Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good point. A good deal of what tries to pass as Science Fiction in books, shows and movies is more "fantasy" then SCIENCE fiction.
While I like to be entertained by fantasy, I prefer believable Science Fiction. Traveling at .5 SOL. Being in status for many years before reaching a distant planet.
While I love Game of Thrones, it still always bothers me that characters can travel vast distances by land or sea in what seems to be an amazingly short period of time. But I know GOT is fantasy.......
One of the old-school SF magazine editors--maybe Joe Campbell--had the rule of only one big fantasy in a story--usually FTL drive. Everything else had to be hard science (at least as well as they knew it at the time).
While I love Game of Thrones, it still always bothers me that characters can travel vast distances by land or sea in what seems to be an amazingly short period of time. But I know GOT is fantasy.......
That's nothin'. You should see how fast they move in NCIS.
One of the old-school SF magazine editors--maybe Joe Campbell--had the rule of only one big fantasy in a story--usually FTL drive. Everything else had to be hard science (at least as well as they knew it at the time).
Christopher Nolan had to be talked out of using FTL technology in Interstellar.
Christopher Nolan had to be talked out of using FTL technology in Interstellar.
Some tropes are so old people may not know they aren't real.
When we watched "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1968, there was no technology in that movie that required a scientific breakthrough. It was all do-able from the science we had then. Not cheap, not easy, and hella dangerous, but it didn't require any new scientific breakthroughs.
Some tropes are so old people may not know they aren't real.
When we watched "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1968, there was no technology in that movie that required a scientific breakthrough. It was all do-able from the science we had then. Not cheap, not easy, and hella dangerous, but it didn't require any new scientific breakthroughs.
HAL wasn't really necessary, and even HAL did not require science that was unknown at the time. There were no "oh, wow, we totally never guessed this before!" discoveries that would have been necessary to build the 2001 space craft.
HAL is not necessary to build a space station, or a moon base, or a manned spacecraft that can reach, say, Mars.
True. But in 1968, being able to build HAL was definitely still science fiction. The science was probably there. The applied science (technology) not so much. It was still decades away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HAL is the pivotal plot point in ACT 2 of the movie!
