I say… AND?
When are people going to get over this ridiculous classification nonsense?
Google+: Reshared 2 times
Google+: View post on Google+
William Shatner Says Doctor Who Is Sci-Fantasy
Loading Disqus Comments ...
Loading Facebook Comments ...
I thought it was a history lesson cleverly disguised as an action-adventure show? Remember when the cybermen invaded England in the 19th century? That was truly a dark hour for the residents of London!
Because Shatner.
Yet my thesaurus says that fiction and fantasy are synonyms…
And Star Trek is not Sci-Fantasy? FTL-travel anyone?
well, NASA is working on a warp drive at the present time…
Doctor Who was originally supposed to be a history lesson couched in a time-traveling series… but that aspect didn’t go over so well so they reformatted it.
Still.. Pot, meet Kettle.
Who cares? That’s the point. One is not better than the other.
Well, at least none of the Doctors were portrayed by an actor as worthless as Shatner.
I was referring to Daniels question about DW being a history lesson
Can we try not to let this descend to childish my show is better than yours name calling?
He just jelly.
they are both laughably bad sci-fi shows. Get over it.
I wasn’t actually responding to you +Anthony Deaver. Your comment wasn’t there when I posted it.
Ah
In that case, carry on!
Who has been many things. In part — originally — to help teach kids history and science. Of course, NuWho, especially under the previous administration was much more ‘fantastical’.
So, everybody is right!
+Eoghann Irving I won’t make any judgements about the shows, but it’s an objective fact that Shatner couldn’t act if his live depended on it.
It wasn’t a question, except in the rhetorical sense. I know that they changed by the time Tom Baker was on the scene.
No that would be a subjective option +Jarn Vermote Now try act like you’re older than 7.
+Eoghann Irving What has this to do with age? Or with name calling for that matter. Shatner at His Finest! seriously
I have trouble reading twitter. Was it Shatner or tis mustered guy that made the comment?
I am similarly confused about the actual origin +Jack Hardman. It shows on Shatner’s feed perhaps as a re-share of some sort. The place I read about it, called it a tweet from Shatner.
As usual quite a lot of people have missed the point and want to turn it into an attack on or other of the shows. What I was trying to draw attention to was the silly habit of drawing up labels so you can show you like the good stuff and they like the bad stuff.
Yeah, I like both. Grew up watching both. I make separate shelves for fantasy and science fiction on my nook but I don’t go into sub sub genres like cyber punk on it. I think both have elements of what people would consider science fiction and fantasy but like you said, who cares?
Agreed +Jack Hardman . People have to nit pick everything into élite categories and this can run the fun experience some times over argument with fanboy favorites.
Does science fiction have any use? At one time landing on the Moon could have been called fantasy and now we have a robot on Mars.
There is Science Fiction, Sci-trope Fiction, Techno-Fantasy, and Fantasy.
Everybody has the right to like whatever they want. But we do live in a society where science and technology are changing how we live. Do we want to raise kids who understand this stuff or not? Good Science Fiction explains things. Sci-trope fiction has tropes like artificial gravity and FTL but explains nothing but may be a fun story. Techn-fantasy has stuff that defies known science. In The Matrix it would have taken more energy to feed people in bubbles than could have been gotten out of them. In Fantasy, science is irrelevant.
But Kurt Vonnegut commented on attitudes about science fiction in 1965.
week 4 science fiction | zscslaughterhousefive
The “literary people” don’t want to live without technology even if they don’t understand it.
Actually SciFi has been some inspiration for scientists to try out in creating technologies. In the end though nothing is really all that useful equally but rather based more toward individuals needs and such.
Shatner is a bit too full of himself, tbh. Some times I feel he thinks he is Captain Kirk. He seems to thinks that, if the SF isn’t Star Trek, it’s no good…
It’s fiction. The intent is not to be useful. The intent is to entertain. You want good science, read/watch some of the many excellent non-fiction books or shows on the subject.
But, again, that’s really not my point. It’s right there in the original question. Why are people obsessed with classification?
He advertises his work on his G+ page. I think it is about the money for him +João Rita .
“It’s fiction. The intent is not to be useful.”
That seems to be the perspective of literary people. Science Fiction with good science could be extremely useful. But it does not get much attention or praise from the literary. It goes back to C.{. Snows Two Cultures.
week 4 science fiction | zscslaughterhousefive
Try some GOOD science fiction.
Omnilingual (Feb 1957) by H. Beam Piper
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/03/scientific-language-h-beam-pipers-qomnilingualq
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/308/omnilingual
http://librivox.org/omnilingual-by-h-beam-piper/
How about you don’t tell me what is or is not good science fiction +Karl Smithe
+Eoghann Irving How about people not pretending that the word “Science” in “Science Fiction” is irrelevant? Hugo Gernsback coined the tern “scientifiction”. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein used the words “science” and “scientific” more then 30 times.
Consider Sturgeon’s Law, “90% of everything is crud.” It applies to most of the stuff called science fiction. But the science in the real world won’t go away because of bad fiction like Neuromancer. The Two Faces of Tomorrow by James P. Hogan blows it away.