I don't get it

USSEnterprise · Post by **USSEnterprise** » 2005-09-18 01:58am

Why all the ST. vs. SW? Why do people have to debate "who would beat who" or "Who would win: A Sovereign or a Star Detroyer"? Star Trek and Star Wars are totally different entities. Generally, I consider Star Trek to be science fiction/drama and Star Wars to be fantasy/drama. They are two totally separate worlds. Why bring the issue up?

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2005-09-18 02:32am

Why do dogs lick there balls?

Because they can and they know you're watching.

More seriously, because it's an amusing thing to do. I personally don't really ever post in the STvsSW section of the forums (I've made maybe one post ove ttheir since I'ce been a member), mainly because I don't have much to contribute to the debates, and as such I stick to areas I can contribute to since the locals frown on spamming.

But I gotta ask, how do you figure Star Wars as Fantasy? I mean, fantasy general happens in places like Middle Earth, or Narnia, or the Forgotton Realms, involves elves, and wizards, and swords, and dragons. Sci-Fi usualy involves high tech gizmos, and robots, and space. Last I checked, Star Wars happens in space and has the uberhightech gizmos, robots, and it happens in a "Galaxy far, far away", but is lacking in dragons and elves (I suppose some might consider Jedi to be a kind of "wizard", and lightsabers are a kind of sword I guess).

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2005-09-18 02:44am

Mr. Coffee wrote:But I gotta ask, how do you figure Star Wars as Fantasy? I mean, fantasy general happens in places like Middle Earth, or Narnia, or the Forgotton Realms, involves elves, and wizards, and swords, and dragons. Sci-Fi usualy involves high tech gizmos, and robots, and space. Last I checked, Star Wars happens in space and has the uberhightech gizmos, robots, and it happens in a "Galaxy far, far away", but is lacking in dragons and elves (I suppose some might consider Jedi to be a kind of "wizard", and lightsabers are a kind of sword I guess).

He's probably one of those people who think "Star Trek is an accurate representation of what the future might be like. Star Wars is just a fantasy since most of those technologies would never work in real life."

It's nothing new.

USSEnterprise · Post by **USSEnterprise** » 2005-09-18 03:08am

No, I consider Star Wars fantasy only because of The Force.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-09-18 03:11am

USSEnterprise wrote:No, I consider Star Wars fantasy only because of The Force.

Uh huh, and Subspace (a magical energy source that exists everywhere) and Q are not?

USSEnterprise · Post by **USSEnterprise** » 2005-09-18 03:19am

Subspace is not an energy source, its a theoretical medium in actual modern physics. I wasn't fond of Q

DrkHelmet · Post by **DrkHelmet** » 2005-09-18 03:19am

USSEnterprise wrote:Subspace is not an energy source, its a theoretical medium in actual modern physics. I wasn't fond of Q

Here we go.

USSEnterprise · Post by **USSEnterprise** » 2005-09-18 03:21am

What? The theory of another form of space was around prior to Star Trek

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2005-09-18 04:41am

He's not alone in thinking of Star Wars as more fantasy than sci-fi, the elements of fantasy are certainly there. You have the Force, destiny, epic tales of good vs evil, betrayal and redemption etc. Yes there is technology, but it is given no more importance than classical fantasy gives the technology of its time--namely swords, archery, armor crafting know how and such things.

Lucas took all the story elements you find in fantasy and put them in a world which happens to have advanced technology too, the presence of advanced technology alone does not science fiction create.

Now as for Star Trek, it tries to be sci-fi, never fantasy. Its science aint so good, but they don't enter the realms of Magic and Fate like fantasy--and Star Wars--does. I have zero problems with his view point on the two universes.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2005-09-18 04:59am

The Silence and I wrote:He's not alone in thinking of Star Wars as more fantasy than sci-fi, the elements of fantasy are certainly there. You have the Force, destiny, epic tales of good vs evil, betrayal and redemption etc. Yes there is technology, but it is given no more importance than classical fantasy gives the technology of its time--namely swords, archery, armor crafting know how and such things.

Or a contemporary drama gives our current technology.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-09-18 05:03am

You know the funny thing? Everything silence just listed is an element of DRAMA. Of COURSE Star Trek doesn't have any!

SW is fantasy because it has swords and drama! Why didn't I ever notice? I mean, Asimov never had any of this 'destiny' or 'epic tales' or anything. It was just 'alien crossbreeding' or 'space vikings' or 'poorly handled hypocritical morality tales' like ST.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2005-09-18 05:14am

Like all vs debating, it's debated because it can be.

It's a fun thing to do.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2005-09-18 05:17am

USSEnterprise wrote:Why all the ST. vs. SW? Why do people have to debate "who would beat who" or "Who would win: A Sovereign or a Star Detroyer"? Star Trek and Star Wars are totally different entities. Generally, I consider Star Trek to be science fiction/drama and Star Wars to be fantasy/drama. They are two totally separate worlds. Why bring the issue up?

Because it's fun. Why do people ask stupid questions?

Seriously, why do you think we do it? Why do people watch football, play video games? Why? There's no real purpose to it. It's just fun.

KhyronTheBackstabber · Post by **KhyronTheBackstabber** » 2005-09-18 05:23am

I got to be honest, I've always felt "Science Fantasy" is nothing more then a bullshit genre made up by Trekies for some stupid reason. Go to a movie store, or rental place, where do you find Star Wars? Under Science fiction. Book store? Yep, Science fiction. Library? The same, Science fiction. As a matter of fact, Star Wars is the only thing I've ever seen, called Science fantasy

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2005-09-18 05:27am

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:I got to be honest, I've always felt "Science Fantasy" is nothing more then a bullshit genre made up by Trekies for some stupid reason. Go to a movie store, or rental place, where do you find Star Wars? Under Science fiction. Book store? Yep, Science fiction. Library? The same, Science fiction.

First time I've heard that term. I think it's made up by people from both sides. Some people don't want Star Wars to be in the same Category as Star Trek so they invented its own category.

It's difficult to trace the origins of things like this because there are stupid people on both sides of the debate.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2005-09-18 05:45am

Stark wrote:You know the funny thing? Everything silence just listed is an element of DRAMA. Of COURSE Star Trek doesn't have any!

Magic and Fate are not necessary components of drama last time I checked, but they do find themselves in Fantasy with alarming frequency--almost as if they were required!

SW is fantasy because it has swords and drama! Why didn't I ever notice?

No, I'd say Star Wars could be considered Fantasy because it has a larger, more epic feel to its drama, oh yeah, and it has Magic.

By never attempting to explain the technology, or never attempting to explain the Force (if you accept "life creates it" as an explanation I'll have to slam my head into my desk a few times as the point sallies over your head) SW gives up its best potential claim to science fiction: making the science important to the story.

Subspace is just as weird as the Force, but the important difference in this comparison is that Subspace is part of Star Trek's scientific theory, it is not mysterious to them, it is just part of physics. Now of course good Star Trek has drama, which includes some of those qualities I mentioned, but it has no Magic, no Fate. It makes technology part of the story all too often, it is in every way I can think of Science Fiction. Bad science, but not Magic, no Fate, no Fantasy.

*************

I would ask you why you think Star Wars is not/can not be Fantasy.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-09-18 06:19am

Ooookay. The Force isnt magic, isnt mysterious. Its repeatable and testable. How is it not scientific? Oh wait, Niven isnt scifi because its got quasi-magical luck. Youre just taking elements (oh no, Vulcans ahave pointy ears and are clearly elves. ST is clearly fantasy) and declaring *fantasy*.

Star Trek doesnt *add science to the story*, it uses *bunk science-y sounding nonsense*. Of course SW is similar, but claiming ST uses science to drive its plots seems ridiculous to me. They (mis)use terminology, nothing more. I feel both of your points (SW not being scifi and ST not being fantasy) are flawed.

I debate STvSW because stupid ideas should be confronted. People like Darkstar are all the motivation I need. And the opposition is so weak, its fun AND easy!

Id like to apologise for the terrible punctuation in this post: my apostrophe has broken. Im aware how annoying this must be.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2005-09-18 06:23am

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:Go to a movie store, or rental place, where do you find Star Wars? Under Science fiction. Book store? Yep, Science fiction. Library? The same, Science fiction. As a matter of fact, Star Wars is the only thing I've ever seen, called Science fantasy

ACtually, for the book stores near me, the science fiction and fantasy boocks are grouped into 1 section. By reading the blurbs on the back of some off those boks, I can't eaisly tell which they would suit best, so this seems like a logical comprimise.

Grog · Post by **Grog** » 2005-09-18 07:10am

USSEnterprise wrote:I wasn't fond of Q

And since when does that matter?
And what about that Ocampa chick in voyager?
Vulcans have some funky mind powers too IIRC.
Star trek is as much fantasy as star wars.

The debates seldom cover these areas anyway so even if it would be hard to compare (and actually the star trek powers like Q are the difficult ones I think) it doesn't affect the overall debate much.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-09-18 07:33am

USSEnterprise wrote:Why all the ST. vs. SW? Why do people have to debate "who would beat who" or "Who would win: A Sovereign or a Star Detroyer"? Star Trek and Star Wars are totally different entities. Generally, I consider Star Trek to be science fiction/drama and Star Wars to be fantasy/drama. They are two totally separate worlds. Why bring the issue up?

Because ever since Bobo vs Adam, man enjoys arguing.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-09-18 09:37am

@ Silence:

By never attempting to explain the technology

Okay, okay. So if I got Black Hawk Down and gave it lasers and hovergunships instead of rifles and aircraft, but everything else, including the dialogue, is the same, you still won't consider it science fiction?

So it HAS to have Spork to explain how the triangulated phase dodo microwave oven with reverse polarity transphasic leprechauns uses boron to stimulate the clitoral event horizon of the photoneutrino penis of the polynomial algebraic equation in order to be science fiction?

Excuse me while I call bullshit on that one. And did Trek ever explain how the Q did their fancy shit? Or how Vulcans did their Mind Mush? Eh?

Oh, and so just because something is "grander" and more "epic" and involves the battle between good and evil, just because it looks big and has all sorts of themes, makes it not science fiction?

What is this?

Post by **Zaia** » 2005-09-18 10:01am

USSEnterprise wrote:Why all the ST. vs. SW?

Hey, look at that, first sentence in your post and you guess the correct forum for this thread! Good job. *pats your head*

*moves*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-09-18 10:09am

USSEnterprise wrote:Subspace is not an energy source, its a theoretical medium in actual modern physics.

Why don't you point us to sources for subspace in "actual modern physics", bullshitter? Note that one of the rules of this forum is that you must either produce evidence for a contentious claim when challenged, or concede it.

PS. Who wants to bet that he's just taking completely unrelated but cool-sounding theories like the 10-dimensional superstring idea and pretending that they are similar to Star Trek subspace even though they bear no resemblance at all?

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2005-09-18 10:33am

Darth Wong wrote:
USSEnterprise wrote:Subspace is not an energy source, its a theoretical medium in actual modern physics.
Why don't you point us to sources for subspace in "actual modern physics", bullshitter? Note that one of the rules of this forum is that you must either produce evidence for a contentious claim when challenged, or concede it.

PS. Who wants to bet that he's just taking completely unrelated but cool-sounding theories like the 10-dimensional superstring idea and pretending that they are similar to Star Trek subspace even though they bear no resemblance at all?

*Places $10 on table*
I will watch as he fails to produce evidence, and I will laugh hystarically as he is flamed to a crisp.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2005-09-18 10:34am

The aspiring knight, the wise mentor, the rogue and the comic relief invade the Dark Lord's fortress to rescue the princess. Later, the aspiring knight slays the beast that threatens his comrades, and all rejoice.

How anyone can think this isn't at least heavily leaning towards fantasy escapes me

(in fact - and this is purely anecdotal - my lit preofessor used Wars as an example of modern fantasy, pointing out the parrallels)

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I don't get it

I don't get it

Re: I don't get it

Re: I don't get it

Re: I don't get it