"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4ad4e933$1@news.povray.org...

> Most of Star Trek wasn't about the technology and how it affected people. 
> I suppose the episodes of the holodeck taking over or something would be 
> hard to tell without the holodeck. :-)

I definitely agree with that one. :)

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     What about something like Asimov's Foundation?

Parts of it would be hard to tell without it being in the far future, yes. 
Altho you could probably tell a very similar story in the midieval times, if 
you have a psychic or something. Hard to tell it without the psychic, tho.

Note that I count Conneticut Yankee as SF, tho, and even Singing in the Rain 
if I remember the story right.

>     I've watched very few of the Star Trek series, but have seen all the 
> movies. Can't remember all the plots, though, but technology certainly 
> plays a major role in some of them.

Some, sure.

>     What about stories where they talk about different races (aliens) 
> whose behavior is quite different from ours (due to genetic makeup or 
> whatever), and a big part of the story is exploring how their culture 
> evolved differently from ours?  It's hard for me not to consider them as
> SF. Or about aliens who live in planets where, due to the type of 
> geography, results in quite a different culture, and the story is 
> exploring that difference (e.g. Asimov's Nightfall, or Heinlein's 
> Universe).

Sure. Don't read *too* narrowly into it. :-)0

>     Some stories use technology as a tool for the plot in the above. 
> Such as genetic manipulations of humans to achieve those effects. Or 
> artificially generated biospheres. But that's really as good as looking 
> at an alien species in another planet. The technology isn't really 
> necessary. Yet, most people would consider them as SF stories.

Yeah. The point is that SF is an exploration of the affect of something 
other than personalities upon personalities and society. If it's just the 
affect of a crazy guy with a blaster instead of a crazy guy with a pistol, 
it's uninteresting.

Indeed, I'd even put some of the Discworld stories involving Sam Vines as SF 
stories, like the one with the Gunn, whatever that was called.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that where 
> you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star Trek be 
> written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. Could 
> Ringworld? Not hardly.

  Out of curiosity: Do you consider Terminator and Terminator 2 to be SF?
Do you consider them to be good SF?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Out of curiosity: Do you consider Terminator and Terminator 2 to be SF?

I would say so. The idea that a humanoid robot comes back in time is pretty 
central to the story, and it's about her reaction to being chased, having to 
grow up to defend herself, etc.

About the closest you could really come would be a story about a guy who 
invents medieval armor or something the first time, and I'd class *that* as 
SF too, even if it's set in the past.

> Do you consider them to be good SF?

I enjoyed them, yes. :-) It was also sufficiently believable that I didn't 
say "Oh come on."  At least, not too often.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/2009 2:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
>
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that
> where you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star
> Trek be written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes.
> Could Ringworld? Not hardly.
>
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF.
> Oddly enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked
> the best (say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take
> out the tech and tell the same story.

I'm OK with Star Trek on TV and in the movies (OK, maybe not so much in 
the last ten years or so...). I'm a lot less tolerant of sub par science 
fiction novels.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/09 20:50, SharkD wrote:
> I'm OK with Star Trek on TV and in the movies (OK, maybe not so much in
> the last ten years or so...). I'm a lot less tolerant of sub par science
> fiction novels.

	I haven't read that much SF. Read most of Clarke's and Asimov's works, 
but then just a smattering here and there.

	My experience is that the novels are *much* more "valid" SF than 
typical movies and SF TV series. To give you an idea, go search for my 
posts regarding District 9 and why it's poor SF (although still a good 
movie).

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse

Post a reply to this message

SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I'm OK with Star Trek on TV and in the movies (OK, maybe not so much in
> the last ten years or so...). I'm a lot less tolerant of sub par science
> fiction novels.

BTW, just yesterday I saw on TV a fun movie called "Galaxy Quest" with Tim
Allen, Sigorney Weaver.  It parodies and criticizes heavily Star Trek.  Very
good, specially the implicit mock on juvenile fans as the naive squid aliens...

I'd say it's one of the best scifi parody movie ever, along with Men in Black
and Spaceballs...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that where
> you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star Trek be
> written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. Could
> Ringworld? Not hardly.
>
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF. Oddly
> enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked the best
> (say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take out the tech
> and tell the same story.

While I agree in principle, I think there is too much variation in what is
considered 'proper' SF. I personally would classify Niven & co's "Lucifer's
Hammer" as SF, even though there is absolutely no science or tech extrapolation.
Likewise, Harris' "Fatherland", or McCauley's "Pasquale's Angel". These latter
are both extrapolations of a real society given a single small difference in
recorded history, again without any novel tech or science.

I'm sure you could say that these belong in a different genre, given that the
'science' in SF explicitly demands there to be some scientific whatifs. But I
think the speculation and extrapolation central to SF is the same process
regardless of what one is extending. I think the genre was named poorly, and
perhaps 'speculative fiction' is more apt (as someone else suggesed) - it just
so happened that science was the big society-changing thing in the genre's early
days.

As an aside, although I agree that much of star trek is indeed a soap opera that
could take place anywhere and anywhen, there are some genuine SF stories in
there. The same goes for Doctor Who. And personally I found a large proportion
of B5 to be good, if not original, SF.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4ad4c199$1@news.povray.org...

>
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that where
> you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star Trek be
> written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. Could
> Ringworld? Not hardly.
>
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF. Oddly
> enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked the best
> (say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take out the
tech
> and tell the same story.

Sci-fi is inherently a very difficult genre to work with, since there are
several conflicting goals to simultaenously satisfy, and good and
half-original ideas are exceedingly rare. Entire Star Trek soap opera
franchise has maybe one hour's worth of sci-fi. For that matter, Asimov had
maximum of half a dozen good ideas in his lifetime. Commercial reality
necessitates fluffing it up, but variations on delivery and formula scripts
can only go so far before it becomes a waste of reel or paper.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Do you consider them to be good SF?

> I enjoyed them, yes. :-) It was also sufficiently believable that I didn't 
> say "Oh come on."  At least, not too often.

  I liked how T2 succeeded at points to be quite philosophical (in a very
scifi'ish manner), but without sounding cheesy.

  "Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. The
  terminator wouldn't stop, it would never leave him. It would never
  hurt him or shout at him or get drunk and hit him or say it was too
  busy to spend time with him. And it would die to protect him. Of all
  the would-be fathers that came over the years, this thing, this
  machine, was the only thing that measured up. In an insane world, it
  was the sanest choice."

  (I think that's one point which would be hard to express in a non-scifi
story.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message