The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Kurtzman: Cumberbatch’s Villain is Scary + Star Trek Sequel Delayed To ‘Protect’ Fran
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-20-2012, 06:54 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chator View Post
I found this delicious quote by the recently deceased Ray Bradbury on the difference between science fiction and fantasy, that relates to the discussion here,


"Science fiction is a depiction of the real. Fantasy is a depiction of the unreal. So Martian Chronicles is not science fiction, it's fantasy. It couldn't happen, you see? That's the reason it's going to be around a long time — because it's a Greek myth, and myths have staying power."

-Ray Bradbury
Thar's wisdom in them thar words!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-21-2012, 10:25 AM
Roysten's Avatar
Roysten Roysten is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Yorkshire, England
Posts: 901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chator View Post
I found this delicious quote by the recently deceased Ray Bradbury on the difference between science fiction and fantasy, that relates to the discussion here,


"Science fiction is a depiction of the real. Fantasy is a depiction of the unreal. So Martian Chronicles is not science fiction, it's fantasy. It couldn't happen, you see? That's the reason it's going to be around a long time — because it's a Greek myth, and myths have staying power."

-Ray Bradbury
Certainly an interesting take on it.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-24-2012, 03:19 PM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chator View Post
I found this delicious quote by the recently deceased Ray Bradbury on the difference between science fiction and fantasy, that relates to the discussion here,


"Science fiction is a depiction of the real. Fantasy is a depiction of the unreal. So Martian Chronicles is not science fiction, it's fantasy. It couldn't happen, you see? That's the reason it's going to be around a long time — because it's a Greek myth, and myths have staying power."

-Ray Bradbury
I hate to disagree with Mr. Bradbury, he's one of my favorite authors, but I must disagree with the first part of the quote...well...sort of. It is a little too vague. Science fiction is not a depiction of the "real", in my opinion. If it were, it would be science "Fact". Science fiction is a depiction of what could be real using known science as a starting point. I do agree, however, that science fantasy is a depiction of the unreal. Star Wars is an exercise in fantasy. Many of the depictions in the Star Wars franchise are pure fantasy with no basis in real science whatsoever (I know, Trek has some of that too, but not to the extent of Wars). While Trek at least uses some real science and extrapolates that into what may be possible 200 years hence.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-24-2012, 05:32 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

I think fantasy is always viewing into the past. The best example would probably be Tolkien and Wars also play "once upon a time in a galaxy far far away".
Sci-fi on the other hand always looks ahead and explores what may happen one day, be it a corporate nightmare like in cyberpunk, a bright future like in Trek or what robots and sophisticated social engineering might imply in the prose of Asimov.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-25-2012, 02:30 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roysten View Post
I personally don't think that Trek and Wars are particularly similar (pre-Trek09), I agree that some aspects of Star Trek are fantasy like, but the main difference is in the story telling. You could take Star Wars and put it in any era, make it a swords and sandals film, a medieval film, a film in modern times and it would work. Whereas the best of Star Trek has always used the science fiction platform to discuss ideas that were controversial for the audience (though I will admit this was done rarely in its later incarnations).

As for how much Wars is injected into this new film, I'm hoping for not much, though I'm not optimistic.
Yeah, I agree with parts of that. I think TOS started off trying to have some degree of plausibility around some aspects of it's tech and parts of the universe. But then we also have to remember that a fictional supercrystal is what's key to making warp drive work as well, so there were certain fantastical elements there as well. And I think that was one of those other things that increased as time went on in later Trek.

I'd also agree on the platform idea vs mythology but this isn't to suggest one is beneath the other. As Bradbury says in the later quote, myths do have a power that makes them endure and that's because people can universally connect to them as strongly as they can an idea. There are mythological stories that have lasted thousands of years and had many incarnations because they are as strong now as they once were. You can vary up the setting a great deal, and it doesn't even have to be in space, but the underlying stuff remains the same.

If Star Trek was or had ever been truly hard sci-fi then some blending might be of concern but I don't think that was ever quite the case. Then again, that tends to be more applied to literature. In film and TV terms I often see Star Trek and Star Wars (and the likes of BSG, Babylon 5 and Firefly, pretty much the major stuff really) is grouped under the umbrella of 'Space Opera'. I'm usually comfortable enough with that since none of them are exactly bad company to be in and a lot of these unbrella terms are open to interpretation and opinion.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 06-25-2012 at 02:51 AM. Reason: Housekeeping.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-25-2012, 06:00 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Yeah, I agree with parts of that. I think TOS started off trying to have some degree of plausibility around some aspects of it's tech and parts of the universe. But then we also have to remember that a fictional supercrystal is what's key to making warp drive work as well, so there were certain fantastical elements there as well. And I think that was one of those other things that increased as time went on in later Trek.

I'd also agree on the platform idea vs mythology but this isn't to suggest one is beneath the other. As Bradbury says in the later quote, myths do have a power that makes them endure and that's because people can universally connect to them as strongly as they can an idea. There are mythological stories that have lasted thousands of years and had many incarnations because they are as strong now as they once were. You can vary up the setting a great deal, and it doesn't even have to be in space, but the underlying stuff remains the same.

If Star Trek was or had ever been truly hard sci-fi then some blending might be of concern but I don't think that was ever quite the case. Then again, that tends to be more applied to literature. In film and TV terms I often see Star Trek and Star Wars (and the likes of BSG, Babylon 5 and Firefly, pretty much the major stuff really) is grouped under the umbrella of 'Space Opera'. I'm usually comfortable enough with that since none of them are exactly bad company to be in and a lot of these unbrella terms are open to interpretation and opinion.
Can I buy you a round?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-25-2012, 06:06 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Why not? Like Captain Tom - I'm fairly curious by these Jack and Coke slushy thingumyjigs.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-25-2012, 06:37 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Why not? Like Captain Tom - I'm fairly curious by these Jack and Coke slushy thingumyjigs.
They're purdy durned good.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-01-2012, 07:04 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Well, looks like there's been a couple more statements about the sequel from the PR round being done by them for the film 'People Like Us'.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/28/kurt...y-to-tos-crew/

http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/26/chri...ublicity-tour/

On paper, some of it sounds interesting and demonstrates an awareness of some issues around the last film and of what's needed to develop things from the basics set up previously, but who knows how it will go in the telling. Every film (even the bad Star Trek ones of the past) have all had similar positive statements made pre release from the people making them!
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-01-2012, 07:17 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

This is why I don't care for apologizing for there actions. These are commercial artist. They knew exactly what there were doing. In these PR campaigns they only point out the obvious choices they think were strong and controversial. Most people will never notice the other problem so they won't mention them but they were just as problematic.

While I would love for them to get back to some real science and proper story-telling. It's not likely and I'm not holding my breath. It's not like artist to change concepts mid stroke. Maybe the story will get a bit cleaner with it's logic but I don't expect the next film to be anymore serious than the last.

That's a shame...they really picked an excellent cast with great acting chops. Nothing can legitimately be said against any of them.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.