EA's Anthem is Science Fantasy not Science Fiction

STR said:
I guess you just aren't paying attention. Everything is ultimately political, because politics is merely the extension of philosophy and preferences. Using your computer to express your opinion here is a political statement. You are implicitly supporting a right that is not universal. Free speech. Free associatiob. Free exchange of ideas.
Click to expand...

Ok, I actually agree with this at a really low level. As well as Icpiper's original statement. However, I personally refuse to view works of art from that microscopic level. Occasionally a work will provoke me in a way to do that all on its own, but generally I prefer to view/listen/experience at a higher level. I completely understand why M76 made that statement. I bet he gets the way something could be reduced down to the bit level too, but would prefer to stay at a level where something takes on a different kind of meaning and emotional level.

Sure, you can assign emotion to the base political decisions or the quantum states of the particles in our brains that cause us to have our preferences and make our political decisions too, but I think we all pick our vantage point from where it brings us the most joy or positive experience. (or try anyway) If M76 isn't into the microscopic aspects, I can very much see why reducing a work of art to that level would make him sick. Others might get sick viewing it at a higher level. Personally I lean toward the M76 side of this, but also get the low-level view as well.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Star Trek is not 'hard sci-fi' by any stretch of the imagination.

Star Wars completely avoids science 'issues' other than the parsc thing from Episode IV (and it can be explained away without much difficulty). Star Trek throws around science jargon inappropriately all the time and modifies the universe to fit it's needs (like putting Titan in an inclined orbit so we could get a good shot of Saturn in the Star Trek reboot).

It annoys me when people compare the two like that. They're both fantasy stories set in space.
Click to expand...

No, Star Trek has always been Science Fiction, Example: Communicators ect.

Star Wars has always been Science Fantasy Example: "The Force"
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtm55
like this
J3RK said:
That's a pretty good breakdown.
Click to expand...
Well the way to think about it is Science Fiction is about the probable, Fantasy is about the impossible. Science Fantasy is the throw away people use to describe Fantasy that takes place in space or has robots/jetpacks etc, ie sci-fi tropes.
 
Semantics said:
Well the way to think about it is Science Fiction is about the probable, Fantasy is about the impossible. Science Fantasy is the throw away people use to describe Fantasy that takes place in space or has robots/jetpacks etc, ie sci-fi tropes.
Click to expand...

True. I don't really have any trouble with any of the labels, categories, sub-genres, etc. people have been throwing around. I may agree or disagree with their usefulness, but I get it. I just like that breakdown because of its simplicity. It's an elegant solution. :D
 
Star Trek and Star Wars are both science fantasy.

The Stargate series (all three of them) are science fantasy, but closer to [H] sci-fi than Trek (i.e., fewer bumpy foreheads of the week or pointy-eared elves with green blood that completely defy modern understanding of biology and evolution).

The Expanse is [H] Science Fiction.
 
You know... I like a dash of Trek, and a modicum of Wars, but I'm really more a fan of the Alien(s)metheus universe myself, flaws and all. I think it's a good mixture. It tries to stay fairly grounded in reality as far as space travel goes (provided the hypothetical methods are believable to you) but it adds in some good old fashioned horror and action that can be a little on the fantastic side, but still stay pretty close to what we know in reality. They also skirt in, out, and around various religious, historical, fanatical, genetic-ethical themes in some interesting ways. It may not be the end all, but it's a good, solid, and still entertaining universe.
 
Star Trek tends to be somewhat grounded in current theoretical science as we understand it. I wouldn't call that hard science fiction either, but it's a lot more realistic than most other franchises.
 
How about considering the difference between Detail First and Drama First stories?

I prefer to think of these two genres as “Details First” versus “Drama First”. While “fiction” and “fantasy” are synonyms, Details and Drama are often opposed over the short term, because nothing sucks the drama out of a scene like having someone stop and explain to the audience why that gizmo that worked so well last time can’t help us this time. Conversely, nothing will torment a “Details First” nerd like hand-waving the established rules of the world because some character happens to be believing in themselves a little harder than usual. Sooner or later a writer is going to run into a situation where they need to favor one over the other, which will make it clear which things are most important to this particular universe and its author.​

Mass Effect was "Details First", and Mass Effect 2 and 3 transitioned to becoming "Drama First" stories.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27836
 
Krenum said:
Is that show any good? I see that Thomas Jane is in it, looks interesting.
Click to expand...

I'd say go watch it, I liked it, haven't done season 2 yet but I feel #1 was solid

I still think Star Gate was closer to science fiction than Trek or Wars, but Gate was also written to tie in to our times where as trek and wars were not. SG1 that is, Atlantis took a bit more liberty with that, but Gate I feel was the closest of the 3, and also my personal favorite lol
 
STR said:
I guess you just aren't paying attention. Everything is ultimately political, because politics is merely the extension of philosophy and preferences. Using your computer to express your opinion here is a political statement. You are implicitly supporting a right that is not universal. Free speech. Free association. Free exchange of ideas.

If get so upset you feel ill with half-black-half-white Frank Gorshin being held up as an example of how not to treat other people, I doubt your beef is with "politics" so much as you not liking people with beliefs different from yours poking a momentary hole in your bubble.
Click to expand...

I don't know who is frank gorshin and I have zero idea what are you talking about. What I'm saying is that you don't have to view everything through the lens of actual politics. You don't have to try to apply it to the real world at every turn.
And that is what people do who get outraged about a work of fiction because it portrays a world that doesn't fit their ideals. I can like a fictional work even if it shows a world I would never want to live in.

But I don't like it when a work of fiction tries to sell actual politics propaganda shoehorned in to the product for no good reason. I don't think star trek falls into that category. Everything in it had purpose and worked in the context of the show. So saying sci fi is nothing but propaganda piece is a gross mischaracterization and simplification of the genre.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
One of the earliest known works of [western] science fiction is Kepler's 'Somnium,' which uses a narrative to explain his mathematical model of the solar system and then imagines a trip to the moon using magic to overcome gravity. I'd certainly call that the 'hard sci-fi' of its time.
Click to expand...

Having his Witch mother call upon her demons to travel to the moon, sounds a lot more like Fantasy to me. So another work of Sci-Fantasy.

Though at the time a lot more consequence than nerds arguing about categories.

Keplers book was used as "evidence" in his mother's Witchcraft trail, she spent more than a year in prison chained to a floor.

edit:
Turns out that is a widespread myth. I heard it before, but when doing a search this time I found this:
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/0...trial-for-witchcraft-the-emergence-of-a-myth/

She was on trial for witchcraft, but that was before the book was published.
 
Last edited:
M76 said:
I don't know who is frank gorshin and I have zero idea what are you talking about.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't, which honestly is why I don't think you're worth talking to any more. Good day.

J3RK said:
Ok, I actually agree with this at a really low level. As well as Icpiper's original statement. However, I personally refuse to view works of art from that microscopic level.
Click to expand...

Even if one argues that not all individual actions are statements, that's not true of art. Art is without exception a statement. One can object to art that is hamfisted (take Matt Damon's Elysium), but just because a message is subtle or implicit (even subjective) doesn't mean it isn't there.

Take Hollywood romantic comedies. Vapid, pointless, apolitical, right? Nope. Think about how such films are viewed in parts of the world still practicing arranged marriages, or even just areas that place family wellbeing over that of the individual.
 
Last edited:
STR said:
Of course you don't, which honestly is why I don't think you're worth talking to any more. Good day.
Click to expand...
That's the most worthless way of going about things. How do you expect to change anything if you can't even be bothered to explain your train of thought? You won't persuade me by being a dick.

And if your answer is "I don't want to change anything" that would confirm you're only about trolling, instead of honest dialogue.
 
M76 said:
That's the most worthless way of going about things. How do you expect to change anything if you can't even be bothered to explain your train of thought? You won't persuade me by being a dick.

And if your answer is "I don't want to change anything" that would confirm you're only about trolling, instead of honest dialogue.
Click to expand...

You're not interested in being persuaded, and even if you were, it's not worth my effort to first educate you then persuade you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top