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

quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly. Which was kinda back to one of my last points to Freaux...it doesn't bother me at all if someone wants to say that SW is a fantasy film, because that does accurately describe it. However, if someone says it's "action" then that is also accurate. Just like I believe "science fiction" also applies. It's not like someone labeling Casablanca as "horror" or something like that.

It's more of a general guide.

And I, like you, agree with some of the points Freaux and others are making. But in the end, the whole "X has to be in X genre, Y has to be in Y genre, no exceptions" thing isn't really something that's important to me. (but it's important enough to argue/discuss in here )

I halfway wonder if George Lucas spent time reading blogs about Stars Wars SF vs Fantasy and that's why he stuck in the metachlorion non-sequitor

In his mind perhaps that made an argument for the force not being magic but being sci-fi

And if so that was just one of a shite-ton of ways he fricked up the most recent three movies. Certainly people can argue stars wars was a myth or fable, and they argue it is fantasy or sci-fi... but provided those (hardheaded?) people all understand the elements noticed by the other viewers I'm not sure their debate about strict genre categorization matters in the end

quote:

---

That's why I love sci-fis, they're so intelligent.

---

I think that is one reason a lot of people resent the Star Wars is science fiction categorization - they love science fiction movies and don't consider SW to be up to snuff

But I don't really consider intelligence to be a genre issue as much as a writer issue

IMO a writer could tell very similar themed stories using either science fiction (if the devices were technological) or fantasy (if the devices were based in myth or magic). If the criteria for separating those two outcomes are based on theme or intelligence there is not necessarily a difference

For many readers there would be major differences between those two works though. Some of the less convincing reasons they might admit to if forced would be: because they don't like fantasy, don't like science fiction, find the use of imaginary creatures or magic childish, etc

That's fine, not everyone likes mysteries as their genre of choice either and there is a ton of bad fantasy with little redeeming value out there IMO. And I think even sub par science fiction typically makes an attempt to be thought provoking whereas many fantasy writers do less (so I don't blame people for this type of knee jerk reaction)

quote:

---

not just any story. It's a classic device used from fairy tales. Can you name any other story/movie that isn't fantastical that uses it?

---

But it's an opening. Just because something uses the "Long ago" doesn't mean it's automatically qualified as fantasy. Just like opening a story with "Once..." doesn't automatically mean it's a fable. I understand your point, I just think it's a logical opening to stories more than anything else.

quote:

---

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

---

Agree to disagree. I believe in the purity of the author's intent over everything. I'll be honest, I used to think that interpretation was personal, but there are so many philosophical problems with that kind of approach, that I honestly do not see the appeal of "anything can mean whatever I feel like it does." New criticism is so boring in the end, and completely useless to understanding anything but the person, not the world or the work of art. I find that to be an empty take on art and the world. This again, puts me on the fringe (one reason why I never completed my PhD, or at least one of them). Few make their marks with this kind of opinion. This puts me somewhere in the realm of a Stucturalist, a badge I wear well.

quote:

---

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.

---

Disagree. Even If...

quote:

---

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.

---

I sort of agree here. Of course the author will end up writing or saying something he didn't intentionally say, which is why language is sort of an ineffective medium. How many times have you said "I know what I mean, but I can't communicate it." As humans, we often lack the abilities to clearly translate our own thoughts and that's ok.

But that doesn't mean we don't INTEND to do something in particular. Of course there is a giant hole in that argument that i have yet to rectify.

But think about this: If Harry and the Hendersons can be a horror because someone is afraid of Harry, if it's only their reaction to the media that matters, then what does that mean? Certainly we all see things from a different perspective, but I have a hard time believing that there isn't some sort of baseline. Why certain stories are ALWAYS great.

quote:

---

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).

---

I agree with you again. Most great science fiction always has another element. BUT if THE dominant force is science fiction, then it's science fiction. That's just not the case for Star Wars.

quote:

---

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.

---

And I'm not arguing that they don't have the right or means to use anything else, BUT there is always n intent, and a means to get from The beginning to the end, and that will always have a label. That's why I am using Harry and the Hendersons. Clearly, by Wikipedia's definition, it could be labeled a science fiction, since it has a monster, and anyone arguing for Star Wars shouldn't balk at something like labeling Harry and the Hendersons a science fiction as well. That's really the same thing in the end.

But for me the dominant idea in HatH is the idea of comedy, whether or not it has some element in science fiction.

quote:

---

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

---

See above, I honestly don't care about the reader that much. I care about the purity of the idea, the intent of the author and why something can be collectively enjoyed or reviled. That's a large difference.

I think understanding genre is part of understanding "taste," in general. See Baloo's example of enjoying LOTR but no other fantasy. Something specifically in the idea of "fantasy" doesn't resonate, and whatever kernel of meaning or mode of narrative fantasy uses, that could have the same effect on others. See where I'm going here?

quote:

---

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)

---

Yes. Precisely. And I would always argue for a "dominant" genre, supported by others. I think any film can be properly defined under a dominant genre, and be understood to have elements or pieces from other genres.

quote:

---

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?

---

Me. Obviously.

But I can see that perspective, let me keep overthinking as Cocomo says I do....

quote:

---

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.

---

But I think that's selling genres and storytelling short. Think about the old philosophical belief of the perfect "chair." Sorry for bringing in Plato now, but to understand myth, we have to go that far.

But anyway, every chair is an imitation of the perfect chair. Nothing else is as perfect, but we have this ideal we reach for to build something functional. Think about that relation to art and the pervasiveness of certain stories (read: all of them). Stories are a part of cultural, and I find it hard to believe that those stories a) Only matter to the recipient B) Don't have some kind of interconnected mythological web underneath it all.

I mean we all know we can reduce stories down to core elements, that there are TRULY only few storylines in the purest of forms. But we connect the dots and paint a picture of the old west. Or the Industrial revolution.

There's something beautiful about storytelling (through words or film), that lets us connect those times, places and ideas together. And I find it interesting that we OFTEN rely on those devices to create, that itself creates a web far older than the one we currently inhabit.

I know I'm going way off the deep end here, few may follow, but this argument has let me put some thoughts onto "paper" that i have been meaning to for a long time. Keep the debate coming

I think the audience absolutely matters. And I think there's a huge difference btween believing that and this statement:

quote:

---

I'll be honest, I used to think that interpretation was personal, but there are so many philosophical problems with that kind of approach, that I honestly do not see the appeal of "anything can mean whatever I feel like it does."

---

Just because interpretation is personal, it does not follow it can simply mean anything. There is interplay between artist intent and audience perception. I'll use Harry Potter as an example -- I'm bothered that JK Rowling made Dumbledore's sexuality explicit in a statement separate from the books. I think her intent is clear in the text so I don't think it is ex post facto, but I also think it's up to the reader to make that interpretation. Honestly, I viewed him as asexual. But that's off topic. Just using an example.

And interpretations change. I'll use a historical example because its been on my mind, but you could do this with fictional characters as well: General Custer. In 1880, he was a tragic hero, an interpretation which held until about 1950 or so. Now, he's a great villain. Custer didn't change... WE DID. And the truth of Custer lies somewhere in between the two interpretations. He's not the monster he's now portrayed as, nor was he the dashing hero. Though both strains were in his personality.

quote:

---

I sort of agree here. Of course the author will end up writing or saying something he didn't intentionally say, which is why language is sort of an ineffective medium. How many times have you said "I know what I mean, but I can't communicate it." As humans, we often lack the abilities to clearly translate our own thoughts and that's ok.

But that doesn't mean we don't INTEND to do something in particular. Of course there is a giant hole in that argument that i have yet to rectify

---

Yes, but I will point out these are professional writers with plenty of time to craft exactly what they wish to say. It is their profession, their craft, to make their ideas clear. It's what they do for a living. A failure to make yuorself clear is a failure as an author.

quote:

---

I don't think you actually believe that. You don't believe that Harry and the Hendersons can be classified as a western because there are guns in it.

---

I don't. But I would say it is true if general consensus says Star Wars is primarily a science fiction film simply because it has blasters and warping in space.

quote:

---

And see, I think it's a compliment. At least in that it can fit into several genres so well. It speaks to the breadth of the story and the components within it. That's a good thing IMO. I guess that's just another thing we disagree on in this thread.

---

Right but that makes the meanings meaningless. If Harry and the Hendersons is a science fiction too, then science fiction looses a lot of meaning. See above.

1)Flash Gordon, savior of the universe!!
Music

2)xxx
3)xxx
4)xxx
5)Cave man