TF Views

Gomess wrote: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*!

Certainly, there is a degree of making stuff up using "sciencey words" as you put it, but that doesn't mean there is nothing inherently real or believable in it. You'd be surprised how much science fiction is inspired by *real science* or conversely has inspired science to create. And once again, the difference between sci-fi and fantasy is not semantics at all.

We're already living in an age where things that were once science fiction has become reality. Take cloning for example. We used to think of that as nothing but pure science fiction. But in 1996, scientists successfully cloned a sheep. 45 years ago, I'm sure hand-held computers seemed like the stuff of science fiction. But now we've got cell phones, tablets and laptops that can do that and so much more than computers back then ever could. Transporters? We're a long way from Star Trek's version, but scientists have been working on making it real and so far they've managed to successfully transport one molecule a few feet. Robots? Again, a long way from any what you see in sci-fi stories, but with how our technology continues to develop and evolve, I'm sure someday we'll be capable of building extremely advanced robots and AI technologies. Did you see the computer competing on Jeopardy this week? And you think there is nothing inherently real or believable in sci-fi?

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

Most people confuse the idea of a lightsaber's blade with that of actual light or something like a laser, things that cannot be contained like the blade of a lightsaber is. But the energy that makes up the blade of a lightsaber is actually described as plasma, or sometimes as "arc-wave energy". At any rate, something that responds to an electromagnetic field. As such, theoretically, a powerful enough magnetic field could be generated to shape that energy into the form of a blade. And that's what the 'blade emitter' of a lightsaber is said to do, create a "tightly wrapped magnetic field" to contain the energy plasma of the blade itself.

Sparky's arguing the relativity of believability, but that's not relevant here.

How isn't the relativity believability relevant here? As I've been saying, that's one of the defining points of science fiction, making something seem possible, believable, or might even one day be real. Unlike in fantasy where something doesn't need to be believable and is usually about impossibilities that could never be real. That's the point of the argument. The two aren't the same thing. That's why they are two separate genres.

I think we have very different experiences of literature, media studies, science theory and debate. I'm not arguing that sci-fi and fantasy are the same thing; I'm arguing that it's not an important or useful distinction. Out of this one again before it gets so cyclical that my face falls off.

Gomess wrote:I'm not arguing that sci-fi and fantasy are the same thing; I'm arguing that it's not an important or useful distinction.

And how is that really any different? You're still essentially arguing there is little or no difference. And if that's the case, as I've asked before, why would they be two different genres if there wasn't an important/useful distinction?

Because you touch yourself at night.

Sigh. Since you ask...

Sparky Prime wrote:why would they be two different genres if there wasn't an important/useful distinction?

-____- Why would sexism, racism and homophobia be publically acceptable if they weren't USEFUL?

You make it sound like an absolute. You say, "They ARE two different genres" as if genre is some natural law, and not an arbitrary construct that only applies to very narrow discourse (such as this one!). Generic distinction was *invented* (not discovered) so that consumers could broaden their expectations, producers could target and profit from niche audiences more efficiently, and so video shops could better organise their shelves. Simple as.

But genre's meaning has begun deteriorating since its invention. Think of how many compound genres people throw around. That in itself makes it almost pointless to discuss the "rules" of various genres. Particularly in genres which have earned their reputations by being speculative! I thought we'd all made that point by bringing up He-Man, Dragon Ball, etc...

As I pointed out with my asinine little homophobia analogy, just because billions of people *do* something doesn't mean it's sensible or relevant to anything outside itself. Yes, there are such things as generic conventions. But they're not as massively important as you seem to think, and mindsets like this serve only to restrict creativity and lower audience expectations.

There's similarly the whole frickin' metal subgenre thing. I don't know how well versed you all are in this, but there's a lot of people who seriously think there's a meaningful distinction between death metal, black metal, djent (which is the dumbest name for a subgenre I've ever heard), progressive death metal, progressive megadeath metal, black death metal, death black metal, metalcore, hardcore, grindcore, black metalcore, death grindcore, and a bunch of other retarded names just trying to out-metuulllll each other that just looks pathetic. And that's what this is!

But in 1996, scientists successfully cloned a sheep.

People would argue that. Even the scientist said that his record keeping was a bit sloppy. And, Dolly was a sickly thing, so "successfully" might not be the best way to describe the effort. (And, the ages of Dolly and those monkeys indicates that cloning had been around for a years at that point.)

Cloning questions aside, many of the technologies you describe would seem to be magic. Along similar lines, modern fiction tends to portray magic as a (in the words of Geoff Johns) "super science" that still relies on the manipulation of mass and energy, albeit outside the EM spectrum.

But, the important issue is that for narrative purposes, magic and science fiction are pretty much the same damned thing.

And if that's the case, as I've asked before, why would they be two different genres if there wasn't an important/useful distinction?

They are important and useful distinctions when it comes to marketing to a base that consists largely of people who do not like new/different things. They like sci-fi, so they do not like sword and sorcery, or vice versa.

Or what Gomess said.

Generic distinction was *invented* (not discovered) so that consumers could broaden their expectations, producers could target and profit from niche audiences more efficiently, and so video shops could better organise their shelves. Simple as.

I actually do not see it quite as cynically. I agree that genres are a kind of branding. But, I am not wholly against that kind of short hand, as it saves us from a number of marketing pitches that can be more easily presented with branding.

I thought we'd all made that point by bringing up He-Man, Dragon Ball, etc...

Note the pointed absence of Games Workshop....


Dom
-feels dirty for having quoted Johns.

Oh, I didn't mean to come across as cynical. Generic distinctions have their uses; my point is that those uses are verrrry limited, and I kinda figured The 'Views was above such discourse.

so megan fox then hurr hurr

Dominic wrote:Note the pointed absence of Games Workshop....

I don't read GW stuff, so.

That was aimed at Gomess.


Speaking of which, (and I meant to point this out earlier):

and mindsets like this serve only to restrict creativity and lower audience expectations.

That from the guy who argues that TF stories should be just so, (Earth focused), because they are TF. By this standard, "Carwash of Doom" or "Autobop", (or even "Infestation), are better than "Last Stand of the Wreckers" or "Webworld".