Is the line between Science fiction and Fantasy merely a illusion, something to be ignored? What is the true line between them? And are the lines between them set by people as legitimate as they believe?
I got the idea for this thread from:
>>>/tes/4742 We don't have a living writing or literature board here so this is the best place to post this thread for the time being.
In one a wizard did it.
In the other a scientist wizard did it.
Both are low tier genres that no serious reader should entertain after their teenage years.
if it's based on science, it's science fiction. if it's based on magic, it's fantasy.
not sure what you're having trouble with
This video details how classics of fiction were actually parts of "low tier genres" at one time, Genres that were once dead. Incredible story's can come out of any genre regardless of it's prestige. There are many great fantasy and science fiction writers that are not judged on quality, but also on age. So are the "high tier" genres really as superior to the "low tier genres" as you say?
Science Fiction (as it should be) is about imagining how a world might realistically function in the future, based on advances that could happen. off the top of my head Moon is an example of this, exploring what might go on if we develop cloning and spaceflight far enough to make a moon mining colony feasible; often the story of a science fiction film is really just a way to explore the world that you have created. On the other hand, something like Star Wars is simply fantasy, set over a galactic scale. The Star part is only to justify aliens and laser guns and a space station the size of a planet. For all effects and purposes, the story could take place on earth, where the Death Star is a nuclear weapon-the fact that planets are light years away is completely irrelevant, the fact that there are aliens doesn't really factor unless you read into the Extended Universe, which is mostly complete trash on a tangent here, something that irks me; planets are basically countries. I don't know of any planets in the SW universe that don't have a government which encompass the whole planet not an SW nerd tho so there is probably something . This is called Space Opera; a soap opera, in space.
Fantasy can have very well crafted lore and worlds in the same way that a good Science Fiction story can, but I would say that SF is more interesting as it explores a world that could actually exist for us. Aside from Reddit, this is also why Steampunk is pretty boring-alternate future is much better than alternate past.
I can't think of any planets in any space fiction that don't have a planetary government
I disagree.
Everything "magic" could be explained away with something like nanomachines.
Game of Thrones for example could be a scientifically advanced world that regressed.
fantasy is set after sandniggers alluackbarred sci-fi into postapoc
Sci-Fi carries with it the implication that the unbelievable things you are seeing, like people living in space, intelligent robots, lasers, and so on, are the ultimate culmination of mankind's collective advancements and endless struggle.
The end results can be likened to magic, but the connotations they carry are typically grounded in the believable idea that these are things we can achieve, someday.
Magic, on the other hand, is a tautological, self-explanatory means of creating impossible things for the audience. Magic works because it's magic. It doesn't have to have a rhyme or reason, though it can be convenient hindered or restricted for the sake of the plot, because magic.
This has always kind of irked me about Star Wars as well. Even the alien species generally share a namesake with their homeworld.
lmao wut.
Science Fiction is generally focused around technological advancement and is likewise based in settings more technologically developed then our own world. While some of the technologies may seem incredibly infeasible or nonsensical, they are generally painted in a manner to look like a possible technological outcome relative to the real world.
Fantasy is generally driven by concepts like heroism or destiny and are normally placed in a setting where technology is vaguely defined and all we can really say is that it's not really bound to the idea of genuine technological development.
Fantasy often focuses on things that are literally impossible in our world, such as magic. The word "fantastic" itself basically means disconnected from reality, that should sum up fantasy for you.
Some series share these concepts, the best example being star wars.
For example, the death star, while ridiculous is something that hypothetically could be created if we acquired the resources and know-how to do so. It is science fiction.
However the ability to naturally shoot lightning out of your hands is something humans will never be capable of doing. That is fantasy.
Science fiction is sometimes roughly divided into hard and soft science fiction. Hard science fiction emphasizes scientific accuracy, technical detail and realism. Soft science fiction is less concerned with those and more interested in things like philosophy, psychology, sociology and anthropology.
Star Wars, for example, isn't interested in either of those things. It's just a fantasy adventure in space.
more than anything, it's just lazy writing. Oddly, it's the same reason that No Man's Sky sucks; you couldn't be bothered to think beyond this planet is desert, this planet is ice, this one is a whole city, this one is blah, leaving you with an impossibly broad scope which completely lacks any depth.
Ironically, hard sci-fi (which requires more thought) is likely to be the shortest lived and age the worst. The future is never what we think it will be.
tell me about it. in Asimov's novels mankind has colonized other solar systems, but they're still using vacuum tubes for communication
I've always felt the terms hard and soft to be a little weighted. Good soft SF can be brilliant but the term soft carried a lot of negative connotations.
Philip K. Dick does this as well; all the machines have names straight out of Wallace and Gromit
I personally prefer the "Infernal Machines" Steampunk.
Movies that use these genre terms must be classified as flicks.
If true, and if the video of is also true then how does true at get made?
bump
bamp
zamp
zoomp
This really depends on the steampunk. I got into the genre without realizing that it was really a thing, back in high school. I remember designing all sorts of crazy airships, and trying to think through what sort of implications widespread air-travel would have for a Victorian-era society.
Then I got to college and discovered that steampunk was an actual thing that people new about, and that to just about all of them "Steampunk" means "some gears hot-glued to a top hat."
Then I got really disappointed and I haven't really done much with the genre since.
but that's how we've told stories for millennia, you fag.
Fuck, not infernal machines, MORTAL machines.
Fucking hell, steamshit names are confusing
you should get a refund