*sigh*

My wife wanted to watch that last night so I had to suffer through it. It was my first time seeing it. I had been putting it off even though she bought it over a year ago.

1. Equilibrium
2. Contact
3. Runaway (classic 80's Tom Selleck movie)
4. The Day the Earth Stood Still
5. Mad Max (considered Sci-Fi), but I wouldn't really consider Road Warrior as that is pure action
6. The Final Countdown
7. V: The Original Miniseries
8. V: The Final Battle
9. Soylent Green
10. Impostor
11. Time Bandits
12. Terminator
13. Terminator 2
14. Terminator 3


And whoever said Star Wars isn't Sci-Fi should have there genre definitions checked. I think Star Wars almost epitomizes that one!

Hey I liked Krull (saw it when I was like 13 in the theaters). And I think it's a fun movie to watch.....dated...but fun.

Some 'oldies' worth watching:

The Omega Man
Robinson Crusoe on Mars
The Andromeda Strain (one of the best ever)

And if you can find it, Closet Land (Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe). Some say it ain't sci-fi, but it's worth it.

Because the person that started the thread did.

Yeah, but I saw Event Horizon listed here. Ugg.

I've also seen a lot of recommendations that seem to ignore what the original poster seemed to be looking for. Look at the list of movies he likes and think about what else he might want. I agree that The Day the Earth Stood Still is a great science fiction classic, but is there really a strong chance it's going to please this particular poster? That's really more for a person interested in the history of film and SF.

Maybe he's looking to expand his horizons That's why I asked what type of "sci-fi"...

Has anyone mention these movies yet:

Truman Show
Iron Giant
Day the Earth Stood Still
Abre los ojos

Do we really need to have the old star wars is/isn't sci-fi debate again? I thought I set all of you straight the last time we did this!

Must resist the urge...must resist...nooooooooooo

Is Spaceballs sci-fi?

....noooooo...I can't stop the debate now.....it is too late....ok, here are some highlights of the last debate....remember these?


Just b/c something has space ships in it, does not a sci-fi movie make.....

Blockbuster and Best buy are not reliable sources for the delineaton of genres....

Philip K. Dick posed the most thought provoking and thorough definition of what sci-fi is (in my opinion).

There are distinct, although related, genres such as Space Operas/serials (see Star Wars), Space Adventure/Fantasy among others and these are not just sub-genres of sci-fi.

Ahhh...good times...good times...Shall we go through this again?

A good chance to point out the difference between "sci-fi" and "science fiction." Star Wars is the former, but not the latter.

Science Fiction is fiction driven by science or technology that will exist or could conceivably exist, events that could have a scientific explaination. Science fiction seperates from fantasy in that fantasy is not tied down by the burden of science - magic is the norm.

Star Wars fails the "science fiction" test because the Force is magic. It's fantasy. But it's also "sci-fi" in the classic sense of the word, because "sci-fi" includes all of the stuff that sort of poses as science fiction, but really isn't.

let's not forget Star Wars takes place in the past.

I've already had this debate countless times and am confident in my position, so I won't debate that again here, but to add to your definition ...

Science fiction must not simply contain elements that are built on science or technology; it must address the consequences of such elements. A film where some guy happens to have a time machine in his basement but never uses it would not necessarily be science fiction. A film that simply takes place in the future would not necessarily be science fiction. A film that simply takes place in space, or on another planet, where the differences aren't addressed would not necessarily be science fiction. A film where people used laser weapons instead of projectile weapons, but no content was addressed on how one differs from the other, would not necessarily be science fiction. A film where people fly space ships just like they drive cars would not necessarily be science fiction. You get the point.

As such, the simple entry of the Force in the Star Wars saga does not define whether or not is passes/fails a science fiction test. A fantasy film can have science fiction elements, and a science fiction film can have fantasy elements. Star Wars could have the Force and still be a science fiction film.

das

Here it is again, one man's opinion on what Science Fiction is and what it is not. Of course this one man happens to be a genius and a world famous mastermind of the written word. I thought it was worth posting again since it is such an eloquently worded and thoughtful definition of Science Fiction....

''My Definition of Science Fiction''(1981)
-Philip K. Dick (in a letter)

I will define science fiction, first, by saying what SF is not. It
cannot be defined as "a story (or novel or play) set in the future,"
since there exists such a thing as space adventure, which is set in the future but is not SF. It is just that: adventure, fights, and
wars in the future in space involving superadvanced technology. Why, then, is it not science fiction? It would seem to be, and Doris Lessing (e.g.) supposes that it is. However, space adventure lacks the distinct new idea that is the essential ingredient. Also, there can be science fiction set in the present: the alternate-world story or novel. So if we separate SF from the future and also from ultra-advanced technology, what then do we have that can be called SF? We have a fictitious world; that is the first step: It is a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our known society-that is, our known society acts as a jumping-off point for it; the society advances out of our own in some way, perhaps orthogonally, as with the alternate-world story or novel. It is our world dislocated by some kind of mental effort on the part of the author, our world transformed into that which it is not or not yet. This world must differ from the given in at least one way, and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society-or in any known society present or past. There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation; that is, the dislocation must be a conceptual one, not merely a trivial or bizarre one-this is the essence of science fiction, the conceptual dislocation within the society so that as a result a new society is generated in the author's mind, transferred to paper, and from paper it occurs as a convulsive shock in the reader's mind, the shock of dysrecognition. He knows that it is not his actual world that he is reading about.

Now, to separate science fiction from fantasy. This is impossible to do, and a moment's thought will show why. Take Psionics; take mutants such as we find in Ted Sturgeon's wonderful 'More Than Human'. If the reader believes that such mutants could exist, then he will view Sturgeon's novel as science fiction. If, however, he believes that such mutants are, like wizards and dragons, not possible, nor will ever be possible, then he is reading a fantasy novel. Fantasy involves that which general opinion regards as impossible;science fiction involves that which general opinion regards as possible under the right circumstances. This is in essence a judgment call, since what is possible and what is not [cannot be] objectively known but is, rather, a subjective belief on the part of the reader.

Now to define good science fiction. The conceptual dislocation-the
new idea, in other words-must be truly new (or a new variation on an old one) and it must be intellectually stimulating to the reader; it must invade his mind and wake it up to the possibility of something he had not up to then thought of. Thus "good science fiction" is a value term, not an objective thing, and yet, I think, there really is such a thing, objectively, as good science fiction.

I think Dr. Willis McNelly at the California State University at
Fullerton put it best when he said that the true protagonist of an SF story or novel is an idea and not a person. If it is good SF the idea is new, it is stimulating, and, probably most important of all, it sets off a chain reaction of ramification ideas in the mind of the
reader; it so to speak; unlocks the reader's mind so that that mind, like the author's, begins to create. Thus SF is creative and it
inspires creativity, which mainstream fiction by and large does not
do. We who read SF (I am speaking as a reader now, not a writer) read it because we love to experience this chain reaction of ideas being set off in our mind by something we read, something with a new idea in it; hence the very best science fiction ultimately winds up being a collaboration between author and reader, in which both create- and enjoy doing it: Joy is the essential and final ingredient of science fiction, the joy of discovery of newness.

Thanks for the above post - Dick has a good take on things.

As I read Dick's definition, though, I got to thinking. Where does Dune belong? Unless you accept spice and its effects as a scientifically valid idea, Dune wouldn't really satisfy Dick's requirements, and I think that might be a hard sell.

Are we forced, then, to take the greatest science fiction novel ever written and call it something other than science fiction? This is dangerously close to leaving the realm of movies, but since Dune has been adapted twice, I think we're still on topic.

No. 1984 fits the definition just fine. (rimshot)

Seriously, science fiction isn't defined by taking what we assume to be science fiction and then backtracking to a definition that includes those works. It simply is what it is. What I don't get is how angry people get when you assert that their favorite work is actually fantasy, not science fiction. One is no better than the other. They are simply different.

das

So, then, are you saying that indeed Dune is not science fiction? I'm not attacking here, I'm merely looking for clarification.

Bob Dole's not saying that; you're saying that.

My posts weren't intended to classify Dune or Star Wars or anything else as science fiction or fantasy, only to help clarify the definition and point out what I believe to be a flaw in your logic. Often, I hear the argument "[film] is obviously science fiction, because everyone says it is" or "because that's where you find it at Blockbuster." I disagree with this. The definitions define the contents, not our perception, as genre perception is more often defined by marketing desires and general indifference or ignorance than accuracy -- or perhaps, more correctly, "precission."

Whether Dune fits said standards is for you to decide. However, I do not think that the popular perception that it is "science fiction" should factor into that decision making process. Were we to bow to that perception, Frankenstein and Slaughterhouse Five would be filed under horror.

das

Lost Horizon
Nausicaä
Delicatessen
Stalker
Open Your Eyes
City of Lost Children

to name a few brilliant, but odd sci-fi films...

I consider everything that takes place in the future or outer space "sci fi" even though that might not be what it really is. I'd call Xmen sci fi. I have a preference for action oriented sci fi movies instead of the ones that are more like drama. I don't care for the really old sci movies because I just don't like old movies. I want to see modern high tech special effects and things blowing up a lot and icky aliens eating people.

That being said if anyone asked me for some good sci fi movies, I'd recomend any star wars film, terminator film, or Matrix film or Aliens film (directors cut only for part 3).. in addition to others like Armageddon, Independance Day, Minority Report, Signs, Total Recall, Predator, and of course, Transformers: The Movie Those are some of my favorites. I wouldn't reccomend Star Trek movies to anyone cuz I never liked any of them, except for part 2 and that was because of Mr Roark.

Flaw in my logic? Be careful you don't confuse my arguments with the imagined arguments that you might expect to get in this sort of discussion.
Perhaps you have heard such an argument, but you have not heard it from me.

I'm merely testing the limits of the posted definition. You may bothred by people wanting to classify a movie as one genre or another - a flaw in logic, you say. Fair enough. But I'm bothered by the supposition that one definition is true and final - an equal flaw in logic, in my eyes. I'm not prepared to accept the posted definition as the true definition of SF, and my questions are leading toward exploring & testing that definition.

I must have misunderstood this statement:
I took it to mean that Dune was inherently science fiction because of popular perception. It was an inference made from your implication that the title "greatest science fiction novel ever written" precluded the definition for the genre given by Dick and could be used to test the accuracy of that definition. I apologize if I confused your point; however, given your "testing that definition" comment, I'm not sure if I did or not.

My stance is simply that one must esablish a criteria that applies consistently across the board and then apply that to the works of art. Dick's criteria may work for you, or it may not. However, one cannot pick and choose which critieria to apply based on common perception. Too often films/books/whatever are dumped into the science fiction category without much reasoning other than "future" or "space" or something. Such application causes unnecessary confusion amongst the genres and isn't particularly fair to fantasy, an equally valid and important genre.

It is my position that the definition (whatever you decide it should be) cannot be "tested" the way you imply. It is what it is. If some film that you previously considered science fiction doesn't fit into that definition, then it isn't science fiction. The true test of a definition isn't whether it includes the work we instinctively think should be there, but how well it works in concert with other definitions. If you have significant overlap and confusion, it is not adequate; nor is it adequate if you have significant loss. In truth, once can not simply define science fiction without also defining fantasy, horror, goth, etc.

I don't believe that we arrive at the definition by analyzing the characteristics of what we currently accept as science fiction and then working our way back to a definition that sufficiently includes all those works. That's circular logic. We must start with a definition and work forward from there. That definition, obviously, cannot be random; it must have foundation. As such, I would argue that foundation is perhaps rooted in Frankenstein, the work that likely inspired the genre we are currently discussing. By comparing and contrasting it with the foundations of other genres (more difficult propositions to be sure as fantasy probably predates written word), one can hopefully arrive at suitable definitions that apply consistently to works of fiction. As Dick indicates, the way you apply that definition may be different from the way I apply it, but that application for either of us must be consistent.

Anyway, whether you're arguing a contrary position or simply a tangential one, that's my position. Take it for what it's worth.

das

i would agree that Gattaca is one of the most underrated sci-fi movies of all time.
just watched it again the other night.
speculative, w/ a story based on the practical consequences of new technology and how it affects the human condition...that is always what i understood 'real' sci-fi was all about.
a wonderful film.
(12 Monkeys is one of my favorites out of the 1990's also)

I still don't understand why Starship Troopers gets labeled as a 'brain-dead' action flick.
Armageddon, absolutely lacks grey cells, but ST has points to make, and makes them in a very entertaining way- it is as much a black humour satire of a certain era and genre of movies as it is a satire of human nature.
maybe because it deviates so much from the source text (deviations i think make sense for this film).

Three words:

The Black Hole

and how about:

Saturn 3

That's the heart of the question for me. Is Dick's definition satisfactory? I merely picked Dune as the most obvious candidate that may be precluded by the definition.

With some more thought, though, I suppose now that I have oversimplified the matter. Spice is the overwhelming thrust of all future technology in the Dune universe, but we also get quite a bit about non-spice-related environmental questions, even verging on terraforming, which would more than qualify for Dick's requirements. So perhaps, in retrospect, Dune is not the best example to challenge Dick's definition.

Star Wars is, without a doubt, "Sci-Fi". But it's far, far away from "Science Fiction".