Where is my live-action magical fantasy series?


Television

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Vikings. Love it but not the kind of magic you are thinking.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Can't believe nobody mentioned Doctor Who yet. While it's not, strictly speaking, a "fantasy", the science in it is silly enough to be magic. There are monsters, aliens, distant worlds/times, and a pulp adventure vibe. For me, at least, Doctor who certainly suffices when in need of some pulpy fantasy action. Well, it does when it's good, anyway, so not the last couple of seasons, but there are 4 other that are very nice.

Actually it's really hard to find ANY modern science fiction production that doesn't fit under fantasy. Much of it is really nothing more than magic and spells redressed with metal, plastic, blinky lights, and chrome.

Sovereign Court

Doctor Who is not fantasy. It's science fiction.

I'm a Whovian, but seriusly.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:

Doctor Who is not fantasy. It's science fiction.

I'm a Whovian, but seriusly.

Time travel in a wooden phone booth.

I rest my case. I'm a Whovian myself, but I'm honest about what the show is. Even the folks who work the series know that Dr. Who is not what most people would label as science fiction. That's not a knock against the show, merely a statement.


Hama wrote:

Doctor Who is not fantasy. It's science fiction.

I'm a Whovian, but seriusly.

Doctor Who is soft sci-fi of the "Consistency of marshmallow fluff" variety which is pretty much indistinguishable from Fantasy.

Doesn't make it bad, just more Fiction than Science.

The Exchange

Hmmm...I suppose if we listed the things we want in a series and then voted on them we could come up with something.

1. Wizards who use technology like lightning.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
yellowdingo wrote:

Hmmm...I suppose if we listed the things we want in a series and then voted on them we could come up with something.

1. Wizards who use technology like lightning.

It's official, this thread has now been Dingoed.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:

Hmmm...I suppose if we listed the things we want in a series and then voted on them we could come up with something.

1. Wizards who use technology like lightning.

It's official, this thread has now been Dingoed.

So what do you want from magical fantasy tv series?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lots of petitions


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that it's expensive. Fantasy takes place mainly outdoors and outdoors filming compared to a climate-controlled set with reliable weather is VERY expensive, even before you add in any effects or prosthetics work. The reason GAME OF THRONES costs c. $7 million per episode (more than three times the cost of a regular network American TV show) is the mind-boggling amount of location filming required per episode (in 3-5 different countries, depending on the season) on top of the sets, the enormous cast and the effects.

If you look at MERLIN, they were only really able to make that show because they were fortunate to have a huge French castle which let them film it there relatively cheaply (they realised, correctly, they'd get a huge increase in tourism instead) and a controlled number of surrounding forests they could use with impunity. Which sounds great until you realised in Season 5 you could start recognising individual trees because they'd been reused so much. XENA and HERCULES did something similar (substitute bits of New Zealand for France).

If you look at an SF show like BSG or the ST series, they had big standing sets they could use and just let some effects and a couple of guest actors pick up the slack, and every few episodes they could then afford a big blow-out. And of course regular shows can get their costumes and props off-the-peg.


Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Has anyone watched Métal Hurlant Chronicles? Though technically sci-fi, since it is what we in America call Heavy Metal, we can expect some good old fashion fantasy thrown in as well.

I watched the first episode. It's gloriously awful.

The Exchange

Vikings and game of thrones both popular enough to fake a sick day


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a really...odd article


Hama wrote:

Doctor Who is not fantasy. It's science fiction.

I'm a Whovian, but seriusly.

OK, so, my bona fides is that I have about 70% of the extant original series material on DVD, and ALL of the new series on Blu-Ray. I'd kind of consider myself an expert on Who lore.

In the past there have been stories that were more sci-fi, but it was always a pretty light touch. Especially in the new series, there's a lot more fantasy than there is actual science fiction. Like, ok there's space...and...well that's about it. Fantasy travels to other worlds, gives us magic, constructs elaborate mythologies. Sci-Fi informs us how it would work with science (something Who never EVER really does) and usually has some moralistic tone about how these concepts affect, or could affect, our lives.

It's about as SF as Narnia.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So there was talk for a very long time about an Elric movie, and I was really hoping for that. But what I think would make the PERFECT fantasy series is the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser books by Fritz Leiber.

I mean he had a very visual style, it's already episodic and with lots of open spaces to insert new material, and it could be a foil to Game of Thrones which is so serious. A buddy-adventure comic fantasy serialized TV show would be amazing.


MMCJawa wrote:
That's a really...odd article

This just in: Fiction is fictitious! Seriously, this might blow your mind, but people enjoy watching TV shows about things that never happened in the real world! Also, seeing as how Arya's going on a heroic journey, and has kept her shirt on the entire time, I guess she must be a dude; I'd say the same for Daenerys, but she did take her shirt off, so, not a central character.

Meatrace, I would watch the holy bejeesus out of a Fafhrd And Gray Mouser series, but it would have to be good, and when I hope for quality adaptations, I cry myself to sleep at night, more often than not.

Sovereign Court

meatrace wrote:
Hama wrote:

Doctor Who is not fantasy. It's science fiction.

I'm a Whovian, but seriusly.

OK, so, my bona fides is that I have about 70% of the extant original series material on DVD, and ALL of the new series on Blu-Ray. I'd kind of consider myself an expert on Who lore.

In the past there have been stories that were more sci-fi, but it was always a pretty light touch. Especially in the new series, there's a lot more fantasy than there is actual science fiction. Like, ok there's space...and...well that's about it. Fantasy travels to other worlds, gives us magic, constructs elaborate mythologies. Sci-Fi informs us how it would work with science (something Who never EVER really does) and usually has some moralistic tone about how these concepts affect, or could affect, our lives.

It's about as SF as Narnia.

However, it is decidedly not a traditional medieval magical fantasy series.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Hama wrote:

Doctor Who is not fantasy. It's science fiction.

I'm a Whovian, but seriusly.

OK, so, my bona fides is that I have about 70% of the extant original series material on DVD, and ALL of the new series on Blu-Ray. I'd kind of consider myself an expert on Who lore.

In the past there have been stories that were more sci-fi, but it was always a pretty light touch. Especially in the new series, there's a lot more fantasy than there is actual science fiction. Like, ok there's space...and...well that's about it. Fantasy travels to other worlds, gives us magic, constructs elaborate mythologies. Sci-Fi informs us how it would work with science (something Who never EVER really does) and usually has some moralistic tone about how these concepts affect, or could affect, our lives.

It's about as SF as Narnia.

However, it is decidedly not a traditional medieval magical fantasy series.

Yeah, there seem to be a lot of SF purists who have a limited view of what science fiction is (or should be) and push every thing else into fantasy. I suspect there are fantasy purists who would declare that Doctor Who has far too little of the elements they consider defining so it definitely isn't fantasy.

More seriously, there are a lot of sub-genres of both SF and Fantasy with some overlap between them, not all of either grouping falling into the categories above.

The Exchange

Muad'Dib wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:


Sorry to be that guy, but that's the first acceptable mention in this thread. The others are pretty much terrible.

How dare you. Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire is a national treasure.

Good day sir, I said good day SIR!

100% in agreement here! I loved Krod Mandoon and am very disappointed that it didn't continue into many, many seasons with spinoffs and all. Some of the best fantasy one-liners ever!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


Meatrace, I would watch the holy bejeesus out of a Fafhrd And Gray Mouser series, but it would have to be good, and when I hope for quality adaptations, I cry myself to sleep at night, more often than not.

I would be all over that. I think there is something to be said for finding a way to cut the costs of making a fantasy series....like since outdoor filming is often pretty expensive, try to limit that with a story or stories that take place in more confined areas. Dank, fantasy, psuedo-medieval city scenes. Ancient tombs and catacombs. Underground cave systems. Basically these are all fairly common in a good amount of fantasy stories and could be done on a set.

I would really love to see something set in a large fantasy city that had stories mostly involved in the city. Evil cultists. Thieves guild in the sewers. Exploring the ancient Undercity below the sewers....
There are ways to make a fantasy series that doesn't need to shot in some gorgeous location at all times. In fantasy games we tend to gloss over the overland travel except for a few random encounters or something. Do the same in the series and it could work.
I would love to a series set in Lankhmar, Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, or some other popular fantasy city of decent size and history.
Hell, a series called "Lankhmar" would grab me without anything besides the title.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lankhmar, the series about (consults the focus group)... Vampires that sparkle, who (focus group call) fight against an oppressive media-driven regime after being forced to battle it out in an arena against one another, set in (focus group) a thinly veiled modern US and A, using (focus group) horses and psychic powers. It should also deal with the issues of (focus group) high school bullying, parental abuse and the problems of the internet, and feature (focus group) aliens infiltrating society. Ad money will be generated through the expensive fashion clothes people wear, and the classy modern homes used as environments.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, there seem to be a lot of SF purists who have a limited view of what science fiction is (or should be) and push every thing else into fantasy. I suspect there are fantasy purists who would declare that Doctor Who has far too little of the elements they consider defining so it definitely isn't fantasy.

More seriously, there are a lot of sub-genres of both SF and Fantasy with some overlap between them, not all of either grouping falling into the categories above.

Science Fiction IS a sub-genre of Fantasy. Even when it's as dry as a Robert Forward novel. Dr. Who can be safely said to wander in and out of that sub-genre on a wibbly wobbly basis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, there seem to be a lot of SF purists who have a limited view of what science fiction is (or should be) and push every thing else into fantasy. I suspect there are fantasy purists who would declare that Doctor Who has far too little of the elements they consider defining so it definitely isn't fantasy.

More seriously, there are a lot of sub-genres of both SF and Fantasy with some overlap between them, not all of either grouping falling into the categories above.
Science Fiction IS a sub-genre of Fantasy. Even when it's as dry as a Robert Forward novel. Dr. Who can be safely said to wander in and out of that sub-genre on a wibbly wobbly basis.

That's arguable at best.

More commonly, they're considered parallel, if related, genres. Or sub-genres of something like speculative fiction.


The fantasy SF is called various things like Space opera, Science fantasy, and such. The differences are pretty profound, but as always, it depends on the work in question. The umbrella genra is as stated Speculative fiction, which typically is said to include horror as well, but today encompasses many adjacent fields too.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, there seem to be a lot of SF purists who have a limited view of what science fiction is (or should be) and push every thing else into fantasy. I suspect there are fantasy purists who would declare that Doctor Who has far too little of the elements they consider defining so it definitely isn't fantasy.

More seriously, there are a lot of sub-genres of both SF and Fantasy with some overlap between them, not all of either grouping falling into the categories above.
Science Fiction IS a sub-genre of Fantasy. Even when it's as dry as a Robert Forward novel. Dr. Who can be safely said to wander in and out of that sub-genre on a wibbly wobbly basis.

That's arguable at best.

More commonly, they're considered parallel, if related, genres. Or sub-genres of something like speculative fiction.

Science Fiction pretty much uses the exact same conventions as fantasy only redressed with modern accoutrements. Instead of Oracles, we we have the omniscient AI in "Person of Interest". Instead of incantations, we have technobabble. Instead of teleportation, we have the EXTREMELY improbable transporter. (Does any trekkie have an idea of how much energy would be released if you converted a person to energy?) Star Trek has even gone anti-science occasionally when they created things like "Heisenberg Compensators".


No. That's the textbook case of Science fantasy or Space opera. Star Trek has never been Science fiction, as far as I know. I admit, though, not having seen the original series. For an example of "hard SF", try Gattaca, a severely underrated movie. For TV series, Babylon 5 came closer. As an example, JMS stated pretty clearly that there WAS no teleportation in that universe, which he upheld AFAIK.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
Science Fiction IS a sub-genre of Fantasy. Even when it's as dry as a Robert Forward novel. Dr. Who can be safely said to wander in and out of that sub-genre on a wibbly wobbly basis.

You've got it very very wrong. Fantasy is a sub genre of Science Fiction.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
No. That's the textbook case of Science fantasy or Space opera. Star Trek has never been Science fiction, as far as I know. I admit, though, not having seen the original series. For an example of "hard SF", try Gattaca, a severely underrated movie. For TV series, Babylon 5 came closer. As an example, JMS stated pretty clearly that there WAS no teleportation in that universe, which he upheld AFAIK.

Bablylon 5 tended to go heavily into the mystic part with the Minbari. "The Night of the Dead" is far more Twilight Zone than it was SF. I don't knock the series for those episodes, but the Fantasy did show up heavily in a few episodes, and that's not even counting the godlike Vorlons, Shadows, and "First Ones."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or, they're both separate genres, with a largely shared fanbase and a lot of overlap and a bunch of blurry sub-genres of their own.
Complicated by the genres being largely defined by setting more than anything else, which allows them to also be combined with other genres: murder-mystery SF, for example. OTOH, though they're largely defined by setting, they also tend to have very different tropes and assumptions.
It's easy to talk about swapping out tech for magic, but literally doing that doesn't actually produce stories in the other genre. For example, there are plenty of sword and sorcery tales where we can recognize that the spooky magic stuff the hero doesn't understand is actually ancient/alien tech, but the stories still read like fantasy.


LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No. That's the textbook case of Science fantasy or Space opera. Star Trek has never been Science fiction, as far as I know. I admit, though, not having seen the original series. For an example of "hard SF", try Gattaca, a severely underrated movie. For TV series, Babylon 5 came closer. As an example, JMS stated pretty clearly that there WAS no teleportation in that universe, which he upheld AFAIK.

Bablylon 5 tended to go heavily into the mystic part with the Minbari. "The Night of the Dead" is far more Twilight Zone than it was SF. I don't knock the series for those episodes, but the Fantasy did show up heavily in a few episodes, and that's not even counting the godlike Vorlons, Shadows, and "First Ones."

Indeed. I have not seen season five, but in general, there was only a little fantasy involved here and there. That is why I said that it comes closer than Star Trek did.


Sissyl wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No. That's the textbook case of Science fantasy or Space opera. Star Trek has never been Science fiction, as far as I know. I admit, though, not having seen the original series. For an example of "hard SF", try Gattaca, a severely underrated movie. For TV series, Babylon 5 came closer. As an example, JMS stated pretty clearly that there WAS no teleportation in that universe, which he upheld AFAIK.
Bablylon 5 tended to go heavily into the mystic part with the Minbari. "The Night of the Dead" is far more Twilight Zone than it was SF. I don't knock the series for those episodes, but the Fantasy did show up heavily in a few episodes, and that's not even counting the godlike Vorlons, Shadows, and "First Ones."
Indeed. I have not seen season five, but in general, there was only a little fantasy involved here and there. That is why I said that it comes closer than Star Trek did.

Trying and failing to stay out of the gritty details: Star Trek's general tech level was higher and more "technobabble" than the human's tech in B5, which I think is what you're talking about. The stories in general feel grittier.

OTOH, B5's stories focused more on the mystical conflict of the Shadows and the Vorlons, as well as the less Minbari mysticism, than anything of similar scale in Star Trek. Trek has it's share of God-like aliens, but doesn't take the same religious/mystical approach to them.

Regardless, they're both science fiction.


Science Fantasy I always pictured shows like Dr Who and Star Wars. Both use magical technology. I always thought of Star Trek as more Science Fiction... but now that I think of it they do have magical technology there too just less of it maybe?


Science fiction certainly doesn't preclude either mysticism or godlike aliens. What counts is how you deal with the "normal" elements of the setting and whether you have sensible explanations for things, and whether those remain consistent. Transporters is the main element that makes Star Trek not science fiction.


Transporters, warpdrive, Q-continuum, Apollo, etc...
(It's still sci-fi, but it's not "hard" sci-fi.)

EDIT: My point is that there is a difference between "hard" science fiction and "soft" science fiction, and some science fiction blurs those lines... either obviously, or subtly, either purposefully, or accidentally.

Science fiction, as a genre, came about as (more or less) a replacement for all the fantastical things that couldn't be done (because magic didn't exist, see, so it's immersion-breaking; that's why Gulliver's Travels was written, after all...), with an eye for the potential glories of the future. The problem is, we didn't know what those potential glories actually were nor could we remotely guess how they would actually function. So, we just gave it our best shot as a guess.

(By "we" incidentally, I just mean "we", as a people, which, I suppose, applies mostly to sci-fi writers.)

Obviously, many things that early sci-fi thought were possible are now just fantasy... but that wasn't necessarily known at the time... but then people grew up reading science fiction that was basically fantasy, but with technology!, and you've got Mr. Clark's famous statements, and, combined with an ever-increasing understanding of SCIENCE plus a tendency towards following after those things that inspired us (which claimed to be "science fiction" but were too "fantastical" to be based on any modern science) you've arrived at the, more or less, modern overlap of both fantasy and sci-fi.

Sci-fi always tries, in its own way, to be "realistic", but how it's "realistic" varies greatly... because it uses "stuff" to explain the non-standard (to ourselves) part of reality instead of "vague magical forces"... unless it devolves into "vague sciency forces" (as is oft the case with 'Trek)... and further devolves into "vague mystical forces" (so long as they aren't "magical!" we're good, right?! ... ala Star Wars)... and finally just becomes magic with technology (too much to name, really).

Anyway, none of this is "wrong". It's actually fascinating. But it's worth being aware of. Heck, I know I miss things that are clearly fantastical to the point of impossible in science.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whereas telepaths and time travel and hyperspace and mystic powers and resurrections and a cosmic war between light and darkness make B5 science fiction. Which brings me back to the "grittier feel" as the real difference we're talking about.

As for Classic Trek, the real reason they have transporters is that they couldn't afford the budget for shuttle effects everytime they wanted to visit a planet. That's a weird reason to shift genres. Besides teleporters are a common science fiction trope. You'd lose a lot of classic sci-fi if you moved anything with teleportation in it to fantasy. And most of it reads more like fantasy than sci-fi - stories examining the sociological effects of cheap teleporters, for example.

As Tacticslion said, not Hard SF, but definitely SF. B5 isn't Hard SF either, by any means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

. . . And what's to be done about purported fantasy novels such as Cherryh's The Paladin or Kushner's Swordspoint, which take place in made-up, preindustrial settings, but contain no supernatural elements whatsoever? So confusing! :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously neither fantasy nor science fiction.

How about things like Pern, where based only on the early books, it's an alternate preindustrial world with teleporting (time travelling) dragons and psychic powers, but later books reveal they're lost Earth colonists and the dragons are genetically engineered from indigenous species? Early books fantasy, later ones SF? Originally fantasy, but now even the early books are SF? All fantasy because teleportation?

How about early "hard" SF, based on understanding at the time, but with the science now proven false?


None of this is relevant to the OP. Even if you classify Star Trek or Doctor Who as Fantasy, it's certainly not the medieval D&D style high fantasy the OP wanted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Obviously neither fantasy nor science fiction.

How about things like Pern, where based only on the early books, it's an alternate preindustrial world with teleporting (time travelling) dragons and psychic powers, but later books reveal they're lost Earth colonists and the dragons are genetically engineered from indigenous species? Early books fantasy, later ones SF? Originally fantasy, but now even the early books are SF? All fantasy because teleportation?

How about early "hard" SF, based on understanding at the time, but with the science now proven false?

Gone-Soft SF? I like it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those who might be interested, there is at least 1 group funding movies through Kickstarter. Currently, they are looking for money for Mythica, starting Kevin Sorbo.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No. That's the textbook case of Science fantasy or Space opera. Star Trek has never been Science fiction, as far as I know. I admit, though, not having seen the original series. For an example of "hard SF", try Gattaca, a severely underrated movie. For TV series, Babylon 5 came closer. As an example, JMS stated pretty clearly that there WAS no teleportation in that universe, which he upheld AFAIK.
Bablylon 5 tended to go heavily into the mystic part with the Minbari. "The Night of the Dead" is far more Twilight Zone than it was SF. I don't knock the series for those episodes, but the Fantasy did show up heavily in a few episodes, and that's not even counting the godlike Vorlons, Shadows, and "First Ones."
Indeed. I have not seen season five, but in general, there was only a little fantasy involved here and there. That is why I said that it comes closer than Star Trek did.

Trying and failing to stay out of the gritty details: Star Trek's general tech level was higher and more "technobabble" than the human's tech in B5, which I think is what you're talking about. The stories in general feel grittier.

OTOH, B5's stories focused more on the mystical conflict of the Shadows and the Vorlons, as well as the less Minbari mysticism, than anything of similar scale in Star Trek. Trek has it's share of God-like aliens, but doesn't take the same religious/mystical approach to them.

Regardless, they're both science fiction.

Trek was just as mythical and magical ad Babylon Five was, in fact I'd say it was even more so... just a lot less honest about it. Q, Squire of Gothos, The Dowd, Charlie Evans, sentient rocks that create islands and historical figures by whim... You can dress it up in blinky lights, chrome, and plastic, but that doesn't make it any less fantasy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Obviously neither fantasy nor science fiction.

How about things like Pern, where based only on the early books, it's an alternate preindustrial world with teleporting (time travelling) dragons and psychic powers, but later books reveal they're lost Earth colonists and the dragons are genetically engineered from indigenous species? Early books fantasy, later ones SF? Originally fantasy, but now even the early books are SF? All fantasy because teleportation?

How about early "hard" SF, based on understanding at the time, but with the science now proven false?

All Science Fiction is a form of fantasy, it draws from the edge of our understanding and frequently it makes a mythology of it's own.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No. That's the textbook case of Science fantasy or Space opera. Star Trek has never been Science fiction, as far as I know. I admit, though, not having seen the original series. For an example of "hard SF", try Gattaca, a severely underrated movie. For TV series, Babylon 5 came closer. As an example, JMS stated pretty clearly that there WAS no teleportation in that universe, which he upheld AFAIK.
Bablylon 5 tended to go heavily into the mystic part with the Minbari. "The Night of the Dead" is far more Twilight Zone than it was SF. I don't knock the series for those episodes, but the Fantasy did show up heavily in a few episodes, and that's not even counting the godlike Vorlons, Shadows, and "First Ones."
Indeed. I have not seen season five, but in general, there was only a little fantasy involved here and there. That is why I said that it comes closer than Star Trek did.

Trying and failing to stay out of the gritty details: Star Trek's general tech level was higher and more "technobabble" than the human's tech in B5, which I think is what you're talking about. The stories in general feel grittier.

OTOH, B5's stories focused more on the mystical conflict of the Shadows and the Vorlons, as well as the less Minbari mysticism, than anything of similar scale in Star Trek. Trek has it's share of God-like aliens, but doesn't take the same religious/mystical approach to them.

Regardless, they're both science fiction.

Trek was just as mythical and magical ad Babylon Five was, in fact I'd say it was even more so... just a lot less honest about it. Q, Squire of Gothos, The Dowd, Charlie Evans, sentient rocks that create islands and historical figures by whim... You can dress it up in blinky lights, chrome, and plastic, but that doesn't make it any less fantasy.

So what actually qualifies as science fiction, by your standards? Not just movies/TV, but books.

I've just been rereading the Ringworld series. Obviously fantasy. Immortality. Teleporters.

Dune is a classic of SF, but that's all full of prophecy & mysticism. Fantasy.

Foundation? More prophesy and mental powers.

Is there anything outside of near future, hard SF that qualifies?

And the rest is all fantasy. Which makes fantasy so broad a term as to have no meaning. Is there a term for the genre that people looking for fantasy should use? Since "fantasy" includes most of what's normally called science fiction.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
So what actually qualifies as science fiction, by your standards? Not just movies/TV, but books.

That's a tough question to answer. Quite frankly, I'm not sure that science fiction is a useful term any more. I can go by a restrictive definition and pretty much exclude almost every SiFi movie save for niche films like Gattaca and Moon, but it would not serve much purpose save to take us back to a mindset that's been obsolete for the better part of a century.

What I would offer instead that what science fiction claims to shoot for is actually accomplished by a particular sub genre which I and Ursula LeGuin would call speculative fiction, which is a story that takes a particular focused question and addresses it, whether literally or metaphorically. Such stories CAN have mystical elements as well as technological ones. But it has to bring up some form of Big Question for thought, even if it doesn't answer it.

Examples of books that do this well... outside of the movies I've mentioned.

The Kiln People and The Uplift Series by David Brin.

Lathe of Heaven, and most books by Ursula K. LeGuin

Starmaker and "First and Last Men" by Olaf Stapledon.

The works of Stanislaw Lem, in particular Solaris, The Futurological Congress, The Cyberiad, Return from The Stars.

Most of the works of Phillip K. Dick.

Works that don't serve this purpose, even though many of them are good reading for other reasons.

The Pern and Darkover books. One is an excuse to put dragons in a space context, the other is a crystal magic fun ride with some polemics attached.

Most of Kurt Vonnegut's books.... but again they're great stories in much the same way that Ray Bradbury wrote, neither of these gentlemen were really that interested in fitting into a genre as opposed to telling stories that would haunt you in particular ways.

Star Trek... with some noted exceptions in the story lines of Deep Space Nine, I suspect that Professor Avery Brooks, who was also known for his portrayal Paul Robeson, may have much to do with this. Enterprise came close but frequently missed the boat with it's overemphasis on foreshadowing the shows that came before but were set afterward.

Babylon 5 didn't really try to be hard science fiction, as more of recreating a melange of classic war movies and Casablanca-styled intrigue, but still gave us great stories despite this.

All in all my distinctions aren't really value judgements, but an attempt at looking from a different perspective.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lazar, I can't believe you'd put yourself ahead of LeGuin, or even mention yourself in the same sentence; you're up the with Pacino in Dick Tracy: "I think, and Plato agrees with me on this ..." :P

This isn't the first time I've heard the speculative-not-science fiction idea, but I don't think we really need a classification that includes both fantasy and science fiction beyond "fantasy/sci-fi" as a shelf in the bookstore. There's absolutely a sub-genre of science fiction called hard science fiction, but that doesn't mean that it's the only kind of science fiction any more than swords and sorcery is the only kind of fantasy. Then again, the distinction between fantasy and science fiction is probably about obvious to non-fans as the distinction between pornography and erotica.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't speculative fiction usually used as the super genre including science fiction, fantasy and various other related things?

Hmmm, googling around it looks like it is now, but was originally coined essentially to get out of the sci-fi ghetto: This is serious literature, not like that trashy SF stuff.

I'm just not really sure what's accomplished by limiting science fiction this way. Or in exactly what way you're trying to limit it, since this speculative fiction definition doesn't have anything to do with the trappings or technology. You could do a perfectly good "story that takes a particular focused question and addresses it, whether literally or metaphorically" using a man who time travels in a wooden box, which is how we started this whole derail.

I particulary don't see the point in shoving everything that doesn't meet your standards into fantasy, thus blurring a perfectly good genre of its own.

Hitdice, I suspect the difference between fantasy and science fiction may be more obvious to non-fans. If it has space ships and aliens and lasers it's science fiction. If it's got swordfights and magic and dragons it's fantasy. It's only when you start looking closer that things start to blur.


thejeff wrote:


Hitdice, I suspect the difference between fantasy and science fiction may be more obvious to non-fans. If it has space ships and aliens and lasers it's science fiction. If it's got swordfights and magic and dragons it's fantasy. It's only when you start looking closer that things start to blur.

You may be right; my uncharitable opinion of the difference between erotica and porn is that erotica is what people who can't come to terms with the fact that they like porn, call porn. It's the exact same way I feel about the difference between comics and graphic novels, and, I suppose, the difference between between fantasy/science fiction and speculative fiction.

On the other hand, maybe we should invent a more erudite name for RPGs, so we'll get the same amount of respect as real games, like mah-jong and cribbage.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Hitdice, I suspect the difference between fantasy and science fiction may be more obvious to non-fans. If it has space ships and aliens and lasers it's science fiction. If it's got swordfights and magic and dragons it's fantasy. It's only when you start looking closer that things start to blur.

You may be right; my uncharitable opinion of the difference between erotica and porn is that erotica is what people who can't come to terms with the fact that they like porn, call porn. It's the exact same way I feel about the difference between comics and graphic novels, and, I suppose, the difference between between fantasy/science fiction and speculative fiction.

On the other hand, maybe we should invent a more erudite name for RPGs, so we'll get the same amount of respect as real games, like mah-jong and cribbage.

I don't really see the problem, RPGs are a lot more mainstream now than they were in the '70's. The real danger now is that they'll be dismissed by our children as something "old people do". :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Isn't speculative fiction usually used as the super genre including science fiction, fantasy and various other related things?

Hmmm, googling around it looks like it is now, but was originally coined essentially to get out of the sci-fi ghetto: This is serious literature, not like that trashy SF stuff.

I'm just not really sure what's accomplished by limiting science fiction this way. Or in exactly what way you're trying to limit it, since this speculative fiction definition doesn't have anything to do with the trappings or technology. You could do a perfectly good "story that takes a particular focused question and addresses it, whether literally or metaphorically" using a man who time travels in a wooden box, which is how we started this whole derail.

I particulary don't see the point in shoving everything that doesn't meet your standards into fantasy, thus blurring a perfectly good genre of its own.

Hitdice, I suspect the difference between fantasy and science fiction may be more obvious to non-fans. If it has space ships and aliens and lasers it's science fiction. If it's got swordfights and magic and dragons it's fantasy. It's only when you start looking closer that things start to blur.

I'm not trying to "limit" science-fiction, merely expose it as in the main, a false category. It's a term that was invented just prior to the Civil War which embodied a view of science that persisted well through the 1950's and was formed by a fairly narrow cultural mindset. If you look at what is labeled as "modern" science fiction as opposed to that of the H.G. Wells and earlier period, you'd be looking at something almost completely different in character, even if some of the trappings are the same. Is "Frankenstein" science-fiction, or something else? Does

The rise of science fiction as popular media, especially in America is directly linked to the triumph of Industrial Capitalism over the Rural economy as played out in the American Civil War. Brian Aldiss maintains that the important distinction of science fiction over the mystical stories that precede it is the conscious choices made by the central figures in each story. Frankenstein did not inherit his curse from his ancestors, He chose to make his creature using the forces of technology by his drive and whims alone. Modern stories on the other hand are more of the opposite, people getting swept by the consequences of technology with little choice in the matter, which seems to make it more magical and terrifying in contrast. The short film "Smart Card" in which the central character loses the card on which his entire identity and connection to finances, and the ensuring consequences, seems more of this nature to me.


How is it a false category, just because it's expanded beyond a use that was getting outdated even in the Golden Age of SF? Things change. Genres grow. Seriously if you're talking about Frankenstein and H.G. Wells, that was all before the term was even invented.

At least don't try to sweep it all into fantasy, when it wouldn't have fit into classic definitions of fantasy either.

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Television / Where is my live-action magical fantasy series? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.