Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gemini1999
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.
|
As I said, I was going to lay off this topic, but Warrior insisted on bringing it up.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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?
