OT: Sci-Fi Founders

Thermodyne · #1 February 17th, 2005, 07:17 PM

For those who have yet to read the Foundation series, do so ASAP.

For thoes who have read them, ever get the feeling that Lucas read them too.

geoschmo · #2 February 17th, 2005, 07:43 PM

I'm not sure I see any reseblance between The Forbidden Planet and Star Trek other than they are both sci-fi and both had similer visual styles. (At least if you are talking about TOS, which I assume you are.) There's not much connection in the story. Forbidden planet is also not an original story. It's a sci-fi telling of Shakespears "The Tempest". Of course Shakespear probably stole it from some Italian folk tale or something.

Here's a website that shows the connection between the two stories. LINK

Atrocities · #3 February 17th, 2005, 09:54 PM

Quote:

geoschmo said:
I'm not sure I see any reseblance between The Forbidden Planet and Star Trek other than they are both sci-fi and both had similer visual styles. (At least if you are talking about TOS, which I assume you are.) There's not much connection in the story. Forbidden planet is also not an original story. It's a sci-fi telling of Shakespears "The Tempest". Of course Shakespear probably stole it from some Italian folk tale or something.

Here's a website that shows the connection between the two stories. LINK

There are so many simularities that I could scaresly post them all.

Watch it again and think Star Trek as you watch it. Things like the viewing plat, "speeds many times faster than the speed of light," 1701, Engineer, the primary three actors, a Doctor, a Captian, and his first officer.

The Captain getting the girl, laser guns, or as Robby said, "A simple blaster." The uniformes, albeit not red or gold do set a presidence. They use a rector, wireless communications, even a small tri-corder device.

The ship is a saucer shape, as is the primary hull of the Enterprise. THey have a United Planets compared to the United "federation" of planets. Yes indeed Star Trek has many of the characterstics that Forbidden planet had.

There is nothing wrong with this, I am not complaining or trying to make an issue, I am simply making the comparisson and saying hey this is kinda cool.

geoschmo · #4 February 18th, 2005, 11:29 AM

Forbidden Planet was a watershed moment in science fiction. It had a tremendous influence on jsut about everything to come after it, so it's not unusual that Rodenberry would insert little homages to it in Trek. The 1701 thing, and the United Federation of Planets are probably something along those lines.

Most of the other stuff you mention are things you will find in many many movies. It's more of a case of both having similer influences than one being based on the other.

Wireless communication. Faster than light travel. Saucer shaped space vehicles. The Captain getting the girl. None of these things are unique to the Forbidden Planet.

The Captain/First Officer/Doctor relationship exsists in almost every naval themed picture ever made. And if you change the ranks a bit you could extend that to most military movies and westerns too. The three-character dynamic is a classic form in literature. Heck, you could, and many have tried too, make the case that it's a platonic form of the love triangle. That's a little wierd for me though, so I'll stop right now.

rdouglass · #5 February 18th, 2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Thermodyne said:
For those who have yet to read the Foundation series, do so ASAP.

For thoes who have read them, ever get the feeling that Lucas read them too.

I agree completely. Also, I don't think that any movie maker that has ever read a good sci-fi book or series was NOT influenced somehow by those books.

If they never read anything than maybe it was original.

narf poit chez BOOM · #6 February 19th, 2005, 03:23 AM

So long as it's interesting and not a rip-off, I don't particularly care.

TheDeadlyShoe · #7 February 19th, 2005, 04:55 AM

I somehow missed the Death Star in Dune, but...sure, Star Wars is a dune 'ripoff'.

I'm confused where the "Foundation" series enters into Star Wars comparison, though.

Randallw · #8 February 19th, 2005, 05:32 AM

Out on a limb here, and I apologise for any spoilers, but perhaps it's because they both have the civilisations threat (or saviour, been awhile since i read foundation) as far away as is possible in a circular galaxy.

Baron Munchausen · #9 February 19th, 2005, 01:22 PM

1) A great 'cycle' of civilization. In the case of Foundation it was a specific course of history predicted by 'Psychohistory' while in Star Wars it was this constant oscillating between rule by the Jedi and rule by the Sith.

2) Secret or semi-secret societies with super-human powers ruling known civilization. In Asimov's case it was the "Foundation" itself. In Star Wars it was the Jedi/Sith.

3) Hugely developed capital world where the surface is actually completely covered and no longer accessible. Trantor/Coruscant

I suspect that I could go into more detail if I wanted to re-read the series.

TheDeadlyShoe · #10 February 19th, 2005, 01:53 PM

You might as well, then, say that the Foundation novels were ripping off the famed Lensman books. Those had a epic future history, two secret societies waging a war behind the scenes, and super-powered main actors.

Good books, too.

Or say that anything featuring powered armor is just a ripoff of Heinlein and Steakley.