Sci Fantasy or do you want Sci Fi?
- Thread starter WB2
- Start date
Your list of science fiction movies must be very short.
What was the known fantasy element on day 1?
The mental powers of the Talosians are indistinguishable from magic, as are those of Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner.
And you yourself paraphrase Clarkes Law there, and in the time period they were written, actual research into telepathy ESP etc were ongoing. Fringe science, but big money fringe science with government money. So they weren't fantasy at that time, they were science fiction as a speculative extrapolation of then current scientific research. I mean we could say transporters and warp drive, except they are starting to look more probable. Does a thing have to have a hard basis in technology and engineering to keep it from being fantasy? There are a few instances of contradictory things in Trek, and questionable use of actual scientific terms (culminating in NuSpocks cold fusion bomb.....) but most fudge into the plausible side of the force quite easily. Otherwise all Star Trek must be science fantasy (as has been suggested) simply by virtue of Pluto still being a planet in them. (Damn scientists. They love to tinker.) and I don't think that is the case...there is no magic in Trek, only things so advanced, one way or another (Trek certainly has an extended use of the word Evolution) as to look like it. There's a grey area around things like the prophets, the Vulcan Katra, and religion when it does pop up (but that would require such things to be totally debunked, as opposed to a continuing to function part of human understanding) but again, I don't think that's enough to push Trek into science fantasy territory. Certainly most people I suspect, on the range of Sci Fi, ave traditionally put Trek towards the 'Hard SF' end of the spectrum, especially for its given medium.
Here's a quote from Clarke himself:
"There are purists who say that Star Trek isn't science fiction, but science fantasy -- and they have a point. Genuine science fiction should describe things that could happen according to present knowledge, and today we are fairly certain that we won't be able to dash from one star system to another in time for the next week's episode. We can also be sure that the inhabitants of other worlds won't look anything like human beings -- or speak fluent American."
I realize he was not stating outright that Star Trek is science fantasy, and Star Trek is certainly harder sci fi than certain other, more mainstream franchises, but strictly speaking, I don't think it's Hard Science Fiction. Anyway, in truth, I don't really care what you call it, as long as Discovery remains true to what Star Trek has always been. It goes a bit beyond what we know to be possible, but rarely strains believability too blatantly.
"There are purists who say that Star Trek isn't science fiction, but science fantasy -- and they have a point. Genuine science fiction should describe things that could happen according to present knowledge, and today we are fairly certain that we won't be able to dash from one star system to another in time for the next week's episode. We can also be sure that the inhabitants of other worlds won't look anything like human beings -- or speak fluent American."
I realize he was not stating outright that Star Trek is science fantasy, and Star Trek is certainly harder sci fi than certain other, more mainstream franchises, but strictly speaking, I don't think it's Hard Science Fiction. Anyway, in truth, I don't really care what you call it, as long as Discovery remains true to what Star Trek has always been. It goes a bit beyond what we know to be possible, but rarely strains believability too blatantly.
The thing that always draws me into a Star Trek story is the characters. I'm much more interested in the people than the technical details surrounding them. The sci in sci-fi provides a backdrop to tell interesting human stories. Don't get me wrong, I love the scientific backdrop and it creates opportunities to tell some very compelling stories, but it always comes down to the characters.
Also, strictly speaking I do think Trek leans more heavily on sci-fi than fantasy. Fantasy is largely about magic and mysticism (think The Force), while sci-fi stories are grounded in something scientifically conceivable (warp drive, communicators, etc). So, I think the question should be whether Trek should be space opera or hard sci-fi.
Also, strictly speaking I do think Trek leans more heavily on sci-fi than fantasy. Fantasy is largely about magic and mysticism (think The Force), while sci-fi stories are grounded in something scientifically conceivable (warp drive, communicators, etc). So, I think the question should be whether Trek should be space opera or hard sci-fi.
Probably why I favor TOS more than the later shows. I love the fantasy leanings in a sci-fi setting (though I dislike pure fantasy). In a universe where all the problems are solved by technology, sometimes you have to go with elements that aren't necessarily sci-fi, to challenge the characters understanding of themselves and life.
Star Trek has ALWAYS been 'Sci-Fantasy' from day one of TOS. I mean come on they suffer ZERO relativistic effects when travelling at sublight speeds, and the actual distance covered warping between planets has always been at the speed required by the plot.
There's much more that could be cited from the various episodes over the last 50 years; but bottom line: Star Trek has never been either 'hard' or accurate science fiction with regard to space or space travel.
Last edited:
Hey they have Gravity plates too, cos of all that walking around they do.Star Trek, always sticks to the science until it gets in the way of telling a story in 45 minutes, because of its nature as a TV show. You can get away with a chunk more in a book, but I don't think concessions made to its format move it strictly into Sci Fantasy, especially when it always tries to plausibly enshrine even those differences in plausible seeming science (those dudes at NASA must love it for something)
Yes, they hand wave relativity and time dilation, but don't you think it might be a bit awkward from a production standpoint if the five year mission took five centuries instead?
Let Bartlet be Bartlet.
How does a show about massive starships working on magic science interacting with forehead aliens in the 23rd century ever not be "fantasy sci-fi"?
I usually excuse fantastical elements when it's essentially a device to enable something to happen.
For example, the time machine in The Time Machine is merely a excuse to enable the story to happen (which is essentially an exploration of evolution based on the writers knowledge and politics).
Same goes for FTL drives, teleporters and TARDISes
It's when the story is about the fantastical elements that the show becomes science fantasy. Since Star Trek (like Doctor Who) was, for the most part, an anthology show, that can change every week. In fact there are a lot of stories that aren't about any scientific concepts.
For example, the time machine in The Time Machine is merely a excuse to enable the story to happen (which is essentially an exploration of evolution based on the writers knowledge and politics).
Same goes for FTL drives, teleporters and TARDISes
It's when the story is about the fantastical elements that the show becomes science fantasy. Since Star Trek (like Doctor Who) was, for the most part, an anthology show, that can change every week. In fact there are a lot of stories that aren't about any scientific concepts.
The magic science is sufficiently advanced, the forehead aliens look like us much the same way a whale looks like a fish, may have other differences including internal organs, and it's a TV show with a budget. Oh and preservers DNA chase etc.
By your argument, all science fiction is not science fiction.
Star Trek delved wholeheartedly into science fantasy when the transporters could pretty much do anything the story required. Splitting people into two, merging them together, turning them into an energy being and then back, de-aging them, turning them into children and back again.
I don't remember the energy beings...but weren't all those things roughly internally consistent with the transporter as shown? Is the transporter plausible science? An extension of current scientific knowledge or trends? And above all else, wasn't the very genesis of the transporter to do with the limits of the story telling medium and budget?
I mean even Arthur C Clarke is limited by the printed page and the reasonable size of a book, but no one accuses him of fantasy.
That doesn't make it any less fantasy. The energy being was when Picard beams himself out as "pure energy" in "Lonely Among Us".
Not any science I'm aware of.
You must have missed all the 'scientists are one step closer to Star Treks transporter' news items, all those plausible explanations they give in the series, and even 3D printing.
I mean yeah, it's so ridiculously advanced tech wise that you wonder why they still need belts to hold their trousers up, but it's plausible, certainly by the knowledge and science of the sixties when it was mooted, or of the earlier scifi with teleportation devices in. The atoms just been split, matter into energy is a known thing, what if we can move that energy from place to place...wirelessly even...and then reassemble it perfectly into what that energy was made from?
That's pretty much the absolute essence of science fiction right there. Later on you can argue advances in knowledge made it less plausible (around about the same time research was making a decent chunk of Trek tech real.) but that's when they trot out extra technobabble, and try to keep it plausible whilst still having them because it's part of the milieu by that point...Heisenberg compensators and whatnot. There's no magic. Made up science based in what we already know isn't magic. It's science fiction, even if it later gets stuff wrong. Scotty doesn't wave a wand, he pushes controls which make a machine do its thing, and the thing it does is far far out there, but ultimately, plausible.
The beauty of Star Trek is that --more than any other franchise -- it is both.
The flexibility to combine scientific realism with fantastical stretches of the imagination is a cornerstone of Star Trek. The dualism has provided the franchise with incredible elasticity from a narrative perspective, and given it longevity as a workable and enjoyable franchise. It's grounded in science, but it splurges in fantasy. It's both.
"Your Trek may differ from mine" is a perfectly suitable point of view. There's huge differences and familiar similarities between and within each series -- from season to season and even episode to episode. Star Wars really doesn't do that. Neither does Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter or practically anything else.
Only Trek could give you "Best of Both Worlds" and "The Inner Light;" or "Balance of Terror" and "The City on the Edge of Forever." And countless other examples.
Trek provides different people different things, sometimes simultaneously.
The flexibility to combine scientific realism with fantastical stretches of the imagination is a cornerstone of Star Trek. The dualism has provided the franchise with incredible elasticity from a narrative perspective, and given it longevity as a workable and enjoyable franchise. It's grounded in science, but it splurges in fantasy. It's both.
"Your Trek may differ from mine" is a perfectly suitable point of view. There's huge differences and familiar similarities between and within each series -- from season to season and even episode to episode. Star Wars really doesn't do that. Neither does Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter or practically anything else.
Only Trek could give you "Best of Both Worlds" and "The Inner Light;" or "Balance of Terror" and "The City on the Edge of Forever." And countless other examples.
Trek provides different people different things, sometimes simultaneously.
Similar threads
- Locked
