October 8th, 2011, 02:21 PM #16
October 8th, 2011, 06:14 PM #17Space opera used to be a pejorative locution designating not a subgenre or mode at all, but the worst form of formulaic hackwork: really bad SF.
Many readers and writers and nearly all media fans who entered sf after 1975 have never understood the origin of space opera as a pejorative and some may be surprised to learn of it. Thus the term space opera reentered the serious discourse on contemporary SF in the 1980s with a completely altered meaning: henceforth, space opera meant, and still generally means, colorful, dramatic, large scale science fiction adventure, competently and sometimes beautifully written, usually focussed on a sympathetic, heroic central character, and plot action [this bit is what separates it from other literary postmodernisms] and usually set in the relatively distant future and in space or on other worlds, characteristically optimistic in tone.
I am inclined to think of "Space Opera" as Bad SF as soon as I hear the term. I have to make an effort to think that that is not what people mean these days though they may not agree on what I regard as Good SF.
October 8th, 2011, 08:34 PM #18
Last edited by noori noori; October 8th, 2011 at 08:53 PM. Reason: editing file
October 9th, 2011, 10:00 AM #19
The Enterprise Incident obviously related to the Pueblo Incident. It was even discussed at the time.
What does this say about the times? 1962, Before the Cubam Missile Crisis.
The Next Logical Step, by Benjamin William Bova
Last edited by psikeyhackr; October 9th, 2011 at 10:42 AM.
October 9th, 2011, 04:13 PM #20
life refining itself ......
as psi says he was alive at the re; Cuba crisis. and did nt notice anythin' [... deems, wasnt aware.]
probably not-much affected [.. the SF culture] from then.
Kirsty _ quote: "Would you think that it is essential to science fiction to believe the aliens, the storylines and everything about whichever SF you chose to watch or are we expected to suspend our disbelief? Or is a delicate balance between realism and suspension of flaws perhaps the ideal?" unquote ..
i think half the fun [for me at any rate] is "seeing" the fiction as fiction. for thats' what it is, just fiction. i do think the belief is there [in todays' "educated person .."] in "another Race or Sentient beings out there in our Universe _ somewhere." by today's standards, beliefs in Aliens seems to becoming "normal." so "Aliens portrayed in SF" is commensurate with that.
im not sure i see why it is neccessary to "suspend our disbelief\belief" [your words Kirsty _.] the real-world will foment and 'filter down, refining itself ........... < to this predisposition as such
Last edited by noori noori; October 10th, 2011 at 05:06 AM. Reason: text
October 9th, 2011, 05:57 PM #21
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Everybody is really getting into this, it's awesome, so once again I just wanna say thanks to everyone.
KatG, I think you've made some highly interesting points but we're not advised to really reference movies as the module is all about television, sadly. I'm not complaining too much though as the module has only been running for three years and I wouldn't dream of saying anything negative and risk having it taken away! >.<
Unfortunately, my knowledge of SF history is pretty shocking. I adore Doctor Who but I'm only just begining to watch the original run of shows - so far so good, btw! X-Files, Star Trek (Enterprise and Voyager so far) and a host of other SF/fantasty things that have been cropping up on tv in the past couple of years. Therefore, it's super useful to gain insight from people who remember shows from a couple of decades past and it's all gunna be useful for my essay, even if eveything can't directly be put into it.
Noori - I definately agree with the fact that half the fun is seeing it as fiction etc. but it's interesting how some people just cannot get past the barrier, saying things such as 'oh that would never happen!' 'this show is stupid - aliens? weirdos, totally unrealistic' etc.
psik - negative reviews and reactions to SF is something I've started researching so will definately take that into account. I think it's interesting to look into just how violently SF in mainstream culture has been condemned, if you like, in the past. It continues today, to a certain extent, with any fan of SF immediately being labelled a 'geek', 'nerd' or 'weird trekky' (as I've had a couple of times, despite only getting into Star Trek in the past couple of months, haha).
October 10th, 2011, 05:38 AM #22
those people who say " it will never happen" live most of their lives in cocoons. when we stretch our imagination a-degree we incorporate new ideas and criteria into our 'model' of life and its workings. like in human beings there will be: the stupid-ones, the oddities and weirdos and the completely unrealistic persons etc. but people are individual. we are nt all clones, yet.
sometimes "it will never happen" is due to people's fear, or ignorance of the evolving world. one time people used to believe the earth was the only planet in the heavens. we've turned that one up-side-down. in 1899 Tesla said there were "clicking noises" coming from Mars. extraterrestrials ? i think we can largely discount that, unless they were: microbial ...
so people MUST try "and get pass the barrier."
Last edited by noori noori; October 10th, 2011 at 02:53 PM. Reason: addition of file
October 11th, 2011, 09:46 AM #23
I don't hear the "it could never happen" argument except among geeks who, for some reason, feel like they gain social currency by dismissing ideas. Most other folks at a movie just want to see something neat happen and have a sex scene in the middle. They also seem to like it when the hero is chased by a big CGI monster.
Science fiction can offer imaginative spectacle, and that's a lot of fun. But the same freedom that generates that spectacle also generates social critique. That's why Blade Runner and Moon can be about slavery and we can't stop talking about them, even though we're* not talking about Roots or Amistad.
*Not that people don't talk about Roots and Amistad, but you get different people to talk by using different metaphors.
October 11th, 2011, 10:13 AM #24
But physics is not about social anything. Physics is incapable of caring about people. The next time you take a jet flight do you expect the plane designers to be more concerned about physics or social currency. Obviously with all of the steps a plane has to go through to get certified that isn't a problem by the time you buy a ticket.
But I think people dismissing science from science fiction is why so much of it is so bad. At least by the standards I use. But whatever any society does in the future cannot defy the laws of physics. That is why 9/11 is sometimes hilarious.
It amazes me what Liberal Arts types say about this story.
I mostly find that critical study hilariously stupid. Like he missed the whole point of the tale. Physics does not care.
October 11th, 2011, 01:36 PM #25
2) Physics does not care what mass is jettisoned as long as it weighs a certain amount re fuel use. So why is the question of why don't they attempt to jettison other things so the girl can make the return trip not a valid physics question?
The point of the tale seems to be very well understood by the person examining its effects on readers, and it's not purely a physics point, as has been pointed out, but an emotional point -- what if your death is necessary -- and a social point further in how the particular society works, namely that they don't bother to safeguard their shuttles from stowaways and don't care about finding a physics solution to a problem. It's not the physics in the story that is being looked at; it's how the characters deal with physics, which in this story isn't very scientifically at all.
October 11th, 2011, 10:35 PM #26
I just provided the information.
October 11th, 2011, 11:00 PM #27
October 12th, 2011, 09:43 AM #28
Since you brought it up:
My Favorite Martian was not science fiction.
That is the problem some people regard science fiction as anything with sci-fi tropes thrown in. Hyperion with flying trees is science fiction.
Theodore Sturgeon called a story science fiction if it is "built around human beings, with a human problem end a human solution, which would not have happened at all without its scientific content."
Sturgeon also said "90% of everything is crud". What is the point of studying the BAD science fiction?
October 12th, 2011, 10:47 AM #29
SF and TV broadcasting
i think too that after 50 years of "SF and TV broadcasting" not much has changed from the '70s really. one or two new series and programmes etc. i dont see how SF [the culture] will change much re its social acceptability in the present time or in the future. SF like anything is in a medium. it can florish or fade. it has its geeks and avid followers. its great "sport." i would like to get into the "market of it" myself. 3D animation and video, in particular. SF holds a niche place in our entertainment-sphere. just being: uprooted and disgorged every-now-in-awhile. [from an economic point] if no-one is making money from it, then that dictates whether it is ever seen again. shameful though. i think more money can be put into this whole area of entertainment. real 10s of $billions. i think the demand for a variety of SF programs and even movies is enormous. i suppose everyone needs a backer. prehaps this area [SF] needs strong personalities to draw people [the public] to it.
Last edited by noori noori; October 12th, 2011 at 03:46 PM. Reason: text
October 12th, 2011, 04:11 PM #30
Nanotechnology has become a part of science fiction since the Olde days.
The first appearance I recall was
Evolution (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
Since then there was a new Outer Limits episode and in Stargate Atlantis.
Nanotech was used on Wier in this episode:
Micro-technology from the real world has affected the extrapolations and imaginings used in SF.
Last edited by psikeyhackr; October 12th, 2011 at 04:28 PM.