Limits in Science-Fiction.

[w00tage]

Fantasy. Just because bookstores put sci-fi and fantasy together under "Fiction" does not mean they're the same thing. Sci-fi is an exploration of what could happen in the future when advancements in knowledge have changed our setting and capabilities, and how people would deal with the changes. Fantasy is an exploration of what could happen if the existing physical laws of the universe were different and how people would deal with those conditions.

The Star Wars setting is the only successful example of combining sci-fi and fantasy that I can think of, and it has exactly 1 fantastic element (the Force). And that only worked because Lucas set the entire setting "Long long ago, in a galaxy far, far away" which created the necessary distance for acceptance.

So that's the line for me. Get your fantasy in my sci-fi or vice versa, and I'll throw it in the rubbish and order again.

 

[AlkalineGamer]

I was more concerned with basic fundemental things, such as the eyes, people where also wondering wether the charcter viewed the answeres in 1st or 3rd person, well he is basically looking trough the eyes of his ancestor, and our eyes are in the front of our heads, so he seas 1st person. stuff like that i don't think can be changed.

I presume you're talking about Assassin's Creed (By "ansers", did you mean Ancestors?) Well there's a perfectly logical explanation for that. Wanna hear it? It's a doozy!

Ready: Assassin's creed would have been a pain in the ass to play from the first person. That's it. There IS no "scientific reason", and I didn't think anyone really WANTS one. Would you like AC to be "Half-Life 2's Annoying platforming section where you can't see where you're fucking standing" the game?

OT: The central tenet of Star Wars is Space Magic. But no-one gives a shit about that because A) They named it after a fundamental aspect of Physics and B) Well, even if it IS just Space Magic. So what?

Yeah i did mean Ancestors, sorry i'm being pretty consistent with my illiteracy at the moment.

And that was pretty much my argument, that Desmond sees it in first, but because it's easier for US we see it in third.

 

[JJMUG]

Well I disagree with you for 2 reasons
1: It is Fiction, as such it is only limited by the imagenation of te writer
2: It is Literature and to put a boundry on it is to put a boundry on a persons speech or opinion or the limits to which anyone can express themselves through words and thoughts and also the limit to which topics can be explored and the perspectives exploring them.
To limit one form of expression gives permission to limit many more.

"fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible." Rod Serling
The word fiction does not mean it gets to be Science Fantasy. In science fiction there is no magic as that would be fantasy.

The Star Wars setting is the only successful example of combining sci-fi and fantasy that I can think of, and it has exactly 1 fantastic element (the Force). And that only worked because Lucas set the entire setting "Long long ago, in a galaxy far, far away" which created the necessary distance for acceptance.

Being that Star Wars is a Space Opera it can do what ever it wants to. A lot of people like to put Star Wars in one or the other in categories when really it is neither. Also it would no longer fit in the Science Fiction genre because of the force. That would make it Science Fantasy.

Wiki articles on Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Space Opera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera#History

 

[GrinningManiac]

I think it's like this

It's fiction and thus you can do ANYTHING

HOWEVER

If you do something you are generally expected to explain or acknowledge it. If in your story or film everyone has three eyes for no reason you'd be best to explain why the human race decided suddenly they needed a third one. This is for the main stuff, you don't need to explain why everyone's wearing lyrca or how ships maintain oxygen supplies.

But the BIG problem is when writers try to explain things and get it HORRIBLY wrong. Like, for example, the third eye is explained as "genetics 'deciding' a third eye would allow one to rest an eye one at a time without losing depth perception". We all know this is not how evolution works and thus the explanation is nonsense.

Basically, you can get away with anything and you don't really have to explain any of it BUT if you DO explain it then you'd be best to get the explanation right.

 

[The_Evermind]

Science fiction doesn't need limits, just look at hitchhikers guide. Planets almost randomly turn in giant pieces of fruitcake, there is a robot that time travels so much he becomes several times older than the universe itself, languages are translated by fish you put in your ear. However, I will agree that 1. Consistency is nice and 2. Explanations are nicer, if you are going to do something utterly impossible at least point at something in your story and blame it on that even if the explanation is nothing more than "Good thing [x] was invented, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to breathe in space just now"

 

[iNsAnEHAV0C]

I think any limits in sci-fi would be bad. With boundaries you are also limiting a writer's imagination. A lot of technology today comes from people reading a sci fi novel and thinks "I wonder if I could make that real. Imposing boundaries might ruin future imaginations. I know that seems a little far fetched, but who knows?

 

[HardkorSB]

Science fiction, basically taking massive liberties with theoretical or even certain science.
But what lines can science fiction not cross? What scientific facts just cannot be changed?

I thought of this after having a little debate with someone on the AC forums over the way Genetic inheritance works, a constant argument was that "it's science fiction, they can do what they want" But i think Sci-Fi needs some boundaries, it's the only thing stopping it from becoming utterly insane nonsense.

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

All sci-fi needs is consistency.
As long as the story is consistent within it's own universe, it's all good.
You can change the rules, laws of physics, whatever you want, as long as you don't change them DURING THE STORY.

 

[Agayek]

Im currently training to be a biochemist- as my training has gone on my tolerance for bad science in media has gone.

I prefer it when they just handwave it, I loved how they did FTL travel in Firefly- there's an engine, it spins and makes you go through space- simple, elegant and with minimal stupidity or exasperating signs of a media student failing to get their head around high level physics.

Actually, there isn't any FTL movement in Firefly, according to the commentaries I watched the other day. That little spin and explosion thing is just a fusion explosion going off to propel the ship to wherever they're going.

The whole show is supposed to take place in 1 solar system, so FTL drives are unnecessary.

Edit: And now that my random nerd knowledge quota has been met, time to get back to work.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

OT: The central tenet of Star Wars is Space Magic. But no-one gives a shit about that because A) They named it after a fundamental aspect of Physics and B) Well, even if it IS just Space Magic. So what?

Interestingly alot, most people don't see it as space magic. People are already trying to see what the mind can unlock right?

CAN we move shit with our minds?!
CAN we read thoughts?
CAN we do all this shit?!

Star Wars is set "A long time ago" and yet they are far more advanced than we are, so I guess the space magic part of it all would simply be that certain people are capableof unlocking a second of their mind that can manipulate shit! What should they call this? Psiwave? Psibeam? The force!

 

[BabySinclair]

I invoke Clarke's Third Law "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." It doesn't matter if we understand it or not, it works and we probably just have it wrong. That's the fun of science fiction, it's fiction and you can do crazy shit with it. If we brought a gun to a non-industrial society and used it, they would think it was magic... this sounds familiar.

 

[Zakarath]

You can write/make up whatever you want, but if it's utter absurdity i.e. ships and robots the size of planets or whatever, I probably won't be interested.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Star Wars is set "A long time ago" and yet they are far more advanced than we are, so I guess the space magic part of it all would simply be that certain people are capableof unlocking a second of their mind that can manipulate shit! What should they call this? Psiwave? Psibeam? The force!

Uhh....you DO realise that "A long long time ago, in a Galaxy far far away!"......is just a play on a "A long long time ago, in a kingdom far far away!" which is how Fairy tales start, traditionally.

It isn't supposed to be taken literally. It's just a pun.

 

[Lectori Salutem]

Science Fiction does not and never will take liberties with science.

Science Fantasy can do what it wants, but the whole point of science fiction is to explore possibilities of plausabilities we just can't achieve yet.

This.
Fiction merely implies it's not a true story, the fact that it's called science-fiction does not mean anything the writer can come up with can actually happen.
That's where the fantasy genre kicks in.

 

[Wintermoot]

limiting it would make it boring (for example would gurren langann still be fun if they limited them selfs to the laws of nature?)

 

[Lectori Salutem]

limiting it would make it boring (for example would gurren langann still be fun if they limited them selfs to the laws of nature?)

They can do whatever they want, but if it's not scientific in any way whatsoever, it's not science fiction.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Science fiction, basically taking massive liberties with theoretical or even certain science.
But what lines can science fiction not cross? What scientific facts just cannot be changed?

I thought of this after having a little debate with someone on the AC forums over the way Genetic inheritance works, a constant argument was that "it's science fiction, they can do what they want" But i think Sci-Fi needs some boundaries, it's the only thing stopping it from becoming utterly insane nonsense.

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

One of my favorite lines that this made me think of is
"Ever since scientists invented magic anything is possible."
I believe that was from the Simpsons.

Anyway back to the topic at hand.
Science fiction is lumped together with my favorite genera, fantasy, under the category "Books that teachers don't respect" So I didn't get a chance to read to many in highschool (besides Ray Bradbury's shitty shitty novels.) but I did determinedly read Ender's Game and all it's sequels. A teacher asked me (among other completely inane questions) "Do you think this could ever happen in real life?" My answer was "No, there's a part in that book where a 12 year old does trigonometry of his own accord." I just don't think it's possible that a kid in the future will be that smart (or give a shit).

In movies I think Idiocracy is as close to an accurate depiction of the future as we're ever going to see. But that's closer to a horror film than a Sci-fi movie.

But it is Science FICTION so reality shouldn't have any say over what writers can or can't do so long as it's fun to read.

 

[winginson]

Each (good) work of sci-fi needs to come up with its own universe with its own set of constraints. There has to be limits within the universe so it doesn't devolve into madness or we-can-do-anythingness, but there should be no limits in our universe as to what they are.

 

[MightyMole]

As long as it makes sense within it's universe, it can do whatever the hell it wants for all I care.

 

[Trivun]

I don't care about real boundaries, provided they're explained somehow in-universe in some way (even if said explanation is a load of crap in real terms). Like, in Doctor Who, the TARDIS travels through time and space, things that are deemed impossible by anything according to the laws of physics as we know them IRL. But in the series, it's fine, because the fictional universe gives an 'applied phlebutonium' explanation and then the TARDIS follows the rules set in the series.

What I do hate is when a series sets up rules, then proceeds to break them. Carrying on with the TARDIS example, if the series stated explicitly that a TARDIS cannot materialise inside itself, AT ALL, then proceeded to do so (like in the 2011 Comic Relief shorts, Time and Space), then I'd be pissed off. But if it is allowed within the series rules, as previously stated, then that's fine. And it was. So it was fine.

 

[Nouw]

EDIT:And just when I thought the genre couldn't get any more fucked up.

I'd rather have my science fiction limitless, I can get a dose of hard whenever I want.