(no subject)
I hope you're not expecting another one of my mopey emo posts.
Science fiction is stories that involve science.
Since everything involves science, by definition, every movie ever made is science fiction.
But since that doesn't seem to be the definition that everyone agrees on, we have to narrow it down.
Science fiction (hereafter referred to as 'sci-fi'. In addition, 'you' will be referred to as 'u', 'anyone' will be referred to as 'ne1', and 'subtle amusement and recognition of delightful irony' will be referred to as 'lol') deals with science, as we recognize it, on the relative frontiers of human knowledge. I could name the four fundamental force of nature by the time I was 17, but if a movie explored and explained some story point related to this, it would be considered sci-fi.
It deals with things that COULD happen, albeit they are highly improbable. The likelihood of interstellar travel, intelligent alien species, or people wired into computers are far-flung concepts, but they are not prohibited by the laws of physics.
When we DO go beyond physics, I think of things like ghosts, demons, psychic powers, or worlds where Ben Stiller is considered to be a legitimate actor. Okay, I'm a bit too hard on Stiller. Let's say Rob Schneider instead. Anything that is strictly prohibited according to our understanding of the universe, is to be considered 'Fantasy'. I know a few people who might read this might disagree with my view on the existence of a couple of those, but acknowledging that they do, in fact, exist would really shake up our most basic pictures of the world. So I'll file them under fantasy for now, and hope that people get my point.
So, by that definition, I would consider Star Wars to be fantasy. Sure, it's in space and the fly faster than the speed of light and all that, but people who can shoot blue lightning or grab things from across the room (and spend about twelve hours of movie time with NO sexual innuendo in their discussions regarding it whatsoever) is, frankly, not possible. Some people might try to explain these phenomenae in terms of conventional science, but these are usually twenty-five year olds with no girlfriends who live in their parents' basement. Wait. Wait. Fuck.
Okay, so how about E.T.? Sci-fi or fantasy? It's about an alien, so... there. It's science fiction. Even though there is just about zero discussion of the physiology of alien races, interstellar travel, or the "psychic link" he develops with Elliot. But it's got an alien in it, so it's sci-fi.
How about an alien who can heal with a touch? Or get drunk on alcohol in the same manner as humans, despite having evolved under a completely set of biological rules? Is that highly improbable, or flat-out impossible? I don't know, the next time E.T. is shown on the telly, I'll see what if TV guide labels it as sci-fi or fantasy. Then I'll have your answer.
Okay, Armageddon. I'm hoping someone else actually saw that and took the time to remember it. Someone who is older than 13 years old. The premise is that an asteroid is headed for earth, so they send some oil drillers up to stick a nuke in it. The asteroid is blown into three pieces, which set off on alternate vectors and safely pass by the earth. Nothing in that movie is flat-out impossible. Disaster comes, plan is hatched, world is saved, B'Aff gets the girl, music plays. So, do all disaster movies fall under the title sci-fi? The Poseidon Adventure? The Day After Tomorrow? Titanic? The line starts to get blurry again.
Another thing... why do so many sci-fi and fantasy novels fall into long series? Do the average fans of those books have longer attention spans?
Take the show Enterprise, for example. It had an okay premise, but half the show was in-jokes about other Trek series's that you may or may not have watched. "Some day, we may have a directive that dictates how we can or can't interfere with the natural progression of a society". You'd get a warm, squishy feelings if you'd watched Star Trek enough to recognize the Prime Directive, but that doesn't cover up for a lackluster plot, shitty writing, and wooden acting. Well, not for more than four seasons.
Would someone get the same feeling if they recognized a scientific tidbit in a story? If, say, Battlestar Galactica mentioned something about the aforementioned forces of nature, or background radiation, or singularities, then I'd be all "OOO, I know what those are! Most people don't!". Thankfully (Grace Park), the rest of the show (Grace Park) is just as good (Grace Park). Any science-y bits are merely the icing on the nipples cake.
This was going somewhere.
What makes sci-fi special? Because it lets us use metaphors for real-world issues (the android can paint and write poems about his cat, but he's not a person because he's a robot!) that make us realize how stupid we are? Because it demonstrates how science (and Ben Affleck) have the power to save and/or destroy us? Because it's an excuse to fluff up the CGI budget (Yoda's got a lightsaber!)?
Remember, just because it's sci-fi doesn't mean it's for smart people. Or that it's about science at all. Or that it's a decent program, even though it gives you that squishy, smart, educated feeling for a few minutes.
Give sci-fi a chance, even if you haven't in the past. And don't assume that it's all for nerds. But don't fall into the Nerd Trap either. Even if Paris Hilton walked up to you and told you that you are a buffet of manliness, she'd still be a stank 'ho.
Good night. And keep watching the skies. But not the UPN network.
Science fiction is stories that involve science.
Since everything involves science, by definition, every movie ever made is science fiction.
But since that doesn't seem to be the definition that everyone agrees on, we have to narrow it down.
Science fiction (hereafter referred to as 'sci-fi'. In addition, 'you' will be referred to as 'u', 'anyone' will be referred to as 'ne1', and 'subtle amusement and recognition of delightful irony' will be referred to as 'lol') deals with science, as we recognize it, on the relative frontiers of human knowledge. I could name the four fundamental force of nature by the time I was 17, but if a movie explored and explained some story point related to this, it would be considered sci-fi.
It deals with things that COULD happen, albeit they are highly improbable. The likelihood of interstellar travel, intelligent alien species, or people wired into computers are far-flung concepts, but they are not prohibited by the laws of physics.
When we DO go beyond physics, I think of things like ghosts, demons, psychic powers, or worlds where Ben Stiller is considered to be a legitimate actor. Okay, I'm a bit too hard on Stiller. Let's say Rob Schneider instead. Anything that is strictly prohibited according to our understanding of the universe, is to be considered 'Fantasy'. I know a few people who might read this might disagree with my view on the existence of a couple of those, but acknowledging that they do, in fact, exist would really shake up our most basic pictures of the world. So I'll file them under fantasy for now, and hope that people get my point.
So, by that definition, I would consider Star Wars to be fantasy. Sure, it's in space and the fly faster than the speed of light and all that, but people who can shoot blue lightning or grab things from across the room (and spend about twelve hours of movie time with NO sexual innuendo in their discussions regarding it whatsoever) is, frankly, not possible. Some people might try to explain these phenomenae in terms of conventional science, but these are usually twenty-five year olds with no girlfriends who live in their parents' basement. Wait. Wait. Fuck.
Okay, so how about E.T.? Sci-fi or fantasy? It's about an alien, so... there. It's science fiction. Even though there is just about zero discussion of the physiology of alien races, interstellar travel, or the "psychic link" he develops with Elliot. But it's got an alien in it, so it's sci-fi.
How about an alien who can heal with a touch? Or get drunk on alcohol in the same manner as humans, despite having evolved under a completely set of biological rules? Is that highly improbable, or flat-out impossible? I don't know, the next time E.T. is shown on the telly, I'll see what if TV guide labels it as sci-fi or fantasy. Then I'll have your answer.
Okay, Armageddon. I'm hoping someone else actually saw that and took the time to remember it. Someone who is older than 13 years old. The premise is that an asteroid is headed for earth, so they send some oil drillers up to stick a nuke in it. The asteroid is blown into three pieces, which set off on alternate vectors and safely pass by the earth. Nothing in that movie is flat-out impossible. Disaster comes, plan is hatched, world is saved, B'Aff gets the girl, music plays. So, do all disaster movies fall under the title sci-fi? The Poseidon Adventure? The Day After Tomorrow? Titanic? The line starts to get blurry again.
Another thing... why do so many sci-fi and fantasy novels fall into long series? Do the average fans of those books have longer attention spans?
Take the show Enterprise, for example. It had an okay premise, but half the show was in-jokes about other Trek series's that you may or may not have watched. "Some day, we may have a directive that dictates how we can or can't interfere with the natural progression of a society". You'd get a warm, squishy feelings if you'd watched Star Trek enough to recognize the Prime Directive, but that doesn't cover up for a lackluster plot, shitty writing, and wooden acting. Well, not for more than four seasons.
Would someone get the same feeling if they recognized a scientific tidbit in a story? If, say, Battlestar Galactica mentioned something about the aforementioned forces of nature, or background radiation, or singularities, then I'd be all "OOO, I know what those are! Most people don't!". Thankfully (Grace Park), the rest of the show (Grace Park) is just as good (Grace Park). Any science-y bits are merely the icing on the nipples cake.
This was going somewhere.
What makes sci-fi special? Because it lets us use metaphors for real-world issues (the android can paint and write poems about his cat, but he's not a person because he's a robot!) that make us realize how stupid we are? Because it demonstrates how science (and Ben Affleck) have the power to save and/or destroy us? Because it's an excuse to fluff up the CGI budget (Yoda's got a lightsaber!)?
Remember, just because it's sci-fi doesn't mean it's for smart people. Or that it's about science at all. Or that it's a decent program, even though it gives you that squishy, smart, educated feeling for a few minutes.
Give sci-fi a chance, even if you haven't in the past. And don't assume that it's all for nerds. But don't fall into the Nerd Trap either. Even if Paris Hilton walked up to you and told you that you are a buffet of manliness, she'd still be a stank 'ho.
Good night. And keep watching the skies. But not the UPN network.