• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What is the purpose of Science Fiction?

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I mostly like Atlantis because it's got more space scenes.

Really, I like Battlestar Galactica the best, however, I am always irked about how the only sufficiently advanced technology is narrowed only to the spaceships. The telephones have wires on them and there are no sliding doors.

Though to kick it up a notch and be more creative, I'd have the telephones just be holographic palm pilots and the doors would be a sort of liquid kind of deal -- the door won't slide open but will open by disappearing via a liquid kind of morph.

And, of course, I loved Farscape. Don't know if reruns are ever on anymore.
 

Colors

The Destroyer
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,276
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I thought that was because Adama didn't want wireless networks on the ship? Or that the ship was old?
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I thought that was because Adama didn't want wireless networks on the ship? Or that the ship was old?

The point is that I doubt that in a far future with such advanced technology, wired networks would be ancient history. Adama probably wouldn't even know that there weren't anything but wireless networks.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Really, I like Battlestar Galactica the best, however, I am always irked about how the only sufficiently advanced technology is narrowed only to the spaceships. The telephones have wires on them and there are no sliding doors.

Though to kick it up a notch and be more creative, I'd have the telephones just be holographic palm pilots and the doors would be a sort of liquid kind of deal -- the door won't slide open but will open by disappearing via a liquid kind of morph.

I think this entirely misses the point of Battlestar Galactica. The technology isn't supposed to be center stage, it's supposed to be unobtrusive and take a backseat to the human drama.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think this entirely misses the point of Battlestar Galactica. The technology isn't supposed to be center stage, it's supposed to be unobtrusive and take a backseat to the human drama.

And that's how the show becomes flawed. Science fiction is about technology, the imaginative possibilities for systems. No sci-fi fan should care about the people. In a proper movie or television show, the characters should be the drones that move the story along. In science fiction, the technology is the star. The human drama is the boring part.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
And that's how the show becomes flawed. Science fiction is about technology, the imaginative possibilities for systems. No sci-fi fan should care about the people. In a proper movie or television show, the characters should be the drones that move the story along. In science fiction, the technology is the star. The human drama is the boring part.

LOL. That's how the show becomes awesome.

Are the boundaries really that stark for you? No mixing sci-fi and drama! No, we mustn't give it interesting characters or moral dilemmas! That seems so.. two dimensional to me.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
LOL. That's how the show becomes awesome.

Are the boundaries really that stark for you? No mixing sci-fi and drama! No, we mustn't give it interesting characters or moral dilemmas! That seems so.. two dimensional to me.

The visionary dogfights are what make Battlestar Galactica so awesome. (And Number Six.)

I don't see why fictional people are of any interest to anyone, really. They only need to look good.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
The visionary dogfights are what make Battlestar Galactica so awesome. (And Number Six.)

I don't see why fictional people are of any interest to anyone, really. They only need to look good.

People have written books on this topic.

We live vicariously through fictional characters. Through them, we deal with universal topics that affect all of humanity. We also deal with our own fears through fictional characters facing them.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
People have written books on this topic.

Well, I'm not going to read them because apparently, I have the same idea.

We live vicariously through fictional characters. Through them, we deal with universal topics that affect all of humanity. We also deal with our own fears through fictional characters facing them.

I've never watched movies for that purpose. I watch movies to expand my own vision. My mind is inspired by the visual poetry of them. The characters are just a footnote for me. People are the most mundane part of a story. The worlds that the story progresses through are what count.
 

Splittet

Wannabe genius
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
632
MBTI Type
INTJ
What is the purpose of something is always a context thing. For you Uber, the purpose seems to be special effects. For the creator the purpose might be to present some kind of vision, for example some doubts, or to push technology, just entertain people, a combination or whatever. To me the purpose depends a little bit upon what sci-fi I am watching. There is typically an element of visual enjoyment, I love to watch stunning scenes. But I also love good stories that make me wonder and think. I think what is so great about Battlestar Galactica is the enormous depth of the show, and how it touches so many themes, it's the most philosophical show on TV. The characters are also wonderful.
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
I've never watched movies for that purpose. I watch movies to expand my own vision. My mind is inspired by the visual poetry of them. The characters are just a footnote for me. People are the most mundane part of a story. The worlds that the story progresses through are what count.

Fortunately for those of us who get a kick out of character interactions and human drama, we get movies made that we enjoy (Firefly), and you get the non-human stuff you like (aliens vs predator: requiem?)
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
I don't think sci-fi is about technology. I also don't think it's about characters. I think it's about ideas.

The best science fiction encourages us to think about a new idea, or to consider an old idea in a new way. The technology is just a device. It's easier to consider an idea abstractly when it's removed from our current time and place, which is why so many science fiction stories take place in the future world of outer space. Advanced technology also makes it easier to introduce story elements that can be introduced in no other way.

Look at one of the most famous and beloved science fiction works of all time, Star Trek. Yeah, it's in the future and yeah, they have phasers and spaceships. But the stories are the same morality plays that have worked in drama for centuries. They just get a fresh coat of paint by being staged in the future. Look at perhaps THE most famous science fiction film of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey. The idea is the thing. The story is about the evolution of man over many thousands of years and the help mankind may have gotten along the way. Now, with such a long timeline, you have to go into the future. And to go into the future, you need technology. So we have the spaceships and the computer with advanced AI. And we have human characters that propel the story. But the tech isn't the thing; the wooden characters aren't the thing; they're the coat of paint on the car, not the engine. The engine is a philosophical idea.
 

Colors

The Destroyer
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,276
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
There is an element of imagining new technology in science-fiction (Example Brave New World: genetic engineering, medicated happiness), but a big part of that is also how humans fit into the new technology (restlessness from lack of free will) and somewhat how it evolves naturally (need for menial labor, human quest for happiness).

Of course the sci-fi elements can be also be merely plot devices. Or sometimes metaphors.
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
What "science-fiction" are you talking about? Hard-core? Soft-core? Cyberpunk? Space opera? Science fantasy? Science-fiction romance? All those genres fall under the umbrella of "science-fiction", and yet they could hardly be more different.

Obviously, Uber's type of SF is hardcore SF. That's not the most popular type of SF, though, especially when compared to, say, space opera. Personally, I'm much more into softcore SF, and into science fantasy (quite frankly, hardcore SF bores me to tears). To each their own.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What "science-fiction" are you talking about? Hard-core? Soft-core? Cyberpunk? Space opera? Science fantasy? Science-fiction romance? All those genres fall under the umbrella of "science-fiction", and yet they could hardly be more different.

Obviously, Uber's type of SF is hardcore SF. That's not the most popular type of SF, though, especially when compared to, say, space opera. Personally, I'm much more into softcore SF, and into science fantasy (quite frankly, hardcore SF bores me to tears). To each their own.

I'm into hard-core space operas technically! ;)

And I'd wish Peter Jackson would make a 3-hour space opera...

Fortunately for those of us who get a kick out of character interactions and human drama, we get movies made that we enjoy (Firefly), and you get the non-human stuff you like (aliens vs predator: requiem?)

First of all, I enjoy Firefly a great deal, mostly because it's such a creative idea. However, I'm still not interested in the character interaction, despite that they are often bad-ass.

Second of all, I did not see Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem.

Third of all, I personally thought Transformers was close to a perfect sci-fi action movie. (In case anyone brings it up.)
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
I'm into hard-core space operas technically! ;)
:laugh: Such a sentence would make the grandfathers of hardcore SF, those who published in the 30s and 40s and saw the first true emergence of space opera, roll in their tombs: they coined the term "space opera" as a derogatory term to distinguish those scientifically implausible, adventure-driven stories, from their own scientifically rigorous, technology-driven books ;)

But of course, the mix IS possible :) - though it's not a slice of SF I'd be particularly interested in :D
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
:laugh: Such a sentence would make the grandfathers of hardcore SF, those who published in the 30s and 40s and saw the first true emergence of space opera, roll in their tombs: they coined the term "space opera" as a derogatory term to distinguish those scientifically implausible, adventure-driven stories, from their own scientifically rigorous, technology-driven books ;)

But of course, the mix IS possible :) - though it's not a slice of SF I'd be particularly interested in :D

Scientific plausibility should not be an issue in sci-fi, that's why it's science fiction, not science fact.

So I guess I'm interested in fantasy sci-fi space operas. I'm interested in not what is theoretically possible, but the idea of making the impossible possible.
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
Scientific plausibility should not be an issue in sci-fi, that's why it's science fiction, not science fact.
Yes, but it's science fiction, not just fiction ;) If it was just a matter of setting the story in the future, it would be called future fiction, or something like that. Science fiction, originally, carried the implication that true (or potentially true) science and technology were at the center of the story. The most hardcore of hardcore SF works (books, mostly) were/are almost nothing more than a novelisation of a scientific principle, whether already applied or just theoretical, with the characters existing only to explain the science and the technology, and the plot being designed to expose their effects.

It's the "Joe, Jim and Jane get stranded on a planet whose atmosphere is slowly poisoning them, let's observe in minute details how they die" kind of story.

Or the scientific exploration of the "what if..." scenario: what if we took artificial intelligence to the level where robots become sentient? What would be the ethical, ethnological and whatever-al implications? And so on.

So I guess I'm interested in fantasy sci-fi space operas.
I like that too. Anything that blows my mind and makes me think BIG ;)

I'm interested in what is theoretically possible, but the idea of making the impossible possible.
(Is there a "not" missing in that sentence :huh: ?) But anyway: "making the impossible possible": I like the way you put it :)
 
Top