4 ms·

> All these stories are not really science fiction, but rather, science fantasy. How do you define science fantasy? I would agree Star Wars is fantasy, but I

> All these stories are not really science fiction, but rather, science fantasy. How do you define science fantasy? I would agree Star Wars is fantasy, but I don't think Star Trek (pre Discovery) can be classed as fantasy. For example, a few of their concepts are now real, e.g. they envisioned tablets back in the 60s, now we have iPads etc. More is explored here: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/star_trek.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/star_trek.ht...

krapp 8y ago
There is no objective definition for a line between "science fiction" and "science fantasy," but I've come to view Star Trek as no less science fantasy than Star Wars. Replicators and transporters violate physical laws to such a degree that they might as well be magic. The way the universe and tech are described (subspace, particles of the week, negative space wedgies, etc.) have little to do with the actual universe, or the way space and time actually behave. Beings with arbitrary, if not omnipotent, reality-warping powers like the Q, Trelane and Douwd exist, which are basically space gods. I mean, there is little real difference between "the Force did it," the Q did it" and "a wizard did it." That the show also happened to have imagined portable computers and other technological innovations ... makes it science fantasy, rather than fantasy outright. But more to the point, what makes Star Trek more science fantasy than fiction is that it isn't about science, or extrapolating a plausible future, but simply using a futuristic setting as a backdrop for drama, without regard for actual scientific plausibility. I'm not mocking Star Trek, I love the franchise and the original series, for what it was, was the first attempt at describing a persistent futuristic setting on television that I'm aware of (also, it was the series with the least technobabble and "teching the tech" which always helps.) That also (to me) makes it the most "science fictional" of the series, maybe the only one that counts as science fiction. YMMV.
- uxcolumbo 8y ago
  Fair point. Totally forgot about Q (assuming we're not in a simulation, the feats that Q pulled off are most probably not realistic in the real world.) As with most things, I think it's probably more on a spectrum. I probably should have said that Star Trek leans more towards science fiction than Star Wars - so yes - I agree with your points. Another one that's more 'science fictional' is the Expanse - worth checking out if you haven't yet.
  - mercutio2 8y ago
    All the human originated technology seems fairly plausible in the Expanse. All the proto-molecule derived stuff isn’t particularly plausible, but it’s not really worse than most sufficiently-advanced-technology tropes, and it tries pretty hard to express a universe with rules, just different rules. I would give Star Wars an F for science-y-ness, Star Trek a varying score depending on the episode (ranging from A to F) but overall a C, and The Expanse a B+. It is galling when people define sci-fi by its cinematic imitators, for sure.

krapp 8y ago

There is no objective definition for a line between "science fiction" and "science fantasy," but I've come to view Star Trek as no less science fantasy than Star Wars. Replicators and transporters violate physical laws to such a degree that they might as well be magic. The way the universe and tech are described (subspace, particles of the week, negative space wedgies, etc.) have little to do with the actual universe, or the way space and time actually behave. Beings with arbitrary, if not omnipotent, reality-warping powers like the Q, Trelane and Douwd exist, which are basically space gods. I mean, there is little real difference between "the Force did it," the Q did it" and "a wizard did it." That the show also happened to have imagined portable computers and other technological innovations ... makes it science fantasy, rather than fantasy outright. But more to the point, what makes Star Trek more science fantasy than fiction is that it isn't about science, or extrapolating a plausible future, but simply using a futuristic setting as a backdrop for drama, without regard for actual scientific plausibility. I'm not mocking Star Trek, I love the franchise and the original series, for what it was, was the first attempt at describing a persistent futuristic setting on television that I'm aware of (also, it was the series with the least technobabble and "teching the tech" which always helps.) That also (to me) makes it the most "science fictional" of the series, maybe the only one that counts as science fiction. YMMV.

uxcolumbo 8y ago
Fair point. Totally forgot about Q (assuming we're not in a simulation, the feats that Q pulled off are most probably not realistic in the real world.) As with most things, I think it's probably more on a spectrum. I probably should have said that Star Trek leans more towards science fiction than Star Wars - so yes - I agree with your points. Another one that's more 'science fictional' is the Expanse - worth checking out if you haven't yet.
- mercutio2 8y ago
  All the human originated technology seems fairly plausible in the Expanse. All the proto-molecule derived stuff isn’t particularly plausible, but it’s not really worse than most sufficiently-advanced-technology tropes, and it tries pretty hard to express a universe with rules, just different rules. I would give Star Wars an F for science-y-ness, Star Trek a varying score depending on the episode (ranging from A to F) but overall a C, and The Expanse a B+. It is galling when people define sci-fi by its cinematic imitators, for sure.