TF Views

And it is just one toe, on one foot? Probably not a fungus then.....


Dom
-had trenchfoot back in '03, so.....

Best.

Thread.

Ever.

...Can we get some sort of TFV Awards 2011 up in here??

Gomess wrote:Sparky, you need to stop cribbing. It even cites Rod Serling and the Cloaking Device vs. Ring of Power example! What a co-inky-dink! =p

Actually, that is a surprising coincidence. The Rod Serling's quote I'd actually heard in a science fiction class I took a couple years ago, and it's fairly well known in terms of defining science fiction and fantasy. The example of a cloaking device and the One Ring, just happened to be the first example I could think of that wasn't as generic as rocket boots/wing shoes. Not all that surprising they'd also use that example though given how popular they are from their respective genre's.

...I mean, come on, did you write that article or what? Is there any precedent for this concept outside of Wikipedia? Please name me *one* widely recognised author or critic who has used the term "science fantasy" with a straight face.

Again, a couple years ago I took a lit. class in science fiction. The first topic we covered was defining what science fiction is and what distinguishes it from fantasy. That's what I'm referencing, not wikipedia. The term "science fantasy" is a term you can easily find listed among sub-genre's of science fiction. I'm not sure what you'd consider "widely recognized" in this area, but I know James Blish wrote a book called "Science-Fantasy and Translations: Two More Cans of Worms" in which he defines the term as "a kind of hybrid" of plausibility and author's whim with no "visible system or principle".

Dominic wrote:It woudl if the writers needed it to.

Not for a science fiction story they wouldn't. Again, the elements of science fiction needs to make some sort of logical sense.

Because the fandoms of both are obsessive and need things to be "just so", just like they need to toe stitchingo of their socks to be "just so" or their soup spoons to be "just so".

What are you talking about fandom's needing things to be "just so"? A genre is not defined by the fandom it represents, it's defined by stylistic criteria, which you keep ignoring.

Shockwave wrote:Yeah, cause Sauron's army being defeated by taking out one mcguffin is nothing like when Anakin stopped an army of droids by blowing up one ship. Or the time that the Gem H'Dar stopped attacking and ran like bitches because the founder they were working for died.

Do you seriously not see the difference in those examples? Why does destroying a ring stop an army? There is no logical reason destroying a ring would stop an army, it just does. Those droids in Star Wars however operate by remote control and were controlled by that ship. Hence, there is a reason why destroying that ship stops them. The Jem'Hadar were fighting to recover that Founder. With the Founder dead they had no reason to continue the conflict, they'd failed their mission.

Actually if you go into any video store in America, they're not. Fantasy films are in the Sci-Fi section.

Actually, it's listed as "Sci-Fi & Fantasy" according to Blockbuster Video's website. They're grouped together but that doesn't mean they don't distinguish the two genre's.

Of course I see the difference, the problem is that Dom and I are arguing from a perspective that doesn't get into details. Ok, think of it like this: You've got a bunch of writers working on a tv show or movie. They have a general plot in mind that they have character A in conflict with character B and after a long quest to find an item to defeat character B he does so. So now the writers are brainstorming. They can set it either in the future in a sci fi setting or they can use a sword and magic fantasy setting. Thats the point where Dom and I are arguing from where we're saying that the two genres are interchangeable. You're arguing from MUCH farther along in the process where things like character names, settings, titles and all of that has been worked out. And it's really not the same argument. We're basically saying the basic outline of a story can be put into either genre and then you're coming back and saying "A lightsaber is different than Excalibur" Yeah we know, that's not what we were talking about.

Shockwave
-is pretty sure I just described half the movies/tv shows in existence with my character A quests for object to defeat character B example.

Shockwave wrote:Of course I see the difference, the problem is that Dom and I are arguing from a perspective that doesn't get into details.

That doesn't work though. You can't claim they are interchangeable between the two genres when you're only looking at the basic function they perform while ignoring the details that defines those genres.

They have a general plot in mind that they have character A in conflict with character B and after a long quest to find an item to defeat character B he does so. So now the writers are brainstorming. They can set it either in the future in a sci fi setting or they can use a sword and magic fantasy setting. Thats the point where Dom and I are arguing from where we're saying that the two genres are interchangeable. You're arguing from MUCH farther along in the process where things like character names, settings, titles and all of that has been worked out.

As I've mentioned before, the elements of sci-fi and fantasy are a primary element of plot/theme and/or setting of those stories. It's not something you decide later on in the process because it's going to make a difference to the structure of the story. If you're already at the point of coming up with the basic plot of the protagonist needing a certain item to defeat the antagonist, then you're already going know what genre you're writing in.

We're basically saying the basic outline of a story can be put into either genre and then you're coming back and saying "A lightsaber is different than Excalibur" Yeah we know, that's not what we were talking about.

No, you've been arguing that things are interchangeable between the two genres based only on a similar basic function they perform in a story, while I've been pointing out that doesn't work as it ignores the criteria that defines each genre.

Sparky Prime wrote:

Shockwave wrote:We're basically saying the basic outline of a story can be put into either genre and then you're coming back and saying "A lightsaber is different than Excalibur" Yeah we know, that's not what we were talking about.

No, you've been arguing that things are interchangeable between the two genres based only on a similar basic function they perform in a story, while I've been pointing out that doesn't work as it ignores the criteria that defines each genre.

Excuse me, but I know what I'm arguing. Dom and I were making a generalization on a conceptual level and you wanna nitpick the details which were never part of the original discussion. If we're guilty of not recognizing the differences then you're equally guilty of not recognizing the similarities. Which is funny considering that you're the one who coined the term "science fantasy" to recognize works of fiction that blend the two together.

Shockwave
-The fact that there are works of fiction that blends the two kinda proves our point.

Shockwave wrote:Excuse me, but I know what I'm arguing. Dom and I were making a generalization on a conceptual level and you wanna nitpick the details which were never part of the original discussion.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that you do. Look at the first arguments Dom made on this discussion. His comment that I originally responded to was that "science fiction is just sword and sorcery with a slightly different look", and in his next post, that the differences between the two genres are "largely aesthetic". These are not a generalization on a conceptual level at all, it's an inaccurate overview on the genres themselves.

Now what you've argued I'd agree is more in line with only the conceptual level, however, I'd still have to point out that sci-fi needing to make sense of what it covers, unlike the super natural in fantasy, is a conceptual part of the genres that keeps them distinguished from each other. It's not a nitpick, that's just part of what defines those genres as what they are.

If we're guilty of not recognizing the differences then you're equally guilty of not recognizing the similarities. Which is funny considering that you're the one who coined the term "science fantasy" to recognize works of fiction that blend the two together.

On the contrary... The very first thing I said on the subject was that "Science Fiction and Fantasy are often grouped together" meaning there are similarities, and even pointed out (not coined) they are sometimes blended in "science fantasy" as you say. I've never denied they don't have similarities, however, this does not mean the two genres on their own are interchangeable. There are reasons why they are distinguished as two separate genres.

-The fact that there are works of fiction that blends the two kinda proves our point.

That still doesn't mean they are interchangeable, as being a separate genre classification that they are blended in proves.

That's just it though, Dom's comment only covers the conceptual level. Or at the very least, I believe that's the level to which he intended it. Also, to say that the same stories can't be told in both genres is just flat out provably wrong. It happens so often in television and movies and especially in these two particular settings.

To be honest, I've always thought of them as the same genre even when I was a kid. The only real difference being that "Fantasy" is set in the past while sci fi is usually set in the future. Either way you've got items that do things that we don't have in the present time and often both genres are repleat with creatures that have never actually existed on Earth (or at least as far as the scientific fossil record has been able to prove).

Sparky Prime wrote:I'd still have to point out that sci-fi needing to make sense of what it covers,

sci-fi doesn't need to make sense of what it covers. In fact, most of the time it doesn't. Now, its nice when it does like in Star Trek, but truth be told there's very little sci-fi out there that actually takes the time to make sense of the technology that's presented in context. There's usually a lot of stuff published after the fact that explains everything, but if you just watch most sci-fi and don't go beyond that it won't be covered. Hell, Transformers itself is HUGELY guilty of this. Go ahead, try to make sense of where Prime's trailer went in the G1 cartoon. Sure, there are several official and non-official explainations now after the fact, but at the time? PFM. Pure. Fuckin. Magic (I did not make up this acronym).

Actually, in the case of TV, I would argue that most tv shows tell the same stories over and over. That's why when something truly unique comes out (Firefly comes to mind) it stands out more.

Shockwave wrote:sci-fi doesn't need to make sense of what it covers. In fact, most of the time it doesn't. Now, its nice when it does like in Star Trek, but truth be told there's very little sci-fi out there that actually takes the time to make sense of the technology that's presented in context. There's usually a lot of stuff published after the fact that explains everything, but if you just watch most sci-fi and don't go beyond that it won't be covered. Hell, Transformers itself is HUGELY guilty of this. Go ahead, try to make sense of where Prime's trailer went in the G1 cartoon. Sure, there are several official and non-official explainations now after the fact, but at the time? PFM. Pure. Fuckin. Magic (I did not make up this acronym).

I think this comes down to one thing: There's hard sci-fi and then there's soft sci-fi. The difference? Hard sci-fi gives a shit. Soft sci-fi don't.

The thing is that there are no meaningful differences between sci-fi and sword and sorcery. They generally follow similar narrative structure (as Shockwave pointed out), and even use similar character types. (The 5 man band works in both settings.)

The most substantial differences are aesthetic.


Dom
-Orcs v/s Orks?