PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek: Science Fiction or Fantasy?



spg_1983
April 4th, 2005, 11:43 AM
i was thinking today about whether Star Trek should still be considered science fiction or if it should now be classified as fantasy. from what i know and understand about the history "in universe" by this point in time, hasnt the third world war happened and most of the world has been devevastated? the movie "First Contact" was supposed ot have taken place only like 50 years into the future from this point in time correct? and the war started at the begining of this century. so since obviously nothing like htat has happened, that makes star trek pure fantasy and not science fiction now because the key facet that makes science fiction is the idea of suspension of disbelief and the "what if" factor, but since niether of those exist now, does that make it pure fantasy? just an idle thought i had, what does everyone else think?

Freyrs
April 4th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Well just because the timing of events in the Star Trek universe don't corrospond to our timeline, I wouldn't neccesarily call it fantasy. Sci-Fi is still about the "what if they had happened" or "what if they did happen".

By that definition Stargate should fantasy as well because no Stargate was discovered at Giza. :) Stargate certainly isn't fantasy.

LordAnubis
April 4th, 2005, 12:00 PM
i was thinking today about whether Star Trek should still be considered science fiction or if it should now be classified as fantasy. from what i know and understand about the history "in universe" by this point in time, hasnt the third world war happened and most of the world has been devevastated? the movie "First Contact" was supposed ot have taken place only like 50 years into the future from this point in time correct? and the war started at the begining of this century. so since obviously nothing like htat has happened, that makes star trek pure fantasy and not science fiction now because the key facet that makes science fiction is the idea of suspension of disbelief and the "what if" factor, but since niether of those exist now, does that make it pure fantasy? just an idle thought i had, what does everyone else think?
I know what you're saying, but I think you're taking the term fantasy literally. Fantasy is more like Lord of the Rings or Earthsea or something along those lines: sorcery, magic, mythical creatures, demons, angels, etc. Star Trek is pure sci-fi with a dab of mysticism. Stargate and Star Wars are more mystical, but are still sci-fi.

spg_1983
April 4th, 2005, 12:12 PM
Well just because the timing of events in the Star Trek universe don't corrospond to our timeline, I wouldn't neccesarily call it fantasy. Sci-Fi is still about the "what if they had happened" or "what if they did happen".

By that definition Stargate should fantasy as well because no Stargate was discovered at Giza. :) Stargate certainly isn't fantasy.
but the thing about stargate is that it still has that "what if" question about it. if a stargate had been found at giza we wouldnt know about it, thats one of the reasons why they keep putting off revealing the existence of the SGC and all in the show because by having everything classified and covered up, even to the point of it being almost ridiculous that it hasnt been revealed, there is still the possible plausibility of it because the public does not know. maybe using the term fantasy is the wrong one, perhaps it would be better just to say pure fiction instead of science fiction.

spg_1983
April 4th, 2005, 12:16 PM
I know what you're saying, but I think you're taking the term fantasy literally. Fantasy is more like Lord of the Rings or Earthsea or something along those lines: sorcery, magic, mythical creatures, demons, angels, etc. Star Trek is pure sci-fi with a dab of mysticism. Stargate and Star Wars are more mystical, but are still sci-fi.
now that im thinking about it you are right, fantasy isnt the right term because star trek for the most part is still based on possibilities, star travel, aliens all that, but perhaps it would be better to say it is just pure fiction instead of science fiction? ive always taken science fiction to mean something has the possibility of being true, no matter how remote, but since it is established that the history of star trek is completely false, can it still be considered science fiction?

aAnubiSs
April 4th, 2005, 12:22 PM
Star Trek is Sci-fi. Star Wars is Fantasy, or Sci-Fantasy if you like. There's alot of technobabble in trek where SW focuses on the force as a magical force rather then a technological.

Darth Buddha
April 4th, 2005, 12:27 PM
Star Trek is Sci-fi. Star Wars is Fantasy, or Sci-Fantasy if you like. There's alot of technobabble in trek where SW focuses on the force as a magical force rather then a technological.
The man splits the fictional realms with the wisdom of Solomon.

I'd take my hair off to you, if I weren't clean shaven already.

spg_1983
April 4th, 2005, 12:37 PM
Star Trek is Sci-fi. Star Wars is Fantasy, or Sci-Fantasy if you like. There's alot of technobabble in trek where SW focuses on the force as a magical force rather then a technological.
ok but now here is an interesting point i just thought about. star wars is fantasy because it has mystical things like the force and the technology is based on completely fictional element (i.e. tibanna gas, etc.) but star trek and stargate's technology are both based of fictional elements (i.e. naquada, dilithium, etc.) so since they are based one made up elements, doesnt this undermine them being science fiction?

DownFallAngel
April 4th, 2005, 12:46 PM
But in ST there are no Jedi, or people like the Jedi. There are no people with abilities to control matter around someone without a logical reason behind it. If someone was to pick you up and throw you across a room, there would be a reason. The person doing the action had a massive dose of radiation and gave them telekinetic powers or an alien symbiot increases mental abilities, something along those lines.

In SW, it's: 'The Force is there and we can use it'. There is no explination. It wasn't until Episode I that Lucas tried to explain it through Metaclorians(sp?). Still all we have is a name, no purpose, no meaning, no history. Just a name.

Star Trek IS sci-fi. It has logic. It has realism behind it. Star Wars IS fantasy or sci-fantasy, because there are forces within that universe that are there without a purpose, only to be controlled by others. There is no scientific explination behind it. It is just there.

aAnubiSs
April 4th, 2005, 02:01 PM
ok but now here is an interesting point i just thought about. star wars is fantasy because it has mystical things like the force and the technology is based on completely fictional element (i.e. tibanna gas, etc.) but star trek and stargate's technology are both based of fictional elements (i.e. naquada, dilithium, etc.) so since they are based one made up elements, doesnt this undermine them being science fiction?
Sci-Fi has nothing to do with elements, it's just that the show has some base in science, then there's the fiction part which implies that the show isn't going with our current knowledge of the universe. There's nothing saying that Naquadah doesn't exist in the universe, we haven't even had people on the closest planet in our own solar system yet, so I don't think we're qualified to write the universal element-chart.

Besides even how frelled some of the techno babble in Trek might be they still rely heavily on the futures science. They have solutions to some of the theories/laws we have now, Heisenbergs uncertain principle for example. And SG1 had Carter brainstorming with Teal'c about Einstein's relativity reg. gravity.

If you want to call it fantasy simple because something doesn't exist then there's no real sci-fi show. For example: Hayes isn't president, Bush is.

Name one or more shows that haven't got a single fiction-element in it and I'll give you $10,000.

Dahak
April 4th, 2005, 04:01 PM
Star Trek is pretty clearly a SF show. Also a true SF show based of off real science would be incredibly boring. Any show with space travel is going to cheat with things like artificial gravity, inertial compensators, FTL travel, visible lasers, and ships that fight at Pirates of the Carribean distances will always be a part of any SF show.

spg_1983
April 4th, 2005, 04:30 PM
it strikes me that we need to agree on a definition of what science fiction really is in order to continue this discussion. to me science fiction is a show or book that is rooted firmly in real science and theory and is thus plausibly possible. i.e. based on real technology and science and not made up science. when you start using made up element and materials as the basis for the technology in a show, its moving away from the plausability factor because you can then say "well sure its possible to travel faster than light because they are using element X for power" its no longer based on real science and theory because real science and theory do not use made up elements and substances. science fantasy could be defined as using plausible science and theory, but based off made up elements such as naquada, dilithium, tibanna gas, etc. so the science and theory "in universe" are plausible if you accept the existence of those made up elements. and then fantasy is the realm where pretty much anything goes, magic, fairy tale creatures and such. its not based on anything and the world or universe in the story is completely 100% made up.

Cpn. Chris(tine) Bowman
April 4th, 2005, 05:56 PM
It's off topic (and I think Trek is SF) but if anyone is interested in joining a PbeM Trek ship, I'm the CO of the USS Discovery. Since I don't know if it's allowed to recruit here, why don't you just PM me if you are interested? I'll give you the address. If this reply is out of line, the mods are welcome to kick my butt (although I have a feeling they would even without my permission ;) )

LordAnubis
April 4th, 2005, 06:35 PM
But in ST there are no Jedi, or people like the Jedi. There are no people with abilities to control matter around someone without a logical reason behind it. If someone was to pick you up and throw you across a room, there would be a reason. The person doing the action had a massive dose of radiation and gave them telekinetic powers or an alien symbiot increases mental abilities, something along those lines.

In SW, it's: 'The Force is there and we can use it'. There is no explination. It wasn't until Episode I that Lucas tried to explain it through Metaclorians(sp?). Still all we have is a name, no purpose, no meaning, no history. Just a name.

Star Trek IS sci-fi. It has logic. It has realism behind it. Star Wars IS fantasy or sci-fantasy, because there are forces within that universe that are there without a purpose, only to be controlled by others. There is no scientific explination behind it. It is just there.
That's not true. Star Trek has fantastical elements involved, just like Stargate does. In ST, you have "Q", that thing from Star Trek IV ("God"), and other elements of fantasy. However, no matter how "fictional" ST may seem, it is pure sci-fi.

Star Wars is a hybrid fantasy-sci-fi story. By in large, SW is more mythical and theological than it is sci-fi. The whole Force/Sith/Jedi thing is pure theology and myth. The Sci-fi is merely the backdrop or back story, no more, no less. ST, the science and technology IS the key to almost every plot. SW could take place in the old west, in Ancient Egypt, our in outer space; it's all about the characters and the events in their lives and how such events relate to good and evil. Space ships, aliens, and carbonite freezing are all incidental to Lucas' plot. If you took all that sci-fi stuff away, your story is still intact, just not as appealing. Lucas just dressed it up in sci-fi.

Independence Day, for example, is just another World War II movie, just with aliens instead of goose-stepping Nazis. ID4 is about resistence and the human spirit overcoming amazing obstacles. It's about the human will triumphing over an evil invader. The sci-fi was mere fluff and dressing; it wasn't key to the plot.

Same with BSG. The storyline is what is crucial, not the technobabble and sci-fi elements...well, to some degree.

In Stargate, the science and the technology is very important to the story. Without it, you have no real story. The mythology is not incidental, but it's also not critical to the main idea, only a secondary issue.

Star Trek depends on the technobabble, aliens, star ships, etc. Without that stuff, you have nothing.

So, in many ways, Star Trek is more sci-fi than other movies/series. Star Wars is more mythology/theology than sci-fi. Stargate is a powerful hybrid, but more sci-fi. None of these are fantasy, per se, which IMO, is a whole different genre of movie.