Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubby79
Who cares what it's called? It's just a label.
The only difference, in my mind, between sci-fi and fantasy is one has post-modern technology while the other has pre-modern (medieval) tech. My preference is fatasy, because they(usually) don't try to explain things (magic) rationally. The farther something is from reality, the better, imo.
Thanks for the pic, enjoyed the comparison!
|
True for the first part.
For the second part, you'd be surprised.
Whether or not the underlying premises of the fantasy world is explicitly explained, good science fiction and fantasy both require the same skill sets: proper world building, logical and rational rules or principles upon which the fantasy magical or technological systems are based, and a keen attention for detail.
Some of the best fantasy writers are keen science fiction writers. Case in point: George R.R. Martin, whose "Sand Kings" is one of my favorite sci-fi tales.
-
That said, Star Trek has always fallen solidly in the Space Opera camp for me: Focusing more on pageantry and story than on building a believable and plausible world. (People harp on the Abrahms' reboot not making sense... Star Trek technology has NEVER made sense. It doesn't follow the laws of physics. It is NOT self-consistent. It is NOT logically utilized within the series or movies.)
That said (x2), storywise, TNG was pretty solid. And I'm happy Jean-Luc Picard is back in town.