|
[ Create New Post ] [
  | 1 of 2 |   ] |
|||||
|
[#75885]
Written by: minus0ne [25/01/08, 21:03] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
| Buffy? Sci-fi? LMAO. | |||||
|
[#75892]
Written by: TVFAN [25/01/08, 23:40] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
Well the last I heard, vampires were science fiction...not real. |
|||||
|
[#75902]
Written by: theconundrumm [26/01/08, 03:48] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
laugh you arse off all you want buddy... lookie like the laughs are on you... [let the definition debate begin (?)][yawn] |
|||||
|
[#75905]
Written by: The Walker [26/01/08, 04:37] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
|||||
|
[#75907]
Written by: Loudsavlon [26/01/08, 05:24] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
Says it best: In organizational or marketing contexts, science fiction can be synonymous with the broader definition of speculative fiction, encompassing creative works incorporating imaginative elements not found in contemporary reality; this includes fantasy, horror, and related genres. |
|||||
|
[#75909]
Written by: The Walker [26/01/08, 06:05] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
Source?... respectable or indicative? I think not. The operative word being MARKETING.. when did they ever accurately classify something.. The marketing industry is entirely aimed at the gulible who believe their bull anyway,.. and it's only the gulible and terminally dumb who would lump all those things together under the banner of Sci fi, so they suit each other quite well, and as for the 'organisational context', it only exists as such because marketing can't classify specifics, by their very definition they try to reach as large a demographic as possible. Anyone who would seriously lump all of those things under the banner of science fiction can honestly call it wantever the hell they want, because quite frankly, someone with so little a grasp of their genres, in a context such as this thread, has no right to an opinion. Anyway... would you classify Tolkien as Sci-Fi? No I didn't think so, but the article would.. so what makes it relevent to everything else but not to Tolkien? The article's definition is a POS... If they all must be classified under the same heading, then it would be that of 'speculative fiction'. |
|||||
|
[#75913]
Written by: SantaBJ (Super Moderator) [26/01/08, 07:13] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
The Walker - you're an idiot. Coming from one who *WRITES* science fiction; Buffy indeed fits the bill. Fantasy is a subgenre. |
|||||
|
[#75917]
Written by: justcommenting (Banned) [26/01/08, 07:44] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
Anyone can write, and anyone can say they write. If I write a 10 page novella, can I call myself a writer? Sure. Does that give anything I say on the subject any more credibility? Of course not. Readers and others can know and understand just as much just as well. Fantasy is not a subgenre. Scifi is speculative fiction specifically centred around science, hence the name. Fantasy straight up is not. Science fantasy is, however. That said, for an internet fan organisation or whatever, it hardly matters. But no need to call people idiots for nitpicking, especially if they're for most intents and purposes quite correct. P.S. The vampire episode of Smallville was actually scifi/scifan  so these rules aren't hard and fast. |
|||||
|
[#75937]
Written by: kurai [26/01/08, 13:25] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
heh This is a years [decades] old debate. The lumping together of sci-fi & fantasy is purely an act of convenience on the part of publishers and retailers marketing strategies. There's a lot of crossover and blurring, naturally, which isn't so hard to understand given the speculative core of each, but when you look at things like awards bodies and whatnot comprised of entrants an panelists actually in the business of writing there's a pretty clear demarcation between the two. A broader attempt at definition might be something along the lines of sci-fi being specualtion about things that *might* be possible, and fantasy being speculation about things that certainly *aren't* possible. |
|||||
|
[#75970]
Written by: The Walker [26/01/08, 20:51] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
Not very fuqing good at though eh? Especially if you think Fantasy is a subgenre of Sci-fi, you're reduced to (irrelevent) bragging and calling people idiots on the internet..LOL!! |
|||||
|
[#75990]
Written by: theconundrumm [27/01/08, 01:01] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
The Walker... clearly i meant the oncoming debate was a [yawn]... as pointed out above, there really is no debate... get a clue... |
|||||
|
[#75992]
Written by: The Walker [27/01/08, 01:27] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
Oh, I do have a clue, but certain other people don't.. wh is why such a 'debate' as you put it, is relevant.. although it's not really a matter for debate, just a matter of some people accepting what is. ...but I'm glad you popped by just to yawn at us all. |
|||||
|
[#75996]
Written by: theconundrumm [27/01/08, 03:44] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
from wikipedia [yeah yeah, i know... BUT... all of the text below has been culled from books by noted authoritative authors  ]Science fiction is largely based on writing entertainingly and rationally about alternate possibilities in settings that are contrary to known reality. These include: * A setting in the future, in alternative time lines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archeological record * A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens * Stories that contradict known or supposed laws of nature * Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas". honestly, it seems to be only narrow minded, or uninformed folk who seem to think that sci-fi has to be set on a space ship and have laser guns... again, i'll state, 'there is no debate'... edit: kurai, i like that last paragraph there.... interesting take on things... |
|||||
|
[#76016]
Written by: The Walker [27/01/08, 12:45] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
(To the first quote)I agree.. was there someone who didn't? What's your point? As long as some people are hazy on the demarkation between the genres that I think that there is at least need for clarification, if not debate.
(To the second quote)Again.. AND, SO, WHAT... yes, that is the generally accepted explaination of science fiction..what about it? Show me somewhere in there that allows for the existance of a METAPHYSICALLY related Vampire..,yes, it allows for a 'vampire' created by some scientific explanation.. for example as the BOOK..'I am Legend', where they were the results of a virus.. That can be said to be science fiction, or at the very least science fantasy... but it DOESN'T allow for the existance of your classical vampire.. the demon, devil or black magic, vampire bat related ones.... of which the 'Buffy' type of Vampire certainly is. All you have done, is wander into a thread, with your head in the clouds and support an opinion that has alrady been made. Mine.. Thank You. (ADMINS.. you seriously need to FIX your bloody site.. it can't even handle it's basic coding instructions consistanly.. it's ability to quote and separate said quoting is all over the place!) |
|||||
|
[#76088]
Written by: theconundrumm [28/01/08, 19:28] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
i guess it would be that one.... head in the clouds much? |
|||||
|
[ Create New Post ] [
| 1 of 2 | ] |
|||||
