Is 'Star Trek' science fiction?

[Islander]

If it looks like sci-fi, smells like sci-fi, tastes like sci-fi, sounds like sci-fi... well, my friend, it's sci-fi.

I disagree, and that's something that does bring confusion to lots of people. It can feel and look like sci-fi without being it. And Star Wars is an example of that. Farscape is another.

Lucas even tried to "science-fictionize?" Star Wars in his prequels adding, for example, the midi-chlorians. He failed miserably has it still just as mythical to how one would posses and affect them, and having this ability doesn't change anything. The Jedis could just be buddist kung-fu masters, the story is the same.

Irrelevant. There isn't any grounds to claim with 100% certainty that the Dark Lord Sauron didn't almost destroy the Earth twenty thousand years ago. The only difference is Tolkien didn't intend Lord of the Rings to be read with any degree of even speculative scientific plausibility, hence the genre is fantasy and nothing else.

Yes, there are. It's called archeology and history. We might not be 100% precise on a lot of things, but we certainly can eliminate a few. Elves and hobbits are amongst them.

Again, it doesn't matter if the explanation is actually included in the story, because science fiction isn't actually about the science.

Yes, it is. It is exactly why it's called science-fiction. It's because it is a fiction that includes one or many pivotal science elements. Otherwise it is pure fiction, fantasy. It's not important that the explanation is included directly but it is important that it be accessible for the corolation to be made and the desired impact to take effect.

If one's wants to warn us of the danger of computers, the Terminator must have micro-processors and circuits that respect the laws of computing we currently have, even if not directly outlined within the story.

Perfect. We agree then that the ORIGINAL INTENT of the author is what defines the genre, not the structure or quantity of technobabble spouted by key characters.

Wrong. The author intent the element he's writting and its purpose, but the story is the sum of its elements, and purposes.

George Lucas never intended to make a science-fiction, he intended to make a movie. Just a story. It's only the story that matters in Star Wars, the individual elements do not as they have no purposes outside of Star Wars. The story itself may have a purpose, a message, a moral.

It doesn't have to affect the story. Inclusion of scientific elements--in any way--portrudes into the genre of science fiction. The importance of those elements only tells you what the emphasis was, or whether or not it's soft or hard science fiction or sci-fi/fantasy.

No, it does not have the affect the story itself. Elements, even those looking sci-fi or even real sci-fi elements may be just for decoration. That's the case with Star Wars. If I take back the example I used earlier, the point of TMP is not that Earth may become destroyed, it is that it may become destroyed by something it created and that makes a huge difference.

If TVH's probe just came to destroy earth without any reason, it's fantasy. But it came looking for whales we destroyed. The science element here is not technological, but political, enviromental.

Which, in the end, goes to the overall point. Star Trek IS a science fiction story because it includes scientific elements--even made-up ones--in a fictional context. Whatever hairs you want to split about whatever else it fails to provide, that it is a science fiction story is not up for debate.

Star Trek IS and always will be Science-Fiction, no debates here. But what makes up a science-fiction isn't just that it has sci-fi elements. It's what these elements do that is important.

 

[Overgeeked]

Re: Star Trek and the future of science fiction

Interesting article yesterday:
Star Trek and the future of science fiction
Published May 24 2009
http://energybulletin.net/node/49004

As we enter what may be the greatest crisis, Star Trek’s optimism might have reached right across the decades to again find its moment.

Thanks for the article. Don't buy his "SF is really Christian" angle or his attempt to tie the popularity of SF with energy consumption, but hey, to each there own.

Defining SF: One thing what we all need to accept is that even something as simple as "it's in space" is being called SF. Just because we disagree with that simple definition, doesn't change that it's being used that way, any more than it makes that use wrong.

And really, Islander, let it go. Your personal definition of what SF is won't change minds here, stop all the SF magazines, SF publishers, or SF websites from slapping rockets onto a Western and calling it SF. When it comes to language, democracy does rule. That's how you get abominations like "meh" in the dictionary. The common use of words and phrases change, thereby changing the definition. Your version of SF may have been the definition at some point, for some people, but the genre, mass media, and the fans have moved on to a much more inclusive definition of SF.

It's in space with ray-guns and rocketships? That's good enough for me.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If it looks like sci-fi, smells like sci-fi, tastes like sci-fi, sounds like sci-fi... well, my friend, it's sci-fi.

I disagree, and that's something that does bring confusion to lots of people...

Let's be clear on this: it's something that brings confusion TO YOU. The rest of the world still considers Star Wars to be a science fiction film despite the fact that you do not. Which isn't necessarily a disaster; I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who think Adam Sandler isn't a comedian.

It can feel and look like sci-fi without being it. And Star Wars is an example of that. Farscape is another.

Are you going to cite a reference to any magazine, news article, reviewer, industry source, network or distributor who do not include Star Wars and/or Farscape in the "Science fiction" genre?

Lucas even tried to "science-fictionize?" Star Wars in his prequels adding, for example, the midi-chlorians.

He fictionalized it far earlier than that, describing space craft powered by "ion engines," an abundance or sentient robots, laser-based weapons, FTL travel, tractor beams, cybernetics, etc. The only non-scientific concept was "The Force," which is hardly less plausible than the idea that you can fold space with your mind if only you did enough drugs.

Yes, there are. It's called archeology and history.

You can't prove a negative, islander. That is fundamentally illogical.

We might not be 100% precise on a lot of things, but we certainly can eliminate a few. Elves and hobbits are amongst them.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-102704pygmy_lat,0,2098297.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Here's another logical concept you should make yourself aware of: special pleading.

Yes, it is. It is exactly why it's called science-fiction. It's because it is a fiction that includes one or many pivotal science elements.

Yes, it INCLUDES them. That doesn't mean those elements are in some way integral to the progression of the story, nor does it require any of the characters--or anyone else--to be able to describe those elements in technical detail. It need only include those elements in the setting or as relevant plot devices, but since it is still science fiction, it is the characters and events--not the technology--that drives the story.

And the story doesn't necessarily have to teach a lesson, issue a warning, explore a concept or examine anything seriously; some sci-fi stories are just interesting tales meant to dazzle and inspire and the "desired impact" is purely entertainment.

Wrong. The author intent the element he's writting and its purpose, but the story is the sum of its elements, and purposes.

Indeed. A GENRE, however, is not. Science fiction as a genre simply describes the type of elements that may be found within a particular story. Space travel--particularly the faster-than-light variety--alien life forms, time travel, teleportation and weapons that can absorb supernovas fall into this category.

No, it does not have the affect the story itself. Elements, even those looking sci-fi or even real sci-fi elements may be just for decoration. That's the case with Star Wars. If I take back the example I used earlier, the point of TMP is not that Earth may become destroyed, it is that it may become destroyed by something it created and that makes a huge difference.

Actually, the difference in TMP is that the Earth may be destroyed by a piece of technology that developed from a space probe, using alien weaponry, and the only thing that could stop it is another space craft.

If V'ger was a gigantic demon created by a sorcerer using the captured souls of every criminal who ever died, this would not be science fiction despite the plot element you describe.

So you are still confusing "What I find entertaining" with "what I would describe as science fiction." Again, you would find most of the Larry Niven novels insufferable for precisely this reason, but they are unequivocally science fiction stories.

If TVH's probe just came to destroy earth without any reason, it's fantasy.

Another good example. The motivation of the probe is fundamentally irrelevant; the fact that it is a PROBE--in particular, an alien probe--makes it science fiction.

Star Trek IS and always will be Science-Fiction, no debates here. But what makes up a science-fiction isn't just that it has sci-fi elements. It's what these elements do that is important.

No, see, what those elements do is irrelevant here because we are discussing GENRE, not quality. Just because a story includes clumsy and haphazard use of technology in ways that don't make much difference to the plot doesn't make it something other than sci-fi. It might make a dumb story, it might even make a flop at the box office, but it would be a sci-fi flop; it would be a dumb sci-fi story.

Just because something fits into the science fiction genre doesn't mean it is deep or intelligent or even particularly enlightening. Science fiction has this feature because it tends to be written by fairly smart people for a fairly smart audience, but that's not what science fiction IS.

 

[Islander]

I'm not gonna use quotes, this is getting way too long of a post

So, you're telling me any story that has any sci-fi elelement is automatically a sci-fi story, regardless of the element in question and its purpose? So, taking your own example, if Sauron was an alien from another planet, LOTR would automatically be a science-fiction? Regardless of all of the fantasy elements? I find that this makes no sense whatsoever.

If we have to have a simple definition, then I would rather go the opposite way where any movie that does have any fantasy elements is no longer a science-fiction. Star Trek remains sci-fi, Star Wars does not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So, you're telling me any story that has any sci-fi elelement is automatically a sci-fi story, regardless of the element in question and its purpose?

Exactly.

So, taking your own example, if Sauron was an alien from another planet, LOTR would automatically be a science-fiction?

Yes.

Regardless of all of the fantasy elements?

It would thusly and accurately be defined as "Sci-fi/fantasy," as I'm sure you are aware quite a number of science fiction stories are.

We would then have a debate as to whether or not making Sauron an alien makes any sense whatsoever for the logic of the story, and would probably agree that it doesn't... unless, of course, Tolkein wanted to depict a battle with humans, elves and dwarfs against armies of trolls and orcs armed with lasers and guided missiles (as was done in Krull, which I always found kind of interesting).

If we have to have a simple definition, then I would rather go the opposite way where any movie that does have any fantasy elements is no longer a science-fiction.

You cannot define what something is in terms of what it isn't; that's even more illogical than proving a negative.

 

[Islander]

It would thusly and accurately be defined as "Sci-fi/fantasy," as I'm sure you are aware quite a number of science fiction stories are.

Ahh,,, no, no, not sci-fi/fantasy. The line between them is already thin and that's what we're debating. It's one or the other.

We would then have a debate as to whether or not making Sauron an alien makes any sense whatsoever for the logic of the story, and would probably agree that it doesn't.

Well then, you've just proven my point that the relevance of the element to the whole story is required.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Lol... if Farscape ISN'T science fiction... then I hereby declare science fiction is no longer my favorite genre.

My favorite genre is whatever genre Farscape IS.

 

[stonester1]

newtype alpha is right.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It would thusly and accurately be defined as "Sci-fi/fantasy," as I'm sure you are aware quite a number of science fiction stories are.

Ahh,,, no, no, not sci-fi/fantasy. The line between them is already thin and that's what we're debating. It's one or the other.

The fact that the line between them is so thin is the REASON the two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, ever since the earliest appearance of what could be called "science fiction" the entire genre has always been intertwined with fantasy. Even those early classics--Frankenstein, for example--borrowed themes and situations that were previously the realm of fantasy.

Well then, you've just proven my point that the relevance of the element to the whole story is required.

Yes... in order for the story to not-suck. Just because it sucks doesn't mean it isn't science fiction.

 

[Theonethatis]

Taking the strict definition of "science fiction", not much of Star Trek is actual "science fiction", especially the movie franchise. TMP comes the closest.

It's "space fiction", or even "Space Opera" given Nero and such.

I'm sorry that you view Trek that way. Star Trek has always gone politically, socially, and scientifically where no one had gone before.

No it hasn't. It used a lot of the same plots as the Westerns and Cop shows that came before it. As well a few tropes found in SF literature.(Though it was decades behind in content) It wasn't afraid to borrow from classic literature either. Its main claim to fame is being an hour long adult oriented SF show with continuing characters rather than an

anthology. It had variety too: Action adventure, comedy, social commentary and on occasion speculative science. No episode or film needs all of these (or even any ) to be Star Trek or science fiction.

Also lets not forget great radio shows of the 1940's and 50s such as Dimension X and X minus-1 . If you want to see the genesis of Star Trek. Pick up these Anthology series on Amazon.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

When I'm feeling really pedantic, I'll say Star Wars in fantasy in science fiction drag. But it's space opera and, as I've said, space opera is science fiction.

In other words, Newtype Alpha is, indeed, right.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Science fiction introduces scientific concepts, real or speculative, in detail and explores their social, political and emotional consequences. It has meaning. Depth.

We just need to get Trek back on TV. The short format of movies isn't conducive to exploration of anything in depth. Movies are good for spectacle and 'splosions, which is fine inbetween seasons of the TV series.

 

[Islander]

Science fiction introduces scientific concepts, real or speculative, in detail and explores their social, political and emotional consequences. It has meaning. Depth.

We just need to get Trek back on TV. The short format of movies isn't conducive to exploration of anything in depth. Movies are good for spectacle and 'splosions, which is fine inbetween seasons of the TV series.

1 movie isn't enough to generate the funds for the serie we would want. I say go with a trilogy, a short of a term as possible to keep momemtum and then evalutate a serie.

 

[Deckerd]

Again, my point isn't if it can be completely or partly explained, but simply it if can be disproven. Current development in actual science involve crazy madeup theories that continues to be evaluated, to a degree, until they can be fully rejected as fabulations.

You cant disprove Star Wars-style hyperspace under that metric, either, so what the heck are you on about?

Yes, it can. Solo explains that proper calculations is required to avoid the trajectory of hyperspace flight to pass through a planet or a star. If hyperspace is a region beyond our physical realm, this would not have any incidence. If it would be some form of space folding, it would jump over. This implies that the method simply pushes the ship physically faster than light. The theory of relativity clearly disprove this possibility.

You should step back and listen to yourself Islander.

 

[Cdr MacDuff]

Science fiction introduces scientific concepts, real or speculative, in detail and explores their social, political and emotional consequences. It has meaning. Depth.

We just need to get Trek back on TV. The short format of movies isn't conducive to exploration of anything in depth. Movies are good for spectacle and 'splosions, which is fine inbetween seasons of the TV series.

I agree with the quoted view on Sci-fi. To be considered something special (not just basic drama or fantasy) thats what sci-fi should be about. While I think its possible to make good sci-fi movies. Gattaca, Matrix, Minority report, AI comes to mind among many others. The TV format gives itself up easily for that genre, since it can't rely too much on action and cgi at the very least because of time and budget constraint. And it would get boring pretty fast. The TV format must rely more on drama and wishfully intelligent sci-fi stories and concept, mystery/exploration and/or social commentary.

 

[VonHelton]

By the definitions that some of you have posed,
Anything set in space with some form of propulsion that's not employed in real life is science fiction.

No. Imaginative propulsion means are allowed, imaginary ones are not.

Warp travel is explainable, it even is calculable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive). We don't understand how or even IF we can reach this but it follows already established laws of physics and universal constants.

Star Trek having anti-matter reactors powered by dilithium crystals to create a warp bubble is an imaginative solution. Star Trek is science-fiction

Just going to hyperspace is imaginary. Star Wars is fantasy.

HOLY CRAP!

Someone actually looked it up! (Alcubierre's Real Warp Drive)

A tip of the hat to you!

 

[alicelouise]

I've read the original post; but, not the others. I will posit that ST like Star Wars and other space operas are Futuristic Fantasy. Instead of magic wands, magic rings and enchanted swords. We have phasers and lasers. Magic incantations? Try techno babble. Magic teleportation? Transporters, warp drive. Divination/seeing the future? Races that are telepathic and time travel. Alternate realities? Doppelgangers. The list could go on.

TOS had one episode "Alternative Factor" that posited an Antimatter Universe. It was the only Alternate reality that might be plausible. The episode was also dull as dishwater. It posited that any interaction of alternate realities would end in destruction(something the Trek writers abandoned).

This is not to say Sword and Sorcery and Futuristic Fantasy is only entertainment. Lord of the Rings had the epic battle of good and evil on the global scale with equal intensity on a personal level of the LOTR characters. IN "City on the edge of Forever" Kirk must make a personal sacrifice for the good of mankind.

I haven't read anything like the "Foundation" trilogy. I have heard that it is the closest to SciFi.

 

[VonHelton]

Science fiction introduces scientific concepts, real or speculative, in detail and explores their social, political and emotional consequences. It has meaning. Depth.

We just need to get Trek back on TV. The short format of movies isn't conducive to exploration of anything in depth. Movies are good for spectacle and 'splosions, which is fine inbetween seasons of the TV series.

To quote the rock group AEROSMITH:

"Dream On"

 

[FeanorLobelia]

OP here. Star Wars is NOT sci-fi, and it's pretty obvious to me! Genre is not defined by trivial elements of setting or costume, but by the substantial elements and themes in the plot. Wizards, good and evil, monsters, armies, one to one sword comabt, monks, knights, empires, spiritualism. It has nothing to do with science fiction, it's fantasy, very learned, spiritual and good fantasy, but fantasy (Disclosure: I like Star Wars and I like fantasy) all the same. Just because it's set in space doesn't mean it's science fiction; just like you can't say Frankenstein is not science fiction because it isn't set in space.

George Lucas HIMSELF has said that it is not sci-fi at all.

Here's http://hubpages.com/hub/Star-Wars-is-not-Science-Fiction

It explains it better than I can.

The new Star Trek film is in my view more like an action-y dumbed down flick, with a little sci-fi, much less sci-fi than most if not all of the other ST films (though I admit it's harder to do real SF in a movie). But believe what you want.

 

[maryh]

I was surprised, but my 14 YO son, who loves science, and was a Trek virgin, came out of the theater thinking about and commenting upon the science in the film. That is what got him interested. If you think about it, it was more science oriented than almost all movies out there that classify themselves as science fiction.

Ah, the fresh perspective. True, STXI doesn't have that "old school sci-fi" vibe. No one expected that. But I forgot that it does have a few things to offer: the implication of silence in space for one. The concepts of parallel universes is beyond current science paradigm, but there are certainly a lot of books written by scientists on the subject. Then we have the mess with the black holes, but if it sparks the imagination to learn more, this is good.

The 14 YO thought about, and we discussed ideas about black holes/singularities, time travel and the movies goal of changing history to "reboot" and write new adventures, and the idea of parallel universes. Other than that he said it was your typical futuristic space movie with big explosions, monsters and space battles. At his age, they have already been inundated with these things so they don't hook their interest.