for magic is a farce.
Its a pretty obvious difference.
Hard Star Trek
- Thread starter Autistoid
- Start date
In fantasy you can have science, harry potter can do a physics equation and hop on a broom the next minute.
The idea that sci fi would allow for magic is a farce.
Its a pretty obvious difference.
Keep telling yourself that.
No. What is farce is people trying to hold a genre to their own personal standards. Just because we don't understand the science behind someone's "magic" doesn't mean it can't have a scientific basis somewhere along the way.
I hate to quote Clarke yet again, but it doesn't seem to be seeping in...
In Star Trek, we see races that have evolved into energy beings. But if you take a step back, are energy beings being on our evolutionary path any wilder than the fact that we evolved from single-cell organisms?
You want to take away warp drive and replace it with nuclear fission. Boring. There is nothing there that fires the imagination. Between having a tube clogged and having a starship that funnels all its power through two stones the size of a fist, I know which one fires my imagination.
YMMV.
I hate that quote. It's usually used to justify absurdity or so an author can avoid giving an explanation for something.
Yes, it is wilder, ridiculous even. Just the very nonsense that Clark quote is trying to hide and doing as fine a job as The Emperor's New Clothes.
If you can accept this then I think you should be able to accept the reverse.
Magic is indistinguishable from advanced technology.
In so far as somehow it's all explainable within technology/science. Vulcan mindmelds are a natural ability to pickup on electro-chemical emissions from another person. Energy beings are just another stage in evolution. Warp drive is simply pumping electrofied gas through a exotic metal.
It out of the question that "they" found a way to harness what is nothing else but magic, to turn someone into energy, send that person tens of thousands of mile away, and then turn them back into flesh and blood.
It all simply science that someone who travels too fast converts into a salamander, yep no magic there.
Because it just can't be "magic" ... can it?
I've never heard SF called an "exclusive genre" before." I've even read a few SF novels that play with the SF v Fantasy trope. Worlds where science and magic exist.
. Physics isn't science fiction. The genre is called science fiction for a reason. Warp drives and transporters are every bit as fictional as flying broomsticks and teleportation spells.
The differences probably aren't as great as you think. SF lifted more than a few concepts from Fantasy. The Mad Scientist is just another wizard. Aliens and robots have their roots in demons and Golems. But that's besides the point. Superheroes are their own genre, where SF and fantasy co-exist.
Last edited:
Gene Roddenberry had an alternative to Wagon Train to the Stars-heroes performing good deeds in a post-apocalyptic landscape.
There were two different reworkings-not reboots-of Genesis II: Planet Earth, and Strange New World.
I think that what we have been discussing is a reworking of the general Wagon-Trains-to-the-Stars theme, rather than a reboot of Trek.
There were two different reworkings-not reboots-of Genesis II: Planet Earth, and Strange New World.
I think that what we have been discussing is a reworking of the general Wagon-Trains-to-the-Stars theme, rather than a reboot of Trek.
Gene Roddenberry had an alternative to Wagon Train to the Stars-heroes performing good deeds in a post-apocalyptic landscape.
There were two different reworkings-not reboots-of Genesis II: Planet Earth, and Strange New World.
I think that what we have been discussing is a reworking of the general Wagon-Trains-to-the-Stars theme, rather than a reboot of Trek.
Is that a bad thing? I like going back to the roots of TOS to understand some core concepts that GR was messing around with in his approach and concepts. At the heart
While the idea of a heroes in post-apocalyptic landscape is interesting (at least to me. Hopefully that concept would be a little less depressing than Fallout. Well, as less depressing as the post-apocalypse would be), I'm not sure it could really work.
That isn't the origins of TOS (I just re-read Inside Star Trek), that would seem to be describing Genesis Two/Strange New World.
Um, that was not my point.
I was commenting on Tim Walker's comment that we are discussing a re-imagining of the "Wagon Train to the Stars" concept, not a reboot of Trek.
In my opinion, the concept of a more Western flavor to Trek, the concept of the frontier, is something that any reboot should consider, at least in part, in its creation.
What if Kirk and Spock are trapped in a Talosian illusion of memories the Talosians had when they were space explorers. Kirk is the cripple that Spock came across and Pike's accident was an illusion. The Talosians were once Humans. Talos IV was the planet V'Ger came across. It was once Earth. V'Ger traveled to the future where it found living machines - advanced Humans who reprogrammed it to fulfill it's mission. Decker is still trapped in V'ger and living on Talos IV with Ilea.
I like the idea!
Half?
Isn't that low balling it?
Isn't that low balling it?
Indeed. Enterprise had the potential to really explore the concept of the frontier, and treating things that were a part of Trek lore as new and exciting. Space travel, transporters, warp drive, etc. where all being treated as new, even though the audience was already familiar with them.
In my opinion, looking at GR's original concepts of the frontier being in space, of the technology not being explained so much as being just used, etc. could create a reboot that would function in a more contemporary way.
In my opinion, looking at GR's original concepts of the frontier being in space, of the technology not being explained so much as being just used, etc. could create a reboot that would function in a more contemporary way.
Agreed. The more I think about it, the more I believe the only way to continue the franchise is to reboot it or go further in the future. And I think audiences respond better to the former.
Nothing crazy like some suggestions where they don't leave Sol, and have no warp or anything like that. Still keep it trek, but just with a fresh take and contemporary voice. Keep the federation, aliens, warp, transporters, etc.
Just for the love of raptor jesus, please no melodrama.
Nothing crazy like some suggestions where they don't leave Sol, and have no warp or anything like that. Still keep it trek, but just with a fresh take and contemporary voice. Keep the federation, aliens, warp, transporters, etc.
Just for the love of raptor jesus, please no melodrama.
Sadly, I think melodrama is unavoidable given the current trends in TV and film making :/
The use of more contemporary knowledge of the solar system, as well as theoretical physics can work its way in to a reboot, and, in my opinion, could be good for the franchise as a whole. In "Star Trek Memories" by Shatner, he records GR's discussions with local scientists to get terminology that would work and not sound out of the bounds of, then, current scientific knowledge. That is how we got phasers, instead of the lasers in "The Cage" and dilithium instead of lithium, in "Where No Man has Gone Before."
The use of more contemporary knowledge of the solar system, as well as theoretical physics can work its way in to a reboot, and, in my opinion, could be good for the franchise as a whole. In "Star Trek Memories" by Shatner, he records GR's discussions with local scientists to get terminology that would work and not sound out of the bounds of, then, current scientific knowledge. That is how we got phasers, instead of the lasers in "The Cage" and dilithium instead of lithium, in "Where No Man has Gone Before."
Agreed for the most part, however this leaving sol obsession I think is a really outdated way of looking at space.
I think in the future this obsession with gravity wells, will be as foolish as a caveman being obsessed with finding warms caves in the heart of a suburban neighbourhood.
First of all, Trek is not and should not be hard sci-fi. But at the same time it should create the illusion that we are actually on a Starship and here people use technical language. It's like watching a submarine movie, there will also be some technical language in it which you might not immediately understand.
In my opinion the problem was that the technobabble was too much in the foreground,and that the series have been too self-conscious about it. The proper way to do it would be to have it in the background (the sublime example of handling the foreground and the background well in the sc-fi realm is obviously "Children of Men" where you have all the interesting social stuff in the background).
In my opinion the problem was that the technobabble was too much in the foreground,and that the series have been too self-conscious about it. The proper way to do it would be to have it in the background (the sublime example of handling the foreground and the background well in the sc-fi realm is obviously "Children of Men" where you have all the interesting social stuff in the background).
