• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Battle of the Sci-Fi Mega Franchises

Which sci-fi mega franchise is best?

  • Babylon 5

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Battlestar Galactica

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • Doctor Who

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • Firefly

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • Star Trek

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • Star Wars

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • Other (specify in post)

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • Total voters
    29

rojse

RF Addict
So, the mere fact that it contains spaceships and droids makes it science fiction. I guess I can understand why some would see it this way - I guess I just see it that the 'tropes' need to be necessary to tell the story in order for it to be science fiction.

But the tropes are necessary in this case. The Death Star, for example, can't be transposed to any other format: how could the exploration of a moving fortress and mass destruction weapon combination that takes out entire planets be done in any other format?
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
But the tropes are necessary in this case. The Death Star, for example, can't be transposed to any other format: how could the exploration of a moving fortress and mass destruction weapon combination that takes out entire planets be done in any other format?

Because the important aspect is the destruction of the peaceful planet of Alderan. This could easily be transposed to the evil army destroying the princess' village. A large trebuchet, other siege engine, or some other kind of weapon which utlizes technology for destruction could complete the metaphor. The underlying theme is that whole populations are helpless before the might of the evil army - this can be told in any time and setting.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
So, the mere fact that it contains spaceships and droids makes it science fiction.

Yes, that is all that is needed for soft science fiction. Why is that a problem for you? Why this insistance on hard science in a medium that virtually never has it? Can you name me a science fiction series or movie that is hard science fiction and why you think it is?
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, that is all that is needed for soft science fiction. Why is that a problem for you? Why this insistance on hard science in a medium that virtually never has it? Can you name me a science fiction series or movie that is hard science fiction and why you think it is?

I think you're misusing the terms "soft" and "hard" science fiction, but that's besides the point. "Hard" science fiction specifically deals with speculating on science as we know it, particularly focused on very technical aspects of a particular science or technology. Most science fiction isn't "hard", but the opposite of it doesn't necessarily mean anything which takes place in a science fiction setting. I think that's the primary point - a story can take place in a science fiction setting, but that doesn't make it a science fiction story.

There are very few "hard" science fiction movies - it's more of a literary genre, but there are plenty of science fiction movies. Movies in which the science is necessary for the story.

Off the top of my head the movie Blade Runner is a science fiction movie, but it's not "hard" science fiction. The story could not be told without having Replicants - there would be no non-science fiction corrolarry which could be used to explore all the story aspects involving the ramifications of artificial people.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
I think you're misusing the terms "soft" and "hard" science fiction, but that's besides the point. "Hard" science fiction specifically deals with speculating on science as we know it, particularly focused on very technical aspects of a particular science or technology. Most science fiction isn't "hard", but the opposite of it doesn't necessarily mean anything which takes place in a science fiction setting. I think that's the primary point - a story can take place in a science fiction setting, but that doesn't make it a science fiction story.

No I'm not, but to be fair, neither are you. The term "soft" science fiction is somewhat subjective so it can be used in mulitiple ways. However, the way I'm using it is definitely an accepted definition of the term where what you are talking about better fits the term "social" science fiction.

Social science fiction is a term used to describe a subgenre of science fiction concerned less with technology and space opera and more with sociological speculation about human society. In other words, it "absorbs and discusses anthropology", and speculates about human behavior and interactions.

Star Wars fits this description very well but take note, the term science fiction is still present.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Last edited:

rojse

RF Addict
I think you're misusing the terms "soft" and "hard" science fiction, but that's besides the point. "Hard" science fiction specifically deals with speculating on science as we know it, particularly focused on very technical aspects of a particular science or technology. Most science fiction isn't "hard", but the opposite of it doesn't necessarily mean anything which takes place in a science fiction setting. I think that's the primary point - a story can take place in a science fiction setting, but that doesn't make it a science fiction story.

There are very few "hard" science fiction movies - it's more of a literary genre, but there are plenty of science fiction movies. Movies in which the science is necessary for the story.

Off the top of my head the movie Blade Runner is a science fiction movie, but it's not "hard" science fiction. The story could not be told without having Replicants - there would be no non-science fiction corrolarry which could be used to explore all the story aspects involving the ramifications of artificial people.

Star Wars would not have worked without Chewbacca.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Oooo, Star Trek has pulled ahead by a vote. :D Out of all the votes, the two biggies, ST and SQ only took half the votes. That's an interesting statistic by itself.
I wouldn't have voted for either of them, but I couldn't choose between my loves.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
I'm surprised there isn't more Babylon 5 fans. Has the series faded into obscurity already? During it's day, I thought it had some of the best plots in sci-fi TV. But then again I was also a big fan of Space: 1999 too. :eek: In my defense, I was 9 years old at the time.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I'm surprised there isn't more Babylon 5 fans. Has the series faded into obscurity already? During it's day, I thought it had some of the best plots in sci-fi TV.
And writing. I'm using a passage as a reading in the spiritual circle I'm leading tonight. :D
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
I'm surprised there isn't more Babylon 5 fans. Has the series faded into obscurity already? During it's day, I thought it had some of the best plots in sci-fi TV. But then again I was also a big fan of Space: 1999 too. :eek: In my defense, I was 9 years old at the time.
I'm a big B5 fan too. Enjoyed it.....did'nt last long enough.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I'm surprised there isn't more Babylon 5 fans. Has the series faded into obscurity already? During it's day, I thought it had some of the best plots in sci-fi TV. But then again I was also a big fan of Space: 1999 too. :eek: In my defense, I was 9 years old at the time.

Babylon what?
 
Top