FTA-TV Top 10 Sci Fi Shows of All Time

[SM]

You had Grogu, Ashoka, and later Luke in The Mandalorian using the force, which is why I would disagree The force is a magical power IMO. Boba Fett at the moment would get the science fiction nod from me.

You keep ignoring my posts. You keep using magic to distinguish between Sci-Fi and fantasy but Star Trek's TOS has magic too? (Hell, so does TNG with Q).

If anything, Episode 1 gives the Force a scientific explanation and rules that actually make it more scientific than those shows.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

How I choose to categorize what defines fantasy and science fiction is my business. I'm not hurting anyone. Get over it.

 

[SM]

How I choose to categorize what defines fantasy and science fiction is my business. I'm not hurting anyone. Get over it.

Did I say you were hurting anyone? I'm just curious as to how you include Star Trek but exclude Star Wars.

If you don't want to generate discussion don't post in a thread.

 

[Gibbke]

Not in order, depends on my mood...

• 2003 BSG. I liked the ending! It just fixed up every problem with the original, which I remember fondly and have dug out a few times despite its crappiness...have marathoned through the entire new series, every episodes, 4-5 times in the last decade and a half...apparently there's yet another remake on the cards, too...
• Doctor Who David Tennant era...Freema Agyeman is an utter, utter babe, the stories are great and the side characters with Donna Noble, especially her grandad, are great, very engaging. The Daleks and Cybermen trying to trash talk each other is possibly the funniest thing Dr Who has ever put out...
• Blake's 7. Please don't remake this...the crappiness of the fx is more than overshadowed by the darkness of this show...very cool, anti-heroes before anyone knew what that meant, way against the grain of the era, and they'd f### it up if they modernised it...
• Star Trek, all of them. Hard to rank...the best story arc, when season long story arcs weren't a thing, was DS9, but all of the series, even the maligned Enterprise, have had periods of really cool brilliance opposite lulls...
• Bad Batch. The best of all the SW spinoffs. Good continuous story, fewer lameass cameo fests...Mando's not far behind, and only one of them sucks...I get into trouble every time I say which one...! This is the only SW show my GF likes unquestionably, so it's probably got the brownie points that put it on top right there...
• new Lost In Space. Ended a bit abruptly, but pretty cool.
• Humans. Brits can be hit and miss when they do sci-fi (WOTWorlds series is putting me to sleep), but when they nail it they're awesome, especially when the shows are dark and morally challenging...
• 1982 Hitchhiker's GTT Galaxy. Slartibartfast...?!? Told you it wasn't important. I still laugh at the one liners 40 years later, and use them on a daily basis, especially when I'm having terrible trouble with my lifestyle...
• Space 1999. So far ahead of its time...had an Eagle when I was 8, most of us in Grade 3 did...!
• V...both of them, Terminator - Sarah Connor Chronicles...both of the remakes of these shows got cancelled before they could move onto some very promising stuff...
• Stranger Things. Such a good show.
• Black Mirror - another one of these dark British shows...some brilliant episodes...

 

[SM]

2003 BSG was great until the last ep, I just hated how they closed the loop on the show. Made it very insular.

 

[Frank Bunn]

And yet you mentioned a show, Star Trek, that has magicians.

I pretty much skipped from the original show to the movies. But wasn't Star Trek based on what might be scientifically possible, not about magic? Who are the magicians?

 

[SM]

I pretty much skipped from the original show to the movies. But wasn't Star Trek based on what might be scientifically possible, not about magic? Who are the magicians?

Literally the second episode of the show involves a boy with 'superhuman mental powers'.

The third episode involves crew members developing 'godlike psychic powers'.

Hardly what's scientifically possible.

There's plenty of others. Q in Next Generation, for instance.

There's an argument that these things are just examples of 'creatures using abilities normal to them' but then I'd argue that that's what the Force is in Star Wars.

 

[JackOutback]

Star Trek embraces the notion that a technology so advanced would be indistinguishable from magic. That said, sometimes they just used lazy plot devices for narrative purposes. But it’s definitely closer to sci-fi than Star Wars.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Literally the second episode of the show involves a boy with 'superhuman mental powers'.

The third episode involves crew members developing 'godlike psychic powers'.

Hardly what's scientifically possible.

There's plenty of others. Q in Next Generation, for instance.

There's an argument that these things are just examples of 'creatures using abilities normal to them' but then I'd argue that that's what the Force is in Star Wars.

I remember those now you mention them. But I would still say the basis for Star Trek's world was science not magic. The main characters didn't have special powers. Spock was a science officer. McCoy was a medical doctor. Scotty was an engineer. Whereas the basis for Star Wars world is the Force and the main characters have magical powers.

 

[SM]

I remember those now you mention them. But I would still say the basis for Star Trek's world was science not magic. The main characters didn't have special powers. Spock was a science officer. McCoy was a medical doctor. Scotty was an engineer. Whereas the basis for Star Wars world is the Force and the main characters have magical powers.

Of course, but the basis of Star Wars is also reasonably scientific. Lucas even goes to great lengths in Episode One to give the Force a scientific basis.

I just don't think you can accept one as science fiction and dismiss the other entirely when both blur the lines in places.

 

[Gibbke]

The line is as blurry as hell, and I for one ignore it. As Arthur C.Clarke said, "magic is science we don't understand yet". There have been a zillion Dr Who episodes where they take a myth or legend often told from an "it's magic" standpoint, and put in characters who are based upon something scientific and blow it open. Maybe the real definition is how the story treats it...you'd call ST science based because that's how the characters react, but BSG makes a big thing of its spiritual arguments and by that definition we could call it space fantasy...they don't sit there in that show thinking up ways to solve a problem by "hooking up the temporal defibrillator to the quantum continental quasar continuum thingy and creating an inverse reaction that should create a wormhole just large enough to mount this picture hook with", they just blame it all on god...

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Seems like a silly and pointless argument.
Star Wars is the literal definition of science fiction. Fiction being the key word. Spaceships, aliens, inter-planetary travel, laser guns, light swords, mystical powers.
Star Trek, very much the same. The main point of difference is probably that Star Trek grounds their science part a little closer to potential reality.
Neither one is more, or less, sci-fi than the other.

 

[JackOutback]

Seems like a silly and pointless argument.
Star Wars is the literal definition of science fiction. Fiction being the key word. Spaceships, aliens, inter-planetary travel, laser guns, light swords, mystical powers.
Star Trek, very much the same. The main point of difference is probably that Star Trek grounds their science part a little closer to potential reality.
Neither one is more, or less, sci-fi than the other.

I prefer Star Wars, but science fiction deals with actual or imagined science, whereas fantasy is speculative fiction that involves magical elements; Star Wars literally begins by saying it's happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, so it's not dealing with actual or imagined human sciences, it's just putting all the elements it wants into play immediately. It's probably best described as science fantasy, whereas Star Trek is grounded in the sciences, even if it occasionally goes a little wild.

But I don't think it truly matters either. Every genre can be split up into sub-genres.

 

[SM]

I prefer Star Wars, but science fiction deals with actual or imagined science, whereas fantasy is speculative fiction that involves magical elements; Star Wars literally begins by saying it's happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, so it's not dealing with actual or imagined human sciences, it's just putting all the elements it wants into play immediately. It's probably best described as science fantasy, whereas Star Trek is grounded in the sciences, even if it occasionally goes a little wild.

But I don't think it truly matters either. Every genre can be split up into sub-genres.

As you finished by saying, the entire debate is meaningless as they are sub-genres of a broader Sci-Fi genre. Star Trek is 'hard Sci-Fi' Star Wars is 'fantasy Sci-Fi'.

 

[Quokka]

Not in order, depends on my mood...

• 2003 BSG. I liked the ending! It just fixed up every problem with the original, which I remember fondly and have dug out a few times despite its crappiness...have marathoned through the entire new series, every episodes, 4-5 times in the last decade and a half...apparently there's yet another remake on the cards, too...
• Doctor Who David Tennant era...Freema Agyeman is an utter, utter babe, the stories are great and the side characters with Donna Noble, especially her grandad, are great, very engaging. The Daleks and Cybermen trying to trash talk each other is possibly the funniest thing Dr Who has ever put out...
• Blake's 7. Please don't remake this...the crappiness of the fx is more than overshadowed by the darkness of this show...very cool, anti-heroes before anyone knew what that meant, way against the grain of the era, and they'd f### it up if they modernised it...
• Star Trek, all of them. Hard to rank...the best story arc, when season long story arcs weren't a thing, was DS9, but all of the series, even the maligned Enterprise, have had periods of really cool brilliance opposite lulls...
• Bad Batch. The best of all the SW spinoffs. Good continuous story, fewer lameass cameo fests...Mando's not far behind, and only one of them sucks...I get into trouble every time I say which one...! This is the only SW show my GF likes unquestionably, so it's probably got the brownie points that put it on top right there...
• new Lost In Space. Ended a bit abruptly, but pretty cool.
• Humans. Brits can be hit and miss when they do sci-fi (WOTWorlds series is putting me to sleep), but when they nail it they're awesome, especially when the shows are dark and morally challenging...
• 1982 Hitchhiker's GTT Galaxy. Slartibartfast...?!? Told you it wasn't important. I still laugh at the one liners 40 years later, and use them on a daily basis, especially when I'm having terrible trouble with my lifestyle...
• Space 1999. So far ahead of its time...had an Eagle when I was 8, most of us in Grade 3 did...!
• V...both of them, Terminator - Sarah Connor Chronicles...both of the remakes of these shows got cancelled before they could move onto some very promising stuff...
• Stranger Things. Such a good show.
• Black Mirror - another one of these dark British shows...some brilliant episodes...

All the English science fiction reminded me of the 80s BBC series The Tripods. Even as a kid the special effects ranged from impressive and unnerving through to laughably bad but I remember enjoying both the TV series and the books it was based on.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I prefer Star Wars, but science fiction deals with actual or imagined science, whereas fantasy is speculative fiction that involves magical elements; Star Wars literally begins by saying it's happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, so it's not dealing with actual or imagined human sciences, it's just putting all the elements it wants into play immediately. It's probably best described as science fantasy, whereas Star Trek is grounded in the sciences, even if it occasionally goes a little wild.

But I don't think it truly matters either. Every genre can be split up into sub-genres.

I agree with most of what you said but came to a different conclusion. I think the difference does matter.

One of the reasons I am not that much into the superhero genre is that the action often hinges on a cheap plot device where the powers of the characters fluctuate and can be anything. In a fight, the writers can shift the advantage back and forth by altering the magical powers of each character. There's a lot of 'somehow' involved.

For example, in Spiderman NWH,

Spoiler

Dr Strange magically separates Peter Parker from his Spiderman body so he can grab the cube spell thing. That's ok, we have been asked to believe that Dr Strange can do anything. But somehow Spiderman's mindless body moves the cube around, allowing Parker to somehow swim breastroke through the air, back into his body, and escape. In the next scene Dr Strange takes Spiderman into a mirror dimension. He has created and controls this whole world. But after some waffle about geometry and math, Spiderman somehow traps Dr Strange in a web and somehow escapes the mirror world. Dr Strange later somehow escapes the web and returns to the real world, luckily just at the right time and place to help the plot along.

It's entertaining enough but real sci-fi demands some consistency of the future science.

 

[SM]

I agree with most of what you said but came to a different conclusion. I think the difference does matter.

One of the reasons I am not that much into the superhero genre is that the action often hinges on a cheap plot device where the powers of the characters fluctuate and can be anything. In a fight, the writers can shift the advantage back and forth by altering the magical powers of each character. There's a lot of 'somehow' involved.

For example, in Spiderman NWH, Dr Strange magically separates Peter Parker from his Spiderman body so he can grab the cube spell thing. That's ok, we have been asked to believe that Dr Strange can do anything. But somehow Spiderman's mindless body moves the cube around, allowing Parker to somehow swim breastroke through the air, back into his body, and escape. In the next scene Dr Strange takes Spiderman into a mirror dimension. He has created and controls this whole world. But after some waffle about geometry and math, Spiderman somehow traps Dr Strange in a web and somehow escapes the mirror world. Dr Strange later somehow escapes the web and returns to the real world, luckily just at the right time and place to help the plot along.

It's entertaining enough but real sci-fi demands some consistency of the future science.

Lol why the * would you use a spoiler from a recently released movie in a thread unrelated to that movie? I haven't had the chance to see it yet so skimmed your post to avoid it, but Jesus christ.