theaveng Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 (see subject) IMHO the answer is "yes". If the tv, book, whatever does not have science and/or has false science, than the proper label should be "Futuristic Fantasy". Example: Star Wars is fantasy. Ditto Battlestar Galactica (which was made to imitate SW). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuages Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yes it should, or fictional science. But i disagree with both your examples of futuristic fantasy. Either you need to broaden your definition of science, or remember science isn't using scientific terminology. Otherwise you cast alot of the great science fiction literature of the years into the pit of "futuristic fantasy", included in that is the Frank Herberts Dune Series, and Issac Asimov's Foundation series. WHat makes those classic books science fiction is the same thing that makes battlestar galactica science fiction. Even Star Wars is science fiction and for some of the same reasons, its alot lighter science fiction, still sci-fi all the same though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Enigma Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yes. Sci-Fi should have Science, false science, tecnobabble and/or new/high technology. Science Fiction without science would just be fiction or science fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yes it should' date=' or fictional science. [/quote']Yes. Sci-Fi should have Science, false science, tecnobabble... To me, there is no such thing as "fictional science" or "false science". Science is the search for truth/understanding about the universe/reality. Either it's true science or it's false fantasy. Science & falsehoods don't mix. If I was watching Trek, and suddenly I heard them say, "Flies spontaneously generate from rotten meat" or "We can cure disease by bleeding-out the bad ethers", I would call that a travesty. That's not Science. Those are lies. And finally "technobabble" = meaningless words = nothing. Worthless. I see no reason to include babble... just use the *actual words*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Enigma Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 To me, there is no such thing as "fictional science" or "false science". Science is the search for truth/understanding about the universe/reality. Either it's true science or it's false fantasy. Science & falsehoods don't mix. If I was watching Trek, and suddenly I heard them say, "Flies spontaneously generate from rotten meat" or "We can cure disease by bleeding-out the bad ethers", I would call that a travesty. That's not Science. Those are lies. 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. science n. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena. 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience. fiction n. 1: a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact 2: a deliberately false or improbable account [syn: fabrication, fable] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 "based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments" Key words. You wouldn't expect to find people magically flying through a science fiction story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Well, the problem with using ACTUAL science is that you cannot have futuristic stories using ACTUAL science. You have to use speculative technobabble. That is, things which sound plausible, and could, with current knowledge of the subject, be plausible, but are not actual science. Actual science does not allow for the technology in Star Trek. It allows for the POSSIBILITY of such technology, which is why things like a "Warp Drive" are technobabble. Technobabble doesn't mean "untrue, but sounding good", it means "Unprovable given current scientific knowledge, but sounding good". Thatr's why, in Science Fiction, you won't see people flying magically, but you could see people traveling faster than the speed of light. Both are, given current scientific knowledge, impossible. However, faster-than-light travel is PLAUSIBLE. Thus, it is technobabble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuages Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yes it should' date=' or fictional science. [/quote']Yes. Sci-Fi should have Science, false science, tecnobabble... To me, there is no such thing as "fictional science" or "false science". Science is the search for truth/understanding about the universe/reality. Either it's true science or it's false fantasy. Science & falsehoods don't mix. If I was watching Trek, and suddenly I heard them say, "Flies spontaneously generate from rotten meat" or "We can cure disease by bleeding-out the bad ethers", I would call that a travesty. That's not Science. Those are lies. And finally "technobabble" = meaningless words = nothing. Worthless. I see no reason to include babble... just use the *actual words*. the hardest science fiction i've ever read, all has false science in it, it takes current science and says what if?? or makes up a new science some sort of new discovery. What you are describing is a romantic comedy about a nerdy female scientist discovering her inner beauty. and you can expect people to go flying around in science fiction, the difference is its explained in science fiction using some sort of science, real or not. In fantasy it is not explained or explained not using science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timidsword Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 [And finally "technobabble" = meaningless words = nothing. Worthless. I see no reason to include babble... just use the *actual words*. You don't think Scotty and Jordy used techno babble? Heck that is one of the things that made it great--much of the babble at the time became the science of today--nano technology for instance; and who would a thought "Beam us up Scotty" would mean "buy a round of Jim Beam woodya?" or "on my command, Mark!" would mean "hell no, kick it up a notch and buy a round of Maker's Mark!" :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timidsword Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 and by the way Commander theaveng --I luv ur little graphic --gonna have to figure out how to make me an appropriate one of those . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yes - Science in Star Trek was very important i think. And if you listen to it - some of it actually makes sense which is cool. Star Trek brought in facts about science and.....stuff like that and changed them slightly to fit the 24th century. But it still made sense and i think Star Trek without Science would be crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 and by the way Commander theaveng --I luv ur little graphic --gonna have to figure out how to make me an appropriate one of those . . I didn't make it. I ripped it from a Microsoft Xbox game called DOA XXX Volleyball...... it's nothing but scantily-clad women the whole game through. In other words, it's a really, really stupid games designed to boost sales with titillation (like enterprise with the gel-rubbing/near-naked shower scenes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
str82u Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 And we have a weiner....uh...whiner...um..winner... This thread got off topic in just over 4 hours, how's that compared to warp speed? So, "Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it?"...hmmm.... If you take the science out what is left? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If you aks me I'll say most of todays Sci-Fi series is: SPACE OPERA Actually that term doesn't bother me at all. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Science fiction should have a good structure to it. Not just something like "the heisenburg manifold is causing a state of triphasic alpha particle flux!". Which means what exactly? Nothing. It's like watching a monkey immitate a lawyer. It's an insult. And I agree, scifi is drama/soap opera of a specific type. It shouldn't be, but it is because humans are still basicly mindless idiots. We may be the smartest species we know of, but that doesn't say we're suffiently developed yet. I think the factor everyone is ignoring is that regardless of whether or not you realize it, media shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you. Especially fiction, because you don't really think it does; you mostly believe that all that is happening is that you are being entertained. If you've ever done a serious academic study of the effects of media on the human mind, you'd know what I'm talking about. Anyhow, for this reason scifi should be intelligible instead of just reducing everything down to an excuse to have cool space battles. But down here in "the mob", I supose I am wasting my time with this kind of talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 First and foremost, it needs science of some kind. Be it space ships, high tech weaponry, expermients, you name it it needs either false or true science. The fiction part is pretty easy to nail. Now, I do disagree with Troy. I definitely think BSG and SW are science fiction first and foremost, with fantasy a second. Original BSG was made to imitate original SW but it was still science fictin firstmost. New BSG is even moreso science fiction, space ships, killer robots, artificial intelligence, etc The only "fantasy" in new BSG is the "possible" inclusion of "gods"/"god" which so far has just been in conversation between characters not actually shown on screen. For SW, I could see how the original triology might have fantasy with the whole "force" thing alongside Jedi's but it's still science fiction above the rest. The prequel triology event went a further degree to prove it was science with the whole "midichlorin" thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it? Is the Beaver Dam really made from beavers? Are basket balls really made from baskets? Are Camel cigarettes really made from camels? Who really cares? c4 :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it? Is the Beaver Dam really made from beavers? Are basket balls really made from baskets? Are Camel cigarettes really made from camels? Who really cares? c4 :cyclops: I care :( (let the record note I had a really great reply in mind, that included a picture of the Simpsons version "crying Indian who cares" but no thanks to google I couldn't find a picture of him so this will have to do) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it? Is the Beaver Dam really made from beavers? Are basket balls really made from baskets? Are Camel cigarettes really made from camels? Who really cares? c4 :cyclops: I care :( (let the record note I had a really great reply in mind, that included a picture of the Simpsons version "crying Indian who cares" but no thanks to google I couldn't find a picture of him so this will have to do) Ah...sorry. I meant - who cares about the questions I asked. Thought the "cyclops" smiley who indicate that. Oh well... c4 B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USWhoFan Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 The short answer would have to be “Yesâ€ÂÂ. The long answer is probably incoherent… Yes, science fiction should have its base in science, but not necessarily “real†science, hence the “fiction†part. I can only imagine how boring our “Science Fiction†shows and movies would be if they were based on ALL science FACT. Anyways, isn’t that what the Discovery Channel is supposed to be for? ;) One of the definitions of “Fantasy†is: Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements. I think the key word is “supernaturalâ€ÂÂ, focusing on the “natural†part. If it happens as an act of God, some deity or by evolution, then it should probably be considered Fantasy. (IE: Dragons, Fairies, Physic abilities…) If someone from any race makes it or manipulates it, even if it’s at a molecular or sub-atomic level, then it should probably be considered science since it’s not natural, even though it’s presently not scientifically possible. (IE: Starships, Time Machines, Androids…) No doubt at times these two cross, mix and match but SW & BSG I think are defiantly more scientific than fantasy. And I think Battlestar gives a pretty good look into a possible progression of space sciences, with everything being kinda clunky and such, similar to the Nostromo in Alien. Please give an example of something that you consider strictly Science Fiction? Thanks for listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now