Best Sci-fi.....?

[Mr Ares]

untill LOTR fantacy was considered scifi.  thats part of why you find fantecy books in the scifi section at bookstores, so tecnicaly we dont need a new thread

I always kept the 2 seperate, even before LOTR. Fantasy existed before that, you know. And I wasn't entirely serious about a need for a new thread.

 

i consider fantasy more the elves, dragons, fairies, demons, etc. of course, there is always a point where these things begin to get blurry, and that is when you gain magiks.

So you have an inaccurate and restricted definition of fantasy? WOT is fantasy, yet lacks elves, fairies and demons, and the Dragons are cannons, banners, and Rand. So are you trying to say that it isn't fantasy? I could come up with other examples as well. Fantasy, as I stated, covers drawing on real world folklore. Sci-fi can draw on the same sources, but would attempt to give some sort of scientific rationale for events.

 

Alys, I agree, I see sci fi as more the futuristic, aliens, supernatural and fantasy as more of the magic, mythological style creatures (as Alys as sited). I also see fantasy as being more swords and bow and sci fi being the more advanced weaponry.

The supernatural is fantasy, generally, and it is entirely possible to set fantasy in the modern day, with modern weapons. An example would be Buffy and Angel, both of which used guns, and magic. They also had advanced technology like robots, so that could be considered sci-fi, or science-fantasy even, and likewise it is possible to have swords in a sci-fi setting.

 

I'll give one more example. Vampires are generally fantasy creatures. However, it is possible to give a scientific rationale for the various weaknesses of vampires - vampirism could be, for example, a virus, transmitted by blood, which causes sufferers to develop acute photosensitivity, an allergy to garlic, metabolic changes, etc. No magic needed, just some science, which is probably very dubious. In short magic, or any supernormal occurence lacking a scientific rationale (which holds water within the internal logic of the program/book.etc. in question) is fantasy, while anything dealing with progression of social/scientific/etc. trends, and supernormal activity having a scientific rationale which holds water within the internal logic of the show, and any magic basically attributable to "sufficiently advanced technology" (Clarke's Law) is science fiction. So Supernatural (the show) = fantasy. Hope that's clear. I also hope you two can start making use of this expanded and more accurate definition of fantasy. Any questions?

[Alys Kinch]

So you have an inaccurate and restricted definition of fantasy? WOT is fantasy, yet lacks elves, fairies and demons, and the Dragons are cannons, banners, and Rand. So are you trying to say that it isn't fantasy? I could come up with other examples as well.

 

No, i consider the way the magic is woven in wot to make it fantasy. The way the magic isn't scientific magic. That isn't always the case. Nor is the point really worth arguing, in depth, to me. The presentation of a thing changes much about it. The presentation of the magiks may change the classification. Everything isn't black and white. Accept that there may be some shades of grey.

 

BTW, the simple fact that I used etc. defies your attempt to call it restricted. etc means that I am not delinating only what may be included and that I recognise there is much more to it.

[Mr Ares]

So you have an inaccurate and restricted definition of fantasy? WOT is fantasy, yet lacks elves, fairies and demons, and the Dragons are cannons, banners, and Rand. So are you trying to say that it isn't fantasy? I could come up with other examples as well.

No, i consider the way the magic is woven in wot to make it fantasy. The way the magic isn't scientific magic. That isn't always the case. Nor is the point really worth arguing, in depth, to me. The presentation of a thing changes much about it. The presentation of the magiks may change the classification. Everything isn't black and white. Accept that there may be some shades of grey.

 

BTW, the simple fact that I used etc. defies your attempt to call it restricted. etc means that I am not delinating only what may be included and that I recognise there is much more to it.

I am well aware of shades of grey between science fiction and fantasy. An example: in an episode of Buffy a robot is built to hold the conciousness of a demon. Robots are sci-fi, demons are fantasy, so which is this? (Sci-fan, is the answer.) I'm also well aware of you're etc. and what that means. You're still wrong, and you're definition is still restricted and inaccurate. As I pointed out, it is entirely possible to handle traditionally fantasy creatures in a sci-fi way. Dragons are traditionally fantasy, but Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" stories use them in a sci-fi setting. The same is possible with any othe rtype of fantasy creature, to a greater or lesser extent, which you may have got if you actually read my entire post. It is possible, therefore, for a science fiction story to include any of the things that you say make something fantasy. It is not what is used that is important, compared to how it is used. In Supernatural, things are used in a fantasy way. Magic is presented as magic, demons are demons, vampires are vampires, werewolves are werewolves, with no scientific rationales for what is going on. It is a fantasy show, using elements from folklore.....which many fantasies do. Elves, Dwarves, Dragons, Vampires, etc. were not things dreamt up by Tolkien et al when he had nothing better to do (or something better to do, but didn't want to do it). They had pre-existing roots in myth, legend and folklore. Essentially, no difference from Supernatural. Now, I don't really see much point continuing with this. I have clearly outlined the facts, shown your opinions to be wrong because they ignore those facts, and if you can accept the truth we are done, and if you can't there is little point as you probably never will. I will ask you this though: what science is there in Supernatural, what futuristic stuff, what aliens, what, in short, to justify a definition of [glow=red,9,500]science[/glow] fiction?

[Lupin]

I voted for Stargate. I loved that series, well up until series 6. It was changing and they got rid of my 2 favourite characters, General Hammond and before that Jacob/Selmak, didn't like that at all.

[Guest silver89]

Stargate was my pick absolutly love that show. Though it did start dying around Season 6/7 and Season 10(last one ever) was for me a big let down. Don't know what I was expecting but that wasn't it.

 

Can't wait for the two movies that they are making as we speak, seen some interveiws and so forth and they look awesome. :)

[milanreborn]

I voted for Star trek ;D,on second place is FireFly....for third I am not sure,its divided between Galactica,Farscape and Babylon 5