StarRider1701":29j6n3ck said:
He's a boring Science Fiction fan. He wants to limit himself (and everyone else) to SF that takes place only within the next 100 to 200 years from now.
I just mean that he knows the difference, that's all.
But true Science Fiction knows no limits!
True Science Fiction has always been, and will always be, the impact of technology on human beings and their society. That is Science Fiction.
So, making up future science and technology is what Science Fiction is all about! Not to mention weaving a great story around that technology. Used to be, all a SF fan expected of the "Science" part of Science Fiction was that it at least tried to remain true to itself. That is, the author set the "Logic" of the future science and then stuck to those principles. Now, too many folk try to judge SF by the meager standards and abilities of our current science. "We can't do it now, so therefore it cannot ever be done." Seems to be a recurring theme in the judgement of much of todays Sf, especially the TV shows and movies. Sad, sad, sad... and boring.
It's not about making up the coolest gadgets or the most believable future science. There's nothing in doing that if there is no story of its impact on human beings. But, even in the most fantastical science fiction imaginable, like "Dune" or Zelazny's "Lord of Light", there must be a human element and some sort of conflict stemming from technology or science or else it's not true science fiction.
Slaughterhouse Five - That's very "near future"... kind of.. and is high Science Fiction.
Dune - Far future, very fantastic, but still Science Fiction.
World of Tiers - So far into outrageous science fiction that it is near fantasy, but it's still Science Fiction. (not a movie, though)
Runaway - Very near future, yet still Science Fiction.
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace - Far future, fantastic gadgets but CRAP as far as Science Fiction goes. It's Sci Fi.
Starship Troopers: Future, lots of science fictiony stuff.. But, lost most of its Science Fiction merit 15 minutes into the movie. Sci-Fi.
I can speak for Skyskimmer, but there's a definite difference between Sci Fi and Science Fiction. It seems that the more fantastical gadgets, 'splosions and special effects they want to put into a movie, the farther removed they tend to get from stories about characters actually being impacted by that technology. With less techy stuff, usually comes more "story."
For instance, Robin Williams character in "The Final Cut" witnesses something with the new technology of being able to download and edit a person's life history. Everything that person saw, experienced, did, etc.. can be edited on tape and there's a fad to presenting such "Life Histories" to bereaving relatives at the time of a person's death. There's no wild tech in this movie other than the idea of having access to such information from an implant. There's no 'splosions or aliens. There's simply a neat bit of tech and an interesting story about a character dramatically effected by that technology. That's Science Fiction. It doesn't have to be set in the near future. But, most movies tend to put "story driven science ficiton" in the near future because they don't need a lot of flash and glitter to interest the viewer.
In howitzer-space-blowup-stuff, you can simply crowd the screen with as many special effects as you possibly can and it's possible to ignore any potential for a story while still keeping the audience mesmerized by bells and whistles. That is Sci Fi. It's hard to pull off Sci Fi in the near future. When someone tries to do it, it's usually regarded as a cheesy B movie.