The equal strengths of Star Wars and Star Trek

[Ned]

Originally posted by Brent
It's a bit difficult to have one main villain in a multicentury franchise.

True, which is why Star Trek lacks a co-herent theme. It also explans why there will not be any future Star Wars episode after the death of Darth Vader.

[child of Thor]

I've got Darth Vader slippers

They remind me of what to be wary of.

Still i did have a friend who had Spock pyjamars......or maybe it was Kirk? But more people i know had SW stuff.

Anyway Darth Vader was the crux of what made those first films so good. As a kid it was easy to tell(in about 3mins as he strangled that rebel commander to death!) he was the obvious bad guy - a serious villain. And that made your empathy with Luke and pals all the stronger.

Atleast if you liked the good guys - i'm sure there are plenty of bods here who were rooting for the empire to win, if you know what i mean

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by General Ludd Friday the 13th has been entrenched in pop culture for decades.

LoTR has been a cultural icon steadily since its release in the fifties. Though consistently popular (as well as being the forebearer to such things as the modern fantasy genre, Dungeons and Dragons, and Fantasy RPG video games) the recent movie adaptation has made LoTR extremely famous in recent times. I honestly don't see how Friday the 13th comes anywhere close. How many kids under 18 know Jason? How many know about the Lord of the Rings? LoTR has been entrenched in pop culture for decades longer than Friday the 13th, has had a deeper impact, and is currently more popular.

(How'd Jason v. Fredddy do in the box office, BTW?)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


NO, its not. The question is to what use that science and technology is used. Is this new science crucial and central to the whole basis of the story and its themes, or does it simply serve as a setting and plot device for the story?

You can rewrite SW in a fantasy setting with no chnage in themes, no change in characters and minor changes in plot.

Eragon. Written by some teenager. Sold well. blend of SW, Dragon rider stuff, and LOTR. But the plot is VERY close to SW:ANH

BTW, I prefer the term Space Opera for SW. It doesnt really belong with fantasy, but it also isnt focused on the implications of the science or technology, as GePap says.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You could not do so to 1984 or the Foundation series without significant changes in theme. That is the difference between science fiction and space fantasy.

This amuses me. Slamming Star Wars for not being sci fi because science isn't central to the story, but Foundation? The science is Psychohistory, which is some statistical theory, not scientific. You can just make it into something gained by incredible magic and have the same story.

Star Wars is sci fi, because sci fi involves stories that use science simply for setting. Those which have been called 'sci fi' can be changed to fantasy easily, just as Star Wars. You can say just about any 'soft' sci fi can be changed to fantasy easily. Foundation is easy to do.

And the Death Star is pretty crucial to the story and that involves science (building what amounts to a small moon is a scientific endevor).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You could not do so to 1984 or the Foundation series without significant changes in theme. That is the difference between science fiction and space fantasy.

This amuses me. Slamming Star Wars for not being sci fi because science isn't central to the story, but Foundation? The science is Psychohistory, which is some statistical theory, not scientific. You can just make it into something gained by incredible magic and have the same story.

Star Wars is sci fi, because sci fi involves stories that use science simply for setting. Those which have been called 'sci fi' can be changed to fantasy easily, just as Star Wars. You can say just about any 'soft' sci fi can be changed to fantasy easily. Foundation is easy to do.

And the Death Star is pretty crucial to the story and that involves science (building what amounts to a small moon is a scientific endevor).

and domesticaling dragons is a scientific endeavour too, involving animal behaviour, genetics, biochemistry, and, er, dragonology. Just cause Eragon doesnt go into any detail about that, doesnt mean thats not at the basis of it

[Sandman]

Atomic mutation is a science theme, which is why Godzilla Versus Mothra is sci-fi.

[child of Thor]

And Mary Poppins.

Dick van ****'s 'cockney' accent must have been made up in a scientific test or something, and Mary Poppins had a flying umbrella - which must have some scientific theories behind it.

The music was all made in a scientific manner too - not easy to score unless an expert in the field of music?

hmmm anything involving science(natural world) of a futuristic flavour and fiction(tales not based on solid factual happenings) is sci-fi in my book? I dont know what this particular arguement is about?

SW, StarTrek, Blake7, Dr.who, Babylon5, Stargate, Close Encounters, Andromeda Strain, Buck Rogers etc etc. Its all Sci-fi imho, and is not lesser for it
why the hair splitting(cue monty python)?

SW as a tv series - geez does anyone remember those kids cartoons they did? It's got loads of potential to be really awfull - at least ST has made good tv viewing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and domesticaling dragons is a scientific endeavour too, involving animal behaviour, genetics, biochemistry, and, er, dragonology. Just cause Eragon doesnt go into any detail about that, doesnt mean thats not at the basis of it

[Brent]

Ever hear of Grand Admiral Thrawn? or the Yuuzhan Vong? For that matter, Tales of the Sith? The Star Wars Expanded Universe is very popular. Besides, don't you know the Milky Way's first humans were colonists from the SW galaxy, and thus reality and Trek are part of the SW universe??

LotR works across many ages, though I'm not sure if Sauron is involved for the whole time or not.

What about the Saga of Factual History?

When did the 13th day of the month get its significance when it falls on a friday?

Franchises that are completely inappropriate for children cannot compete with ones that are even somewhat appropriate for children.

Darnit! You guys are wearing away at the distinction in my mind between SF and Fantasy!

Statistics is math which is science. There is such a thing a science called religion too.

Anything set in the future or somewhere else in basically the real universe is SF.

Horror generally is SF.

Are the Clone Wars cartoons anywhere near as bad as Droids or Ewoks?

Good points about Mary Poppins.

[Tattila the Hun]

Dick van ****?

[child of Thor]

yes its an unfortunate name, especialy to use here.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by child of Thor
yes its an unfortunate name, especialy to use here.

Hey, I've been to sites that censor both words. He's known as **** van ****. Most heavily censored name ever.

[Kontiki]

I didn't think it was possible, but this thread has sunk even deeper into the bowels of geekdom. Good show!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This amuses me. Slamming Star Wars for not being sci fi because science isn't central to the story, but Foundation? The science is Psychohistory, which is some statistical theory, not scientific. You can just make it into something gained by incredible magic and have the same story.

Excuse me, but trying to create a science of history using statistical theory is most ceryainly a scientific endeavor- make hyporthesis, create theory, check results. That is the scientific principle to a T.

Star Wars is sci fi, because sci fi involves stories that use science simply for setting. Those which have been called 'sci fi' can be changed to fantasy easily, just as Star Wars. You can say just about any 'soft' sci fi can be changed to fantasy easily. Foundation is easy to do.

The notion that such insight could be changed to some magical outcome and the story remains the same is false- a lot of the Foundation series is checking out the predictions of the original theory, and then trying to right the theory as it starts to break down thanks to the Mule and his kind, forcing the whole development of Gaia. If you said the source of the knowledge was magical, then why would there be a need for any revision? Would it not be perfect from the start, being magic and all? Besides, how would the magic "continue" once Seldon was dead? Scientific theories can go on simply by being written- without writing the whole of history itself- how would this work with Magic?

Putting the foundation series in a "fantasy" setting would force significant thematic changes.

And the Death Star is pretty crucial to the story and that involves science (building what amounts to a small moon is a scientific endevor).

Science is purely a set-up in SW- the Doomstar filling the place of the doomsday object- which is a pretty old story device. This is certainly a place were, if you were to rewrite SW in some fantasy setting, the "Death Star" (and you could even keep the same name) could become some awesome crystal based weapon or whatever.