# Beale: How 'Star Wars' ruined sci fi



## kythe (May 3, 2014)

What do you think of this opinion piece?

Opinion: How 'Star Wars' ruined sci-fi - CNN.com

I can see what he is saying about modern sci fi movies tending to be flashy but without much substance.  But I don't believe Star Wars "ruined" anything, even though it did become a large phenomenon in itself.  

Movies and books are different mediums.  Modern movies do not detract from older, original sci fi.  Or maybe I'm just speaking as someone who loves both Star Wars and classic sci fi books.


----------



## Pyan (May 3, 2014)

Really? Doesn't like the _Star Wars _franchise because it's "left all too many people thinking science fiction is some computer graphics-laden space opera". so he's going to watch "_The Matrix_," and enjoy the most original sci-fi movie of the past 25 years." Does he think _The Matrix_ is all real-life acting, and bullets really travel that slowly?

How many people read and enjoy SF (_not_ "sci-fi") having had their first taste of it through _Star Wars_? 

I love the _Star Wars_ films, starting from queueing on December 28th 1977 at the Leicester Square Theatre (incidentally, one of the only two films I've ever been to where the audience stood and applauded at the end - the other being _Jurassic Park_), but it's never stopped me reading any kind of SF I can get my hands on. I'm afraid Mr Beale comes over to me as an SF snob of the first water...


----------



## Jo Zebedee (May 3, 2014)

This is why sci fi turns people off, frankly. Star Wars is a great fun film, bringing a mainstream audience to sci fi. We should celebrate it. 

It's the elitist side of sci fi I hate. Like people saying that by writing sci fi and not SF, or liking Bujold and not the hard stuff makes me less of a sci fi lover. It's a big genre, there's room for all of us, including Star Wars. 

Makes me want to go and put Empire on, frankly.


----------



## Parson (May 3, 2014)

What this article says to me is that if you're very successful and have even changed the way some people think about the world then you must be bad for everyone.


----------



## Huttman (May 4, 2014)

The funny thing is, Star Wars really is not a true sci-fi film as it is more a fantasy film piece. Also, the layers of depth in these films is extraordinary, as complex, if not more so, than the Matrix. I posted this sometime ago: Star Wars - The Legacy Revealed - YouTube
and was amazed just how deep this fantasy film goes into things. What Lucas created is a real cerebral, timeless and entertaining masterpiece that continues to grow. Even the controversial prequels have so much going for them, story wise, but every one has opinions. I think the legacy Star Wars has created in the last 37 years kind of speaks for itself, though. May the 4th be with you...

I know, lets call it a Space Opera!


----------



## alchemist (May 4, 2014)

That article is a perfect example of the sort of snobbery I detest. I know nothing of the author but I wouldn't be surprised if this was a trolling exercise. Amongst other things, he could try watching more films (Inception would be a good start, or Moon)


----------



## MontyCircus (May 6, 2014)

He's basically saying "let's boycott these horrible new films" (that haven't even been MADE yet)...which is stupid.

He decries *Star Wars*' "whiz bang", "CGI to the max", and "plenty of explosions"...and then he holds up *The Matrix* as the template of choice?  Riiiight 

He mocks *Star Wars*' sequels as that they "tread water, give the hardcore fans the same old, same old."...did he see the Matrix sequels???   *Reloaded* had 3 excellent action sequences...but the third one (the name escapes me), was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.  I laughed my way through it, and there were others howling along in my theatre.  It ripped off more movies than that "*Dungeons & Dragons*" crapfest.  Remember that one?

Reading his article, you would think there have been no noteworthy sci-fi flicks since 1999:

*Inception
Wall-E
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
V For Vendetta
The Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Her
Donnie Darko
Gravity
Star Trek
District 9
Serenity
Moon
The Man from Earth
Avatar
The Iron Giant
Children of Men
*

A mix of the cerebral and the "whiz bang".

So he's crying out for the *Foundation Triology*, *Forever War*, and *Neuromancer* to be filmed.  Well, *The Lord of the Rings* is apparently the 2nd best-selling novel ever written, and that took nearly 50 years to be filmed.  Perhaps a little patience is lacking from Mr. Beale.  Also, I've heard that *Neuromancer* is somewhat similar to *The Matrix*?  Someone once said *The Matrix* made sense of whatever the hell was going on in *Neuromancer*.

Alright so let's see...sci-fi classics that have been filmed:
*Dune
Ender's Game
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
1984
Fahrenheit 451
2001: A Space Odyssey
I, Robot
Starship Troopers
Brave New World
The Time Machine
The War of the Worlds* - twice!
*Slaughterhouse Five
Jurassic Park
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
The Andromeda Strain
A Wrinkle in Time
Contact
The Day of the Triffids* - three times!
*A Clockwork Orange
Frankenstein
Flowers for Algernon
Journey to the Center of the Earth
A Scanner Darkly
The Handmaid's Tale
Sphere
A Princess of Mars
The Road
The Hunger Games
I am Legend
The Postman
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde
And Everything PKD has ever written*

So waaah waaah waaah...a few haven't been filmed yet.  So sad!  And the ones that are made he'd say were "Hollywoodized".  So it seems he's arguing himself in circles.

*Star Wars* ruined sci-fi like *The Godfather* ruined gangster flicks.


----------



## MontyCircus (May 6, 2014)

Huttman said:


> The funny thing is, Star Wars really is not a true sci-fi film as it is more a fantasy film piece.



I've heard this all my life but I don't believe it for a second!

From Wikipedia:



> Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a "literature of ideas".[1] Authors commonly use science fiction as a framework to explore politics, identity, desire, morality, social structure, and other literary themes.



Futuristic setting?  Check! (Just imagine the opening says "A long time in the future, in a galaxy far, far away).  Same difference.

Futuristic science and technology?  Check!

Space travel?  Check!

Faster than light travel?  Check!

Extraterrestrial life?  Check!

Authors commonly use science fiction as a framework to explore:
politics?  Check!
identity?  Check!
desire?  Check!
morality?  Check!
social structure?  Check!

The only thing "fantasy" about it is The Force.  If anything, I'd say it's more of a sci-fi film with fantasy elements.



> Also, the layers of depth in these films is extraordinary, as complex, if not more so, than the Matrix. I posted this sometime ago: Star Wars - The Legacy Revealed - YouTube
> and was amazed just how deep this fantasy film goes into things. What Lucas created is a real cerebral, timeless and entertaining masterpiece that continues to grow. Even the controversial prequels have so much going for them, story wise, but every one has opinions. I think the legacy Star Wars has created in the last 37 years kind of speaks for itself, though. May the 4th be with you...
> 
> I know, lets call it a Space Opera!



Thanks for the link!  That was informative.  Makes me want to read up on my ancient myths and legends!


----------



## Null_Zone (May 7, 2014)

I'm hard pressed to take someone seriously who thinks sci-fi was somehow highbrow before Star Wars. It's almost like he never watched Star Trek, the Flash Gordon TV shows, et al.


----------



## Huttman (May 9, 2014)

MontyCircus said:


> I've heard this all my life but I don't believe it for a second!



I saw it the first time on a really BIG screen when I was nine years old and thought it was the coolest science fiction film I'd ever seen. I got older and heard about it being considered a fantasy flick and found some merit to that as well. Semantics, perhaps, but you are right, MC. The great appeal of Star Wars is it has _appealed_ to so many different cultures and peoples. I can see why people see one way or the other. I like it (more so now) because it has such a simple, honest belief system incorporated into it. Not enough Sci-Fi has been given a chance to have a debate about it being Sci-Fi or Fantasy. I can only think of a few that have become main stream, in Battlestar Galactica it was very integrated and Dune and the original Tron touched on it. 



MontyCircus said:


> Thanks for the link!  That was informative.


 You're welcome! Best Star Wars documentary ever!


----------



## River Boy (May 9, 2014)

Here's a writer who welcomes the new trilogy, but calls for a return to more traditional storytelling - although he thinks the only problem with Star Wars is its most famous line: Should George Lucas regret the line 'May the Force be with you'? - A writer's blog | A writer's blog

Personally I think claims like this are just jealousy that the story is so much more successful than anything else in the genre. I can't sit through the prequels though.


----------



## steve12553 (May 10, 2014)

First off, blame Hollywood and the capitalist system and human nature. Good Science Fiction is thoughtful and clever not flashy and popular. Occasionally someone will be able to sneak a thoughtful or clever Science Fiction concept into a film that might make some money but mostly not. Thoughtful Science Fiction fans might have a few films that they have gone back to see more than twice at a theater. Adventure fans will go back several times for the thrill and keep those big budgets supported. Lucas made two wonderful adventure films that had some very nice Science Fiction elements in them. You know the ones without Ewoks and JarJar Binks. They weren't really Science Fiction but they gave us hope that maybe some day. Teenagers with money for their third ticket to see a movie are not going to sit there and be blown away by a clever concept. It's gotta blow up or fly through a meteor shower or be attacked by a impossible monster. Lucas is and was a good technician. He was a visionary in presenting the movie going public with things they'd never seen before. But it had little to do with Science Fiction. The good Science Fiction will always be presented directly to the mind in words not picture. A picture may be worth a thousand words but the right picture to convey the thousand word is rarely there.


----------



## JoanDrake (May 11, 2014)

I going to be real popular here and agree with Beale, not entirely but partially. When I first saw SW I recall everybody in the theatre laughed at the prologue unrolling on screen and the last line about the Death Star being "able to destroy an entire planet". Most everyone thought it was "camp", which, in 1978, was a type of parody. An exaggeration of "schlock", things and plots and stories which were old in your grandparent's time. "So bad it's good" was the basic idea.


And the thing that gets me is people saying SW "started a Revolutionu in SF. SW, IMO, ENDED the SF revolution that had started in the 1960's and 70's with writers like Dick, Delany, Vance, Zelazny, Moorcock, Ellison and on and on, the whole school of TNT (The New Thing) which was making SF about NEW Things, STRANGE developments and even a type of writing which was truly like nothing else. But was catching on


And then, suddenly, come this big blockbuster hit movie, straight out of the 1930's, kicking the whole genre thoroughly back into the Ghetto.


You think Star Wars did no harm to the Genre? You think I'm just jealous? Remember, if you can (and dare ) the FIRST version of *Battlestar Galactica*. Remember *Buck Rogers. *Real literary masterpieces, right.


Good SF took years to recover from SW. The first good film was Ridley Scott's* Blade Runner* in 1982.


And the whole thing of this deep underlying mythological story SW is supposed to have is ******** of the purest ray serene. Spielberg wrote ONE movie, which he thought might keep his career alive by combining high production values with low comedy and hit the Zeitgeist. He came up with all the Campbell crap AFTER he realized SW was a billion dollar franchise. How else do you explain the rather creepy cuddling of Brother Luke with his Sister Leia in the first picture?


Someday, if I ever find it on the Internet, I 'll show you the article that Psychology Today did on SW about 1-3 mos after it released. Besides specifically suggesting that Luke is Vader's son it pretty much outlines the entirety of the next few movies.


That being said, SW wasn't *Waterworld* either. The Second movie was very good,  and the third prequel was okay too, if for Natalie Portman if nothing else. But this constant going on that SW I was "the greatest SF movie ever made' gets to me


----------



## Bick (May 11, 2014)

JoanDrake said:


> Good SF took years to recover from SW. The first good film was Ridley Scott's* Blade Runner* in 1982.


Erm, not sure that's a very sound argument... 

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Alien (1979)
Mad Max (1979)
Stalker (1979)
Outland (1981)
Escape from New York (1981)
Scanners (1981)
The Thing (1982)...

I think the proposition that SW "ruined" SF is laughable, tbh.  There were less good SF films made in the years immediately preceding Star Wars in fact.  In 1976 only "The Man Who Fell To Earth" comes to mind.  I can't immediately think of any from 1975.


----------



## JoanDrake (May 14, 2014)

Bick said:


> Erm, not sure that's a very sound argument...
> 
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
> Alien (1979)
> ...




You make a valid point and I will admit that, all in all, SWs great popularity probably helped the genre more than hurt.


Still, I wonder if those movies wouldn't have been made anyway, and how many other really good but more serious works went into permanent development hell because they didn't have light swords. I'm still waiting to see *Lord of Light* on the big screen. Even now it would be better than (gods PLEASE forbid) Jarjar's grandson.


----------



## JamestheLast (May 29, 2014)

Hollywood's attitude towards science fiction did change after Star Wars. Before it there was Logan's Run, Westworld, Silent Running, the Planet of the Apes films, Seconds, Colossus the Forbin Project, Quatermass in the UK, and a few others that werent aimed at the Saturday matinee crowd. Some are much more worthy to revisit than others (Westworld could benefit from a remake). 

The profile of science fiction increased after SW but went in a different direction and remains that way. No risks in terms of themes or characterization.


----------



## Hardlight (Jun 3, 2014)

Beale might be considered more of a "die-hard," maybe basing it more on the older conventions about the genre. For example, sci-fi or science fiction is what it is because there is a scientific principle involved, which would be obvious or explained in the story. Star Wars is more of space fantasy than science fiction, since it's all about swashbuckling action than scientific principles. Still, it doesn't hurt that SW still drew attention to the science fiction genre itself.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 21, 2014)

As others have mentioned, I myself have always considered Star Wars to be space fantasy. It is classic mythology combined with sword and sorcery (lightsaber and Force). There is very little in the way of science fiction themes in Star Wars besides, well, space.


----------



## Deɑth. (Aug 8, 2014)

The guy doesn't even have real arguments other than a personal disdain towards the series, IMO.


----------



## Michael Colton (Aug 9, 2014)

Sodice said:


> As others have mentioned, I myself have always considered Star Wars to be space fantasy. It is classic mythology combined with sword and sorcery (lightsaber and Force). There is very little in the way of science fiction themes in Star Wars besides, well, space.



After seeing this thread bumped again, I should qualify my statement by saying that I do not think there is anything wrong with space fantasy. It rarely interests me, but if others enjoy it than more power to them. Rereading my post, I realized it could come across that I think of space fantasy as a slur to be thrown at works. This is not the case.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 11, 2014)

The first one is excellent Space Fantasy.


----------



## J Riff (Aug 12, 2014)

It's been called Space Opera for a long time.
Check out the writer's manual for StarTrek if you can find it.
Tis remarkabely similar to Harlequin romance plotting.
Same cast every week, clear hierarchy, good guys win, they fly away while the music plays.
Oh, Star WARS... that reads like 30s pulp-adventure. Doc Smith. 
Replaced Westerns, the aliens are the Indians.
Get the spaceships in a circle.


----------



## JoanDrake (Aug 13, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> The first one is excellent Space Fantasy.



The second one is actually better, IMO. Lucas had read up a little and had a lot more money, so he was better able to get his act together and actually write a story instead of worry about how to get the maximum spectacle for his limited dollar.


Would that James Cameron had spent some more of his unlimited budget for Avatar in the same wise way.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 27, 2014)

Star Wars versus Science Fiction?

*How 'Star Wars' ruined sci-fi*



> Lewis Beale
> I say this as someone who has been a devoted sci-fi reader since childhood. I was so blown away by the first "Star Wars" film when I saw it in 1977, I went back two more times the same week to wallow in its space age fantasy. But here's the thing: George Lucas' creation, basically a blown-up Flash Gordon adventure with better special effects, has left all too many people thinking science fiction is some computer graphics-laden space opera/western filled with shootouts, territorial disputes, evil patriarchs and trusty mounts (like the Millennium Falcon).
> 
> "Star Wars" has corrupted people's notion of a literary genre full of ideas, turning it into a Saturday afternoon serial. And that's more than a shame -- it's an obscenity.



This is why SF needs a new name like STEM Fiction.

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 27, 2014)

It is all very complicated and electric.

Strictly speaking *Star Wars* did not ruin science fiction because it is not science fiction.  But it has created a huge misrepresentation because most people think of it as science fiction.  So serious science fiction is constantly in the shadow of *Star Wars*.

In addition to that I get the impression that most of the people who read and say they like science fiction do not give a damn about the science.  I have communicated with two reviewers of Heinlein's *Orphans of the Sky* who got the artificial gravity wrong.  And this same system was shown twice in *2001: A Space Odyssey*.

*Star Wars* may be the biggest single culprit but there is more to the problem.

psik


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 27, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> *Star Wars* did not ruin science fiction because it is not science fiction



I simply find myself scratching my head when people claim that _Star Wars_ isn't science fiction.



psikeyhackr said:


> has left all too many people thinking science fiction is some ... space opera/western filled with shootouts, territorial disputes, evil patriarchs and trusty mounts



Oh, yes - because we never got that in science fiction before _Star Wars_, did we?


----------



## Bick (Nov 27, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> I simply find myself scratching my head when people claim that _Star Wars_ isn't science fiction.


It's not a rare thought though Brian.  Many people have attempted to define SF over the years, and the definition almost always requires there to be some extrapolation of science into a future or alternative scenario.  Star Wars doesn't do that, clearly, it's blatantly fantasy.  I don't hold that the film ruined SF through - I find that argument silly (see my earlier post in this thread).


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 27, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> I simply find myself scratching my head when people claim that _Star Wars_ isn't science fiction.



*The Empire Strikes Back* is commonly regarded as the best of the *Star Wars* series.  How good is the science?  The Millenium Falcon flew into a planetoid with no atmosphere.  They land and walk out into what should have been a vacuum without suits but just masks to breathe with.

When the science is too defective because the creators do not care and do not expect the readers/viewers to care then it is not science fiction.

We need another name.  STEM Fiction would be a better description.  The term "science fiction" has been allowed to become insufficiently exact.

psik


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 28, 2014)

Bick said:


> Many people have attempted to define SF over the years, and the definition almost always requires there to be some extrapolation of science into a future or alternative scenario



It's a good definition. But it does comes across to me as an aspiration. I'm minded to wonder at how much 'Golden Age SF' might fail to be included by it?



psikeyhackr said:


> *The Empire Strikes Back* is commonly regarded as the best of the *Star Wars* series. How good is the science?



True - the asteroid is a howler, as is the space-flight dynamics. But how good is the science in - for example - Asimov's _Foundation _series? Isn't that still regarded as science fiction? If so, where's the hard science in that? Simply asking, as it's a long time since I read the series.


Btw, I'll move this thread to the *SFF Lounge*, as it seems to be a general discussion of what constitutes science fiction in general, rather than a specific deconstruction of the _Star Wars_ franchise.


----------



## Rodders (Nov 28, 2014)

I don't like things like this. Star Wars was a gateway drug for me and it was what got me in to science fiction. I'm hugely grateful to it and George Lucas for what it has given me over the 37 years.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Nov 28, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> *The Empire Strikes Back* is commonly regarded as the best of the *Star Wars* series.  How good is the science?  The Millenium Falcon flew into a planetoid with no atmosphere.  They land and walk out into what should have been a vacuum without suits but just masks to breathe with.
> 
> When the science is too defective because the creators do not care and do not expect the readers/viewers to care then it is not science fiction.
> 
> ...



We have another name for it. It's called space fantasy (for Star Wars) - a recognised  sub-genre that is a fantasy story in space. Other than that, for non scientifically-accurate stories, space opera will normally cover it.

Also, this sort of attitude - that only scientifically accurate stories should be within the genre of science *fiction* makes the genre less than welcoming to those of us who like a bit of escapism in our sf. There's room for all of us and no need to separate us any more than subdivisions do.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 29, 2014)

Before Star War, science fiction was with some exceptions, the stuff of low budget B Movies . If anything , Star Wars gave science  fiction a huge boost .   Rival movie studious  looking at it's success and box office , wanted their own science fiction franchises, end result, we got bigger  budget science fiction films , which has paved the ways for the kind of science fiction and fantasy films and tv series  that we have now . Without  Star Wars, we probably wouldn't  have near the variety of science fiction and fantasy shows we have now.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 29, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> True - the asteroid is a howler, as is the space-flight dynamics. But how good is the science in - for example - Asimov's _Foundation _series? Isn't that still regarded as science fiction? If so, where's the hard science in that? Simply asking, as it's a long time since I read the series.



Part of that deals with what was known about the SCIENCE *AT THE TIME*?

*The Foundation* series was begun in 1941.  The first atomic bomb was not detonated until 1945/  The "neutron" which is necessary to the process was not discovered until 1931.  So to object to errors in the "science" of an SF based on what learned later and the author was over optimistic is not valid.

H. G. Wells came up with the term "atomic bomb" in 1914 in *The World Set Free* when most scientists had not conceived of such a thing but he got the implementation completely wrong.  He just made up some techno-babble  The neutron had not been discovered yet.

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 29, 2014)

springs said:


> We have another name for it. It's called space fantasy (for Star Wars) - a recognised  sub-genre that is a fantasy story in space. Other than that, for non scientifically-accurate stories, space opera will normally cover it.
> 
> Also, this sort of attitude - that only scientifically accurate stories should be within the genre of science *fiction* makes the genre less than welcoming to those of us who like a bit of escapism in our sf. There's room for all of us and no need to separate us any more than subdivisions do.



I am somewhat inclined to agree though I would say *techno-fantasy*.  The mixture of technology and fantasy does not have to involve outer space.  Strictly speaking I regard *The Matrix* as techno-fantasy.  The whole idea of getting energy from people in capsules was ridiculous.  It would take more energy to feed them than would be gotten out.  But very few people use these terms and just smear the name "science fiction" everywhere.

I would also propose STEM Fiction for the hard stuff.

But there is a complete spectrum and probably not even a one dimensional one.  I have suggested some public domain works to use as references for comparison.

http://www.sffworld.com/forums/show...ies-A-Proposal&p=709804&viewfull=1#post709804

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 29, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Before Star War, science fiction was with some exceptions, the stuff of low budget B Movies . If anything , Star Wars gave science  fiction a huge boost .   Rival movie studious  looking at it's success and box office , wanted their own science fiction franchises, end result, we got bigger  budget science fiction films , which has paved the ways for the kind of science fiction and fantasy films and tv series  that we have now . Without  Star Wars, we probably wouldn't  have near the variety of science fiction and fantasy shows we have now.



That is part of why I put SF literature and SF movies and TV in separate categories.  Some literature is as bad as the worst movies but the best films rarely rise to the level of the best literature.  Movies and TV must attract larger audiences to pay for themselves.

So the "mundanes" are responsible for the lower quality.  LOL

I consider *Babylon 5* to be the best SF video to date.  I would not even compare *Star Wars* to it.  They both have aliens and FTL, so what?  I like the first two *Star Wars* movies but I don't need to think of them as SF to enjoy them.  But many SW fans get bent out of shape if it is "slandered" by saying it is not SF.

psik


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 29, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> That is part of why I put SF literature and SF movies and TV in separate categories.  Some literature is as bad as the worst movies but the best films rarely rise to the level of the best literature.  Movies and TV must attract larger audiences to pay for themselves.
> 
> So the "mundanes" are responsible for the lower quality.  LOL
> 
> ...



And yet in B5 and Star Wars you have sound in outer space. Of course most video related  science fiction violates this rule. 


I do agree that Star Wars is more towards the fantasy end of the spectrum.


----------



## Parson (Nov 29, 2014)

Star Wars more on the fantasy end than Babylon 5? Babylon 5 was great television SF even if the special effects were horrid. There was more character development but the two are hardly comparable when one has roughly 18 hours of story and the other, what 125? Neither worked hard at the science angle, in fact I think Star Trek probably made more of a nod toward it than either of the other 2. Call all three soft SF and I think you've done about as well describing the genre as you possibly could.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 29, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> Part of that deals with what was known about the SCIENCE *AT THE TIME*?



Sounds fair enough.



psikeyhackr said:


> I consider *Babylon 5* to be the best SF video to date



Babylon 5!


----------



## Dan Jones (Nov 29, 2014)

I think most people - non-SF-ers, I mean - would describe Star Wars as Sci-Fi / SF because most of the settings are conducive to traditional SF worlds. It is in places futuristic (despite being set 'a long time ago' , such as the existence of hover vehicles, blasters, spaceships, etc - but the world seems very antiquated in others.

IMO Lucas was successful because he blended a handful of different genres together but used one of the most ancient literary story structures we have: the mythic hero. The saga is in parts fantasy, SF, space opera, fairy story, Oedipal, cowboys and indians, and more. So it's a real genre bender. 

But I think the official line has to be: as soon as you whack a spaceship in it, it's always going to be thought of as SF


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 1, 2014)

DG Jones said:


> I think most people - non-SF-ers, I mean - would describe Star Wars as Sci-Fi / SF because most of the settings are conducive to traditional SF worlds. It is in places futuristic (despite being set 'a long time ago' , such as the existence of hover vehicles, blasters, spaceships, etc - but the world seems very antiquated in others.
> 
> IMO Lucas was successful because he blended a handful of different genres together but used one of the most ancient literary story structures we have: the mythic hero. The saga is in parts fantasy, SF, space opera, fairy story, Oedipal, cowboys and indians, and more. So it's a real genre bender.
> 
> But I think the official line has to be: as soon as you whack a spaceship in it, it's always going to be thought of as SF




When I first saw Star wars, I loved it . At the time, I could have cared less that it played fast and lose with  the laws of physics and had fantasy elements like the Force .  I still could care less because it's a  great piece of entertainment which hasn't lost either it's charm or it's fun .


----------



## Rodders (Dec 2, 2014)

Is there a counter argument to defend Star Wars?

For me, Star Wars doesn't pretend to be anything else other than fantasy. I can understand this vitriole if it tried to pass itself off as something serious.

Star Wars is a gateway drug. I would've gotten into SF sooner or later, but ultimately it was seeing Star Wars that got me into it. I've been a fan of both the movies and the genre ever since. 

Love it or loathe it, Star Wars made a huge impact on SF both in the revitilisation of the cinema and in how movies are made.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 2, 2014)

After reading that article I get the sense that Beale is an unsuccessful screenwriter with a case of sour grapes.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 4, 2014)

Parson said:


> Star Wars more on the fantasy end than Babylon 5? Babylon 5 was great television SF even if the special effects were horrid. There was more character development but the two are hardly comparable when one has roughly 18 hours of story and the other, what 125? Neither worked hard at the science angle, in fact I think Star Trek probably made more of a nod toward it than either of the other 2. Call all three soft SF and I think you've done about as well describing the genre as you possibly could.



That was the curious thing about B5, no mention of a chief engineer on a 5 mile space station.

LOL

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 4, 2014)

It might be more correct to say that Star Wars ruined how many people think of science fiction than that it actually ruined SF.

psik


----------



## Parson (Dec 4, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> It might be more correct to say that Star Wars ruined how many people think of science fiction than that it actually ruined SF.
> 
> psik



That was well said! How does one even think that such a diverse genre S.F. could be ruined by one hugely popular movie series, no matter how light weight certain people believe it to be.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 4, 2014)

Parson said:


> That was well said! How does one even think that such a diverse genre S.F. could be ruined by one hugely popular movie series, no matter how light weight certain people believe it to be.



I think this is an important issue though because it harms SF as a potentially useful educational tool.

psik


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 7, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> I think this is an important issue though because it harms SF as a potentially useful educational tool.
> 
> psik




But star Wars  it get interested in science science fiction on the big screen.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 10, 2014)

*When Science Fiction Stopped Caring About the Future*



> It's not just *Star Wars* either. Science fiction is everywhere in popular culture, and it seems like it's managed to be everywhere in the present by largely jettisoning the future. The massive, major franchises are all decades-old; the triumphal rhythmic successes of *Star Wars* and *Star Trek* and *Dr. Who* vie with sporadic reboots of *Robocop* or *Planet of the Apes*. Even newer stories, like *The Hunger Games* or *Divergence* feel less like fresh visions than like re-toolings of stagnant dystopias. Poor George Orwell wants his panopticon back.



http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/12/the-new-star-wars-isnt-really-new/383426/

psik


----------



## kythe (Dec 10, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> *When Science Fiction Stopped Caring About the Future*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sci-fi may have hit a rut.  The "Golden Age" of sci-fi was during the early years of the space programs, leading up to the first manned flight to the moon.  The general public was very interested in astronomy then and imagination about the universe ran wild, so the genre boomed.  But now people no longer have the same excitement about space.

Cyberpunk, particularly during the 80's and early 90's, created another surge for the genre.  Computers were new, fascinating, and limitless.  But now everyone is used to devices and gadgets, so that has run its course too.

What's next?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 10, 2014)

kythe said:


> What's next?



The issue isn't really science fiction, it is the social attitude about science and technology.  That is simply reflected with SF.  I like the first two Star Wars movies.  I simply acknowledge that they are not SF. But people who take the approach that "I like them so I can call them whatever I want", are being unscientific and therefore rejecting the entire concept.

So we have computers everywhere and high school kids can't explain what an electron is.  Try

Null ABC by H Beam Piper

psik


----------



## Parson (Dec 10, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> The issue isn't really science fiction, it is the social attitude about science and technology.  That is simply reflected with SF.  I like the first two Star Wars movies.  I simply acknowledge that they are not SF. But people who take the approach that "I like them so I can call them whatever I want", are being unscientific and therefore rejecting the entire concept.
> 
> So we have computers everywhere and high school kids can't explain what an electron is.  Try
> 
> ...



True, but we also have billions of people who drive cars, and likely not more than 100's of millions who could even begin to explain how an internal combustion engine is able to power an automobile. Personally, I have only the vaguest idea of how a touch screen works, but that doesn't stop me from using my smart phone. When technology becomes common place (understand usable for the masses) there will still be only a relatively few people who understand the science behind the technology.

I suspect that the trouble with S.F. (if there is trouble, I'm not buying that in its totality) is that we have a lack of really interesting new ideas. I think that the next big thing comes with the next interesting idea to the masses.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 10, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> high school kids can't explain what an electron is


Can anyone?


----------



## Parson (Dec 10, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Can anyone?


 Brilliant!!


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 10, 2014)

Parson said:


> True, but we also have billions of people who drive cars, and likely not more than 100's of millions who could even begin to explain how an internal combustion engine is able to power an automobile. Personally, I have only the vaguest idea of how a touch screen works, but that doesn't stop me from using my smart phone. When technology becomes common place (understand usable for the masses) there will still be only a relatively few people who understand the science behind the technology.
> 
> I suspect that the trouble with S.F. (if there is trouble, I'm not buying that in its totality) is that we have a lack of really interesting new ideas. I think that the next big thing comes with the next interesting idea to the masses.



I didn't say anything about touch screens.  I said "electrons".  They are a much more fundamental aspect of reality.  Every atom has electrons and the touch screen does depend on electricity.  Everybody can't know everything or even want to.  But certain fundamentals should be known by nearly everyone.

What genre is likely to mention electrons beside science fiction?

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 10, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Can anyone?



To what degree?  I had someone tell me that electrons were in the nucleus.

psik


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 10, 2014)

Well, when they not emitting from radioactive material (Beta radiation) or doing mysterious stuff at boundaries in Electrolysis, Batteries and such, or being 'liberated" on a photo cathode, or flowing in a vacuum (Vacuum tube, electron gun, travelling wave tube, magnetron in a microwave oven or in an accelerator) they are associated with atoms and molecules. But exactly where they are then is a probability function.
Like photons they can behave like particles or waves.

We know quite a bit how they relate to things, and how photons (or chemical reactions) can "pump" electrons to higher energy level, or they can drop in large numbers from higher level to lower level resulting in near monochromatic light (particular energy of photons) as seen in Chemical powered Glow Sticks, (same fluorescent chemicals can be pumped by RF, Electricity and UV light), lasers, EL panels, LEDs, OLEDs (which work more similarly to EL panels than regular LEDs), Gas (plasma) discharge like Neon, Sodium Vapour, Hydrogen, mercury vapour etc.

We can know what energy they have or where they are but not both exactly. We can use them instead of light in an Electron Microscope. They "like" being in Atoms.  They probably do not Orbit the Nucleus like planets orbit a sun. 

With AC, none ever come to your light bulb from the Power Station. The ones in the Light Bulb (Tungsten, or CFL) are always much the same ones. Maybe.
With DC, the making of the connection moves at nearly the speed of Light (as with AC).  But the Electrons hardly move in the wire compared with Electrons in a TV tube or Valve (USA radio tube). We think they spin in concert in a Magentron, which makes the Microwaves in Radar or an oven.

The apparent "size" and mass varies hugely with what you are doing. They are MUCH heavier in a 28" colour TV CRT than 6" mono tube and least in liquid Helium. The "size" depends on how you "squint" at them and what you are doing. But they are certainly very small. Neutrinos are more mysterious and may be smaller. Most Neutrinos pass through the entire Earth with no effect at all. If Photons (light) can be validly regarded as a particle they must have no mass. 

Positrons (or something behaving like an  opposite charge version of Electron) have been detected and are regarded as anti-matter version of Electrons  as a result.

*But we have no idea what Electrons are.*


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 10, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> To what degree?  I had someone tell me that electrons were in the nucleus.



perhaps they were only slightly confused


> *Beta particles* are high-energy, high-speed electrons or positrons emitted by certain types of radioactive nuclei such as potassium-40. The beta particles emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known as beta rays. The production of beta particles is termed beta decay. They are designated by the Greek letter beta (β). There are two forms of beta decay, β− and β+, which respectively give rise to the electron and the positron.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle


----------

