• fallaciousBasis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 个月前

    Star Trek is only sci fi if you’re scientifically illiterate and multisyllabic words, that you clearly don’t understand, nevertheless impress you

    • Exatron@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 个月前

      Tell me you’ve never seen Star Trek without saying you’ve never seen Star Trek

        • Exatron@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 个月前

          It’s essentially Clarke’s third law, kiddo.

          Now, explain how that means Star Trek isn’t science fiction, spud.

          • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 个月前

            In hard sci-fi, the science drives the story. In Star Trek, most of the tech: warp drive, transporters, holodecks, replicators, etc. functions like narrative magic.

            Problems get solved by “reversing polarity” or “rerouting auxiliary power.”

            The underlying physics is rarely consistent or explored deeply.

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.comBanned from communityEnglish
      4·
      1 个月前

      Oh wow that’s crazy that’s it not 100% scientific, maybe they should make a term for a genre that’s particularly fictional. Hmm I wonder what to call it 🤔

      • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 个月前

        I get it. Science fiction is an oxymoron.

        Yet good science fiction relies on first principles. It’s plausible.

        Bad science fiction introduces magic and it remains magic. Good science fiction introduces magic then makes it seem scientifically possible. Like Andy Weir.

        • Exatron@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 个月前

          No, sweetie, you just have an absurdly narrow and fundamentally useless definition of science fiction.