In article <"/GUID:D3C106C4ED99D111BB5D000000000001*"@MHS>, Lyth Chris <Chris.C.Lyth@> wrote:
Simon said
The only SF TV series worth noting is Babylon 5, which is made by some
American company and Channel 4. In my oh-so-humble opinion, all these
Star Trek spinoffs ain't worth bo-diddley. ("The X Files", while good,
is not SF but fantasy.)
I will allow that Simon does not like ST TNG, DS9 or V. These are a matter
of taste. I tend to regard the original ST with mild distaste.
To me the pinnacle of Star Trek was "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home". It had
humour. And, after the self-importance of most of the original Star Trek,
that was wonderful. After that it seems to have gone downhill again. As
Chris points out, that is a matter of taste.
However could he please justify describing a show which attempts to give
scientific exploons for all it's weird happenings as fantasy. The science
is no more far fetched than warp drive, jump gates and the like.
[quoted message cropped]
I will not disagree with Adam's brilliant analysis. I didn't think out the
boundaries nearly as clearly as that. To my mind, though, the
science-content of "The X Files" is decidedly tenuous - that can be done
because the science is deliberately made a mystery to the viewer. In "Star
Wars" the science is accepted, and understood: kind of like an example I was
arguing with one of the players of my campaign. Rather like this:
In a story a pixie (little guy with wings and pointy Mr-Spock ears) turns up
and starts bothering the heroes. The little guy is inherently magical: he
can't be seen unless he wants to be seen, he can see in the dark, strange
things happen when he is about, and he can fly.
In another story the action is the same, but the readers know that the
little guy is actually a genetic construct. His ears are pointy because the
artery that feeds each retina loops through the ears to cool his
thermal-sensitive eyes; he has a psionic ability that causes people near him
to ignore him; and the wings (actually modified ribs) enable him to jump
fifty feet in the air, even if he can't hover or glide because the effort
would quickly exhaust him.
In both stories the action is the same, the dialogue is the same, but one
is, to my mind, SF and the other is fantasy. The difference is simple - you
meet a guy with pointy ears, great knowledge and a strange way of looking at
the world. In "Lord of the Rings" he's Elrond - in "Star Trek" he's Mr
Spock. The difference is in the reader's assumptions - which come from the
writer's intentions. If the writer intends you to think "this is science -
even if I can't understand it someone can" then it's probably SF. If the
writer intends you to think "it's magic - inherently mysterious" then it is
not SF.
In short, the scientific-sounding explanations in "The X Files" are there to
lend vermisilitude to the characters. All UFOlogists mumble about quantum
physics and wormholes - but it doesn't mean that there are little green men
out there. Or to probably mis-quote "Men in Black" - "The planet Venus
refracted through swamp gas and bouncing off a weather balloon..."
Simon
---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16
simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?
"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"
