Discussion:
Two questions for science-fiction fans (survey)
(too old to reply)
x***@y.zzz
2006-05-14 03:19:46 UTC
Permalink
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future. Things like "Firefly",
"Babylon 5", "Star Trek", "Andromeda", etc. I've noticed that the
SciFi Channel has moved away from that, lately. Except for shows in
the weekday Daytime Rotation, there's not a lot on SciFi that meets
those two criteria. I wrote "not a lot" out of the habit of leaving
room for what I may have overlooked - thinking about it now, I can't
think of anything new that meets those two criteria. The new
"Galactica" is definitely set in space, but we don't know if it's in
the future; the contemporary clothes lead me to say that that show
doesn't qualify. The "Stargates" have space travel, but are
definitely contemporary to our time. The 27th season of "Doctor Who"
(the one currently being shown) has time travel, so he can go to the
future; but he appears to be confined to Earth (or Earth orbit, in the
case of "The End of the World"). And the movies all seem to be either
swords-and-sorcery, horror, slasher, epidemics, disasters or mutant
animals - no actual science fiction, there.

I know they've had real science-fiction movies. But maybe someone
with a better memory can tell me: has SciFi EVER had a first-run TV
series set in the future, and having planetary/space travel? And, by
"the future", I mean far enough that space travel is common, like
"Enterprise", not a few years.

It bugs me that, with "Next Generation" and "DS9", SpikeTV can have
MORE real SF, in any given week, than SciFi does!

Another question: With SciFi abandoning it, where do you turn when
you're desperate for real SF? What channels have you found valuable,
what shows on DVD/tape are worth your money, etc? This is just an
informal thing, so let's not have anyone tearing a new one on the guy
who admits he likes Gil Gerard's "Buck Rogers", or whatever. One
man's trash is another's treasure.


***@y.zzz

"Politicians are conniving, wheeler-dealing scum. Don't have a fit of morals over them;
they wouldn't, over you."
--Harry Pearce, "MI-5"
Dr. Woodard
2006-05-14 04:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
It bugs me that, with "Next Generation" and "DS9", SpikeTV can have
MORE real SF, in any given week, than SciFi does!
Bear in mind with Science Fiction so expensive to produce Sci fi can
only do a bare minimum of "science fiction" shows, much of their
shows are retreads that were cancelled in past incarnations.
Post by x***@y.zzz
Another question: With SciFi abandoning it, where do you turn when
you're desperate for real SF? What channels have you found valuable,
what shows on DVD/tape are worth your money, etc? This is just an
informal thing, so let's not have anyone tearing a new one on the guy
who admits he likes Gil Gerard's "Buck Rogers", or whatever. One
man's trash is another's treasure.
The new Science Fiction network that Rupert Murdock is supposed to
be starting? DVDs of Quantum Leap?

(Anyone know what happened to it?)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
x***@y.zzz
2006-05-14 05:14:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 May 2006 00:05:47 -0400, Dr. Woodard
Post by Dr. Woodard
Post by x***@y.zzz
It bugs me that, with "Next Generation" and "DS9", SpikeTV can have
MORE real SF, in any given week, than SciFi does!
Bear in mind with Science Fiction so expensive to produce Sci fi can
only do a bare minimum of "science fiction" shows, much of their
shows are retreads that were cancelled in past incarnations.
Post by x***@y.zzz
Another question: With SciFi abandoning it, where do you turn when
you're desperate for real SF? What channels have you found valuable,
what shows on DVD/tape are worth your money, etc? This is just an
informal thing, so let's not have anyone tearing a new one on the guy
who admits he likes Gil Gerard's "Buck Rogers", or whatever. One
man's trash is another's treasure.
The new Science Fiction network that Rupert Murdock is supposed to
be starting? DVDs of Quantum Leap?
(Anyone know what happened to it?)
Thank you, Dr. Woodard, for answering the questions asked, rather than
criticizing.

***@y.zzz

"Politicians are conniving, wheeler-dealing scum. Don't have a fit of morals over them;
they wouldn't, over you."
--Harry Pearce, "MI-5"
Atlas Bugged
2006-05-14 04:10:54 UTC
Permalink
You have a cornucopia of issues here, I just want to respond to some. I
agree with some, disagree with you on others. That said...
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
For sure, but that's much too narrow. Although debateable, the gravamen of
sci-fi is technology and science as tools in the future. Humans distinguish
themselves by tools.

"Space travel" is inessential (though extremely popular and appropriate) to
sci-fi. "Set in the future" is much more essential, but I don't think it is
indispensible.

Some will tell you that sci-fi centers upon the way technology interacts
with society, as in the case of the atom bomb or the birth control pill. I
think they too have a strong point.
Post by x***@y.zzz
Things like "Firefly",
"Babylon 5", "Star Trek", "Andromeda", etc. I've noticed that the
SciFi Channel has moved away from that, lately. Except for shows in
the weekday Daytime Rotation, there's not a lot on SciFi that meets
those two criteria. I wrote "not a lot" out of the habit of leaving
room for what I may have overlooked - thinking about it now, I can't
think of anything new that meets those two criteria. The new
"Galactica" is definitely set in space, but we don't know if it's in
the future; the contemporary clothes lead me to say that that show
doesn't qualify. The "Stargates" have space travel, but are
definitely contemporary to our time. The 27th season of "Doctor Who"
(the one currently being shown) has time travel, so he can go to the
future; but he appears to be confined to Earth (or Earth orbit, in the
case of "The End of the World").
I disagree with these complaints for the reason I noted above. Your
definition is too narrow.
Post by x***@y.zzz
And the movies all seem to be either
swords-and-sorcery, horror, slasher, epidemics, disasters or mutant
animals - no actual science fiction, there.
Now you're hitting on some real problems. From your list, horror, slasher,
sword-and-sorcery, most "disasters," and anything with magic definitely do
not belong on a network with that name. Epidemics and mutant animals are
OK, though most such examples tend to be trash.
Post by x***@y.zzz
I know they've had real science-fiction movies. But maybe someone
with a better memory can tell me: has SciFi EVER had a first-run TV
series set in the future, and having planetary/space travel? And, by
"the future", I mean far enough that space travel is common, like
"Enterprise", not a few years.
It bugs me that, with "Next Generation" and "DS9", SpikeTV can have
MORE real SF, in any given week, than SciFi does!
Spike ran SEVEN DAYS too, which I give thumbs-up, but overall I think Sci-Fi
Channel has more real-deal sci-fi.
Post by x***@y.zzz
Another question: With SciFi abandoning it, where do you turn when
you're desperate for real SF? What channels have you found valuable,
what shows on DVD/tape are worth your money, etc? This is just an
informal thing, so let's not have anyone tearing a new one on the guy
who admits he likes Gil Gerard's "Buck Rogers", or whatever. One
man's trash is another's treasure.
There's some good 50's and 60's stuff, even though terribly dated.
FANTASTIC VOYAGE was just what the title promises. ROBINSON CARUSOE ON MARS
is good sci-fi and meets your erzatz criteria. Also, FORBIDDEN PLANET and
2001, which both rule and look good even today. The 1960's shows MEN INTO
SPACE and certain OUTER LIMITS episodes meet your criteria and are very,
very good.

For recent material, check out HOLLOW MAN, and the two marginal Mars movies,
MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET. Going back a bit more, Cameron's THE ABYSS
and ALIENS were both spectacular examples of true sci-fi.
Dr. Woodard
2006-05-14 04:38:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 May 2006 00:10:54 -0400, "Atlas Bugged"
Post by Atlas Bugged
There's some good 50's and 60's stuff, even though terribly dated.
FANTASTIC VOYAGE was just what the title promises. ROBINSON CARUSOE ON MARS
is good sci-fi and meets your erzatz criteria. Also, FORBIDDEN PLANET and
2001, which both rule and look good even today. The 1960's shows MEN INTO
SPACE and certain OUTER LIMITS episodes meet your criteria and are very,
very good.
For recent material, check out HOLLOW MAN, and the two marginal Mars movies,
MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET. Going back a bit more, Cameron's THE ABYSS
and ALIENS were both spectacular examples of true sci-fi.
One of the problems I have the Sci fi channel is when it was first
proposed it was intended to be the "Tv land" of science fiction.
They have since dumped the idea and gone with a load of
junk that should never be on a science fiction channel (exhibit A:
Scare Tactics)

There are many old classic science fiction shows/movies that Sci fi
should be running. They aren't which is why I hate the sci fi
channel..

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-14 09:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Woodard
One of the problems I have the Sci fi channel is when it was first
proposed it was intended to be the "Tv land" of science fiction.
They have since dumped the idea and gone with a load of
Scare Tactics)
And -Believe it or Not-. Ugh! Feh!

And there are too many giant bug flicks too. -Them- was the earliest and
the best of that genre. Anything since has been wretched excess. -Them-
(the ants, that is) are the daddy of Godzilla (Gojiru).
Post by Dr. Woodard
There are many old classic science fiction shows/movies that Sci fi
should be running. They aren't which is why I hate the sci fi
channel..
Ocassionally they will get something right. The -Taken- miniseries was
not bad. Very Spielbergian though. And the remake of -Dune- was much
better than the de Laurentis movie with Kyle what's-his-chin. That was
dreadful.

Bob Kolker
Siobhan Burke
2006-05-15 17:48:37 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>, ***@nowhere.com
says...
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Dr. Woodard
One of the problems I have the Sci fi channel is when it was first
proposed it was intended to be the "Tv land" of science fiction.
They have since dumped the idea and gone with a load of
Scare Tactics)
And -Believe it or Not-. Ugh! Feh!
And there are too many giant bug flicks too. -Them- was the earliest and
the best of that genre. Anything since has been wretched excess. -Them-
(the ants, that is) are the daddy of Godzilla (Gojiru).
Post by Dr. Woodard
There are many old classic science fiction shows/movies that Sci fi
should be running. They aren't which is why I hate the sci fi
channel..
Ocassionally they will get something right. The -Taken- miniseries was
not bad. Very Spielbergian though. And the remake of -Dune- was much
better than the de Laurentis movie with Kyle what's-his-chin. That was
dreadful.
You are too kind. Far too kind. Just about anybody that had
read the book hated it, and just about anybody that hadn't read
the book had not the faintest clue what was supposed to be going
on. That film was a classic example of FUBAR.
--
Siobhan - a.a. list #2201

***@earthlink.net (Now a real address, if you ice
the alMayne.)

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
precipitate.
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-15 18:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Burke
You are too kind. Far too kind. Just about anybody that had
read the book hated it, and just about anybody that hadn't read
the book had not the faintest clue what was supposed to be going
on. That film was a classic example of FUBAR.
The de Laurentis movie was a text book case of un-continuity. And any
movie that has a voice over saying: Oh! By the way, Spice is pretty
imporatant shit and it only exists on Arakis --- is doomed from the
first frame.

I will forgive them a little. They had Virginia Madsen play Princess
Irulan. She is a joy to the eye.

Bob Kolker
Karen Rodgers
2006-05-15 20:59:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 May 2006 13:58:23 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Siobhan Burke
You are too kind. Far too kind. Just about anybody that had
read the book hated it, and just about anybody that hadn't read
the book had not the faintest clue what was supposed to be going
on. That film was a classic example of FUBAR.
The de Laurentis movie was a text book case of un-continuity. And any
movie that has a voice over saying: Oh! By the way, Spice is pretty
imporatant shit and it only exists on Arakis --- is doomed from the
first frame.
I will forgive them a little. They had Virginia Madsen play Princess
Irulan. She is a joy to the eye.
But they did no justice to Patrick Stewart, Linda Hunt, Jose Ferrer,
Max von Sydow, or Dean Stockwell. All that talent, thrown down the
drain. What a waste.

Karen Rodgers
Siobhan Burke
2006-05-17 17:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Rodgers
On Mon, 15 May 2006 13:58:23 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Siobhan Burke
You are too kind. Far too kind. Just about anybody that had
read the book hated it, and just about anybody that hadn't read
the book had not the faintest clue what was supposed to be going
on. That film was a classic example of FUBAR.
The de Laurentis movie was a text book case of un-continuity. And any
movie that has a voice over saying: Oh! By the way, Spice is pretty
imporatant shit and it only exists on Arakis --- is doomed from the
first frame.
I will forgive them a little. They had Virginia Madsen play Princess
Irulan. She is a joy to the eye.
But they did no justice to Patrick Stewart, Linda Hunt, Jose Ferrer,
Max von Sydow, or Dean Stockwell. All that talent, thrown down the
drain. What a waste.
I've been wondering whether I should give that one a try.
Think not, now. Too many other things that I *know* are good to
spend my money on.
--
Siobhan - a.a. list #2201

***@earthlink.net (Now a real address, if you ice
the alMayne.)

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
precipitate.
Karen Rodgers
2006-05-17 18:37:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:22:05 GMT, Siobhan Burke
Post by Siobhan Burke
Post by Karen Rodgers
But they did no justice to Patrick Stewart, Linda Hunt, Jose Ferrer,
Max von Sydow, or Dean Stockwell. All that talent, thrown down the
drain. What a waste.
I've been wondering whether I should give that one a try.
Think not, now. Too many other things that I *know* are good to
spend my money on.
(Re: Dune, 1984)

Go ahead and rent it, but don't bother adding it to your collection
(for some unGodly reason this dog has a fan base). Just keep your
favorite alcolholic beverage handy. You'll need it when Sting starts
"acting." (Make up your own drinking game, one drink for every time
they screw up the story! Hmm, on second thought, maybe not, you could
die of alcolhol poisoning by the end.)

It's a prime candidate for MST3King on.

Karen Rodgers
Beth
2006-05-17 21:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Rodgers
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:22:05 GMT, Siobhan Burke
Post by Siobhan Burke
Post by Karen Rodgers
But they did no justice to Patrick Stewart, Linda Hunt, Jose Ferrer,
Max von Sydow, or Dean Stockwell. All that talent, thrown down the
drain. What a waste.
I've been wondering whether I should give that one a try.
Think not, now. Too many other things that I *know* are good to
spend my money on.
(Re: Dune, 1984)
Go ahead and rent it, but don't bother adding it to your collection
(for some unGodly reason this dog has a fan base). Just keep your
favorite alcolholic beverage handy. You'll need it when Sting starts
"acting." (Make up your own drinking game, one drink for every time
they screw up the story! Hmm, on second thought, maybe not, you could
die of alcolhol poisoning by the end.)
It's a prime candidate for MST3King on.
Karen Rodgers
Too late - I have both versions <shudder> BUT they were presents from
family members who aren't as familiar with my SF tastes as they should be.
--
Beth

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog it is too
dark to read.
Groucho Marx
Siobhan Burke
2006-05-19 13:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Rodgers
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:22:05 GMT, Siobhan Burke
Post by Siobhan Burke
Post by Karen Rodgers
But they did no justice to Patrick Stewart, Linda Hunt, Jose Ferrer,
Max von Sydow, or Dean Stockwell. All that talent, thrown down the
drain. What a waste.
I've been wondering whether I should give that one a try.
Think not, now. Too many other things that I *know* are good to
spend my money on.
(Re: Dune, 1984)
Go ahead and rent it, but don't bother adding it to your collection
(for some unGodly reason this dog has a fan base). Just keep your
favorite alcolholic beverage handy. You'll need it when Sting starts
"acting." (Make up your own drinking game, one drink for every time
they screw up the story! Hmm, on second thought, maybe not, you could
die of alcolhol poisoning by the end.)
Wait, I was talking about the mini-series. I saw the
abomination that passed for the film. Or was Sting in both?
Oh, say it ain't so! Though he was rather good in "Stormy
Monday" with Sean Bean, I thought.
Post by Karen Rodgers
It's a prime candidate for MST3King on.
Karen Rodgers
--
Siobhan - a.a. list #2201

***@earthlink.net (Now a real address, if you ice
the alMayne.)

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
precipitate.
David Buchner
2006-05-19 04:01:19 UTC
Permalink
The de Laurentis movie [of DUNE] was a text book case of un-continuity.
And any movie that has a voice over saying: Oh! By the way, Spice is
pretty imporatant shit and it only exists on Arakis --- is doomed from the
first frame.
Funny, funny, funny. I don't remember which one, but there was a MST3K
ep that brought that up, in the vaguest possible inside-joke referencial
way. "Oh! Oh! By the way -- here's the single most important key to the
whole story and I almost forgot to tell you."

The beauty part is, I have the soundtrack album to that movie, and it
includes that opening narration -- so theoretically, I could sample that
silly line, and put it back-to-back with Julie Andrews singing, "Let's
start at the very beginning -- it's a very good place to start..."

It's so hilarious. The actual gorram TITLE is "Dune" but somehow the
narrator almost forgot to tell you that the thing she's talking about is
only on the planet the movie's about and that's why I'm telling you
about it and... ugh.
Karen Rodgers
2006-05-15 20:56:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:48:37 GMT, Siobhan Burke
Post by Siobhan Burke
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Ocassionally they will get something right. The -Taken- miniseries was
not bad. Very Spielbergian though. And the remake of -Dune- was much
better than the de Laurentis movie with Kyle what's-his-chin. That was
dreadful.
You are too kind. Far too kind. Just about anybody that had
read the book hated it, and just about anybody that hadn't read
the book had not the faintest clue what was supposed to be going
on. That film was a classic example of FUBAR.
I wasn't terribly crazy about the Sci Fi channel version, either, but6
it was Shakespeare compared to the original. (I guess Patrick Stewart
needed the paycheck...) But, heck, even the guys who make South Park
could do a better job than De Laurentis did.

"Hey, they killed Shadap Mapes! B*st*rds!"

(Running for cover now...)

Karen Rodgers
Andy
2006-05-17 02:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Rodgers
On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:48:37 GMT, Siobhan Burke
Post by Siobhan Burke
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Ocassionally they will get something right. The -Taken- miniseries was
not bad. Very Spielbergian though. And the remake of -Dune- was much
better than the de Laurentis movie with Kyle what's-his-chin. That was
dreadful.
You are too kind. Far too kind. Just about anybody that had
read the book hated it, and just about anybody that hadn't read
the book had not the faintest clue what was supposed to be going
on. That film was a classic example of FUBAR.
I wasn't terribly crazy about the Sci Fi channel version, either, but6
it was Shakespeare compared to the original. (I guess Patrick Stewart
needed the paycheck...) But, heck, even the guys who make South Park
could do a better job than De Laurentis did.
"Hey, they killed Shadap Mapes! B*st*rds!"
(Running for cover now...)
Karen Rodgers
I have one beef with the scifi version (only one I can remember, but
it's been a while).

Paul Atreides, before they went to Arrakis, came across as a petulant
brat. He certainly wasn't that in the book.

Of course, I've only watched it once (although I do have it here).
Hmm, time for a rewatch, methinks... otherwise, it was excellent.
--
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?
"Fought with a lot of people in the war."
"...and your husband?"
"Fight with him sometimes too."
Atlas Bugged
2006-05-14 11:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Woodard
One of the problems I have the Sci fi channel is when it was first
proposed it was intended to be the "Tv land" of science fiction.
They have since dumped the idea and gone with a load of
Scare Tactics)
True. I am bugged, but shrugged. I know they have to make a living. I
think they have sci-fi maybe 10-20% max of their broadcast hours. It's a
home shopping network more than it is sci-fi if you stay up late, as I do.
Post by Dr. Woodard
There are many old classic science fiction shows/movies that Sci fi
should be running. They aren't which is why I hate the sci fi
channel..
Even though you're right, there's still the 10%. The point about SPIKE
having almost 10% is true too, but in my Bugged mind, that is just additive,
so yay.
Dr. Woodard
2006-05-14 16:52:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 May 2006 07:24:48 -0400, "Atlas Bugged"
Post by Atlas Bugged
True. I am bugged, but shrugged. I know they have to make a living. I
think they have sci-fi maybe 10-20% max of their broadcast hours. It's a
home shopping network more than it is sci-fi if you stay up late, as I do.
It should be pointed out tv networks are in the advertising business.
The idea is to get you, the viewer, to sit in front of the TV and
watch their ads. The program is just an excuse to get you to watch
their ads.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-14 09:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
For sure, but that's much too narrow. Although debateable, the gravamen of
sci-fi is technology and science as tools in the future. Humans distinguish
themselves by tools.
"Space travel" is inessential (though extremely popular and appropriate) to
sci-fi. "Set in the future" is much more essential, but I don't think it is
indispensible.
Or set in another time line which is neither future nor past with
respect to ours. A time line which is far far away and may be long long
ago or well into our future. Simultenity is relative, you know.

Which brings up the idea of alternate time lines. My very favorite genre
is alternate history and what if. And of course that oldie but goody,
Time Travel.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Some will tell you that sci-fi centers upon the way technology interacts
with society, as in the case of the atom bomb or the birth control pill. I
think they too have a strong point.
That they do. There is also the eternal themes that transcend
technology. The more things change the more they remain the same. So
tailes of Good and Evil show up in sci fi again and again. Good and Evil
are so ageless.

In addition to technology and alternate history what about alternate
morality tales. S. M. Stirling's -Domination of Draka- series is a case
in point. What is a society like, where the golden rule simple
inoperative and Neitzche's superman is the daily norm?
Post by Atlas Bugged
For recent material, check out HOLLOW MAN, and the two marginal Mars movies,
MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET. Going back a bit more, Cameron's THE ABYSS
and ALIENS were both spectacular examples of true sci-fi.
HOLLOW MAN is just a re-do of The Inivisible Man. By the way a totally
invisible man would be blind. If he had transparent retinas he would not
see a thing. The retinas have to be able to stop photons which means
they will re-radiate energy in the frequency they asorb. Such an
invisible man would not be invisible at all. You would be able to see
his retinas. Claude Raines did it well before Kevin Bacon.

Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
2006-05-14 11:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
HOLLOW MAN is just a re-do of The Inivisible Man.
Of course, almost directly. But the execution was like a James Cameron
blowout, with ultra-effects, and almost literally cliff-hanging excitement.

Then, of course, there was this:
Loading Image...
Claude Rains never had it that good.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
By the way a totally invisible man would be blind. If he had transparent
retinas he would not see a thing. The retinas have to be able to stop
photons which means they will re-radiate energy in the frequency they
asorb. Such an invisible man would not be invisible at all. You would be
able to see his retinas. Claude Raines did it well before Kevin Bacon.
You have way too much time on your hands. The better tip-of-the-hat to
realism was the fact that HOLLOW MAN couldn't sleep because light passed
right through his eyelids.
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-14 16:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
You have way too much time on your hands. The better tip-of-the-hat to
Excuse me. I am a stikler for relevent physical detail, thank you. If
the premis leads to a contradiction of physical law, then the premis is bad.
Post by Atlas Bugged
realism was the fact that HOLLOW MAN couldn't sleep because light passed
right through his eyelids.
A real Invisible Man would not be so bothered. And all Hollow Man had to
do, was to wear an opaque sleep mask. Someone was not doing their homework.

Bob Kolker
Julio Laredo
2006-05-16 02:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
You have way too much time on your hands. The better tip-of-the-hat to
Excuse me. I am a stikler for relevent physical detail, thank you. If the
premis leads to a contradiction of physical law, then the premis is bad.
Wells' Law: One physical impossibility is allowed to further the plot.
Jay G.
2006-05-19 03:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Atlas Bugged
realism was the fact that HOLLOW MAN couldn't sleep because light passed
right through his eyelids.
A real Invisible Man would not be so bothered. And all Hollow Man had to
do, was to wear an opaque sleep mask. Someone was not doing their homework.
A sleep mask wouldn't work. The retinas are at the back of your eyes, the
closest a sleep mask could get would be over the eyelids, which are about
an inch away from the back of the eye.

The easiest way would be for him to simply sleep in a completely dark room.

-Jay
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-19 13:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay G.
A sleep mask wouldn't work. The retinas are at the back of your eyes, the
closest a sleep mask could get would be over the eyelids, which are about
an inch away from the back of the eye.
The easiest way would be for him to simply sleep in a completely dark room.
Good point. Any opaque thing surrounding the body will do.

Bob Kolker
Jay Hova
2006-05-19 15:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Jay G.
A sleep mask wouldn't work. The retinas are at the back of your eyes, the
closest a sleep mask could get would be over the eyelids, which are about
an inch away from the back of the eye.
The easiest way would be for him to simply sleep in a completely dark room.
Good point. Any opaque thing surrounding the body will do.
But wouldn't the light pass through the invisible retinas without
stoping also?
--
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes
religion.
-- Steven Weinberg
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-19 16:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Hova
But wouldn't the light pass through the invisible retinas without
stoping also?
This assumes that Hollow Man's retines can stop photons but everything
else in his body will allow them to pass. If Invisible Man were
completely invisible who would also be completely blind.

But he would be able to hear. A race of completely invisible beings
could evolve hearing like that of a bat or a dolphin.

Bob Kolker
Jay Hova
2006-05-19 23:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Jay Hova
But wouldn't the light pass through the invisible retinas without
stoping also?
This assumes that Hollow Man's retines can stop photons but everything
else in his body will allow them to pass. If Invisible Man were
completely invisible who would also be completely blind.
But he would be able to hear. A race of completely invisible beings
could evolve hearing like that of a bat or a dolphin.
I guess that there is also the possibility of only being invisible in
the visible light frequences, therefore not REALLY being invisible at
all, technically?
--
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes
religion.
-- Steven Weinberg
bek
2006-05-20 19:47:38 UTC
Permalink
AS for Invisible men and sci fi in general:

I figure in every story, film etc. that considered is Sci Fi, one must
suspend
reality. There could be various reasons for the world not to be able to
see the person.
If the person is still "mass" then he/she could be invisible to the
normal world, but they are shifted slightly into a different dimension.

Also, I just finished a book by Ben Bova where there was a suit a
person
invented which used nano tech, and mirrors which shifted the angles so
that no matter where someone looked, they could not see this
invisible person.

I think the basis of most Sci Fi requires us to suspend some part of
our
current reality, and that applies to the Invisible man as well as many
other books, stories, TV shows etc.

Bek
Al Gore
2006-05-20 20:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by bek
I figure in every story, film etc. that considered is Sci Fi, one must
suspend
reality. There could be various reasons for the world not to be able to
see the person.
If the person is still "mass" then he/she could be invisible to the
normal world, but they are shifted slightly into a different dimension.
Also, I just finished a book by Ben Bova where there was a suit a
person
invented which used nano tech, and mirrors which shifted the angles so
that no matter where someone looked, they could not see this
invisible person.
I think the basis of most Sci Fi requires us to suspend some part of
our
current reality, and that applies to the Invisible man as well as many
other books, stories, TV shows etc.
Silly monkey! Are you trying to start something with the robots? ;-)
bek
2006-05-21 19:27:10 UTC
Permalink
HUH?
Karen Rodgers
2006-05-21 20:03:48 UTC
Permalink
HUH?
It's okay, just put a damp cloth over your head, and have a nice lie
down.

Karen Rodgers
Julio Laredo
2006-05-16 02:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Robert J. Kolker
HOLLOW MAN is just a re-do of The Inivisible Man.
Of course, almost directly. But the execution was like a James Cameron
blowout, with ultra-effects, and almost literally cliff-hanging excitement.
http://www.robbscelebs.co.uk/noops545/elizabeth_shuo_hollow_man0006.jpg
Claude Rains never had it that good.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
By the way a totally invisible man would be blind. If he had transparent
retinas he would not see a thing. The retinas have to be able to stop
photons which means they will re-radiate energy in the frequency they
asorb. Such an invisible man would not be invisible at all. You would be
able to see his retinas. Claude Raines did it well before Kevin Bacon.
You have way too much time on your hands. The better tip-of-the-hat to
realism was the fact that HOLLOW MAN couldn't sleep because light passed
right through his eyelids.
Same with Nick Halloway.
ruth
2006-05-14 13:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
HOLLOW MAN is just a re-do of The Inivisible Man. By the way a totally
invisible man would be blind. If he had transparent retinas he would not
see a thing. The retinas have to be able to stop photons which means
they will re-radiate energy in the frequency they asorb. Such an
invisible man would not be invisible at all. You would be able to see
his retinas. Claude Raines did it well before Kevin Bacon.
Bob Kolker
Oh. Hey, you're right!

I never thought of that before.
--
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-14 16:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruth
Oh. Hey, you're right!
I never thought of that before.
Neither did H.G.Wells or any subsequent Invisible Man author. Wait!
Check that. I do recall once, many centons ago reading an invisible man
story in which poor invisible ends up blind. I do not recall the title
and the author, though. Many kalikams of water have passed under the
bridge since then.

Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
2006-05-14 19:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by ruth
Oh. Hey, you're right!
I never thought of that before.
Neither did H.G.Wells or any subsequent Invisible Man author.
Certainly not INVISIBLE MAN author Ralph Ellison. I was confused about this
at one time (because Ellison wrote a novel of the same name) and there is a
direct reference to it -and the confusion - in the brand-new MISSION
IMPOSSIBLE III.
Don Sample
2006-05-14 19:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by ruth
Oh. Hey, you're right!
I never thought of that before.
Neither did H.G.Wells or any subsequent Invisible Man author.
If I remember correctly, Wells was aware of the problem and did some
hand waving to try to distract the readers from it.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Andy
2006-05-14 22:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by ruth
Oh. Hey, you're right!
I never thought of that before.
Neither did H.G.Wells or any subsequent Invisible Man author. Wait!
Check that. I do recall once, many centons ago reading an invisible man
story in which poor invisible ends up blind. I do not recall the title
and the author, though. Many kalikams of water have passed under the
bridge since then.
Bob Kolker
A bridge is a wonderful place from which to watch life go by ;-)
--
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?
"Fought with a lot of people in the war."
"...and your husband?"
"Fight with him sometimes too."
George W Harris
2006-05-14 23:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
:> ruth wrote:
:>
:>>
:>> Oh. Hey, you're right!
:>>
:>> I never thought of that before.
:>
:>
:> Neither did H.G.Wells or any subsequent Invisible Man author.

Actually -

"I struggled up. At first I was as incapable as a
swathed infant, -- stepping with limbs I could not see. I
was weak and very hungry. I went and stared at
nothing in my shaving-glass, at nothing save where an
attenuated pigment still remained behind the retina of
my eyes, fainter than mist. I had to hang on to the table
and press my forehead against the glass."

Chapter 20, "The Invisible Man", H.G. Wells.

:> Bob Kolker
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Harold Groot
2006-05-14 23:17:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:04:09 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by ruth
Oh. Hey, you're right!
I never thought of that before.
Neither did H.G.Wells or any subsequent Invisible Man author. Wait!
Check that. I do recall once, many centons ago reading an invisible man
story in which poor invisible ends up blind. I do not recall the title
and the author, though. Many kalikams of water have passed under the
bridge since then.
Bob Kolker
It also came into play in the comics at least once, though this was a
"what if?" situation. Superman had married and had had two kids - one
who had inherited his superpowers, one who had not. While trying to
deal with the inevitable super-inferiority complex, Superman invents a
serum that gives the second son superpowers - but there are side
effects. The kid turns invisible. The kid says something like
"...and since light passes right through me, I'm blind. I don't like
this. Change me back." (Eventually the non-super kid come to terms
with his life after he saves the other two because he isn't affected
by kryptonite like they are.)

Getting back to the original question, I surprised that no one has so
far mentioned Farscape. I realize that it is set close enough to our
present to perhaps be a problem by a strict adherance to the
definition the OP gave - but by having our hero go through a wormhole
to another area of the universe we get around the main objection the
OP seemed to have. He seemed concerned that space flight was not
common enough in our present world (or near duplicates and/or the near
future). On the other side of the wormhole in Farscape, however,
spaceflight is everywhere. Our hero lives on a huge spaceship and
take frequent trips on his own shorter-range ship. Aliens are
everywhere too, and rayguns and other such things. I think it's one
of the best things the SciFi channel ever showed. They have now put
it in syndication, so instead of the SciFi channel you'll now have to
look for it on independent TV stations. The superstation WGN carries
it, also (out here) local stations (KICU, KTVU). It does help to
start at the beginning, so grabbing some DVDs is certainly an option.
Her Benevolence, The BEAST
2006-05-15 22:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Groot
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by ruth
Oh. Hey, you're right!
I never thought of that before.
Neither did H.G.Wells or any subsequent Invisible Man author. Wait!
Check that. I do recall once, many centons ago reading an invisible man
story in which poor invisible ends up blind. I do not recall the title
and the author, though. Many kalikams of water have passed under the
bridge since then.
Bob Kolker
It also came into play in the comics at least once, though this was a
"what if?" situation. Superman had married and had had two kids - one
who had inherited his superpowers, one who had not. While trying to
deal with the inevitable super-inferiority complex, Superman invents a
serum that gives the second son superpowers - but there are side
effects. The kid turns invisible. The kid says something like
"...and since light passes right through me, I'm blind. I don't like
this. Change me back." (Eventually the non-super kid come to terms
with his life after he saves the other two because he isn't affected
by kryptonite like they are.)
I remember it from a comic book, too -- but not the one you
mentioned.....at least, I don't remember any kids connected
with the storyline.....


mused
The BEAST
ruth
2006-05-16 12:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Her Benevolence, The BEAST
I remember it from a comic book, too -- but not the one you
mentioned.....at least, I don't remember any kids connected
with the storyline.....
mused
The BEAST
Hello lovely Beast person.
--
Her Benevolence, The BEAST
2006-05-16 19:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruth
Post by Her Benevolence, The BEAST
I remember it from a comic book, too -- but not the one you
mentioned.....at least, I don't remember any kids connected
with the storyline.....
mused
The BEAST
Hello lovely Beast person.
Hallo, lovely Ruth person!


smiled
The BEAST
Cruithne3753
2006-05-14 16:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruth
Post by Robert J. Kolker
HOLLOW MAN is just a re-do of The Inivisible Man. By the way a totally
invisible man would be blind. If he had transparent retinas he would not
see a thing. The retinas have to be able to stop photons which means
they will re-radiate energy in the frequency they asorb. Such an
invisible man would not be invisible at all. You would be able to see
his retinas. Claude Raines did it well before Kevin Bacon.
Bob Kolker
Oh. Hey, you're right!
I never thought of that before.
Cruithne3753
2006-05-14 16:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
HOLLOW MAN is just a re-do of The Inivisible Man. By the way a totally
invisible man would be blind. If he had transparent retinas he would not
see a thing. The retinas have to be able to stop photons which means
they will re-radiate energy in the frequency they asorb. Such an
invisible man would not be invisible at all. You would be able to see
his retinas. Claude Raines did it well before Kevin Bacon.
Bob Kolker
Reminds me of a network play mod for (I think) Quake II, where there was
an invisibility powerup, but anyone "invisible" appeared as an
apparently disembodied pair of eyes.
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-14 17:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cruithne3753
Reminds me of a network play mod for (I think) Quake II, where there was
an invisibility powerup, but anyone "invisible" appeared as an
apparently disembodied pair of eyes.
By the way, an Invisible Man would not be invisible in the infra red
spectrum. Just put on IR goggles and you will see him clearly.
H.G.Welles did not know about IR radiation so he may be forgiven.

Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
2006-05-14 17:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
By the way, an Invisible Man would not be invisible in the infra red
spectrum. Just put on IR goggles and you will see him clearly. H.G.Welles
did not know about IR radiation so he may be forgiven.
But the writers at HOLLOW MAN had stuff like this down pat, which improved
it over the original coniderably. HM is very, very good sci-fi. The added
DVD material explained how the creators of the effects went to trouble and
expense to make star Bacon give off results like a truly invisible man
rather than just resorting to cheap tricks like moving stuff around with
wires or having the other actors just talk to empty space.

Only a Cranky Old Physics Student (TM) like you would lose sleep because his
retinas couldn't catch photons.
Julio Laredo
2006-05-16 02:26:28 UTC
Permalink
What amused me were comments by Paul Verhoeven in an interview where, after
admitting he had never read "The Invisible Man" nor seen any of the early
movies, he honestly thought he was covering new ground by having Sebastian
Caine think he could rule the world.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Robert J. Kolker
By the way, an Invisible Man would not be invisible in the infra red
spectrum. Just put on IR goggles and you will see him clearly. H.G.Welles
did not know about IR radiation so he may be forgiven.
But the writers at HOLLOW MAN had stuff like this down pat, which improved
it over the original coniderably. HM is very, very good sci-fi. The
added DVD material explained how the creators of the effects went to
trouble and expense to make star Bacon give off results like a truly
invisible man rather than just resorting to cheap tricks like moving stuff
around with wires or having the other actors just talk to empty space.
Only a Cranky Old Physics Student (TM) like you would lose sleep because
his retinas couldn't catch photons.
Atlas Bugged
2006-05-16 03:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julio Laredo
What amused me were comments by Paul Verhoeven in an interview where,
after admitting he had never read "The Invisible Man" nor seen any of the
early movies, he honestly thought he was covering new ground by having
Sebastian Caine think he could rule the world.
Shut-UP! Really? Seems odd since several of his other works, though pretty
unfathful, were based on classic authors' works, such as Heinlein and
Phillip K. Dick.

In any event, whether telling the truth or jerking readers around, HOLLOW
MAN re-makes most of the Claude Raines essentials, while adding a
spectacular updating in terms of effects and even science, notwithstanding
Kolker's pedantic, albeit accurate, curmudgeonly comments.
Julio Laredo
2006-05-16 03:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Julio Laredo
What amused me were comments by Paul Verhoeven in an interview where,
after admitting he had never read "The Invisible Man" nor seen any of the
early movies, he honestly thought he was covering new ground by having
Sebastian Caine think he could rule the world.
Shut-UP! Really? Seems odd since several of his other works, though
pretty unfathful, were based on classic authors' works, such as Heinlein
and Phillip K. Dick.
The interview was on NPR, and, I heard it.

And just because he directed Total Recall and Starship Troopers does not
necessarily mean he read the original stories.
ravenlynne
2006-05-27 14:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
"Space travel" is inessential (though extremely popular and appropriate) to
sci-fi. "Set in the future" is much more essential, but I don't think it is
indispensible.
Stargate SG1 isn't in the future.

Mike Voss
2006-05-14 08:56:29 UTC
Permalink
"Atlas Bugged" <***@gmail.com> wrote
<snippage>
For recent material, check ... the two marginal Mars movies,
MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET.
Speaking of which, am I out of my mind or isn't one of
these a complete ripoff of Geoffrey Landis' MARS CROSSING?
(Or at least an uncredited "based on"...)

Mike
Geoffrey
2006-05-14 17:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Voss
...For recent material, check ... the two marginal Mars movies,
MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET.
Speaking of which, am I out of my mind or isn't one of
these a complete ripoff of Geoffrey Landis' MARS CROSSING?
(Or at least an uncredited "based on"...)
Possible. My agent did try to interest Hollywood in _Mars Crossing_,
and had shopped the proposal around without getting a bite. It's
plausible that some of my _Mars Crossing_ may have been incorporated
without credit in "Red Planet", since one particular plot element dos
have a remarkable resemblance.

Without a paper trail showing it, though, I'd say it's impossible to
prove one way or the other.
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
ruth
2006-05-14 21:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey
Post by Mike Voss
...For recent material, check ... the two marginal Mars movies,
MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET.
Speaking of which, am I out of my mind or isn't one of
these a complete ripoff of Geoffrey Landis' MARS CROSSING?
(Or at least an uncredited "based on"...)
Possible. My agent did try to interest Hollywood in _Mars Crossing_,
and had shopped the proposal around without getting a bite. It's
plausible that some of my _Mars Crossing_ may have been incorporated
without credit in "Red Planet", since one particular plot element dos
have a remarkable resemblance.
Without a paper trail showing it, though, I'd say it's impossible to
prove one way or the other.
Hey! I read that! Good stuff.

The movie ...not so much.

Enjoy your work! I believe I read a swell short story of yours as well.
--
Mike Voss
2006-05-16 06:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruth
Post by Geoffrey
Post by Mike Voss
...For recent material, check ... the two marginal Mars movies,
MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET.
Speaking of which, am I out of my mind or isn't one of
these a complete ripoff of Geoffrey Landis' MARS CROSSING?
(Or at least an uncredited "based on"...)
Possible. My agent did try to interest Hollywood in _Mars Crossing_,
and had shopped the proposal around without getting a bite. It's
plausible that some of my _Mars Crossing_ may have been incorporated
without credit in "Red Planet", since one particular plot element dos
have a remarkable resemblance.
Without a paper trail showing it, though, I'd say it's impossible to
prove one way or the other.
Hey! I read that! Good stuff.
The movie ...not so much.
Enjoy your work! I believe I read a swell short story of yours as well.
Mr Landis is lauded far and wide for his short fiction...which means
I need to go find some and read it :-)

Mike
Mike Voss
2006-05-16 06:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey
Post by Mike Voss
...For recent material, check ... the two marginal Mars movies,
MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET.
Speaking of which, am I out of my mind or isn't one of
these a complete ripoff of Geoffrey Landis' MARS CROSSING?
(Or at least an uncredited "based on"...)
Possible. My agent did try to interest Hollywood in _Mars Crossing_,
and had shopped the proposal around without getting a bite. It's
plausible that some of my _Mars Crossing_ may have been incorporated
without credit in "Red Planet", since one particular plot element dos
have a remarkable resemblance.
Without a paper trail showing it, though, I'd say it's impossible to
prove one way or the other.
Well, I enjoyed your novel considerably more than I did Red Planet :-)
Thanks for the reply!

Mike
Geoffrey
2006-05-18 16:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruth
Enjoy your work! I believe I read a swell short story of yours as well.
Thanks!

"Mike Voss" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>Mr Landis is lauded far and wide for his short fiction...which means
:>I need to go find some and read it :-)

Well, with some self-promotion, I might mention that I have a book of
short stories, _IMPACT PARAMETER_, from Golden Gryphon.
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis

Or you can just watch for various magazines and anthologies. (Next
story is slated to come out in a SF Book Club anthology, _Escape from
Earth_-- due out in September. May be hard to find if you're not a SF
Book Club member, but if the other stories are as good as their authors
are when they're good, it might be worth joining the SF Book Club just
to get.)

--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
David Buchner
2006-05-19 04:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey
Possible. My agent did try to interest Hollywood in _Mars Crossing_,
and had shopped the proposal around without getting a bite. It's
plausible that some of my _Mars Crossing_ may have been incorporated
without credit in "Red Planet", since one particular plot element dos
have a remarkable resemblance.
Without a paper trail showing it, though, I'd say it's impossible to
prove one way or the other.
Don't feel bad -- I thought both of those "crappy mission to Mars"
movies stunk, anyway.

Whatever happened to the one James Cameron was supposedly going to do?

Where are all the rich guys starting their own space programs? Come ON!
Don Sample
2006-05-14 04:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
Your definition of "Science Fiction" is much too narrow. "Real" science
fiction has never been defined that way. People in the future flying
around in spaceships has always been just a sub-genre of SF.

SF is generally defined more along the lines of "a form of speculative
fiction dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon
society and persons as individuals."

SF can be set in any time, past, present, or future, and it does not
have to involve any sort of space travel. Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"
is considered by many to be the first modern Science Fiction novel. Not
a spaceship to be seen, and it was set in the current day of the writer.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Andy
2006-05-14 05:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Sample
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
Your definition of "Science Fiction" is much too narrow. "Real" science
fiction has never been defined that way. People in the future flying
around in spaceships has always been just a sub-genre of SF.
SF is generally defined more along the lines of "a form of speculative
fiction dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon
society and persons as individuals."
SF can be set in any time, past, present, or future, and it does not
have to involve any sort of space travel. Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"
is considered by many to be the first modern Science Fiction novel. Not
a spaceship to be seen, and it was set in the current day of the writer.
There is not and cannot be any working definition of science fiction,
by definition ;-)
--
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?
"Fought with a lot of people in the war."
"...and your husband?"
"Fight with him sometimes too."
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-14 09:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Sample
Your definition of "Science Fiction" is much too narrow. "Real" science
fiction has never been defined that way. People in the future flying
around in spaceships has always been just a sub-genre of SF.
SF is generally defined more along the lines of "a form of speculative
fiction dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon
society and persons as individuals."
SF can be set in any time, past, present, or future, and it does not
have to involve any sort of space travel. Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"
is considered by many to be the first modern Science Fiction novel. Not
a spaceship to be seen, and it was set in the current day of the writer.
It was one of the first biological sci fi stories. In a way, Mary
Shelley, made the mold. Every story concerning artificial life will
carry her DNA, in a manner of speaking. Victor used corpse parts.
Nowadays we clone our artificial people. Just an aide: Shelley's
understanding of electricity (which is the plot McGuffin) is pre-Faraday
and pre-Maxwell. The electrical generators in Frankenstein were wither
lightning or static electric machines, not really different from and Van
Der Graff machine. Lots of sparks and shit. Not a magnetic field in sight.


Bob Kolker
Julio Laredo
2006-05-14 04:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
And most science fiction writers, like Isaac Asmiov, Phillip Jose Farmer,
Greg Bear, Ellison, Silverberg, Vance, Van Vogt would take great
exception to your definition.
Post by x***@y.zzz
I know they've had real science-fiction movies. But maybe someone
with a better memory can tell me: has SciFi EVER had a first-run TV
series set in the future, and having planetary/space travel? And, by
"the future", I mean far enough that space travel is common, like
"Enterprise", not a few years.
SciFi, until fairly recently, had nothing first-run.
x***@y.zzz
2006-05-14 05:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
Excuse me for being an uneducated, narrow-minded
son-of-a-whatever-you-might-want-to-call-me. It's MY definition; I
didn't say it was THE definition.

I was looking for like-minded people; so, of course, everyone has to
tell me I'm wrong.

I'll stop wasting your time, now.


***@y.zzz

"Politicians are conniving, wheeler-dealing scum. Don't have a fit of morals over them;
they wouldn't, over you."
--Harry Pearce, "MI-5"
Lokari
2006-05-14 15:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
Excuse me for being an uneducated, narrow-minded
son-of-a-whatever-you-might-want-to-call-me. It's MY definition; I
didn't say it was THE definition.
I'll stop wasting your time, now.
WAAAAYYYY too sensitive to play on Usenet.

--
Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
www.lokari.net
Julio Laredo
2006-05-14 16:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
Excuse me for being an uneducated, narrow-minded
son-of-a-whatever-you-might-want-to-call-me. It's MY definition; I
didn't say it was THE definition.
I was looking for like-minded people; so, of course, everyone has to
tell me I'm wrong.
I'll stop wasting your time, now.
The big boys use definitions which do not depend upon a certain mindset.

What you should have said was, "I like my science fiction to be of the
'space travel set in the future' kind." You would have come off as far more
mature.
Al Gore
2006-05-14 20:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julio Laredo
Post by x***@y.zzz
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
Excuse me for being an uneducated, narrow-minded
son-of-a-whatever-you-might-want-to-call-me. It's MY definition; I
didn't say it was THE definition.
I was looking for like-minded people; so, of course, everyone has to
tell me I'm wrong.
I'll stop wasting your time, now.
The big boys use definitions which do not depend upon a certain mindset.
What you should have said was, "I like my science fiction to be of the
'space travel set in the future' kind." You would have come off as far more
mature.
I refer to them as "Space Ship Shows." My brother considers them to be
the only "True" SciFi. If it has spaceships or aliens, it is SciFi.
Personally I like shows with Dinosaurs in contemporary urban settings.

We will call it 'This Land.'
Andy
2006-05-14 23:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Gore
Post by Julio Laredo
Post by x***@y.zzz
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
Excuse me for being an uneducated, narrow-minded
son-of-a-whatever-you-might-want-to-call-me. It's MY definition; I
didn't say it was THE definition.
I was looking for like-minded people; so, of course, everyone has to
tell me I'm wrong.
I'll stop wasting your time, now.
The big boys use definitions which do not depend upon a certain mindset.
What you should have said was, "I like my science fiction to be of the
'space travel set in the future' kind." You would have come off as far more
mature.
I refer to them as "Space Ship Shows." My brother considers them to be
the only "True" SciFi. If it has spaceships or aliens, it is SciFi.
Personally I like shows with Dinosaurs in contemporary urban settings.
We will call it 'This Land.'
Is it Lost?
--
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?
"Fought with a lot of people in the war."
"...and your husband?"
"Fight with him sometimes too."
Al Gore
2006-05-15 20:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy
Post by Al Gore
Post by Julio Laredo
Post by x***@y.zzz
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
Excuse me for being an uneducated, narrow-minded
son-of-a-whatever-you-might-want-to-call-me. It's MY definition; I
didn't say it was THE definition.
I was looking for like-minded people; so, of course, everyone has to
tell me I'm wrong.
I'll stop wasting your time, now.
The big boys use definitions which do not depend upon a certain mindset.
What you should have said was, "I like my science fiction to be of the
'space travel set in the future' kind." You would have come off as far more
mature.
I refer to them as "Space Ship Shows." My brother considers them to be
the only "True" SciFi. If it has spaceships or aliens, it is SciFi.
Personally I like shows with Dinosaurs in contemporary urban settings.
We will call it 'This Land.'
Is it Lost?
Not after it was found. Technically speaking.
Andy
2006-05-14 22:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julio Laredo
Post by x***@y.zzz
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future.
Excuse me for being an uneducated, narrow-minded
son-of-a-whatever-you-might-want-to-call-me. It's MY definition; I
didn't say it was THE definition.
I was looking for like-minded people; so, of course, everyone has to
tell me I'm wrong.
I'll stop wasting your time, now.
The big boys use definitions which do not depend upon a certain mindset.
What you should have said was, "I like my science fiction to be of the
'space travel set in the future' kind." You would have come off as far more
mature.
Everyone learns somewhere sometime.
--
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?
"Fought with a lot of people in the war."
"...and your husband?"
"Fight with him sometimes too."
Robert J. Kolker
2006-05-14 09:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
It bugs me that, with "Next Generation" and "DS9", SpikeTV can have
MORE real SF, in any given week, than SciFi does!
Your definition of "real SF" is a restricted. There are sci fi themes in
the realm of the biological. What about shape shifting. Or the ability
to transfer one's personality to another body? Then there is sci fi
based on cloning and duplication. The problem with these are that the FI
in the sci FI is quickly becoming fact. Just like space travel. We have
not acheive FTL or very high speed yet, but the idea of humans tooling
about the solar system (or the galaxy by extension) is not longer in the
realm of the fantastic. For example a manned journey to Mars, is simply
a matter of extending already existing technology.

Asimov's Robot series is science fiction. It is about machines being
very human-like. The fact that the owners of the Robots live off planet
is not essential to the existence of the positronic brain and the Three
Laws. ST:TNG borrowed from Asimov's tool kit. Look at Data. He has a
positronic brain and his behaviour is constrained by built in controls
not unlike the Three Laws. That is why Data can be tolerated by organic
humans. They know he is essentially benign. On the other hand the
blaster robots in the RoboCop series are all non-organic and very
dangerous to humans. The only reason why RoboCop is tolerated is because
inside he is still Murphy.

Bob Kolker
proton49
2006-05-14 16:34:08 UTC
Permalink
The exact definition of SF could provide fuel for hours of debate but, respectfully,
your definition is a bit restrictive. Neither space travel nor a setting in the future are
prerequisites. Take Stephen Baxter's novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF
story, taking place around the turn of the century. An awesome new power source has come
into the hands of the humans of that time, and the story revolves around what they do with
it, and how it changes the course of history. No space travel; no distant future, yet it's
got all the requirements: science, technology; humans and their nature. SF is such a
wonderful genre in that it can encompass so much. It is indeed such a shame that television
seldom even scratches its surface.

regards -
Post by x***@y.zzz
I tend to describe "real" science fiction as the classic SF
definition: space travel set in the future. Things like "Firefly",
"Babylon 5", "Star Trek", "Andromeda", etc. I've noticed that the
SciFi Channel has moved away from that, lately. Except for shows in
the weekday Daytime Rotation, there's not a lot on SciFi that meets
those two criteria. I wrote "not a lot" out of the habit of leaving
room for what I may have overlooked - thinking about it now, I can't
think of anything new that meets those two criteria. The new
"Galactica" is definitely set in space, but we don't know if it's in
the future; the contemporary clothes lead me to say that that show
doesn't qualify. The "Stargates" have space travel, but are
definitely contemporary to our time. The 27th season of "Doctor Who"
(the one currently being shown) has time travel, so he can go to the
future; but he appears to be confined to Earth (or Earth orbit, in the
case of "The End of the World"). And the movies all seem to be either
swords-and-sorcery, horror, slasher, epidemics, disasters or mutant
animals - no actual science fiction, there.
I know they've had real science-fiction movies. But maybe someone
with a better memory can tell me: has SciFi EVER had a first-run TV
series set in the future, and having planetary/space travel? And, by
"the future", I mean far enough that space travel is common, like
"Enterprise", not a few years.
It bugs me that, with "Next Generation" and "DS9", SpikeTV can have
MORE real SF, in any given week, than SciFi does!
Another question: With SciFi abandoning it, where do you turn when
you're desperate for real SF? What channels have you found valuable,
what shows on DVD/tape are worth your money, etc? This is just an
informal thing, so let's not have anyone tearing a new one on the guy
who admits he likes Gil Gerard's "Buck Rogers", or whatever. One
man's trash is another's treasure.
"Politicians are conniving, wheeler-dealing scum. Don't have a fit of morals over them;
they wouldn't, over you."
--Harry Pearce, "MI-5"
Beth
2006-05-14 17:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by proton49
The exact definition of SF could provide fuel for hours of debate but, respectfully,
your definition is a bit restrictive. Neither space travel nor a setting in the future are
prerequisites. Take Stephen Baxter's novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF
story, taking place around the turn of the century. An awesome new power source has come
into the hands of the humans of that time, and the story revolves around what they do with
it, and how it changes the course of history. No space travel; no distant future, yet it's
got all the requirements: science, technology; humans and their nature. SF is such a
wonderful genre in that it can encompass so much. It is indeed such a shame that television
seldom even scratches its surface.
Once pressed for a definition of science ficiton, John W. Campbell, Jr.
said that science fiction is what science fiction editors buy. That
Post by proton49
The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is,
simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new
postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of
these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The
basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any
time you need one!" The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic
proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences."
Post by proton49
Introduction, Analog 6, Garden City, New York, 1966
(http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html)
--
Beth

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog it is too
dark to read.
Groucho Marx
Andy
2006-05-14 22:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beth
Post by proton49
The exact definition of SF could provide fuel for hours of debate but, respectfully,
your definition is a bit restrictive. Neither space travel nor a
setting in the future are
prerequisites. Take Stephen Baxter's novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF
story, taking place around the turn of the century. An awesome new power source has come
into the hands of the humans of that time, and the story revolves
around what they do with
it, and how it changes the course of history. No space travel; no
distant future, yet it's
got all the requirements: science, technology; humans and their nature. SF is such a
wonderful genre in that it can encompass so much. It is indeed such a
shame that television
seldom even scratches its surface.
Once pressed for a definition of science ficiton, John W. Campbell, Jr.
said that science fiction is what science fiction editors buy.
A wonderful "in-joke" ;-)
Post by Beth
That
Post by proton49
The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is,
simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new
postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of
these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The
basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any
time you need one!" The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic
proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences."
Post by proton49
Introduction, Analog 6, Garden City, New York, 1966
(http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html)
...and somewhere out there both genres meet and overlap.
--
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?
"Fought with a lot of people in the war."
"...and your husband?"
"Fight with him sometimes too."
l***@my-deja.com
2006-05-14 20:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by proton49
The exact definition of SF could provide fuel for hours of debate but, respectfully,
your definition is a bit restrictive. Neither space travel nor a setting in the future are
prerequisites. Take Stephen Baxter's novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF
story, taking place around the turn of the century. An awesome new power source has come
into the hands of the humans of that time, and the story revolves around what they do with
it, and how it changes the course of history. No space travel; no distant future, yet it's
got all the requirements: science, technology; humans and their nature. SF is such a
wonderful genre in that it can encompass so much. It is indeed such a shame that television
seldom even scratches its surface.
regards -
I enjoy the TV series NUMB3RS and often think of it as science fiction.
Even though it's a present day crime drama, it's very creative in the
way it uses mathematics to illuminate the case of the week.
nimue
2006-05-14 20:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@my-deja.com
Post by proton49
The exact definition of SF could provide fuel for hours of debate but, respectfully,
your definition is a bit restrictive. Neither space travel nor a
setting in the future are prerequisites. Take Stephen Baxter's
novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF story, taking
place around the turn of the century. An awesome new power source
has come into the hands of the humans of that time, and the story
revolves around what they do with it, and how it changes the course
of history. No space travel; no distant future, yet it's got all the
requirements: science, technology; humans and their nature. SF is
such a wonderful genre in that it can encompass so much. It is
indeed such a shame that television seldom even scratches its
surface.
regards -
I enjoy the TV series NUMB3RS and often think of it as science
fiction. Even though it's a present day crime drama, it's very
creative in the way it uses mathematics to illuminate the case of the
week.
And it does have Mr. Universe, so... ;-) <g>
--
nimue

"As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books
than I have read." Betty Bowers
Beth
2006-05-14 20:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by nimue
Post by l***@my-deja.com
Post by proton49
The exact definition of SF could provide fuel for hours of debate but, respectfully,
your definition is a bit restrictive. Neither space travel nor a
setting in the future are prerequisites. Take Stephen Baxter's
novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF story, taking
place around the turn of the century. An awesome new power source
has come into the hands of the humans of that time, and the story
revolves around what they do with it, and how it changes the course
of history. No space travel; no distant future, yet it's got all the
requirements: science, technology; humans and their nature. SF is
such a wonderful genre in that it can encompass so much. It is
indeed such a shame that television seldom even scratches its
surface.
regards -
I enjoy the TV series NUMB3RS and often think of it as science
fiction. Even though it's a present day crime drama, it's very
creative in the way it uses mathematics to illuminate the case of the
week.
And it does have Mr. Universe, so... ;-) <g>
BACK ON TOPIC! ;)
--
Beth

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog it is too
dark to read.
Groucho Marx
George W Harris
2006-05-14 21:52:17 UTC
Permalink
On 14 May 2006 13:45:24 -0700, ***@my-deja.com wrote:

:
:I enjoy the TV series NUMB3RS and often think of it as science fiction.
:Even though it's a present day crime drama, it's very creative in the
:way it uses mathematics to illuminate the case of the week.

Yeah. I think of it as fantasy, in much the same
way that any TV show that wildly misuses a
little-understood field is fantasy.
--
"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."
-Hermann Goering

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Don Sample
2006-05-14 22:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George W Harris
:I enjoy the TV series NUMB3RS and often think of it as science fiction.
:Even though it's a present day crime drama, it's very creative in the
:way it uses mathematics to illuminate the case of the week.
Yeah. I think of it as fantasy, in much the same
way that any TV show that wildly misuses a
little-understood field is fantasy.
I like that it's the physicist who's always worrying about the
philosophical and moral implications of everything they're doing.
Usually they're the ones who are depicted as not caring about such
things.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
C.O.Jones
2006-05-15 22:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@my-deja.com
Post by proton49
The exact definition of SF could provide fuel for hours of debate but, respectfully,
your definition is a bit restrictive. Neither space travel nor a setting in
the future are
prerequisites. Take Stephen Baxter's novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF
story, taking place around the turn of the century. An awesome new power
source has come
into the hands of the humans of that time, and the story revolves around
what they do with
it, and how it changes the course of history. No space travel; no distant
future, yet it's
got all the requirements: science, technology; humans and their nature. SF is such a
wonderful genre in that it can encompass so much. It is indeed such a shame
that television
seldom even scratches its surface.
regards -
I enjoy the TV series NUMB3RS and often think of it as science fiction.
Even though it's a present day crime drama, it's very creative in the
way it uses mathematics to illuminate the case of the week.
I enjoy popular science books on quantum physics and the like for the
same reason. It's real, but sounds like scifi
--
////////// \\\\\\\\\\\
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
-- Harlan Ellison
Cruithne3753
2006-05-15 00:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by proton49
Take Stephen Baxter's novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF
story, taking place around the turn of the century.
Unfortunately out of print, can't find it anywhere.
proton49
2006-05-15 01:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Too bad. Maybe you could find a used copy on Amazon - they'll often
direct potential buyers to used sources for out-of-print material. I also
loved Baxter's sequel to Wells' "The Time Machine". Lots of fun.

regards -
Post by Cruithne3753
Post by proton49
Take Stephen Baxter's novel, "Anti-Ice". It's an alternative history SF
story, taking place around the turn of the century.
Unfortunately out of print, can't find it anywhere.
bek
2006-05-20 19:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
It bugs me that, with "Next Generation" and "DS9", SpikeTV can have
MORE real SF, in any given week, than SciFi does!
Another question: With SciFi abandoning it, where do you turn when
you're desperate for real SF?
My major complaint is that Sci Fi Channel has spend lots of $ on "Sci
Fi Films" which in my definition turn out to be just horror flicks.

I suppose they could be defined as Sci fi under the broad definition of
use, but they seem to be all in the same mold. I wish they would have
more "hard" Sci fi, rather than nasty creature sci fi.

Bek
x***@y.zzz
2006-05-14 17:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Why don't we just pretend that I said "Future Space Fiction", instead?

***@y.zzz

"Politicians are conniving, wheeler-dealing scum. Don't have a fit of morals over them;
they wouldn't, over you."
--Harry Pearce, "MI-5"
Rich Clark
2006-05-14 19:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
Why don't we just pretend that I said "Future Space Fiction", instead?
Because you weren't critiquing the "Future Space Fiction Channel."

RichC
ruth
2006-05-14 21:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Clark
Post by x***@y.zzz
Why don't we just pretend that I said "Future Space Fiction", instead?
Because you weren't critiquing the "Future Space Fiction Channel."
RichC
I want one of those.
--
Lokari
2006-05-14 23:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@y.zzz
Why don't we just pretend that I said "Future Space Fiction", instead?
Maybe the phrase you're looking for is "Space Opera".

--
Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
www.lokari.net
ravenlynne
2006-05-27 14:08:03 UTC
Permalink
I get suggestions from friends and download from Limewire when I'm
desperate. we have the original BSG on dvd, Buck rogers on DVD, B5 on
DVD, etc too.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...