Word of God from Lucasfilm: Star Wars novels are canon unless contradicted by an element from the films.
Is 'Star Trek' science fiction?
- Thread starter FeanorLobelia
- Start date
Word of God from Lucasfilm: Star Wars novels are canon unless contradicted by an element from the films.
Nope. Islander and Feanor say it's one or the other, so if either have any amount of fantasy elements they're pure fantasy and not sci-fi.
Of course, Gattaca also has a romance story involved so it's a romance movie, not science fiction. A.I. is just another pinochio narrative--fantasy again.
Come to think of it... I guess the only piece of literature I can think of that constitutes REAL science fiction would be the TNG tech manual.
And what's your take on, for example, "Childhood's End" where the the aliens ARE dragons?
They look like demons, not dragons, and they look like that for a reason which is to play on human fears. The story involves human relations with those aliens on that basis specifically. That's a scientific evaluation, a purpose, and the story would be completely different if they were something else.
No, they don't look like that "on purpose". They just happen to look like that, re. the CE aliens' demonic appearance.
And no, the story would not be significantly different. The only real role it played was at the beginning, the aliens slowly introducing themselves to humanity once they arrived. One of the reasons they were slow about it was their appearance and how they appeared to be demonic creatures from some of the cultures of Earth.
And no, the story would not be significantly different. The only real role it played was at the beginning, the aliens slowly introducing themselves to humanity once they arrived. One of the reasons they were slow about it was their appearance and how they appeared to be demonic creatures from some of the cultures of Earth.
What the hell are you talking about? We're not talking of a documentary, it a piece of fiction. They didn't just happen like that, they were written like that. And for a reason.
Last edited:
The in-universe reason was evolution. The AUTHOR's reason was actually fairly esoteric, something to do with the collective unconsciousness of mankind accidentally seeing into the future and associating the aliens with the ultimate demise of mankind.
Which--plot points aside--illustrates the point beautifully: when a demon emerges from the pits of hell, it's fantasy; if "hell" turns out to be another planet, that's science fiction.
This film was entertaining on a superficial level, but it pales next to the stories told by the television shows, particularly TOS and DS9. I still think Trek works better on TV.
The question was poorly phrased but i understand where the frustration came from. Of course STXI was science fiction (& as such, fairly ok, in a Lost, in space manner); but it isn't adult science fiction & has very little that interests me in Star trek - not that i expected anything more from JJ Abrams (he's a storyteller; but not an interesting storyteller). I could have done without the arrogant attack on Vulcan myself (which struck at the heart of what ST is to me); but how better to demonstrate a no-brains, guns-&-ammo approach to the franchise than obliterate culture, civilisation & logic
The film has made lots of money (which is what the studio wanted) & the sequels will grow steadily more vapid (unlike the better series) & after a brief bulge of popularity, the franchise - as something more than just a business - will die completely. Pity, that
The film has made lots of money (which is what the studio wanted) & the sequels will grow steadily more vapid (unlike the better series) & after a brief bulge of popularity, the franchise - as something more than just a business - will die completely. Pity, that
^ Trek will never die. Fans were pissing and moaning that ENT was killing Trek. Then they moaned that ENT being cancelled killed Trek. And yet here we are. As long as there's money to be made, it's never stopping.
If we're talking about the quality of Star Trek XI's SF elements, you'll find more imaginitive and speculative dexterity in the better episodes of Futurama. But as has been said again and again, genre is not determined by quality. SF is not some elite super genre, it's just a genre and some of it is very smart and some of it is very dumb.
Also, genre is not absolute: Frankenstein is as much gothic horror as it is SF, Star Wars is as much epic fantasy as it is SF. Star Trek is straight up space opera. It is SF.
Also, genre is not absolute: Frankenstein is as much gothic horror as it is SF, Star Wars is as much epic fantasy as it is SF. Star Trek is straight up space opera. It is SF.
No, sir, but it is a sub-type of the genre, just as planet-bound dystopic stories (1984, Brave New World, This Perfect Day, The Handmaid's Tale) and post-apocalypses (Mad Max, Children of Men) are.
In SF's house are many mansions. Space opera is but one.
In SF's house are many mansions. Space opera is but one.
'Star Trek' XI genres
STXI is a 'sci-fi action adventure' film.
Trek TV series are science fiction with many more talking scenes (discussing science) with some action scenes.
talking scenes tend to slow down the pace of an action film.
STXI is a 'sci-fi action adventure' film.
Trek TV series are science fiction with many more talking scenes (discussing science) with some action scenes.
talking scenes tend to slow down the pace of an action film.
Space opera is a sub-genre of SF.
'Star Trek' science fiction?
Shatner said so himself in 1966. So of course it must be.
KCRA Channel 3 1 minute interview with Shatner in 1966
http://startrekpropauthority.blogspot.com/2008/04/rare-1966-video-interviews-with-william.html
Shatner said so himself in 1966. So of course it must be.
KCRA Channel 3 1 minute interview with Shatner in 1966
http://startrekpropauthority.blogspot.com/2008/04/rare-1966-video-interviews-with-william.html
Similar threads
- Locked
