queenhank Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 So if we’re going for plausible science, then that kinda kills Star Trek from Science Fiction, because Warp Drive and artificial gravity based on known science is not plausible. Right? Actually, given known science, they are. I couldn't tell you any details, but I remember just a month or two ago reading an article in some magazine or other about a theory on BOTH artificial gravity and space warping for the purposes of faster than light travel. Now, we're nowhere near such technology, but it is plausible, given current knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Possibly true, now. BUT, when Star Trek went on the air in the 1960's, it was not plausible. It was just a wagon train in space. Whatever, I vote for the plausible science angle. I like various types of science fiction and I love alternate history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Okay, wait... what about a distinction like Science fiction and Science fantasy? SciFi could be the more grounded of the two, and you would plop stuff like Star Wars under the fantasy category since it's not actually based on any real science. Would this kind of distinction be acceptable to people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Possibly true, now. BUT, when Star Trek went on the air in the 1960's, it was not plausible. Of course it was. The groundwork for faster-than-light-travel-through-warping-space was laid by Einstein. As science advances, new things don't become plausible, rather, things previously thought plausible are proved to not be so. Warp Drive is still plausible today because the theory behind it has never been proven impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Okay' date=' wait... what about a distinction like Science fiction and Science [i']fantasy[/i]? SciFi could be the more grounded of the two, and you would plop stuff like Star Wars under the fantasy category since it's not actually based on any real science. Would this kind of distinction be acceptable to people? well - now i'm confused - Science FICTION is meant to be fiction anyway so it dosn't HAVE to be real - so Star Wars may not be real in but it's still fiction so it is Science FICTION. i've never heard of Science Fantasy before - i mean it's just the same as Science Fiction - they arn't sperate categories really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 It's not the fiction that's being debated with Star Wars, but the Science. Essentially nothing in Star Wars is plausible, given current (even at that time) scientific knowledge. But then, George Lucas, when he created it, wasn't intending for it to be Science Fiction. He was trying to take age-old themes of mythology and incorporate them into a story modeled after the old adventure serials of his youth (Flash Gordon and the like). I suppose if the definition of Sci-Fi really has changed, then it should at least require a degree of plausibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 Okay' date=' wait... what about a distinction like Science fiction and Science [i']fantasy[/i]? SciFi could be the more grounded of the two, and you would plop stuff like Star Wars under the fantasy category since it's not actually based on any real science.That would be okay with me. I've already called Star Wars "fantasy" several times in this thread. Star Wars = the classis knights with swords fantasy. Also, there are already people who separate the literature into "Sciffy" aka scifi and science fiction. The term "sciffy" is meant to imply it's got spaceships, robots, et cetera, but could never happen in the real world because it violates known science. An inferior form. Also Gattaca IS real science. If you re-arrange the genes, you can control how a person appears. That's a fact. So the only thing that stops Gattaca from being real, is lack of technology. Our technology has fallen behind the science & we lack the skills to rearrange genes, but it's still real science. Somewhat similar to Jules Verne's "Earth to the Moon". The science of ballistically-launching a man to the moon was 100% correct. It's real science & completely plausible. But the technology did not exist in the 1800s. well - now i'm confused - Science FICTION is meant to be fiction anyway so it dosn't HAVE to be real - so Star Wars may not be real in but it's still fiction so it is Science FICTION. That definition does not work, because it would allow ALL literature to be labeled science fiction (all literature is fiction). You need a definition that does not encompass everything. The key word is "science". If it doesn't have science, then it belongs in a different genre like fantasy, historical, or futuristic fiction. The Jetsons is futuristic, but I wouldn't label it "science". It's just fantasy. 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