is "Into Darkness" Quinto's last as Spock?

All those films listed are in the same genre. It's only fans that debate fantasy vs sci fi vs superheroes and argue about how to categorize and where is space opera and all that cud chewing. It's all stories told outside of the real world and it's all in the same category as far as media and the public goes.

 

Therin, you are very late to this part of the discussion. Perhaps if you read from here...

And if we weren't supposed to know if Keenser was Starfleet for some unknown reason, then they did a hell of a job because I don't think most people knew he was Starfleet after the film was over.

It's not the entire "world" that is being portrayed that way. They live in some sort of post-apocalyptic Earth. And the way the "game" exists still leads me more into fantasy than sci-fi because the "technology" is casting spells. It's that unreal.

We'll just have to disagree. Science fiction, at least to me, is Science Fiction because there is some kind of scientific plausibility to what is going on, even if we haven't gotten there yet. I'll give you Iron Man, as I think of the plot of that movie, and say that it is a superhero film with a sci-fi mechanism (the suit technology) attached. The rest of my assessments I stand by.

Their bickering must be in the deleted scenes I didn't catch.

 

It's about a dystopian future society, just like Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Fahrenheit 451, Brazil, The Handmaid's Tale, 1984, etc.

Which is a time-honored strain of sf.

 

^ and out of the stories you mentioned that I know, both 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale are scientifically plausible (especially 1984--a good portion of that is actual reality now). So, the sci-fi title would apply. The Hunger Games, not so much.

Edit: And now that I think of it, I'm not sure about The Handmaid's Tale. I'll have to revisit that one of these days.

Yes, and that genre is really the merging of two separate genres: Sci-Fi/Fantasy. The slash mark is there for a reason. I have no problem with how they are categorized because the categorization is correct. It just so happens that almost all of those films are either purely fantasy or mostly fantasy, that is all. This is also probably the reason why the categories are housed as one, for Sci-Fi's benefit, because giving Sci-Fi its own section would mean that not much would be there.

EDIT: And actually teacake, they are not all housed under the same genre, nor should they be. I just thought about some of these films, and where I would likely put them (especially the superhero films), and it would be Action/Adventure.

I used iTunes as a test, and yup:



That's not to say that sci-fi/fantasy doesn't still apply to some extent.

 

So we're not counting Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Fahrenheit 451, and so on as science fiction anymore? That would probably come as a surprise to most people, including the folks who made the films!

How strict are we going to be about "scientifically plausible"? I doubt that many people really think that gorillas are going to take over the world, but PLANET OF THE APES is generally regarded as a science fiction classic. And what about BARBARELLA or THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN?

And STAR WARS may be more Flash Gordon than hard sf, but any definition of "science fiction" that excludes STAR WARS bears no relationship to the way the term is actually used by ninety percent of the world. Ask the man on the street to name the five most famous science fiction movies, easy money STAR WARS is going to be high on the list. And, hopefully, a STAR TREK movie, too.

It's not just about what's "plausible." Science fiction is a broad tent that includes everything from Buck Rogers and Godzilla to Heinlein and Asimov.

 

Good Lord, Greg, read the quote. I said "out of the stories you mentioned that I know," which means just that. I cannot rate something I have not seen or read. It's that simple. I was not speaking at all to those stories.

First, let me make it clear to you that I have not seen Barbarella or The Incredible Shrinking Man. So, I am not going to mention them in my comparison. Planet of the Apes basically dealt with evolution (which is a real concept/belief). The new Rise of the Planet of the Apes dealt with genetic manipulation, from what I can recall, and that is something that is done in Science today, has been done in the past, and will probably continue.

If someone wants to call Star Wars Science Fiction, okay. There are sci-fi elements involved, but for me, it's more fantasy than anything else. That is all. You don't need to get in a huff over this. It's not that big of a deal, at least not to me. I know you are a writer, and so perhaps this matters more to you than it does to me.

 

They bicker over the food. The bean scene. And where Keenser sits.

I have a feeling Scotty knows just what Keenser is going to say about everything and Keenser likes to rile him up.

 

Oops! I admit I missed the "I know" part. I plead distraction and multi-tasking; I'm in the middle of writing a complicated action scene, while helping my girlfriend set up a website, and this thread is just my way of procrastinating . . .

Don't worry. I'm not in a huff. I've probably just had too many debates with people who insist that hard sf is the only real sf. Personally, I tend not to split hairs between sf, fantasy, and horror . . . it's all the same to me.

 

I don't know. I only remember Scotty spouting off in the bean scene about how much he wanted to eat real food and then telling Keenser that he didn't eat much and that a bean would satisfy him. Keenser seemed to just sit there. He told Keenser to get down from where he was sitting, and iirc, Keenser just shook his head. None of that seemed like bickering to me. It's kind of hard to bicker with someone that barely talks, I'd think.

No problem, Greg. I've done the same thing myself. I hope all goes well with your writing and I also send my best wishes with your gf's website. Categories are categories, but it's the storytelling that counts. Don't work too hard.

 

You've written a complicated action scene while helping Greg's girlfriend set up a website ?

 

Tell that to my editors!

Plus, of course, I was probably showing my age by assuming that, of course, everybody has seen all the old classics like Barbarella and The Incredible Shrinking Man . . . .

 

Scotty's tone is one of bickering and these scenes show us that these guys have been stuck together for a long time. You don't have to have literal back and forth bickering to see that there's some good natured ribbing going on.

 

Even with your and Greg’s assistance, I feel I can only say that if the fantasy is underpinned by technology, its science fiction of some sort, not fantasy.

Actually, when I am not trying to be so diplomatic , I have no difficulty distinguishing between SF and Fantasy at all. In fact it annoys me that they lump them together in libraries!

1) If the work is supposed to be based on a scientific framework in some way then its SF (either sci-fi, hard SF or something in between.)
2) If it is based on magic, its Fantasy.
3) If it doesn’t seem scientifically plausible then it could be "bad SF" as far as its science goes anyway, but its still SF (So long as there aren’t explicit fantasy elements. Ie. Things the audience is intended to view as magical). This rule is supported by Arthur C Clarke’s famous statement concerning a sufficiently advance technology being indistinguishable from magic. Otherwise we would have to make the SF/Fantasy call base on our personal opinions about scientific plausibility, and that’s just silly.

In short one is fiction* based on the real world or extensions of it and the other is based on the supernatural. Also, SF is known for examining the human condition in different environments. It isn't often anyone says that about fantasy, even though it may happen.

* Edited

In what way? Apart from the "Force" which I think someone said has now been explicitly "sci-fied" via small bugs of some sort, what makes it Fantasy? Because there is a princesses involved. We have those in real life. Because its an adventure story? That covers a lot of SF.

To be honest I have tended to regard it as fantasy myself but I am probably thinking of the first three. But that only depends on whether the "Force" is amenable to scientific study or not (and the jury is out). Apparently it is in the prequels.

So going back to Greg’s list:

SF: AVATAR, THE HUNGER GAMES (by the sound of it), the STAR WARS prequels, THE AVENGERS (Technically SF. Ie. In the same way Superman and (I think) Spiderman are. What?), IRON MAN, the last STAR TREK (Fascinating that Greg separated the last ST movie from the rest though ).

Fantasy: HARRY POTTER, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

Easy!

 

In context, I was just singling it out as an example of an sf movie that was a recent commercial success, to support my argument that today's top-grossing films are often sf/fantasy.

I wasn't commenting on its degree of sf content, compared to any other Trek film. Just that it was one of several recent science fiction blockbusters that appealed to a large mainstream audience.

You could probably say the same about FIRST CONTACT or THE VOYAGE HOME, but that's going back a few years . . .

 

@UFO

I'm not going to argue with you about this. Like I mentioned before, we just have different views.

There is something you said that I find so incredulous that I do feel the need to say that it's just "off."

Really? I think fantasy examines the human condition quite a bit, and it is often our first way of examining the human condition and learning lessons. Ever read a children's book/fairytale? That's fantasy, and there's usually some kind of lesson to be learned about what the characters go through. From Dr. Seuss to Lord of the Rings, I think fantasy does a pretty good job of examining the human condition, and whether you notice or not, people say that a lot...

 

No need to argue. I wanted to finish stating the reasons I have for the delineation I have made. Moreover I am honestly interested in what specifically, for example, makes Star Wars (any of the six films really) fantasy rather than SF? I get that the "Force" (in isolation) is a fantasy element (though I am not certain it has to be in the context of the films) and obviously its more than a religion, but is there anything else? However, if you are simply finished with the topic, I respect that decision.

I imagine what you say is correct in the same it is about fiction general, but SF has a reputation for isolating and highlighting issues, not just by commenting on them, but by lifting them out of their everyday baggage and connections so we can see them more clearly.

If you believe fantasy has the same reputation, in that particular way, I will accept your statement, unless I hear evidence to the contrary. However it doesn't seem that fantasy is either as well equipped or as "focused" on such an activity generally.

 

Yes, I am pretty much finished, but I will give a quick reply. This thread started out about one thing and has now moved into a Star Wars/What makes Sci-Fi discussion, lol.

I don't want to type much, so I'm going to use your description of science fiction and apply it to Star Wars.

I would say that the framework or premise of Star Wars, although it has sci-fi elements, is the force and all 6 movies are about the ultimate goal of restoring balance to "the force." For all intents and purposes, the force is a fantasy element, and therefore the basis of the story is rooted in fantasy and not sci-fi.

You mentioned with light sabers, that someone or some theory has come along several years after the making of the first films to retroactively jimmy-rig a way for them to be a sci-fi element. Okay, but that seems like a bit of a cheat to me. Why? Because, someone could have written a book 200 years ago about a man that could walk into a room, and with the clap of his hands, there'd be light. And if that's all they say, then that's fantasy. They've provided no scientifically plausible way for this to happen. So, if somewhere down the line at the end of the 20th century the "clap-on, clap-off, The Clapper" is invented, that doesn't retroactively make that 200 year old book science fiction.

On the other hand, you can have a book like Frankenstein, where the creature/corpse is brought to life using electricity, and what do you know... the modern day use of defibrillators... That's all I'm saying.

If people want to call Star Wars science fiction, then okay. It doesn't really bother me however people want to describe it. I just know what it (all 6 movies) looked like to me. I'm not saying there was no sci-fi involved; it's just that the story wasn't told from that angle to me.

EDIT: You asked if there were other things (besides light sabers and the force), and yes, there are.

I definitely think science fiction fans see science fiction that way. I'm not sure about everybody else. There are, I'm sure, science fiction stories that do this, but there are stories in other genres, including fantasy, that do this very well, and, in general, better. Fantasy is more accessible than sci-fi, imo, and the "everyday baggage and connections" are what people can relate to, so fantasy often can do a better job of reaching people. Sci-fi, in the way you've described it (and in the way pure sci-fi is), can come off as professorial and clinical and like it's lecturing... But different strokes for different folks.

I still say no matter what the genre, it's the storytelling that counts.

And now, I'm ready to move on.

 

I think we can all rest easy,Quinto will be back for one more film or atleast he will quit after the third film.

Anyway...JJ wanted to make a triology.

 

I think basically the common movie goer wants to see films that are fun and entertaining. And it just so happens that the trend in fun and entertaining films being made today are the sci-fi/fantasy/superhero films. I don't think movie goers are "huge sci-fi/fantasy fans" in common sense of the term, but instead they just like to see fun films.

That's why I do NOT think any harm is being done to this film by Abrams secrecy. The vast majority of the fans who actually care about the secrecy will see it anyway -- secrecy or no secrecy. The rest of the movie-goers (the general population of average movie fans) don't care that much about movie hype 6 months out anyway. They only say to themselves and their friends "what looks like a fun movie that we can see this week".

...And sci-fi/fantasy/superhero films usually look to be the most fun to the average movie-goer (sci-fi fan or not).

 

Sounds about right to me. I suspect we sometimes overestimate of the importance of the fannish echo chamber. It's a fun way to waste time and chat among ourselves, but I doubt it has much impact on the rest of the world.