I don't get it

[Havok]

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?

This is an opinion I've heard befor and it has its place. I think that a better distinction between the two (OT and TOS) is that SW deals with large/broad issues such as good vs evil an father and sons etc., while ST (sometimes)focused on more specific social issues that were/are current in our country such as race relations etc.

Both clearly use science and both clearly use fantasy. The only major difference I see is that ST expains away its fantasy as some advanced race or technology etc. while SW lets us use our imaginations and our own ideas in finding the answers.

IMHO the biggest difference in the two are the fans, and how we represent ourselves as such.

[Shroom Man 777]

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

:p

So, if there are a bunch of guys (with lasers) and they decide to kill people or something. With lasers. And so powersuited marines in hover gunships come down and kill them. That's not sci-fi? Dude!

science fiction
n.

A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, *snip*

Then with this definition, I guess something like Firefly or Cowboy Bebop or something would also be un-sci-fi now, would it?

Come on man! Science fiction is just a story with lasers and spaceships and aliens. That's that!

[The Grim Squeaker]

Actually the definition of science fiction is the effect of advanced technology on humanity, or people, alien interaction is just an add on.

The interesting thing about SW is that despite it's ludicrous technology it's technology is distuigishable from various "magic" .

[RThurmont]

Well Shroom, what you're discussing is arguably "sci fi" in the "Skiffy" sense, lousy, action-oriented stories that utilize a futuristic setting as an alternative to any number of other lush exotic settings to serve as a backdrop for what is primarily an action/adventure story.

Good science fiction ("SF" being the preferred anacronym in the literary world) has a much deeper, underlying speculative motive. Star Trek shot for that on occasion, but generally did it either in an extremely pretentious manner, or by ripping off earlier works of literary SF (for instance, the TOS episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" was a direct rip off of a chapter from one of Robert A. Heinlein's juvenile novels dating from the 1950s). Star Wars, while sadly scoffed at by the literary SF community (which I personally feel has gone downhill somewhat), does offer some redeeming speculative content in the form of the Force (which some would argue makes Star Wars fantasy). Speculation on what the impact of a life-generated, binding field would be if it could be tapped is one of the more interesting aspects of the work, in my opinion.

[drachefly]

In DS9, even when they go spiritual and talk about the (insert Bajoran mystical name for wormhole aliens), it's still easy to consider them as just wormhole aliens who are quite but not absolutely powerful, and care about Bajor.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I would agree that hard-core SF deals with the sociological impact of technology, and that Star Trek has striven to that at times (describing some treknobabble doesn't qualify). Unfortunately, it has fallen far (thanks Berman and Braga) so that I cannot seriously consider it as being more hard-core SF than SW.

As for SW, while the main plot may be a grand epic, it certainly deals with a plethora of sciological issues. For example, what happens when an advanced, peaceful, galaxy-spanning civilization is taken over by a madman who uses technology to establish unshakeable control over that civilization? More importantly, how will the hopelessly outnumbered and out-gunned resistance stand against him? What sacrifices will be required? How can anyone stand against a power that demonstrated the ability and will murder billions of people as an object lesson?

What about human/alien relations (especially when the dictator clearly vaults humans to the top)? What happens when you find that your father is more machine than human. . .and that you're possibly starting down the same path when your hand is chopped off and replaced? How will humanity treat sentient machines?

These themes and many others ARE interwoven in the epic that is SW, so to dismiss it as sci-fantasy is ludicrous. . .especially if ST is then elevated to hard SF.

[harbringer]

star trek is a forum for social commentary that was once considered "untouchable" due to that fact no references were made to the present.

Star wars is and was "a moral tale" set in a science fiction universe, it also has a lot of ideas from other genre's as well.

What neither of these is - Hard science fiction, both involve breaching physical laws (FTL drives, sound in space, need I go on..)

At least star wars fans don't delude themselves and pretend that their series is more correct than star trek, trektards just dont get the message - all that shite is made up, there are no chronatons, no subspace theory, time travel is almost 100% impossible and certainly not by a slingshot round the sun. Trek is in some ways entirely dishonest where star wars has said "we dont know or care how this works but this is what it would be like" trek said "this is the reason this works in our universe and it can be jerry rigged in 10 minutes by the chief engineer". Be honest if I came up and said I have a new law involving human behavior and by manipulating the armstrongs with the personality quotient you can get laid whenever you want just send me 10,000 dollars US, would you send me that money? (if you answered yes please PM me for your copy of my new theory).

[Gil Hamilton]

StarWars: Ghosts
StarTrek: Energy Beings, Wormhole Aliens, Pah'wraiths, Psychic Beings That Possess People and even Robots, Mysterious Aliens Energy Beings that like to Knock Women Up, the Good Ole Technocolor Energy Gas, Q, Pools of Liquid Evil, Anaphasic Life Form the Lives in a Candle

StarWars: The Force
StarTrek: Psychic Powers, Telepathy, Mind-Melding, Telekinesis, Energy Being Power, Q Being a Prick.

Seriously, how could anyone think that StarTrek was less fantastic than StarWars? At least they fucking call their ghosts ghosts in StarWars. But Troi getting knocked up by an energy sphere or a bunch of people getting possessed by ghosts which stick up Ten Forward? That's sci-fi there. Because they didn't call them ghosts, but rather "Sme kind of anionic energy that is superimposing neural patterns on to crewmembers. Oh, they can do that to Data too, who's a robot.". Beverly encountering a thing that acts like a ghost and even lives in a candle? Nope, "Anaphasic Lifeform".

I mean, the lack of fantasy in StarTrek is amazing.

[Darth Wong]

I agree with what some earlier posters have said: the difference between the two series in terms of their "hard sci-fi" perception has nothing to do with the series themselves, and everything to do with pretentious Star Trek fans. How many people have E-mailed me or posted on this forum spouting the preposterously ignorant belief that Treknology is scientifically valid? I've lost count.

[Flagg]

The perception that Star Trek is more "hard sci-fi", and Star Wars is more "fantasy" has to do with the fact that generally, alot of Trek episodes tend to focus more on the technology, while SW tends to focus more on the story and characters.

[CoyoteNature]

The difference is Star Trek is a artificial amalgamation of scifi terms stretching across all the way from the 1930s to now. Spiced up with occasional real science term they might have misinterpreted or interpreted the right way and put it together with a different term with nothing to do with it (So its Frankenstein's monster).

Subspace as a scifi term existed long before Star Trek, so did gravitational field manipulation, antimatter, and all the mumbo jumbo but you can trace it to scifi books set in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and 1960s. But in most of those they didn't care much about explanation, and in any case each story existed in a entirely different contextual universe so they had no real connection, but were connected anyway.

Subspace in many cases was what you jumped into and out of, as opposed to warping there, Subspace was the hyperspace in the scifi world of today.

That's the difference, Trek is a hodgepodge of stories.

Wars is one story.

In terms of Fantasy both are hokey, just one has many hokey's the other one hokey.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I agree with what some earlier posters have said: the difference between the two series in terms of their "hard sci-fi" perception has nothing to do with the series themselves, and everything to do with pretentious Star Trek fans. How many people have E-mailed me or posted on this forum spouting the preposterously ignorant belief that Treknology is scientifically valid? I've lost count.

It's not entirely their fault, but they do bare most of the blame. I've seen shows on the discovery channel that talked about how this technology was inspired by Star Trek. The one that comes to mind is a show about military stealth technology and they referenced TOS, specifically Balance of Terror, many times including shots of the Romulan Bird of Prey cloaking. (Which seems a bit contrived, like they were reaching out to a fan base, and I'm sure military stealth technology was not inspired by Star Trek or any other sci-fi.)

Another show talking about technology referenced a scene where Kirk was using a form of media that looked like a CD. I'm sorry I can't remember the names so you'll just have to take my word for it.

[Adrian Laguna]

The military has been researching stealth technology since the 50s. I would really like to know what kind of voodoo magic the boys in the back room used to divine what would be inmagined in the future and then used this handwavium TV technology to be inspired to create real stealth technology.

[Ender]

Now that I think about it, is there any mainstream scifi shows/movies out there today that aren't closer to fantasy then the traditional hard scifi idea?

SG1 follows the whole aspiring knight, rogue, mentor, comic relief against the dark lord bit pretty well (Though Jack is somehow all 4)

B5 is so heavily fantasy you don't even need to argue it.

Farscape had a ton of fantasy references

I haven't seen any of neo BSG or Dr Who so no comment there, but I can only think of some books for hard scifi.

[Darth Servo]

Another show talking about technology referenced a scene where Kirk was using a form of media that looked like a CD. I'm sorry I can't remember the names so you'll just have to take my word for it.

All our yesterdays where the "CDs" were the disks that showed the time travel destination in Mr Atoz' library.

Never mind that REAL CDs aren't viewing screens like these were and these disks didn't spin. Its just another case of citing superficial appearance and saying it inspired the real thing.

Any TOS docummentary will have a list of things that Trek supposedly inspired. Cell phones (discussed on Mike's 'myths' page), desk top computers (even though the E-nil computers were really just a terminal for the ships main computer, not an independent unit by itself). The list goes on and on.

[Wyrm]

I haven't seen any of neo BSG or Dr Who so no comment there, but I can only think of some books for hard scifi.

Having seen the recent Dr. Who's, I can say that it's definitely taken a turn for the soft. It was always willing to take on the macabre, and using it as fodder for the Doctor and companion to battle, but when they had the time vortex itself speak to the Daleks (through the ever beautiful and tough-as-nails companion) and unleash its holy wrath... er, the companion directed the destructive energies (yeah, that's the ticket) at the Daleks and destroying them utterly, that's when I laughed... and cried.

Oh well, at least we see the Doctor kiss his hot companion. [insert pic of 'WOOT!' smiley here!]

[Crossroads Inc.]

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

Grabs Popcorn and takes a seat.

[Stark]

Having seen the recent Dr. Who's, I can say that it's definitely taken a turn for the soft. It was always willing to take on the macabre, and using it as fodder for the Doctor and companion to battle, but when they had the time vortex itself speak to the Daleks (through the ever beautiful and tough-as-nails companion) and unleash its holy wrath... er, the companion directed the destructive energies (yeah, that's the ticket) at the Daleks and destroying them utterly, that's when I laughed... and cried.

Oh well, at least we see the Doctor kiss his hot companion. [insert pic of 'WOOT!' smiley here!]

'Turn for the soft'? Please - I had the misfortune to see a rerun of 'Time-Flight' the other day, and it was APPALLING. It had Voyager-level technobabble, magical jelly men, and evil wizards. And the *worst* incidental music I've even struggled to hear dialogue over. Doctor Who has NEVER been hard sci-fi - and it was never supposed to be. Ironically, even nBSG has fantasy elements. Turns out there is no 'hard' scifi on television: who'd a thunk it?

[Wyrm]

'Turn for the soft'? Please - I had the misfortune to see a rerun of 'Time-Flight' the other day, and it was APPALLING. It had Voyager-level technobabble, magical jelly men, and evil wizards. And the *worst* incidental music I've even struggled to hear dialogue over.

Realize that Dr. Who had been in near-continuous production for a good twenty years at this point (premiered Nov 22, 1963 - yes, the same night Kenedy was assassinated. Almost killed it, but the pilot was repeated the next day). Although most of the early adventures were missing, what I saw had some pretty decent science, at least in comparison to today's fare - even in comparison to itself at a later time. The Tom Baker era saw the beginnings of the cracks in the foundations, worsening in the Peter Davison era, and Silvester McCoy saw it really go off the deep end.

In a way, it was like comparing TOS to Voyager. Ugh.

Doctor Who has NEVER been hard sci-fi - and it was never supposed to be.

It was supposed to be historically accurate, with the only bogus element being the TARDIS. That got dropped early on. It didn't do all that well with the historical accuracy either.

[Stark]

You said it took a 'turn for the soft' during Ecclestons season, so I pointed out it's been soft for a long time (I'd argue since the beginning). You agree with me, and then say that it's an inappropriate comparison. Huh?

'Historically accurate'? Hi ho, like the 'Monk interferes with Norman invasion' episode? Ho ho! Anyway, horribly OT....

[Edward Yee]

Darth Servo, you brought up an interesting point... due to the centralization (despite the apparently canonical three-cores-for-redundanyc), would they allow independent computers?

[Wyrm]

You said it took a 'turn for the soft' during Ecclestons season, so I pointed out it's been soft for a long time (I'd argue since the beginning). You agree with me, and then say that it's an inappropriate comparison. Huh?

I didn't say it took a turn for the soft (meaning it got softened from previous years) during Ecclestons' time. I said that it took a turn for the soft, period. As in, over its entire run. I was agreeing that "Time Flight" was a soft serial, but back in the day, Doctor Who was harder than other shows. It was really during the Tom Baker era that the writers discovered how rich fodder myth was for stories.

'Historically accurate'? Hi ho, like the 'Monk interferes with Norman invasion' episode? Ho ho!

The key word being "supposed".

Come to think of it, just about every other sci fi show was going soft about the same time, weren't they?

As for pictures, if you cut out the "monkey evolved" sequence at the beginning and the LSD trip at the end, 2001 would qualify as hard science.

[Stark]

I didn't say it took a turn for the soft (meaning it got softened from previous years) during Ecclestons' time. I said that it took a turn for the soft, period. As in, over its entire run. I was agreeing that "Time Flight" was a soft serial, but back in the day, Doctor Who was harder than other shows. It was really during the Tom Baker era that the writers discovered how rich fodder myth was for stories.

Ah, that clears it up. I've heard many people say they don't feel nDW is as good/valid/etc as oDW... and really, oDW was pretty much garbage most of the time. I liked it when I was a kid, but some of it was just ugh. Even B7 was better!

The key word being "supposed".

Come to think of it, just about every other sci fi show was going soft about the same time, weren't they?

As for pictures, if you cut out the "monkey evolved" sequence at the beginning and the LSD trip at the end, 2001 would qualify as hard science.

I'm pretty sure that is what people mean by 'hard science'. Course, Asimov addresses large, epic questions, so it must be fantasy!

[Darth Quorthon]

Personally, I enjoy both ST and SW, and have done so since I was a kid. To occupy my time, I don't ask much: Memorable characters, a good story, not much.

I have always admired SW for not falling into the technobabbly muck that ST succumbed to during TNG. Some of my fellow ST fans have a saying: "Nothing exists after Kirk."

There was a point where Gene Rodenberry lost control of his creation, and ST went off the deep end not too long after that. I admire Lucas for never allowing this to happen. Certainly, the prequels have taken plenty of criticism, but they are a great deal more enjoyable than any of the recent ST movies.

There will always be the debates about the issues that ST and SW deal with, but when it comes to just plain good storytelling, SW has it hands down.

Oh yeah, SW has better music too.

[RThurmont]

Oh yeah, SW has better music too.

Probably because Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner are unimaginitive morons whose idea of composing for Star Trek was to directly and shamelessly rip off the music John Williams composed for Star Wars.

If you don't believe me, listen to the main Star Wars theme (composed in 1977) and the ST:TMP/TNG theme Goldsmith composed in 1979 a few times, and you'll notice some fairly distinct structural similiarities.

Also, compare the orchestration of "Yoda and the Force" (1980) with the orchestration of the music throughout much of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982, music by James Horner) and you'll notice some distinct, amazing similiarities.

The fact that Horner and Goldsmith are collectively too stupid to be able to compose original melodies and orchestrations on their own is bad enough, but the fact that they ripped off Star Trek's DIRECT COMPETITOR is absolutely disgusting, and is arguably the worst example of the exploitationism and plagiarism characteristic of Star Trek as a franchise (another bad example being Roddenberry's ripping off of Robert A. Heinlein in The Trouble With Tribbles).[/quote]