The equal strengths of Star Wars and Star Trek

[Jon Miller]

B5 sucked

JM

[MRT144]

the force went poof in episode one! OMG ITS MICROBES!!!

[Brent]

Never gave B5 much of a chance. Too much time already devoted to Wars and Trek. Not really interested in trying the new BSG. Stargate's good though, and I may watch some DrWho in the future.

[Brent]

So what if it's microbes?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Brent
Never gave B5 much of a chance. Too much time already devoted to Wars and Trek. Not really interested in trying the new BSG. Stargate's good though, and I may watch some DrWho in the future.

Too much time devoted? I don't know if thats scary or sad. You should probably consider branching out since both of your shows are ending. I've enjoyed both to varying degrees over the years but they are not the be all and end off of SCI fi.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Brent
So what if it's microbes?

It killed the mystic of the force and apparently Lucus has forgotton all about it because it hasnt been mentioned since.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Brent
So what if it's microbes?

It completely ruined the mystique and mysticism of it. some things are better left ot the imagination.

[Sprayber]

Now I'll be happy when all the jedi are slaughter since apparently Palptine is simply engaging in a bit of disease prevention in killing all of the Jedi

[GePap]

Originally posted by Brent
fictional robots and fictional spaceships are science fiction. Science Fiction is fictional science, not always scientific fiction. Star Wars is best labelled as space opera, but it is not incoorect to call it science fiction. The Force is fictional theological science. The politics of star wars are fictional political science. Just because they don't try to explain things scientifically, or just because they try not to, does not mean that aliens and alien worlds d o not make it science fiction. Star Wars is in some ways more scientifically sound than Star Trek.

Having robots does not make you science fiction- you could theoretically have magical robots- the Science in Science Fiction does mean something, and its not just using the tools of science- after all, that would make any modern war story science fiction, since tanks and planes are objects of science.

There is also no such things as "fictional pol sci"- monarchies and oligarchies and republics are old hat, Star Wars did not invent of imagine anything new in the realm of politics- the only "pol sci ci" I can think of are Utopia by More, Res Publica by Plato.

The basis of science fiction is to explore our society by using theoreticals to speculate- hence 1984 is classic sci fi, ditto the foundation series that postulated a science of history and how that might play out, or the robot series that thought what if we made automatons and how would we live with them.

In terms of being "scientifically sound", neither SW nor ST has much claim to that period, but in the end its not even necessary- you can have sci fi with the smallest shred of plausible science and still work-but the point of the story has to be daring or trying to explore something by suing the theoretical.

Just having robots does not make you sci fi, anymore than just having wizards makes you fantasy, which is why I think the works of Terry Pratchett are sorely miscategorized, since they are clearly satire and NOT fantasy.

So, again, SW is not sci fi at all, while ST began as sci fi but has strayed.

[Jon Miller]

you hacen't read that much sci fi have you?

JM

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you hacen't read that much sci fi have you?

JM

I have read loads of it, I have many many dozens of paperbacks. It is because I have read so much, and thankfully a lot of GOOD sci fi that I can say that SW is NOT sci fi. For good sci fi look at Asimov, Lem, Clarck, Brin, heck, even Chriton's earlier works are very good sci fi.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Space05us
Star Wars > Star Trek

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


I have read loads of it, I have many many dozens of paperbacks. It is because I have read so much, and thankfully a lot of GOOD sci fi that I can say that SW is NOT sci fi. For good sci fi look at Asimov, Lem, Clarck, Brin, heck, even Chriton's earlier works are very good sci fi.

'I was not arguing that Starwars was good sci fi

I was arguing that there is lots of sci fi that is poly sci sci fi

Jon Miller

[Japher]

there is lots of sci fi that is poly sci sci fi

What?!

[Sandman]

I like Star Wars a bit better, because of the lesser level of technobabble (let's forget those midichlorians, Lucas has).

Star Trek seems to get more burdened by technobabble with each series. For example, with the increased emphasis on battle maneuvering in recent Treks, we now have an additional level of technobabble, stuff like 'evasive pattern episilon 5'.