re: Your top 5 Science Fiction Movies all time..

And I can't believe I really get into this thread on a day when I have to fly/travel. Bollocks.

quote:

---

What is the difference between the "lasers" that come out of guns in Star Wars and the "lasers" that come out of wands in Harry Potter?

---

What is the difference between lasers that come out of guns in any science fiction movie?

Weak argument.

quote:

---

What is the difference between lasers that come out of guns in any science fiction movie?

Weak argument.

---

You've, inadvertently, proven my point. Just because something has lasers or magic or any single elements does not necessarily make it one genre or the other. You're exactly right, lasers, spaceships, warp, aliens, are all weak arguments for Star Wars. Just as they are weak arguments for ANY film. Starship Troopers, Total Recall, Things to Come, etc.

quote:

---

no offense, but if you like star wars as a sci-fi, then you must only like it because it has laser blasters and space battles. Sci-fis are very smart films that most often will make some human or social commentary. Star wars has none of this, it's just a good ole fashioned good vs evil, like a fairy tale. It's a fantasy film.

---

That's so intentionally short-sighted to me though. I'm not sure there are lots of people who like Star Wars because it's a sci-fi movie (or they think it is, whatever). I think people just enjoy it regardless of what genre people think it belongs to.

And there are lots of social/real life connections that can be made to SW.

quote:

---

But doesn't this seem slightly problematic? I mean I realize science fiction is quite an open genre, maybe the only SINGLE genre that can house every other genre underneath it, but that's particularly why I'm so protective of the label I guess, and I'm not even that big of a sci fi nerd, I'm just that big of a narrative nerd.

---

It's not problematic at all. At least not the way I look at it. Why can't movies be more than one thing...like you said, dramedies are a great example. They can be filed both under drama or comedy, and they fit the criteria of both well.

Star Wars could be labeled sci-fi, fantasy, action, etc. and fit perfectly into each of those categories IMO...it wouldn't be out of place in any of them. Sure, it may fit some specific definition (of which there really is no "correct" one) better than another, but in the end it does fit multiple definitions. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

quote:

---

Well, I'm not sure of your implication, I'll be honest. I know you aren't for some of these overanalytical arguments right?

---

Well in Star Wars we're operating under the assumption that the laser guns were industrial made by technological design(science) where as Potter the Wand operates through the use of magic, you can just take any stick and shoot lasers.

I don't mind these arguments I like reading them I'm just not big on personally debating them myself.

And after watching enough movies you don't really see movies anymore you see genres but most genres are loosely defined and somewhat overlapping so it's all kind of a wash to me.

quote:

---

It's not problematic at all. At least not the way I look at it. Why can't movies be more than one thing...like you said, dramedies are a great example. They can be filed both under drama or comedy, and they fit the criteria of both well.

Star Wars could be labeled sci-fi, fantasy, action, etc. and fit perfectly into each of those categories IMO...it wouldn't be out of place in any of them. Sure, it may fit some specific definition (of which there really is no "correct" one) better than another, but in the end it does fit multiple definitions. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

---

I'll repost this:

This is also why subscribing to such a broad definition of the rules of a genre is problematic. If everything is everything, what's the point?

If Harry and Hendersons is a science fiction film because it has a monster, a comedy because it makes people laugh, a horror film because someone hunts a monster and theres a roar, a drama film because one or more people cry, a western because there are guns, I mean, where do you end with ANY film? Not just Star Wars, but any film?

That's why, it's not necessarily about what the film looks like, or even what the characters say or where it takes place. It's about the narrative. Or at least it should be, that's where you find the genre.

Ask the questions, "What is the main catalyst of the narrative? What was the director's intention?" And you'll find your genre. And that's why Star Wars isn't a science fiction film.


Overall, I think, in general, people look for genre in the wrong place. That's really my assessment.

Note: And the reason I am strict on this is because of my belief in the idea of the "Great story," the myth, a unique fabric of narrative that every story is connected too. It's a way we flesh out the human experience, maybe that's being a little grand, but there is something to be said of that and the truth of older stories. The long lasting nature of Casablanca and our artistic tastes is a testament to the idea that there is SOMETHING we all connect to, whatever that is.

quote:

---

I really wouldn't argue with you on Alien. An argument can be made, and I think the real determination would come from the very thin line of a question to Ridley Scott:

"Was Alien meant to explore the possibility of Bioengineering in our universe? Or was it meant to unsettle people?"

---

I know you prefaced your opinion by saying you are a "splitter" rather than a "lumper" (my paraphrase of your words RE: genre separation so take issue if you like)... but I do not agree with a distinction made by the author that depends on what they (retrospectively or not) say their intent was in writing

Once the words are on the page they have their own life and in many cases the outcome is something very different from what the author intended.

I would argue than most of the time there are meanings in the text that the author did not consciously intend (and that in a well crafted novel or movie there is enough ambiguity to make the reader think and perhaps even to undermine or overwhelm the stated original intention of the writer). Again it is JMO - but asking Ridley Scott what he recalls his exact intentions were in making the movie would be interesting but not the kind of thing that should be used to determine whether "Alien" should be regarded as science fiction or horror in a space setting.

But yes I probably come at this from a different perspective than you - IMO the better science fiction movies and novels also almost have major elements of other genres because they (at least should if they don't suck) live within the guidelines of the universe the writer created and that universe should be as four dimensional as possible (so there may be elements of nonfiction, mystery, comedy, drama, science fiction, horror, and perhaps even fantasy).

And this is largely as it should be: writers of general fiction are free to use elements of comedy, horror, and mystery or may choose to use formats like autobiography or biography if the writer sees fit and can pull it off.

quote:

---

That's why, it's not necessarily about what the film looks like, or even what the characters say or where it takes place. It's about the narrative. Or at least it should be, that's where you find the genre.

---

Does Gulliver's Travels necessarily have more or less meaning to two readers if one places it in a different genre than the other?

I'm guessing you'll say it should be properly regarded as satire but if we apply the "unicorn test" used by others in this thread to the book (would a unicorn be out of place?) you could certainly argue for fantasy (and that isn't silly because good fantasy like LOTR etc has elements that amount to more than orcs and elves)

It's odd, i agree with all of the substance of Freaux's argument, but I think I philosophically side with Cocomo. Most harm in pop culture is caused by over-classification. At the end of the day, who cares?

Genre descriptors should be just that - a descrription which lets you know what you're getting, in general. But splitting hairs over genre purity leads to arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's not as bad in TV/movies as it is in music, where people are far more territorial about genres, but its pretty bad in the "dork" subgenres.

Seriously, you can get in a 30-minute debate at a comic con if you misclassify something as "steampunk".

Classification is good, in general. It gives us an idea that if we like X, we'll probably like Y, its fellow genre cousin. But going overboard on genre purity misses the point of these classifications.