Upon further reflection, I can accept that the presence of alien life in a movie is sufficient to classify it as “science fiction” (and, by extension, I would say that “monster” movies in general would similarly qualify, even if the monsters are native Earth creatures). Thus, Aliens, Starship Troopers, and Total Recall get a pass. But that also opens up a whole bunch of other movies for possible inclusion (though maybe not; most monster movies really aren’t that good…). Of course, many such monsters are the product of science-gone-awry anyway, so fall neatly into the “science fiction” category.
Lost, I suppose, could fall into the category of “technological advances”, what with plane-destroying magnets and tree-smashing, soul-revealing smoke-tentacles and all. I’m still at a loss for Brazil, though. If Brazil, then surely 1984 (as well as the more recent V for Vendetta) would qualify (though, admittedly, I haven’t seen the movie so can’t verify its worth among the so-called “best”. But I can’t imagine it being worse than, say, Heroes). But neither really require much in the way of technological advances to become reality.
But how far into the future? If I set a movie in 2010, but have it otherwise be a “normal” drama (that is, one that doesn’t require it to be in any partilcular place or time), then can it really be considered “science fiction” by your definition?
As for “alternate histories”, would that include “alternate universes”, as well? Because then Road House would have to be included (as the events portrayed within could not possibly happen in our own universe)!
I’m surprised there’s any question about V for Vendetta being science fiction. After all…
the story is about a genetically engineered superhuman overthrowing a regime that established itself by staging “terrorist” attacks using manufactured pathogens.
As for Brazil and 1984, well, sociology is a science, isn’t it?
I am not comfortable with labeling Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as science-fiction. I see the connection, but the movie strikes me as one that simply uses technology as a tool to present a poetic story-telling. The technology has a central part, but I think it’s very downplayed in favor to the relationship between Carrey and Winslet.
Basically you’re saying that science fiction, as a genre, can not possibly be poetic or have a storyline centered around a relationship between two characters. I can not possibly disagree with this any more vehemently. It’s gone beyond “wrong” to a new word that hasn’t been coined yet.
I didn’t know that people considered Children of Men at all, let alone overrated. I hadn’t even heard of the movie until a friend of mine brought it to my house. I was totally unprepared for one of the most intensely powerful movie experiences of my life.
It’s not like cactus waltz has invented that thinking. It’s a thought pattern I’ve encountered before.
The best example I can think off the top of my head was a debate here on the Dope where a poster maintained that Flowers for Algernon wasn’t really SF. In spite of the fact that:
[ul]
[li]The story depended upon a fictional medical development that was beyond the abilities of the science of the day, and still is beyond the ability of today’s medicine. [/li][li]The story was written by an author who had worked as an editor of an SF magazine and written for many of the other SF rags.[/li][li]The story first appeared in an SF magazine. [/li][/ul]
FTM it can be frustrating to read the amateur reviews of works written by non-genre writers who are tackling an idea in the general area of SF. Consider the recent novel The Time Traveller’s Wife. The last time I looked at the reviews on Amazon for that book a large number of them were seeking to reassure their audiences that this great book wasn’t really SF. :rolleyes: ETA: I except professional reviews, since most of the time I find those to be completely effing useless, anyways.
I’ve stopped fighting the battle, to be honest. It’s not worth the aggravation. (Of course seeing/hearing that argument from someone does usually leave me less than impressed with their reasoning abilities. And their ability to rise above stereotypes.)
That is not what I’m saying. For example, I experienced 2001: A space odyssey as both a poetic movie and a science-fiction piece. No doubt about it. What I’m saying though, is that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind presents the story in such a way that the technical reasoning feels pretty uninteresting, it’s just there in order to tell the story. I felt the same way about John Malkovich and Adaptation too.
Your reasoning pretty much eliminates most of the greats of science fiction. No Bradbury, Asimov, Heinlein, Campbell… let me strike that, you eliminate most science fiction period. Your category would include Robert Forward and a few others. Maybe half a book shelf.
Interestingly, this thread is the first indication I’ve had that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was a science fiction film. It has a title that screams “chick flick” or “feel-good movie”, and so it didn’t capture my interest. And since I don’t watch TV, I didn’t see any commercials to set me straight.
What you’re saying is that the science or technology of the story has to be a kind of central central character in and of itself. This was, I think, a pretty standard definition of sc-fi through through the 1950s and maybe even the the 60s.
After that, you can flip a coin. Did sci-fi expand itself to include more examination of society and psychology as influenced by sciene and technology? Or did other literary forms expand themselves due to a greater realization of the impact of science and technology on the human condition?
I don’t think it’s necessary to claim a particular piece of work as definitively sci-fi or something else. Those divisions are a result of niche marketing strategies by publishers. We can argue forever whether some particular book is sci-fi or not, but to what end? Is Tom Clancy is a scif-fi writer because he makes up some weapons systems that don’t exist yet, or just a big-name-no-talent techno-thriller hack? Ok, bad example, we all know he’s a hack.
Yes. This is why I’m not a big person of genres myself.
And I’m aware of the fact that sci-fi novels can have poetic touches as well as regular fiction can have sci-fi touches (‘Slaughterhouse 5’ comes to mind). However, I still personally feel that a true sci-fi title should have a dominant technologic characteristic, and I didn’t feel Eternal… had that. Michel Gondry is first and foremost an playful imaginator.
I have to say that sounds contradictory to me. You’re not a “big person of genres” but there is a “true” sci-fi. It seems to me you are insisting on genres, though not necessarily more than Loach. Your definitions simply differ.
It’s Science Fiction, not Technology Fiction. There are plenty of stories in which technology plays no role, and an extire class – “soft” Science Fiction – in which the focus is on non-tech sciences.
Ben Bova had what he called “The Hat Test” when he was editing Analog. If you can change the Hat without changing the essential story – make it from a Space Opera to a Western simply by flipping a few adjectives (“Outland”, anyone?), then it’s not really science fiction. But if you can’t pull that trick, if the science is essential to the story, then you definitely had Science Fiction.
I haven’t seen Eternal Sunshine, but it sounds like it fits under this definition. So does Creator. I’m pretty liberal – I’d even acceot utland, although saying that it’s clumsily bad science fiction.
Any list that doesn’t include 2001 Space Oddessy on it’s list is insane.
And no Star Wars movies from the original trio, but includes Clone Wars?
Insane.
Blade Runner, beeatches!
