Rebooting Star Trek as Educational hard Sci-fi?

[SPCTRE]

Reading Rainbow reboot X Star Trek.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I like fantasy fun Trek, myself.

+1

I watch Star Trek for entertainment, not for science lessons.

Science fiction is written for entertainment just as fantasy is, and no more requires the writer to add a lesson than any fantasy story requires it.

All of this is so simplistic and reductionist. It's really just silly.

Any story of any genre owes itself to educate in some fashion. It doesn't have to be a math lesson or even anything pertinent to our real lives. It could be something like learning the made up history of Westeros in Game of Thrones. Or it could be a gateway to learning something about our real history. It could be like Rome where the general broad strokes of the history was right, but it may stimulate people into actually reading about the events and what really happened.

Sometimes even bad science in sci-fi can do that though. People cold learn something about cold fusion by hearing that the portrayal of it in Star Trek Into Darkness was plain stupid. But it would be better off if that weren't the case.

Like it or not, people derive a lot of what they learn from entertainment, which is why much good educational material is made to be entertaining. So for any show, not just Star Trek, to put some thought into it, is in no way detrimental.

You guys act like the inclusion of any kind of serious world-building and entertainment are mutually exclusive.

 

[T'var]

Knowledge and entertainment seem to go together like science and fiction.
There's no harm in a little truth.
And a method to the madness.
Don't take away what already is, add to it.

 

[Brainsucker]

I prefer the 'fiction' part of science-fiction.

Well, all stories are fiction, unless they are inspired or based on true event. The problem is that maybe some people here don't understand what is the different between fantasy and Fiction. IF somebody think that it is better than Star Trek embrace "Fantasy" route rather than Science things, then what is the different between Star Trek and Star Wars or even the Guardian of Galaxy?

If Star Trek still want to become a Sci-Fi, they should stay as Sci-Fi. They should back to their roots. The writers should use our today reality and science as the basis of Star Trek background and material. They can't go back to TOS canon. Because TOS canon can't be considered as "right" anymore. Unless Star Trek set course to Fantasy Genre, we should forget about TOS and TNG canon; and embrace a new reality based on today technology, science, and reality. Or somebody want to see Gandalf in a Star Ship and go no men has gone before?

Edit, Addition :

Sci-Fi doesn't mean that you have to see some technobabble in the story. What sci-fi means is that you tell a story based on today reality, science, and technology, and expand it to become a forecast about what will happen in the future. TOS was a Sci-Fi. Because it based on the reality in 60' era, and expand it to become a forecast about what will happen in the future. But, it's no longer a sci-fi for today audience. If Star Trek still want to embrace TOS era canon and imagination, then Star Trek will be surely reroute into Fantasy Land. I dunno which is better. For me, the sci-if is better than the fantasy. Because we have already have Star Wars and Guardian of the Galaxy. So why not fill the Sci-Fi genre with Star Trek; which is originally is Sci-Fi.

Add more :

So what will Sci-Fi Star Trek be seen if they decide to broadcast a new series again?
- Scrap TOS and TNG canon. Refresh the canon and background with today reality, science, and technology; expand it into a highly advanced but possible future of humanity. I don't mind they keep the characters and factions. But change the date and history, and implement a new idea of technology based on today highly advanced techno. People know that humanity still trapped in our planet until 21st century. So it will be laugh-able if Star Trek say that we have already have explore the universe before then.

- Make it looks more real. I don't say that they must take hard science story like Gravity or others. But make the tech that they use as more believe-able for today audience. People have different perceptive of Alien; they have different imagination of space, and they are more knowledge-able than the '60 and '80 thanks for the internet. So refresh them all. Make an imaginative future that humanity will face in our beloved Series. What will 21st century audience will see about their Earth and space in 23rd century? Or maybe 22nd century? A handheld tricoder that is no better than our 21st Iphone?

- Vulcan was so amazing back on TOS era. Because for '60 era audience, a human actor with Elven ear is already amazing and spectacular. But what about today audience? Will people who have seen 3D monstrous Alien will still believe and enjoy an actor with some mask and cosmetic ?

If Star Trek still can't get out of the old canon and their obsolete idea trap, don't call it Sci-Fi anymore. Call it Fantasy. The problem is, there are better fantasy in space out there. Like Star Wars and Guardian of Galaxy. And Star Trek's strong point was in it's sci-fi touch.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Rebooting Star Trek as Educational hard Sci-fi?

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s[/yt]

Also

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc[/yt]

Besides hard sci-fi goes out the moment the warp drive gets turned on or the transporter is used.

 

[Borgminister]

Bill Nye the Star Trek Guy?

 

[Christopher]

Well, all stories are fiction, unless they are inspired or based on true event.

Well, a lot of fiction is inspired by or based on true events. A film like Gandhi or Judgment at Nuremberg is based on true events, but is still a work of fiction, because it's presented as a dramatized narrative performed by actors pretending to be the actual people, and involving dialogue and events that are invented by the screenwriter as a modification of or extrapolation from actual events.

What distinguishes fiction from nonfiction is how it's told, not what it's based on. If I write a historical monograph describing, say, the election of President Carter in 1976 through scholarly description, analysis, and excerpts from primary sources, then it's nonfiction. If I write a novel depicting the election of President Carter through dramatic narrative and dialogue, telling scenes from Carter's first-person viewpoint or that of his campaign staffers or family or opponents, then it's fiction.

So you're right that "fiction" doesn't mean "fantasy," that calling something fiction has nothing to do with how realistic or believable it is. A story can be based entirely on events that actually happened yet still be fiction, because it's told through the imaginary pretense that the viewer or reader is experiencing the events as they happen, even getting to witness private conversations or read the participants' thoughts. And by the same token, some works of fiction are based entirely on real and plausible science, while other works of fiction are based on fantasy.