Star Wars was described as having a gritty, lived-in atmosphere compared to the scifi of the past, in terms of production design, story, and tone. I think that turned out pretty well. Even further along the scale is Alien and Blade Runner and a host of other gritty scifi that is either profitable or critically acclaimed or both.
The new Power Rangers movie was described as dark and gritty. Spoiler: Spoiler The villain is defeated by being slapped so hard by a giant robot, that she flies into the moon. Turns out 'gritty' is a comparative term.
I find I have a lot of room in my sci-fi entertainment world for me to like both "Gritty" and "Non-Gritty" sci-fi. I've always enjoyed TNG and VOY and its shiny utopian view of our future (although many TNG episodes feel preachy and have become dated due to that preachiness). However, I also like science fiction that many would describe as "gritty" and that show us definitely NON utopian futures -- and even a non-utopian present, considering that science fiction does not need to be about our future.
Gritty typically means dark environments, vulgar language, depressed characters. Basically the vibe from crime shows such as The Wire set in a dystopian future. Or as I call it - lazy writing.
I would prefer the surface to be sleek and shiny, and the grit to be there metaphorically in the form of complex, morally conflicted, deeply troubled and "damaged" characters. In other words, Mad Men in space. Kor
This right here. Gritty doesn't necessarily mean a dark camera filter or vulgar language. You could call DS9 gritty due to its moral gray-area content.
I can't watch the video, as it's blocked in the United States on copyright grounds. However, I see your ill directed sarcasm. Fantasy and gritty Sci-Fi are part of the same category of unrealistic story telling. I'm an advocate for a more realistic Science Fiction, with a focus on new interesting ideas set in a realistic future. Grittiness does not create realism, contrary to juvenile belief of the majority of suburbanites, it destroys it.
That is an odd to try and win an argument by insulting the counter opinion. It's also utter bollocks. Voyager v Battlestar is a perfect example of this. Both are desperate scenario's that should generate a certain desperation in emotional trauma and a lack of supplies causing basic long term complications. One merrily ignores all this to present a reasonably happy environment where no one feels much misery or pain. The other relies on that pain to drive the story. Both have optimistic values - in fact they have the same values, get to Earth and live happily ever after. One presents a flawed reality, one presents how people could actually react in that scenario. Or in other words, realism. the idea that you have to be all perfect people and smiles in order to present a hopeful future is the more immature and frankly lazy; you don't generate hope by saying it's there, you generate hope by finding a way to get there. The idea that a show that chooses a darker realism is instantly immature is absolutely ridiculous.
If there's such a thing as a "realistic future" (And I'm doubtful.), then Star Trek is the furthest thing from it.
Indeed. I'm amused by the definition of "grittiness." Even the original Star Wars could be called "gritty" in comparison to the science fiction of the day. GL worked hard to make it looked like a lived in world, that things had a function rather than the constant clean feeling of earlier science fiction concepts. The build upon the idea of generating hope, when GR first purposed Star Trek, part of the optimism was that humanity had survived at all. As part of the ongoing development, and something that Voyager kind of touched on, is the idea that regardless of the circumstances, the Starfleet officers stick to their principles. That's the optimism, is regardless of how dark the circumstances. I think that was even a part of the speech in Star Trek: Axanar. O_o It depends on the era. I think TOS was a little bit closer for the time, but that's me looking back. I could be wrong.