Star Wars vs Star Trek vs Battle Tech Space Battles
#941
Posted 13 June 2012 - 05:32 PM
#943
Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:04 PM
#944
Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:55 PM
#945
Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:54 AM
Catamount, on 13 June 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:
Dem is fightin' words
Yeah, you'll want to be careful, there have been some pretty vocal supporters of Wars and 40K in this thread, championing Trek may well get them riled up (even though you have the correct answer } ; = 8 ) ).
Catamount, on 13 June 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:
No you're not, you're just outside of Charlotte. You're only in Boone during school semesters. } ; = 8 P
#946
Posted 14 June 2012 - 07:34 AM
Ilithi Dragon, on 14 June 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:
Yeah, you'll want to be careful, there have been some pretty vocal supporters of Wars and 40K in this thread, championing Trek may well get them riled up (even though you have the correct answer } ; = 8 ) ).
Ah yes, the 40k fans... "Hey mommy, when I grow up, I want to be a space marine, so I can be worse than the Khmer Rogue and the SS combined and be a mass murderer and oppressor of all sentient life! They're SO COOL!". (okay, in fairness, that was only maybe half the pro-40k posters here, but that's one half too many)
Quote
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Damocles 1, on 13 June 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:
You know, normally I'd just go with "this person was never taught basic scientific curiosity as a child and probably doesn't express it anywhere else, either", but in this case, I think this poster just genuinely wasn't hugged enough as a child.
No, no, that's not it. There's too much angst there.
I think we might actually be looking at some hitherto unknown abused child of Mike Wong's here This poor person... just the thought of being beaten every night with a hardcover copy of the TNG Tech Manual... and being made to recite Curtis Saxton's ICS books every night (the beatings came when he got the power figures an order of magnitude off... just one in 47, it wasn't that much, honest!).
It's no wonder this person lashes out. It's okay, Damocles, we really do love you. Some day the voices will stop, I promise.
Edited by Ghost, 14 June 2012 - 08:11 AM.
Amending the record.
#948
Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:47 PM
Rodney28021, on 13 June 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:
Please read arguments from before made by very knowledgeable people.... and you will find your answer, false.
sentieus, on 09 June 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:
B-halo ring but I would fire in the safety of a dysonsphere or shield world.
C-death star from starwars.
D-SDF-1 from macross/robotech
Once again Star Wars trumps just about all of those.
Ilithi Dragon, on 14 June 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:
Hey, my voices keep me sane... >.> They make fun of me when I talk to myself...
MARE!!!! I AM NO LONGER ALONE IN THIS FIELD...... So, when did you "snap".
Kudos if you can figure out what "Mare" means, it is pronounced "MAH-REH", I will give one hint, the motto in the bottom of my sig, is in a war song of the same language... good luck!!!
#949
Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:07 PM
have a different opinion, a visit of the holy Ordo Malleus will convince you of my point. Short before your death, I fear. But nonetheless. I'm drunk. Good Night!
Edited by Shredhead, 15 June 2012 - 04:08 PM.
#950
Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:11 PM
Shredhead, on 15 June 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:
have a different opinion, a visit of the holy Ordo Malleus will convince you of my point. Short before your death, I fear. But nonetheless. I'm drunk. Good Night!
Once again, I will cite that you read previous arguments, and please have a pleasant rest of the evening while drunk.
#951
Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:18 PM
guardian wolf, on 15 June 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:
There being nothing to actually discuss further pending new arguments/evidence/franchises, I think I'll leave it at saying we really have already covered this to death. Although, GF, I will note that even looking past Star Wars vastly less impressive showing once EU is thrown it (it being a different and separate continuity from the SW Films, as was discussed), you shouldn't dismiss those ridiculous animes so quickly. The skill of the Japanese to infuse their fictions with ever-less plausibly and ever more wildly inflated constructs vastly exceeds our own. Remember that in something like a SINGLE SEASON of Dragonball Z, we went from people shooting megajoule range blasts out of their hands to people who could blow up planets, who were then vastly superseded a season later (by people who were vastly superseded a season after that). From what little I know, Macross is the same kind of franchise. Ship numbers and capabilities that basically just exceed suspense of disbelief.
As for 40k... it's more like the Al Qaeda of fantasy (it's no Science Fiction). It's a cynical story that champions oppression and brutality while eschewing basic human progress, where the ever-regressive "good guys" are worse than all the most blood-stained historical figures in real-world history, combined, times a thousand, cubed, and are little less the enemies of sentient life in the galaxy than those they supposedly protect against. But yeah, we've beaten that to do death too...
Edited by Catamount, 15 June 2012 - 05:21 PM.
#952
Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:14 PM
Ilithi Dragon, on 14 June 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:
Catamount, on 14 June 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:
Catamount, on 15 June 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:
I could have sworn that this thread was dead, but I guess we're just going to insult other franchises and their fans now that everyone else is gone...
I guess I could claim that franchises like Foundation and other "hard sci-fi" series aren't real Science Fiction because they're so boring they make you want to kill yourself and I don't like them?
Edited by Jack Gammel, 15 June 2012 - 08:15 PM.
#953
Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:32 PM
Science fiction is a franchise historically defined by story elements that challenge conventions, and above all else, create stories where the universe in question fundamentally changes from the beginning to the end of the story (among other defining properties). They're from a literary tradition that is simply different from that of, say, Campbellian Fantasy, like Star Wars, or... whatever Warhammer 40k is. I could give a lengthy explanation on everything that defines science fiction, and the history of the literature that the franchise was born out of, but honestly, if you really care that much, I'll just link one of a dozen essays on the topic by notable science fiction authors, sufficing to say, simply taking place in the future, or having space ships, doesn't make a story science fiction. Those might be scifi elements, but scifi backdrop on a very non-scifi story still leaves one with a very non-scifi story that, at its core, is antithesis to everything that particular genre of literature has been defined by.
As for whether 40k is "good", regardless of its genre, I guess that's a matter of opinion, but the story does eschew basic human progress, and does feature characters who, even when so-called protagonists, are part of organizations that are more oppressive and murderous than the worst real-world entities that have ever existed, and they are fundamentally the enemies of sentient life. Because these are sometimes, if not most of the time, portrayed as the good guys, that means that said stories do champion oppression and brutality, and again, eschew basic human progress, which is basically preached as being evil. It's just hidden on the convenient blanket excuse of "well it's what makes parties 'good' in 40k, because that's what's necessary to protect life from the warp and enemy invaders", referring, not to science and debate and open inquiry, not societal advancement, but rather a system of brutally enforced religious fundamentalism erected around the so-called "God Emperor", and the franchise never addresses these shortcomings within its setting and characters, but rather tries to pass all this off as being "cool".
I don't personally think it makes a very good story, but whether someone else does, those are basic facts of the franchise, not value judgements. Maybe that's all the makings of a great story, or maybe it's the opposite, but regardless of how one regards these story elements, they exist, though I certainly make no effort to hide my disdain for the particular franchise's story (the games themselves are actually pretty good, as games).
Edited by Catamount, 15 June 2012 - 08:45 PM.
#954
Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:41 PM
#955
Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:46 PM
fiction based on futuristic science: a form of fiction, usually set in the future, that deals with imaginary scientific and technological developments and contact with other worlds
Sounds simple enough to me. Not really interested in elitist definitions.
I also was not discussing the inherent value, moral or otherwise, of 40k or Star Wars or anything else.
Does it take place in the future? Does it have space-ships? Does it have advanced/magic technology? Does it have aliens? Does it have crazy abilities like psychic/empathic powers? Cool. It's science fiction in my book. Let's not forget the pulp magazines and B-rate movies which spawned the sci-fi movement in the first place.
Edited by Jack Gammel, 15 June 2012 - 08:46 PM.
#956
Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:03 PM
I am curious though, if the likes of Wars and 40k are science fiction, then do you consider a fantasy? What's the difference?
If a story that is literally, in every way, a textbook fantasy with space ships suddenly is a science fiction, then it doesn't seem like there's a difference at all; you'd merely be defining science fiction as any fantasy with any amount of technology and/or aliens, and/or an alternate time frame, and/or taking place on another planet, and/or that has aliens... etc, etc. I could call LOTR science fiction at that point.
In any case, it doesn't matter what we call 40k's genre (Tech Noir?), everything I said about it is true, to the best of my knowledge.
Edited by Catamount, 15 June 2012 - 09:07 PM.
#957
Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:27 PM
Conversely, a story with a fantasy setting can still be very much a science fiction story. Just ask Anne McCaffrey about her Dragonriders of Pern universe. It's very much a fantasy setting, but she has insisted from the beginning that it is science fiction. I'm an aspiring science fiction author myself, and at least two of the stories I am working on, including the maybe-stand-alone novel I'm currently awake at two in the morning working on that I hope to be my first published piece, have fantasy settings but are very much science fiction in terms of literary tradition.
40K has none of the elements of literary science fiction. In 40K, nothing changes, it is a perpetual, apocalyptic war, and questioning things is actively discouraged in the story's lore. 40K does not ask, "What if?" 40K asks, "What do we have to do to make all this brutality and suffering seem good?" and "How Grim and Dark can we make this?" 40K has a science fiction setting, but it isn't science fiction. It's closer to fantasy than anything else, and the 40K universe originated from the Warhammer fantasy game, so it basically IS a GrimDark fantasy story, set in space. Wars is much the same way, though not quite as GrimDark: It is literally a classic Campbellian fantasy story, and it fits every single point of that literary standard.
Is calling 40K not science fiction being elitist? Certainly not! It's making a classification based on established literary standards. But don't take my word for it, here's acclaimed science fiction author, Dr. David Brin, author of the Uplift Saga, and author of Foundation's Triumph, the last book in the Second Foundation saga, on Science Fiction vs Fantasy:
http://ieet.org/inde...re/brin20110410
Now, like Catamount, I have a lot of disdain for the stories of both 40K and Star Wars, and the Campbellian story tradition in general (it's the story tradition/template of bards and minstrels that kept kings and shamans in power for thousands of years!), and especially for the moral lessons and principles they espouse, and especially those of 40K, because they are not just bad, they are downright evil, and are anathema to everything that the modern Enlightenment that has bootstrapped us out of the darkness of the Middle Ages and that represents all the hopes and dreams we have for any kind of future that isn't a reversion to that, let alone a continued betterment of our future.
#958
Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:22 AM
Based on your definition, which is as much a personal opinion as my own, I could write a story about two humans and an alien female on a spaceship; they do nothing but engage in a gratuitous orgy, a baby alien hybrid is born at the end, and I could imply that the hybrid baby would change something...anything, and that would be sci-fi. Star Wars would not be sci-fi. In fact, a huge number of contemporary science fiction narratives would be excluded. Aliens, Brave New World, most of Ray Bradbury's science fiction work, any number of classic pulp science fiction stories, etc...I would say that your definition is elitist.
Ilithi Dragon, on 15 June 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:
And I'm disdainful of many Star Trek narratives. I guess that means its not science fiction. I said so. On the internet. Since Trek tech is basically magic and the psuedo-White Man's Burden-trope of the Federation never changes I think I'll define it as fantasy. This has about as much relevance as 40k's morality. But why not? We're taking it upon ourselves to make sweeping declarations about other franchises we don't like.
Ilithi Dragon, on 15 June 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:
You're right that a lot of Science Fiction and Fantasy have some degree of overlap. The Book of the New Sun and Book of the Long Sun or both examples of this. I would define them as Science Fiction, but I wouldn't begrudge someone who wanted to define them as essentially fantasy in nature. People can define their literature the way they want to. At least they can in enlightened countries where we have freedom of speech. McCaffrey wants to write a story about dragons and call it Science Fiction? Fine. Friedman wants to write a story that takes place on the edge of the universe and call it Fantasy? Fine. Most literature is defined as science fiction/fantasy now anyway, but I don't make sweeping assertions about it one way or another.
Ilithi Dragon, on 15 June 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:
http://ieet.org/inde...re/brin20110410
Well, that definently settles it. Can't argue with Dr. Brin. I wasn't aware that Brin was the patron-saint of Science Fiction. I thought his article was flawed, but I loved the comments.
Let's all forget that Science Fiction was born of this:
Edit: HA! I didn't realize that I'd chosen the edition which featured Bradbury's "I, Mars". R.I.P. Ray Bradbury.
Edited by Jack Gammel, 16 June 2012 - 05:09 AM.
#959
Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:58 AM
#960
Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:04 AM
Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:
Sounds like you're quitting. Cool. Guess I win. How about we let this thread finally die?
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users