Would you understand physics or really complicated maths equations or just see them as magic?
Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
Would you understand physics or really complicated maths equations or just see them as magic?
I don't think you understand the meaning of science fiction. You see its both science and fiction. It takes theoretical technology that is based on something that could be possible and makes some logical leaps imagining what it would be like if it were real. Just because we can't build transporters now doesn't make them magic. Science Fiction is filled with impossible technology as long as they give some semblance of an explanation it's valid for the sci-fi realm. Star Trek explains that transporter technology disassembles matter at the atomic level, converts it into energy, "beams" that energy to another location and then reassembles it. Granted it's pretty far out there but it does have some semblance of an explanation. Magic would offer no explanation other than "because magic". If science fiction were just things that could be explained by contemporary science it would just be called science.
Either way the point goes over you head.
Great, an insult AND a failure to understand MY point. You'll do well here.
Your point is nonsensical because it's irrelevant to the fact the show is a Science "Fiction" show. If the future technology was understandable or provable it would not be fiction.
Your original point is that transporters/replicators are "magic" simply because you do not understand them. Well the big point is that you do NOT need to understand them, only accept they're real/explainable within context of the show.
If you want Science fact, go watch some documentaries.
Not sure what the point of this question is, since I can understand physics well enough and I know they are not magic.
Not necessarily so. Science fiction can also be about exploring the consequences of technological and sociological changes. Which, Star Trek largely was about, not just the technology.
The fact that they offer some technobable explanation doesn't mean that I have to accept it beyond it being a premise in a fictional work. The point is, even without the explanation as you said, it is far fetched and borders on the line of the Aurthur C. Clarke quote in the NASA article that any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic. Again, as you said, the only difference is that they offer a scientific sounding enough explanation and I buy in to the premise.
My larger point is that we are already on the boarder of magical technology so I fear that moving it further out in time means even more technological gaps.
Please do me a favor and don't assume I don't understand the point of science fiction. There are many points to science fiction, and technology is only one facet. The transporter/teleporter is as much a trope of science fiction as wizards are to fantasy. You can have science fiction based upon contemporary scientific knowledge as well. It doesn't not have to be just about the future.
2nd point first: Obviously, plenty of understandable and provable tech has been used in science fiction. To say "it would not be fiction" is nonsense.
My point was about "hard" science fiction versus space opera. Hard sf requires a grounding in real maths, physics, biology, whatever. In space opera, the space ships and destructor beams are props that glamorise the setting and serve as plot mechanisms, without requiring any real explanation. While fans of Star Trek (including compilers of various manuals) have sometimes generated plausible justifications for stuff, this was not the concern of the TV or movie writers. There are more advanced mathematicians writing for the Simpsons than have ever written for Star Trek.
The thing is that if we "believe" in Star Trek, we want it to be believable - or at least to not be UNbelievable. Achieving this in practice is tricky. With a gripping story and exciting characters you can "handwave" the issue to a certain extent, but when you make the technology the focus of the story (the infamous "technobabble"), inevitably some thoughtful viewers are going to say "Hey ... wait a minute."
I never said that. There is more than one other person on this thread
Your right science fiction doesn't have to be about technology but I was addressing your argument that futuristic technology is "magic" because it can't be explained by modern science. I read the Arthur C. Clark quote but I would argue he was talking about the perception of futuristic technology from a contemporary perspective and the effect that has in the narrative; it doesn't necessarily change the genre. technobabble or not the attempt to create an explanation that has a relation to science is enough to classify it as science fiction. Maybe not hardcore science fiction but better than other space operas that call themselves science fiction. An example is Star Wars that literally has magic they call "the force". The one attempt in the franchise to explain it in a marginally scientific way with "medichlorians" and fans freaked. Legitimately so because it was a stark contrast to the space mythology that defined that franchise. There are plenty of examples of science fiction using a premise that could be considered magic by those terms but an attempt was made to explain it. Cloning for instance was a topic of many science fiction stories before it was proved to be possible. Do those stories cease to be science fiction because it was not explainable at the time they were written? I don't mean to be condescending, it's just that I don't like the mislabeling of science fiction or dismissing it with what I see is without reasonable cause.
To address your main point, I don't think the technological gaps will be as extreme as you think. The fact is some of the technology used in TNG is currently on par with our own. They don't have to update all of the technology in Star Trek just modernize the technology that no longer seems futuristic. For example maybe use holographic interfaces instead of touch screen interfaces. They don't need to come up with new transporter technology because that already is futuristic to us. If they do this with a timeframe that is the same or soon after TNG it will seem out of place compared to the already established technology level in that series. That is part of the problem they had when they made a prequel in Enterprise and some of the things in the current reboot universe.
Finally, I'm not saying science fiction has to take place in the future but it should deal with science and technology not currently possible. I'm not sure what your getting at with science fiction based on contemporary scientific knowledge. I'm not saying your wrong, I just can think of any examples. The best I can think of are stories based on current scientific theories that are unprovable at this time. Maybe I'm missing the point, can you provide examples?
Just watched this video and it touches on a few of the things we are debating.
Thanks for the video. Quite interesting, especially the parallels and breaks in more traditional fantasy literature.
I think there is a misunderstanding of my point and the word "magic" seems to carry far more weight than a half joking aside in post than I expected.
Yes, I know I asserted that Star Trek technology was magical in the sense that we don't have an understanding of it in our contemporary science. Perhaps that was too much of a reach on my part, though, in my opinion, I'm not sure what that changes, other than we have an in universe attempt at an explanation of the technology, rather than the technology just existing in the story.
I'll not disagree that science fiction often deals with technologies not possible or their larger implications of brand new technology that would be more of a cautionary tale, as the video you posted illustrated ("self-preventing prophecy.").
One of my favorite authors is Robin Cook, and while some many not classify him as science fiction, I would, because he starts dealing with implications of medical procedures or knowledge and explores a darker side to the medical world. It isn't always technology, though that sometimes that can be a part of it. He largely works with characters dealing with the implications of medical research and disease.
So, I don't think science fiction is limited to unprovable tech, so much as it can deal with contemporary technology and speculate on the longer term implications and reactions to those changes. Science fiction is actually a genre that can encompass many different locations and people's and is distinguished by speculation about technology or societal changes.
As for Star Trek, this is where I think it really shines. The idea is speculating on the future and what changes are wrought by technological and societal advancements. My only concern is that the technology becomes so advance that for the purposes of plot it nearly becomes magical. Though, in Star Trek, the established technologies do provide a good base from which to develop them further.
I think there is a misunderstanding of my point and the word "magic" seems to carry far more weight than a half joking aside in post than I expected.
Yes, I know I asserted that Star Trek technology was magical in the sense that we don't have an understanding of it in our contemporary science. Perhaps that was too much of a reach on my part, though, in my opinion, I'm not sure what that changes, other than we have an in universe attempt at an explanation of the technology, rather than the technology just existing in the story.
I'll not disagree that science fiction often deals with technologies not possible or their larger implications of brand new technology that would be more of a cautionary tale, as the video you posted illustrated ("self-preventing prophecy.").
One of my favorite authors is Robin Cook, and while some many not classify him as science fiction, I would, because he starts dealing with implications of medical procedures or knowledge and explores a darker side to the medical world. It isn't always technology, though that sometimes that can be a part of it. He largely works with characters dealing with the implications of medical research and disease.
So, I don't think science fiction is limited to unprovable tech, so much as it can deal with contemporary technology and speculate on the longer term implications and reactions to those changes. Science fiction is actually a genre that can encompass many different locations and people's and is distinguished by speculation about technology or societal changes.
As for Star Trek, this is where I think it really shines. The idea is speculating on the future and what changes are wrought by technological and societal advancements. My only concern is that the technology becomes so advance that for the purposes of plot it nearly becomes magical. Though, in Star Trek, the established technologies do provide a good base from which to develop them further.
Fair enough, I think we have taken this particular argument as far as it's going to go. I don't think we are going to agree on how magical or scientific certain technologies depicted in Star Trek are but I think we can agree it is more of a spectrum than a black and white issue. Star Trek definitely uses a wide band of that spectrum which I think is why it attracts a variety of different fans that like it for different reasons. Whether it be the space opera aspects or the sci-fi aspects.
I understand your concern that the technology will be so far removed from are own that it becomes too "alien" to contemporary viewers. I just don't think the writers will have the capacity to think of something that advanced. The 100 year jump in the story can not be taken too literally because there is no way for the writers to know how much of a jump in technology that will actually be. The time jump is more of a tool to give the writers some creative freedom in the technology, costume design, characters, etc. that they would be tied to if they returned to an era more familiar with the franchise. The other options and more to the point of this thread is that they reimagine the TNG era designs (in the JJverse) or simply stick to the overly familiar and possibly outdated designs already established (in the prime universe). I think this would alienate more fans than placing the show in the prime universe but farther in the future. The level of advancements will only be argued by hardcore fans and the casual fans won't care what century it takes place in, they will just hear "in the future". Bottom line, I think this approach will have a broader appeal to old and new fans. It's okay if you disagree because ultimately CBS is going to do what they are going to do.
Who says it hasn't?
Can't we just say their scanners are better, transporters are safer, holodeck has more pixels...
Yep. Just think about Voyager. It had "bio-neural gel packs", there was some technobabble about them being better, but it didn't change anything about the show. Quantum torpedoes vs photon torpedoes? Unless the story called for both and a distinction between the two, they were torpedoes that exploded and caused damage.
There is nothing about tech advancing that fundamentally changes the storytelling, just technobabble lines that claim it's better. You can invent a new warp drive that allows travelling to different galaxies. The distance traveled in an episode changes, but every alien world is made up anyway, so it makes no difference to the story if the planet of the week is 10 light years from Earth or 2.5 million light years from Earth.
I mentioned this either earlier in this thread or somewhere else here - Trek hasn't had meaningful technological change in the sense of representing modern science fiction for decades - it's off in its own sideroad where things that are mainstream in modern science fiction are either marginal at best or not mentioned at all. It's still a vision of science fiction progress stuck in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
To an extent that is understandable - once you start to modify it significantly then are you still writing Star Trek or something else?
Other than the ship getting a viral infection and having to be super heated lol
I agree that we have probably exhausted this particular conversation topic, as well as tangented from my original point. Ah, such is the Internet
I do agree that science fiction and technology are on a spectrum, and that the technology in the new series could go a variety of ways. They are already established rules of the tech in the Prime timeline so we certainly can see some outgrowth that would feel familiar to many who know Trek.
On the other side is something that I liked in Abrams Trek-that the technology had some limits that added a different dimension to it. Again, the idea of technology having consequences and characters having to respond to the implications is very much interesting.
Regardless, none of this depreciates my entertainment in prior Trek's and will likely not be diminished in this new series.
The problem is the direction of modern technology has changed since the 60s. Trek was born in the era of Apollo with the assumption that humanity would be building faster ships that travel further and further. Instead we've been in Earth orbit for 40 years with technology moving towards genetic engineering, virtual reality, and similar ideas. You can write science fiction based on that, but it'll likely be Earth based, or maybe Mars at the most. Sure you can tell a good story and use it to comment on society today, but it wouldn't be Star Trek.
Similar threads
