# Successful Science fiction must be militaristic but not successful fantasy.



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

Consider this proposition:

1) The most successful science fiction involves military science fiction. Cases in point: Star Trek and Star Wars, not to mention Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, and Space 1999.

2) The most succesful fantasy, however, may or may not involve military fantasy. Cases in point: Lord of the Rings, which is militaristic, is very successful, as is Conan the Barbarian and the Narnia Chronicles. But Harry Potter is NOT military fantasy, nor is Cinderella, Pinochio, Snow White, or Sleeping Beauty. 

This refers mainly to movies and TV, as opposed to books, but the proposition seems to hold true.


----------



## Pyan (Nov 17, 2008)

Hmm...
I'd like to see your definition of "military" and "militaristic", SFM - of the examples you quote, I would disagree with _Star Trek,_ the _Narnia_ books and _LotR_ being "militaristic" in my understanding of the word...

And I can give you a long list of military fantasy (while noting that the majority of your examples on non-military fantasy is Disney cartoons...) - how about Martin's _ASoFaI_ series, Erikson's _Malazan Book of the Fallen_, Jordan's _WoT_, most of Glenn Cook's books, etc, etc...


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Nov 17, 2008)

I think ASOIAF is a little bit of everything, you can't really class it in with "militaristic" fantasy. 

Although, I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly either.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

I'm not much on fantasy, quite honestly, but Narnia involved military battles in just about all the books in the series. I know that series quite well, having read them studiously during my younger years. 

Star Trek is definitely militaristic, because it involves the adventures of Starfleet personnel, which is the military arm of the Federation. 

IOW, there has to be a military element in science fiction for it to be successful. A contrasting example are the first R Daneel Olivaw novels by Isaac Asimov, which were detective whodunits and of course very successful. Another example would be the Callahan's story by Spider Robinson, which involve a bar, and none of the characters were ever in the military. But these novels never made it into the movies or even TV, as far as I know.


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Nov 17, 2008)

Are you judging success by movie and television options? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate considering some things just don't translate well to the screen. 

I loved the Tuf Voyaging stories, which are a far cry from militaristic and were indeed extremely successful.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

the smiling weirwood said:


> Are you judging success by movie and television options? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate considering some things just don't translate well to the screen.
> 
> I loved the Tuf Voyaging stories, which are a far cry from militaristic and were indeed extremely successful.



I love Tuf Voyaging too, and, since I read it after my first degree, I was seriously considering genetic engineering, but that wasn't the time in history for it. 

Yes, I would say success must include TV and movies - that would by definition exclude many of the best novelists, but this is what the world and the market demands - viabiliy in the movies and TV. I don't think this would exclude Tuf Voyaging, because the concepts are fascinating, but I think that, if that book was to be put into the screen, more action would be needed.

And his ark, by the way, was a vessel from the Corps of Engineers, which was definitely a militaristic organization.


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Nov 17, 2008)

Of course it was, but Tuf was decidedly non-violent. 

I fail to see the point you're trying to make. One could just as easily say that it is impossible to write successful science fiction without women, or without including some form of religion. War, and military action is just something that happens in our world, and is therefore necessarily reflected or mentioned in our literature.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

Yes, Tuf was non-violent - except for the story where he broke someone's arm. 

Well, Star Trek and Star Wars were military in nature, but R. Daneel Olivaw and Elijah Bailey were not military figures. 

To give a different example, the Godfather movies weren't about the military, except for one brief shot of a Corleone in uniform during WWII. But that series was one of the most successful in movie history, as far as I know. American Graffitt, by George Lucas, was non-military, but also very successful. Neither Godfather nor AG were military but were successful. 

By contrast, all successful science fiction series (on TV and movies) had to be militaristic in nature. At least, this is my tentative hypothesis, but I could be wrong.


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Nov 17, 2008)

You fail to provide a "why." 

You also overlook series like Farscape, which while involving violence, are not associated with the military except in an adversarial role. Dr. Who, if you consider that science fiction, also does not focus on government. Sure, you could point out that both of those include a military of some kind, but that is not the focus nor the feel of either. The same goes with Firefly.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

I'm not so sure about Dr Who - I've seen many episodes involving battles with the Daleks and the British Army. Farscape does involve battles, especially with the peacekeepers, though I don't know enough about Farscape to say that. And, yes, the military is adverserial by nature - its adherents train all their lives to kill each other. 

Firefly was cancelled after fourteen episodes, according to Wikipedia, so that doesn't make it a successful science fiction series. 

But I would have to say Dr Who doesn't involve the military, in general.


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Nov 17, 2008)

If you read the wiki entry you should also know it was made into a highly successful movie and continues to enjoy an immensely huge cult fan base. I would say Firefly is successful. They've made millions upon millions on DVD sales alone. 

I didn't say the military wasn't adversarial, I said it was featured in an adversarial role. As in, it wasn't even important that it was an army or such, it could just have easily been a bunch of thieves, or a trading cabal, or a clan of weird monsters or something as long as it gave a reason for the protagonists to be fleeing from it. 

I'm still fuzzy on your definitions here. Are you trying to say any combat or violent struggle is "militaristic"? Or what?


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

> I'm still fuzzy on your definitions here. Are you trying to say any combat or violent struggle is "militaristic"? Or what?



Good question. I'm thinking of the two most successful sci fi franchises in history, being Star Trek and Star Wars. Both involve space battles, and both involve protagonists being in the military or in some sort of military setting. Dr Who by no means is as successful as either, and of course Dr Who is not a soldier, but he often does deal with people in the military or militaristic setting. 

I'm thinking that sci fi has to have some sort of military flavor or background to it, if not actual space battles and fighting.


----------



## murphy (Nov 17, 2008)

In other words in order for a SF book to be successful, it must be made into a blockbuster movie; at least according to your definition of successful.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

murphy said:


> In other words in order for a SF book to be successful, it must be made into a blockbuster movie; at least according to your definition of successful.



Well, it's arbitrary, I'll admit, and based on my definition and criteria.

Let's face it - Asimov's Foundation series can't hold a candle to Star Trek and Star Wars in success. 

The two most successful science fiction franchses are militarist. Is this a coincidence, or a law of the universe?


----------



## Culhwch (Nov 17, 2008)

Scifi fan said:


> I'm thinking that sci fi has to have some sort of military flavor or background to it, if not actual space battles and fighting.


 
How about _Alien_? _Blade Runner_? _The Matrix_? _The_ _Terminator _and its sequel? Even _Red Dwarf_?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 17, 2008)

Where woul you put Spiderman, Superman, Batman, The Wizard of Oz (not a finincial flop from what I remember) Chocolate factory, First Man on the Moon, Journey to the centre of the Earth, The Time Machine, The Fly, Land That Time Forgot (ok rubbish but still out there), Metropolis, Animal Farm. To name but a few.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

Good point. Wizard of Oz would be fantasy, though. 

But most of these, aside from the Superheroes, are not in the league of Star Wars and Star Trek. Those two have affected the popular culture in a way that even the Wizard of Oz hasn't. Alien had a sequel that was definitely military sci fi and the first one seemed to have a military background to it. Blade Runner was apparently a financial flop (though I like it).

The Superheroes, on the other hand, have affected the popular culture at least as much as ST and SW. But that's a sub genre, as opposed to mainstream science fiction.

That was a very good post, TEIN. Actually, everyone here has made me think, so thank you, all of you.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 17, 2008)

Most** superhero fiction should be defined as fantasy, _not_ science fiction, as there is little or no attempt to provide any sort of real science to back up the powers. (Being bitten by a radioactive spider, for instance, doesn't really cut it; neither do DNA modifications in Heroes.)



** - Batman is usually included with the other superheroes: while his equipment is often not that believable, it _is_ described as machinery. Iron Man is another example. (Daredevil may be another, but I've never read stories about him, only seen the indifferent film.)


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 17, 2008)

I would consider superhero fiction to be a sub genre of science fiction. Being bitten by a radioactive spider isn't too unbelievable, and, let's face it, lightsabers aren't too believable either - especially if Jedi Knights can wield them fast enough to block laser blasts.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 17, 2008)

There may even be real people who've been bitten by a radioactive spider (after, for example, nuclear accidents); none of them, that I know of, can climb walls without using handholds or equipment.


To be even vaguely scientific (which is where the science in science fiction comes from), the effect must bear some relationship to the science. So, for example, changing someone's DNA should not change how a person reacts to gravity (as it appears to do, say, for Nathan Petrelli).


----------



## Connavar (Nov 17, 2008)

There is nothing miltaristic about Star Wars or Star Trek.   Making an action adventures series in space isnt militaristic.   Its called Space Opera 


If all action was militaristic than 90% of famous hollywood movies would be militaristic.

Military SF is Starship Troopers type movies about actual military,war.  Having a villain with military power like in Star Wars doesnt mean its military SF.

Also you cant compare SF movies to fantasy.  Fantasy has always been popular it seems in movie or books.   Heroic adventure tales will always outsell science or ideas oriented sf.   Thats why most SF movies are blockbuster stuff that is always adventure,action,horror cause the other types they have made are remembered and popular to the masses. 

Even Bladerunner the most famous SF movie outside Star Wars was a failure in BO.  Its remembered much better than it sold in BO.  Quality of story over blockbuster success in that case.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 17, 2008)

Frankly, I find the entire premise seriously flawed. Defining "success" as being made into a blockbuster film or a highly-merchandised television series is, to say the least, extremely narrow. Success is measured in a lot of different ways, but I rather doubt that sort of criteria will hold much scrutiny on any type of story, from sf to romance to detective stories to period pieces....

One of the big problems, to begin with, is that -- in bulk -- the audiences of films (especally genre films) prefer mindless action over thought-provoking storylines. It tends to make for flashier pictures and more of an adrenaline rush. But such things ultimately have little substance and generally leave little lasting impression. Star Wars has, of course, made an impression, but it is hardly science fiction. At best, it is science fantasy; to be honest, it is outright fantasy with some sf trappings. Star Trek is often adventure stories with sf trappings (though there are certainly episodes which are notable exceptions). Both are more the space opera type sf which we saw reach its height in written form back in the 1920s and 1930s; something science fiction literature has either outgrown or subtilized to an enormous degree -- so much so that modern examples are often almost unrecognizable as such.

You are conflating two vastly different media and using a rather shaky criteria for both. By this criterion, even the Bible wouldn't be considered particularly successful....


----------



## C Of K (Nov 17, 2008)

Scifi fan said:


> I'm thinking of the two most successful sci fi franchises in history, being Star Trek and Star Wars. Both involve space battles, and both involve protagonists being in the military or in some sort of military setting.



But the thread title doesn't suggest that movies have to measure up to _Star Wars_ or _Star Trek_ to be successful.



Scifi fan said:


> I'm thinking that sci fi has to have some sort of military flavor or background to it, if not actual space battles and fighting.



It seems to me that the prospect of involving military with the unknown is an intriguing idea that still has not gone stale. I don't, however, believe creativity is so limited as to render the two essential bed fellows. Military is a truth of society so it can be a difficult thing to exclude in writing any kind of story. Though there maybe military elements in most science fiction that you can point to and say, "see, it's right here," the fact may be that military isn't always essential to the story other than to cater to the reality of a fictitious situation.

_The Matrix _For instance. Would the first movie have been as popular as it was if Morpheus was the captain of a pirate ship instead of a military one? Of course it would, because the focus of the first movie wasn't on the military aspect of society.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 18, 2008)

Tons of issues to consider - fantastic.

First - success. Yes, I'd have to define success as being a blockbuster. That only leaves two franchises - ST and SW. Sorry, but to be at the top of the heap on this planet, the science fiction story/franchise must be a multi media blockbuster. That's the reality of our world.

As for the military being part of our reality, several posters have made the very good point that the military is an endemic part of our society, so it would factor into our stories. I never thought of it that way, actually, but it is a very good point. That said, Star Wars is a military sci fi show, because there were soldiers and space fighters and space battleships shooting at each other - I'm surprised anyone would say otherwise. Star Trek is a military sci fi show because it's set on a military vessel. 

My proposition is the following: both of these, to be multi media blockbusters and hence the most financially successful science fiction franchises on Earth (and in history) must involve the military as a core part of their show - both in action sequences as well as in the social background.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2008)

Scifi fan said:


> First - success. Yes, I'd have to define success as being a blockbuster. That only leaves two franchises - ST and SW. Sorry, but to be at the top of the heap on this planet, the science fiction story/franchise must be a multi media blockbuster. That's the reality of our world.


 
Hardly. It is the reality of your criteria, but not of "our world". As I said before, success is measured in many different ways. This is only one, and a very narrow one at that.

Some others are: how long something continues to be a part of the popular culture; how long it stays in print; does it become a part of the literary canon; does it greatly influence other writers, filmmakers, musicians, artists, etc.. There are plenty of others, as well.

You can't simply throw out one criterion and say that's the only one by which to judge success. It simply doesn't work that way....


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 18, 2008)

If you use a broader definition, then the military aspect is definitely not necessary - see Madeline L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time series, or the 1970's children show, Land of the Lost. Then it's game over for my proposition.

But let's keep this going - let's make it a narrow definition, as in commercial success. With only two examples, and no distant third, I'd say the military aspect was the one common theme in both cases. 

Come to think of it, there's no real distant third in terms of commercial success ... is there?


----------



## C Of K (Nov 18, 2008)

You do seem to have interesting perspectives, Scifi fan. I find that's one of the main reasons I like to post in your threads. It seems to me as if you're implying that it isn't really the scifi elements of a story that draws such monumental success to a scifi movie like what _Star Wars _has enjoyed for over thirty years. That without a military backdrop a scifi movie can't be a blockbuster because of what you've observed with _Star Wars_ and _Star Trek_.

I think it's possible you may be partially correct. Are there enough true scifi fans out there to turn a single hard science fiction story into a blockbuster movie?

Let me say this. _Star Wars_ is far beyond just scifi, as is _Star Trek_. They portray strong images from romance, mythology, mystery, and fantasy...

Isn't it possible that these two franchises have inflated so much because they can appeal to so many different people? I'm not discounting that the large battles haven't done their part to draw people to the story, but would they be the blockbusters they are without the mystery, romance and fantasy elements? Or would they just be more scifi movies with battles?


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 18, 2008)

> You do seem to have interesting perspectives, Scifi fan. I find that's one of the main reasons I like to post in your threads.



Thank you. You just made my day. 



> Isn't it possible that these two franchises have inflated so much because they can appeal to so many different people. I'm not discounting that the large battles haven't done their part to draw people to the story, but would they be the blockbusters they are without the mystery, romance and fantasy elements? Or would they just be more scifi movie with battles?



The military is necessary but insufficient. There are tons of losers that were pure bang bang but lost a ton of money.


----------



## C Of K (Nov 18, 2008)

True. I'm sure we can all name a few. There aren't really any other franchises in science fiction that can measure up to SW and ST, whether they have a military backdrop or not.

SW had more than just the science. It had more than just the military conflicts. It had jedi/wise old wizards. It had magic/the force. It had Princess Leia and the rancor, the sarlaac pit, and the wampa. (you can tell I'm not the biggest treky)

I feel that without all that it would have been just another Babylon 5 movie, or something of the like. (I'm not knocking Bab 5. Just making a point.)


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 18, 2008)

I think J.D. has it right again on this one. If the only criteria we are judging by is it's film success then we may as well all pack up and phone home. 

When it comes down to it, Star Wars was a lucky break which just happened to catch the mood of the moment. As credible, thought provoking mentally stimulating science fiction it was dross. Even the plot was second rate. The only thing that it had going for it was the special effects and some of those, as others have said, were suspect. 

If you wrote down the story I'd be surprised if you could get to more than twenty pages and most of them would have to be comic strip stuff.

Personally I prefer my close encounters with science fiction to have a little more substance. I'm sorry but SW does not count among the great science fiction, if indeed it ranks in the genre at all. It brought nothing new to the world. Light sabres at the end of the day could have been just normal swords. Using the force belongs back with Merlin which is where old OB1 belongs. Robots thanks for that Metropolis. Mechanical walking tanks come back Helen, Troy has forgiven you. Big spaceships with planet destroying guns old hat. It was a film, it was OK back in the seventies when we all needed a bit of escapism but lets move on.


----------



## C Of K (Nov 18, 2008)

It's been well established in the this thread and others that _Star Wars_ caters to more than just the scifi genre. In that, it can't possibly be one of the strongest scifi stories. However, as with any story or form of media/entertainment, only hardcore fans can find deep meaning in it. Twenty pages or twenty thousand, it all depends on your own interest in the story.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 18, 2008)

Then this thread has effectively ended. 

By the way, if ST and SW are the two most successful science fiction franchises in history, which they are, what's the third most successful one? Doctor Who?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 18, 2008)

Ninja turtles?


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 18, 2008)

Jouning in a bit late, but Science Fiction is one of the few forms of literature where you don't need a sapient opponent at all; the universe can fulfil that role more than adequately. I'm surprised nobody's yet put up "2001, a space odysey" as an example, where success measured by money, or critical aclaim, or even by sticking closely to accepted scientific principles is manifestly present, and space battle, star troopers et al manifestly not.

Of course, I am hampered by not considering "Star Wars" as "Science Fiction" by any reasonable definition of the term; but if we class it as Fantasy, where it sits quite nicely, that makes it the major Fantasy franchise. If we allow Star wars in, we have to accept the Bond movies, as containg considerably more scientific verisimilitude.

"Moilitaristic" to me is a description of a society; ancient Sparta was considered militaristic, while Athens wasn't. Didn't stop the Athenians beating the others, though.

Under this definition, I don't see Star Trek as militaristic at all; in a ship out of direct contact with its base, internal discipline must be maintained in a hierachical manner.  You don't class "Moby Dick" or "2000 leagues under the sea" as militaristic because they run on the tried and tested Nautical method of survival.

So, even accepting your definition of Star wars, we hardly have a statistical universe; two fantasy, two SF, one of each being militaristic; hardly a solid argument.

And when it comes to books, there are far more SF books exploring the non-violent side than fantasy, partly because the universe makes such a good opponent but partly, as far as I can see, because SF is supposed to investigate a wider spectrum of concepts than fantasy.


----------



## C Of K (Nov 19, 2008)

chrispenycate said:


> Of course, I am hampered by not considering "Star Wars" as "Science Fiction" by any reasonable definition of the term; but if we class it as Fantasy, where it sits quite nicely, that makes it the major Fantasy franchise. If we allow Star wars in, we have to accept the Bond movies, as containg considerably more scientific verisimilitude.



Definitely wise words. I expect no less since you are the walrus.

The thread title is a little deceptive regarding what success is to Scifi fan and what he considers scifi. Regardless, he has brought up an interesting observation. Whether he's right or wrong, I'm not entirely sure. I would like to think he was wrong because creativity should be able to grow beyond such expectations. I would like to think that any scifi movie done well  and given the chance should be able to equal or surpass the monetary success of _Star Wars _and _Star Trek_.

Outwardly the _Star Wars_ setting can appear to have scifi elements, but the story doesn't focus on science at all. Therefore it can't be a scifi story. But if you go to the book store you can find it in the scifi section. That section is often accompanied side by side with the fantasy section...Still the relationship is there.

The real issue Scifi fan has brought out is whether or not executives at all these movie studios are sitting back, looking at graphs and realizing that no one has made a video game or comic book or card game out of _2001_, or _Journey to the Center of the Earth_. Will they attempt to duplicate or rehash _Star Wars_ and _Star Trek? _Should they attempt to do so?

Doubtlessly there will always be a healthy supply of pure scifi stories for those of us who want them. The great ones obviously haven't been forgotten, and deserve high praise in the science fiction and film communities. Their success is unquestionable.

Personally I don't think anyone believes a rehash will duplicate the success of_ Star Wars _so people aren't likely to attempt it. Most people know a good story when it's in front of them, and that kind of thinking will determine what sort of movies are made and released.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 19, 2008)

> The thread title is a little deceptive regarding what success is to Scifi fan and what he considers scifi. Regardless, he has brought up an interesting observation. Whether he's right or wrong, I'm not entirely sure.



Thanks for the compliment. I think. 



> Outwardly the _Star Wars_ setting can appear to have scifi elements, but the story doesn't focus on science at all. Therefore it can't be a scifi story.



I disagree. Science fiction is, first and foremost, a story. Then it has to be put into a science fiction setting, like a spaceship, a different planet, or the center of the Earth. 




> The real issue Scifi fan has brought out is whether or not executives at all these movie studios are sitting back, looking at graphs and realizing that no one has made a video game or comic book or card game out of _2001_, or _Journey to the Center of the Earth_.



These things are very unpredictable. No one, not even George Lucas, thought Star Wars would be so successful - he expected to make a series of low-budget films on it. 

But you brought up an interesting idea. Journey to the Center of the Earth would not be viable, because most sci fi fans (including yours truly) would know that the center is filled with magma. But others in this forum have taught me that stories are often retelling of others. So there could be a good story as in Journey to the Center of the Galaxy or Journey to the ends of the Solar System. I have to give this some thought.


----------



## C Of K (Nov 19, 2008)

Scifi fan said:


> Thanks for the compliment. I think.



No problem. I only meant the title didn't explain your standard for success, and that you consider Star Wars scifi when many scifi fans don't.



Scifi fan said:


> I disagree. Science fiction is, first and foremost, a story. Then it has to be put into a science fiction setting, like a spaceship, a different planet, or the center of the Earth.



Science fiction can actually take place in the modern earth setting. I may be wrong, but What I always thought a science fiction story must do is explore the effects of technology beyond our current grasp of it.

_ Star Wars _doesn't focus on that. Yes we can't fly spaceships at the speed of light, but in _Star Wars_ that is just a setting. There is no exploration into the physics of space travel in _Star Wars_. In other words, George Lucas didn't make a story out of space travel. He made a story using icons of fantasy and stuck them in a futuristic-type setting, although it isn't even the future.



Scifi fan said:


> These things are very unpredictable. No one, not even George Lucas, thought Star Wars would be so successful - he expected to make a series of low-budget films on it.



George Lucas wasn't used to making movies with that kind of impact. I was watching the making of _Terminator_ the other day. The people involved, who had made movies before, all knew it was going to be a hit. It was obvious because the story was just short of brilliant.


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 19, 2008)

> I may be wrong, but What I always thought a science fiction story must do is explore the effects of technology beyond our current grasp of it.



You're not wrong, anymore than I am. A definition of science fiction can be anything you want it to be. And I do enjoy reading your posts. 

It's been awhile since my basic English course, but there are at least three types of science fiction. The first is technological, like Larry Niven's Ringworld or the Mars series. The second is social, like War of the Worlds or the Foundation series. The third is adventure, like Star Wars or the Star Trek action stories. 

I would add a fourth, cultural science fiction like Chung Kuo or William Gibson's cyberpunk stories.


----------



## C Of K (Nov 19, 2008)

Scifi fan said:


> And I do enjoy reading your posts.



Thanks!



Scifi fan said:


> It's been awhile since my basic English course, but there are at least three types of science fiction. The first is technological, like Larry Niven's Ringworld or the Mars series. The second is social, like War of the Worlds or the Foundation series. The third is adventure, like Star Wars or the Star Trek action stories.



I see. I must admit to my ignorance. The adventure scfi does seem to sire more popular movies, but it is my hope that this won't always be so. I believe _Star Wars_ and _Star Trek_ make it mainly due to their creativity and their ability to show us something new. Creativity should be able to duplicate that success without the space battles


----------



## Scifi fan (Nov 19, 2008)

> I believe _Star Wars_ and _Star Trek_ make it mainly due to their creativity and their ability to show us something new. Creativity should be able to duplicate that success without the space battles



I grew up on Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, both of whom were not action-based writers. Like you, I would like something more than action-based movies, but, with my narrow criteria, action would seem to be a requirement. And the best form of action is military action.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 21, 2008)

I always thought SW was a updated Flash Gordon. Hardly new.

Tsar Rtek is really a non puppet version of Space Patrol, so again nothing new there

As for the best action, Bullet  and the like just don't cut it then or any of the westerns or The Godfather etc.


----------



## C Of K (Nov 21, 2008)

_Flash Gordon_ has had his own actual updates, but none have been as popular as _Star Wars_, or _Star Trek_. It's funny. I've found that many people view _Star Wars _as more of a _LotR_ in space, and yet LotR is nothing like _Flash Gordon_.

_Star Wars_ has taken from both, but it couldn't have come as far as it has if it didn't have it's own identity.


----------

