Sexiest Women of Science Fiction,

[tater]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Anyone who has seen her performance as Katewinnit Lee Fry in Firefly and doesn't think she is one of the most adorable creatures in existence is an enemy of all that is good and just in this world

Yep.

I'm a huge fan of "cute" I have to say. So a character that is cute+smart is pure win (that was pretty much my wife-selection process, lol).

[Kongo Otto]

At least they had two of the Doctors Companions in their listing.
Personally i am missing Karen Gillan aka Amy Pond.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

None of the science behind Star Wars was created for Star Wars, it was made later by other authors. As for Star Trek (even the movies) there are several times when they go about explaining technologies.

That still doesn't make it fantasy, it just makes it very 'soft' science fiction. I would accept that it is partly fantasy because there are major fantasy elements (That is, which are presented as supernatural in the Star Wars universe itself), and I would say that it is indeed somewhat of a mix between science fiction and fantasy because of that, but just because its science is left unexplained in the original material doesn't mean it's not science fiction.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Quite a bit actually.

Was just wondering, since it's been ages since I've seen any of the original Star Trek series and I don't remember much of it.

BTW, IIRC the Hydrospanner was used as a type of wrench even in the movie.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Speaking of which, how much of how Star Trek's technology works was actually explained in the original series itself?

Gene Roddenberry actually addressed that in his book The Making Of Star Trek. When somebody asked him why he never explained how the phasers worked he said he replied "Does Dick Tracy (a popular newspaper comic strip at the time) explain how his snub-nosed .38 works before he shoots the bad guys? Then why should Kirk?"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

At least they had two of the Doctors Companions in their listing.

Which brings us back to the wonderful discussion on what is or isn't "real" science fiction. There is no problem in the universe which cannot be solved by reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. And problems which suddenly can't be solved that way can be fixed with the sonic screwdriver. Any remaining problems can be blasted by K-9.

I'm a huge fan, by the way. On the first I started rewatching the entire series, one episode per day. And yes, I started at the very beginning, with An Unearthly Child.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Which brings us back to the wonderful discussion on what is or isn't "real" science fiction. There is no problem in the universe which cannot be solved by reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. And problems which suddenly can't be solved that way can be fixed with the sonic screwdriver. Any remaining problems can be blasted by K-9.

I'm a huge fan, by the way. On the first I started rewatching the entire series, one episode per day. And yes, I started at the very beginning, with An Unearthly Child.

I am a huge fan too. Sad that it never had been aired in Germany except the first two Seasons from the new series. So i bought all Seasons at Amazon in English language, few years ago.
Unearthly Child with William Hartnell as the first Doctor, was aired in 1963, two years before my birth.
For me its a piece of TV History.
Do you have the Episode "Marco Polo" from the first Sason? It wasnt at the first season which i have from amazon, the booklet said it was lost over the years.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

IDo you have the Episode "Marco Polo" from the first Sason? It wasnt at the first season which i have from amazon, the booklet said it was lost over the years.

Marco Polo was one of the many (and I do mean many) which were lost when someone cleaned out the storage at the BBC back before they had a clue that someone might want to watch them again someday.

You can read some of the episodes as 'Photonovels' at the home website http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/classic.shtml, since many production photographs are still around and someone actually cares enough to restore the stories.

Also, some episodes have been restored via the fact that not only do the photos still exist, but also the soundtracks. Marco Polo is one of these.

I have rounded out my collection by purchasing the novelisations of the missing episodes, many of which were written by the original screenwriters.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

That still doesn't make it fantasy, it just makes it very 'soft' science fiction. I would accept that it is partly fantasy because there are major fantasy elements (That is, which are presented as supernatural in the Star Wars universe itself), and I would say that it is indeed somewhat of a mix between science fiction and fantasy because of that, but just because its science is left unexplained in the original material doesn't mean it's not science fiction.

Well if someone wrote a physics paper on how the "One Ring" in LOTR works does that make it Science Fiction? No, we have to look at what the writing was intended as. Star Wars was not made to show how society deals with development of things like Blasters, Death Stars, and Hyperspace, it was meant to tell the story of a Farm Boy and Princess doing battle with a evil empire.

The best way to understand this is to look at Star Trek: The Next Generation (the series not the movies). On TV this is the best example of what Science Fiction is IMHO. It deals with society's reaction to new technologies, developments in science, interactions with less advanced cultures. TNG was the show that "answered the questions" of "what if?". The other Star Trek series less so (even my beloved DS9).

[tater]

I've seen every TNG episode. I think TNG was pretty terrible SF compared to, say, the 500+ SF books I've read.

The notion that it explores societal reaction to technology, or even current events through the "safe" lens of fantasy/SF is marginal at best, IMO—at least the claim that it does so "well."

The plots are remarkably predictable. Races are pretty much universally stereotyped (and stupid—look, its the planet of the bartender people! (you can tell because they have a bottle opener on their foreheads, and they can instinctually mix drinks)).

They have techno-problems, then in the last few minutes they make up a new technology to fix it. Crap like the "prime directive" is simply crap (and inconsistently applied, like everything else in ST). After the first season of TNG, virtually every single later problem could have been solved in seconds using technology they made up in season 1, then forgot about. I won't even get into the absurdity of time travel, but suffice it to say that time travel hopelessly breaks a SF universe.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well if someone wrote a physics paper on how the "One Ring" in LOTR works does that make it Science Fiction? No, we have to look at what the writing was intended as. Star Wars was not made to show how society deals with development of things like Blasters, Death Stars, and Hyperspace, it was meant to tell the story of a Farm Boy and Princess doing battle with a evil empire.

The best way to understand this is to look at Star Trek: The Next Generation (the series not the movies). On TV this is the best example of what Science Fiction is IMHO. It deals with society's reaction to new technologies, developments in science, interactions with less advanced cultures. TNG was the show that "answered the questions" of "what if?". The other Star Trek series less so (even my beloved DS9).

If someone wrote a physics paper on how the Ring in LOTR works it wouldn't make it science fiction, since the Ring isn't supposed to be explainable by science within the LOTR universe. Just because no-one wrote a physics paper on blasters (Originally) doesn't mean it's immediately comparable to the Ring.

You're right that Star Wars doesn't deal with the effects of blasters, Death Stars and hyperspace. However, it does tell the story of a farm boy and a princess doing battle with the evil empire in a setting which includes blasters, Death Stars and hyperspace. If you take those elements out, then it would be something else.

As you said, Star Wars is a space opera, but space opera is (as it is now) a subgenre of science fiction...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

You're right that Star Wars doesn't deal with the effects of blasters, Death Stars and hyperspace. However, it does tell the story of a farm boy and a princess doing battle with the evil empire in a setting which includes blasters, Death Stars and hyperspace. If you take those elements out, then it would be something else.

You are getting it, now reverse that; take Holodecks, Warp Drive, Phasers out of Star Trek and what do you have left? Nothing. That has to be the test of Sci Fi, if you take the Science and Technology out of the story is there a story left?

Originally Posted by tater

I've seen every TNG episode.
<Snip>

Go back and watch them again... I don't think you understood them the first time...

What you said made me die a little inside.

Curious, what would you consider good sci fi on TV?

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Gene Roddenberry actually addressed that in his book The Making Of Star Trek. When somebody asked him why he never explained how the phasers worked he said he replied "Does Dick Tracy (a popular newspaper comic strip at the time) explain how his snub-nosed .38 works before he shoots the bad guys? Then why should Kirk?"

Heh, reminds me of this, and this story

Also,

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

You are getting it, now reverse that; take Holodecks, Warp Drive, Phasers out of Star Trek and what do you have left? Nothing. That has to be the test of Sci Fi, if you take the Science and Technology out of the story is there a story left?

Well, if you take the science fiction elements out of Star Wars, then it completely loses the point and becomes fantasy. As I said, Star Wars is partly fantasy since it does indeed have many fantasy elements, but it is certainly not "not science fiction", since it is defined by its science fiction setting.

[MaddogK]

Did someone mention Gina Torres , and NOT Vicky Pratt ?

[tater]

I can't imagine actually liking any of the new ST stuff. I saw some DS9, but thought it was pretty dumb, as was whatever that other ST was, and Enterprise.

Forget the "science" aspect (as I said, I have a moderately large SF library of ~500 books (I've read slightly more that that since I have been loaned SF books by friends) so I'm not "anti" SF by any possible stretch. ST has crap stories. It is internally inconsistent (grossly).

We used to watch TNG in my shop when we worked late (some station had 2 back to back every evening here) and we used to play a game where we'd try and solve the plot during the commercial 15 minutes in using technobabble from any episode in any earlier episode. We never failed. They developed virtually everything... invulnerable shields (they flew through a sun as I recall), or there is always time travel (slingshot at will since "real" ST (Enterprise Incident?)).

First few seasons of B5 were decent though the time travel broke that as well, hopelessly. I liked the recent BSG from a storytelling POV. I also like Firefly (haven't seen all of them) as story telling. I've seen all ST:TOS multiple times, and all TNG at least once, enough DS9 to get a feel, and I could only stomach a couple voyager or whatever it was. Bottom line is that the biggest problem with ST is the lack of consistency. If you develop an invulnerable shield, then virtually every episode later needs to address that change. Since episodes were written by different people, there is no such consistency in the ST canon so it is a mess. And while the Feds might be ridiculous about not using time travel that doesn't mean anyone else will be

Example: find out where Borg started, go back in time, and wipe them out before they leave home. Done. Oh, wait, stopping a genocidal race is "wrong" because the PD says so. Riiight. Better for billions to die.

Nope, since time travel is possible in ST, then the BORG will also go back in time and enslave everyone before they are even space faring. OF the Romulans will use it. Bottom line is that time travel breaks everything. IMHO, adding time travel instantly makes whatever it is pulp at best (I like good pulp, but ST aint good pulp).