The Empire Strikes Out - Inside the Battle of Hoth

[jimmy olsen]

Now here is some intellectualizing of a movie that doesn't need intellectualizing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9458558/Bruce-Willis-would-have-needed-a-bigger-bomb-to-stop-asteroid-scientists-say.html

I imagine that not only would a Texas size rock be seen in time, it would have been documented decades ago.  I mean, a body of that size would be classified as a Dwarf planet.  People were spotting the big rocks of the asteroid belt in the early 19th century.

Yeah, an Asteriod as big as Texas would be bigger than Ceres. It would have been discovered in the 18th century.

[grumbler]

Right.  I mean, taking Babylon 5, I don't think you can really say that telepathy/telekinesis and jump gates are intellectually superior to the Force and hyperdrives, given that all of the above are based on made-up nonsense (and are practically, albeit not exactly, identical in function).  At best, they may have been more coherently described and depicted.  And if coherence is all of what the intellectual value of a work is about, Star Trek taken as a whole is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage (and that argument has been made, usually by self-righteous ultra-nerds who think scientific fidelity or, more often, internal continuity is the beginning and end of all analysis or even possibility for enjoyment).

When the central concept of a work is magical, like "the Force," the work is a fantasy work.  It doesn't matter how The Force works; all that matter is that it is incredibly powerful and only those born with the right genes can use it.  The Force is thus closer to The Ring (whose composition and exact weight we never discover, but we don't care) than it is to telepathy (which existed in B5, for instance, but could have been eliminated entirely without changing anything significant).

One could make the argument that Star Trek "is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage" only if get whacked on the head so hard that you forget about Star Wars, because there is no conceptual approach under which Star Trek is more anti-intellectual than Star Wars.  Sure, there is a lot about Star Trek, or B5, or any other series that one can question, but my point is that Star Wars was never designed as anything but a fantasy, and so trying to explain it in terms of science is foolish.  The fact that Star Wars has space ships does not make it SF.

[The Brain]

A fantasy about trade agreements and senate debates? Unlikely, and if actually the case, sick.

[grumbler]

The demarcation line between the two types of sci-fi as grumbler laid out is simply whether or not grumbler is a fanboy of it or not. 

True.  I am much more a fanboy of the first three SW movies than I am of ST:TOS.

And by "true" I meant, of course, "false." 

[Neil]

I don't accept your assertion that sci-fi is inherently superior to fantasy.

I don't accept your assertion that I said anything about "inherently superior."

You're the one who used the word 'superior works'.  I'm just going to assume that your descent into grumbler-fu is a concession.

[grumbler]

You're the one who used the word 'superior works'.  I'm just going to assume that your descent into grumbler-fu is a concession.

I used the phrase 'superior works" in a context.  I'm just going to assume that you are now ignoring that context because you concede that including the context would reveal how foolish your position is.

[dps]

Right.  I mean, taking Babylon 5, I don't think you can really say that telepathy/telekinesis and jump gates are intellectually superior to the Force and hyperdrives, given that all of the above are based on made-up nonsense (and are practically, albeit not exactly, identical in function).  At best, they may have been more coherently described and depicted.  And if coherence is all of what the intellectual value of a work is about, Star Trek taken as a whole is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage (and that argument has been made, usually by self-righteous ultra-nerds who think scientific fidelity or, more often, internal continuity is the beginning and end of all analysis or even possibility for enjoyment).

When the central concept of a work is magical, like "the Force," the work is a fantasy work.  It doesn't matter how The Force works; all that matter is that it is incredibly powerful and only those born with the right genes can use it.  The Force is thus closer to The Ring (whose composition and exact weight we never discover, but we don't care) than it is to telepathy (which existed in B5, for instance, but could have been eliminated entirely without changing anything significant).

Psychic abilities in B5 seemed pretty darn powerful, and I thought that there was at least a genetic component to psychic abilities in that work.  And while I will agree that psychic abilities weren't central to B5 as the Force was to SW, I'd say cutting them and PsyCorps out of B5 would definately have been a significant change.

[PDH]

An X-Wing can take more punishment.

Tell that to Porkins.

Porkins died a hero to tubby space pilots everywhere.

[Neil]

You're the one who used the word 'superior works'.  I'm just going to assume that your descent into grumbler-fu is a concession.

I used the phrase 'superior works" in a context.  I'm just going to assume that you are now ignoring that context because you concede that including the context would reveal how foolish your position is.

My position was that you're wrong and a bit of an ass.  You've never done anything to refute it.

[Razgovory]

Why does "psychic powers", get a pass in sci-fi works?  I mean, it's magic.  Why does it not automatically shift the work into the realm of fantasy?

[derspiess]

An X-Wing can take more punishment.

Tell that to Porkins.

Porkins died a hero to tubby space pilots everywhere.

His weight probably contributed to his X-Wing crashing or whatever.

I don't think the fat snowspeeder pilot who found Han and Luke ever got the acclaim he deserved.

[MadImmortalMan]

Why does "psychic powers", get a pass in sci-fi works?  I mean, it's magic.  Why does it not automatically shift the work into the realm of fantasy?

You mean like Betazoids?

[The Brain]

Why does "psychic powers", get a pass in sci-fi works?  I mean, it's magic.  Why does it not automatically shift the work into the realm of fantasy?

It's the next step in human evolution. You don't think that evolution is science?

[PJL]

Right.  I mean, taking Babylon 5, I don't think you can really say that telepathy/telekinesis and jump gates are intellectually superior to the Force and hyperdrives, given that all of the above are based on made-up nonsense (and are practically, albeit not exactly, identical in function).  At best, they may have been more coherently described and depicted.  And if coherence is all of what the intellectual value of a work is about, Star Trek taken as a whole is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage (and that argument has been made, usually by self-righteous ultra-nerds who think scientific fidelity or, more often, internal continuity is the beginning and end of all analysis or even possibility for enjoyment).

When the central concept of a work is magical, like "the Force," the work is a fantasy work.  It doesn't matter how The Force works; all that matter is that it is incredibly powerful and only those born with the right genes can use it.  The Force is thus closer to The Ring (whose composition and exact weight we never discover, but we don't care) than it is to telepathy (which existed in B5, for instance, but could have been eliminated entirely without changing anything significant).

One could make the argument that Star Trek "is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage" only if get whacked on the head so hard that you forget about Star Wars, because there is no conceptual approach under which Star Trek is more anti-intellectual than Star Wars.  Sure, there is a lot about Star Trek, or B5, or any other series that one can question, but my point is that Star Wars was never designed as anything but a fantasy, and so trying to explain it in terms of science is foolish.  The fact that Star Wars has space ships does not make it SF.

But Star Trek has the Q who are far more powerful than anyone using the Force in Star Wars.

[CountDeMoney]

But Star Trek has the Q who are far more powerful than anyone using the Force in Star Wars.

And with a much better sense of humor.