True. It is this heoric fantasy that bothers me the most. Especially the fantasy part. You can find the same thing in Avatar. It really bothers me when directors reduce scifi to the black-and-white rhetoricm of the 19th century. NO! In the future, soldiers will not travel thousands of light years, just to die on an alien planet. What also bothers me are the aliens. They are not only too human, but also too Westernized. Why should they talk with their mouths? Why should they have guns? Or better question: Why would they engage in any fights against a race that is obviously inferior to them?

I'm biased because I'm a hard science fiction guy. And yes, there are many things in Star Trek that annoy me. E.g. the spaceships accelerating within a second to more than the speed of light.

You do realize that Lucas has never defined Star Wars as being s-f, eh? While the presence of s-f elements in it has led many to call it such, Lucas has long referred to it as space fantasy. He seems to see himself as being more in the tradition of Greek heroic mythology and Tolkien than Heinlein or Asimov (although he did nick Coruscant from the latter's Trantor). I will concede, however, that the Clone Wars tv series smacks of military s-f, at least based on seeing parts of the theatrical movie that kicked it off.

As for Avatar, like a lot of the best Trek, it isn't about projecting the future. It's about using s-f as an allegorical tool. Cameron is writing about our current and historical treatment of the environment and aboriginal peoples, not about how we might treat them on some far-off planet. Unfortunately, his heavy-handed writing style that also sank Titanic for me kicked into high gear here as well. I could spend a whole post cataloguing how many of the characters are cliches that have come up in previous Cameron films (although the acting was actually quite good and transcended the clunky writing in many cases). I, personally, would have dumped the whole "destroying the planet" theme in favour of a deeper exploration of how Jake interacts with Navi culture and the world. IOW, I would have made a film about Jake using his avatar to explore Pandora and its people and not spend the last third of the movie on an extended battle sequence. Probably less marketable but more appealing to my sensibilities

On the broader issue of fantasy vs. s-f, I'm one of those people who has kind of embraced the broader notion of speculative fiction. I like fiction that imagines and explores different worlds regardless of whether they are framed as s-f, fantasy, magic realism, or horror. Indeed, I actually find that some hard s-f is too hard for me because it gets so caught up in explaining how and why it is scientifically possible (or plausible) that the story and characters get lost.

In terms of current writers, Charles Stross seems to be about my speed, having read a few things by him. He can do "hard", but also uses ideas like the multiverse theory to flirt with fantasy and magic when the mood takes him. For instance, the Laundry novels are horror/s-f/espionage crossover stories that use weird, edgy science ideas and a heavy dose of H. P. Lovecraft to create an s-f-ish spin on magic and demonology. It ain't hard s-f by any means, but puts an s-f veneer on urban fantasy/horror that is highly entertaining.

Mendalla

What an interesting discussion to start off Labour Day...

I am a sci-fi guy and I really have no interest in fantasy.  I don't hate it, though, because I recognise its storytelling strengths and I know many people love it -- I just find it's not for me.  And when it comes to sci-fi, I tend to be a bit more on the soft side.  I don't care so much about the science and technology, but rather I find that sci-fi is an excellent medium in which a writer or director can explore what it means to be human.  Those are the stories that really stick out as being my favourite.  I don't even care so much for action sci-fi... most of the big movies that come out tend to be a huge battle between humans and aliens, but that really doesn't hold my interest.  Whereas movies like "Moon" and "Children of Men" are phenomenal tales that explore what it means to be human... what can a person be driven to do in desperate situations?  what creates your identity?  what will a person do if their entire understanding of the world is shaken up?  where is the line drawn between good and evil?

Now, on the Star Wars vs. Star Trek thing... I used to be very much defensive of Trek and loved attacking Wars, but I've come to settle down on that... I know Wars works for some people and not for others, just like Trek works for some people and not for others.

I've never heard of Star Wars being referred to as space fantasy before, though -- I've always heard it described as a space western.  There's an required suspension of disbelief required for pretty much any piece of fiction, though particularly for sci-fi and fantasy.  The viewer/reader is required to suspend their disbelief on a certain aspect and then let the story unfold from there.  In a series like Stargate (which I don't watch, so I may be incorrect), the suspension of disbelief is about the stargate device itself which can transport people to other worlds/universes.  Once the viewer accepts this as fact, then the stories can logically unfold from there.

If there are too many parts to the story that require a suspension of disbelief, you're going to lose viewers/readers because they will just consider the whole thing ridiculous.

I think that's a huge stumbling block for both Star Wars and Star Trek.  They both have so many elements that require a suspension of disbelief -- FTL drives, mostly humanoid aliens, instant translation abilities, highly populated universes, etc, etc, etc...  So I think it's hard for a lot of people to buy into it without ridiculing it.  I wonder if the people who put all their energy into buying into either Wars don't want to put in the effort to buy into Trek, or vice versa.  This, of course, doesn't explain every person who has an opinion on this subject, but I do wonder if that's part of it.

Of all the Trek series, I find that I'm most drawn to Deep Space Nine, and I think it's for a few reasons.  One is that I love how it really gets into the characters and the politics and the interpersonal tensions... so it's the most "soft" of all the Trek series, I find.  As well, I think it requires less of a suspension of disbelief than the others.  The other series tend to be in a new place and a new conflict each episode, requiring a new suspension of disbelief with each story.  But with Deep Space Nine, since they're rooted in one location and there are often stories that unfold over several episodes or seasons, the viewer is not required to put in as much suspension of disbelief each episode, as many of the stories will build out of things the viewer has previously accepted.

(It just occurred to me -- I wonder if the popularity of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is based significantly on it requiring complete and total suspension of disbelief.  Almost none of it is logical.  So... whereas most stories require a little bit of suspension and then things build out logically, HGG does none of this building with logic and thrives in absolute suspension of disbelief...)

YW, Have you seen Touching the Void? Excellent human reaction film, about what happend in a man's mind when he is faced with survival alone on a snowy mountain. God comes into it, and it's in a documentary style. Very good. Alive, I also found very memorable.

As for Star Wars, I enjoy the old ones, if I don't fall asleep. Too much fighting for me. The most interesting bits for me are the psychological aspects between Luke and his father, Leah's relationship to the men, Obi Wan, Yoda and the force. I don't like the pow pow, laser guns stuff, and the storm troupers and Nazi uniform bad men. The Emporer was cool though.

I quite liked the Stargate movie, but not the series. I just couldn't get into it. I love the thought of aliens having started the ancient Egyptian culture so that's realy fun for me. For the same reason I liked 10,000 BC, thought the dread locks and dinosaurs were hard to take.

I tried to get into DS9, but didn't like any of the main characters, especially Kira. I guess it just disn't "go anywhere" for me. What I love best about Star Trek were the psychological, philosophical, theoretical themes. The stuff about the fabric of time and the nature of existance. Awesome mind spinning stuff. I liked all the characters, but my fave was Q.

I really expected to like Solaris, for it's realism, but found it rather disturbing. The memory of the woman's cheek burned out from draino is something I'd rather not have seen. But I love 2001 &2010, and Appollo 13.

i can't believe i haven't noticed a star wars discussion here until now!!

first of all, i'm one of those rare breeds who enjoys both star wars and star trek... all six star wars movies, but only tng from trek. 

as for star wars, i loved the origional trilogy as a kid - i loved the classic story of the good guys defeating the bad guys.  i was 8 years old when i saw 'star wars' for the first time, and my brother and i watched it so many times that we both knew ALL THE WORDS.  even the non-english stuff.  my brother and i would entertain guests by doing the dialogue between greedo and han solo at the cantina. 

the prequel trilogy was perfect, imho... as a kid, i ALWAYS wanted to see what darth vader looked like behind that big mask.  i always wanted to know WHY he had to wear that thing in the first place.  so for george lucas to actually get those three movies out there was the answer to a child hood prayer.  i was one of those people who stood in line to see the movies at midnight, and watched it 3 times on its first day of release.  i debated them endlessly on the star wars forums of 'nightly net'.  i put on my jedi outfit and went to 'celebration III' in indianapolis with people from all over the world that i'd met on that chat room, and had the time of my life meeting anthony daniels, kenny baker, and even seeing george lucas himself.  

imho, 'return of the jedi' and 'revenge of the sith' are the two greatest movies ever made.

as far as trek, i find 'galaxy quest' to be an excellent representation of what trek fans are like!!  i have watched EVERY episode of 'star trek: the next generation' and love the way that the stories run so similarly to the real life situations we have today.  they took on homosexuality, euthanasia, honour killing, government corruption, addiction, the question of when life begins and when it ends, the existence of a higher power... it was just and AMAZING series. 

and i'm so happy that the next 'star trek' franchise has started on such a high note... that last star trek movie was TEH AWESOME.  especially zoe seldana as ohura... i like how she has become more than just some kind of intergalactic receptionist.

Just a small bump to remember Irvin Kershner. The director of The Empire Strikes Back, widely regarded as the best of the series, passed away at age 87.

Mendalla