The Best Movies Ever (Sci-Fi)

[Hawkfrost000]

here is a thread for discussion about what the top 10 movies of all time in the science fiction category are.

i nominate Stargate for the following

Won Saturn Award for "Best Science Fiction Film"
Won BMI Film Music Award (David Arnold)
Won Golden Screen
Won Universe Reader's Choice Award for "Best Science Fiction Film"
Won Universe Reader's Choice Award for "Best Special Effects in a Genre Motion Picture" (Jeffrey A. Okun)
Won Universe Reader's Choice Award for "Best Supporting Actress in a Genre Motion Picture" (Mili Avital)

it is a really good movie, there are many small technical problems but you dont notice many of them unless you are actively scanning for them, they dont detract from the movie. the special effects are magnificent and the plot is quite good.

DM

[Corvus]

There is and can be only one.

Bladerunner.

[Flame of Anor]

There is and can be only one.

Bladerunner.

Nice try, but 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best sci-fi movie ever.

[comicshorse]

Alien for Number 1

[Hawkfrost000]

i am going for the top 10 in no particular order. if you could give some reasons (awards and/or a description of the movie and why it was good) that would be great.

those two are defiantly up there.

anyone else?

DM

[The Glyphstone]

Nice try, but 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best sci-fi movie ever.

Imma really happy for you, and imma let you finish, but Plan Nine From Outer Space was the greatest sci-fi movie of all time. Of all time!:smallcool:

[Psyren]

*someone suggests Star Wars*
*someone calls it out for not being sci-fi*
*debate ensues, wikipedia is linked*

[Sneak]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Prestige.

Neither are "traditional" scifi, but they are both science fiction and both amazing.

Also, Galaxy Quest.

[Dr.Epic]

Also, Galaxy Quest.

Please tell me that was a joke or I'll suggest Space Mutiny.

Also, yeah, the original Star Wars trilogy. You can put them all in one slot to save space, but those three films are some of the best examples of sci-fi (or movies in general).

[warty goblin]

District 9 should have a spot somewhere on the list. Damn that's a good movie.

[FenrirX]

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.
Best. Movie. Ever.

[Dienekes]

Please tell me that was a joke or I'll suggest Space Mutiny.

What? Galaxy Quests a great movie, I think of it more of a parody/comedy than sci-fi but it is a parody of the sci-fi genre so, whaddaya gonna do.

Anyhow, Terminator 2, Aliens, Back to the Future, Children of Men, the Day the Earth Stood Still (the original), Planet of the Apes (original), Jurassic Park, A Clockwork Orange, The Thing, Brazil, 2001, are my list of best sci-fi no specific order.

Honorable mentions discarded for various reasons: Wrath of Khan, Inception, Terminator, Alien, Predator, Serenity, Empire Strikes Back, District 9, Gattaca, Young Frankenstein.

[Innis Cabal]

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.
Best. Movie. Ever.

Isn't. Sci-fi.

[Psyren]

Inception was my favorite. (Hey, psychology is a science!)

[The Vorpal Tribble]

The Fountain (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/)

Beautiful film. All-star cast even. Yet so few seem to know of it, and fewer appreciated it.

[raitalin]

Best "Sci-fi" that's only sort of Sci-fi: Star Wars (series)
HM: Back to the Future

While neither series deals with the central themes of science fiction, both have a passing resemblance to science fiction. Star Wars wins on shear star-warsiness.

Best cerebral Sci-Fi: Moon
HM: 2001

While 2001 is the granddaddy of the group, Moon feels like a simple, classic SF short story put to film and executed perfectly.

Best Action Sci-fi: Star Trek (2009)
HM: The Matrix

The Matrix was awesome, but has already gotten dated. The new Star Trek movie took action movies in general to a new level.

Best Post-apocalyptic Sci-fi: Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior
HM: A Boy and His Dog

While ABAHD has one of the best endings in movie history, MM2 does a great job of taking you into the wastes with every aspect of the film. Tough group. The Road and The Book of Eli could also vie for this spot.

Best Sci-fi Noir: Blade Runner
HM: Strange Days

Strange Days is a great flick, but everything falls to Bladerunner in this group.

Best Sci-fi horror: Terminator
HM: Cube

Cube is great, especially for essentially being filmed in 1 room, but Arnold's unstoppable Terminator is the only movie monster that ever frightened me.

Best Super-hero movie: The Dark Knight
HM: The Incredibles

I could go either way with this, but the Dark Knight is a more ambitious movie and doesn't fail at doing so.

Best Sci-fi B Movie: Them!
HM: Plan 9 from Outer Space.

While Plan 9 is certainly the King of So Bad Its Good, Them! is actually a decent flick.

Best Alien Movie: Aliens
HM: District 9

Aliens has simply left a bigger mark, and personifies everything we fear about extra-terrestrials

[Klose_the_Sith]

My favourite Sci-Fi movie would probably be Event Horizon :smallbiggrin:

[Hawkfrost000]

{Scrubbed}

[An Enemy Spy]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's spelled Trek

[warty goblin]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Right, because heaven forbid a franchise changes over forty odd years.




the matrix essentially invented Cyberpunk, correct me if im wrong but didnt Neuromancer and all that William Gibson stuff come after the matrix?

DM
Er, no. Neuromancer came out fifteen years before the first Matrix movie, and is generally considered the beginnings of Cyberpunk. Dark City was released in 1998, and did pretty much all the stuff the Matrix did (including the revolving camera shots), but with actual actors and less pseudo-deep religious references.

I'm not really sure what you could claim the Matrix did invent.

[Hawkfrost000]

it is still a gorgeous movie that did things that no one else has done even today.

[Illieas]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

no it was predated from other works. for example one of the big inspirations to matrix is the anime movie Ghost in a Shell , which of course is also cyberpunk.

Blade Runner is the oldest movie i know that created cyberpunk.

[raitalin]

Yeah, The Matrix is more like the end of the Cyberpunk genre than the beginning of it.

And yes Star Trek changed, largely for the better. Maybe now more than half the movies will be watchable.

[Hawkfrost000]

And yes Star Trek changed, largely for the better. Maybe now more than half the movies will be watchable.

the Wrath of Khan was still the best by far, "and i shall always be your friend" *wipes away tear*

DM

[Dienekes]

And yes Star Trek changed, largely for the better. Maybe now more than half the movies will be watchable.

Ehh, I'm not much of a Trekkie, but even so, I gotta say the new Star Trek isn't really so great. Ok it is enjoyable, I had fun watching it. But took action movies to a new level? It did not. It was a decent romp, and a way to revitalize the franchise, but nothing there was really new or special. Well except the odd and out of place growing hands comedy, I have not seen that before.

Still worlds better than Star Trek 1, 5, and Nemesis though.

[turkishproverb]

Movie?

The Day the Earth Stood Still. The good one, not the crappy new one.

or maybe Metropolis (aka the first Cyberpunk)


Please tell me that was a joke or I'll suggest Space Mutiny.

What is wrong with you? Galaxy quest was the best Star Trek Movie, and the second best movie Star Trek produced (Best being Wrath of Kahn)


Ehh, I'm not much of a Trekkie, but even so, I gotta say the new Star Trek isn't really so great. Ok it is enjoyable, I had fun watching it. But took action movies to a new level? It did not. It was a decent romp, and a way to revitalize the franchise, but nothing there was really new or special. Well except the odd and out of place growing hands comedy, I have not seen that before.

Still worlds better than Star Trek 1, 5, and Nemesis though.

Gotta be better than insurrection. When you're supposed to side with the evil people because they're "pretty" there is a problem.

EDIT: We're leaving out some big foreign flicks. Maybe Tetsuo: the Iron man, or Akira.

A major one is Ghost in the Shell.

[factotum]

I'm not really sure what you could claim the Matrix did invent.

A role that Keanu Reeves was good in? :smallsmile:

[turkishproverb]

A role that Keanu Reeves was good in? :smallsmile:

Nope. Ever see Bill and Tedd?

[GenericGuy]

Nope. Ever see Bill and Tedd?

When you’re actually from San Dimas and attended San Dimas High School its mandatory:smalltongue:.

[The Glyphstone]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Prestige.

Neither are "traditional" scifi, but they are both science fiction and both amazing.

Also, Galaxy Quest.

I almost nominated The Prestige, but figured it wouldn't be sci-fi.

Galaxy Quest is a winner though.

[sentaku]

Isn't. Sci-fi.

Well the story presented in Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog might not seem to categorized as science fiction this is not the case. Traditionally science fiction depicts science and technology and thus those who practice science in a positive light. Even when the antagonist is technologically itself, such as the case of the Matrix or Battlestar Galactica, the protagonist have no issues with using technology themselves. Dr Horrible however inverts this creating a society in which science is evil and being a scientist makes one a villain. Hero's seek to destroy all technology not knowing how it works. In fact it is Captain Hammer attempt to use technology that causes his defeat in the end along with death of Penny.

[Ravens_cry]

Um, yeah. Science Fiction is more then Ray Guns and V2 shaped spaceships. Yes, much early science fiction presented science in a positive light, but much didn't as well. Think of Frankenstein, or R.U.R. or, to a certain degree, 2001. Science Fiction not liking what science has wrought is as old as Science Fiction. Older in fact, with myths of humans being struck down for the crime of Hubris being as old as humanity.

[turkishproverb]

ONce again, : Metropolis. Dark, dark, dark. But no one would say it wasn't scifi.

[Southern Cross]

I am now going to mention ten SF movies that nobody else has.
The first being Forbidden Planet. The best of all the 50's American B-movies,the fact that I am the first to mention it should shame you all.
Another movie that I have to mention is Green Lantern:First Flight.If anything is a sci-fi movie,this is.Hell, most of the action takes place in outer space!
Of course,if we're counting animated movies,we have to count in The Iron Giant as well. I must have been one of the few people smart enough to see this at the theater.
For realistic SF I have to mention The Andromeda Strain. If all you've only seen the first Star Trek movie out of all Robert Wise's works you need to see this,if only to see how good a director he really was.
And of course I have to include George Pal's version of War of the Worlds, plus the original Thing from Another World. Both were (and still are) great movies.
I also recommend Earth vs. The Flying Saucers,if largely for Ray Harryhausen's wonderful special effects. Ray's work literally defined the movie "flying saucer".
I also have to recommend the original Godzilla (even the Americanized version is an above-average monster movie).
Jack Arnold's It Came From Outer Space also counts as a classic SF movie-hell the original script was written by Ray Bradbury!
And if TV adaptations are counted, Quatermass and The Pit HAS to be included.

[Athaniar]

Let's see if I can come up with a list (not in order, though, except for the first, which is #1). I also have a pretty loose definition of sci-fi. Also, this list is subject to change.

Avatar. Yes, I love everything about it. Yes, even the plot. No, you can't convince me I actually don't like it.

Starship Troopers. It's pretty awesome.

Star Wars (the original trilogy). Yeah, I'll count all these as one movie so I can fit as many as possible.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Still the best in the franchise.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. A close second.

Terminator II: Judgement Day. What's not to love? OK, maybe John Connor, but it's still an awesome film.

The Matrix. Also awesome sci-fi action, in a pretty unusual setting.

Aliens. Best installment in the franchise, and the last good one.

Stargate. I have to agree on this one.

Iron Man. One of my favorite superhero movies.


Honorable mentions:
Alien, Back to the Future, Flash Gordon, Galaxy Quest, Iron Man 2, Jurassic Park, Spider-Man, Star Trek (2009), Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Nemesis, Predator, Star Wars I, II, and III, Superman, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, Terminator, War of the World (original film), X-Men.

Not included even though others have included it:
The Dark Knight. Probably my #2 favorite film, but I don't really feel it has any notable sci-fi elements besides a few of Batman's gadgets.

[leakingpen]

First off, about the matrix. It was ripoff through and through. The robot war, and the use of humans as batteries, was done a dozen times in 50's and 60's pulp stories.

In addition, besides Gibson (the person that the Gibson computer in Hackers was named after), let us not forget Shadowrun! An rpg series, and book series, from the 80's, in which a computer network existed that you "jacked into" by inserting a plug into an implant in your head, walked around in a cyperscape where an image of you represented you, and it was called..... THE MATRIX!


Best Sci Fi movie ever? Andromeda Strain. Not the recent remake, the one from the early 80's. Great use of science, excellent representation of how computers were actually used then, awesome sense of the dramatic. I honestly enjoyed the movie more than the book, and I LOVED the book.

[Hawkfrost000]

Avatar. Yes, I love everything about it. Yes, even the plot. No, you can't convince me I actually don't like it.

Starship Troopers. It's pretty awesome.

Star Wars (the original trilogy). Yeah, I'll count all these as one movie so I can fit as many as possible.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Still the best in the franchise.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. A close second.

Terminator II: Judgement Day. What's not to love? OK, maybe John Connor, but it's still an awesome film.

The Matrix. Also awesome sci-fi action, in a pretty unusual setting.

Aliens. Best installment in the franchise, and the last good one.

Stargate. I have to agree on this one.

Iron Man. One of my favorite superhero movies.

i agree with most of these, i have seen avatar 3 times and it was still good. to me that is the mark of a good movie.

the one i have to object too is Starship Troopers, not because it wasnt that good of a movie (it was good) but because it raped the book so badly. it turned what to me is one of the best anti war novels in history into a cheap SyFy flick (i mean SyFy in the worst possible way):smallannoyed:

DM

[The Big Dice]

In addition, besides Gibson (the person that the Gibson computer in Hackers was named after), let us not forget Shadowrun! An rpg series, and book series, from the 80's, in which a computer network existed that you "jacked into" by inserting a plug into an implant in your head, walked around in a cyperscape where an image of you represented you, and it was called..... THE MATRIX!
I'm moderately sure that Cyberpunk 2013 came before Shadowrun. BUt the MAtrix really ripped off Doctor Who (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/deadlyassassin/).

[leakingpen]

Hmm, had not heard of cyberpunk 2013, but yeah, looks like it released in late 88, and Shadowrun released in early 89. Corporate espionage?

[Jyrnn]

I offer Children of Men as at least on honorable mention.

[The Big Dice]

Hmm, had not heard of cyberpunk 2013, but yeah, looks like it released in late 88, and Shadowrun released in early 89. Corporate espionage?

Zeitgeist.

[Susano-wo]

Imma really happy for you, and imma let you finish, but Plan Nine From Outer Space was the greatest sci-fi movie of all time. Of all time!:smallcool:

Since all of the good Sci Fi I can think of have been mentioned,(and yeah, as a Genre, Star Wars and Star Trek do not qualify--as well as a host of other X...in Space! shows. To be science fiction, your concern for actual science, even if theoretical has to be paramount to other concerns, or at least equal), I'm jsut going to say that you win the thread, Glyphstone

[Athaniar]

i agree with most of these, i have seen avatar 3 times and it was still good. to me that is the mark of a good movie.

the one i have to object too is Starship Troopers, not because it wasnt that good of a movie (it was good) but because it raped the book so badly. it turned what to me is one of the best anti war novels in history into a cheap SyFy flick (i mean SyFy in the worst possible way):smallannoyed:

DM
If I understand it correctly, the movie was intentionally made as a parody of the book. I haven't read the book, though, so I can't really judge for myself.

[comicshorse]

The book is indeed very jingoistic and pro-military. The director grew up in Holland during WW2 and has a decidely different view on the military than Heinlien. In fact I believe some of the propaganda clips in the movie deliberately parody some Nazi propaganda movies

[Tengu_temp]

Yeah, Heinlein never wrote anything anti-war in his life.

Does Apollo 13 count as a sci-fi movie? It is an epic tale about a space mission, after all. Even if it's based on real life events. And I don't mean loosely based, I mean very close to what really happened and well-researched.

[Susano-wo]

Yeah, Heinlein never wrote anything anti-war in his life.

Does Apollo 13 count as a sci-fi movie? It is an epic tale about a space mission, after all. Even if it's based on real life events. And I don't mean loosely based, I mean very close to what really happened and well-researched.

I think it fails the fiction part. But it was an enjoyable movei :P

[hamishspence]

Yeah, Heinlein never wrote anything anti-war in his life.

But (at least early on) he did write novels which emphasised that wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

For Us, The Living, most notably. Though it didn't get published till after his death.

[Ravens_cry]

I think it fails the fiction part. But it was an enjoyable movei :P

Some parts were fictional, with Fred Haise work in the simulator being a composite of several people efforts. The part where the ring fell off Mrs. Lovell's finger, that was true, some of the arguments in the LM, less so.
Still, I agree, a truly inspiring movie of human courage and achievement based very closely on something that actually happened. Read the book, it's goes into much more detail.

[leakingpen]

Honestly, EVERYTHING Heinlein wrote was, anti war as much as possible, but if you GOTTA, go in swinging and win.

A good chunk of starship troopers was very much about the dangers of dehumanizing your opponent in war, and thus dehumanizing yourself.

[hamishspence]

Honestly, EVERYTHING Heinlein wrote was, anti war as much as possible, but if you GOTTA, go in swinging and win.

A good chunk of starship troopers was very much about the dangers of dehumanizing your opponent in war, and thus dehumanizing yourself.

On whether the Bugs had to be killed outright, or whether it was possible to simply beat them and impose peace, the statement was:

"We did not know" - and it goes on to emphasise how little they understand Bug psychology- and that's why they're trying to take prisoners from the higher castes. To find an answer to that question.

[magellan]

How did it happen that this is the 2nd page of this thread and I am the first one to mention Darkstar?

[Eldan]

I'd like to give a honourable mention to The Other Good Philip K. Unmentionable Movie (tm): A Scanner Darkly. As opposed to Blade Runner, it actually captures all of the weird drug and mental illness themes the author liked to include in his stories. Also, one of the few movies where Keanu Reeves actually fits the role he plays.

[Ravens_cry]

I'd like to give a honourable mention to The Other Good Philip K. Unmentionable Movie (tm): A Scanner Darkly. As opposed to Blade Runner, it actually captures all of the weird drug and mental illness themes the author liked to include in his stories. Also, one of the few movies where Keanu Reeves actually fits the role he plays.
Yes, and it was a noble experiment. I still think it failed as a movie. The main conceit, the suit, really made no sense. The idea that person decked out like that couldn't be tracked by surveillance struck me as patently ridiculous. And even if you suspend disbelief enough to allow it, it still wouldn't hide that much. Build, stride, gait, height, tics, all are still there, all at least distinctive enough to at least narrow down it down among the inhabitants of the house. And smell, god smell would be exactly the same. No one heard of dogs? The idea that it would provide any kind of anonymity felt down right silly to me.

Maybe not so much in the book, I've never read it, but in the movie, where it was trying to show it?
It failed for me.
Like I said, it was a noble experiment.

[Eldan]

Actually, I managed that disbelief suspension, so I really liked the movie. Didn't even think of it, really, until you mentioned it now. I guess I thought they just covered everything.

[Ravens_cry]

Actually, I managed that disbelief suspension, so I really liked the movie. Didn't even think of it, really, until you mentioned it now. I guess I thought they just covered everything.
Well, the basic story didn't interest me personally that much, so I guess my brain latched on that and started pulling it apart, tugging at the seams.

[Syka]

I don't remember anything about the plot to A Scanner Darkly. I spent the movie trying to get my bearings and within half an hour I had a major headache. Rotoscoping was just a Bad Idea for a full length movie. :smalleek::smalleek: I have the poster, though. Picked it up for free when we discarded a bunch of posters at my old job (got Serenity at the same time).

For best Sci-fi...I dunno. I've seen a lot of really good stuff. I think District 9 gave me the most enjoyment. It was just so...well done. All around.

[Thrawn183]

Nice try, but 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best sci-fi movie ever.

Oh hey, I guess it's opposite day.

[Ravens_cry]

Oh hey, I guess it's opposite day.
Don't be so uncouth. Even though you disagree, there are better ways to say that.

[averagejoe]

I don't remember anything about the plot to A Scanner Darkly. I spent the movie trying to get my bearings and within half an hour I had a major headache. Rotoscoping was just a Bad Idea for a full length movie. :smalleek::smalleek: I have the poster, though. Picked it up for free when we discarded a bunch of posters at my old job (got Serenity at the same time).

Yeah, that movie was very Philip K. Dickish. I've never read that book, but there were lines in the movie where I was like, "That probably came straight from the book." Which is why, I think, Blade Runner was the better adaptation. It was an adaptation and not just an attempt to do the same thing on film. I'd go so far as to say Blade Runner is the best adaptation I've ever seen, since it managed to capture the idea of its source without just trying to do what the book already did better.

Best Sci Fi movie? It hasn't come out, but this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBBw9E2Q_aY)

[Syka]

Yeah, that movie was very Philip K. Dickish. I've never read that book, but there were lines in the movie where I was like, "That probably came straight from the book." Which is why, I think, Blade Runner was the better adaptation. It was an adaptation and not just an attempt to do the same thing on film. I'd go so far as to say Blade Runner is the best adaptation I've ever seen, since it managed to capture the idea of its source without just trying to do what the book already did better.

Best Sci Fi movie? It hasn't come out, but this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBBw9E2Q_aY)

I more meant that I couldn't pay attention to the movie because the filming style made it so darn hard for me to watch it for any length of time without a headache. >> Even Cloverfield didn't do that to me.

[FoeHammer]

Two words: Dark City.

[SaintRidley]

I more meant that I couldn't pay attention to the movie because the filming style made it so darn hard for me to watch it for any length of time without a headache. >> Even Cloverfield didn't do that to me.

If you're up for giving the film style another shot, I recommend [REC]. Best use of the first-person handycam in a movie I've ever seen, and a delightful little terror to boot.



Seconding Event Horizon.

[Samurai Jill]

Also, yeah, the original Star Wars trilogy. You can put them all in one slot to save space, but those three films are some of the best examples of sci-fi (or movies in general).
I still don't see what the fuss about Star Wars was. The dialogue was cheesy, the acting was mediocre, the twists were predictable, the characters were hackneyed, the comedy was flat, the premise was silly, the message was inane, and nothing about it made sense. (Also, Lightsabers are retarded and Darth Vader looks like he's sucking on a lemon.)

It's also not science fiction. It's practically anti science-fiction. "Don't be too proud of this technological terror"? "Luke, why have you turned off your guidance computer"? If Star Wars has an underlying theme, it would be something like "feelinz are bettar than logik!"

I can kinda see what people are getting at in The Empire Strikes Back and parts of Return of the Jedi, though.

Yeah, The Matrix is more like the end of the Cyberpunk genre than the beginning of it.
In order for it to be Cyberpunk, The Matrix would first have to bear some loose resemblance to science fiction. Problem is, it's got this big gaping hole where the logical premise ought to be.

The Fountain (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/)

Beautiful film. All-star cast even. Yet so few seem to know of it, and fewer appreciated it.
I really really really liked the Fountain, but I'd incline to classify it as fantasy, and fairly abstract, symbolic fantasy at that. Trying to make literal sense out of it will do irreparable harm to any healthy brain.

Ehh, I'm not much of a Trekkie, but even so, I gotta say the new Star Trek isn't really so great. Ok it is enjoyable, I had fun watching it. But took action movies to a new level? It did not. It was a decent romp, and a way to revitalize the franchise, but nothing there was really new or special. Well except the odd and out of place growing hands comedy, I have not seen that before.

Still worlds better than Star Trek 1, 5, and Nemesis though.
I really enjoyed the new Star Trek flick as a big dumb action romp, though Gods' know it barely qualifies as sci-fi.

...I actually really liked Star Trek 1, though in retrospect I can appreciate why audiences might be turned off by a film that has wooden dialogue, almost no character development, and nothing happening for the first 45 minutes. Weirdly enough, I'm willing to put up with all this if the basic concept is interesting.

Yes, and it was a noble experiment. I still think it failed as a movie. The main conceit, the suit, really made no sense.
I found this conceit remarkably easy to swallow compared with, say, an endless parade of 'alien' races nigh-identical to humans on both physical and cognitive terms.

I really like A Scanner Darkly, but I think it was a little hard to follow for most audiences. In particular, I think critics misinterpreted the ending as a defeatist downer, when the last line indicates more of a costly victory.


District 9 was a lot of fun, even if it never really explains why this mysterious fluid can both power starships AND wholly reconfigure adult human morphology. Iron Giant was awesome. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Forbidden Planet also good. Yes, the Prestige counts as sci-fi. And Children of Men was great.

[turkishproverb]

Samurai Jill-You might want to expand your definition of science fiction. Even Hard-Scifi's traditional definition would be far too broad for your attitudes.

[Samurai Jill]

Samurai Jill-You might want to expand your definition of science fiction. Even Hard-Scifi's traditional definition would be far too broad for your attitudes.
I'm aware that I'm being picky here, and then even 'Hard' SF authors like Asimov tended to fall back on psychic powers and the like, but I don't see any pressing need to readjust my definition. I'm not claiming non-SF is somehow bad or inferior, I just don't see the point to calling something science fiction when science has essentially zero involvement. Call it fantasy and be honest about it. You'll have more freedom and fewer complaints.

[turkishproverb]

I'm aware that I'm being picky here, and then even 'Hard' SF authors like Asimov tended to fall back on psychic powers and the like, but I don't see any pressing need to readjust my definition. I'm not claiming non-SF is somehow bad or inferior, I just don't see the point to calling something science fiction when science has essentially zero involvement. Call it fantasy and be honest about it. You'll have more freedom and fewer complaints.

I'm just saying that what you're calling scifi is a narrower definition than I've seen from most people well educated in the genre. Stylistically, scifi has never had a listed requirements you mention (especially not those of good dialog, or good jokes (or any jokes) or anything similar.)

Your comment on star wars theme, while...amusing...was a bit of a misnomer. Most anything can be made to sound cliche or just plain bad when summed up with the right words. For example:

A German nobleman brings back the dead by shooting them with lighting, and decides it was a bad idea."

Frankenstein, considered by many experts to be one of the early forerunners of modern science fiction.

Particularly strange are your...odd thematic limitations, which don't run well with the origins of the genre in some cases. Mind you, "science" has rarely been the major theme of most great "science fiction".


Heck, you just made a somewhat humerus attack on a potential thematic element to star wars, when said element actually IS a central theme of one of the first scifi films ever made-Metropolis, wherein the characters learn that human love and compassion, not technology, is needed to stop violence and bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

In other words


feelinz are bettar than logik

Further, your definition becomes even less clear when you apply it to the SF term, rather than Scifi or Science Fiction, due to the secondary coopts of that term in literary usage (such as the term "speculative fiction").

To say nothing of the interesting problem you'd have with most fantasy scholars trying to place some works you bring up into that arena...

I respect you having an opinion (and frankly you seem a deep enough thinker i'm enjoying it), but words do, to one degree or another have meanings, and the mere fact they don't mean what we want, or in some cases what their etymology would suggest, does not mean it's appropriate to use them as such.

[Samurai Jill]

Your comment on star wars theme, while...amusing...was a bit of a misnomer. Most anything can be made to sound cliche or just plain bad when summed up with the right words...
I consider Star Wars to be bad/cliché because of the precise reasons I listed, not because of it's theme. I consider it to be not-SF because it has nothing to do with science, not because of the acting, dialogue, etc.

Heck, you just made a somewhat humerus attack on a potential thematic element to star wars, when said element actually IS a central theme of one of the first scifi films ever made-Metropolis, wherein the characters learn that human love and compassion, not technology, is needed to stop violence and bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.
Yes, except that it demonstrates it without breaking logic, as opposed to essentially invoking magic. (Magic being, I would contend, the hallmark of fantasy. Even when that magic is quite subtle, such as recreating human cultures by complete coincidence in a non-Earth environment.)

Now, I can agree that Metropolis has an underlying theme as a cautionary tale about the dangers of technology trumping compassion, but it's at least acknowledging technology as something important. In Star Wars, technology is either irrelevant or actively marginalised- Yes, even the Death Star. That's sorta the point.

I'm not saying science fiction is equivalent to 'based on technology.' I don't know how to characterise the genre except as 'speculation based on the large-scale extension of known, generalised, fundamental principles of the real world.' In other words, speculation based on, or at least compatible with, science- the fundamental principles of the real world.

I'll try to give a few examples. I consider the Warp Drive/FTL Drive to be science fiction because it doesn't break relativity per se, but instead tries to work around it (by distorting spacetime itself rather than moving across it, or taking 'shortcuts' through higher dimensions.) We don't have the technology to do this today with anything resembling adequate efficiency, but I'm prepared to believe that might change in the future. (After all, in ancient times, iron was often worth more than it's weight in silver- maybe the same thing will happen with antimatter prices.)

By contrast, the Matrix concept of an army of robots powered by human heat emissions is simultaneously invoking thermodynamics and then making it sob quietly to itself in the shower. (That, and thermodynamics being, like, the single most fundamental scientific law in existence. Seriously. You'll disprove gravity sooner than find a loophole here.) This is something that anyone should be vaguely aware of, given the existence of things like the 'food chain'.

I considered Avatar to be mostly science fiction because, although it does involve things that are basically stupid-unlikely, they're also surprisingly non-plot-critical. No, you cannot have floating mountains, but you can replace those with regular mountains and they'll work just fine for the purpose. No, you cannot have precisely humanoid races evolving on another planet, but even if they had 4 eyes and six legs it's not inconceivable they'd be beyond sympathy. And it does make a reasonable effort to explain things like Eywa (a vegetable neural net) or Avatar drivers (basically telepresence.) I'm really not all that hard to please. I am prepared to meet this stuff halfway.

I would consider Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind to be science fiction, because it brings in a loosely-scientifically-plausible concept in an interesting way, even though it's not really about the science at all- it's largely a character drama. Drama, by itself, I don't think qualifies, but I'll include drama in an environment with sci-fi/futuristic elements that don't actively break the known laws of physics.

I would consider Firefly to be science fiction- and relatively 'hard' SF at that. I've never understood why most critics were repulsed by the 'wild west in space' incongruity- I mean, compared with the liberties most sci-fi takes, this was a very minor detail. (I mean, you could replace the period costumes with whatever the starfleet equivalent of britches and dungarees would be and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the plot.)

(Yes, Psychic powers are a stretch, but it seems SF can get away with this if it makes some effort to explain/limit it's capabilities, given that we don't yet fully understand how the brain works. It'll be considered magic in another 50 years.)

I don't think BSG can be strictly considered science fiction, particularly once Angels became an all-purpose substitute for treknobabble. It was always pretty allegorical in emphasis, but Ron Moore should take note that if you want your series to have an overarching, cogent plotline, then you need to actually write one. Like, in advance. Because it's not going to turn up by accident. (Luuurved the first two seasons, though.)

...Anyway. End Rant.

I respect you having an opinion (and frankly you seem a deep enough thinker i'm enjoying it), but words do, to one degree or another have meanings, and the mere fact they don't mean what we want, or in some cases what their etymology would suggest, does not mean it's appropriate to use them as such.
I do understand that people enjoy these films for a whole variety of reasons that have very little to do with scientific plausibility, and might enjoy the 'ambience' of SF (e.g, laser guns, robots, spaceships and aliens) without caring about their logical premises, and I'm not saying they should have to.

I just don't think there's much of a purpose to having distinct words when their underlying concepts are so indistinct as to be meaningless. If the pseudo-philosophical gibberish of the Wachowski Brothers or the Escheresque contortions of The Fountain can qualify as science fiction, then for heaven's sake, what can't?

[Brewdude]

then for heaven's sake, what can't?

Mystery
Historical
Spy
Slice of Life
Crime Procedural
Heist
Westerns
...to name a few

[Susano-wo]

@Jill. You are hard to please. Anyone who does not like Original Trilogy Star Wars is by definition hard to please. (And anyone who likes the prequels and 90% of EU is by definition a soul-less husk) --I kid, I kid! Please observe how largely I am winking!:wink:

I definitely agree with your definition of Sci Fi, as well as your application. Love Star Wars, and Trek...but they aint Science Fiction

Though I gotta agree with this:


Your comment on star wars theme, while...amusing...was a bit of a misnomer. Most anything can be made to sound cliche or just plain bad when summed up with the right words. For example:

A German nobleman brings back the dead by shooting them with lighting, and decides it was a bad idea."

I am curious, though, Jill: how old were you when you first watched Star Wars?

[turkishproverb]

I consider Star Wars to be bad/cliché because of the precise reasons I listed, not because of it's theme. I consider it to be not-SF because it has nothing to do with science, not because of the acting, dialogue, etc.

Interesting. For my part I can see what Lucas was trying to do with that one, and on a technical level it's magnificent for the time.

Being well versed in early mid 20th century film helps with that. :smallbiggrin:

On the Acting/dialog/etc, well...I've seen worse out of allegedly "great" movies, but at the same time can see what you mean on certain performances. Then again, I think those performances were intended that way in a few cases vis a vis stylistic intent. Still, he could have done a bit better job of it. Lucas's directing is probably the worst thing to happen to any of the star wars movies.


Yes, except that it demonstrates it without breaking logic, as opposed to essentially invoking magic. (Magic being, I would contend, the hallmark of fantasy. Even when that magic is quite subtle, such as recreating human cultures by complete coincidence in a non-Earth environment.)

Rarely do you see a human culture recreated perfectly on a non-earth environment anywhere but scifi. Humans, sure, but a human culture rarely. The very idea would require it to be identical to an old human culture and almost necessitate some sort of explanation of how it was transplanted, an idea used much more by scifi than fantasy, barring a few oddities.



Now, I can agree that Metropolis has an underlying theme as a cautionary tale about the dangers of technology trumping compassion, but it's at least acknowledging technology as something important. In Star Wars, technology is either irrelevant or actively marginalised- Yes, even the Death Star. That's sorta the point.

Hm. I'm beginning to wonder if you understand the argument your words imply. YOu're still arguing that scifi has to be pro-technology, even indirectly. It doesn't. Indeed, a greater portion of the scifi written has been cautionary rather than progressive, for better or ill.


On the death star in particular, you may have missed a point, as the giant floating orb is, for all it's defeat, anything but marginalized from a story perspective, whatever rant the large cyborg in the black suit may have stated.



I'm not saying science fiction is equivalent to 'based on technology.' I don't know how to characterise the genre except as 'speculation based on the large-scale extension of known, generalised, fundamental principles of the real world.' In other words, speculation based on, or at least compatible with, science- the fundamental principles of the real world.

You just did, above. You said scifi has to have technology be important. The paragraph above this. And frankly, I don't think most realistic fiction would meet your definition of "based on the large scale extension of known, generalized, fundamental principles of the real world" as it usually shows much less believable human behavior than your average fantasy novel. Then again, the average prediction of the future using your methodology tends to be severely wrong anyway, so I think the problem lies in you essentially describing what i can in the most short terms I dare describe as "Hard 2010 assumption based science focused speculative fiction with an exception for those things I think it's ok to make exceptions for because I don't understand what's being violated" as the only right definition of scifi, when it is in fact one almost noone shares with you.


I'll try to give a few examples. I consider the Warp Drive/FTL Drive to be science fiction because it doesn't break relativity per se, but instead tries to work around it (by distorting spacetime itself rather than moving across it, or taking 'shortcuts' through higher dimensions.) We don't have the technology to do this today with anything resembling adequate efficiency, but I'm prepared to believe that might change in the future. (After all, in ancient times, iron was often worth more than it's weight in silver- maybe the same thing will happen with antimatter prices.)

Warp drive and most FTL methods do flat out contradict your methodology of science fiction. Especially warp drive, which simply goes faster than the speed of light. A few methods (wormhole puncture, for example) are slightly less problematic, but still not entirely supportable even as theoretical possibility.

In short, it seems like you've added these to your list of ideas allowed in scifi because you're focus in science doesn't itch at you there.



By contrast, the Matrix concept of an army of robots powered by human heat emissions is simultaneously invoking thermodynamics and then making it sob quietly to itself in the shower. (That, and thermodynamics being, like, the single most fundamental scientific law in existence. Seriously. You'll disprove gravity sooner than find a loophole here.) This is something that anyone should be vaguely aware of, given the existence of things like the 'food chain'.

Well, the matrix got screwed by the executive in that regard, but the fact they fail at the science hardly in and of itself makes something stop being science fiction, or else you'd have to unqualify a great much work that had previously been scifi every couple weeks.


I considered Avatar to be mostly science fiction because, although it does involve things that are basically stupid-unlikely, they're also surprisingly non-plot-critical. No, you cannot have floating mountains, but you can replace those with regular mountains and they'll work just fine for the purpose. No, you cannot have precisely humanoid races evolving on another planet, but even if they had 4 eyes and six legs it's not inconceivable they'd be beyond sympathy. And it does make a reasonable effort to explain things like Eywa (a vegetable neural net) or Avatar drivers (basically telepresence.) I'm really not all that hard to please. I am prepared to meet this stuff halfway.

Avatar's neural net and drivers are frankly a bit less believable than the thermodynamics of the matrix. :smallwink: You've already fudged witht eh mountains, claiming it's scifi in spite of them, while railng against similar mistakes in other works.

The humanoid race thing is actually less bothersome, both because it's explainable in backstory a thousand ways, but also because such a thing could easily be explained scientifically, from the point of view of convergent/parallel evolution. The "human alien hybrid avatar" is a little less buyable, but it's a scifi trope at this point so most people give that kinda thing a pass, you included it would seem.

Still, this support of Avatar does help support your "it's not about the quality of storytelling" comment :smalltongue:.


I would consider Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind to be science fiction, because it brings in a loosely-scientifically-plausible concept in an interesting way, even though it's not really about the science at all- it's largely a character drama. Drama, by itself, I don't think qualifies, but I'll include drama in an environment with sci-fi/futuristic elements that don't actively break the known laws of physics.

*Sigh* So once again, it comes down to what you've decided the known laws of physics are,eh? Well, at least we've made the progress of you admitting a character drama can be scifi. Problem is, anytime you move tech in a direction that it isn't currently exactly in, there is about a 75-100% chance you're violating physics on some level (depending upon your stances on genetics vs free will etc.


I would consider Firefly to be science fiction- and relatively 'hard' SF at that. I've never understood why most critics were repulsed by the 'wild west in space' incongruity- I mean, compared with the liberties most sci-fi takes, this was a very minor detail. (I mean, you could replace the period costumes with whatever the starfleet equivalent of britches and dungarees would be and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the plot.)

Firefly? really? Are you sure this isn't about what you like and what you don't? As fun as the show was, it was about as scientifically accurate as Enterprise (Sans Dear Doctor).


(Yes, Psychic powers are a stretch, but it seems SF can get away with this if it makes some effort to explain/limit it's capabilities, given that we don't yet fully understand how the brain works. It'll be considered magic in another 50 years.)

They keep telling me thjey'll have figured out the brain completely soon. I can find such claims dating back tot he 19th century. Funny how the date keeps getting pulled back.

Once again, you place limits on the writing style for scifi. Detailed explanations are required, according to you, to be scifi with psychic powers. Why? Does it make any difference if the bulge in the dorsomedial hypothalamic nucleus that effects chemical secretions and electrical activity in the brain can cause the increased activity in the brain, when enraged, to emit an EMP, is explained in minute detail or not? The only difference seems to be that you get a load of often disprovable technobabble, somethign that largely just annoys scientists far mroe than violating known theories.

Frankly, when it comes to physical mutation, I always remember a Professor of Biology I knew talking about how doctor strange was more realistic than the X-Men.

He said that one gene, or for that matter any kind of human mutation, causing such wild aberrations was less realistic than a man casting spells using magic words.



I don't think BSG can be strictly considered science fiction, particularly once Angels became an all-purpose substitute for treknobabble. It was always pretty allegorical in emphasis, but Ron Moore should take note that if you want your series to have an overarching, cogent plotline, then you need to actually write one. Like, in advance. Because it's not going to turn up by accident. (Luuurved the first two seasons, though.)

Not a big fan of the end of Galactica, but I notice you start disliking it as soon as it stops being "scifi" to you. Also interesting that not long after that the "not from earth" "flaw" you seem to hate [which got subverted] showed up through ashed earth. Interesting isn't it?

Frankly, the "angels" were a good example of the above, if badly executed. Much of the technobabble on that show, if it'd been explained in more than two word bits most of the time, would have pretty effortlessly killed the shows scientific virmulsitide by your standard, while the "Angels" being largely unexplained were at least ascientific in a sense (Not violating known principles as they would largely represent a nonexistent field.


...Anyway. End Rant.


It's was an interesting read. Thanks. :smallbiggrin:



I do understand that people enjoy these films for a whole variety of reasons that have very little to do with scientific plausibility, and might enjoy the 'ambience' of SF (e.g, laser guns, robots, spaceships and aliens) without caring about their logical premises, and I'm not saying they should have to.

I again suggest you stop using SF, merely because it complicates matters. (Seriously, Speculative fiction allows pretty much anything, and it's a contender for the two letter summary).

Your argumetn on people enjoying the "ambiance" is interesting, but ultimately requires a specific writing style again to be scifi, rather than a specific genre.



I just don't think there's much of a purpose to having distinct words when their underlying concepts are so indistinct as to be meaningless. If the pseudo-philosophical gibberish of the Wachowski Brothers or the Escheresque contortions of The Fountain can qualify as science fiction, then for heaven's sake, what can't?

Good question. The problem is, scifi is not, on several levels, what you want it to be. It is much more. Scifi is a large umbrella term, under which much fits. So is fantasy, and drama, and comedy, and horror, etc. This is one of the reasons so many sub-genre exist at this point. Cyberpunk, The Space Western, The Space Opera, each have more detailed requirements or expectation than the bigger umbrella. Similar with Hard vs. Soft Scifi. There may be a term for what you like to refer to as scifi. Most of it would still be scifi, but a more specific subtype, just as sword and sorcery is (usually) a subtype of Fantasy. I'm not offhand sure what said term would be, though.

Nice talking to you.

P.S. Escheresque. Great.

[The Big Dice]

I consider Star Wars to be bad/cliché because of the precise reasons I listed, not because of it's theme. I consider it to be not-SF because it has nothing to do with science, not because of the acting, dialogue, etc
Here's the thing about Star Wars:it rewrote the book on movies. It proved that Jaws as a summer blockbuster wasn't a fluke. It set the standard for merchandising. Motion control cameras were invented for Star Wars, and the impact of that can't be overstated. Industrial Light and Magic was founded to make Star Wars, which again can't be overstated for how monumental a moment that was.

Without Star Wars, there wouldn't have been Star Trek movies. Without Trek movies, there wouldn't have been TNG.Without that, there wouldn't have been any other TV science fiction.

The historical significance of Star Wars is there for all to see. Disliking it, even for perfectly valid, if harsh, reasons doesn't change that it is one of the most important movies ever made.

And technically, almost no science fiction movies have anything to do with science. Same goes for science fiction literature. But that doesn't change what it is or remove the entertainment factor from it.

[turkishproverb]

*claps*

Well put, and much more detail than I gave on the film front.

*Hands flowers to BigDice*


Mystery
Historical
Spy
Slice of Life
Crime Procedural
Heist
Westerns
...to name a few

I can scifi the heck out of at least 5 of those, possibly more, depending upon ow far you're willing to let sub-genre's slide. :smallamused:

[Eldan]

I'd say all but historic.

Actually, even that, if you allow time travel.

[Syka]

If you're up for giving the film style another shot, I recommend [REC]. Best use of the first-person handycam in a movie I've ever seen, and a delightful little terror to boot.



Seconding Event Horizon.

I loved [REC]. :D It isn't the shaky-cam that I have a problem with; it was the rotoscoping. The constantly shifting lines that should have been still just...literally, it hurt my brain. I'm not even kidding. They use rotoscoping for some commercials, but a feature? Or, more to the point, the funky type of rotoscoping they did hurt my brain.


I consider Star Wars to be bad/cliché because of the precise reasons I listed, not because of it's theme. I consider it to be not-SF because it has nothing to do with science, not because of the acting, dialogue, etc.

I would consider Firefly to be science fiction- and relatively 'hard' SF at that. I've never understood why most critics were repulsed by the 'wild west in space' incongruity- I mean, compared with the liberties most sci-fi takes, this was a very minor detail. (I mean, you could replace the period costumes with whatever the starfleet equivalent of britches and dungarees would be and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the plot.)

(Yes, Psychic powers are a stretch, but it seems SF can get away with this if it makes some effort to explain/limit it's capabilities, given that we don't yet fully understand how the brain works. It'll be considered magic in another 50 years.)

I don't think BSG can be strictly considered science fiction, particularly once Angels became an all-purpose substitute for treknobabble. It was always pretty allegorical in emphasis, but Ron Moore should take note that if you want your series to have an overarching, cogent plotline, then you need to actually write one. Like, in advance. Because it's not going to turn up by accident. (Luuurved the first two seasons, though.)


First, Star Wars is cliched only because we have the last almost forty years to look at. Star Wars was...pretty not cliched back in the day, and the SFX was pretty cutting edge.


And Firefly is a really, really bad comparison. I love Firefly, am addicted and obsessed and will watch it whenever I can. But to say it is somehow SF and Star Wars isn't is a really bad comparison. The only 'science' in Firefly is the thing they do with River. It could be argued that makes Darth Vader himself SF.

Otherwise, they are both character driven dramas, basically. The both have new fun ships, new fun weapons, and are set in space. Neither is particularly based on "Science!" Serenity is slightly more than Firefly, I'll give you that, but it's not particularly hard science fiction.

I've...actually never heard anyone call Firefly hard science fiction. :smallconfused: At least to me (and pretty much everyone else I've talked to), it's about as hard science fiction as a pillow.

Especially compared to BSG.

[Eldan]

Hmm. I actually thought rotoscoping was a perfect fit for that movie and it wouldn't have worked as well without it. It creates a very fitting atmosphere.

And, well, Firefly is soft scifi, but at least it doesn't have magic.

honestly, I'm another person bored by the Star Wars movies.

[Syka]

I know people who were made ill by Cloverfield. It probably just depends on the person.


As for Star Wars, I'm actually not a fan. I can recognize it for what it is in the history of film, just like I recognize the place of the Beatles and Rolling Stones, but it doesn't mean I go out of my way to watch it. My boyfriend is a huge fan, though. Same with Star Trek. At least he recognizes that, watching them today is a totally different experience and that they are quite cheesy at times.

I'm just kinda "meh" on Star Wars. I don't think it's bad, though, particularly in context. It's just not my cup of tea.

[Yora]

Star Wars is really a special case. Brilliant ideas, but the execution varies from "actuall quite good" (Ep. 5) to "really, really horribly bad" (Ep 2.).

A major one is Ghost in the Shell.
Tripple Yes with sugar on top! I love this movie, probably my favorite one.
Not only is it a great sci-fi movie, it's also an excelent example how to make a graphic novel into a movie.

[Hawkfrost000]

consider Star Wars to be bad/cliché because of the precise reasons I listed, not because of it's theme. I consider it to be not-SF because it has nothing to do with science, not because of the acting, dialogue, etc.

it was set in a civilisation with advanced technology, that fulfills the science requirement.

not all sci-fi must be a documentary about advanced technology

DM

[warty goblin]

it was set in a civilisation with advanced technology, that fulfills the science requirement.

not all sci-fi must be a documentary about advanced technology

DM

No, it was set in a civilization that had magic that happened to look somewhat like technology. Science fiction is more or less what it says it is, fiction about science. There is little to no science in Star Wars.

[Hawkfrost000]

No, it was set in a civilization that had magic that happened to look somewhat like technology. Science fiction is more or less what it says it is, fiction about science. There is little to no science in Star Wars.

Hyperdrive, Spaceships, Planet destroying superweapons, robots, laser and plasma weapons.

magic?

[turkishproverb]

Hyperdrive, Spaceships, Planet destroying superweapons, robots, laser and plasma weapons.

magic?

In fairness, she has a small point there. The force is kinda "magicesque".

Mind you, the comment itself was just silly, as there was plenty more technology, whether it exists in the real world or not.

[warty goblin]

Hyperdrive,

No basis in science.


Spaceships,
That don't behave like spaceships, ergo run on magic.


Planet destroying superweapons, Technobabble, might as well be magic.


robots, Granted.


laser and plasma weapons. That do not behave like lasers or plasma, so are no more than words applied to special effects. I can call a grape a goldfish, that doesn't make it an aquatic vertebrate.


magic? Magic. If you're gonna walk the walk, talking the talk isn't good enough.

[turkishproverb]

Heh. Under the listing you just Gave, Any form of Star Trek would be Magic based, as would (offhand) most of Asimov, Schlock mercenary, a chunk of Poul Anderson, and some of the work of Baxter, whom is a bastion of hard Scifi.

[Hawkfrost000]

Heh. Under the listing you just Gave, Any form of Star Trek would be Magic based, as would (offhand) most of Asimov, Schlock mercenary, and some of the work of Baxter, whom is a bastion of hard Scifi.

Lets not forget Dune, Battlestar Galactica (both), Stargate, Forever War, Starship Troopers, David Webbers work, Stewe Whites work, Hyperion Cantos and pretty much anything else that comes to mind.

DM

[turkishproverb]

I was trying to pick some hard scifi and keep the list short. I put trek in there mostly because I was comparing to Wars. Good points though.

[warty goblin]

I'm really not sure how exactly my definition excludes most of Asimov, all of his work that I've read is very much based in science. Dune is ecology science fiction, but certainly sf in regards to that.

Star Wars, Star Trek et cetera however don't even really try, I'm not sure why anybody would consider them anything but fantasy set in space.

[turkishproverb]

I'm really not sure how exactly my definition excludes most of Asimov, all of his work that I've read is very much based in science. Dune is ecology science fiction, but certainly sf in regards to that.

Star Wars, Star Trek et cetera however don't even really try, I'm not sure why anybody would consider them anything but fantasy set in space.

You really don't know scifi fans or experts as well as you think you do then.

And you should recheck Asimov. He violates the hyberdrive rule every time it shows up, to say nothing of the fact "positronic brain" is itself as much technobabble as anything in star trek or wars. Dune violates it too, along with around a thousand lesser laws of "modern" science.

EDIT: *Looks over thread*

Hmm... another one would be Gojira. Highly influential scifi pic.

*checks to see if forced the thread back onto track*

[Hawkfrost000]

I'm really not sure how exactly my definition excludes most of Asimov, all of his work that I've read is very much based in science. Dune is ecology science fiction, but certainly sf in regards to that.


the foundation series especially uses a whole bunch of technology based on "Atomics" that has nothing to do with how atoms really work or how we understand them. miniaturized atomic reactors, a perfectly thin knife and others are all as you label them, fantasy.

also, how is the voice and prescience different from the force? they are really the same thing. mental power brought on by a slight difference in body chemistry.


Star Wars, Star Trek et cetera however don't even really try, I'm not sure why anybody would consider them anything but fantasy set in space.


to be science fiction it must try to be science, those both do. the enterprise's warp engines are actually possible given our understanding of the universe. what matters is that they try to explain how the tech works. not that they actually succeed.

Star Wars has a whole series of books that explain how the technology in the universe works. keep an open mind, it is in a different galaxy:smallcool:

DM

[Dienekes]

No, it was set in a civilization that had magic that happened to look somewhat like technology. Science fiction is more or less what it says it is, fiction about science. There is little to no science in Star Wars.

I have to disagree slightly. Science fiction is mostly about humans, or people, or culture if technology as presented in the story exists. Star Wars does not really explore what a society would be like with aliens or hyperdrive or lasers it simply presented them as background to an epic on rebellion and magic.

Asimov', Herberts, and Shelleys works are definitely science fiction to me since even though their technology is not exactly scientific it is explored pretty well within the frame that the story gives them.

[warty goblin]

the foundation series especially uses a whole bunch of technology based on "Atomics" that has nothing to do with how atoms really work or how we understand them. miniaturized atomic reactors, a perfectly thin knife and others are all as you label them, fantasy.

So? The Foundation books are science fiction about predictive analytics, statistical inference, and shockingly accurate demographic models. I thought that was pretty obvious. Something can contain non-scientific things and still be science fiction, I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise.


also, how is the voice and prescience different from the force? they are really the same thing. mental power brought on by a slight difference in body chemistry.

I don't think I ever mentioned the Force as a reason Star Wars isn't scientific.


to be science fiction it must try to be science, those both do. the enterprise's warp engines are actually possible given our understanding of the universe. what matters is that they try to explain how the tech works. not that they actually succeed.

Star Wars has a whole series of books that explain how the technology in the universe works. keep an open mind, it is in a different galaxy:smallcool:

DM

Firstly, when I say Star Wars, I mean the movies. I ignore the existence of everything else for being a sort of memetic thought cancer.

I think you are confusing something being about science with making some attempt at containing science. Star Wars isn't about any scientific idea or advance or anything else, it's about a farmboy saving the galaxy/world/whatever. Star Trek isn't about Warp Drive, it's about the crew of a ship having adventures. Asimov's robot stories however really are about computer science and possible artificial intelligence. They use utter technobabble to justify it, but the basic idea is fundamentally well grounded in a scientific discipline. That's the distinction I am making.

[Eldan]

I don't think it has to be perfectly scientifically accurate in every respect to be Science Fiction.

However, fundamentally, it has to be about a scientific theory or idea, and how the author predicts it could change human society.

Dune contains some magic, true. However, it also talks about desert ecology and terraforming in an interesting fashion. That's the science part. Star Wars, at least the movies, don't concern themselves the least bit with any science.

[turkishproverb]

I don't think it has to be perfectly scientifically accurate in every respect to be Science Fiction.

However, fundamentally, it has to be about a scientific theory or idea, and how the author predicts it could change human society.

Dune contains some magic, true. However, it also talks about desert ecology and terraforming in an interesting fashion. That's the science part. Star Wars, at least the movies, don't concern themselves the least bit with any science.

Most scifi isn't remotely about what you describe. Metropolis is obvious scifi, but let us face it, it's not "about" any of the tech that shows up. It includes it, but rarely is it the central theme.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, Star Trek, at ti's best in my view, was SOCIAL science fiction, presenting ideas that had relevance to (then) modern situations and ideas in a more palatable way, like 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield'. Anvilicious? Certainly, but highly relevant to a world in the midst of the Cold War. And sometimes they could be straight science fiction, one I can think of especially is the one where McCoy falls in love with a woman from another time., or when Picard lived another life, or learned to communicate with an alien that spoke only in references. The warp drive was merely a dramatic necessity to allow the various crews explore the these strange new worlds.
Star Wars, the movies, was and is more a modernized sci-fi film serial in the vein of Buck Rogers, just like Indiana Jones was a modern tech take on the action adventure films of yesteryear.
I would say both are science fiction, though I still prefer the inquisitiveness of Star Trek at it's best before the popcorn charms of Star Wars. I am not saying it's bad, I just have a preference.

[Eldan]

Most scifi isn't remotely about what you describe. Metropolis is obvious scifi, but let us face it, it's not "about" any of the tech that shows up. It includes it, but rarely is it the central theme.

It does, however, show a society changed by progress. It's about workers and capitalism. It's about megacities. It features androids.

Perhaps "science" wasn't the right word above. How about:

"Science fiction is a genre which showcases the authors idea about how a future society could be shaped by new ideas or technologies."

Better?

[turkishproverb]

IT shows a society dealing with class division, not changed by progress. Certainly not progress past "our" time. Backdrop does not equal theme.

It had nothing to do with "future society". Most fiction doesn't in any form. It often uses it as a backdrop however.

Frankenstein was, at it's core, not about future societies but contemporary ones. For all the "playing god" issues certain groups try to bring up, the real point was about Victorian men and Illegitimate children. That one should take responsibility for what one creates.

Look up history in the Early 20th century. There were very real world situations That Metropolis reflected upon, not just some "What if" scenario it dealt with.

[Hawkfrost000]

So? The Foundation books are science fiction about predictive analytics, statistical inference, and shockingly accurate demographic models. I thought that was pretty obvious. Something can contain non-scientific things and still be science fiction, I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise.


I don't think I ever mentioned the Force as a reason Star Wars isn't scientific.



Firstly, when I say Star Wars, I mean the movies. I ignore the existence of everything else for being a sort of memetic thought cancer.

I think you are confusing something being about science with making some attempt at containing science. Star Wars isn't about any scientific idea or advance or anything else, it's about a farmboy saving the galaxy/world/whatever. Star Trek isn't about Warp Drive, it's about the crew of a ship having adventures. Asimov's robot stories however really are about computer science and possible artificial intelligence. They use utter technobabble to justify it, but the basic idea is fundamentally well grounded in a scientific discipline. That's the distinction I am making.

i might have been mixing up your arguments and Samurai Jill's sorry

Science fiction is a genre it is different from something like a Haiku were you have to write it a certain way or else it bunk, things like Battlestar Galactica could have been written on a British carrier with German spies. but putting it in a futuristic/techno setting is a way of mixing up the old stories and telling them again. doing that well can make up for a crappy story, and having a good story can make up for strange or unrealistic technology.

this thread is not about arguing the nuances of the genre however.

i feel that i must give this tread a firm scissor kick back on topic (isert matrix esque karate moves here)

we are not here to argue how each movie/story measures up to the unreachable pinnacle of sci-fi. but to argue about how they compare to each other.

these points are relevant and i would like to debate them further but sadly that is not the purpose of this tread

DM

[Susano-wo]

Science fiction is a genre it is different from something like a Haiku were you have to write it a certain way or else it bunk, things like Battlestar Galactica could have been written on a British carrier with German spies. but putting it in a futuristic/techno setting is a way of mixing up the old stories and telling them again. doing that well can make up for a crappy story, and having a good story can make up for strange or unrealistic technology.
this thread is not about arguing the nuances of the genre however.

i feel that i must give this tread a firm scissor kick back on topic (isert matrix esque karate moves here)


Well, then allow me to slow mo backflip and spin kick it straight back to the definition argument. Cause its relevant. You can't talk about the best sci-fi or fantasy or whatever if you don't have a efnition of what it is

In the first paragraph you give a great benchmark for whether somehting is sci-fi or not. If you can transplant it to a low tech/historical sseeting, and it doesn't change the story at all, its probably not sci-fi :smallamused:

You don't have to be perfect to be science Fiction, and even great sci-fi authors may have to say "this and that tech exists because I need it to for my story," from time to time. FTL is a great example of this. you pretty much need it for most sci-fi stories, and its not necessary that you explain how it all works if that's not important to your story.

But you need to do due diligence to make sure the tech and physics behaves, well, accroding to physics. Star Trak and Star Wars do not do that. Not even after Trek tries to cover up some of these with made up terms that they don't explain or even always use consitently. And Star Wars doesn't even try to at all. Other writers have come in in tech manuals, etc...but you can't explain why next to nothing behaves according to known scientific principles/properties, no matter how many killowatts you assign to reactors, etc.

(now I do think that there are multiple kinds of sci fi stories, and if you make an effort to make your tech work right, the story doesn't have to be about the tech, exactly. Most of hte early sci-fi work, and a lot of current sci fi work, I imagine, was speculative fiction--IE it was about the tech, and speculating on its effects--but I don't think its necessary to be considered sci-fi.)
also :spoilered to spare EU fans of a brief bash: Memetic Thought Cancer. YOu put the so well, poster who is on the other page so I can check your name!

[Hawkfrost000]

But you need to do due diligence to make sure the tech and physics behaves, well, accroding to physics. Star Trak and Star Wars do not do that. Not even after Trek tries to cover up some of these with made up terms that they don't explain or even always use consitently. And Star Wars doesn't even try to at all. Other writers have come in in tech manuals, etc...but you can't explain why next to nothing behaves according to known scientific principles/properties, no matter how many killowatts you assign to reactors, etc.

why? the technology is not that relevant to the story so why spend pages and time explaining it?

back at the time they were created they science fiction. their creators made them in the spirit of what they thought was science fiction then. which today could be either reality or fantasy.

the vast majority of people believe that it is Science Fiction and unless you can show me something like: Reliable source X believes that it is not Sci-Fi because of Y then i see no reason not to induce it under my threads definition of Sci-Fi

DM

[warty goblin]

why? the technology is not that relevant to the story so why spend pages and time explaining it?

Who says you need to put it all in whatever you are writing or producing? Just because you don't directly show it is no excuse for not doing the background work and research. If you do a good job of it, it'll show through even if you don't obsessively detail it in the story proper.

[Susano-wo]

why? the technology is not that relevant to the story so why spend pages and time explaining it?

back at the time they were created they science fiction. their creators made them in the spirit of what they thought was science fiction then. which today could be either reality or fantasy.

the vast majority of people believe that it is Science Fiction and unless you can show me something like: Reliable source X believes that it is not Sci-Fi because of Y then i see no reason not to induce it under my threads definition of Sci-Fi

DM

I think you are confusing two issues here. I am not(and neither is one else that I can see) trying to say that you can't have good movies that have tech and not be science fiction. What is being said is that if its science fiction, it needs to be grounded in science. I love Star Wars (Original Trilogy...and Love is perhaps a bit too strong for Jedi), but sci-fi it aint. To take another one that I love that isn't sci fi: the anime Gundam Wing.

Also, you don't have to take tons of time explaining the science in your story to be sci fi...really you just need to have your tech be realistic.

Just because people use sci-fi for any show that has high technology doesn't make that what sci-fi is.

But if you want some defintiions I will give you some. However, I think you are misunderstanding something else. I'm not asking you or anyone else to enfoce some sort of authoritarian proper definition. I am talking about what I think the definition is, and why, and why things are or are not sci-fi.

IN any case, from the Wikipedia Article on Science Fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction):
According to science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, "a handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method."[12] Rod Serling's definition is "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible."[13] Lester del Rey wrote, "Even the devoted aficionado—or fan—has a hard time trying to explain what science fiction is", and that the reason for there not being a "full satisfactory definition" is that "there are no easily delineated limits to science fiction."

also relevant: Wikipedia Article on definitions of Science Fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction)

There are lots of different attempts to pin it down, but you'll notice they tend to focus on, as heinlein put it: "no known fact shall be violated."

[Hawkfrost000]

Also, you don't have to take tons of time explaining the science in your story to be sci fi...really you just need to have your tech be realistic.

yeah but what about the fiction part? your tech needs to be grounded in reality but as long as it isnt too outrageous, (flying by force of will, creating lasers without a weapon etc.) its generally accepted.


There are lots of different attempts to pin it down, but you'll notice they tend to focus on, as heinlein put it: "no known fact shall be violated."

if that is your definition then you exclude most Science Fiction ever created. off the top of my head there is nothing i can name that does not at least bend the laws of physics.


"fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible."

it is improbable that hyperspace exists, unlikely that the force could one day be used and not very likely that a city like Courusant will one day exist.

BUT!

not impossible

DM

[Susano-wo]

Did you forget the part where I said that you can fogive scientific errors?

I'm not saying that you can't have SF if you get something wrong, I'm saying you have to put out an effort to get your science right. Star Wars couldn't care less, EU retcons not withstanding.

In any case, I think this has played its course. All relevent arguments have been brought ot bear, and there's not much point in arguing. If we haven't convinced each other by now, we aren't going to.

[Eldan]

As has been said, you don't have to bend the laws of physics a lot, really. Just don't show any great inconsistencies on screen.

Would Star Wars, to show the most often named example on here, be any worse if the lasers behaved like actual lasers, or the X-Wings like actual spacehips? Not really. (Of course, you'd still have magic space samurai).

[hamishspence]

Wookieepedia did say most things called "lasers" including laser cannon, were actually particle weapons.

Still, The Force does make Star Wars more like Fantasy In Space.

[Eldan]

So they went backpaddling and retconned the lasers, at least?
Right. I think I saw an explanation for sound in space as well somewhere. Right?

[hamishspence]

Could be that the ships have audio speakers, designed to give the crew members an idea of how close something is and whether they should brace for impact or not. The ship simulates sound for the nearby object- if it's a fighter making a close approach, anyway.

I think something like that might have been an explanation given at one point.

[Eldan]

Yeah, now I remember. I've seen that one brought up.

Still... it's pretty clearly after the fact: they made a movie which didn't care about science, then later tried to make it fit.

[hamishspence]

True- there has been a lot written about Star Wars (and Star Trek) science- what's plausible and what's out of the question, though.

[Derthric]

I saw a documentary, I do not recall where, where the definition of Science Fiction was given as "a story set in a world upon which is dependent of a Fictional Science" ie star trek being dependent upon the Chochrane Warp Drive, or the Honorverse and its form of Gravitics. Yes they are loose pretexts for the rest of the story but they make everything in universe possible.

As a corollary to this, CNN had an article in its entertainment section about SyFy and its deliberately campy style of original movies. Now say what you will about the Camp being a cover for being cheap, which is my opinion. It included the line "Saturday nights are reserved for their original movies: movies that are lower-budget than the fare seen in theaters, but still meet science fiction fans' need for fantastic monsters, time travel and magic. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/26/syfy.campy.movies/index.html?iref=allsearch)" And to me this helps sum up the argument going on here, the need to be more high minded and actually have a narrative and point as opposed to the "trappings of Science Fiction" so as to avoid being stereotyped into a "triassic attack" as being in someway satisfactory. However the genre is large and varied, for every District 9 there is going to be a Sharktopus. Just because it is stupid and inane and pointless and any other countless derogatory statement you would like to add does not mean it is not part of the genre.

And my favorite Movie; Alien Nation. It hits the right notes about holding a mirror up to our present society and it does so while keeping the characters interesting. The series wasn't half bad either.

Edit: it also healthy to react very very very negatively to the glowing praise and attitude of that article I linked, it means you have a brain.

[Susano-wo]

Yeah, now I remember. I've seen that one brought up.

Still... it's pretty clearly after the fact: they made a movie which didn't care about science, then later tried to make it fit.

pretty much my point, yes.

@Derthric. The thing is, the Warp Drive is not science. ITs not even handwaved science. [fun fact: in the first few episodes of the Original Series, it is actually refered to once as "Time Warp: factor X] It behaves as they need it to for an episode. The same with most if not all of their tech. [Again, I love original and NExt Gen trek--I'm not dissing the series]. Its random high-techy stuff because they wanted a space feeling show. This is all fine. but its not science fiction. Its the trappings of science fiction without the substance.

Lets take a seriss I would consider science fiction: Babylon 5. Now I'm sure there are plenty of things that don't behave scientifically, but they took an effort to try to conform with science. [having an actual SF author as a consultant didnt hurt, mind you]

Lets see if I can actually contribute, though...Damn, I'm having a hard time. I loved Dune, and I like the movie, but its hardly one of hte best, though I think the parts of the Sci-Fi miniseries that I saw looked really good, and captured the book more.

[Hawkfrost000]

@Derthric. The thing is, the Warp Drive is not science. ITs not even handwaved science. [fun fact: in the first few episodes of the Original Series, it is actually refered to once as "Time Warp: factor X] It behaves as they need it to for an episode. The same with most if not all of their tech. [Again, I love original and NExt Gen trek--I'm not dissing the series]. Its random high-techy stuff because they wanted a space feeling show. This is all fine. but its not science fiction. Its the trappings of science fiction without the substance.


actually it is science, just hypothetical science. you can use an engine like the one described in Star Trek to "warp" space and travel faster than light.

Alcubierre Drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)

DM

[Susano-wo]

actually it is science, just hypothetical science. you can use an engine like the one described in Star Trek to "warp" space and travel faster than light.

Alcubierre Drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)

DM

See, what you linked to? that's theoretical science. Star Trek does not even handwave the difficulties with the theory, it just says tada, warp drive! Oh, we can use the warp drive to do X, but not next week. T otake a particular wallbanger: the entire premise of Voyager makes no sense if we use the established speeds for warp. IT would take them some time to get back, but not so long as to make it the end of the world.

The whole point is that star trek really doesn't care too much about making hte science work. They're fine with making up sciency sounding explanation, and going from there. Which I'm fine with. I like star trek...well, up until DS9, I did :smallyuk:

[Hawkfrost000]

See, what you linked to? that's theoretical science. Star Trek does not even handwave the difficulties with the theory, it just says tada, warp drive! Oh, we can use the warp drive to do X, but not next week. T otake a particular wallbanger: the entire premise of Voyager makes no sense if we use the established speeds for warp. IT would take them some time to get back, but not so long as to make it the end of the world.

The whole point is that star trek really doesn't care too much about making hte science work. They're fine with making up sciency sounding explanation, and going from there. Which I'm fine with. I like star trek...well, up until DS9, I did :smallyuk:

sure but its still science fiction because it has a science background

it doesn't matter weather the science is immediately applicable with modern day technology but it tries (a bit)

DM

[Derthric]

All valid points about the weak-sauce science especially of Trek and its a glaring deficiency with Trek since they loves their technobabble. However my point was that it doesn't have to be rock hard science to be science fiction, and that by the nature of being a fictional application of science allows for the realms of reality to stretch. I think in the way it is stretched and shapes itself differently is why I like Science Fiction. My point was that my interpretation of the argument going on here was more about looking at piles of dren *cough* Sharktopus *cough* and then seeing them lumped in with quality stories such as Dune. And the frustration that comes from assuming that because you like Sci-Fi you love all of SyFy's orignals(I know I know I am picking on them) people become argumentative. I get that way about the new star trek movie and sometimes its rational sometimes its just frustration induced negativity.

[Susano-wo]

All valid points about the weak-sauce science especially of Trek and its a glaring deficiency with Trek since they loves their technobabble. However my point was that it doesn't have to be rock hard science to be science fiction, and that by the nature of being a fictional application of science allows for the realms of reality to stretch. I think in the way it is stretched and shapes itself differently is why I like Science Fiction. My point was that my interpretation of the argument going on here was more about looking at piles of dren *cough* Sharktopus *cough* and then seeing them lumped in with quality stories such as Dune. And the frustration that comes from assuming that because you like Sci-Fi you love all of SyFy's orignals(I know I know I am picking on them) people become argumentative. I get that way about the new star trek movie and sometimes its rational sometimes its just frustration induced negativity.

And I agree with all of that. :smallbiggrin:

@ Darius. /facepalm. Did you even look at hte links? Y'know, al lthe SF authors talking abotu what it is to be science fiction?

But lets try the other way around: If I write a stroy about lizard people, in a next to 0 tech planet, or alternate earth, or whatever (the point it no high tech), taking great pains to detail out the ways in which they differ from humans physiologically and psychologoically, exploring the society that would result....that's now *not* science fiction? (hell, lets make it even closer. lets make it alternate humans, with 1 or two major genetic differences--say nightvision and no sense of empathy whatsoever--is that not science fiction?)

Science fiction has nothing to do with technology level. it has everything to do with speculation and exploration on technology, biology, sociology, etc.

[The Big Dice]

Fun Star Trek "inventions" include:

3.5 inch floppies. The data disk props in TOS were 3.5 inches across.

Cell phones. Kirk held his wrong, but it was the first one.

iPads are all over TNG.

There's more, they are just the first ones I could think of off the top of my head.

[Hawkfrost000]

And I agree with all of that. :smallbiggrin:

@ Darius. /facepalm. Did you even look at hte links? Y'know, al lthe SF authors talking abotu what it is to be science fiction?

But lets try the other way around: If I write a stroy about lizard people, in a next to 0 tech planet, or alternate earth, or whatever (the point it no high tech), taking great pains to detail out the ways in which they differ from humans physiologically and psychologoically, exploring the society that would result....that's now *not* science fiction? (hell, lets make it even closer. lets make it alternate humans, with 1 or two major genetic differences--say nightvision and no sense of empathy whatsoever--is that not science fiction?)

Science fiction has nothing to do with technology level. it has everything to do with speculation and exploration on technology, biology, sociology, etc.

ok im going to link right back at you, Science Fiction from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction)

and i quote:

These may include:

A setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in an historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record

A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens

Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)


not to be rude but i need to put a stop to this arguing. so i officially make the above list the definition for Sci-Fi for this thread. unless you find a serous flaw with the above logic (this post) please do not continue this line of conversation.

thank you

DM

[Eldan]

Right. I'll just have to say that I only really see Hard SciFi as real SciFi, the rest is just fantasy dressed up as it.


Hard science fiction, or "hard SF", is characterized by rigorous attention to accurate detail in quantitative sciences, especially physics, astrophysics, and chemistry, or on accurately depicting worlds that more advanced technology may make possible. Many accurate predictions of the future come from the hard science fiction subgenre, but numerous inaccurate predictions have emerged as well. Some hard SF authors have distinguished themselves as working scientists, including Gregory Benford, Geoffrey A. Landis and David Brin, [47][48] while mathematician authors include Rudy Rucker and Vernor Vinge. Other noteworthy hard SF authors include Robert A. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Hal Clement, Isaac Asimov, Greg Bear, Larry Niven, Robert J. Sawyer, Stephen Baxter, Alastair Reynolds, Charles Sheffield, Ben Bova, and Greg Egan.

There's a few problems with your definitions, though. "On other worlds" technically involves just about all fantasy. The definition is too broad. Is someone traveling to the Otherworld in celtic mythology scifi, then?

[Hawkfrost000]

There's a few problems with your definitions, though. "On other worlds" technically involves just about all fantasy. The definition is too broad. Is someone traveling to the Otherworld in celtic mythology scifi, then?

given the context its safe to assume that most people will interpret it as other planets in the known universe.

thats your opinion, i believe that anything that falls into this category is modern science fiction. sci-fi has evolved a lot since those quotes were made. there are a few authors of soft sci-fi such as Ursula K Leguin and her Hainish Cycle who write some really exelent novels about cultural and ethical issues that could only exist in a sci-fi setting. just as there are some space opera novels that still try to obey the laws of physics.

your definition is too narrow:smallannoyed:

DM

[Wookieetank]

The drama in this thread is amusing. Its funny to watch all this arguing over fiction, which at its core is made up stories.:smallbiggrin:

On the movies side of things, I’d like to throw out Independence Day, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and ET just to see where people run with em :smallwink:

[Delwugor]

Best "Sci-fi" that's only sort of Sci-fi: Star Wars (series)
HM: Back to the Future

While neither series deals with the central themes of science fiction, both have a passing resemblance to science fiction. Star Wars wins on shear star-warsiness.

Best cerebral Sci-Fi: Moon
HM: 2001

While 2001 is the granddaddy of the group, Moon feels like a simple, classic SF short story put to film and executed perfectly.

Best Action Sci-fi: Star Trek (2009)
HM: The Matrix

The Matrix was awesome, but has already gotten dated. The new Star Trek movie took action movies in general to a new level.

Best Post-apocalyptic Sci-fi: Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior
HM: A Boy and His Dog

While ABAHD has one of the best endings in movie history, MM2 does a great job of taking you into the wastes with every aspect of the film. Tough group. The Road and The Book of Eli could also vie for this spot.

Best Sci-fi Noir: Blade Runner
HM: Strange Days

Strange Days is a great flick, but everything falls to Bladerunner in this group.

Best Sci-fi horror: Terminator
HM: Cube

Cube is great, especially for essentially being filmed in 1 room, but Arnold's unstoppable Terminator is the only movie monster that ever frightened me.

Best Super-hero movie: The Dark Knight
HM: The Incredibles

I could go either way with this, but the Dark Knight is a more ambitious movie and doesn't fail at doing so.

Best Sci-fi B Movie: Them!
HM: Plan 9 from Outer Space.

While Plan 9 is certainly the King of So Bad Its Good, Them! is actually a decent flick.

Best Alien Movie: Aliens
HM: District 9

Aliens has simply left a bigger mark, and personifies everything we fear about extra-terrestrials

Best Sci-Fi Anti-Utopian: Logan's Run
HM: Rollerball (1975) and THX1138

[Rob Roy]

Best "Sci-fi" that's only sort of Sci-fi: Star Wars (series)
HM: Back to the Future

While neither series deals with the central themes of science fiction, both have a passing resemblance to science fiction. Star Wars wins on shear star-warsiness.

Best cerebral Sci-Fi: Moon
HM: 2001

While 2001 is the granddaddy of the group, Moon feels like a simple, classic SF short story put to film and executed perfectly.

Best Action Sci-fi: Star Trek (2009)
HM: The Matrix

The Matrix was awesome, but has already gotten dated. The new Star Trek movie took action movies in general to a new level.

Best Post-apocalyptic Sci-fi: Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior
HM: A Boy and His Dog

While ABAHD has one of the best endings in movie history, MM2 does a great job of taking you into the wastes with every aspect of the film. Tough group. The Road and The Book of Eli could also vie for this spot.

Best Sci-fi Noir: Blade Runner
HM: Strange Days

Strange Days is a great flick, but everything falls to Bladerunner in this group.

Best Sci-fi horror: Terminator
HM: Cube

Cube is great, especially for essentially being filmed in 1 room, but Arnold's unstoppable Terminator is the only movie monster that ever frightened me.

Best Super-hero movie: The Dark Knight
HM: The Incredibles

I could go either way with this, but the Dark Knight is a more ambitious movie and doesn't fail at doing so.

Best Sci-fi B Movie: Them!
HM: Plan 9 from Outer Space.

While Plan 9 is certainly the King of So Bad Its Good, Them! is actually a decent flick.

Best Alien Movie: Aliens
HM: District 9

Aliens has simply left a bigger mark, and personifies everything we fear about extra-terrestrials
Best Sci-fi Comedy: Spaceballs
HM: The Futurama Movies(counted as 1), Galaxy Quest

[ex cathedra]

Okay, what?

A Boy and His Dog was significantly better than Mad Max.

Just sayin'.

[Eldan]

I'm still angry about Moon.

They finally scheduled it for Cinemas this October. I was happy. Then they canceled it again, two weeks before premiere. Apparently, there was not enough interest.

[KerfuffleMach2]

Highly surprised this one hasn't been mentioned yet. Good movie, by the way.

Tron.

[Berekiah]

They may not be the best sci-fi movies ever but they should be, at least, mentioned:

- They live
- Soylent Green
- Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome
- Akira
- Strange days

[The Big Dice]

They may not be the best sci-fi movies ever but they should be, at least, mentioned:

- They live
- Soylent Green
- Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome
- Akira
- Strange days

Other than the Mad Max one, which is nowhere near as good as The Road Warrior, I'd say all of those are classic movies in the real sense of the word.

[Samurai Jill]

Rarely do you see a human culture recreated perfectly on a non-earth environment anywhere but scifi. Humans, sure, but a human culture rarely. The very idea would require it to be identical to an old human culture and almost necessitate some sort of explanation of how it was transplanted, an idea used much more by scifi than fantasy, barring a few oddities.
Well, firstly I don't consider science fiction that does so to be terribly science-fictional, and secondly, I'm a little confused by the idea that science fiction does this more often than fantasy, given that almost every fantasy setting involves humans either created by Gods (which is magic) and/or developing a culture strikingly similar to medieval europe/east asia/ancient middle east/etc. So... not really.

I mean, the guys aiming to do a remake of a Princess of Mars are at least being forthright enough to call it Fantasy. Which is what it is. Which actually makes me mildly interested by the project.

Hm. I'm beginning to wonder if you understand the argument your words imply. YOu're still arguing that scifi has to be pro-technology, even indirectly...
I'm not saying pro-technology, in the sense that 'technology is good'. I'm saying it should acknowledge technology as important. Or at least, dismissing technology as irrelevant handwavium is something that generally correlates with non-SF.

On the death star in particular, you may have missed a point, as the giant floating orb is, for all it's defeat, anything but marginalized from a story perspective...
Not quite. I'm saying the main thrust of the story is to say that the Death Star (which symbolises technological 'progress', organisation, logic, science, etc.) is ultimately not significant compared to the Force (which symbolises emotion/feeling/choice/personal morals.) The very point of the story is to marginalise the values that science fiction usually revolves around.

You just did, above. You said scifi has to have technology be important.
I apologise if I gave that impression, but that was not what I wished to imply. And again, I don't consider the great bulk of what is generally called science fiction to actually be science fiction, (even if contains isolated nuggets of it here and there.)

The paragraph above this. And frankly, I don't think most realistic fiction would meet your definition of "based on the large scale extension of known, generalized, fundamental principles of the real world" as it usually shows much less believable human behavior than your average fantasy novel.
This is a weakness of a lot of sci-fi writing, but again, usually because the individual human characters are, in a sense, playing second fiddle to the larger technological/scientific/logical forces at work. (The Foundation series is one of the better examples of this- the characters are wooden and often flavourless, there's little character development and few dramatic arcs to speak of, and the whole premise of the series is that individual choices are largely irrelevant. By any standard of conventional character-centric fiction, it'd be considered crap, but it's celebrated as a masterpiece of science fiction, precisely because it gives so much attention to the logical elements.) There are completely different standards operating here.

Then again, the average prediction of the future using your methodology tends to be severely wrong anyway...
The average prediction of the future using any methodology tends to be severely wrong. I think it was Eisenhower who said that 'plans are useless, but planning is essential'?

Warp drive and most FTL methods do flat out contradict your methodology of science fiction. Especially warp drive, which simply goes faster than the speed of light...
To my understanding, warp drive manipulates space-time itself to 'drag' the ship along, like contracting and stretching a piece of carpet to carry an object, rather than rolling across the carpet on wheels. So, technically speaking, it's not actually breaking relativity.

Now, it's entirely possible that my limited knowledge of actual high-level physics would make this impossible in ways I'm not aware of, but the point is I am willing to try and meet these concepts half-way.

Well, the matrix got screwed by the executive in that regard, but the fact they fail at the science hardly in and of itself makes something stop being science fiction, or else you'd have to unqualify a great much work that had previously been scifi every couple weeks...
Again, I'm not saying that "not-science-fiction" means "not good". But yes, I would unqualify a great deal of so-called science fiction on this basis- particularly if the portions where the science fell down were absolutely critical to the story, which I do consider a valid basis for calling out as crap and/or dishonest.

Avatar's neural net and drivers are frankly a bit less believable than the thermodynamics of the matrix. :smallwink:
Why? I don't see anything biologically impossible about some kind of vegetable life-form developing a collective intelligence similar to, say, ant colonies, or using tree-roots as an analogous structure to dendritic synapses in neurons (which I thought was quite clever.) The general argument that 'competition in nature precludes this arrangement' is sort of begging the question- if symbiosis was advantageous to both parties, than natural selection would favour it. (Plus, the trees might be clones of eachother, or something similar.)

Yes, the mountains are effectively impossible, but again, they are not plot-critical. Replace them with regular mountains and it works just fine (though presumably, you'd still need a powerful EM field to screw with guided missiles. Still, you get things like large deposits of magnetite on earth, so I don't see an inherent problem there.)

The humanoid race thing is actually less bothersome, both because it's explainable in backstory a thousand ways, but also because such a thing could easily be explained scientifically, from the point of view of convergent/parallel evolution...
It's conceivable, but unlikely. I'm not saying that Avatar is Hard-baked SF of the highest order by any means, but it does at least make a consistent effort.

*Sigh* So once again, it comes down to what you've decided the known laws of physics are, eh? Well, at least we've made the progress of you admitting a character drama can be scifi. Problem is, anytime you move tech in a direction that it isn't currently exactly in, there is about a 75-100% chance you're violating physics on some level...
Well, possibly, but at least it isn't violating physics in ways we can obviously forsee today, and no reasonable effort to work around the difficulty.

Firefly? really? Are you sure this isn't about what you like and what you don't? As fun as the show was, it was about as scientifically accurate as Enterprise (Sans Dear Doctor).
I would be happy to hear you expand on the subject, if you want to actually support the argument.

Once again, you place limits on the writing style for scifi. Detailed explanations are required, according to you, to be scifi with psychic powers...
Again, I don't think I said that. My words were 'some effort to explain/limit'. I didn't say it had to be particularly detailed. In Firefly, for example, stripping the amygdala, responsible for emotional regulation, along with River's highly intuitive intelligence, were, I thought, an interesting line to take.

Again, I think the only reason why SF writers can get away with this is because we don't fully understand how the brain works yet, so we can't conclusively rule out that something like psychic abilities are impossible (even if every double-blind study on the subject strongly indicates that everyone laying claim to psychic abilities today is a charlatan.) I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea, but I just wanted to give some outline of why the notion keeps popping up, and why I'm marginally more willing to tolerate it.

Not a big fan of the end of Galactica, but I notice you start disliking it as soon as it stops being "scifi" to you...
I don't think I actually said that. It was pretty clear from the start that BSG wasn't aiming to be hard SF at all, (despite brave statements to the tune of not using time travel, evil twins, noises in a vacuum, and other such trashy storytelling staples. I'm sure Evil Boomer will be thrilled to hear it.)

I started to dislike the series when it ceased making any sense, not just in terms of science or realism, but even by the more relaxed standard of internal consistency.

..."Angels" being largely unexplained were at least ascientific in a sense (Not violating known principles as they would largely represent a nonexistent field.
This is a restatement of the general argument for the existence of God, which I don't think we're actually allowed to discuss here. Suffice it to say I have a dim opinion of this kind of intellectual recourse.

Good question. The problem is, scifi is not, on several levels, what you want it to be. It is much more...
The problem with being so all-inclusive is that the term loses any specific meaning, distinction, or cachet. A term that describes everything effectively describes nothing. (Much like the 'ol concept of the all-pervading luminiferous aether- it's everywhere all the time, and therefore effectively nonexistant.) As Dune would have it-

"The removal of all limitations is the removal of all points of reference. In the landscape of wild possibilities, you cannot orient yourself and say, 'I am myself because I am here.'"

[Susano-wo]

The problem with being so all-inclusive is that the term loses any specific meaning, distinction, or cachet. A term that describes everything effectively describes nothing. (Much like the 'ol concept of the all-pervading luminiferous aether- it's everywhere all the time, and therefore effectively nonexistant.) As Dune would have it-

"The removal of all limitations is the removal of all points of reference. In the landscape of wild possibilities, you cannot orient yourself and say, 'I am myself because I am here.'"

This is also why I consider it important to hammer this out and define terms--and stick to them. All in all, a well done post, and I think you describe better the points I was trying to raise:smallsmile:

[Samurai Jill]

This is also why I consider it important to hammer this out and define terms--and stick to them. All in all, a well done post, and I think you describe better the points I was trying to raise:smallsmile:
Well, thank you. :) At any rate, I didn't mean to derail the thread, so if anybody else wants to jump in, feel free. Um. I quite liked Vanilla Sky...

[Susano-wo]

DOn't know why I thought of this, but I liked Southland Tales...I think it makes enough of an effort to include reasonable scientific rigor...though I'd be willing to admit otherwise if someone has a better memory of the science in it