|
|
|
|
#1
12-12-2006, 03:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
If you're going to include film 2001 is a compelling choice, because it made it possible to view sci-fi in a serious light, building on what had been done by Robert Wise with The Day the Earth Stood Still.
For small screen science fiction, I think the innovations of The Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits had a lot to do with making possible the serious exploration of sci fi subjects on TV...
__________________
An updated list of all my online writing can be found here. Check it out. 
|
|
#2
12-12-2006, 04:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is really two questions, as I see it. Each with different answers. So I'll answer each. I guess.
1) Which sci fi series has had the largest impact culturally? Star Wars, without question. These movies transcend nerddom more than any other example of the genre. Sure, they're basically fantasy tales in space. But they're escapest fun that anyone can enjoy, and countless elements of the films have evolved into genuine pop culture icons. Nothing comes close. Not even Star Trek. 2) Which sci fi series has had the largest impact on the genre? This question has different answers depending on your generational perspective. Verne's novels, Metropolis, Arthur C. Clarke novels, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and The Matrix are all equally valid answers for different eras.
__________________
YOU READ IT... ...YOU CAN\'T UNREAD IT!
|
|
#3
12-12-2006, 07:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
For instance, many Sci-Fi shows and computer games now freely use the word Cloaking Device, as though it's a simple everyday term. That term however, was started by Star Trek.
__________________
Fate: Protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise... Fate: Also beats the merry hell out of the Battlestar Galactica. -------------------------------------------------- House Quote of the Day! "I was curious. But since I'm not a cat, that's not dangerous to me." Dr House MD I don't think that metaphor was actually designed to warn cats. Dr Wilson MD (Just) -------------------------------------------------
|
|
#4
12-12-2006, 11:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It occurs to me that there are a plethora (si, El Guapo) of ways to define the idea of "science fiction." We've seen to that. Depending on your definition of scifi, you could say it started with A Conneticut Yankee, but I'd usually start the proper scifi generation with the works of Jules Verne. At this point, we have:
1. Hardcore sci-fi. Star Wars, Andromeda, B5 and such. The technology (even to the point of midichlorians and such) is an integral part of the society, and any "mystical" properties can be explained fully. Science is as fully understood as is possible. 2. Softcore sci-fi. Trek, Stargate, etc. The technology is important, but new innovations can and do occur. Science is admitted as impossible to fully understand. 3. Bizzare sci-fi. Doctor Who, h2g2 and so forth. Technology is there, it's not really magic, but we don't want to dwell on it. Impossible stuff can and does happen, with some frequency, in fact. So, if you accept these as broad categories, then you'd have three winners: Wars and Trek would accept laurels for the first two, but the third is more of a tossup.
__________________
mudshark: Nate's just being...Nate. Zeke: It comes nateurally to him. mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really -- it's just a bad idea. Sa'ar Chasm on the 5M.net forum: Sit back, relax, and revel in the insanity. Adam Savage: I reject your reality and substitute my own! Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Crow T. Robot: Oh, stop pretending there's a plot. Don't cheapen yourself further.
|
|
#5
12-13-2006, 06:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Seeing "Star Wars", "hard" and "Sci-fi" in the same sentence just blew my mind.
Truth be told, just about everything on TV or in the movies is properly labelled "soft" sci-fi, mainly in that it transcends technological and physical conditions beyond reasonable extrapolation. "Hard" sci-fi is a whole different beast. The new BSG and Babylon 5 back in the day have taken babysteps towards hard sci-fi, but they're not there yet. Compare any of your examples to, say, 2001. Sci-fi does get "harder", but it is a good point of comparison. When was the last time a TV show paid proper attention to the problems of microgravity, for example? (Babylon 5 stands as a good example with the Earth ships and the station itself, but even they can't resist having artificial gravity on their "advanced" races to sidestep the problem.) I don't think your categories as such are bad, but please relabel them to something that doesn't hurt my brain. Gatac
__________________
Katy: Can I have the skill 'drive car off bridge and have parachute handy'? Justin: It's kind of a limited skill. Greg: Depends on how often you drive off bridges. - d02 Quotes
|
|
#6
12-13-2006, 07:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sorry, I know next to nothing about 2001, except that the familiar "dun...dun...dun...dundun!" comes from it. (Right?)
If it wasn't for the midichlorians, I'd have put Star Wars into the softcore category. If the Force is explainable by "science," then everything is, and it's hardcore. For all we know, in Star Wars they can make a capsule of midichlorians suspended in plasma or something to make batteries akin to ZPMs. Well, if you allow behind the scenes explanations, then Trek does deal with it. As the famous anecdote states, one day someone asked Richard Sternbach how Heisenberg Compensators work. His reply? "Very well, thank you."  Relabel them? Really have no idea what other names would work.
__________________
mudshark: Nate's just being...Nate. Zeke: It comes nateurally to him. mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really -- it's just a bad idea. Sa'ar Chasm on the 5M.net forum: Sit back, relax, and revel in the insanity. Adam Savage: I reject your reality and substitute my own! Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Crow T. Robot: Oh, stop pretending there's a plot. Don't cheapen yourself further.
|
|
#7
12-13-2006, 05:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
2001, without doubt, is the single most important sci-fi creation of the 20th Century. Nothing else even comes close, in intelligence, beauty, design, reality, good thinking-through, complexity... Heck, it wasn't made that long after TOS, and still looks more real than Enterprise did. 2001 has inspired, blown minds, shaped people. Quite simply, it is a gem of immeasurable wonder. The only downside is the lack of character interaction on the level that you get in TV shows... For character interaction, the prize, though I am loath to admit it, goes to Blakes' 7. Simply because it was the first, and in many ways the best at developing characters in an ongoing manner. Who played with it, (The Edge of Destruction being a good example...), but didn't really latch onto the idea. Coming in close second for intelligent plot that makes you think, if we can extend this to all sci-fi, is the game 'Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords'. It breaks the SW mould, it makes you think, and yes, it's a little cliched, but it works well. The characters are a little theatrical in their dialogue, it's true - "There are dark places in the galaxy, where few tread...Ancient centres of learning, of knowledge..." - and the character of Kreia (possibly based on Iago?) being a prime example. For storytelling and narrative pace, I plump for Doctor Who, particularly from 1974-1978-ish, when it was under the aegis of Philip Hinchcliffe and Robert Holmes. They perfected the gothic horror feel, and the stories are still fresh (if a little old-fashioned) today. Most entertaining current sci-fi: The 4400. I just like this show. I can't explain why, it's just...good. It's got the right balance between characters etc. Whether it really counts as sci-fi, I'm not sure. Best current sci-fi: BSG - simply because a) it's very good, and b) there isn't much competition. I love the whole pseudo-religious thing going on, the directoral style I think is very refreshing, the writing and the inclusion of moral dilemmas, the dialogue, Tricia Helfer... Best sci-fi of the last ten years: DS9, joint with B5. Worst sci-fi in existence ever: Torchwood. What a pile of balls.
__________________
O to be wafted away From this black aceldama of sorrow; Where the dust of an earthy today Is the earth of a dusty tomorrow!
|
|
#8
12-13-2006, 06:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Do try a little harder than that.
__________________
Methinks Ted Sturgeon was too kind. 'Yes, but I think some people should be offended.' -- John Cleese (on whether he thought some might be offended by Monty Python)
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
