The equal strengths of Star Wars and Star Trek

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kuci

If Babylon 5 can be deemed sci-fi, surely Star Wars can .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Kuci

If Babylon 5 can be deemed sci-fi, surely Star Wars can .

'Star Wars' is like a fairy story set in space, with a thin icing of science to update it.

The Deathstar is simply the dragon's lair, or the ogre's keep, the emperor the wicked witch, and the Jedi the equivalent of the genie.

There's even the fairy princess (complete with cinnamon danishes), the friendly giant (the wookie) little people (the f@#*ing ewoks) and the wooden actor- Hamill.

[Imran Siddiqui]

'Star Wars' is like a fairy story set in space, with a thin icing of science to update it.

Thanks .

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science%20fiction

Science Fiction, n. - A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Thanks .

De nada.


You'll note though that little of Star Wars actually has to do with or depends upon the science- it is at heart a rather simplistic fairy story that has been taken out of the dark woods, rolling moors and bosky vales and just stuck in space.


It could just as easily be transposed to an underwater setting, or the Nedaverse.

[KrazyHorse]

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Science Fiction, n. - A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition

And obviously I utterly disagree with that definition- under that definition then Science Fiction is a subcategory of Fantasy. I believe science fiction can be distinct from fantasy, thought I would agree most things in the "Fantasy and Science Fiction" area of a bookstore are fantasy and not science fiction.

You could have a science fiction story utterly devoid of any fantasy elements, just as you can have a fantasy story utterly devoid of any space settings.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Kuci

If Babylon 5 can be deemed sci-fi, surely Star Wars can .

I am more than willing to concende that Babylon 5 is more fantasy than Sci fi (heck, why the writers borrowed so much from LoTR) but it is far closer to science fiction than SW ever will be, even with the silly michloridians or whatever the hell that was.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GePap


And obviously I utterly disagree with that definition- under that definition then Science Fiction is a subcategory of Fantasy.

I wouldn't even call it a subcategory.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You only think so because you've convinces yourself in your mind it would. All you have to is change the theory of Psycohistory into something that was gained by magic. Why does the theory formed by magic have to be perfect? So that it won't fit and you can claim it is different? Magic doesn't have to be perfect and a theory formed by magical means may have to be constantly revised.

Why does somethingt attained magically have to be perfect? The question should by why it would NOT be, given what magic is. Magic is supposedly some sort of universal force, an objective power than can be harnessed by individuals for a variety of uses, but it exists independently of anything else. Revelation by Magic might as well be, and probably would be just the same as revelation by GOD. So John was a scientist? Besides, there is not THEORY in magic- you are starting to sound like a creation "scientist"- what hypothesis was there? I did a spell, BOOM< got answer. That's science? Oh, my, I opened a book, BOOM, the answer! Look at my theory!. Magical revelation is NOT the same as scientific theory.

Why does a future predicted using magic have to be perfect? What hard fast rule says that may be so? Don't people knowing of the prediction change their actions and thus change the prediction?

Did you even read the Foundation series? First, the only reason that Harry Seldon is able to come up with his theory in the first place was because of the immense size of his sample (millions of worlds, quadrillions of human beings) and the very long span of history. Hence, finally someone had enough data to work with. You could be the only person on earth and get magical revelation-not even the mearest pretense of science is needed. Second, his theory begins to break down not because of his own actions- if a scientist knows that their actions will change outcomes, they can also learn how, and then manipulate the outcomes- this is fact is the POINT of Seldon's Foundation, to try to cut short the time of anarchy he saw coming in order to make sure the new empire was formed in a much shorter period of time. The reason the theory has to be reworked is because data appears that had NOT been part of Seldon's work (Seldon did not aco**** for telepaths), and in the future of the series, people set out to trace back the data even further than Seldon could (given the loss of the history from Earth and the Spacer worlds).

So, underlying the whole story is NOT just having foreknowledge of the future, its about trying to manipulate history using a theory of history and then finding that inconvinient new data comes up forcing rethinks and new goals. Magical revelation is a very different thing and the theme would have to change significantly.

[Brent]

Troi? More dreadful than Weasley? Or Jake? Or Harry?

The galaxywide scale of SW is important to its success. No weapon on the scale of the Deathstar would make sense in a planetbound fantasy world. It destroys entire planets. The idea of many more people involved than could coexist on one planet is important. The knowledge of how remote the setting is is important.

Fantasy includes SF, SF includes Fantasy, both accusations have been made. SF is much more agreeable.

Scientific knowledge can be obtained without repeating someone else's research. We aren't all expected to observe everything in the universe firsthand, are we?

Magic is not always depicted as being perfect. Sometimes it doesn't work as intended. Maybe said magical revelation is completely false?

Revelation by God is science based, moreso than by magic anyway.

Who says there's not theory in magic? If magic existed, the magician would have to learn how to do it such that it worked. Besides, all magic really is is science that isn't yet understood.

Oh, and telepathy is fantasy at least as much as SF.

[Jon Miller]

the only thing that I think can be said, appart from setting (fantasy setting (swords and dragons and elves) versus science fiction setting (robots and spaceships and aliens)) is hard science fiction versus not

hard science fiction uses extrapolations of current science..

stuff that isn't (Star Wars + Star Trek both fall under this) don't (the force is about the same level as telepathy, so I consider these two to have equal claim to the title science fiction)

Jon Miller
(if you think that there is anymore basis for telepathy than magic, then excuse me while I laugh at you)

[BeBMan]

Man I thought those are only tv shows and movies....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Where is the weaseling here except on your part? A film can't use things that have been done before (but are not cliche) and because of its success spawn so many imitators that it becomes cliche?

The point is that stuff WAS cliche before Star Wars. Nearly every element in SW's plot was cliche--that's part of why it was successful. Lucas repackaged the very familiar using high-tech special effects.

Though, of course that doesn't makes the pieces cliche, as Boris has asserted.

No, that they were in mythology doesn't make them cliche (which I never asserted), that they were plot devices being used since movies began is what made them cliche.

Have you even read Campbell's work? I have, and one of the things you'd realize is that he also shows how countless other stories use the same plot devices. Yes, even movies, even ones prior to SW. Even science fiction ones.

The only real cliche in SW was the whole chosen one stuff. Other things had been done before, but were far from cliche.

Oh come on.

"Rogue" turning good = cliche
Lowly farm boy (or what have you) becomes legendary hero = cliche
Evil bad guy all in black - cliche
Princess in distress = cliche
Mystical old man mentor = cliche

That's not to say that SW overall is one big cliche, but there are certainly a lot more elements than the "chosen one" aspect. Hell, if you're willing to excuse away these cliches, the chosen one plot isn't so bad, either.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
the force is about the same level as telepathy,

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are a range of powers granted by the Force that go well beyond telepathy (telekenises, for example).

But the Force is essentially magical, yes. Then again, so was Q.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Rogue" turning good = cliche
Lowly farm boy (or what have you) becomes legendary hero = cliche
Evil bad guy all in black - cliche
Princess in distress = cliche
Mystical old man mentor = cliche

I'll give you princess in distress. Mystical old mentor is part of the chosen one cliche. But rogue turning good? Where was the cliche in that? Even today that isn't done that often. There is rough character with the heart of gold, but not the ******* who gets redeemed at the end. Make no mistake, Han was an ******* in ANH until the end. In many action movies today a character like Han gets killed by the bad guys.

That's not to say that SW overall is one big cliche

Nearly every element in SW's plot was cliche

Which one is it?