|
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
Sci-fi is speculative and rational. It's based on ideas that are considered realistic and scientifically sound (to a degree, and within the context of the story), hence why it's called science fiction. |
sorry, that's just bollocks. speculative technology in the context of space travel is all science fiction, whether its "realistic" or not. indeed, if we were to follow your logic there wouldnt be anything you could label as science fiction.
what's the difference between obvious impossibilities versus probable impossibilities? given that we haven't even come close to interstellar space travel, any book or movie that includes such would therefore fall outside your definition.
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
Star wars is not sci-fi by any measure. It's a fantasy universe filled with unexplained technology, magic, symbolism and supernatural elements that have no ground in reality. It only borrows from sci-fi themes in it's presentation. Calling star wars sci fi is retarded. |
Again, explain to me the difference between unexplained technology and technology that is explained through made up means?
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
If you take lord of the rings and give Aragorn a lightsaber it doesn't make it sci-fi. |
Maybe so, but if you take away his horse and give him a starship, add sentient robots, faster than light travel, cyborgs then yeah, its science fiction.
The idea that you have to some grounding in current scientific knowledge for something to be "scifi" isn't compelling at all.
edit: considering einstein's theory of special relativity prohibits faster than light travel, to talk of things like star trek being "realistic" when compared to something like star wars doesn't make much sense to me.
___________________
|