Beale: How 'Star Wars' ruined sci fi

[Rodders]

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]

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

 

[psikeyhackr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

When Science Fiction Stopped Caring About the Future



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

psik

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]

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]

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

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]

high school kids can't explain what an electron is

Can anyone?

 

[Parson]

Can anyone?

Brilliant!!

 

[psikeyhackr]

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]

Can anyone?

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

psik

 

[Ray McCarthy]

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]

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