Weird Tales of Fictional Science! (mostly about Star Trek for my part)

[Nique]

So greed (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=1150203&postcount=53) suggested we try this after a brief exchange in the opinion thread.

Basically I touched on some things that I liked about various Star Trek series, and some things that I felt betrayed the principals of the franchise. Like, it is the only show that I kind of hold accountable in that way becuase it attempts to comment on society in meaningful ways that are both pointed and broad while remaining remarkably accessible.

This kind of leads into a larger discussion about science fiction and it's evolution from pulp into a vehicle for effective social commentary. Personally, I feel that it's important that the genre continue to be used in this manner, and I worry that it is an aspect that might become lost in favor of marketability with it's increasing mainstream appeal.

For instance, I didn't feel like the 2009 Star Trek was a betrayal in the same way that 'Enterprise' was, but it didn't really embrace the spirit of the franchise either. That doesn't mean that the films following in this continuity will not do so, but the focus on blockbuster action (and also strobe lights and shaky camera I guess) in this film had me concerned. Not to say that I didn't enjoy it.

What science fiction are you a fan of? What are your thoughts on Star Trek, or the entire genre of science fiction?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Science fiction started as expoloration of humanity/society well before its pulpy phase and dumbing down of the major works in favour of marketability. It seems unlilkely that big movie sci-fi will avoid going the action route as its simply so much more safe and marketable for the big studios. Like there will still be great sci-fi films coming out but more the exception than the rule.
Also they are apparentely making blade runner 2. Calling it now- replicant uprising, replicant/human war.

[greed]

Well as I stated in the thread that spawned this my favourite Trek is DS9, it's also probably my favourite TV scifi. I just felt that it tackled the issues Star Treks prides itself on tackling in the best and most complete fashion, and rather than simply proclaiming blindly optimistic platitudes it actually dealt with them honestly and with a much more balanced perspective (it did a much better job of not portraying the Federation as universally right, which the older series had some issues with, giving the shows a sort of might Whitey tinge at times). Duet from season 1 (when DS9's writing was at it's weakest), way back in the 90s when I first saw it (I think I was like 6 at the time), was the first show to deal with prejudice that really got to me.
On top of that I felt it generally had better writing and acting than the other Treks and perhaps it's biggest advantage was interesting, complete character development arcs that were consistently adhered to. Also it has Garak, O'Brien and In the Pale Moonlight(probably my favourite episode of SciFi ever). The fact it was built into large arcs rather than episodes was probably the biggest and best difference between it and the other Star Treks.


In contrast Next Gen and TOS had fairly stagnant characters (I like TNG regardless for it's numerous good points, TOS well it's just a bit dated for me sorry) and Voyager and Enterprise had a tendency to be all over the place or just develop in terrible directions (T'Pol being a good example of the latter point, Janeway being a staggering example of the former, her actress even complained loudly that she was essentially a different character for no good reason every other week and decided that it was probably the stress of commanding in that sort of situation driving her loopy).


Also I suppose the other big advantage DS9 had over the other Treks was villains. The other Treks had some bad guys, but DS9's arc based nature allowed them to build real proper villains rather than just dudes who popped in and behaved like Snidely Whiplash once every season or two. I mean the overarching Dominion threat and the Founders were great too but really Gul Dukat and Kai Wynn stole the show. They're both just so horrible. Kai Wynn because she's so real and such a real threat (everyone knows someone who'd be like her if they had her power) and Gul Dukat because he is simply one of the most reprehensible, disgusting vile characters ever seen in a show with a PG/M rating. They constantly tease moments that might make him more human and relateable and he always undermines them to show how twisted he really is. Of course like all Star Trek it's built on ham acting (Sisko and Dukat may actually surpass Kirk and Khan in this regard) and melodrama, but that's half the fun.

TLDR: DS9 was best because the Cardassians are the best aliens.


Also I've been trying to get into Fringe, but it's on at a terrible time here and they've only been showing season 2 for ages. Is it worth tracking down season 1?

[Azisien]

Fringe was pretty okay, but I found it started annoying me because they handed out character development and meta-plot advancement in precision segmented, microscopic handfuls. Enough so that I did not follow it into the second season, though I have heard they made some improvements.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Man I love me some sci-fi. I think most of my entire book/tv/movie collection is sci-fi. My latest addiction has been the crazy awesome that is 40k, though it's more sci-fi fantasy at times, but who cares, it's still great. Been reading these books for about a year now and recently got started on the horus heresy part of the verse. Man it's depressing. I love it! It's pretty much become my favourite fictional universe ever now.

[Nique]

In contrast Next Gen and TOS had fairly stagnant characters

TOS was mostly bad about this even for the era it aired in. It's main redeeming factor for me was in it's progressive portrayal of race issues (for the most part) and for introducing concepts that were refined a lot better in TNG. But it sure would have been nice to have characters other than Kirk and Spock get some development.

I would argue that TNG actually had developed a few characters pretty well - Data mostly followed by Picard and Worf. The rest of the cast had their moments as well. Of course that all came at about season 3.

Everything about DS9 I pretty much agree with. DS9's greatest strength and weakness was it's, like, 8 episode long arcs. Great for watching on DVD but maybe not so good for syndicated episodic tv.

[Nique]

Question: Does Doctor Who count as actual Sci Fi since actually it's kind of eff all with any sort of plausible fictional science? Or is it Fantasy?

[greed]

I'd count it as SciFi. I think any attempt at actual science is only important for hard scifi. I mean Star Trek's "science" is by and large nonsense. Same with Star Wars, and they're both definitely scifi. Who is admittedly less internally consistent though.


Everything about DS9 I pretty much agree with. DS9's greatest strength and weakness was it's, like, 8 episode long arcs. Great for watching on DVD but maybe not so good for syndicated episodic tv.

Yeah part of why I think so highly of DS9 is probably that I got introduced to it by season long marathons on cable and then reintroduced after buying the lot.

[Magus]

Fringe was pretty okay, but I found it started annoying me because they handed out character development and meta-plot advancement in precision segmented, microscopic handfuls. Enough so that I did not follow it into the second season, though I have heard they made some improvements.

Whoa, dude, you are missing out. I loved the second and third seasons.

EDIT: Yeah the whole "hard science fiction" v. "the type of science fiction we usually see" is why fantasy/science fiction ended up getting called "speculative fiction" as a whole. Like Star Wars is actually fantasy by hard science fiction standards but it's got space ships and lasers and stuff, not really associated with the fantasy genre.

And really, it's been called science fiction ever since H.G. Wells or whatever and that dude didn't really pay that much attention to whether it would work under current scientific theory or not, obviously, so...

[Nique]

Someone give a little more info about Fringe. Yes I know I can google it but I like to read what you guys have to say about stuff and also I'm lazy.

Speaking of hard sci fi, if you like Anime and you can stand a slow pace at the beginning, check out Planetes. It's kind of like a workplace dramaedy, but in space.

Another question: I'm watching Red Dwarf at the moment and between that and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy I'm seriously beginning to wonder if most British sci fi tv is low budget comedy.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Someone give a little more info about Fringe. Yes I know I can google it but I like to read what you guys have to say about stuff and also I'm lazy.

I'm not fully up to date with Fringe yet, having only seen about 4 episodes of season 3, but I like it. Kinda X-Filesy but not quite as dark. A lot of the "science" is pretty fringe though and not really science, but I guess that's the nature of the show so you can't really complain about that. The characters are good, but it does take a while to really build up the overarching storyline, like every episode in season 1 is pretty much a standalone with only vague references to what else is going on.

Season 2 is better and by the start of season 3 it starts to pay off with, well, I won't spoil it, but it's pretty unique. Let's just say by season 3 you essentially have 2 different shows going on in the same universe.



Another question: I'm watching Red Dwarf at the moment and between that and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy I'm seriously beginning to wonder if most British sci fi tv is low budget comedy.

What, you mean 2 shows that both started their initial run 2 decades ago? Of course they're low budget. And british tv generally has a lower budget anyway.

We do make good comedy though.