All Things Star Wars (No Spoilers)

[gkIrish]

I hate when people try to act like you can only like Star Wars or LOTR. I'm a huge fan of both and don't try to compare them.

 

[IrishLion]

LOTR because Witch King.

 

[Cackalacky]

I hate when people try to act like you can only like Star Wars or LOTR. I'm a huge fan of both and don't try to compare them.

Yep. I like both massively and for much different reasons. Randall is a cock bag but he is oh so funny.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You must set the bar for 'meaningful' pretty damn high, or perhaps we might have different definitions of 'supernatural.'

Maybe "incorporating the supernatural in a meaningful way" was a confusing way of putting it, but I don't think any of those shows you mentioned fit the criteria. Star Trek is the archetype, and it has always been very secular and Progressive in its worldview. Just because the script-writers occasionally incorporate some elements of magic, ghosts or mystery into the script isn't evidence that they're dealing with religion or the supernatural in a serious way.

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing here as the stories you mention are more soft sci-fi (apologize for the distinction). Star Wars definitely falls into this category but at the time the original was released it was definitely a sci-fi movie. Only later with the other two movies were we able to glimpse the yin/yang and eastern mysticism. The expanded universe (post Episode VI) has quite clearly settled into the sci-fi category, while the pre-Episode IV era is more soft sci-fi as its focus is on the Jedi and the ability to develop/use the Force.

When I think of true sci-fi or hard sci-fi, I think of a story with a distinct lack of religious overtones in the story (Mad Max Trilogy, V for Vendetta, Back to the Future, E.T., The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 1984, iRobot, The Running Man, The Time Machine).That has always stood out to me. The stories always expand my world but there is really no supernatural actions/entities. Sure there may be characters that have powers humans don't but that is usually the result of a more evolved/non-humanoid anatomy or some other futuristic/technological advances.

The stories can occur in the past (via time travel) or more typically the near to not so near future. There are definite moral issues that arise, but they are typical dealt with via some technology or ability developed from a technology and not an appeal to some higher power.

Opposite this are Dragon Lance Chronicles, The Matrix Trilogy, Tolkien's body of works (specifically the Silmarillion), C.S. Lewis, and hell even the Game of Thrones, where there is clearly a transcendence in the environment via the story, characters, or themes. The time of the story is superfluous really.

These are the major and over-arching setups for me. Anything that falls in between is really a sub-genera of one or the other or just a piece of speculative fiction, like Dune. (IMO is truly science fantasy).

Great post. Adding on to this, let's examine HG Well's The Time Machine; widely regarded as an early sci-fi classic. Wells doesn't really describe the technology in detail, which is partly why I'm skeptical that in-depth descriptions of futuristic gadgetry is the defining feature of sci-fi (though I do think that touches on the core issue here).

Rather, sci-fi is defined by an overriding focus on Techne-- man as technological animal-- and how humanity is changed by it (which is also why it tends to to be secular, materialist and Progressive). I don't think Star Wars is properly categorized as sci-fi, because it's not about technology.

Conversely, fantasy is about things that transcend humanity (hat tip to Cacky). It generally has a sense of sacred order which is completely missing from sci-fi. A forest isn't simply a setting, or an obstacle, but an enchanted realm with its own spiritual energy. When Siegfried proposes to Brynhildr, he doesn't simply give her a ring, but a magic ring, etc.

I enjoy them both, but they engender very different senses of wonder-- sort of like the Hoover Dam and the Basilica of the Sacred Heart.

I seem to have grown a neckbeard and acquired a fedora while typing this post. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to detox in a football-oriented thread.

 

[irishog77]

Maybe "incorporating the supernatural in a meaningful way" was a confusing way of putting it, but I don't think any of those shows you mentioned fit the criteria. Star Trek is the archetype, and it has always been very secular and Progressive in its worldview. Just because the script-writers occasionally incorporate some elements of magic, ghosts or mystery into the script isn't evidence that they're dealing with religion or the supernatural in a serious way.



Great post. Adding on to this, let's examine HG Well's The Time Machine; widely regarded as an early sci-fi classic. Wells doesn't really describe the technology in detail, which is partly why I'm skeptical that in-depth descriptions of futuristic gadgetry is the defining feature of sci-fi (though I do think that touches on the core issue here).

Rather, sci-fi is defined by an overriding focus on Techne-- man as technological animal-- and how humanity is changed by it (which is also why it tends to to be secular, materialist and Progressive). I don't think Star Wars is properly categorized as sci-fi, because it's not about technology.

Conversely, fantasy is about things that transcend humanity (hat tip to Cacky). It generally has a sense of sacred order which is completely missing from sci-fi. A forest isn't simply a setting, or an obstacle, but an enchanted realm with its own spiritual energy. When Siegfried proposes to Brynhildr, he doesn't simply give her a ring, but a magic ring, etc.

I enjoy them both, but they engender very different senses of wonder-- sort of like the Hoover Dam and the Basilica of the Sacred Heart.

I seem to have grown a neckbeard and acquired a fedora while typing this post. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to detox in a football-oriented thread.

You need to cut this shit out.

 

[gkIrish]

I seem to have grown a neckbeard and acquired a fedora while typing this post. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to detox in a football-oriented thread.

What are those?

 

[wizards8507]

What are those?

I don't think I've posted in a football thread since the spring game, and before that probably Troy Niklas.

 

[Emcee77]

Late last night, my wife asked me what I was thinking about. I told her I was thinking about the conversation in this thread and tried to explain the debate to her. She was LITERALLY asleep before I finished talking.

#nerdery

 

[IrishLion]

A neckbeard is the only kind of beard I can grow, FWIW.

 

[wizards8507]

Maybe "incorporating the supernatural in a meaningful way" was a confusing way of putting it, but I don't think any of those shows you mentioned fit the criteria. Star Trek is the archetype, and it has always been very secular and Progressive in its worldview. Just because the script-writers occasionally incorporate some elements of magic, ghosts or mystery into the script isn't evidence that they're dealing with religion or the supernatural in a serious way.

Great post. Adding on to this, let's examine HG Well's The Time Machine; widely regarded as an early sci-fi classic. Wells doesn't really describe the technology in detail, which is partly why I'm skeptical that in-depth descriptions of futuristic gadgetry is the defining feature of sci-fi (though I do think that touches on the core issue here).

Rather, sci-fi is defined by an overriding focus on Techne-- man as technological animal-- and how humanity is changed by it (which is also why it tends to to be secular, materialist and Progressive). I don't think Star Wars is properly categorized as sci-fi, because it's not about technology.

Conversely, fantasy is about things that transcend humanity (hat tip to Cacky). It generally has a sense of sacred order which is completely missing from sci-fi. A forest isn't simply a setting, or an obstacle, but an enchanted realm with its own spiritual energy. When Siegfried proposes to Brynhildr, he doesn't simply give her a ring, but a magic ring, etc.

I enjoy them both, but they engender very different senses of wonder-- sort of like the Hoover Dam and the Basilica of the Sacred Heart.

I seem to have grown a neckbeard and acquired a fedora while typing this post. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to detox in a football-oriented thread.

Whiskey, I brought up comic books awhile back and it kind of got buried but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on where they fit into the paradigm.

(For these purposes I'll stick with traditional "super hero" comics, and my examples will all be from Marvel since that's my particular branch of nerd-dom.)

Steve Rogers was a genetically-enhanced supersoldier designed to be the pinnacle of human physicality. Tony Stark used arc reactor technology to generate sustainable, clean energy that also happens to power his suit of armor. Bruce Banner experimented with gamma radiation that mutated his cellular structure so dramatically that it created the Hulk. Hank Pym invented Pym Particles (and Ultron), the Fantastic Four got their powers through cosmic radiation, the X-men's powers come from genetic mutations, etc. etc. etc. I'd argue that these things are quintessentially "science fiction" in their depiction of the pursuit of human perfection through technology and the various consequences thereof.

On the flip side, these characters exist in the same universe as, and frequently interact with, inhumans, Atlanteans, various pantheons of Gods, sorcery, and narrative elements that include the "world-tree" Yggdrasil, traditional quest-narratives, and elaborate mythology typically associated with fantasy.

 

[ACamp1900]

Late last night, my wife asked me what I was thinking about. I told her I was thinking about the conversation in this thread and tried to explain the debate to her. She was LITERALLY asleep before I finished talking.

#nerdery

I keep opening this damn thread... why? dafaq knows.

 

[Cackalacky]

I keep opening this damn thread... why? dafaq knows.

Nerd rubbernecking. Lol

 

[NDohio]

I feel like I am stuck in a Big Bang Theory episode .......

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Steve Rogers was a genetically-enhanced supersoldier designed to be the pinnacle of human physicality. Tony Stark used arc reactor technology to generate sustainable, clean energy that also happens to power his suit of armor. Bruce Banner experimented with gamma radiation that mutated his cellular structure so dramatically that it created the Hulk. Hank Pym invented Pym Particles (and Ultron), the Fantastic Four got their powers through cosmic radiation, the X-men's powers come from genetic mutations, etc. etc. etc.

None of those story lines is about technology or its effects on humanity though, as proper science fiction is. The "science" is usually just a plot device in their origin stories to make them "super", so they can proceed to vanquish some transcendent evil symbolized by a villain.

I'd argue that these things are quintessentially "science fiction" in their depiction of the pursuit of human perfection through technology and the various consequences thereof.

I'd agree that what you've just described is science fiction, but I don't think it applies to most comic book story lines.

On the flip side, these characters exist in the same universe as, and frequently interact with, inhumans, Atlanteans, various pantheons of Gods, sorcery, and narrative elements that include the "world-tree" Yggdrasil, traditional quest-narratives, and elaborate mythology typically associated with fantasy.

Which, I'd argue, supports my theory that whether the hero is casting fireballs or shooting a laser gun is ultimately superficial. Most "fantasy" stories, including almost all comic book heroes, have the same basic monomyth structure. The following comes from the "Criticism" section of the monomyth article:

The novelist David Brin has criticized the monomyth, arguing that it is anti-populist, and was used by kings and priests to justify tyranny. Brin also pointed out that the existence of a monomyth may reflect cross-cultural historical similarities, rather than some deeper "human insight". He points out that, until relatively recently, storytellers were dependent upon the oligarchy for their livelihood and that the aristocracy only recently lost its power to punish irreverence. Once those historical factors disappeared, science fiction emerged—a story-telling mode Brin sees as the antithesis of Campbell's monomyth.

While Frank Herbert's Dune on the surface appears to follow the monomyth this was in fact to subvert it and take a critical view, as the author said in 1979, "The bottom line of the Dune trilogy is: beware of heroes. Much better [to] rely on your own judgment, and your own mistakes." He wrote in 1985, "Dune was aimed at this whole idea of the infallible leader because my view of history says that mistakes made by a leader (or made in a leader's name) are amplified by the numbers who follow without question."

Sci-fi is the anti-thesis of fantasy; secular, materialist and Progressive.

 

[greyhammer90]

I feel like I am stuck in a Big Bang Theory episode .......

This is much better written. But just as funny (Not at all).

 

[Cackalacky]

I feel like I am stuck in a Big Bang Theory episode .......

 

[greyhammer90]

Sci-fi is the anti-thesis of fantasy; secular, materialist and Progressive.

I would quibble that they're more like two sides of the same coin. I would also say that rare works can cover both subjects equally well. 2001: A Space Odyssey for example, is an amazing sci fi, but definitely deals with the idea of a higher power or unexplainable force in a "serious" way (as you would say) through the monolith.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I would quibble that they're more like two sides of the same coin. I would also say that rare works can cover both subjects equally well. 2001: A Space Odyssey for example, is an amazing sci fi, but definitely deals with the idea of a higher power or unexplainable force in a "serious" way (as you would say) through the monolith.

In Clarke's book, the monoliths are explicitly alien (not divine) in origin. Kubrik chose not to spell that out in his film, but I don't think obscuring that detail moves it into transcendental territory. It's still firmly rooted in Clarke's materialist and progressive worldview.

 

[greyhammer90]

In Clarke's book, the monoliths are explicitly alien (not divine) in origin. Kubrik chose not to spell that out in his film, but I don't think obscuring that detail moves it into transcendental territory. It's still firmly rooted in Clarke's materialist and progressive worldview.

I have difficulty seeing how the monolith in the movie isn't transcendental. Your example of a fireball versus a laser works both ways. If it looks, acts, has the effects of, and makes us question our purpose and it's existence like God, I'm gonna call it God. Also there's the fact that it doesn't seem to follow any laws of physics, makes things happen to it's will, and doesn't seem to exist within the confines of what we understand to be space time.

 

[gkIrish]

Can we at least agree to stop using any words that are longer than "Chewbacca" in this thread?

 

[Huntr]

Can we at least agree to stop using any words that are longer than "Chewbacca" in this thread?

Laugh it up, fuzzball.

 

[gkIrish]

Ran across this today. Pretty funny (NSFW--language)


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xh3Wveg4DMk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[calvegas04]

Two questions for everyone....

What role do you see the storm troopers having in the new films? Will they be in the movies at all?

And what film this year or next does everyone think the first trailer will be released with? The trailer alone will probably boost any movie about 5-10 million dollars.

 

[UmphreakDomer]

will be weird to not see the 20th century fox intro and music too.

 

[IrishLion]

 

[Cackalacky]

The Legendary Star Wars Expanded Universe Turns a New Page | StarWars.com

 

[ACamp1900]

So need Mara Jade is dis shizz... Scarlett J. would do a fine job..... maybe that chick from the Tudors and GoT.

 

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

I thought the reason the Jedi were killed so easily was that the Dark Side had been clouding their judgment and power. Yoda always referenced this in the first two movies and then it becomes super prevalent in the third and then it plays into the movie by showing the Jedi basically becoming powerless, because the dark side has gotten so strong. To me it made the 3rd movie super depressing and dark which, imo, is a great lead in to the next film (A New Hope).

The Jedi Temple scene was meant to show off Anakin's power. At the time everyone felt he had the potential to be the most powerful Jedi ever, even more so than Yoda and other masters. Also most Jedi were out fighting and the few that would've been at the Temple had gone out to arrest Palpatine as well so it really only left the young kids and maybe a master or two. When you have them going up against the best clone troopers out there and the one of the most powerful Jedi of all time, then it's not to far-fetched to show Anakin taking them all out.

Well.
Done.
Sir.
+1

 

[GATTACA!]

So need Mara Jade is dis shizz... Scarlett J. would do a fine job..... maybe that chick from the Tudors and GoT.

Holy shit YES! That is perfect! Reps all day long (once i can give you some again). They would just have to change her origin because shes way to young to be bumping uglies with Luke at this point.

 

[gkIrish]

May the Fourth be with you all