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

quote:

---

Poltergeist

---

Is the science part the bit with the TV being on?

quote:

---

molsusports
Your top 5 Science Fiction Movies all time..
quote:

The Day The Earth Stood Still (orig.)
Terminator II
Invaders From Mars (orig.)
Tarantula
The Thing '82

Close:
Back to the Future
The Day of the Triffids
The Blob (orig.)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
War of the Worlds (orig.)
Deep Impact
The Terminator

HM: War of the Worlds (Cruise)
The Crawling Eye, The Thing That Wouldn't Die,
Plan 9 From Outer Space, Aliens, Poltergeist,
Alien, Star Wars, Monolith Monsters, Independence Day, 2012


you're probably going to invite debate from some people RE: whether several of those are really science fiction. Several could be viewed as horror or fantasy instead of sci-fi

---

Everyone of those is listed as sci-fi except Poltergeist - which I inadvertently included but should not have been. Invasion of the Body Snatchers could be considered horror as well.

2001
Bladerunner
Alien
Terminator 2
District 9
Eternal Sunshine

quote:

---

I still don't get the argument in that it can't be both sci-fi and fantasy.

---

You have to know that my perspective comes from a place of believing in strict genre conventions, so I'm probably wildly different even from those who believe i Star Wars is a sci fi, I'm even further out.

Science fiction narrative, simply put, is about one or both of these things (I'm trying to be as concise as possible, and further elaboration would take a lot more space):

1) Changing SOMETHING (but not everything) about our real world (meaning the normal processes or laws or properties) and evaluating that through the narrative Example: Children of Men, 2001, Body Snatchers

AND/OR

2) A scientific or technological development that drives a plot Gattaca, AI/I, Robot

Fantasy is completely different in the vein of "All bets are off."

I mean, if you can't tell the large chasm of difference between say Gattaca and Star Wars, I don't know what to tell you. But it is quite large. Wherein Gattaca, the overall driver of the plot is the development of gene editing in OUR environment, all action occurs BECAUSE of this development.

All action in Star Wars does not occur because of spaceships, lasers, warping, etc. And that isn't even to say that Lucas directly TELLS you it's a fantasy film (A long, long time ago...).

Where science fiction is about being "believable," fantasy is about being "unbelievable."

And since all of that, I hate how they group "science fiction" and "fantasy" far too often, in essence they are completely opposite things. As much as comedy and torture porn, science fiction and fantasy are, literally, worlds apart, in their approach.

Now I would leave open SOME bending of genres, and if that happens, you ALWAYS go to the narrative itself, not the screen elements, props, words, settings or characters etc. The genre of a story is ALWAYS found in the narrative, and in no other place. Most of the times these things line up, but sometimes they do not.

The simple questions are: What drives the plot? What is the intention of the director (artist, author)?

That can reveal even the most complicated of stories.

We often call Alien a science fiction/horror and Aliens a science fiction (no longer a horror). Why?

It's simple, ALIEN is really a horror film, sure it has science fiction elements, but in reality the primary purpose of the film is to shock and unsettle audiences. Just because it's clad in space does not a science fiction film make. Now, this is far less of a problematic move than star wars, because horror and science fiction are not mutually exclusive they CAN be combined so most people understand this correctly.

ALIENS on the other hand is really an Action film with science fiction elements. It still occurs in a world that, given enough time, we may inhabit, with a discovery that we may actually find right? There is some believability there, even as scant as it may be.

Star Wars does not rely on your sense of "real," or your understanding of our world (there's some more explanation here, but again, trying to avoid TL:DR). Can it be labled a science fiction film in general? Sure. But is it REALLY a science fiction film? No.

quote:

---

Disagree. Genre debates are annoying and pointless for the most part. It made this thread significantly less interesting.

---

You've said this before, and that sucks that you liked the thread until the genre debates raged, but I have to disagree here.

Genre is effectively, categorization, and although they can be "meaningless" from a purely artistical standpoint, it CAN be an explanation of the way we relate to the world, the great stories and myths, Joseph Campbell?

I mean, you don't find it interesting at all that we tell the same stories under different garbs? That there is something to be said of the mythic appearance of a more constrictive genre like "the western?"

quote:

---

I like your distinction and I find it interesting that science fiction and fantasy audiences tend to extremely overlap. I've always felt out if step since I don't much like fantasy with some major exceptions. I like LOTR but pretty much nothing in its wake.

---

Exactly. Because their modes of operation or so different, they play to DIFFERENT desires.

quote:

---

Though I believe Alien is clearly sci fi. Its an extreme case of Bioengineering, really. Most stories about alien first contact are sci fi. Close Encounters isn't really and Explorers definitely isn't, but movies that ground themselves in our rules are sci fi.

---

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?"

That's why wiki, per this description:

quote:

---

1. Futuristic science and technology - check 2. Space travel - check 3. Aliens - check These are the requirements according to wiki: A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record. A spatial setting or scenes in outer space (e.g., spaceflight), on other worlds, or on subterranean earth.[3] Characters that include aliens, mutants, androids, or humanoid robots. Technology that is futuristic (e.g., ray guns, teleportation machines, humanoid computers).[4] Scientific principles that are new or that contradict known laws of nature, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel. New and different political or social systems (e.g. dystopia, post-scarcity, or a post-apocalyptic situation where organized society has collapsed).[5] Paranormal abilities such as mind control, telepathy, telekinesis, and teleportation An argument can be made that there are fantasy elements in play but to say it doesn't qualify as a sci fi is to disregard the definition of sci fi.

---

Is so full of fail. It almost exclusively relies on what something LOOKS like, whether it has mutants in it or lasers, etc. That's doing a disservice to the whole genre. Laser beams =/= science fiction.

As some people are saying "If Star Wars isn't science fiction, then there isn't a science fiction genre." If this definition is correct, then the genre is far too broad, and almost everything is science fiction. What about alternate histories? I mean they could fall under that as well. And that's just scratching the surface.

I mean is Harry and the Hendersons a science fiction film?

I agree I think the reason fantasy and sci-fi get lumped together so often is because of well the whole 'fiction' part of it(even though most movies are fiction). Throw in any kinda of technological aspect and woola(is that spelled right?)it's science!

Doesn't really bother me though I like genre blinders & benders.

quote:

---

The genre of a story is ALWAYS found in the narrative, and in no other place.

---

yep, like I said earlier, it's a fantasy film dressed up to look like a sci-fi, but that doesn't make it a sci-fi. They even left most of the elements obvious with the "long, long time ago", swords (light sabers), knights (jedi), rescuing princess, and the use of wizards (jedi) that use a mysterious magic (the force).

quote:

---

elements obvious with the "long, long time ago"

---

BTW, I think there is too much stock being put into the "Long, long time ago." All that says is that it's a story, and its point is to create a feeling that all of this "futuristic" type stuff took place in the past. It doesn't automatically make it fantasy any more than it makes it anything else.

quote:

---

Man, talk about a strict approach to genre-ing movies.

---

As I prefaced my approach. I know it's quite restrictive, but look at the end.. I don't mind labeling it science fiction because most people are going by what it looks like and there's no changing that, but in essence it really isn't.

quote:

---

I think movies can definitely fall under different categories.

---

For me, Yes and No. Subgenres exist. And sometimes movies can be multiples, genres can even be created (oh dramedies). But there are genres where intent is too different to be rectified.

quote:

---

I do. At least partially. It's SF, fantasy, drama, action, etc. It can fit into many, many different genres IMO.

---

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.

quote:

---

I know Freauxzen won't like me saying that, but I think it does.

---

. I've given up being mad about it, but I like to put my ideas out there about it anyway.

quote:

---

Wouldn't a good example of SciFi be Primer?

---

Pretty much a perfect example.