Paramount wants the next Trek to be in 3D
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Really, gods forbid that enough people should actually go to a Star Trek movie to make it a hit - again.
^^ Why that would ruin our little clique! 
Funny, I thought it was exactly the other way round. TNG films got less and less amazing VFX, and Star Trek 2009 was all about big budget action and VFX.Looks like Paramount wants to ruin Star Trek againStar Trek isn't about special effects. It's about a good story and a good plot. That's why Trek XI was successful, look at what happened to the TNG films. They were good in there own way, but just because they had more special effects didn't make them top-notch films. (First Contact was considered to be the best TNG film, and like it or not, I think it had the least special effects of all TNG Films)
^^ Why that would ruin our little clique!
Too late!
I think the distinction is that while a "inversed polaron beam" is scientifically unexplained, a "magic wand" is scientifically unexplainable.
That's a distinction that's not a distinction at all. Didn't the locals in "Omega Glory" call ray guns "fire boxes?" 
Look, I can teleport. Abracadabra!
Look, I can teleport. Abracadabra!
That's a distinction that's not a distinction at all. Didn't the locals in "Omega Glory" call ray guns "fire boxes?"
Look, I can teleport. Abracadabra!
I'm taking from the point of view of the audience, one is supposed to have scientific underpinnings, the other definitely doesn't, even in principle. Characters in either genre may have difficulty telling the difference of course, but that's an "in story" issue.
Just because something is "supposed to have scientific underpinnings" doesn't mean that it credibly does. "Inversed polaron beam" means nothing more than "Abracadbra."
Yes, and I'll refrain from using the obvious example.
It means its supposed to be SF, whereas "Abracadbra." means it isn't, in my view. From there, if SF isn't believable to most people, then we can say its bad SF, at least in that respect, but not convert it to Fantasy.
You seem to be suggesting that there is a single continuum where SF is at one end and Fantasy at the other with scientific plausibility determining where something will lie. By contrast I believe terminology and "general intent" are the delineating criteria.
For example I initially saw Star Wars as a sort of cross over where the general setting was SF (of a sort) but the Force was fantasy. Maybe the prequels changed that. I didn't pay much attention.
Once again, it could be that normal usage follows your meaning. If so, I would be keen to consider your evidence. But perhaps I have mischaracterised you position?
I actually make no particular distinction between sf and other kinds of fantasy. Science fiction is just a genre of fantasy, same as supernatural horror or swords-and-sorcery stories.
Red matter/polaron beam/dilithium crystal/abracadabra.
Red matter/polaron beam/dilithium crystal/abracadabra.
Do you see any distinction between general fiction and fantasy because I would say SF and Fantasy are sub genres of general fiction, but not of each other?
Of course fantasy is a subgenre of fiction, usually popular narrative fiction, in the same way that horror novels, mysteries or romance are. Publishers and booksellers aren't confused about this at all, though devotees seem sometimes to be.
And of course science fiction is a subgenre of fantasy - FTL spaceships and telepathic aliens no more exist, nor is there any more evidence to support the likelihood of their existence, than trolls or goblins or unicorns. Even an inordinate percentage of stuff that gets labeled "hard sf" dispenses with what we have reason to believe are basic principles of physics on the slightest pretext and (at most) a rhetorical nod to some exotic theory. There are many centuries of fantastic storytelling and mythology preceding the first popular works of science fiction (yeah, go ahead and claim Lucien, everybody else does) and all of it forms the greatest part of sf's DNA.
Nor, in fact, is the value of science fiction literature particularly based on either the relevance or accuracy of its scientific or speculative content - if that were so, sf written in previous decades would be nothing but literary or historical curiosities as the often half-baked speculations about technology and the future have become obsolete. This is emphatically not the case. Indeed, many of the most enduringly popular examples of science fiction contain little more than the vocabulary and set dressings of sf while unfolding in completely fantastic fashion - Stranger In A Strange Land, for instance (or for that matter, a great part of Heinlein's oeuvre). As long as people enjoy the story, not one reader in ten thousand really gives a damn whether anything in it is possible or even plausible in any but narrative terms.
From the start?
At the start of Star Wars are the words, "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." That's about as obvious a declaration of fantasy as you can get. It's "Once upon a time" dressed up in space language.
Star Wars is space fantasy, not science fiction. Never are we supposed to believe that merely by believing we can telekinetically lift X-Wings, telekinetically strangle non-believers, or mystically see the future, no matter how neato the "explanation". How to craft a cool sounding "rationale" for the fantasy is part of the art that does not in and of itself make the movie about anything remotely scientific.
The intention was to create a roller coaster ride of a movie that makes you want to get back in line again after its over, every time if possible. Feeling the rush of flying through the asteroid field, flying down the trench, and so on is part of the fantasy of looking out to the horizon and dreaming of being a hero.
Last edited:
Come on the 3rd Star Trek reboot film needs to be 3-D cause then you can actually call it...
Star Trek 3-D
Also this sort of thing needs to be done at the start of the project, the films is due out July 2012 and 3-D like Avatar needs careful time to get right or why do it at all ?
Star Trek 3-D
Also this sort of thing needs to be done at the start of the project, the films is due out July 2012 and 3-D like Avatar needs careful time to get right or why do it at all ?
Competing films like The Amazing Spider-Man are being shot in 3D. Paramount would be commercially suicidal not to do the same with Star Trek.
I imagine that’s the official position but I don’t see any rationale for it. Sure they both include props that don’t exist but one is based on the supernatural and the other isn’t, so how could SF (natural) be a subgenre of Fantasy (supernatural). It doesn’t make sense to me.
Your reference to "Lucien" doesn’y ring any bells at present. Perhaps my education is deficient in that regard.
However just because X comes before Y and has some commonalities, doesn’t mean that Y is a subset of X.I’m not aware I made that suggestion.
To me, that discussion seems to be beside the point because as I wrote, even SF with implausible science would still not be Fantasy in my view (wrong though I probably am and will always remain!
). Can I refer you to my posts 257 and 269?
Similar threads
