The equal strengths of Star Wars and Star Trek

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
NO, its space fantasy.

Heathen.

Space fantasy is sci-fi.

[Brent]

Terminology is defined by the masses. Thus SW is SF.

[child of Thor]

The more i hear/see about the upcoming StarWarsIII - the more i wonder at all those people camping out to see it!!

I actualy fell asleep in the cinema watching Episode1! - and i practically lived and breathed StarWars as a kid.

Nothing i've seen since of this new batch of films has filled me with any confidence Mr.Lucas will get back to what made the first three such classics.

Still maybe i'll have to eat my words - which i'll happily do, i really would - but lets see

[Ned]

Stars Wars, in its modest way, is singularly responsible for the revival of Star Trek. The first movie appeared in 1979, two years after Star Wars. The rest is history.

[Brent]

I recently tried to rewatch Ep1 in prep for Ep3 and fell asleep, but then I was tired anyway.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Space fantasy is sci-fi.

NO, its space fantasy, a fantasy story set up in a space setting. Simply having a space setting does not make you sci fi. Apollo 13 was not a sci fi movie, it was a historical drama.

I am sure plenty of people enjoy space fantasy- I myself like the SW movies to some degree or another. But SW is NOT science fiction.

Terminology is defined by the masses. Thus SW is SF.

Usage is defined by the masses- NOT termnology. People can call it sci fi, and if you say sci fi most of the public will think SW I agree. That does not mean it really is sci fi.

[Ned]

Star Wars was great because of Darth Vader, one of the greatest characters ever created in fiction. In fact, the entire series could aptly be retitled, the legend of Darth Vader.

Kirk was a great hero, but his story pales in comparison to the greatness of the Darth Vader character.

[Brent]

Anything using tech that doesn't exist is SF.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Brent
Anything using tech that doesn't exist is SF.

I agree, even if it is space fantasy. It is using science (in new technology we don't have) and is fiction.

[Brent]

Spock compared to Vader much better than Kirk. Even better than

KHAAAAAAAN!!!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Brent
Spock compared to Vader much better than Kirk. Even better than

KHAAAAAAAN!!!!!

The major flaw in the Star Trek series as the lack of a major anti-hero.

[Brent]

Q

[GePap]

Originally posted by Brent
Anything using tech that doesn't exist is SF.

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.

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.

Think of Farenheit 453- there is no tech in that story that is significantly new of miraculous, yet it is clearly sci fi because it posits a modern scientific totalitarian society- science as a whole is crucial to the repression in the story- it is not just a plot setting device.

There was a movie not long ago about a spaceship that opened a hole to hell using a black hole machine- I think you and most people would claim it sci fi, but again, the technology here is used to create a setting and a convinient plot device, but it has 0 to do with the theme of the story, which is partly faustian. The story is Space Horror, with Horror being the actual type of fiction.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Brent
Q

Q

[Brent]

It's a bit difficult to have one main villain in a multicentury franchise.