Star Wars vs. Childhood's End

[Trekki]

Are Star Wars and Childhood's End both equally science fiction? Are their ideological premises underlieing their generic similarity, or are their ideological differences reflected in their disparate generic constructions?

 

[tiny99]

I like Star Wars better

 

[kyektulu]

I have never even heard of 'childhoods end', is it a film or television series?

 

[chrispenycate]

I have never even heard of 'childhoods end', is it a film or television series?

It's a book, very definitely Sci-Fi, by Arthur C. Clarke, published in 1953 (according to the bibliography in the "authors section- I wouldn't have known) It contains some mythological elements, and remarkably for this author, few technical explanations, while "Star Wars" uses essentially fantasy tecniques and massive (if at times difficultly believable) tecnology. One straight entertainment, one more philosophical, with a writing style that can seem a little stogy nowadays. Possibly not diametrically opposed, but extremely different takes on the basic theme "science fiction"

 

[kyektulu]

Thanks for the info Chris.

 

[steve12553]

It's a book, very definitely Sci-Fi, by Arthur C. Clarke, published in 1953 (according to the bibliography in the "authors section- I wouldn't have known) It contains some mythological elements, ...while "Star Wars" uses essentially fantasy tecniques and massive (if at times difficultly believable) tecnology...

As far as Childhood's End, I see it more as a science fiction explanation of mythology or religion and of course Star Wars is pure unadulterated space opera the pulp offshoot of science fiction. At least the first three movies were fun.

 

[arthurchappell]

Star Wars blends Fantasy elements, ie,, princesses, dark wizardry (the Jedi and Sith) with SF technology and hardware - Childhood's End is pure SF - both are equally good intheir way though

 

[Jives]

Star Wars is very entertaining, but Childhood's End is flat out powerful!

One of the things I loved about Childhood's End was that I couldn't see the end coming, I thought I could, but I couldn't.

Star Wars, however, was totally transparent.

 

[kerfew]

lets hope, when they make childhoods end into a film,they will not make the mistake they made with earthsea. a book on par with lotr and narnia. even ursula le quin was a consultant, phillipa boyens as screenplay writer. both were dropped,then just look at the results. an agrument for the forum in its self.

 

[creslin_black]

I know some people might, but I myself cannot compare Star Wars to Childhood's End. The latter is one the hallmark works in the Science Fiction genre, while Star Wars is merely lukewarm fiction popularized and ideally designed for film, where it can generate money on a massive scale, but exchanges that for any real story or character development.

 

[steve12553]

I know some people might, but I myself cannot compare Star Wars to Childhood's End. The latter is one the hallmark works in the Science Fiction genre, while Star Wars is merely lukewarm fiction popularized and ideally designed for film, where it can generate money on a massive scale, but exchanges that for any real story or character development.

I would agree wholeheartedly but as I get older, I've discovered a sad fact of life: "Money makes the world go round." On the more positive side this forum does deal with two types of fiction that can completely ignore that concept for as long as we are reading and/or watching them.

 

[creslin_black]

I wonder if they could ever make a movie out of a sci-fi novel with no hero. Is that possible in today's pattern-mold driven Hollywood?

 

[j d worthington]

I wonder if they could ever make a movie out of a sci-fi novel with no hero. Is that possible in today's pattern-mold driven Hollywood?

Not, I would say, in Hollywood. At least, not until an indie or some foreign film using that approach really takes off and it becomes a trend. Then we're on yet another treadmill. We need some young turks in Hollywood again, who thumb their noses at the studios and do it their own way, yet who have enough clout to get decent budgets for their films -- not these humongous budgets such as we've been seeing, which are in large part responsible for the lack of imagination -- who wants to risk $60-$200 million dollars on something without having anything comparable that's made its money back? A little less special effects and a lot more story and good characterization, or even good story and imagination that doesn't require a great deal of "gosh-wow" CGI etc., could turn it around. But it takes a director/screenwriter team that simply don't pay attention to trends to begin something like this, and if they succeed, Hollywood may become open again. It's something like what Phil Farmer said about the federal government: "Uncle Sam is like a diplodocus that's been kicked in the a**; it takes a year for the message to reach the brain."