I was wondering that too, when someone (ahem) included Merlin's Shop Of Mystical Wonders - which isn't scifi - I don't think that really counts, but hey that's my opinion on the matter.

I don't have a problem with it since it does get a sci-fi rating at imdb which is probably from the host segments.

If we were going to add a rule it'd be that the movie shown in MST3K would need to be sci-fi. I'm not too worried about it now but it sounds like something for next year.

I'd say they count, since you're not so much watching the movie as watching these characters stuck in space lampooning it. Plus there's sci-fi stuff in the intermissions.

This is my reasoning.

Good reasoning, I'll also vote that all MST3K should always count as sci-fi.

MP, how about Hancock and Austin Powers? And were there any other titles that we were debating earlier?

So are we now officially changing the rules?
I just want to make this clear and also see if Batman Begins and The Dark Knight count?

I still don't see why any of the Batmans, TV or movie, would count as sci-fi.

Shouldn't The Happening be sci-fi?

I would think so.

Looks like it and I've updated the rules.

As for the last 2 Batman movies, I'm not sure what's sci-fi about them other than a guy that knows tai-chi, wears spandex and punches people. Haven't seen the new one and I'm hazy on Begins so if you remember something I missed, let me know.

Earlier Batman movies/tv/serials had crazy ray weapons. I think that counts under sci-fi.

Hancock and Austin Powers seem sci-fi to me, in an odd sort of way.

So does my earlier request of Fido

I think disasters like that can fall into sci-fi.

Well then, Ill add Hancock back to my list, but have no problem taking it off again if we decide to nix that...

I don't see the sci-fi connection either.

MST3K is a good question. For next year, I'm leaning toward the subject matter of the movie presented. Would anyone really consider Mitchell sci fi enough to put on a list due to the artifice of the presentation? (well, that example might be bad specifically, because it's when Joel leaves, but any movie like that, I mean).

The Happening is definitely SF, to explain why would be a spoiler.

Batman. Would his reliance on high technology be enough to send it over to sci fi? The 1966 movie does, what with the people dehydrator and stuff. Burton and Schumacher's Batman has enough to put it over, I think. Nolan's Batman is borderline. His tech is less sci fi and more repurposed high-end military. I tend to be liberal in my inclusions so I wouldn't argue against it, but I can see the questionable-ness of it. I don't think anyone is going to die if someone includes the year's biggest blockbuster genre flick.

IMO, Batman Forever is probably the most sci-fi of the franchise.

Batman just had "those wonderful toys." All of the guns/cars/etc... that were in that movie seemed to be nothing outlandish that I would consider sci-fi.
Same with Batman Returns. Some new toys. Catwoman being created by being bitten by cats. I *guess* you could consider that a sci-fi element.
Batman & Robin. How do you even classify this movie? Turd-fi I guess is how I might describe it.

In general, Sci-Fi wouldn't pop to mind when thinking about the genres for these movies (They are Comic Book movies on my shelves). I think there are sci-fi elements to the other Burton/Shumacher Batman's, but if I were to have to pick one that was the "most" sci-fi it would be Batman Forever.

If the Happening Qualifies as Sci-fi wouldn't the Ruins qualify as well?
Also if Hancock Qualifies wouldn't the Specials qualify?

"Nature on the rampage" is always science fiction. It's not applied science, but still science with an appropriate fantasy element. Even the technological science is more than Popular Mechanics the movie. It has to have some fantasy element to broach science fiction.

Actually, Nature on the Rampage is a legitimate subgenre and should be on the checklist. Kingdom of the Spiders, Phase IV, Frogs, Night of the Lepus, etc.

I was reading up on the Specials, and I would consider it. It is an ironic deconstruction of the superhero genre.

Joker's Smilex scheme and Batman's toys combined push it over, slightly. Penguin's big plan involved radio mind-controlled penguins. The pH level is slightly sci-fi.
Batman and Robin's Mr. Freeze is Sci fi. Poison Ivy is Nature on a Rampage. Are they Arthur C. Clarke? No, but a mild argument can be made for all four of the Burton/Schumacher films.

Dark Knight has some pretty fantastic tech. It gets my vote.

I agree with all of that.

Batman Begins might make it in because of the stuff the Scarecrow does but at the same time.

Here's some questions/thoughts I've been pondering on:

I think the Batman gear itself in Batman Begins wouldn't be sci-fi because it's all stuff that can actually be made. It's just high tech, custom gear which is what they were going for. If I'm wrong on this correct me, I just remember reading an article on making a real equivalent of his suit and gear.

Would all of the James Bond movies be considered sci-fi because of the gadgets and villain's super weapons?

Would a movie be considered sci-fi if there is only one tiny part, say a sci-fi type device used once but never mentioned again, like if it were just a 1 minute dream segment?

Does an alien automatically label something sci-fi? If it does, I wouldn't mind watching American Dad.

Because of things like that, would it be better to just stick with the imdb/allmovie rule? Sure it leaves out some obvious things but there's still enough out there to watch.

That leads to another problem where many of the Nature on the Rampage movies, which can be added to this year's checklist, aren't going to be listed as sci-fi on those sites for the most part.

Sure. But mainly it gets my vote for movie of the year so far, and perhaps the best comic book movie of all time.

I think we should definitely stick the the IMDB/Allmovie rule. It's not perfect, but I think it's mostly accurate. There's never going to be an all-encompassing rule that applies to everything, but I think it's the best solution.

I'm having a great time with this challenge, and I'm glad to be a participant. But honestly, I get kinda bummed when I click on this thread and see posts like, "Is Family Guy considered science fiction?".

I think the challenge should be about watching lots of sci-fi, not trying to stretch the definition of what sci-fi is. One person suggested including the Dark Knight simply because it's going to be the most watched movie. That seems contrary to the nature of the competition. Should you watch Dark Knight? Definitely. Should you count it as part of the challenge? Of course not.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't count TV, documentaries, commentaries, featurettes, etc. But I didn't create the challenge, so I'm not going to complain about that.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too negative. At the end of the day, I think people should watch what they want and count it however they like. I'm having fun and I hope everyone else is too. But I think it's a bad idea to change the rules midway through.

Or maybe I'm just taking the whole thing too seriously.....

You think that cell phone sonar thing is possible? It's not even one particular item, but a preponderance of multiple elements along with (and here is where it gets tricky) a fantasy element. Sci Fi requires a "what if?" that transends mundane fiction. Batman and Punisher both use technology and are basically normal guys who become vigilantes, but Batman has an element of fantasy that Punisher lacks. There may not be an absolute definition, but I know science fiction when I see it.

By the way, I said Dark Knight was a "Genre" blockbuster. Volume doesn't count.

Rather than finding loopholes to include obviously nonconforming material or exclude that which is debatable, why not just enjoy the movies? If someone believes something is science fiction, and can defend it, then why stand on ceremony? IMDB is a terrific reference, but it's not definitive.

If you're referring to me, I don't remember much about what they had.

Depending on how this last half goes, I'll figure out which way to go with the rules for next year. Since it's only the first time, I'm not too worried on experimenting as long as things don't go out of control.

In semi-related news, I found out my HD Tivo works fine as long as I don't plug the cable in so I've been copying the movies to my computer before I send it off. Now I won't lose all my stuff

Yeah, it was more general. I think the first year or so of any challenge should be up for experiments to see what works. I've never understood why everyone seems to want to be so strict on everything. I think these things should be fun and celebrate the (big G)enre and the movies themselves.

You're right. I think the more lax the better, within reason. Keeping things open encourages more participation. The fun in these things is the community aspect. Seeing people's lists and getting ideas from them, discussing what we've watched etc.