Best SciFi Movie of 2000s - Nominations

[Jim Raynor]

I brought this up in a previous post here, but wasn't it outright stated in the V For Vendetta movie that V had enhanced strength? If I'm remembering that correctly, then that movie is undeniably science fiction even if you don't play loose with the definition or consider it scifi for it alternate history/politics.

[Hawkwings]

The fact that a story is set in the future or features super-technology does not make it sci-fi. Would you consider Desperate Housewives sci-fi if they didn't live in a suburb, but instead on a space station?

I'm also having a hard time coming up with a "definition" of sci-fi, but I suspect it would involve science or technology being an integral part of the story, rather than just fluff or background.

[RedImperator]

The fact that a story is set in the future or features super-technology does not make it sci-fi. Would you consider Desperate Housewives sci-fi if they didn't live in a suburb, but instead on a space station?

I'm also having a hard time coming up with a "definition" of sci-fi, but I suspect it would involve science or technology being an integral part of the story, rather than just fluff or background.

Would you consider Horatio Hornblower science fiction if they used zap guns instead of cannons? Because I don't see anyone calling Honor Harrington not science fiction, and the people who tried to suggest otherwise in other threads were accused of being pretentious hard sci-fi snobs.

I could call the others their own branch of fiction. Tell me, let's say someone wrote a story about what would the 60s and 70s be like if the Japanese fighter ace Sakai had shot down the plane carrying Lyndon Johnson on it rather than the plane next to it during WW2 (which could have happened). It's still has the same technology, same setting, et cetera, but now with different politics. You are defining that as science fiction, even though there are no science fiction elements in the story, the only difference at the start is Lyndon Johnson dies in the Pacific. How is that science fiction at all? If you define science fiction as any thing speculative, then you've made it vague to the point of uselessness as a genre.

If the death of Johnson has no real bearing on the story, then it's mainsteam fiction with an odd, but irrelevant background detail. If it does play a role (and it's hard to imagine the 1960s without Lyndon Johnson, so there's certainly room for a story there), then it would be alternate history, which under the broad definition I've been using, counts as a subgenre of sci-fi. Under the narrower view, it's its own genre under speculative fiction. How is that difficult?

I should point out that your stating "1984" is science fiction was based entirely on "it has future technology in it".

Don't be an asshole. I said that by your definition, the future tech makes it sci-fi. I already gave a definition of sci-fi that would have included 1984 regardless of what technology the Party used.

Would the majority of moviegoers define "V for Vendetta" as science fiction? Most would say its an action film with politics in it and a few would say its a comic book film with politics in it that don't resemble the politics of the comic that Alan Moore wrote, while I would say it's the Wachowski brothers wanking each other off with how clever they were. I don't think too many people would go "science fiction" until after you suggested it might be under certain definitions.

Does the film explicitly take place in the future? For most moviegoers, I'd suspect that's enough.

[adam_grif]

Science Fiction is a totally useless classification because it's so broad. I'd be happy to see it either redefined into something solid by consensus or eliminated and replaced with terms that are.

[Rye]

The fact that a story is set in the future or features super-technology does not make it sci-fi. Would you consider Desperate Housewives sci-fi if they didn't live in a suburb, but instead on a space station?

I'm also having a hard time coming up with a "definition" of sci-fi, but I suspect it would involve science or technology being an integral part of the story, rather than just fluff or background.

Yeah, it would be. See charmed; that's fantasy, despite being dull menstrual trash in the bargain.

[Darth Mall]

I doubt this will get seconded since precisely three people probably saw it, but if you like science fiction, go ahead and watch The Man From Earth. It's a low-low-budget SF film based on Jerome Bixby's last work and consists, basically, of a group of scientists sitting in a room talking; but the premise, acting, and stellar writing makes it all worthwhile.

I've seen it, possibly on your reccomendation from another thread. I don't quite know if it is sci-fi, but a bit more of a fantasy movie, but assuming we call it sci-fi I'll give it a second. One of the few movies that made me sit and think for a bit after watching it.

[adam_grif]

I nominate Primer, and somebody better second it or you're all dead men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_%28film%29

[Bakustra]

Science Fiction is a totally useless classification because it's so broad. I'd be happy to see it either redefined into something solid by consensus or eliminated and replaced with terms that are.

Why is it useless because it's broad? Is Mystery a useless classification because it covers all stories that revolve around a conundrum as their central conflict? Perhaps we should replace it with terms that specify what conundrum this is, and then editors can argue over whether a work is noir or a police procedural!

I really don't get why the broadness of sci-fi is considered a bad thing. Okay, I lie. I do, but rather I don't get why sci-fi fans are such irredeemable snobs about their pet genre. Sci-fi itself is only a part of an even broader genre, or supergenre if you will. RedImperator uses speculative fiction for it, Stark fantasy. Me? I'll split the difference and go with "stories of the fantastic" because I like the sound. The fantastic genres are broad, and I do admit to being a little dissatisfied with genre boundaries, myself, though not for the same reasons. I feel that there should be three supergenres, that I will call historical, speculative/fantastic, and modern. Other genres would fall into these three categories, since there are mysteries, or thrillers, or dramas, or mainstream novels (though not many!) set in all three categories. Some genres would be restricted, of course: westerns would be restricted to the historical and speculative sections, space opera and sword and sorcery to the fantastic, and Regency to the historical.

But never mind my pronunciations and vague classifications, I'm going to give you a definition of science fiction that works! Science fiction is those works of speculative fiction which is incorporates, generally, its fantastic elements and speculations in the form of technologies or social changes. Speculative fiction would be fiction that concerns itself with human response to elements that are not present in the world of today. This covers hard science fiction, as, after all, the speculative element could be something, like a colony on Mars, that is technically feasible with modern technology but not present.

V for Vendetta, or, rather, the film, is speculative fiction, because Britain is not ruled by a Fascist government, the world has not been devastated by an American war, and there are no terrorists with alphabetical codenames running around England fighting said fascists. It is sci-fi because it lacks the elements that define alternate history and fantasy: it is set in a possible future of Earth and its speculative elements are not magical in nature. The comic book is more obviously science fiction, thanks to its greater definition, the inclusion of FATE, and V's chemically-induced superpowers, which are nevertheless not blatantly fantastical. (If you disagree about the superpowers, remember that he rips someone's neck open with his thumb and forefinger. Finch himself notes that V isn't "a normal person physically or mentally" and he was injected with experimental chemicals at Larkhill, which presumably account for his enhanced strength, agility [and potentially intelligence, depending on how secure Norsefire keeps FATE access], and his unusual mental state/insanity.)

[Gil Hamilton]

[quote="RedImperatorIf the death of Johnson has no real bearing on the story, then it's mainsteam fiction with an odd, but irrelevant background detail. If it does play a role (and it's hard to imagine the 1960s without Lyndon Johnson, so there's certainly room for a story there), then it would be alternate history, which under the broad definition I've been using, counts as a subgenre of sci-fi. Under the narrower view, it's its own genre under speculative fiction. How is that difficult?[/quote]
Because it shows that your definition of science fiction is thus overbroad. Even the change to history wasn't a stretch like some alt-history stories (like the plethora that have the Axis winning WW2), it was entirely possible that Sakai would have shot the bomber with Lyndon Johnson on it, which wouldn't have effected the outcome of World War 2, but would have effected the political environment of the post-WW2 world. There is no science fiction elements in the story at all. It is alt-history fiction and speculative fiction in general, but it is NOT science fiction.

Don't be an asshole. I said that by your definition, the future tech makes it sci-fi. I already gave a definition of sci-fi that would have included 1984 regardless of what technology the Party used.

You started with it, but that two-way television screens and novel writing machines are irrelevant to the story. I believe you called that window dressing? You could make a virtually identical story with the technology of 1948, even WITH two-way live television feeds (which, admittedly, would have been absurdly inefficient, but "absurdly inefficient" was virtually one of the stated properties of the Party by design).

My problem remains the overbroad definion you are using. You cast such a broad net that you can catch virtually anything if you try hard enough, while you imply you would cast out other stories/films for not meeting your standards. It's interesting when "Atlas Shrugged" becomes science fiction but "The Fifth Element" (which speculates on nothing at all except that the future has futur-y stuff for Bruce Willis to kick ass around) is not science fiction. I wonder which story the moviegoers would pick as science fiction though?

Does the film explicitly take place in the future? For most moviegoers, I'd suspect that's enough.

I don't suspect it would be, because it lacks any science fiction-y elements for them to latch on to. They would call it an action flick and a comic book flick, but I doubt many people would say "science fiction" film without prompting. You can say well, it takes place in the future, but I don't think it's good enough. It doesn't take place in the Future, if you catch my meaning. It takes place today but a little later. "Children of Men" kind of falls in the same boat that way. It easily could have had the "Women's Uterus Turn Off" event happen when Reagan got elected and set the movie in 2000 without any change in the story at all.

[Gil Hamilton]

I brought this up in a previous post here, but wasn't it outright stated in the V For Vendetta movie that V had enhanced strength? If I'm remembering that correctly, then that movie is undeniably science fiction even if you don't play loose with the definition or consider it scifi for it alternate history/politics.

V did not have enhanced strength or speed or anything like that. He was just really good at killing people and ignoring pain. He never did anything in the comic or in the movie that involved him being any stronger than a really fit human being.

[Balrog]

But the movie does mention that V was altered by the experiments done on him; it's been awhile so I don't recall what exactly, but something along the lines of heightened abilities. For what it's worthy, Wiki calls the movie a "dystopian science fiction-thriller film."

Hopefully some sort of consensus can be reached by the end of this process, but if not then it would be easy to create a separate list of comic book movies.

Current List of Nominees
Children of Men
Moon
District 9
Wall-E
Iron Man
Revenge of the Sith
Sunshine
Serenity
Avatar
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Watchmen
Donnie Darko
Titan A.E.
Equilibrium*
Star Trek*
Minority Report
The Dark Knight
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
V for Vendetta*
I, Robot*
Cypher*
Deja Vu*
The Fountain*
The Chronicles of Riddick*
Primer*

*Not Seconded

[Havok]

Is it OK to second movies after nominating another? If so, I will second Equilibrium.

[RedImperator]

If the death of Johnson has no real bearing on the story, then it's mainsteam fiction with an odd, but irrelevant background detail. If it does play a role (and it's hard to imagine the 1960s without Lyndon Johnson, so there's certainly room for a story there), then it would be alternate history, which under the broad definition I've been using, counts as a subgenre of sci-fi. Under the narrower view, it's its own genre under speculative fiction. How is that difficult?

Because it shows that your definition of science fiction is thus overbroad. Even the change to history wasn't a stretch like some alt-history stories (like the plethora that have the Axis winning WW2), it was entirely possible that Sakai would have shot the bomber with Lyndon Johnson on it, which wouldn't have effected the outcome of World War 2, but would have effected the political environment of the post-WW2 world. There is no science fiction elements in the story at all. It is alt-history fiction and speculative fiction in general, but it is NOT science fiction.

Says...you, basically. Like it or not, the publishing industry has lumped "speculative fiction without an explicitly magical element" under sci-fi (with hybrids filed under one or the other based on how many zap guns are in it, which is why Star Wars is counted as sci-fi while Perdido Street Station is fantasy). I don't think that's a particularly good definition and neither do you, and we even seem to agree on a better one, but going by the industry's classification, alternate history is sci-fi even if the point of divergence is completely mundane. For a list of "best sci-fi movies" without sci-fi defined ahead of time, that's a better way to go than trying to impose a restrictive definition on it halfway through.

And besides that, even if you won this argument, the thing that would most likely happen is the OP getting edited to "what's the best sci-fi or non-fantasy speculative fiction movie of the decade"? So what's the point of this anyway?

Don't be an asshole. I said that by your definition, the future tech makes it sci-fi. I already gave a definition of sci-fi that would have included 1984 regardless of what technology the Party used.

You started with it, but that two-way television screens and novel writing machines are irrelevant to the story. I believe you called that window dressing? You could make a virtually identical story with the technology of 1948, even WITH two-way live television feeds (which, admittedly, would have been absurdly inefficient, but "absurdly inefficient" was virtually one of the stated properties of the Party by design).

Are you being dense on purpose or something? By my (broad) sci-fi definition, 1984 is sci-fi even if it was a virtually identical story with 1948 technology. The only reason I brought up the telescreens at all is because you were the one who claims a story needs sci-fi window dressing to be sci-fi. It doesn't hurt my point in the slightest if they're not actually sci-fi because of whatever. I mean, if you want me to concede the tiny sub-point I was actually arguing at that moment, congratulations, you win, but my main argument stands.

My problem remains the overbroad definion you are using. You cast such a broad net that you can catch virtually anything if you try hard enough,

Really? "Speculative fiction which isn't magical enough to be fantasy" is now "virtually anything"? How big do you think alternate the history/utopian/dystopian subgenres are?

while you imply you would cast out other stories/films for not meeting your standards. It's interesting when "Atlas Shrugged" becomes science fiction but "The Fifth Element" (which speculates on nothing at all except that the future has futur-y stuff for Bruce Willis to kick ass around) is not science fiction. I wonder which story the moviegoers would pick as science fiction though?

What does what I imply I'd do if I had my way have to do with anything I've actually argued? Yes, I think in an ideal world, literature called "science fiction" might have an actual idea somewhere in it, but that's a hopeless battle that I was never really fighting to begin with. Since I'm not actually advocating kicking Star Trek or ROTS or Alien vs. Predator or whatever else off the list of "sci-fi movies", and the books/films I'm advocating keeping do have a substantial speculative idea (otherwise, they'd just be mainstream fiction), you have no actual point here.

Does the film explicitly take place in the future? For most moviegoers, I'd suspect that's enough.

I don't suspect it would be, because it lacks any science fiction-y elements for them to latch on to. They would call it an action flick and a comic book flick, but I doubt many people would say "science fiction" film without prompting. You can say well, it takes place in the future, but I don't think it's good enough. It doesn't take place in the Future, if you catch my meaning. It takes place today but a little later. "Children of Men" kind of falls in the same boat that way. It easily could have had the "Women's Uterus Turn Off" event happen when Reagan got elected and set the movie in 2000 without any change in the story at all.

I don't agree, but since neither of us have useful data on this, I'm dropping this particular point.

[adam_grif]

I'm so awesome I deserve to be able to second my own nominations, therefore I second Primer.

Has anybody else seen it? It's pretty good. Filmed on a budget of $7000.

[Shroom Man 777]

Is it OK to second movies after nominating another? If so, I will second Equilibrium.

It's a badass movie, I'll give you that, and I think it's the quintessential Christian Bale Is A Socially Withdrawn Badass Who Kicks Ass and Ruins Shits En Masse , despite all the other movies where he is a socially withdrawn badass who kicks ass and ruins shits en masse (like the Batman movies, Terminator, etc.). While it wasn't the most inspired movie, and it's presentation of the future wasn't the most amazing, the presentation was still totally slick and entertaining and made the director a one-shot wonder seeing as his next film was complete shit (Ultraviolet).

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't agree, but since neither of us have useful data on this, I'm dropping this particular point.

Just a quick comment: I used to think about the classifications a lot about 10 years ago, but there really is no way to clearly separate "fantasy" from "science fiction". Speculative fiction is a useful as a supergenre classification (much better than Stark's broad "fantasy", since it does not have an established alternative and more narrow usage), but it does not change the fact that the subgenres still have very soft edges.

As RedImperator noticed, by common usage alternative history and social (science) fiction are considered science fiction, but so are adventure and western stories in space with pew pew guns instead of swords, cannons, muskets or revolvers. We just have to live with the fact that borderline cases of genres will always generate discussion and differing opinions. For example Star Wars can easily be classified either as "science fiction" or "science fantasy"1 and both make sense from the point of common usage tradition. (As soon as we reject the historically incorrect claim that "science fantasy" was created explicitly for Star Wars, which is something that some people have claimed here before.) How can that be? Simply because there were somewhat separate traditions advocated by different people and calling the "science fantasy" classification "pretentious" is just another way of saying "I don't agree". The arguments of either side are hardly convincing enough to call a winner.

1 Of course a case can be made that since the introduction of midi-chlorians Star Wars is now firmly in the scifi camp and I have no problem with that, but midi-chlorians were not part of the SW universe when people originally classified SW as "science fantasy".

[Shroom Man 777]

Why do midi-chlorians make Star Wars science fiction instead of science fantasy?

[Bakustra]

Why do midi-chlorians make Star Wars science fiction instead of science fantasy?

I presume that Aurelius Caesar is using a definition of science fantasy that requires the magic be unexplained, or conversely that science fiction gives a cause for its magic. The midi-chlorians, assuming that they generate the Force, (which is a faulty assumption) would then be a biological cause for it. They do not, for various reasons, but let's ignore that for now, since the debate is over sci-fi versus fantasy. Science fantasy, if we use it to declare that Star Wars is fantasy because of the Force, would necessarily be applied to a large number of other sci-fi works, if we are to be consistent. I predict that said application, especially if generally promoted, would result in tears, angry denials, and snobbery.

On the other hand, we could say that Star Wars is fantasy because of its "traditional fantasy plot", or fantastic nature in general. The same people use a definition of sci-fi that revolves around the idea of exploring social change through technology. This would mean that Foundation, and the first three books especially, are therefore not sci-fi, because the focus is not on technology, but rather human interactions, unless we wish to declare psychohistory technology, but even that serves primarily as a background focus, much like FTL, antigravity, and so on, to enable the accurate prediction of the future. While I have no problems with that, per se, I doubt that many of the supporters of a restrictive sci-fi definition wish to kick Foundation or Starship Troopers out of the clubhouse alongside Star Wars.

Ultimately, I think that defining sci-fi is a tricky matter. Look at Event Horizon and WH40K. Are they fantasy, because of the demons and other supernatural powers, or are they sci-fi, because of the focus on the consequences of such phenomena? Or is one sci-fi and not the other? Sci-fi and fantasy tend to blend into each other at points, and ignoring that in favor of ironcladly defining one in favor of the other (since an ironclad definition of both would necessarily leave such intermediate works out in the cold) is something I am loath to do. I will admit that most ironclad definitions of sci-fi set my teeth on edge, primarily because they are snobby, pretentious, and self-delusional. Declaring that real sci-fi focuses on people's reactions to the development of technology is something we have gone over, but what would you call exploring the ruins of an alien civilization, or a study of the ecology of an alien planet, if not sci-fi, though they lack a focus on technology? For that matter, declaring sci-fi as the "high" and fantasy and alt-hist as the "low" is truly insulting to both, tantamount to declaring that neither can produce works of any merit. (Would Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle be considered sci-fi, rather than alt-hist, because it's actually good, then?) This I find hilarious in light of the similar contempt shown all genre fiction by mainstream critics and authors.

There is no particular reason, of course, why a work cannot be considered both sci-fi and fantasy. I will advance my own definitions here, but take note that they are not ironclad, and that they are fairly spur-of-the-moment. I would define fantasy as that branch of speculative fiction which focuses on mystical elements and creatures. Sci-fi is that branch that focuses on scientific elements and creatures. Alt-hist is that branch that focuses on the alteration of past events to determine the resulting changes within the past, present, or immediate future. These definitions are necessarily broad, and by this, Perdido Street Station is both sci-fi and fantasy (this is a good example of science fantasy, then), because what is space opera but not sci-fi? Yet it does not fit in with my initial definition of examining said elements. Thoughts on these definitions? Ultimately, they do rely somewhat on window dressings, but that is what makes, for example, a space western not a western; the alien gunfighter, the strange planet, and so on.

[Balrog]

Is it OK to second movies after nominating another? If so, I will second Equilibrium.

Trying to keep it to where people can only nominate or second one movie, since you are in effect preliminarily voting for it to be the best.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Why do midi-chlorians make Star Wars science fiction instead of science fantasy?

I presume that Aurelius Caesar is using a definition of science fantasy that requires the magic be unexplained, or conversely that science fiction gives a cause for its magic. The midi-chlorians, assuming that they generate the Force, (which is a faulty assumption) would then be a biological cause for it. They do not, for various reasons, but let's ignore that for now, since the debate is over sci-fi versus fantasy.

Well, I was more referring to the fact that the midi-chlorians seem to be something measurable with technology, which explains at least some aspects of the Force through means which are testable and not available just by the wielders of some arcane art, which is typical for magic and magical thinking. Of course the midi-chlorians do not explain the Force completely, but at least they imply that Force and Force effects are not completely unexplainable to those who dot not possess the mystic properties required from its users. Let it be noted that I know practically nothing about EU and how it handles the midi-chlorians and in the films the midi-chlorians get only a brief mention.

Science fantasy, if we use it to declare that Star Wars is fantasy because of the Force, would necessarily be applied to a large number of other sci-fi works, if we are to be consistent. I predict that said application, especially if generally promoted, would result in tears, angry denials, and snobbery.

Perhaps. For me it would be quite OK, since Stark is of course quite right that anything but strict hard sci-fi (which does exist but is not very common nowadays if it ever was) is "fantasy", i.e. fantastical. That applies especially well to almost all space opera with FTL etc. It's just that calling it all "fantasy" would not be practical. Then of course we have genres which most people do not include in sci-fi or fantasy simply because their literary tradition is separate from Anglo-saxon fantasy and science fiction, such as Latin American magical realism.

On the other hand, we could say that Star Wars is fantasy because of its "traditional fantasy plot", or fantastic nature in general. The same people use a definition of sci-fi that revolves around the idea of exploring social change through technology. This would mean that Foundation, and the first three books especially, are therefore not sci-fi, because the focus is not on technology, but rather human interactions, unless we wish to declare psychohistory technology, but even that serves primarily as a background focus, much like FTL, antigravity, and so on, to enable the accurate prediction of the future. While I have no problems with that, per se, I doubt that many of the supporters of a restrictive sci-fi definition wish to kick Foundation or Starship Troopers out of the clubhouse alongside Star Wars.

Considering technology or technological speculation a sign of "real sci-fi" is much too limiting. Rather I would say that sci-fi is a "fantastical" story which does not include clearly working magical elements. "Magical" in this context means arcane knowledge accessible only to the selected people and a priori uncontrollable through technology, whether they are called magicians, shamans or even jedi.

Ultimately, I think that defining sci-fi is a tricky matter. Look at Event Horizon and WH40K. Are they fantasy, because of the demons and other supernatural powers, or are they sci-fi, because of the focus on the consequences of such phenomena?

Judging from the tradition it belongs to Event Horizon is actually a horror film. It's primary purpose is to get an emotional fear response from the viewers. Of course you can have sci-fi horror (e.g. Alien, Pitch Black), realistic horror (most serial killer stuff) and fantasy horror (the Exorcist etc.). From those three Event Horizon belongs mostly to the last one, but it of course would not be wrong to call it sci-fi horror or even just sci-fi, although I still feel that its main point is Horror (and moral Terror, which are your friends )

Or is one sci-fi and not the other? Sci-fi and fantasy tend to blend into each other at points, and ignoring that in favor of ironcladly defining one in favor of the other (since an ironclad definition of both would necessarily leave such intermediate works out in the cold) is something I am loath to do.

Ironclad definitions for literary or artistic genres are of course a fool's mission just like ironclad definitions of any words in natural languages. Dictionary definitions are necessarily always just descriptive and they can not restrict the development of language. We need definitions and classifications to discuss matters, but we should always realize that they are not exact nor should they be.

There is no particular reason, of course, why a work cannot be considered both sci-fi and fantasy. I will advance my own definitions here, but take note that they are not ironclad, and that they are fairly spur-of-the-moment. I would define fantasy as that branch of speculative fiction which focuses on mystical elements and creatures. Sci-fi is that branch that focuses on scientific elements and creatures. Alt-hist is that branch that focuses on the alteration of past events to determine the resulting changes within the past, present, or immediate future. These definitions are necessarily broad, and by this, Perdido Street Station is both sci-fi and fantasy (this is a good example of science fantasy, then), because what is space opera but not sci-fi? Yet it does not fit in with my initial definition of examining said elements. Thoughts on these definitions? Ultimately, they do rely somewhat on window dressings, but that is what makes, for example, a space western not a western; the alien gunfighter, the strange planet, and so on.

I think your definitions are quite usable for discussions about sci-fi and fantasy, which is as much as can be said of any definitions in natural language. Whether they will used by anyone as such is another matter. More likely is that they will be used or are already used in by people who understand them a bit differently...

[RedImperator]

I would put Star Wars firmly in science fantasy not just because of the Force, but because the triumph of the mystic over the technological is a strongly recurring theme, especially in the first movie. I mean, it's not like Lucas was being subtle about it--Luke turns off his targeting computer (paralleling Obi-Wan putting the blast visor over his eyes) and the Force guides him to the perfect shot, which destroys Tarkin's technological terror (fulfilling Darth Vader's warning; incidentally, the only villain to survive is a mystic--all the rest are technocrats who perish along with the Death Star). The whole sextillogy is about the rise, fall, and redemption of what amounts to a wizard with vast power and potential but a flawed heart. In fact, just to hammer the point home, Vader's fall is symbolized by the destruction of his body and his entombment in a mechanical suit, and his redemption is symbolized by the removal of his mask at the end of Jedi.

Honestly, you could set the whole thing in Middle Earth without changing very much. It's very much a fantastic story where the sci-fi setting is just a backdrop. It's an interesting backdrop, but it's secondary to Vader's arc.

[Bakustra]

*snip*

Well, I was more referring to the fact that the midi-chlorians seem to be something measurable with technology, which explains at least some aspects of the Force through means which are testable and not available just by the wielders of some arcane art, which is typical for magic and magical thinking. Of course the midi-chlorians do not explain the Force completely, but at least they imply that Force and Force effects are not completely unexplainable to those who dot not possess the mystic properties required from its users. Let it be noted that I know practically nothing about EU and how it handles the midi-chlorians and in the films the midi-chlorians get only a brief mention.

That makes sense. The actual debate over midichlorians is long and technical and this is about the more artistic, and thus subjective, aspects.

*snip*

Perhaps. For me it would be quite OK, since Stark is of course quite right that anything but strict hard sci-fi (which does exist but is not very common nowadays if it ever was) is "fantasy", i.e. fantastical. That applies especially well to almost all space opera with FTL etc. It's just that calling it all "fantasy" would not be practical. Then of course we have genres which most people do not include in sci-fi or fantasy simply because their literary tradition is separate from Anglo-saxon fantasy and science fiction, such as Latin American magical realism.

See, I have no problem at all with it either, I was just making a cheap shot, mainly because much of this debate in other contexts is used to try and kick Star Wars, in particular, and much of filmic sci-fi, out of the Sci-Fi Clubhouse. I would say that all but a small, small fraction of hard sci-fi would be fantastic, because it involves things that do not exist today, not just in the technological sense, such as habitats or fusion drives. I prefer speculative, now that I think about it, as a supergenre, because it avoids much of this confusion. I disagree about magical realism and other such genres. I think that they are not classified as sci-fi or fantasy because they are considered of literary merit, and therefore must be kept segregated from sci-fi/fantasy. I say that as a cynic with an axe to grind against certain aspects of literary theory, mind.

*snip*

Considering technology or technological speculation a sign of "real sci-fi" is much too limiting. Rather I would say that sci-fi is a "fantastical" story which does not include clearly working magical elements. "Magical" in this context means arcane knowledge accessible only to the selected people and a priori uncontrollable through technology, whether they are called magicians, shamans or even jedi.

I like it, but it would necessitate some shifting around of various works. Of course, any definition harder than gelatin will do this anyways.

*snip*

Judging from the tradition it belongs to Event Horizon is actually a horror film. It's primary purpose is to get an emotional fear response from the viewers. Of course you can have sci-fi horror (e.g. Alien, Pitch Black), realistic horror (most serial killer stuff) and fantasy horror (the Exorcist etc.). From those three Event Horizon belongs mostly to the last one, but it of course would not be wrong to call it sci-fi horror or even just sci-fi, although I still feel that its main point is Horror (and moral Terror, which are your friends )

That is another subject, for another time, but suffice to say that horror tends to verge into spec-fic much of the time, and that I am dissatisfied with the current approach to genre.

*snip*

Ironclad definitions for literary or artistic genres are of course a fool's mission just like ironclad definitions of any words in natural languages. Dictionary definitions are necessarily always just descriptive and they can not restrict the development of language. We need definitions and classifications to discuss matters, but we should always realize that they are not exact nor should they be.

Of course. I can always pull out ol' Perdido Street Station to defy most definitions of genre, but stretchy definitions are not necessarily bad definitions.

*snip me*

I think your definitions are quite usable for discussions about sci-fi and fantasy, which is as much as can be said of any definitions in natural language. Whether they will used by anyone as such is another matter. More likely is that they will be used or are already used in by people who understand them a bit differently...

Well, that is the peril with any definition, unless we invent a few words to fit our definitions.

I would put Star Wars firmly in science fantasy not just because of the Force, but because the triumph of the mystic over the technological is a strongly recurring theme, especially in the first movie. I mean, it's not like Lucas was being subtle about it--Luke turns off his targeting computer (paralleling Obi-Wan putting the blast visor over his eyes) and the Force guides him to the perfect shot, which destroys Tarkin's technological terror (fulfilling Darth Vader's warning; incidentally, the only villain to survive is a mystic--all the rest are technocrats who perish along with the Death Star). The whole sextillogy is about the rise, fall, and redemption of what amounts to a wizard with vast power and potential but a flawed heart. In fact, just to hammer the point home, Vader's fall is symbolized by the destruction of his body and his entombment in a mechanical suit, and his redemption is symbolized by the removal of his mask at the end of Jedi.

Honestly, you could set the whole thing in Middle Earth without changing very much. It's very much a fantastic story where the sci-fi setting is just a backdrop. It's an interesting backdrop, but it's secondary to Vader's arc.

See, I actually like this reasoning. I prefer space opera as a term, but there's no reason why it can't be both. Of course, I prefer to use science fantasy and space opera as subgenres of sci-fi, much like magical realism and urban fantasy are subgenres of fantasy proper.

In that case, I would like to create an alternate set of definitions, based on this.

Fantasy is the genre (a subset of speculative fiction) wherein the focus is upon the mystic outlook and mysticism.
Science Fiction is the genre wherein the focus is upon the rational outlook and reason/materialism.
Science Fantasy is the subgenre of fantasy which uses futuristic and technological settings to tell stories of a fantastic focus.
"Scooby-doo fantasy"/Fantastic Science (please think of a better name) is the subgenre of science fiction which uses a non-technological or historical setting to tell stories of a rationalistic focus.
Alternate History would then be the genre wherein the focus is upon the consequences of historical changes.
All of these rely upon speculation and the introduction of nonexistent elements. Note that this does not preclude the presence of magic as magic within sci-fi, as long as it is treated rationally. For that matter, you can easily have a fantasy story that lacks the supernatural altogether, as long as it relys on a mystic outlook and mysticism.

I don't necessarily prefer these definitions, but they do cover a broad spectrum, don't you think?

[Shroom Man 777]

Why do midi-chlorians make Star Wars science fiction instead of science fantasy?

I presume that Aurelius Caesar is using a definition of science fantasy that requires the magic be unexplained, or conversely that science fiction gives a cause for its magic. The midi-chlorians, assuming that they generate the Force, (which is a faulty assumption) would then be a biological cause for it. They do not, for various reasons, but let's ignore that for now, since the debate is over sci-fi versus fantasy.

Well, I was more referring to the fact that the midi-chlorians seem to be something measurable with technology, which explains at least some aspects of the Force through means which are testable and not available just by the wielders of some arcane art, which is typical for magic and magical thinking. Of course the midi-chlorians do not explain the Force completely, but at least they imply that Force and Force effects are not completely unexplainable to those who dot not possess the mystic properties required from its users. Let it be noted that I know practically nothing about EU and how it handles the midi-chlorians and in the films the midi-chlorians get only a brief mention.

Would Ghostbusters count as science-fiction because paranormal phenomenon and ghosts end up becoming measurable and quantifiable because of fictitious scientific instruments like ectoplasm meters and proton cannons?

[RedImperator]

Would Ghostbusters count as science-fiction because paranormal phenomenon and ghosts end up becoming measurable and quantifiable because of fictitious scientific instruments like ectoplasm meters and proton cannons?

I would. It's the opposite of the theme of Star Wars--the triumph of rational science over the supernatural. The Ghostbusters defeat one demigod and one extremely powerful ghost, plus a horde of lesser ghosts, entirely using science and technology. At no point do they ever resort to holy water or magic incantations or whatever to do their work, and knowledge of ghosts and how to defeat them comes from scientific study and instruments. It's not some mystic special knowledge that only the elect can know. Even Venkmann could learn it, if he ever studied.

[Gil Hamilton]

Man, we can quibble about whether or not Children of Men is science fiction or not, but seriously, do people actually think Revenge of the Sith is a better movie than it or Moon or some of the other candidates up there? It had tons of pew pew for sure, but a "Best Science Fiction Movie of the Decade"?