Could TNS just be the next step
 

O.k., TNS is probably the most realistic science fiction ever on t.v., but many people have already pointed out it's flaws. This made me think. Consider the overall progression of sci-fi in movies and on t.v. From Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, to Star Trek, to Babylon 5, to Andromeda, to TNS. I naturally overlooked quite a few series that didn't fit the pattern, but these seem to fall into a pattern of increasing realism.

Here's my thought, is it possible that all this could be leading up to a day when a science fiction series could be greenlit that has writers as talented as Joss Whedon, J. Micheal Strazinski, this Coto guy who almost saved "Enterprise," and Ron Moore, but also has chemists, physisists, sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, astronomers, neurologists, doctors, and members of every other research field under the sun. All for one purpose, creating a science fiction show that is completely plausible (not hard science, but firm, with rationals for breaing physical laws that aren't just techno-babble), completely consistent, socially believable (not just our society, or a past society, but a real future society that might happen), and more importantly, alot of fun :D .

I grant you we're still several steps away from it, but we're getting there.

Bah... Space-1999 already did all that :D

I've never seen that show, but according to that article I keep linking too it's "Mushy Soft," because they traverse stars without FTL drives of any kind.

:Nsalute:

...ummm Humor, m'man... humor. Hence the :D at the end of my post.

Oh. Well, seriously, what do you think?

:Nsalute:

Science Fiction Definitions

Fiction Definition

Reason I post that-

The sloppiest space show is no less science fiction than the most "realistic" science fiction ;)

So to answer your question, one could agree, and be correct, and one could disagree, and still be correct.

To me it's all up to the individual and what they precede as good science fiction.
I respect the opinions that differ with mine but I see a show with more realistically plots that could happen right here on earth, as a show that kind of takes the fiction out of Science Fiction.

A civilization that is many, many light years away but are pretty much the same as us right down to the brand of designer jeans that we wear, is kind of to much for me to swallow but I also know that sometimes you have to ignore that stuff and then you may enjoy the show.

I would like to see a brand new Science fiction show that would have some one really use their imagination and come up with some aliens that look or act nothing like us but then I guess most wouldn't be able to relate to those kind of shows but I would love to be opened up to a world that was really unlike something anyone has ever seen before. Some bazaar way of communicating and such.

Seeing a show that looks like something out of our future with the robots turning against us, isn't my cup of tea. It's just been done to many times before only it has never had the title of Battlestar Galactica before but for those that love seeing that kind of thing done over and over again, I totally respect that. After all, I have many things that I can't get enough of and we all see things differently.

OWD

Mustex,
Your question is a bit of a catch 22. The problem is that trying to be scientifically accurate any show reaches a point where the science becomes at odds with the story telling. If you’re making a near future series, then space travel is impossible because of the limiting factors that science knows exists. And who wants to watch a show where it takes years and years to get anywhere. So the logical choice is just to jump the series ahead farther into the future, but then you have to deal with the fact that everything becomes more speculative. The farther from today we get the softer the science becomes and you sort of lose the purpose of adhering to it as closely. I mean if someone can move faster than light, and have artificial gravity, then why not transporter technology or energy weapons that don’t actually travel at the speed of light? And if you are going to give them those abilities you might as well just power the ship with magical anti-matter and dilithium crystals

Is it not true that most scientists believe that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, and as you approch light speed, time slows down for you relitive to everything about you? If you stick to that scietific rule, you wont have much of a show! :wtf:

I suppose you could have a show done like Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' books. Set in the near future about the terraforming and colonisation of our solar system, it would be mostly scientificly accurate, and you would still have a quality science fiction drama.
BRG

Warrior,
Liked these off your page of quotes, The first guy's is just outstanding and where especially TOS, and much of ST and SW spring from:
(bolds added by jewels)


The one commonality I see in all of the definitions is that "reality" is only a starting point for the scientific portions. A springboard into the fantastic and the distantly possible. A journey into "what if". If nothing else Sky Captain was a stunning example of this type "what if" because it posed an alternate path of inventions and technology into 1930s era earth, unapologetically, and pulled you inside it's period reality for a few hours. I walked out thinking "oh, that would be cool if an aircraft carrier was actually airborne or if a plane could be amphibious."

I particularily like the top definition I quoted because that is what I like in sci-fi: to see man triumph over new challenges, to have hope that love (not sex) can be the motivator that makes us make our "world" better. We can be better.

Jewels

I was going to lay off this issue, but you force me to once again recite what I've been saying the whole time:

Realism is irrelevant in determining whether something is science fiction. On that chart I showed you it listed "Space: 1999" as "science fiction," and the "Night's Dawn" series as "science fantasy." By all standards of scientific accuracy ND is infinately more realistic than S99. The difference is that events withing ND are (lock onto this one word and you'll have it down) supernatural. By this I mean something that relates to gods, spirits, the afterlife, or a star that guides you to the planet of your ancestors, with no explanation, not even technobabble, given.

:Nsalute:

O.k., I get the feeling that just explaining what I'm saying will take alot of effort. Let me clear up two misconceptions:

1. I am not proposing such a show would be superior to past shows, simply that it would unique in the annals of science fiction. Good science deserves a shot at it's own genre.

2. I used the term "firm" for a reason, because I believe the definition given in the chart I keep linking to describes what I want:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html#firm

I think at this level excellent stories could be written (actually I think excellent stories could be written in a hard science environment, only alot of times more thought is put into the science than the plot, I'm reading "Red Mars," and think it's very good in spite of being "Diamond Hard"). That's why I propose that you have scientists on the team, but you also have writers who have proven themselves.

As I stated in my previous post, it's possible to break scientific laws within reason (also there's the matter of wormholes). But to be honest I fail to see why you need to leave our solar system to make a good show. If you kept a show limited to three or four planets you'd get:

1. No "planet of the week," but instead evolving storyarcs about a few planets.

2. No deus ex machinas (techno-babble is null and void).

and

3. A world with the added thrill of knowing it could happen (helps suspend disbelief).

:Nsalute:

...umm Did you even look at the rest of my post, or are you selectively picking parts of it to talk about?

The reason I posted those links is because of the definitions of scifi, and what it means to different people.

I doubt, no matter how many times you post your link, that peoples views of what scifi is will change. Everyone has their own view of it, period.

The idea you're trying to present may well be *a* step in the direction *someone* might take in scifi.

But it isn't the next step in defining scifi as people will view scifi.

Hope that made some sense ;)

This is what I've been saying the whole time, only most televised sci-fi doesn't bother with it.

Mustex -

The one thing about this discussion, is that you're taking someone else's definition as to what is realistic in SciFi and what isn't. You might want to take a look at some of the shows being mentioned instead of taking someone else's opinion at their word. You keep dismissing anyone's opinion on this board of what's realistic and what isn't just because it doesn't agree with the opinions of someone else.

If you are gonna dismiss Space:1999 and other shows as "fantasy" or "unrealistic" without trying to discover for yourself, you're missing out on some of the great classic SciFi shows of all time, realistic or not.

If you're just going to keep posting over and over bits of someone else's thoughts regarding what is and what isn't Science Fiction, you're not going to have much of a conversation....

Best regards,
Bryan

Good points Mustex.

How is realism defined and by what standards?

If one is basing the statement on present-day reality and proven scientific capabilities, there won't be much of a show. We have, as a planet, only partaken of limited human extraterrestrial activity. If one plans to have a show dealing with "3 or 4 planets within our own solar system", one will need to follow today's scientific standards and capabilities in order to keep with the realistic tone. If one glosses over that current truth then, the door is open to gloss over other truths which will stretch the limits of the aforementioned realism. As Fragmentary mentioned, this is a Catch-22.

Science fiction, done "properly" will utilize current scientific standards and then, allow for some reasonable extrapolation of those standards -- in the context of "what if"?, to give validity to the level of technology used in the show.

In many cases, it boils down to one simple statement. The fact that it hasn't been done, yet, does not preclude the possibility of it in the future. Another way to say it is - "Just because it hasn't been done, yet, doesn't mean it's impossible."


(Isn't anti-matter just a proton with a negative charge?) ;)

As I said, I was going to lay off this topic, but Warrior insisted on bringing it up.

ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH....o.k., I will not start making personal insults, I will not start making personal insults, I will not....

What I will do however is request that you either read my posts thoroughly, or don't respond. I want to see Space: 1999, but I haven't gotten a chance yet. I like "soft" sci-fi to. However, you all constantly skim over the portion of my posts in which I explain the distinction between "science fantasy" and "science fiction." It seems you merely saw the name "Space: 1999," and jumped to the ill-concieved conclusion "Mustex called S99 'fantasy.'" I, in fact, called it "Mushy Soft sci-fi." There's a difference. Somethings level of hardness within sci-fi is debateable, but once it contains a single element that is clearly super-natural, it is clearly in the realm of fantasy.

However, I suspect you will skim over that paragraph, make another post based on what you suspect I said, and I will have to correct you yet again with another post you will skim over. Meanwhile this thread will continue to drift completely off topic. Could someone please split it?

[QUOTE=WarriorThe reason I posted those links is because of the definitions of scifi, and what it means to different people.
[/QUOTE]

If we define TOS as science fiction, the following must be defined likewise, because they also contain supernatural elements:

1. It's a Wonderful Life
2. The Lord of the Rings
3. Wishmaster
4. What Dreams may Come

And the list goes on and on. Tell me, do you consider any of these science fiction?

:Nsalute:

Oh good grief.

The "realism" argument boils down to these questions:

What do scientists know is possible?
What do scientists think is possible?
What do scientists think may be possible?
What do scientists think is not possible?
What do scientists know is not possible?

I grant you that this all falls apart with solipsism (the philosophy that you can't prove anything beyond the existance of your own thoughts), but so long as we accept that our world exists things that scientists "think are possible" are more realistic than things that scientists "think may be possible" and so on down the list. That's pretty much how that article works.

:Nsalute:

Should I take this as a sign you have nothing else to add, and we can now get back on topic?

:Nsalute:

I want to know where I *insisted* on whatever it is you said I *insisted* on bringing up.

As for staying on topic, well... it appears that if someone has a different point of view, then suddenly it's not on topic and is arguing ... what was it you said... that supernatural is scifi.

So... there's no sense in discussing it with you, is there?

Of course, I know at least two or so people that'll be jumping into this thread to agree with you just to spite certain people though... so if I were you, I'd wait until they arrive and post ;)

Look. Let's consider what we know:

1. TOS had supernatural elements (unless you would like to dispute this point).

2. You said TOS was science fiction.

That leads us to three:

3. You believe supernatural things are science fiction.

Mustex -

I did not "skim" over your post. You made a reference to Space:1999 - a show that you admittedly had not yet seen and it's one that I'm fairly well versed with. How can you have an opinion or explain the nature of the show, if everything you know is by second hand information?

I don't care if you called it "fantasy", "mushy" or whatever brand of SciFi that you're trying to label it. You're trying to explain the difference, but none of the references that you're using are applicable in this case. If you watch any number of episodes of Space:1999 - especially Year 1, you'll see a lot more science than an episode of TNS, but from the point of view of scientific concepts of the early 1970's.

Just for the purposes of discussion, all SciFi shows are stepping stones in the genre. When the orginal Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon movie serials were created back in the 30's, it was all speculative as humanity had no firsthand knowledge of traveling in outer space. When you look at all past SciFi shows throughout entertainment history, some of the science was real, some was speculative and some was just pure entertainment value.

If all SciFi shows provided was real, concrete science, then you might as well watch any number of programs on the Science Channel. I've found many of those very entertaining and educational, but not nearly as much fun as a one hour SciFi show.

If you're going to cry foul with everyone that doesn't agree with you, then what's the point of having a discussion? You're seventeen - most of the folks here are in their thirties and fourties - and very well versed in the genre. I would think that you'd be interested in what they think, not so much as if they agree with you (or the website you're getting info from) or not.

I'm sorry that you're flustered, but a discussion is an exchange of ideas, not one person talking and everyone else listening and nodding in agreement.

Best regards,
Bryan

Why? The items, "are possible" and "may be possible", are subjective.

What, specifically, was "supernatural" in osBG?

Appearently us old folks don't know this part.

Something else to consider - "Science Fiction" is also used as an umbrella label that covers much more than just science.

The term 'fiction' includes 'fantasy'.

'Science' carries with it the connotation of plausibility - face it, nobody believes there actually could be orcs and wizards and rings of power. But, some form of FTL drive....

So, none of the listed movies qualify as 'science fiction', they are all fantasy - but you knew that.

Where the lines are drawn are individual. 'Andromeda Strain' was fiction based on some pretty hard science, but it's still fiction. Jurrassic Park was science fiction, too - based on the hard science of DNA and the growing science of cloning, carried forward.

Can you say where the line is drawn between science fiction and science fantasy? I have news for you - you can't. It's all the latter. Andromeda Strain, for all its hard science, presupposes alien bacterium. Since there is no science confirming such a bacterium, you are now in the realm of science fantasy.

There is nothing in science that discounts the possibility of a different basis of scientific theory - different approaches to the same scientific laws that prevail in this universe. There is nothing in terrestrial science that denies the possibility that somewhere, across the heavens, some other society has so mastered faster-than-light travel (in such a way that Einstein's theories are still valid) that they don't even talk about the technology, it's all assumed (and battles are fought at sub-light speeds).

Much depends also on what the goal of the story is - is it to educate, or is it to entertain? They are not mutually exclusive, no - but there are entertainments that are not - and should not - be educational. Nor should all education be entertainment.

TNS's science is as shaky as TOS, B5, ST (in all its incarnations), 99% of the "sci-fi" movies every made.... Or as solid.

Your definitions are yours, mine are mine.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Whooo....quite the hot thread here. I don't really want to get directly involved, I'm actually just going to toss this bit of fat into the fire. ;)

It's interesting that people like and use definitions of objects, topics, genres, time periods, measurements, etc. to identify commonly related items. Over the centuries, we've realized the value of such commonality as it assist us in communicating with one another even in different languages, cultures, and eras. We can read and translate older texts and understand them without the need for a rosetta stone, even though our languages continue to evolve and change.

A natural progression of such sorting is that it has to start somewhere and it then grows and evolves (or dies and is assumed into something else or is lost), based on the opinions of authorities prominent at the time. Relatively speaking, science (separate from any arcane or supernatural connections) on the whole is still very new in our history, only about 400 years or so of open study. So science fiction and any sub-genres it may (or may not) have are even newer; only in existence this last century.

No matter how gray a sorting or grouping of things begins, it naturally evolves into a very black & white argument such as we see here in this discussion because it is entirely subjective. Someone, somewhere had to make a decision to classify a story/book/show as science fiction or fantasy which works fine until they encounter a square peg in the pile and just have to make a call on it, whether or not it fits. No doubt new genres may be created by someone like the Library of Congress to sort books that may later better fit these types of stories but until then what are they really? It becomes quite subjective at that point, thought most of the time we can all agree which barrel they should be in.

The reality is that there are no black & white definitions, just whatever is generally accepted and understood, which of course will change with the next generation of viewers or shows comes along, challenging all we believe and know.

:Nsalute:
Rigel