Is 'Star Trek' science fiction?

[Jeri]

As far as I know, there isn't a list of product development in the real world that was inspired by Star Wars, such as there is for Star Trek.

The most recent example I found (May 22), I posted in a thread in Science and Technology forum: DHS to field Star Trek 'Tricorder' medscanner

 

[Islander]

As far as I know, there isn't a list of product development in the real world that was inspired by Star Wars, such as there is for Star Trek.

The most recent example I found (May 22), I posted in a thread in Science and Technology forum: DHS to field Star Trek 'Tricorder' medscanner

You mean that they're NOT researching the light-saber for mass production? Dammit! I was looking forward to that.

 

[Similitude]

So this is the current argument by the JJ Haters? I don't like so its not Sci-Fi?

 

[Islander]

So this is the current argument by the JJ Haters? I don't like so its not Sci-Fi?

Not at all. I like ST09 very much and I stated that I liked Star Wars as well. The point (that I was making anyway, I'm not speaking for everybody) was to determine what is sci-fi and what is fantasy, and if this particular movie still is a science-fiction given that lots of sci-fi elements from the overall universe were removed. The few remaining elements, however, are very much pivotal to the plot and do define (by my description anyway) it as Science-Fiction. A good one.

 

[Deckerd]

Your argument for Star Trek being science fiction would have held a lot more weight if you hadn't tried to prove that it was 'good science' compared to Star Wars.

I get tired of everything 'in space' being labelled this way. This is the way the non-skiffy fans see it, so if it's ever going to become more mainstream it has to do away with niche labels. Star Trek (2009) did this with knobs on, so long may it continue.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Since when?

Feanor, a soap opera with a really deep and existential storyline is still a soap opera. No matter how deep and existential it gets--even if the stories see characters grappling with the implications of technology on their varied relationships and personal struggles--it remains a soap opera because of the very basic elements that define the genre: it is a daytime TV genre with a low budget and simplistic format, substantial story elements notwithstanding.

As I told Islander: do not confuse quality with genre. A dumb shallow sci-fi movie is exactly that: a dumb shallow sci-fi movie. There's nothing in the definition of science fiction that says it HAS to intelligent, only that it has to involve science. If you want to say that Star Trek is dumbed down science fiction, that's probably an accurate assessment... but that doesn't change the fact that it IS science fiction.

 

[Islander]

As I told Islander: do not confuse quality with genre. A dumb shallow sci-fi movie is exactly that: a dumb shallow sci-fi movie. There's nothing in the definition of science fiction that says it HAS to intelligent, only that it has to involve science. If you want to say that Star Trek is dumbed down science fiction, that's probably an accurate assessment... but that doesn't change the fact that it IS science fiction.

I never did confuse quality with genre. Star Wars is a very good fantasy story.

 

[Trilliam]

never did confuse quality with genre. Star Wars is a very good fantasy story.

Well, you're half-right. Star Wars is a fantasy story .

 

[VulcanJedi]

Your argument for Star Trek being science fiction would have held a lot more weight if you hadn't tried to prove that it was 'good science' compared to Star Wars.

I get tired of everything 'in space' being labelled this way. This is the way the non-skiffy fans see it, so if it's ever going to become more mainstream it has to do away with niche labels. Star Trek (2009) did this with knobs on, so long may it continue.

I have thought about all this stuff too much and come to the conclusion that it is ALL fantasy. Star Wars and Star Trek are FANTASY! Yes. Neither is pure science fiction. Star Wars is 5% science or maybe 10%. Star Trek is 50% science fiction and sometimes less and sometimes more. I guess DS9 and TMP were 80%. <--- that's the controversy. Star Trek was never meant to lean that far--it was always a equal mix between Logan's Run and Bonanza.

PURE science fiction is a film like Gattaca or A.I. These films, perhaps had a dash of fantasy--but 95% was contemplative and speculative about the future, our real world and abuse of technology.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The science fiction is in the optimistic vision that this species will be able to advance towards frighteningly powerful technology but still develop a maturity that allows it not to become extinct because of it. It explores our interfacing with it and the consequences of the abilities it confers.

It is in the depiction of teamwork, friendship, individuality and a meritocratic society devoid of destructive tribalism or totalitarian dogma, and the insights and progress acheived as a consequence.

And the film invokes the currently mooted multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics and provokes thoughts about the ethical implications of same (Should Spock break the temporal prime directive?).

There's a lot of science fiction out there that is 180 degrees opposite of what you just depicted.

 

[Islander]

The science fiction is in the optimistic vision that this species will be able to advance towards frighteningly powerful technology but still develop a maturity that allows it not to become extinct because of it. It explores our interfacing with it and the consequences of the abilities it confers.

It is in the depiction of teamwork, friendship, individuality and a meritocratic society devoid of destructive tribalism or totalitarian dogma, and the insights and progress acheived as a consequence.

And the film invokes the currently mooted multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics and provokes thoughts about the ethical implications of same (Should Spock break the temporal prime directive?).

There's a lot of science fiction out there that is 180 degrees opposite of what you just depicted.

Yes, absolutely. It's not about having an optimistic or pessimistic view of the future, it's just about having a view. And it's not even about making a warning about technology or anything, sometimes it's really just the basis of a dramatic plot but the {very thin} difference with fantasy is the corrolation to present reality and it's implication within that plot as opposed to being purely decorative.

Newtype_Alpha often made a reference to Krull where a technologically advanced race tries to conquer another primitive world. The fact that it could be real elsewhere is irrelevant. Any police or war movie could be real but that doesn't make them science-fiction. They're just stories. The fact that it's an alien race with realistic technology is just a settings that helps build an emotion in the viewer, it makes them look scarier. Being a mighty dragon would not have change the overall story, but it might have changed the quality.

 

[VulcanJedi]

never did confuse quality with genre. Star Wars is a very good fantasy story.

Well, you're half-right. Star Wars is a fantasy story .

For all the digs at Star Wars NOT offering any science fiction, I say wait a second.
Even though George Lucas made a fantasy fairy tale, ironically there were some elements in the movies that were pure science fiction...and some were quite clever and overdue in film sci-fi.

1. The dirty, pitted vehicles and infrastructure in place of clean & sparkly. Maybe others had depicted this---but Lucas brought the concept to the masses. And Trek followed.

2. Solar power. Solar panels on both the TIE-fighters and Darth Vader's TIE fighter.

3. The idea that the BAD GUYS would exploit Solar Energy and not the good guys. (TIE fighters and even Count Dooku's solar sailor) The good guys had ships with missing catalytic converters that maybe spurted blue smoke (Millennium Falcon-Luke's old Landspeeder)

4. The novel for Star Wars gave more science-fiction details. Gun control from the Empire and reuse of old technology by the Jawas--converting old mining crawlers into Jawa droid scavengers.

All of these elements sent a clear message: Lucas originally had a sort of Libertarian, even Ayn Rand like, dystopian bent; all common elements of "pure" science fiction.

And to bring it back to topic, Star Trek, all these years later is still catching up with Abram's new movie. To me, part of the problem with recent Trek is that it still had that sparkly & clean look to it all. The new film ads more texture and worn, hard-scrabble reality that has been missing, not just visually, but in the script.

 

[Islander]

For all the digs at Star Wars NOT offering any science fiction, I say wait a second.
Even though George Lucas made a fantasy fairy tale, ironically there were some elements in the movies that were pure science fiction...and some were quite clever and overdue in film sci-fi.

1. The dirty, pitted vehicles and infrastructure in place of clean & sparkly. Maybe others had depicted this---but Lucas brought the concept to the masses. And Trek followed.

2. Solar power. Solar panels on both the TIE-fighters and Darth Vader's TIE fighter.

3. The idea that the BAD GUYS would exploit Solar Energy and not the good guys. (TIE fighters and even Count Dooku's solar sailor) The good guys had ships with missing catalytic converters that maybe spurted blue smoke (Millennium Falcon-Luke's old Landspeeder)

4. The novel for Star Wars gave more science-fiction details. Gun control from the Empire and reuse of old technology by the Jawas--converting old mining crawlers into Jawa droid scavengers.

All of these elements sent a clear message: Lucas originally had a sort of Libertarian, even Ayn Rand like, dystopian bent; all common elements of "pure" science fiction.

And to bring it back to topic, Star Trek, all these years later is still catching up with Abram's new movie. To me, part of the problem with recent Trek is that it still had that sparkly & clean look to it all. The new film ads more texture and worn, hard-scrabble reality that has been missing, not just visually, but in the script.

1. Things were old and dirty long before Star Wars came along. It's just a settings. Those WERE new a some point

2. Yeah. solar power works great in outer space...

3. Good guys lacking resources fighting the Empire with superior technological knowledge isn't a science-fiction element, it's a moral purpose corelative to David vs Goliath.

4. If Trek novels aren't canon, I don't see why Wars's would be.

Even if I had no counter arguments to your points, you missed mine. Having what looks like a science element or even having a real one doesn't make the science-fiction if it doesn't change the overall plot.

Jawas having brand spanking new things instead of old dirty ones would have made viewers go "Where did those guys get that... I probably would have been a better cinematographic idea for them to have old stuff".

That is the difference between good and bad quality, not sci-fi vs fantasy.

 

[Jeri]

I just posted another article in the Science and Technology forum about scientific technology developed from a Star Trek device idea:

Star Trek-like scanners to heal wounds with light

It's from coverage of the 2009 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics/International Quantum Electronics Conference in Baltimore.

Articles about real-world Trek tech are abundant; all I do is enter Star Trek in the Reuters/Yahoo! search box every morning.

 

[stonester1]

I just had my corneas reshaped so I could ditch my spectacles. Know what did the reshaping?

Beam o' light, y'all.

 

[Deckerd]

I don't think Roddenberry predicted laser technology.

 

[Islander]

That one probably comes from Star Wars:
- "Arrg, I got shot in the eye... hey! I can see better now..."

 

[Jeri]

I don't think Roddenberry predicted laser technology.

The topic is Star Trek; there is wound healing with devices including light in Star Trek.

 

[Overgeeked]

And to bring it back to topic, Star Trek, all these years later is still catching up with Abram's new movie. To me, part of the problem with recent Trek is that it still had that sparkly & clean look to it all. The new film ads more texture and worn, hard-scrabble reality that has been missing, not just visually, but in the script.

The phrase you're groping for is "used future." And the one shuttle from the Kelvin having scrapes and dings doesn't quite make ST11 into a glorious example of a used future. Every ship scene is meticulous and clean. There's no scratches on the viewer, the clothes aren't dusty and worn (unless we see them become dusty and worn).

And unless Paramount has released the script, you've hacked someone's computer, or been dumpster diving, you can't know what's in the script.

1. Things were old and dirty long before Star Wars came along. It's just a settings. Those WERE new a some point.

Yes, but the first SF film to show a used future was Star Wars.

Articles about real-world Trek tech are abundant; all I do is enter Star Trek in the Reuters/Yahoo! search box every morning.

You should RSS that search.

 

[Jeri]

If they can travel the galaxy, I think they can meet housekeeping challenges.