[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The genre is called science fiction. You'll just have to get used to that fact, cuz that's what it is.

And your own personal definition makes no sense anyway. Quite frankly, it's not as if I find 2001 any more plausible than District 9. Just because you want it to be, doesn't make it so. The human science in 2001 is better, but the rest of it is just as mumbo-jumboish as many other sci-fi flicks.

No complaint with the genre or its name here. I just happen to be one of those fans that has certain expectations of what he views/reads, based on the author and the author's qualifications. If Clarke says this or that can happen, I think it's pretty plausible, particularly given that he WAS a scientist. Sure, tons of stuff in 2001 was pretty mumbo-jumboish, but it was based on real, achievable science, whereas the fancy tech stuff in Star Trek was not. So when I engage in reading or viewing a Star Trek story, I have a particular level of "suspension of disbelief" that I dial in, while when I read a story by Clarke (or a lot of Azimov's work, or...well you get the idea) I have to suspend less disbelief. It's a spectrum with pure fantasy (Anne Bishop, for example) at one end and rock solid science (Robert Heinlein in much of his work) at the other. Labels like "science fiction" or "science fantasy" are useful the way movie reviews are-they help one set appropriate expectations.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Did you, like, walk out of 2001 before the Star Child part?

[CharlesS]

2001 was basically Creationism. For life to evolve, it was necessary for God (in the form of those black monoliths) to induce it.

[Face Ache]

Crap Web Comics - Star Trek

if you haven't seen it yet.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

2001 was basically Creationism. For life to evolve, it was necessary for God (in the form of those black monoliths) to induce it.

Oh dear.

Not at all. Really.

Creationism had nothing to do with it; neither Kubrick nor - God forbid - Clarke would have been caught dead associating themselves with it.

The basic premise is that human intelligence and development have been a big experiment, with each development onto a new plane of being having been kick-started by an alien force by means of these black monoliths. It's a basic theme Clarke toyed with in a number of pieces, including the short story The Sentinel, which focused on what later became the moon monolith as its main idea.

Why would God need to place a monolith underground on the moon, creating a magnetic anomaly for humans to discover, just so the monolith could signal its discovery to its creator via the gateway monolith on Iapetus (in the book; in the movie it was floating in space around Jupiter for dramatic and technical reasons)?

The religious aspects are no accident, and there is deliberate play with planes of being and powers, but the main characters' names are anagrams of Nietzsche protagonists', and the story most definitely does not allude to or require the existence of a god.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

But splitting hairs is not what I'd call differentiating between "science fiction" and "science fantasy." Science fiction uses not just plausible but genuine scientific material, and posits something about the society and culture related to some sort of advance in or application of that science; a great example is Azimov's "Caves of Steel." 2001 was science FICTION because the only stuff that was not SOLIDLY based in real science that was nearly achievable science in 1965 was the aliens' technology.

Science fantasy is what you get when you blur the line between technology and magic. Star Wars is most definitely science fantasy, especially with people bopping back and forth in hyperspace, and with folks with special "powers" battling it out with those powers. Star Trek is fantasy with very well wrought technological garb, especially since the whole technological foundation of the show was intended to further storytelling on TV in the 1960s. It had to look good, and the stories were exceptionally important and most were very well done, but it was and is fantasy.

I agree entirely.

I will, however, blur the lines a bit by including my favorite Arthur C. Clarke quote:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."




(The difference, of course, is that real sci-fi makes sure everything is scientifically plausible, while no five minutes of any Star Trek production of *any* era or series will hold up to even rudimentary scrutiny at all.)

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

(The difference, of course, is that real sci-fi makes sure everything is scientifically plausible, while no five minutes of any Star Trek production of *any* era or series will hold up to even rudimentary scrutiny at all.)

This statement is exceptionally true, and it's the crux of the difference between Roddenberry's "adventure" series and science fiction.

[Chuckit]

Normal term for the distinction you're drawing is "hard science fiction" vs. "soft science fiction".

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Oh dear.

Not at all. Really.

Creationism had nothing to do with it; neither Kubrick nor - God forbid - Clarke would have been caught dead associating themselves with it.

The basic premise is that human intelligence and development have been a big experiment, with each development onto a new plane of being having been kick-started by an alien force by means of these black monoliths. It's a basic theme Clarke toyed with in a number of pieces, including the short story The Sentinel, which focused on what later became the moon monolith as its main idea.

Why would God need to place a monolith underground on the moon, creating a magnetic anomaly for humans to discover, just so the monolith could signal its discovery to its creator via the gateway monolith on Iapetus (in the book; in the movie it was floating in space around Jupiter for dramatic and technical reasons)?

The religious aspects are no accident, and there is deliberate play with planes of being and powers, but the main characters' names are anagrams of Nietzsche protagonists', and the story most definitely does not allude to or require the existence of a god.

I didn’t mean to imply that the movie was depicting the Judeo-Christian god, but simply the fact that whoever/whatever built the monoliths clearly is God as far as the humans in the movie’s universe are concerned. They didn’t evolve on their own, the monoliths engineered everything. Whether their motives are an experiment or something else isn’t terribly important if the effect is that they created humanity.

Evolution is a gradual process powered by descent with variation by means of natural selection, not by individuals of a species getting spontaneously turned into something else by an outside influence. The latter is creationism. I’d like to see how natural selection could produce a god/entity/whatever the Star Child is supposed to be.

Yeah, the fact that the movie had no sound in space and whatnot was scientific. The way we heard people’s breathing and heartbeats was, of course, valid — people do breathe and have heartbeats. But the over-arching theme of the movie was definitely not scientific. And the fact that so many people think evolution is powered by the sort of magic depicted in this film probably accounts for a good deal of why the US is so messed up with regard to science education.

[Spheric Harlot]

"external force" != "god"

see also Arthur C. Clarke quote above.

And while the theme of development being "nudged" by those external forces can be extended back to the spark of life (and Clarke does in some work), that really has nothing to do with the idea that the heavens and earth were created in the biblical sense.

[CharlesS]

Nor did I say it had anything to do with the heavens and the earth being created in the biblical sense. But it certainly does make these aliens the creator as far as humanity is concerned, and it’s not scientific.

[Spheric Harlot]

It's an interesting interpretation, to be sure, but it has nothing to do with the movie or Clarke's body of work, and everything to do with what you, personally, want to perceive.

Not that there's anything wrong with that; I just wanted to clarify.


There is nothing "unscientific" per se about treating consciousness as an entity separate from physical existence, and the concept has, in fact, been tossed about in countless books/short stories by various sci-fi authors.

In fact, it's a rather intriguing suggestion: Is there a realm of "evolution" beyond our physical existence? Can/will humanity eventually "evolve" into a non-physical entity with collective consciousness (NOT specifically "life after death", mind you, since the term "death" becomes meaningless at that point, but actual development of the race)?

Call it "science philosophy", if you like.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There is nothing "unscientific" per se about treating consciousness as an entity separate from physical existence, and the concept has, in fact, been tossed about in countless books/short stories by various sci-fi authors.

In fact, it's a rather intriguing suggestion: Is there a realm of "evolution" beyond our physical existence? Can/will humanity eventually "evolve" into a non-physical entity with collective consciousness (NOT specifically "life after death", mind you, since the term "death" becomes meaningless at that point, but actual development of the race)?

Call it "science philosophy", if you like.

Indeed. Unfortunately for those artificially dividing sci-fi, it's precisely this sort of stuff that get its into Star Trek territory, to put it bluntly.

Sure, Clarke's writings are often a heluvalot more interesting than the screenwriters in The Next Generation, but that doesn't mean they're in different genres. By the same token, TV dramas and dramatic films that win Academy Awards are simply both dramas.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Normal term for the distinction you're drawing is "hard science fiction" vs. "soft science fiction".

Indeed. I guess I was trying to cut to the chase with a distinction AND definition at the same time. Funny how "time saving actions" tend to wind up taking up MUCH more time....

I should point out, however, that the WAY certain issues are dealt with can have a huge effect on how the story comes across. For example, in 2001, the aliens who planted the monolith are never seen, their actions only hinted at, and even the last part of the story, the Starchild, is very ambiguous. No rules, no specifications, just "something so far beyond us that we can't recognize what it is or how it works." Maybe the aliens are little green men, maybe they're wisps of smoke. But instead of assigning anything recognizable to them, Clarke made them even more interesting (and powerful) by making them so ambiguous. Contrast that with Star Wars, even before Episode 1, and you see two ends of the spectrum I was talking about.

Star Trek is different because in a number of stories the writers were also very ambiguous about interesting and powerful aliens, the Organians, for example. In the background of an adventure story with the trappings of science fiction, there were some GREAT stories that pretty much make any differentiation between sub-genres moot. "City on the Edge of Forever," is a great example. For that matter, so is one of the last, "Turnabout Intruder," which used a deus ex machina plot mechanism to examine human nature and the difference between the genders. Frankly, Shatner could have gotten an Emmy for that one just because he was so good at doing the subtle things that helped identify which personality was inhabiting Kirk at the time...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Indeed. Unfortunately for those artificially dividing sci-fi, it's precisely this sort of stuff that get its into Star Trek territory, to put it bluntly.

Sure, Clarke's writings are often a heluvalot more interesting than the screenwriters in The Next Generation, but that doesn't mean they're in different genres. By the same token, TV dramas and dramatic films that win Academy Awards are simply both dramas.

Actually, the primary distinction is *plausibility*.

Nothing in 2001 defies the scientific reality - there's invention there, but all of it is possible, according to what we know.

The Star Trek universe is completely based on utter gibberish and pseudo-scientific nonsense that completely defies the realities of this existence. Hence, "fantasy". It's not even that the technology is so advanced as to be beyond our grasp: Star Trek's biggest failing is that it actually attempts to explain these things, but those explanations are just obviously completely idiotic.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Actually, the primary distinction is *plausibility*.

Nothing in 2001 defies the scientific reality - there's invention there, but all of it is possible, according to what we know.

The Star Trek universe is completely based on utter gibberish and pseudo-scientific nonsense that completely defies the realities of this existence. Hence, "fantasy". It's not even that the technology is so advanced as to be beyond our grasp: Star Trek's biggest failing is that it actually attempts to explain these things, but those explanations are just obviously completely idiotic.

Right. Like....communicators and tricorders and phasers.

Ask someone 75 years ago if it was possible to break the sound barrier or go to the moon.

[Spheric Harlot]

No.

People walk upright against gravity in Star Trek too. I'm talking about the tons of stuff that *defy* the laws of physics. Starting with sounds travelling through a vacuum.

[Eug]

Basically, you're comparing a single movie to decades of Star Trek episodes. IMO it's a much bigger mistake to try to shoehorn hundreds of vastly different episodes into one single subgenre of sci-fi, just because you want it there to fit your preconceived notions.

Furthermore, while I think 2001 is a good movie, I found a lot of it quite fantastical. IOW, it takes a heluvalot of a leap of faith to buy into that movie too. Basically, it had a fair amount of good science, and then jumped way beyond that with the other stuff.

Oh and my favourite Star Trek episode of all time is Journey to Babel. Basically, that entire episode was a character and dialogue driven episode, with only a little bit of technobabble.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Actually, the primary distinction is *plausibility*.

Nothing in 2001 defies the scientific reality

You mean the AI that tries to kill the crew, or the monolith?

Do we have murdering AIs and monoliths?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Nor did I say it had anything to do with the heavens and the earth being created in the biblical sense. But it certainly does make these aliens the creator as far as humanity is concerned, and it’s not scientific.

No fiction is entirely scientific, just by virtue of being untrue. If you're going to go through a sci-fi piece saying, "Hey, we don't currently know that," I think the genre is not for you.

[Spheric Harlot]

Am I really not getting through to you?

There is a difference between stuff that MAY BE POSSIBLE, but isn't in our current state, and stuff THAT ISN'T POSSIBLE, because it violates what is known about the universe. The truly insulting thing about Star Trek, IMO, is that even the things that *are* possible are explained in ways that are gratuitously nonsensical.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

You mean the AI that tries to kill the crew, or the monolith?

Do we have murdering AIs and monoliths?

Also there is no reason why we *couldn't* have either, based on what we know.

Btw, the reason HAL turned to murder was that the mission was already in its final planning stages when the moon monolith was discovered and sent its signal to Jupiter/Saturn (movie/book), and HAL received new mission orders with the explicit command NOT to let the crew know. HAL's Resolution to this dilemma was an inherently logical one: he went insane.

[Spheric Harlot]

[QUOTE=Eug;3894525
Oh and my favourite Star Trek episode of all time is Journey to Babel. Basically, that entire episode was a character and dialogue driven episode, with only a little bit of technobabble.[/QUOTE]

those are certainly the best episodes, and I wish they'd stuck to that.

Just like I wish Star Wars had stuck to the mythical Force and not ruined it with pseudo-scientific midichlorian bullshit.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Am I really not getting through to you?

There is a difference between stuff that MAY BE POSSIBLE, but isn't in our current state, and stuff THAT ISN'T POSSIBLE, because it violates what is known about the universe. The truly insulting thing about Star Trek, IMO, is that even the things that *are* possible are explained in ways that are gratuitously nonsensical.

I wonder if people like you were saying the same thing when "A Trip To The Moon" was released in 1902.

[Spheric Harlot]

Oh come on. Do you really want to turn this into a personal attack fest?

You understand perfectly what I'm saying, and you know it's true; you just can't stand that I'm knocking Star Trek.

I loved the character-centered episodes of all series, btw - but I'm sure that if I had even the slightest knowledge about higher physics, I'd be absolutely appalled over how DS9 assumes wormholes could work - and they built an entire series around it!

Apart from that: being shot to the moon in a giant explosive-based cannon would most certainly kill you on launch.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There is nothing "unscientific" per se about treating consciousness as an entity separate from physical existence, and the concept has, in fact, been tossed about in countless books/short stories by various sci-fi authors.

In fact, it's a rather intriguing suggestion: Is there a realm of "evolution" beyond our physical existence? Can/will humanity eventually "evolve" into a non-physical entity with collective consciousness (NOT specifically "life after death", mind you, since the term "death" becomes meaningless at that point, but actual development of the race)?

Regardless of how often it’s been written about, there’s at current no scientific basis for such a thing as a consciousness without a physical existence, which itself is just a fancy name for “ghost” or “spirit,” so it definitely feels like a “fantasy” element to me.

The concept does show up in sci-fi a lot. Unfortunately, at least in the States, it seems to cause a lot of misunderstandings about what evolution is about (probably combined with the fact that science education isn’t always up to par), causing this conversation:

Creationist: Evolution is just an excuse for humanity to shun God by claiming we can become gods ourselves.

Me: No, that was a movie.

Creationist: No, evolution says that we’ll keep becoming higher and higher until we eventually become gods.

Me: It’s not a documentary.

Creationist: Because eventually our physical bodies will be inadequate and we’ll need to become… spiritual creatures.

Me: How would that even work, anyway? Evolution works through random changes in DNA that get selected for. What change could you make to DNA to end up with a “spiritual creature”? What is a “spiritual creature” anyway? Science doesn’t have spirits, ghosts, or gods.

Creationist: Evolution is all just an excuse to claim we don’t need God, because we can become gods ourselves!

Me: It’s a movie. It’s fiction. In fact, that movie’s more creationist than evolutionist — the evolution in that movie doesn’t happen on its own, and isn’t caused by natural selection. That movie is not what evolution is. You won’t find that stuff in any actual scientific literature.

Creationist: <keeps repeating the same thing over and over until I get frustrated and leave>

[Spheric Harlot]

Well, "creationists" willfully misinterpreting anything and everything really doesn't mean that it's worth pursuing that angle, or that this was in any way part of the intent in making the movie.

"2001: a space odyssey" is so ripe with allegories, themes, intriguing angles, and deliberately obscured hints, that it really, really doesn't matter what stupid people think (not you, Charles).

[CharlesS]

True. My major confusion is why it’s always brought out as the prime example of “hard sci-fi” when its core themes don’t have much to do with science as we currently understand it.

[Chuckit]

What "creationists" say that? That sounds more like an accurate summary of Mormon doctrine than any objection I've ever heard to modern biology.

EDIT: Not that I want to get into that debate here. I've just never heard of sci-fi being taken that way.

[CharlesS]

Believe me, I grew up in a very conservative environment, and I’ve had that conversation. Many times. The idea is that evolution is man’s attempt to climb to Godhood by their own power, as in the Tower of Babel story, and that it’s therefore ungodly. The only place I can think of where they could have gotten that idea is the movie 2001, which is why it kind of annoys me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Ah, well, that makes sense then.

Tell them they're right about the movie, but not about evolution, and send them off to read Nietzsche.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Oh come on. Do you really want to turn this into a personal attack fest?

You understand perfectly what I'm saying, and you know it's true; you just can't stand that I'm knocking Star Trek.

I find your argument silly.

You're saying Trek isn't science-fiction because it's not scientifically plausible. Please stop and think about that for a minute before replying.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by starman 

I find your argument silly.

You're saying Trek isn't science-fiction because it's not scientifically plausible. Please stop and think about that for a minute before replying.

Heheh. Bingo.

[QuadG5Man]

He's just saying it's not science non-fiction

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman 

I find your argument silly.

You're saying Trek isn't science-fiction because it's not scientifically plausible. Please stop and think about that for a minute before replying.

If a basis in science isn't important, what is the difference between science fiction and…well, fiction fiction?

[Spheric Harlot]

That, and the argument was initially that science fiction is based in this universe, vs. science fantasy for stuff that doesn't follow the laws of this universe.

It's pretty much the same for the distinction between regular fiction and fantasy (the latter is a subset, but it clearly doesn't take place within our physical universe).

I agree that this is kind of weird, because Star Trek is supposedly based in our universe. But that, as I've described, is precisely my biggest problem with it.

Basically, if you're talking about movies, it does come down to 2001 and a small handful of others (Gattaca, Code 52, the original Solaris, etc.) that actually try, vs. pretty much everything else.

Does the Rocky Horror Picture Show qualify, I wonder?

"Science fiction double feature…"

[ghporter]

Waaaaayyyyyy back, in the late 1800s, Jules Verne sort of invented science fiction through including plausible and well thought out science in his fantastic stories. Hugo Gernsback is supposed to have coined the term "scientifiction," which was later modified to "science fiction." So the difference between "fiction" and "science fiction" is really the plausibility of the science included in the story. Verne did it to make his fantastic stories feel more real, Gernsback printed stories by writers whose stories were more amazing through the inclusion of stuff that seemed pretty real.

I think the real issue here is "how plausible" does the science content have to be to make the story work? In Star Trek, it's really just about making the stories' setting work. In late 1960s America the science we saw in 2001 was so plausible that it seemed the movie's projections of technology were actually kind of conservative. Heinlein wrote that being very imaginative in those projections has actually historically been conservative-but that reality tends to go in directions the writers don't predict. All that means is that their stories are not "predictions" of what will happen, just impressions of what "might" happen if their premise (oil crisis leads to a sudden, drastic need for alternative energy sources which leads to a drastic changes in transportation methods which leads to potential social upheaval = "The Roads Must Roll") Good science fiction tends to use advanced technology to enhance the setting and usually set up the primary conflict in the story. Not-so-good SF tends to make the advanced technology in the story get in the way of the conflict, or just get in the way.

I'll agree very strongly that it's splitting hairs to say that this story or series is "really science fiction" while this one over here is "really more science fantasy." But whatever nit-picking label is applied, if the advanced, way-cool, über-high-tech content makes the story work better, it's "good," and if it doesn't help the story, it just isn't good.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

I like Voyager if only because it took Trek out of its usual spaces and give the writers much more freedom.

Oh right that is why they still found ways to always write in Borg, Ferengi, Cardasians, Q, Klingons, Humans, TNG cast, Romulans and Vulcans into it whenever they could. They ran out of bumpy forhead variations and writers had no imagination I guess.

Enterprise messed up the "cannon" by adding Romulans, Borg and Ferengi before they were known to make first contact with humans decades later. The secret was these races never gave their names. Lame.

DS9 was the best. First season is terrible for the most part but after that 80% of the episodes are good and expand on the big 7 year story arc somehow.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Oh right that is why they still found ways to always write in Borg, Ferengi, Cardasians, Q, Klingons, Humans, TNG cast, Romulans, a Vulcans into it whenever they could. They ran out of bumpy forhead variations and writers had no imagination I guess.

The Borg originated from the Delta quadrant, they didn't have to write in anything. Except for Seska, I enjoyed the tie ins because they're "sequels" to episodes from TOS, TNG, and DS9. Some of those episodes you probably wondered what happened to the aliens... then in Voyager you find out.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

DS9 was the best. First season is terrible for the most part but after that 80% of the episodes are good and expand on the big 7 year story arc somehow.

I really enjoyed Babylon 5. The first season was crap (I'm surprised it got funding for the second season), but the rest were awesome.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Borg originated from the Delta quadrant, they didn't have to write in anything. Except for Seska, I enjoyed the tie ins because they're "sequels" to episodes from TOS, TNG, and DS9. Some of those episodes you probably wondered what happened to the aliens... then in Voyager you find out.

Ya and for the first time they borg don't' start every sentence with "We are the borg".

Anywho, I also liked Seska but they still dragged in every old enemy they could for the ratings.

[Eug]

So Star Trek won for Makeup.

That's the only Oscar I expect it to win.

[mrtew]

I didn't even notice any makeup except for the green chick and Spock's ears. What gives?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I didn't even notice any makeup except for the green chick and Spock's ears. What gives?

That you didn't notice Eric Bana's hard core makeup is a testament to its excellence. And no, I'm not talking about the tattoo.

[mrtew]

Oh yeah! And the fact that I didn't notice that it was him is even better. Can't stand that guy since "Hulk". I have to say I was very impressed that Kirk and Spock didn't look coated in pancake like they did in TOS and all the movies. I almost thought they didn't even hire a makeup person so it kindof took me off guard when it won. I guess you don't notice good makeup like you said. I thought that Romulan dude was for real.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Oh yeah! And the fact that I didn't notice that it was him is even better. Can't stand that guy since "Hulk". I have to say I was very impressed that Kirk and Spock didn't look coated in pancake like they did in TOS and all the movies. I almost thought they didn't even hire a makeup person so it kindof took me off guard when it won. I guess you don't notice good makeup like you said. I thought that Romulan dude was for real.

TOS was produced for EARLY color TV; sort of like the early Technicolor films. Lots of gratuitous color but no expectation of even decent resolution on the screens. That's why new DVDs from the original film source look like the actors are over made-up. They were, if they were being filmed for DVD. And "all the movies" is pretty broad. I think they did quite well with most of them, but then I don't go frame by frame looking for flaws.

Bana's and the other Romulan characters' makeup was really well done, but so was everyone else's. Pine's "got beaten up" makeup was excellent. Nimoy's "older than he really is" makeup was excellent. Quinto's "boy is Spock young" makeup was fabulous. The Orion girls' green was extremely well done, as it didn't show too much pink anywhere, a real problem with most green skin makeup. Overall, I thought the makeup was extremely well done on everyone, especially as it didn't look like makeup at all. The green girls were green girls, not girls with green makeup, Pine got the snot beat out of him in a bar and had lots of evidence of it on his face. Bana was hard core and his scalp tattoos (and bitten off ear) were evidence of that.