[StarWarsIsUs]

I think Star Wars is very much so Sci-Fi. The only reason some of you don't think this, is because you haven't ever thought about it that way. How is it NOT Sci-Fi, along with tiny bits of fantasy? Holograms. Millinium Falcon. Death Star. Lightsabers. Weapons. The fact that they travel through space like we drive our cars to the grocery store... it's definatly Sci-Fi. The only fantasy, is the Force, and force users.

[Just another wretched fan]

you're right, science fiction is possible. Fantasy isn't possible.

According to Steven Hawking, a Star Wars or Star Trek universe can't happen in the future because:

" ... The transmission of data through externam, nonbiological means has led the human race to dominate the world and to have an exponentially increasing population. But now we are at the beginning of a new era, in which we will be able to increase the complexity of our internal record, the DNA, without having to wait for the slow process of bilogical evolution. There has been no significant change in human DNA in the last 10,000 years, but it is likely that we will be able to completely redesign it in the next thousand. Of course, many people will say that genetic engineering of humans should be banned, but it is doubtful we will be able to prevent it. Genetic Engineering of plants and animals will be allowed for economic reasons, and someone is bound to try it on humans. Unless we have a totalitarian world order, someone somewhere will design improved humans.
....My intention is not to defend human genetic engineering as a desirable development, but just to say it is likely to happen whether we want it or not. This is the reason why I don't believe science fiction like Star Trek, where people four hundred years into the future are essentially the same as we are today. I think the human race, and its DNA, will increase its complexity quite rapidly. We should recognize that this is likely to happen and consider how we will deal with it.

So I guess Star Wars and Star Trek would be more accurate if humans had three eyes or something.

This post has been edited by Just another wretched fan: 02 May 2005 - 06:42 PM

[Mnesymone]

Just a little reply to the original thread.
Empire was a team effort, so to a lesser extent was Jedi - but though Lucas claims all the credit for Star Wars - its not his.
His wife was very important to the writing, Ralph Macquarrie designed most of the image - Gary Kurtz was, I believe, working as producer - also the contributions of Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness in the main, but all the other actors, even Kenny Baker, David Prowse and Peter Mayhew... claiming it as solo was pretty vain.
But the prequels were to a much larger extent solo - Rick McCallum (who the hell was he before this, anyway) is George's monkey boy - Lucas wrote and directed everything unaided - the actors were thoroughly underused - the story of the guy who plays Velorum being asked to act to a piece of paper on a stick becuase George gave Natalie the day off - so their contributions are minimal. With no one helping him, no one acting as a foil and in places no one hindering him - George is doing it all like a crazed dictator.

[Grand Moff Lebowski]

I don't often chime in but in this case I will.
Star Wars is NOT sci-fi. It is science FANTASY. NitPicky? Aren't we all who frequent these forums. Science fiction is an extension of our current time line into that "future" which is still based on proven Scientific fact. The idea that it goes off on a tangent is the fun part. Classic Sci-Fi: The Day the Earth Stood Still, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Gattaca, The Terminator, Star Trek and many more.

Science Fantasy is that which is not limited to our understanding of Science in any way. It may start there, but quickly involves things that are unexplained or unnatural.
Classic Science Fantasy: Star Wars saga (OT only), Flash Gordon, etc...

An author I forget offers thumbnail definitions of various genres:
Science fiction:
the unknown is to be understood and thereby changed
Fantasy:
the unknown is to be loved for its strangeness
Horror:
the unknown is to be feared
Disaster:
the unknown is to be endured
Naturalistic/memetic/realistic fiction:
the unknown isn't worth bothering with

Most thngs we see in cinema are Science Fantasy.

-BigL

[Grand Moff Lebowski]

And you are correct on the assesment of Lucas's inout on the original trilogy. It was a great group of talent that COLLABORATED on the films. From my expereince working in the movie effects industry and from working at Skywalker Ranch I could tell you SO many things that Lucas never had as part of his "vision" but are there beacuse others thought of them and pushed them through to the final.

What a crime for Lucas to erradicate that sentiment and creativity and re-has those elements into mush.

you're right, science fiction is possible. Fantasy isn't possible.

According to Steven Hawking, a Star Wars or Star Trek universe can't happen in the future because:

"  ... The transmission of data through externam, nonbiological means has led the human race to dominate the world and to have an exponentially increasing population. But now we are at the beginning of a new era, in which we will be able to increase the complexity of our internal record, the DNA, without having to wait for the slow process of bilogical evolution. There has been no significant change in human DNA in the last 10,000 years, but it is likely that we will be able to completely redesign it in the next thousand. Of course, many people will say that genetic engineering of humans should be banned, but it is doubtful we will be able to prevent it. Genetic Engineering of plants and animals will be allowed for economic reasons, and someone is bound to try it on humans. Unless we have a totalitarian world order, someone somewhere will design improved humans.
    ....My intention is not to defend human genetic engineering as a desirable development, but just to say it is likely to happen whether we want it or not. This is the reason why I don't believe science fiction like Star Trek, where people four hundred years into the future are essentially the same as we are today. I think the human race, and its DNA, will increase its complexity quite rapidly. We should recognize that this is likely to happen and consider how we will deal with it.

So I guess Star Wars and Star Trek would be more accurate if humans had three eyes or something. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[ernesttomlinson]

Christ. A sci-fi vs. fantasy thread? It's like my glory days on rec.arts.sf.written (only more tiresome.) Such, such were the joys.

Now that the thread has degenerated into an argument I might as well add my two cents - "hard SF" comprises some of the most boring literature I've ever read.

[Just another wretched fan]

Christ.  A sci-fi vs. fantasy thread?  It's like my glory days on rec.arts.sf.written (only more tiresome.)  Such, such were the joys.

Now that the thread has degenerated into an argument I might as well add my two cents - "hard SF" comprises some of the most boring literature I've ever read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

can you throw some examples at us?


where does Farenheit 451 fall in.

what about the Robot Stories

what about hitchhikers guide? fun movie.

This post has been edited by Just another wretched fan: 02 May 2005 - 11:45 PM

[ernesttomlinson]

My prime example for boring SF is Arthur Clarke, who couldn't write an interesting character if someone pointed a gun at him. The hard SF fans love him for his plausibly futuristic ideas; I shun him because all the plausible ideas in the world don't make up for cardboard characters and, too often, nonexistent plots. (Really, tell me, does Rendezvous with Rama have a plot?)

I'm also thinking of writers of the Greg Egan and Vernor Vinge stripe (both computer programmers - funny, that) who, again, are more interested in what they think of as their original ideas than in storytelling, although they're far better writers than Clarke, I admit, when they stop play-acting at being scientists. Take A Fire upon the Deep for example. Vinge's at his best where "science" is hardly anywhere to be seen, in the "Tines" subplot. He's at his worst when he's expounding on his dreary concept of the Singularity that, unfortunately, is Vinge's idee fixe and what exercises the imagination of his biggest fans.

If I want science, I'll turn to a textbook. I've got two dozen of them on the shelf not six feet from me - I'm not kidding. If I want a good story I'll turn to a fantasy writer.

Fahrenheit 451 is only marginally science fiction. Bradbury was always more of a horror and fantasy writer than an SF writer - more power to him. Eliminate or change a few references (e.g. to the "Mechanical Hound", the "bullet" radios that Faber uses to talk to Montag) and it's not sci-fi at all.

I'm not a fan of Douglas Adams. I think he's Terry Pratchett without the brains. The original Hitchhiker's Guide radioplays were funny, probably because someone else was helping Adams write them.

The Robot stories of Asimov are hard SF and pretty good, I admit. They're also short. I think that hard SF often flourishes best in the short story, where good characterisation does not matter much and there's no need to sustain a complicated plot. You've got one idea, you spend a few pages elaborating on it, and you're done. Asimov was good at this. Clarke wasn't as good but still he could deliver sometimes. Neither writer was much good at longer stories. Try rereading, say, Second Foundation and notice how often the narrative grinds to a halt to accommodate slabs of exposition.

I've gone on too long. It's late and I admit I've a couple of glasses of red wine in me. I'm not usually this much of a curmudgeon.