Top 5 Favorite Sci-Fi Films

Buscemi wrote:Watchmen is action, not sci-fi.

Meanwhile, my Top 5:

1.Star Wars
2.Wall-E
3.Back To The Future
4.The Empire Strikes Back
5.Return Of The Jedi

Yeah, there's nothing sci-fi about a guy that gets locked in a room where radiation turns him into a god-like being that can bend space and time... Also, I put spoilers on Sunshine's ending because I haven't had a chance to see it yet (I just learned about it in the last month or two). So it was for my sake since I'm going to read this thread 10 times before its said and done... Sorry if I offended.

NSpan wrote:not to mitigate the legitimacy of the thread, but i'm having some trouble coming up with a list..

i don't know if "Sci-Fi" is really a legitimate genre.. usually, it's more of a description of the setting than anything.. Comedy, Horror, Drama, etc.... now those are genres.. (and, naturally, most movies blend genres at least a little bit).. i just don't see how we can lump movies as diverse as Star Wars, 2001, Alien(s), Back to the Future, Blade Runner, and the Iron Giant into a single category..

I think sci-fi is as legitimate a catagory as romantic comedy. You could call a movie like Shaun of the Dead a romantic comedy and be right, but is it considered by any to be so? No. So, lets put up our favorites (one bracket can be sci-fi space, one can be sci-fi horror, one can be etc...) and if there are any objections, we can let IMDB sort it out...

undeadmonkey wrote:Would Lord of the Rings count?

I would say LOTR would get vetoed right away (actually it already did) and the database says no...

If Watchmen is sci-fi for that, then it looks like The Incredible Hulk movies are also sci-fi. Hmmm.

Great opening statement Busc... Here's my case.

Its science based fiction (and I'm assuming that a film doesn't have to be pigeonholed into only one catagory), so I guess so...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800080/

So is Spider-Man...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/

And Iron Man...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/

But not The Dark Knight.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/

If you don't think these are fictitious or based in science, then I don't know what to tell you... If these characters were in movies and not comics first, you would say that they were sci-fi/action films. I mean, wouldn't you say that this film is sci-fi?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/

Scientist transforms himself into another creature using science that is futuristic/inprobable at this point in time/possibly impossible. i.e. fictitous science...

Your witness counsel. Ready for cross-examination...

I actually think of The Fly as being a horror film. Though the sci-fi elements are very much there, it was made during Cronenberg's horror era (1975-1988) and it was promoted and reviewed as such. Also, you rarely see moments as gruesome as The Fly's moments in sci-fi films.

Brazil
Star Wars
Back to the Future
Aliens
The Terminator

Honorable Mention:
Children of Men
Total Recall

To add to this debate, aren't the Star Wars films actually fantasy films and not sci-fi? My understanding of sci-fi is that it takes a modern issue and projects a future (or alternative reality) that emphasises that issues as a problem (e.g. time travel, cyborgs, big brother scenarios). Fantasy relies more on the impossible, the fantastical, and aims more for fun.

From Science Fiction Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

'Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas". Science fiction is largely based on writing entertainingly and rationally about alternate possibilities in settings that are contrary to known reality.

These may include:
A setting in the future, in alternative time lines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archeological 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)"

This is why it would include Star Wars... Its actually mentioned in that article under the sub-genre Space Opera. Anyways, debate all you want, but I think the fairest way is that if someone argues about a specific film, we check IMDB on it. That way we can rely on our own brains to figure out what is science fiction and what is not and we have a non-denominational tie breaker if even one person veto's a choice...

Christ, this is making my head hurt. Time for an executive decision...

Star Wars is sf. Star Trek is sf. Alien, The Abyss and The Blob are all sf. Back to the Future is sf. So is Ghostbusters, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Wall*E and Disaster Movie. As is 9, Twelve Monkeys, 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2012, 10,000 B.C. and Buckaroo Bonzai: Across the Eighth Dimension. Not to mention, An Inconvenient Truth.

Any questions?

So, what is Watchmen and The Fly? W says sci-fi, I say action and horror respectively.

An Inconvenient Truth?? Ha! Nice to have you back Swedge (even if I don't agree with your politics).

Just curious about your list...I never saw 10,000 BC, but I thought it was about hte past...is there some futuristic stuff in there too or something?

I don't think anyone here agrees with Swedge's politics. While Swedge is a staunch conservative, most of the others here are liberal, Libertarian or simply don't give a damn about politics.

And 10,000 B.C. was set in the B.C. times. You know, cavemen, ice, wooly mammoths, a bunch of other shit that happened in the even worse Year One.

Buscemi wrote:So, what is Watchmen and The Fly? W says sci-fi, I say action and horror respectively.

For the purpose of this poll, what IMDB says is sci-fi is sci-fi... We can argue amongst ourselves, and I'm all for a good argument, but for the sake of getting on with this, IMDB rules over vetos...

Depending on your beliefs, 10,000 B.C. could be construed as science fiction. Like if you don't believe in cavemen or prehistoric tribes. Though, it wouldn't count for this poll and I doubt it would be in anyone's 5 favorites.

As for politics, I agree with some of the right side of things and some of the left (i.e. little "L" libertarian). I usually vote on the conservative side in federal elections as they seem to me to have been more middle of the road than the Democrats (especially in this last election, the only presidential candidate that I actually wanted to see win since I was born lost). Our longest tenured senator in Indiana is a Republican that actually worked with Obama to get things done when Obama was a senator. Anyways, this is for another thread, so please start that thread if we're going to talk politics. I wouldn't mind taking the minority opinion...

I agree with whoever said Sci-Fi is not a genre, it's more of a setting. At most, it's a sub-genre, like Western. I mean, who could agree that Maverick and The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford are the same type of movie? Or The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly and Wild Wild West?

exactly.

You guys are talking like a genre is something you can specifically put every film into. To me, science fiction is as legitimate a genre as any other, if it uses fictional science as a plot device, then its a sci-fi film to me. Let me ask you a few questions...

How dramatic does a film have to be to be considered a drama?
How comedic does a film have to be to be considered a comedy?
How romantic does a film have to be to be considered a romance?
How adventurous does a film have to be to be considered an adventure?
How scary does a film have to be to be considered a horror film?
How thrilling does a film have to be to be considered a thriller?
How much war does a film have to have in it to be considered a war film?

The answer to all of these questions is "I'll know it when I see it" and that depends on the individual person. You won't like that some things are considered sci-fi, I won't like that some things are considered sci-fi, and other people won't like it. That can even be a reason why you vote against it if you like (it won't be for me, I'll just vote for my favorite film). When we can get over that, we can get the ball to continue to roll...

I just know we wouldn't be having this discussion about a concrete genre, like drama, comedy, or action.

I'm not trying to slow down the progress of the poll. It just makes for an interesting film discussion.

To answer your questions, I'd say Drama and Comedy are the two primary genres. They describe the fundamental intent (or purpose) of the story being told. (And, naturally, plenty of stories blend the two).

Sub-genres like "Action," "Thriller," "Adventure," or "Horror" help categorize the content of the story.

And, in my opinion, "Sci-Fi," "Western," "Fantasy," and "War" are all settings or scenarios in which any of these types of stories can be told.

IPKI$$ wrote:Yeah, but they have emotions. So, it's TECHNICALLY a drama.

He's probably thinking it's more action than sci-fi, since the plot in any michael bay film takes a back seat and defies all genre conventions.

You got it IPKI i think its an action film it has robots but i think its more of an action flick.

NSpan wrote:I'm not trying to slow down the progress of the poll. It just makes for an interesting film discussion.

To answer your questions, I'd say Drama and Comedy are the two primary genres. They describe the fundamental intent (or purpose) of the story being told. (And, naturally, plenty of stories blend the two).

Sub-genres like "Action," "Thriller," "Adventure," or "Horror" help categorize the content of the story.

And, in my opinion, "Sci-Fi," "Western," "Fantasy," and "War" are all settings or scenarios in which any of these types of stories can be told.

What a great way to sum it up NSpan! That was really well said.

NSpan wrote:I'm not trying to slow down the progress of the poll. It just makes for an interesting film discussion.

To answer your questions, I'd say Drama and Comedy are the two primary genres. They describe the fundamental intent (or purpose) of the story being told. (And, naturally, plenty of stories blend the two).

Sub-genres like "Action," "Thriller," "Adventure," or "Horror" help categorize the content of the story.

And, in my opinion, "Sci-Fi," "Western," "Fantasy," and "War" are all settings or scenarios in which any of these types of stories can be told.

I would say that if you're looking for intent, Drama is something that is serious. Comedy is something that is supposed to be funny. Action is something well... with action in it. Horror is something that is supposed to scare you and doesn't have to be comedic or serious. But, why then, does a genre have to deal with intent? Who said it did? A genre is the main item that is used to describe a film and has nothing to check itself with. A setting, topic, or even time period could be used as the main thing to describe the film, hence a setting, topic, or time period can be a genre. The most legitimate word to describe Star Wars is "Space Opera," but that is a sub-genre of sci-fi which sci-fi is a sub-genre of... NOTHING. When there is nothing to check itself with, I believe it is genre. Sci-fi is a main item that is used to decribe a film and has nothing to check itself with (I need better wordage for this, but can't think of anything) so therefore, it is a genre.

My point is that really... No genre is concrete and that most films aren't specific to a particular genre. Shaun of the Dead is a horror-comedy. Horror doesn't describe comedy, therefore it isn't a sub-genre of comedy. What is horror a sub-genre of then? To be sub- you have to be under something. Jurassic Park is a drama-action-fantasy-scifi-adventure. Try doing that one... IMO sci-fi is a legitimate genre. Would you call a film like Crank a drama or a comedy? No, its pure action and that is its genre.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In other news, I want to do comedy and biopic in whatever order after I get these done... There's probably about five days left FYI to get your top five/suggestions in for this one BTW.

If you wanted to, you could actually say that EVERYTHING is a sub-genre to fiction, as opposed to non, fiction. But I am assuming that we are not saying that.

Also, a genre can be a form, like animation. The main thing to describe Pinoccio would be animated film, so animation is a genre as well.

W wrote:

NSpan wrote:To answer your questions, I'd say Drama and Comedy are the two primary genres. They describe the fundamental intent (or purpose) of the story being told. (And, naturally, plenty of stories blend the two).

Sub-genres like "Action," "Thriller," "Adventure," or "Horror" help categorize the content of the story.

And, in my opinion, "Sci-Fi," "Western," "Fantasy," and "War" are all settings or scenarios in which any of these types of stories can be told.

But, why then, does a genre have to deal with intent? Who said it did?

I did. Says so right up there.

NSpan wrote:

W wrote:

NSpan wrote:To answer your questions, I'd say Drama and Comedy are the two primary genres. They describe the fundamental intent (or purpose) of the story being told. (And, naturally, plenty of stories blend the two).

Sub-genres like "Action," "Thriller," "Adventure," or "Horror" help categorize the content of the story.

And, in my opinion, "Sci-Fi," "Western," "Fantasy," and "War" are all settings or scenarios in which any of these types of stories can be told.

But, why then, does a genre have to deal with intent? Who said it did?

I did. Says so right up there.

You know what I mean, you crazy eyed, open mouthed bastard! :)

(referring to your avatar...)

W wrote:

NSpan wrote:I did. Says so right up there.

You know what I mean, you crazy eyed, open mouthed bastard!

(referring to your avatar...)

W wrote:Also, a genre can be a form, like animation. The main thing to describe Pinoccio would be animated film, so animation is a genre as well.

There might be some disagreement over what the "main thing" is to describe Pinocchio...

I thought the animation poll worked because it's a niche medium. (It also happens to have been relegated to family-friendly fare in the minds of the majority, so it's especially interesting to see movies which defy that stereotype)

W wrote:If you wanted to, you could actually say that EVERYTHING is a sub-genre to fiction, as opposed to non, fiction. But I am assuming that we are not saying that.

Agreed. someone might have to come up with a Biological Classification of Film (ie. Species, Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, Kingdom, etc.)..

maybe something like
Class (ie. Fiction or Non-Fiction)
Medium/Form (ie. Animation or Live-Action)
Length (Short or Feature)
Genre (Comedy or Drama...... or, hell, what about Serious or Fun... maybe even Art or Entertainment--but that might cause unneeded debate)
Content-Sub-Genre (Action, Thriller, Horror, Romance, etc.)
Setting (War, Sci-Fi, Western, etc.)