I don't know if Star Wars ruined sci-fi, but Rogue One may end up ruining Star Wars. God, what a derivative pile of puke that was....
Star Wars is considered Science Fiction not because of the heroes journey but because it has space ships and lasers. Technically it's fantasy, not Sci-fi, but people look at space ships and think Sci-fi. That's it. That's all. And I mention it because the works of Gibson, amongst others, contradict your statement: "The science fiction authors of that time attempted to handle immensely heavy and deep philosophical questions, but now it seems the genre has faded away into bland effect-heavy space operas."
I was referring to the franchise. That excitement of watching a new Star Wars film because there was no way it could suck (the prequels were at least passably entertaining). Gone forever... sigh.
No, no, you misunderstand me. My point is that film cannot always be used as a reliable reflection of everything going on in a genre. I completely agree with your mention of William Gibson as proof to the fact. His work is not reflected on the screen, thus going solely off of film, we miss his inclusion and commit sampling error. Neither is China Miéville on the screen, nor Octavia Butler. And for anyone to say that these writers aren't tackling the "heavy topics" is to question their level of reading comprehension. Again, I thought the films Her and Arrival were flipping brilliant, but sadly they would seem to be a little too cerebral for the average filmgoer. They came and went with little fanfare.
I was being cheeky. And I agree. As far as film is concerned, one of my favorites is Twelve Monkeys. Not only is it a superb sci-fi film, it can get very deep if you let it.
Attack of the Clones makes Rogue One look like Citizen Kane. And TFA was more derivative, but still fun.
In my eyes, Star Wars will always be a fantasy epic with spaceships. Now a potential problem I do see would be Hollywood pumping out perpetual films in a science fiction trend after the success of the last two star wars films and over saturating the genre for quite a few years. This effect is prevalent in the gaming industry. Hundreds of post-apocalyptic survival games were created after the Success of both The Walking Dead TV series, and Day Z, a "zombie survival simulator" mod for the Arma 2 pc game. This trend lasted for about 5 years and left a bad taste in consumers mouth for the genre because they saw endless half-baked clones of the same game over and over again, killing the post apocalyptic niche. There have been a few attempts in TV and film to piggyback off of the success of The Walking Dead's creation of the zombie craze in pop culture, but to little avail. The Hunger Games(both print and film) has had a similar effect in the Dystopia YA Genre, creating a butterfly effect of over saturation. Call me paranoid, but I think science fiction may fall victim to this effect with a sudden popularity in the genre. And as someone who's writing a science fiction book, it makes me feel a bit concerned. But do I think Star Wars ruined sci fi? Not at all. It's existed for decades and hasn't caused a problem... yet.
I was hoping for an explanation as to why... I can understand it being bad for the audience/readers... but as a creator it can only be an environment of more opportunity than before... no?
The things is Star Wars isn't science fiction. Science fiction is defined as "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets." But Star Wars doesn't take place in a futuristic world, it takes place many years ago in a galaxy far far away. If anything it's a fantasy saga with a slight scifi twist and a heavy dose of alternate history.
Gods, do I ever agree with you. That definition would take the BSG reboot off the Sci-Fi radar as well, since the end of that series makes it clear that the fleet of ships constitutes the forefathers and foremothers of human civilization, and saying that BSG is not Sci-Fi is just plain silly.
Yes. Makes no sense and is useless as far as informing one as to the genre. I could take the exact same story and in one version put a one line date at the beginning that is in the future, and another with a date that is in the past, and without changing any other single word in the story one would be SF and one would not. That's nonsensical.
It also obviates the core fact that Science Fiction is never actually about the future. The future is just a prop. The science is just a prop. Science Fiction is always, always, always talking about the now of the writer. The above definition makes the prop more important than the purpose.
If I were to write a Science Fiction story, what can I actually tell you about the future? Nothing. We have no idea what the needs, wants, worries, concerns, thought processes, zeitgeist of the future will be. As a kid I was told the future was going to be flying cars and bases on the moon. Nope. It's cellphones and iPads and Twitter. My helper robot is nowhere to be seen. Willian Gibson, about whom we spoke earlier, the father of cyberpunk and the one credited with predicting the "internet age", when asked how he saw it coming said (I'm looking for the interview), that Science Fiction is necessarily about the slice of time in which it is written, not the time in which it is set. It speaks about the needs, wants, worries, concerns, thought processes, and zeitgeist at the time of its writing. He said 1984 is actually about 1948, and I agree with him. Science Fiction from the Golden Age has nothing to tell us about 2017, which to them, writing in the late 50's, would have been a great year in which to set their stories. Science Fiction from the Golden Age does have a wealth of things to tell us about the things in the minds and the outside world of the writers writing at that time. ETA: http://www.williamgibsonboard.com/topic/4393793103256916 To bring it to current terms: The rise of dystopian YA, again, isn't about the future. It's about the growing, heated rift between Gen-Xers & Millennials vs Boomers, and that is very much a now thing, not a future thing.
@Wreybies so essentially what you are saying in a sense is that it is the reality of the writer? Interesting. Though one mans truth, is another mans fiction. That is a philosophy I prescribe to, because it is in a way true. So then why can't it not simply be an escape into a world where anything is possible within the rules of the fictional universe. Sure some have a little more than others, as far as giving the reader something to think about. But why can't it be a form of entertainment that is healthier than the majority of the alternatives? Reading is way better for your brain than TV and movies, because you have to participate by using your imagination. Sometimes things are not as complicated as we want to make them. Sometimes it is just entertainment that lets you be something more than what you are for a while. To be the hero, villain, or what ever type of characters are in the story.
