ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

General discussion

MCB

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23

Report this Aug. 25 2013, 8:57 pm

I post this board because at the recent Star Trek Las Vegas Convention, there was a panel that listed the Top Ten in science-fiction, and I would like to see more comments on that (see «One Trek Mind» on August 21). Of course, Star Trek was number one (duhuh, it was a Star Trek convention ! ), but what is its place in the general television science-fiction world ? For instance, me personnally, I did not like The X-Files all that much. But I am glad that Doctor Who came in third. I liked it very much, the old ones certainly more than the new. I have seen all the existing episodes, including the old black and white with the first Doctor, in reruns on PBS ages ago.


The one good thing about such a panel, is that it allows a bit of nostalgic remembrance at TV series of long ago. For example, at age 11, my favorite series was Space 1999. I have watched a few episodes last year, and I could not help but think that is dated. Another thing that I have watched recently and that I find dated visually : «The Motion Picture». It shows it was done in the '70. Those costumes ! Are they going to explore strange new worlds or attend a gym session ?


Over the years, my liking of science-fiction did not waver. I have enjoyed many series. I would have ranked Babylon 5 much higher. I have read that there was something of a little war between Star Trek and Babylon 5 back then. Does someone remember ? I do not mind that Star Wars was ranked 5th, and like Jordan Hoffman, I wonder if Star Wars fans would have put Star Trek anywhere on there list... Other series I liked did not make the list, like Red Dwarf, Lexx ( I think it was called, it has been a while), and others. On a more modern note, and although it was a feature film, something like Prometheus was just dumb, boring and badly done.


I do not watch television much nowadays, for series like Game of Thrones, I prefer to rent the DVD's. So is there any new good science-fiction on anywhere ? I rented the DVD's of Threshold a few weeks ago. It is not all bad, but really, lettuce with teeth ? Share your thoughts on television science-fiction. For me The Original Series is up there above the stratosphere with the gods and goddesses, but for people of my generation (Generation X) maybe, The Next Generation IS Star Trek. What do you think ?

Khaaan!!!!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 72

Report this Aug. 25 2013, 10:02 pm

I dont know.....I liked Battlestar Galactica but I feel like sci fi on tv is just dead right now. I mean Doctor Who while good feels more like an action show with the doctor just spitting out gobbly gook to explain how he can always win. I want a resurgence of hard sci fi. I would love to see a new trek series of course but maybe pull out some of those old asimov stories and see what could be adapted. (a few years ago it was going around that roland emerich was going to direct a foundation movie, i was convinced it was a sign of the apocolypse.)  regardless I am a fan of all the trek series, the first 7 seasons of x files, BSG, B5(original run only, those made for tv movies sucked), firefly, and classic (and selected new) Who. 


I am in complete agreement with prometheous. That movie sucked....just sucked so badly. In its defense, I ended up watching the Host, (the things we do for love) compared to the host, prometheous looks like fuckin citizen kane and blade runners love child.  But I feel like it is representative of alot of sci fi now. Flashy and dumb. But the sad thing is there is likely a larger audience for dumb sci fi than smart sci fi. 


Peoples exhibit A: Transformers franchise


 


"Ten thousand dollars for me by myself. For that you get the head, the tail, the whole damn thing."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 10:04 am

If Bablylon 5 would have come around first, then I would think that it would be #1.  I know I like B5 better because of the way it was written - the stories built on each other - they didn't always just go warping off to the next system without being affected by long-term consequences of their actions like Star Trek does.


But since so many of us grew up on Star Trek, we're Trekkies first.

vulcan lady

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5347

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 10:10 am

Quote: MCB @ Aug. 25 2013, 8:57 pm

>

>I post this board because at the recent Star Trek Las Vegas Convention, there was a panel that listed the Top Ten in science-fiction, and I would like to see more comments on that (see «One Trek Mind» on August 21). Of course, Star Trek was number one (duhuh, it was a Star Trek convention ! ), but what is its place in the general television science-fiction world ? For instance, me personnally, I did not like The X-Files all that much. But I am glad that Doctor Who came in third. I liked it very much, the old ones certainly more than the new. I have seen all the existing episodes, including the old black and white with the first Doctor, in reruns on PBS ages ago.

>The one good thing about such a panel, is that it allows a bit of nostalgic remembrance at TV series of long ago. For example, at age 11, my favorite series was Space 1999. I have watched a few episodes last year, and I could not help but think that is dated. Another thing that I have watched recently and that I find dated visually : «The Motion Picture». It shows it was done in the '70. Those costumes ! Are they going to explore strange new worlds or attend a gym session ?

>Over the years, my liking of science-fiction did not waver. I have enjoyed many series. I would have ranked Babylon 5 much higher. I have read that there was something of a little war between Star Trek and Babylon 5 back then. Does someone remember ? I do not mind that Star Wars was ranked 5th, and like Jordan Hoffman, I wonder if Star Wars fans would have put Star Trek anywhere on there list... Other series I liked did not make the list, like Red Dwarf, Lexx ( I think it was called, it has been a while), and others. On a more modern note, and although it was a feature film, something like Prometheus was just dumb, boring and badly done.

>I do not watch television much nowadays, for series like Game of Thrones, I prefer to rent the DVD's. So is there any new good science-fiction on anywhere ? I rented the DVD's of Threshold a few weeks ago. It is not all bad, but really, lettuce with teeth ? Share your thoughts on television science-fiction. For me The Original Series is up there above the stratosphere with the gods and goddesses, but for people of my generation (Generation X) maybe, The Next Generation IS Star Trek. What do you think ?

>


 


How dare they skp The Twilight Zone, one of the best in SciFi, in my opinion.  But then I like my scifi more cerebral, and less action (more talk, less action...ha ha)  That's why the new ST movies are not something I would go to see, and I only did because it was Star Trek.


This is a tough list to make.  Some people don't even consider Star Trek science fiction, but more like a western.   I could agree, but I love scifi and so I sit on the fence.


And I don't consider Star Wars science fiction.  It's too kid-friendly.  Lucas himself called it an "Opera in Space".


Did you attend this convention, or do you just keep up with "One Trek Mind"?


 


 


DIFTOR HEH SMUSMA!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 10:12 am

Quote: vulcan lady @ Aug. 26 2013, 10:10 am

>Did you go to that convention, Bam Bam?
Nope, I've never been to any SciFi convention.

vulcan lady

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5347

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 10:24 am

How dare they skp The Twilight Zone, one of the best in SciFi, in my opinion.  But then I like my scifi more cerebral, and less action (more talk, less action...ha ha)  That's why the new ST movies are not something I would go to see, and I only did because it was Star Trek.


 


This is a tough list to make.  Some people don't even consider Star Trek science fiction, but more like a western.   I could agree, but I love scifi and so I sit on the fence.


 


And I don't consider Star Wars science fiction.  It's too kid-friendly.  Lucas himself called it an "Opera in Space"


 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 393

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 10:41 am

How dare they skp The Twilight Zone, one of the best in SciFi, in my opinion.


 


It's not technically sci-fi though, it's science-fantasy. The Outer Limits is sci-fi.

MCB

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23

Report this Aug. 27 2013, 1:03 am

Vulcan Lady, I attended the Comic Con in Montreal last year, not the Las Vegas convention.  And the 2 JJ things are not Star Trek.  So you could easily not have seen them, you would not have missed anything.  I did not see the 2nd one, and I will not rent the DVD either. 

miklamar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2166

Report this Aug. 27 2013, 9:30 am

One nice thing about a long-running franchise like Star Trek:  you know most of the characters.  You are already familiar with how they act, what they think, etc.  When you pick up a Star Trek book, you don't have to learn a lot of new characters, places, technology, etc.  So, you can just concentrate on that story.


One of the problems I find with reading science fiction anthologies (short stories) is that you have to keep relearning the new people, places, worlds, etc., being discussed in that story.  Then, when you begin the next story, you have to do the same thing all over again.  It can get frustrating.


So, one great thing about the Star Trek franchise is that you already know the basics of the story.


Var Miklama--Zakdorn, engineer. "A sound mind in a FULL body!" "Time, like latinum, is a limited quantity in the galaxy."

MCB

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23

Report this Aug. 27 2013, 10:03 pm

At the end of the Star Trek Destiny trilogy by David Mack, there is a list of characters, both old and new, as the action takes place after the series and films. Since there is no good science-fiction around, I started to read Star Trek novels again last year. It is a thrill !

ralfy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 13

Report this Aug. 28 2013, 2:14 am

For me, The Prisoner from 1967 is probably the best, although several might argue that it is not sci-fi.


 

Trajan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 137

Report this Aug. 28 2013, 7:44 am

The fact that no one here has mentioned Farscape astounds me. To me it is right up there on terms of sheer quality. Such a great show with fully realized characters.

Blakes 7 (no apostrophe) is another excellent show. It pains me that more sci-fi fans aren't familiar with these shows.

Whoever mentioned The Prisoner, I don't think I can agree. I love Patrick Mcgoohan, but the Prisoner wasn't sci-fi. It was an abstract painting on celluloid, disguised as a spy-show. It was closer in theme to Danger Man than sci-fi. In fact, Mcgoohan once said (but later denied) that #6 was in fact John Drake, though never identified as such due to copyright reasons. One of my favorite shows ever, but definitely not sci-fi.

Hegemony.Cricket

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 26

Report this Sep. 03 2013, 3:59 am

The Prisoner had many science ficton elements. Rover, for example, was a sentient AI. The General was a thinking computer (hard sci fi for the 1960s). The "Embryo Room" was a more psychological version of the Holodeck, using drugs and suggestion instead of photons and force fields. It was similar to Star Trek in that the emphasis was more on the society and how if affected the characters than the hard science. Like most television shows, they didn't go out of there way to explain how everything worked, which is why the label "Speculative Fiction" is more useful when talking about these shows. 


There's a reason why we see more sitcoms and cop shows than science fiction on television. Science Fiction requires that every element of the show be built from scratch. Cop shows just raid the prop department and then film outside. The audience for science fiction is also more fickle and less forgiving of weak early episodes. Even with the renewed interest in science fiction and super heroes in film, the genre also promises a much smaller audience. Why could any network go for that?

miklamar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2166

Report this Sep. 04 2013, 8:40 am

Has anyone seen the now-old movie Apollo 18?  I've only seen the previews, which look like the Blair Witch version of Apollo 13.  But, it looks like it could be scary--especially if you can envision yourself as one of the crew stranded on the Moon!


Var Miklama--Zakdorn, engineer. "A sound mind in a FULL body!" "Time, like latinum, is a limited quantity in the galaxy."

Trajan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 137

Report this Sep. 07 2013, 9:04 pm

Quote: Hegemony.Cricket @ Sep. 03 2013, 3:59 am

>

>The Prisoner had many science ficton elements. Rover, for example, was a sentient AI. The General was a thinking computer (hard sci fi for the 1960s). The "Embryo Room" was a more psychological version of the Holodeck, using drugs and suggestion instead of photons and force fields. It was similar to Star Trek in that the emphasis was more on the society and how if affected the characters than the hard science. Like most television shows, they didn't go out of there way to explain how everything worked, which is why the label "Speculative Fiction" is more useful when talking about these shows. 

>There's a reason why we see more sitcoms and cop shows than science fiction on television. Science Fiction requires that every element of the show be built from scratch. Cop shows just raid the prop department and then film outside. The audience for science fiction is also more fickle and less forgiving of weak early episodes. Even with the renewed interest in science fiction and super heroes in film, the genre also promises a much smaller audience. Why could any network go for that?

>


There certainly were sci-fi elements in the Prisoner, I don't disagree with that.  I disagree that the Prisoner is, could, or should be labeled as "Sci-Fi."  The presence of technology that doesn't currently exist isn't enough to label a mode of entertainment as "science fiction."


If it were enough, then we'd have to call the 007 franchise a science fiction franchise.  You'd also have to label most comic book films and heroes as sci-fi, such as Batman, Superman, Spiderman, and Iron Man.  But we know that isn't true.


To me, to be considered sci-fi, the science or technology in question has to be a consistent, dominant, integral part of the story.  It has to be more than a literary device to propel an otherwise more traditional form of story-telling.


Star Trek, Quantum Leap, Stargate, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica, to me these are true science fiction franchises.


Stuff like Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Iron Man, 007, the Prisoner, Danger Man, Knight Rider, and so on, this stuff isn't sci-fi.  Sci-fi intrudes in on these stories, but it does not dominate them.


Is Gone With The Wind a war movie because war is featured in the film?  Is Rambo: First Blood Part II a romance film because Rambo falls in love with Co Bao?  Is Braveheart a documentary because it features actual, historical persons?


That's my only point, man.  No denying there are sci-fi elements in the Prisoner.  But it certainly is not a sci-fi series. 

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum