I don't get it

[Darth Wong]

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)

Merriam-Webster:

fantasy - imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters -- called also fantasy fiction

How anybody can say that applies to Star Wars but not to Star Trek escapes me.

[Spetulhu]

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.

My local movie rental files Star Wars in the Adventure section. Together with things like Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings and The Mummy. Not that I'd call it Fantasy in Space because of that. More like Space Opera.

[Stark]

Oh, so 'the evil warlord escapes his exile and seizes the power of his enemy, attacks with deceit, toys with him but is ultimately defeated by his crippled but audacious enemy' isn't 'fantasy sounding'? Jesus.

Amusingly, only GOOD Star Trek sounds decent when described: try doing it for Nemesis - the doomed revolutionary seizes power from his evil masters and lures the hero into his lair in order to lift his curse. He then has dinner.

OH NO! I just described ST in such an idiom, thus it must be fantasy!

[Shroom Man 777]

@ Bounty:

And how come nobody is telling me that The Matrix movies (aspiring dork, bald philobabbling old asshole, comedic bitch kid, weirdo quest, big bad evil guys) is sci-fantasy?

Or how about some sports movie with a young athlete, a coach, a clutzy water boy, and the big bad rival hockey team with the black uniforms? They defeat the evil hockey team by scoring a three point shot from the half-court and celebrate by having an orgy. And their mascot is a dragon. Is that now... athletic fantasy?

So, science fiction can have exploration Trek-style, futuristic black hawk down saving private ryans, noir style cowboy beboping, pseudophilosophical kung-fuing, but it just CAN'T have a young aspiring warrior, a moldy old decrepit man, a lame ass corny clutz, and a big bad badguy?

Hmmm... know what? Maybe you're right. And since Batman Beyond fits those criterias, then I'll just lump it up with science fantasy tooo! YAAAY!

[Darth Wong]

Trektards like to pretend that if any part of Trek is realistic, then it's "hard sci-fi". They handwave away the vast array of idiotic, scientifically absurd, and logically broken episodes and incidents by pointing to the much smaller number of things that make sense.

By that idiot logic, Mordor's army used trebuchets, and trebuchets are based on real physics, therefore Lord of the Rings is hard science fiction and not fantasy.

[Bounty]

Oh, so 'the evil warlord escapes his exile and seizes the power of his enemy, attacks with deceit, toys with him but is ultimately defeated by his crippled but audacious enemy' isn't 'fantasy sounding'? Jesus.

Not "fantasy sounding", but using an archetypical story and setting it in a SF environment. You can retell Star Wars - at least, ANH, less for the others - in any setting wihtout losing the core of the story. Just *try* doing that with, for example, TVH.

For those with comprehension problems, I'm not screaming here that Wars is fantasy and Trek is "hard sci-fi". Both are soft SF, the difference lies in the story they tell. Trek likes to focus on technology, and no matter how much science gets mangled in the process, that's what the stories are essentially about : new tech and it's influence on humanity. Wars doesn't need the technology aspect, because it simply uses a futuristic setting to tell a timeless story that could be told against any background.

But both are still soft SF.

[Mr. Coffee]

The aspiring knight (Capt. Kirk), the wise mentor (Spock), the rogue (Kirk Again) and the comic relief(pretty much the Entire Crew) invade the Dark Lord's(insert Klingons, Romulans, or Evil Alien Race of the Week here) fortress(The Neutral Zone, Klingon Space, Center of the Galaxy, ect.) to rescue the princess(Random Green Babe of the Week and the Moral of the Week). Later, the aspiring knight(Kirk) slays the beast(Them Damned Aliens again) that threatens his comrades(Spock and the rest of the Crew minus one or two redshirts), and all rejoice(Boldly go somewhere else no man has gone before).

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

Yeah, you're right... No way in hell Star Trek has ANY fantasy elements under the bullshit generic fantasy plot you outlined...

[Darth Wong]

Not "fantasy sounding", but using an archetypical story and setting it in a SF environment. You can retell Star Wars - at least, ANH, less for the others - in any setting wihtout losing the core of the story. Just *try* doing that with, for example, TVH.

Easily done.

The gods were angry at Man for destroying the (treasure / temple / sanctuary / endangered marine species) and punished Man in his arrogance by sending terrible fire from Heaven and floods that drowned the land.

Kirk and his argonauts, er- crew, set out on a noble quest, to find the (sacred cornerstone of the temple / holy artifact / whales) in an alien land. No ship could take them to this land, so they called upon the (time travel slingshot effect / magical incantation of Spock the Wizard) to take them there.

Once there, they had many adventures and encountered many dangers, but in the end, Kirk seized the (sacred cornerstone / holy artifact / whales) and then Spock used the (slingshot effect / magic incantation) to bring them home again.

Kirk took the (sacred cornerstone / holy artifact / whales) and offered them to the gods, and then prayed for forgiveness. The mighty gods smiled upon Kirk and his argonauts, er .. crew, and relented in their righteous anger. All were saved. Hail Kirk.

Got any other dumbshit arguments to make?

[USSEnterprise]

Fine, I will take back what I said about subspace. I honestly did think it was a real theory, but I cannot find any data to back that up. I apologize

[Mark S]

Fine, I will take back what I said about subspace. I honestly did think it was a real theory, but I cannot find any data to back that up. I apologize

The only time I have personally ever heard 'subspace' used in any sort of real-life way was in a university math class where the term refers to any lower dimensional space within another space. The two-dimensional top of the table within the tree-dimensional room, for example.

[Darth Wong]

Fine, I will take back what I said about subspace. I honestly did think it was a real theory, but I cannot find any data to back that up. I apologize

That's good to hear; there may be hope for you yet

In the meantime, try to remember that this is not a comic-book fansite populated primarily by 15 year olds. Quite a few of us actually know a little something about physics, and you shouldn't throw around claims about physics unless you've done your research and made sure that you've got your ducks in a row.

[Darth Wong]

Fine, I will take back what I said about subspace. I honestly did think it was a real theory, but I cannot find any data to back that up. I apologize

The only time I have personally ever heard 'subspace' used in any sort of real-life way was in a university math class where the term refers to any lower dimensional space within another space. The two-dimensional top of the table within the tree-dimensional room, for example.

Yes indeed, it's a mathematical term (the trick is to look it up in a textbook or dictionary rather than Googling it, because Googling it will bring up a raft of Star Trek sites).

It does make me wonder why the Trek writers chose to use it as a pseudoscientific term with a completely incompatible meaning, but they've messed things up before (the idea that you can find a naturally occuring "ore" for an "alloy" for example, although that pales in comparison to the infamous "fissure" in an event horizon).

[USSEnterprise]

In the meantime, try to remember that this is not a comic-book fansite populated primarily by 15 year olds.

hehe, funny you mention 15 year olds. hehe

[Edward Yee]

USSEnterprise, should I take that to assume that you meant that you thought just that of those here?

As for me, I'm aware of the flaws of both, but I'm willing to accept explanations on their face (it's all [trek/wars]-ology in the end... right?!) and go from there. Oh, and in any crossover, let each side's engineers fight it out rather than us guys.

P.S. Regarding Q, USSEnterprise... since you're not fond of the character, and I hated Encounter at Farpoint (even excusing it being a first episode, the way the Star Wars prequels looked way more visually cleaned-up than the original trilogy), what's your personal canon policy?

[The Silence and I]

@ Silence:

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?

Nope. It is simply Black Hawk Down in a future setting.

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?

Again no.

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?

I'm going to conceed there are some possible arguments for fantasy in Star Trek--not the intention of the writers I suspect, but since when does that matter

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?

No! Science fiction can be epic, can have good vs evil, can have a variety of themes, but those particular elements are more common in fantasy. That does not prove Wars is fantasy however, so I provide two definitions of Science Fiction from Dictionary.com:

science fiction
n.

A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

According to this Wars could be considered Science Fiction, for its background (but not really its plot) does contain aliens and space travel. This is IMO a weak link to Science Fiction though, I mean, it has aliens but they aren't even part of the plot!

science fiction

n : literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society

Well this is a bit more where I'm coming from; again you could claim Wars is Science fiction because there is a scientifically advanced society in the background--but again with the background thing! Why isn't this the focus of the story? (maybe because Wars ain't really a good example of sci-fi?)

It is easy however to see how this description fits ST's premise almost like a glove. At its heart of hearts Star Trek is an imagined world where humanity learned how to reach the stars and was forever changed for the better. What we see week to week is how the writers imagined society would appear and handle the new situations brought about by Warp Drive.

I realize there are other parts to Star Trek, over 10 movies and 5 series there has been plenty of oportunity for other elements to enter, and of course technobabble was one of them... but Star Trek tries to be science fiction as defined above while Wars never has.

[Darth Wong]

I realize there are other parts to Star Trek, over 10 movies and 5 series there has been plenty of oportunity for other elements to enter, and of course technobabble was one of them... but Star Trek tries to be science fiction as defined above while Wars never has.

Looks like someone is falling back on factors that cannot be evaluated, such as hidden intentions rather than what's on the screen.

[The Dark]

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.

Hmmm...sounds like the plot to Kurasawa's The Mighty Fortress .



To be honest, I have heard people (not involved in the debate) "split" sci-fi between science fiction and "sci-fantasy," where it's taking "hard" and "soft" sci-fi and adopting the terms sci-fi and sci-fantasy respectively. Both Star Wars and Star Trek would fall under sci-fantasy, since they have decidedly non-real elements (such as significant psychic abilities, which is the main one I can think of off the top of my head). Dune would be another one, with its decidedly funky physics and the weird abilities granted by the melange spice and Water of Life, along with the Bene Gesserit powers.

Some of Heinlein would fall under the "hard" category, as would some Lem, Asimov, Clement, and Verne.

[Instant Sunrise]

All this time I though that Star Wars was the unholy love child of Kirosawa and Flash Gordon.

[Darth Servo]

So whats the difference between chocking a guy with The Force and doing it with telepathic powers gained by eating the food on a certain planet (Plato's Stepchildren)?

[Dennis Toy]

(the idea that you can find a naturally occuring "ore" for an "alloy" for example, although that pales in comparison to the infamous "fissure" in an event horizon).


Hey Mr Wong, you forgot, sub-atomic bacteria, Macroviruses and below absolute zero.



but onto the topic, i have never figured out how anyone would actually think Star Wars is not Science-Fiction, let see, it has robots, spaceships, aliens and space-travel. Star Trek has these also but tries to project them in a realistic manner.

Fantasy is more pseudo-science like for example, Fairly Oddparents, Princess Bride and Sleeping Beauty, they use magic, gods and sorcery which in real life is generally non-sense.

[Mark S]

Those don't even fall under pseudo-science.

As for the difference between SW & ST... ghosts. Star Wars has them, all the ones in Star Trek turn out to be energy aliens or whatever. That's not an argument for Wars being any more or less sci-fi or 'sci-fantasy', just something that fundamentally sets them apart.

[Edward Yee]

Mark S, to clarify, do you mean that in the end everything has some sort of scientific explanation in Star Trek, at least within canon? (Which of course does not apply to the real world. That is, the difference being that Star Wars doesn't try to pigeonhole the mystical -- is this what you mean?)

[Drooling Iguana]

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.

You haven't seen much of DS9, have you?

[brianeyci]

This argument is retarded. Science fiction and fantasy are not two totally delineated structures which have no common ground and are not terms that cannot be interchanged in certain circumstances. Why the fuck is my second year university course called "Science Fiction and Fantasy" if they are two totally incompatable entities?

For the argument that Wars is more "fantasy" because it follows the call to adventure, mentor, outermost cave, etc., paradigm outlined in Hero with a Thousand Faces, well that is fucking absurd because you can write a so-called hard science fiction story with this kind of structure. Sure thousands of years of precedent and oral tradition means that if you find a story with this structure it is more likely to be fantasy than involve technology, but that doesn't mean it is impossible for a science fiction piece to be written with this structure.

"But there's Jedi and therefore Wars is more fantasy" is equally ridiculous because superhuman beings are present in so-called hard-sci-fi. The only difference is the indulgence in psuedoscience. Psuedoscience does not make something more science fiction than fantasy.

I would say that hard "science fiction" would either be speculative (what would happen in a hundred years kind of thing, or what could happen under a certain set of circumstances) or a tribute to the scientific method, arguably the greatest achievement of mankind. I would say that hard "fantasy" would appeal more to the realm of the impossible, such as the existence of gods, magic or ghosts. Obviously Star Wars and Star Trek are a mix of the two (or try to be), and I don't see the point in arguing whether one is more "fantasy" than the other.

Brian

[The Silence and I]

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.

You haven't seen much of DS9, have you?

Actually, no I haven't. Not having seen much of it I hadn't considered it when typing before.

Hmm.

Looks like someone is falling back on factors that cannot be evaluated, such as hidden intentions rather than what's on the screen.

Perhaps I have been
Part of a problem I have when thinking about, and then discussing, Star Trek is that I had to reject much of its sillyness and resort to a subjective viewing that includes a fair bit of writer's intent. So for example when I thought about what Star Trek might be--more fantasy or more sci-fi--I immediately recalled those cases that let me connect dots into the picture I described: a description of a future society forever transformed by technology. Since the counter examples are not so integrated, for want of a better word with the premise (another nebulous term I suppose) I ignored them much like I would treknobabble (as far as I am concerned there is little to no treknobabble, I will either edit it out or dismiss the entire episode).

I am forced to come back to Earth, and if I am to discuss in a way meaningful to this website I must conceed that Star Trek is no less fantasy than star wars. I view the two as entirely different, but that doesn't really mean much here, rightly so.