Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Android | Email | TuneIn | Deezer | RSS
The question of the week is: Do you think science fiction must have accurate science to be called science fiction? Or do you think that the science must be integral to the plot/story for something to be called science fiction? Feel free to email your answers to skiffyandfanty [at] gmail [dot] com or send us a voicemail at 206-203-1686! You can also leave a comment here or follow us on twitter.
Note: The first attempt to record this episode ended in disaster due to some unusual technological glitch. We’ve since re-recorded the news and ending bits. Hopefully it turned out okay!
Here’s the episode:
- Universal Dead (watch the show)(cast info; crew info)
- The Crusader (comedy/mockumentary webshow; it’s actually quite funny)
- Feo Amante!
- Tears of the Dragon (Lara Croft fan film)
- Paula Peril (webshow)
- Trusso, Parks, and Mortensen will be at Comic Con signing DVDs! Comic Con is on July 22nd to the 25th. They will be at the X-Sanguin booth (#433) on Friday at 1:30 PM (PST). Check them out if you’re going!
- Chamaco (IMDB)
- Unconventional Films (film company)
- Rogue Arts (film company)
The End (34:49 – 42:46)
That’s all, folks! Thanks for listening!
0 Responses
I have to say – I’m utterly terrified of what might be done to Diamond Age in the hands of SyFy. They ruin so many wonderful things. That said, I’m a huge fan of Eureka so maybe there’s hope.
We can only hope that something good comes of it. But don’t expect it…
As for the question (I know, I’m terrible at only leaving one comment) – Accurate science is not necessary for a book to be Science Fiction. It’s generally what I prefer, but I’ve read some amazing Science Fiction that is totally full of crap. There’s a reason they call the stuff with REAL science “Hard Sci-fi”, ya dig?
Thanks for your insight. I think Shaun and I may have a knock-out, drag-down brawl when it comes to this subject. I can’t wait!