TF Views

Shockwave wrote:That's just it though, Dom's comment only covers the conceptual level.

Again, saying there are "no meaningful differences" between the two is not on a comment on the conceptual level at all. It's directed toward the two genres as a whole.

Also, to say that the same stories can't be told in both genres is just flat out provably wrong.

How? No one has presented anything here that comes close to "prove" the same stories can happen in both genres. To use one of the examples you've used, that they could do an Excalibur story in Star Wars? Lightsabers aren't presented anywhere close to that regard. Really, the characters don't have that much concern for their lightsabers at all, except if they're unarmed in a fight, and easily replace them when lost or destroyed. So how is one supposed to establish someone as king of the Jedi or some such? Which wouldn't even make sense as the Jedi don't operate as a monarchy. You'd have to make significant changes to the story to make that work but then it wouldn't be the same story anymore. You might be able to do somewhat similar stories between genres perhaps, but they wouldn't really be the same thing.

sci-fi doesn't need to make sense of what it covers.

This is just flat out wrong. The whole point of science fiction is that it makes it's imaginary elements seem possible. If it doesn't need to make sense of what it covers than it isn't science fiction.

Now, its nice when it does like in Star Trek, but truth be told there's very little sci-fi out there that actually takes the time to make sense of the technology that's presented in context.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because not every sci-fi story goes into the level of detail to explain how its technology works like Star Trek does, that doesn't mean there is no reasoning behind the thing. Within the context of the story, there is an explanation for how it works, even if they don't explicitly give that explanation to the audience.

Dominic wrote:The thing is that there are no meaningful differences between sci-fi and sword and sorcery.

Except that there is a meaningful difference that you're ignoring. Sorcery is impossible as it's pure fantasy. Sci-fi on the other hand is meant to be possible, if only through imaginary technologies. You might as well be trying to argue that there is no meaningful difference between realistic-fiction and non-fiction here.

imaginary technologies

So, uh, Magic then?

Dominic wrote:So, uh, Magic then?

Not even close. Imagination here would be conjecture, speculation of possibilities using technology. Magic is impossibilities.

I could nitpick about how there's really no explanation for how a lightsaber works (and I don't even think Lucas has been able to "make sense" of it), but I won't because I understand the larger point that you're trying to illustrate and you're right there is a significant conceptual difference between magic and technology. Soft sci-fi is really where the difference starts to break down though. Sure you can show me a metal tube with a button and call it a lightsaber and the audience is just supposed to accept that it's a device that was somehow figured out by that universe's science. But beyond that, there's no better explanation for how it works than Harry Potter's wand. What if Lucas had just used sticks instead of something that aesthetically looks like a piece of technology? Would we still accept it as a lightsaber? Probably not.

What was I saying? I hate typing these at work. I had other thoughts but will finish them later.

Shockwave wrote:I could nitpick about how there's really no explanation for how a lightsaber works (and I don't even think Lucas has been able to "make sense" of it), but I won't because I understand the larger point that you're trying to illustrate and you're right there is a significant conceptual difference between magic and technology.

Since you brought it up... While they might not explain how a lightsaber works in the movies, it is actually covered in other outlets for Star Wars. In one of the Star Wars Visual Dictionaries for example, they have a cutaway image of Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber, showing its inner workings and describes how energy from a power cell is focused by a series of crystals (the type of crystal used also gives the blade it's color) and then turned into a blade through an emitter matrix.

But beyond that, there's no better explanation for how it works than Harry Potter's wand.

There are people who don't know how their cell phone's work, but that doesn't mean they think it works by magic. Even with out an explanation, it's still understood in context that there is a technological reason why it works.

What if Lucas had just used sticks instead of something that aesthetically looks like a piece of technology? Would we still accept it as a lightsaber? Probably not.

Lucas would have needed to explain how something that looks like a stick could realistically generate a blade of energy in that case, where as a technological looking prop automatically implies a technological function.

Sparky Prime wrote:energy from a power cell is focused by a series of crystals (the type of crystal used also gives the blade it's color) and then turned into a blade through an emitter matrix.

That. Isn't. SCIENCE. It just uses lowest common denominator "Sciencey Words", where "Fantasy" uses lowest common denominator "Fantasy Words". There's still no inherent realism or believability in either. It's nothing but *semantics*!

So what stops the light saber's "blade" from spreading into a wide beam, or projecting infinitely until it hits a solid object? "SCIENCE"? -___-

Sparky's arguing the relativity of believability, but that's not relevant here. These specific examples are adequately covered by suspension of disbelief, and you can't believe Lucas intended it any other way. The guy based his movies on Zorro shorts and "cool samurai movies", for cryin' out loud. He's a manchild, not a conceptual genius who strives for logic.

Yeah, lightsabers make much less sense the more you think about the science/physics they run on. (Granted, we could assume that the physics of SW are meaningfully different from ours. Look at how gravity seems to work in Episode III. Even assuming "standard" sci-fi artificial gravity, Episode III has some weird bits.)

The differences are, as noted above, semantics and aesthetics. Believability is less an issue. As Gomess pointed out, the lightsabers make little sense to begin with, and *less* sense when they are explained. (I could pull a more sensible explanation out of my tuchus. But, it would only be fanfic, and my breakfast and I just had a rather violent disagreement. So....)

The guy based his movies on Zorro shorts and "cool samurai movies", for cryin' out loud. He's a manchild, not a conceptual genius who strives for logic.

To be fair, he does illustrate a consistent system of ethics. But, yeah, science ain't the man's strong suit.


Dom
-figures we were about due for a tuchus reference.

So the only real difference between sci-fi and fantasy is believability? Unbelievable.

Inconceivable!

138 Scourge wrote:Incontheivable!

fix'd