Regarding the article of [link removed]http://lancerkind.com/2015/12/15/star-trek-rebooted-now-its-star-wars/ I got interesting comments regarding why a [link removed] and science in science fiction. Some commenters didn't understand how Star Trek or the science fiction genre uses science.
Historically and today, the science in science fiction varies but overall, the science keeps getting more accurate as the scientific literacy in our culture increases. In the 1920s Hugo Gernsback (the guy the Hugo Award is named after) was editor of various science and science fiction magazine and he used to infuriate "science" fiction authors by rejecting stories whose science was sloppy. This was at a time when science fiction magazines would have art on the cover with people walking or floating around in space without space suits. Gernsback was having none of that published in his magazines because he'd toss the sucker into the rejection pile. In those days people were ignorant of what you could and couldn't do in space, so the reader's didn't notice or care. Despite this, Gernsback insisted on raising the bar of science literacy and did so by deciding what stories he'd buy for his magazines.
Star Trek is one of the few science fiction serials that made great attempts at "keeping things real" in our fiction. :-) The point of science fiction is to write a story that "could be" real given some breakthroughs in technology or engineering. So yes, if you can "warp" (or fold) space, you can quickly cross a large distance because you're taking a short cut. And yes, you could teleport matter if you can store the location and type information of every atom and then use a stream of energy to rebuild (or replicate) them at a distance (this is certainly a hand wave at this point and certainly more fiction than fact though people have demonstrated proofs of concepts of quantum teleportation so maybe it's possible). Obviously both concepts are fiction because we don't have them today. But there are real theories that have demonstrated that it could work (perhaps mathematically) however are impossible to do today. But in the future, with some breakthroughs, .... then we enter the arena of *science* fiction. If we don't allow for some extrapolation, then we'll have just fiction (Fast and Furious, CSI, Sherlock Holmes, 24, ..) using what we can buy off the shelves or build today.
Although Gernsback would likely enjoy watching Star Wars, he'd say that any movie that features, over and over again, space fighters that bank in a vacuum and the use of magic (the Force) isn't science fiction but is science fantasy. George Lucas himself labels Star Wars as science fantasy.
So that leaves us with JJ Abrams and now Justin Lin. Before the Reboot, Star Trek made large attempt to tell entertaining stories AND avoid breaking the laws of physics (just ask Scotty when Kirk demanded something impossible). They weren't perfect (who is, included scientists and engineers?) but they did influence a lot of people with stories of science including tools of the future such as the medbay, tricorders, and communicators. And Trek did inspire a lot of people to go into the sciences. Star Wars on the other hand makes little attempt to tell stories using science to solve problems.
So we have a continuum with Star Trek shows (pre-reboot) on one side and Star Wars on the other. And while there's overlap between the fans, the more science oriented were Trek fans and many of those fans worked or were inspired to work in technical or science related fields.
Then the Reboot. NuTrek is now somewhere in between Star Trek and Star Wars, potentially right on top of Star Wars. So why is Paramount doing this?
Some would say this is because Paramount can't make money creating films that teach the audience a little about science. Others would say, it's about the audience, and they can get a larger audience if they focus less on science (assuming the geeks is a small market). If Paramount has bought into either one, then they're throwing the existing base of science literate trekkies under the bus to become like Star Wars.
My position is that although Paramount is making a profit, they are making a mistake. The world is moving *toward* high tech. Scientific literacy is climbing. The number of people with technology related degrees has been going up for years. Also very good and successful science fiction movies recently came out: Gravity, Interstellar, and The Martian. All which had real problems that were solved with real science and were extremely entertaining AND scientific. And all ranked at least the top sixteen grossing movies for the year. My position is Paramount is making a mistake in losing its differentiator from other franchises (such as Star Wars) and relying on Trek character roles which were defined by doing science work, and turning it into an action genre. Although I find the Reboot movies entertaining on the first watch, I'm disappointed when I encounter the emptiness upon second viewing, though I like it OK. Every time I watch Intersteller, Gravity, or The Martian (or pre-reboot episodes) I pick up a better understanding of the science that I didn't catch the first time. Why have a science officer and engineer, a medical scientist/doctor doing the work of a high end security detail or a strike team? Is Spock valued because he's a good blaster shot or skilled at melee, or is he valued because of his science problem solving abilities?
It turns out George Takai agrees. I have nothing against JJ or Justin Lin. They are very successful directors and entertainers. And JJ did what Paramount wanted: prove a successful Star Trek (though a pastiche) could be done. I hope the Star Trek Beyond trailer was merely optimized for the G4 viewing demographic and that they'll have some significant problem solved with science up on this next one. If I don't care about science in my entertainment and want only a "future action drama", I'll just go play Halo.
If you wish, you can answer a poll as to whether JJ Abrams will do Star Wars better than Lucas. It's at the end of [link removed]http://lancerkind.com/2015/12/15/star-trek-rebooted-now-its-star-wars/
Historically and today, the science in science fiction varies but overall, the science keeps getting more accurate as the scientific literacy in our culture increases. In the 1920s Hugo Gernsback (the guy the Hugo Award is named after) was editor of various science and science fiction magazine and he used to infuriate "science" fiction authors by rejecting stories whose science was sloppy. This was at a time when science fiction magazines would have art on the cover with people walking or floating around in space without space suits. Gernsback was having none of that published in his magazines because he'd toss the sucker into the rejection pile. In those days people were ignorant of what you could and couldn't do in space, so the reader's didn't notice or care. Despite this, Gernsback insisted on raising the bar of science literacy and did so by deciding what stories he'd buy for his magazines.
Star Trek is one of the few science fiction serials that made great attempts at "keeping things real" in our fiction. :-) The point of science fiction is to write a story that "could be" real given some breakthroughs in technology or engineering. So yes, if you can "warp" (or fold) space, you can quickly cross a large distance because you're taking a short cut. And yes, you could teleport matter if you can store the location and type information of every atom and then use a stream of energy to rebuild (or replicate) them at a distance (this is certainly a hand wave at this point and certainly more fiction than fact though people have demonstrated proofs of concepts of quantum teleportation so maybe it's possible). Obviously both concepts are fiction because we don't have them today. But there are real theories that have demonstrated that it could work (perhaps mathematically) however are impossible to do today. But in the future, with some breakthroughs, .... then we enter the arena of *science* fiction. If we don't allow for some extrapolation, then we'll have just fiction (Fast and Furious, CSI, Sherlock Holmes, 24, ..) using what we can buy off the shelves or build today.
Although Gernsback would likely enjoy watching Star Wars, he'd say that any movie that features, over and over again, space fighters that bank in a vacuum and the use of magic (the Force) isn't science fiction but is science fantasy. George Lucas himself labels Star Wars as science fantasy.
So that leaves us with JJ Abrams and now Justin Lin. Before the Reboot, Star Trek made large attempt to tell entertaining stories AND avoid breaking the laws of physics (just ask Scotty when Kirk demanded something impossible). They weren't perfect (who is, included scientists and engineers?) but they did influence a lot of people with stories of science including tools of the future such as the medbay, tricorders, and communicators. And Trek did inspire a lot of people to go into the sciences. Star Wars on the other hand makes little attempt to tell stories using science to solve problems.
So we have a continuum with Star Trek shows (pre-reboot) on one side and Star Wars on the other. And while there's overlap between the fans, the more science oriented were Trek fans and many of those fans worked or were inspired to work in technical or science related fields.
Then the Reboot. NuTrek is now somewhere in between Star Trek and Star Wars, potentially right on top of Star Wars. So why is Paramount doing this?
Some would say this is because Paramount can't make money creating films that teach the audience a little about science. Others would say, it's about the audience, and they can get a larger audience if they focus less on science (assuming the geeks is a small market). If Paramount has bought into either one, then they're throwing the existing base of science literate trekkies under the bus to become like Star Wars.
My position is that although Paramount is making a profit, they are making a mistake. The world is moving *toward* high tech. Scientific literacy is climbing. The number of people with technology related degrees has been going up for years. Also very good and successful science fiction movies recently came out: Gravity, Interstellar, and The Martian. All which had real problems that were solved with real science and were extremely entertaining AND scientific. And all ranked at least the top sixteen grossing movies for the year. My position is Paramount is making a mistake in losing its differentiator from other franchises (such as Star Wars) and relying on Trek character roles which were defined by doing science work, and turning it into an action genre. Although I find the Reboot movies entertaining on the first watch, I'm disappointed when I encounter the emptiness upon second viewing, though I like it OK. Every time I watch Intersteller, Gravity, or The Martian (or pre-reboot episodes) I pick up a better understanding of the science that I didn't catch the first time. Why have a science officer and engineer, a medical scientist/doctor doing the work of a high end security detail or a strike team? Is Spock valued because he's a good blaster shot or skilled at melee, or is he valued because of his science problem solving abilities?
It turns out George Takai agrees. I have nothing against JJ or Justin Lin. They are very successful directors and entertainers. And JJ did what Paramount wanted: prove a successful Star Trek (though a pastiche) could be done. I hope the Star Trek Beyond trailer was merely optimized for the G4 viewing demographic and that they'll have some significant problem solved with science up on this next one. If I don't care about science in my entertainment and want only a "future action drama", I'll just go play Halo.
If you wish, you can answer a poll as to whether JJ Abrams will do Star Wars better than Lucas. It's at the end of [link removed]http://lancerkind.com/2015/12/15/star-trek-rebooted-now-its-star-wars/
Last edited by a moderator:
