|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 5, 2018 16:36:32 GMT
Please discuss any potential placement issues with films.
Star Wars Gravity X-Men Captain America Iron Man Back To The Future Spider-Man The Incredible Hulk Her Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind The Thing Videodrome The Fly 2046 Under The Skin A Clockwork Orange Brazil Children Of Men Never Let Me Go The Rocky Horror Picture Show The Matrix Cloud Atlas 28 Days Later Avatar Seconds Stalker
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 5, 2018 16:46:09 GMT
Gravity is science-fiction. People have argued that it can't be sci-fi because it uses real-life technology, but I'd counter that it still uses it in a fictionalized, non-mundane way. Space travel is not an everyday occurrence. According to Asimov and Clarke:
Gravity fits both of these criteria for me, pretty handily.
But then people will say, "Well, would you consider Apollo 13 science-fiction?" The answer is no, because the events of that film actually happened. Gravity did not.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 5, 2018 16:47:44 GMT
As for Star Wars, it's a fantasy series couched in sci-fi trappings. It doesn't look at the technology in a scientific way, but treats it almost as magic.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 5, 2018 16:52:58 GMT
These should be turned into polls at some point, probably.
For now: Star Wars is space fantasy, not science-fiction. It doesn't look at any of its concepts through a scientific lens, nor does it really suggest that any of it is supposed to exist within a realm of plausibility. The entire series thrives in its sense of magic. The most distinguishable, uniquely "Star Wars" concept, after all, is The Force, an obviously fantastical, mystical concept that goes so far as to define the entire uniqueness of the universe. It's easier to equate to a "magical" power than to a scientific phenomenon. Thematically, too, Star Wars is fantasy at heart, dealing primarily with concepts of the struggle between "light" and "dark", a Hero's Journey that involves crossing the threshold into a land of the unknown, and so on, all storytelling devices and structures that are integral to the fantasy genre. There are a plethora of themes integral to sci-fi, and none of them have ever been essential to Star Wars. It's fantasy that looks like science-fiction. Hell, Lucas even sets the story "A long time ago," and clearly always intended for it to have a mythological feel.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 5, 2018 16:54:14 GMT
These should be turned into polls at some point, probably. For now: Star Wars is space fantasy, not science-fiction. It doesn't look at any of its concepts through a scientific lens, nor does it really suggest that any of it is supposed to exist within a realm of plausibility. The entire series thrives in its sense of magic. The most distinguishable, uniquely "Star Wars" concept, after all, is The Force, an obviously fantastical, mystical concept that goes so far as to define the entire uniqueness of the universe. It's easier to equate to a "magical" power than to a scientific phenomenon. Thematically, too, Star Wars is fantasy at heart, dealing primarily with concepts of the struggle between "light" and "dark", a Hero's Journey that involves crossing the threshold into a land of the unknown, and so on, all storytelling devices and structures that are integral to the fantasy genre. There are a plethora of themes integral to sci-fi, and none of them have ever been essential to Star Wars. It's fantasy that looks like science-fiction. Hell, Lucas even sets the story "A long time ago," and clearly always intended for it to have a mythological feel. Although to be fair, Phantom Menace tries to actually turn the franchise toward a more science-fiction avenue by explaining the Force as a bunch of tiny microbes called "midichlorians." Doesn't mean we have to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 5, 2018 16:58:50 GMT
Although to be fair, Phantom Menace tries to actually turn the franchise toward a more science-fiction avenue by explaining the Force as a bunch of tiny microbes called "midichlorians." Doesn't mean we have to accept it. Yeah, we don't have to accept is right. It's The Phantom Menace, who gives a shit For all intents and purposes with this poll, I'm only concerned with the Star Wars films that people actually might vote for. Besides, I'm pretty sure the "midichlorians" explanation is no longer part of the accepted canon. Would have to ask my more SW-savvy friends about that one, but I know that's something I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 5, 2018 17:09:18 GMT
Trying to expand the horizon and see how far we can go in terms of eligibility...
Back to the future, Children of Men, Inception, Annihilation, Close Encounters of the Third Kind are all science-fiction to me. But I'm not sure everyone would agree.
Is The Thing science-fiction? Or is it horror? The Abyss?
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 5, 2018 17:12:40 GMT
Trying to expand the horizon and see how far we can go in terms of eligibility... Back to the future, Children of Men, Inception, Annihilation, Close Encounters of the Third Kind are all science-fiction to me. But I'm not sure everyone would agree. Is The Thing science-fiction? Or is it horror? The Abyss? I don't think sci-fi and horror should be seen as mutually exclusive, considering how much they overlap. Both Alien and The Thing qualify in both genres for me, as do a bunch of other stuff. Same goes for other possible genre overlaps: Back to the Future is both a comedy and sci-fi ... the basic narrative arch is that of your classic rom-com, but the sci-fi elements are absolutely essential to it telling its story. You could also more or less say the same about Eternal Sunshine and even Her, for example. Not sure why any of the others you mentioned wouldn't be considered science-fiction...
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 5, 2018 17:19:18 GMT
Trying to expand the horizon and see how far we can go in terms of eligibility... Back to the future, Children of Men, Inception, Annihilation, Close Encounters of the Third Kind are all science-fiction to me. But I'm not sure everyone would agree. Is The Thing science-fiction? Or is it horror? The Abyss? I don't think sci-fi and horror should be seen as mutually exclusive, considering how much they overlap. Both Alien and The Thing qualify in both genres for me, as do a bunch of other stuff. Same goes for other possible genre overlaps: Back to the Future is both a comedy and sci-fi ... the basic narrative arch is that of your classic rom-com, but the sci-fi elements are absolutely essential to it telling its story. You could also more or less say the same about Eternal Sunshine and even Her, for example. Not sure why any of the others you mentioned wouldn't be considered science-fiction... That's what I was pointing to. Just making sure that genre overlap isn't an issue.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 5, 2018 17:21:55 GMT
Yeah, Star Wars ain't sci-fi
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 5, 2018 17:55:50 GMT
One key question for me before I start counting any ballots is what to do with possible mentions for superhero movies. What do you guys say? I tend to consider them their own genre, but I can imagine people seeing them subsets of fantasy or sci-fi.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 5, 2018 18:15:06 GMT
One key question for me before I start counting any ballots is what to do with possible mentions for superhero movies. What do you guys say? I tend to consider them their own genre, but I can imagine people seeing them subsets of fantasy or sci-fi. I think they lead more towards science-fiction than fantasy for the most part, because most of them deal with either some sort of scientific mishap ( Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk) or technological advancement ( Captain America, Iron Man). Thor is really the only one that I think leans more into fantasy than sci-fi.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 5, 2018 18:41:47 GMT
why don't we hold a poll like the lead/supporting poll for the AMARAs for these films and knock them all out at once? We can discuss them all first, but that seems like the solution to keep it all organized and democratic and to keep voters from submitting generally unaccepted entries. In fact I don't even know if having voting open yet is a good idea because there's a lot to sift through and the framework hasn't really been established yet.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 5, 2018 19:12:38 GMT
why don't we hold a poll like the lead/supporting poll for the AMARAs for these films and knock them all out at once? We can discuss them all first, but that seems like the solution to keep it all organized and democratic and to keep voters from submitting generally unaccepted entries. In fact I don't even know if having voting open yet is a good idea because there's a lot to sift through and the framework hasn't really been established yet. Good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Dec 5, 2018 19:21:15 GMT
That's a damn good definition. Oh btw Star Wars is clearly fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Dec 5, 2018 19:24:07 GMT
What about Wong Kar-wai's 2046? does it count as sci-fi?
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 5, 2018 19:26:36 GMT
I'd start with...
Star Wars Gravity X-Men Captain America Iron Man Back To The Future Spider-Man The Incredible Hulk Her Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind The Thing Videodrome The Fly 2046
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 5, 2018 19:30:06 GMT
Sci-Fi X-Men Captain America Iron Man Back To The Future Spider-Man The Incredible Hulk Her Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind The Thing Videodrome
Not Star Wars Gravity 2046
n/s The Fly
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 5, 2018 19:32:12 GMT
basic question: I'm assuming we're allowing anything involving extraterrestrial life-forms, particularly in the context of them existing in a human-normative reality? (so Under the Skin for example). What about films like Fantastic Planet?
And what is our opinion about futuristic narratives and dystopias? (Brazil, 1984, A Clockwork Orange, Children of Men, Never Let Me Go).
And then there are disease/zombie movies to consider (Contagion and 28 Days Later).
(for the record, I'd argue that all of the above counts as science fiction but I'm interested to see what others say)
As for Star Wars, I'd still argue that it's sci-fi and I don't like the idea of exempting it on the basis of its mythology. "The Force" in Star Wars isn't magic, it's a supernatural force based on Eastern mysticism and shares similarities with the mystic elements of Wachowski films like The Matrix and Cloud Atlas whose statuses aren't nearly as contested (and don't forget about Avatar with its Mother Earth fantasy). Star Trek is very similar to Star Wars minus the mythology, and the tenets of Eastern mysticism dubious as they might be in the real world aren't considered "magic." I don't know why they should be considered magic in a fictional universe just because they happen to exist in that world. Maybe I'm in a minority here, but the fantastical workings of the Star Wars universe never struck me as magical. I just took them at face value as supernatural energy that happens to exist in this world. Am I alone in that?? It's also worth considering how much Star Wars takes from our own world that isn't fantastical, like the Empire's relationship to historical fascism particularly of the Hitler/Mussolini brand. This is a work of fiction using fantastical science fiction elements and worldbuilding to comment on our own world.
And I need to stress that comparison with the Wachowski films. Cloud Atlas similarly focuses on the struggle between good and evil in ourselves, and The Matrix also follows a Hero's Journey and is more based in philosophy and mysticism than science. If we're going to exclude Star Wars on the basis of its mythology and narrative structure, I'd argue that we should also exclude The Matrix and Cloud Atlas (which would be a shame because they're fantastic).
here are some others to consider in addition to the ones that have already been mentioned that are marked "sci-fi" according to letterboxd: Seconds Stalker The Rocky Horror Picture Show (weird I know, but he's technically an alien right?) Videodrome
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 5, 2018 19:37:49 GMT
As for Star Wars, I'd still argue that it's sci-fi and I don't like the idea of exempting it on the basis of its mythology. "The Force" is Star Wars isn't magic, it's a supernatural force based on Eastern mysticism and shares similarities with the mystic elements of Wachowski films like The Matrix, Cloud Atlas whose statues aren't nearly as contested (and don't forget about Avatar with its Mother Earth fantasy). Star Trek is very similar to Star Wars minus the mythology, and the tenets of Eastern mysticism dubious as they might be in the real world aren't considered "magic." I don't know why they should be considered magic in a fictional universe just because they happen to exist in that world. Maybe I'm in a minority here, but the fantastical workings of the Star Wars universe never struck me as magical. I just took them at face value as supernatural energy that happens to exist in this world. Am I alone in that?? And I need to stress that comparison with the Wachowski films. Cloud Atlas particularly focuses on the struggle between good and evil in ourselves, and The Matrix also follows a Hero's Journey and is more based in philosophy and mysticism than science. If we're going to exclude Star Wars on the basis of its mythology and narrative structure, I'd argue that we should also exclude The Matrix and Cloud Atlas (which would be a shame because they're fantastic). I wasn't trying to imply that the mythos of Star Wars is "magic," but merely that that's how Lucas treated it. It's still something that exists beyond the realm of speculative science, at least as far as I'm concerned, hence why I deem it fantasy. You said it yourself, it's "supernatural," and as far as I'm concerned, that implies fantasy. I didn't think about The Matrix, I haven't seen it since I was like ten so I'd have to take another look at it to know. Cloud Atlas, though, I have to think about...not sure which way I'll lean on that one. Especially considering its last two segments have sci-fi settings, but the essence of the story doesn't feel like it inherently belongs to the genre.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 5, 2018 19:42:17 GMT
As for Star Wars, I'd still argue that it's sci-fi and I don't like the idea of exempting it on the basis of its mythology. "The Force" is Star Wars isn't magic, it's a supernatural force based on Eastern mysticism and shares similarities with the mystic elements of Wachowski films like The Matrix, Cloud Atlas whose statues aren't nearly as contested (and don't forget about Avatar with its Mother Earth fantasy). Star Trek is very similar to Star Wars minus the mythology, and the tenets of Eastern mysticism dubious as they might be in the real world aren't considered "magic." I don't know why they should be considered magic in a fictional universe just because they happen to exist in that world. Maybe I'm in a minority here, but the fantastical workings of the Star Wars universe never struck me as magical. I just took them at face value as supernatural energy that happens to exist in this world. Am I alone in that?? And I need to stress that comparison with the Wachowski films. Cloud Atlas particularly focuses on the struggle between good and evil in ourselves, and The Matrix also follows a Hero's Journey and is more based in philosophy and mysticism than science. If we're going to exclude Star Wars on the basis of its mythology and narrative structure, I'd argue that we should also exclude The Matrix and Cloud Atlas (which would be a shame because they're fantastic). You said it yourself, it's "supernatural," and as far as I'm concerned, that implies fantasy. well what about Avatar then, with its Gaia Ex Machina in the final act? That film is more explicitly spiritual than the Wachowski films and Star Wars combined.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 5, 2018 19:47:39 GMT
You said it yourself, it's "supernatural," and as far as I'm concerned, that implies fantasy. well what about Avatar then, with its Gaia Ex Machina in the final act? That film is more explicitly spiritual than the Wachowski films and Star Wars combined. It's another one I haven't seen in maybe eight years, but I'd have to say it's an overlap of both fantasy and science-fiction. It's inherently science-fiction as it heavily deals with the prospect of extraterrestrial begins and exploration and the responsibility of Earth when interacting with these things, and that is well within the realm of speculative science. But a lot of the Pandora mythology does strike me as being fantasy, and I'd say both elements are pretty essential to the story. So, yeah, I'd say there's an overlap, and it should be eligible here. (Though, if you ask me, no one should be voting for it regardless.)
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 5, 2018 19:49:17 GMT
basic question: I'm assuming we're allowing anything involving extraterrestrial life-forms, particularly in the context of them existing in a human-normative reality? (so Under the Skin for example). What about films like Fantastic Planet? And what is our opinion about futuristic narratives and dystopias? ( Brazil, 1984, A Clockwork Orange, Children of Men, Never Let Me Go). And then there are disease/zombie movies to consider ( Contagion and 28 Days Later). (for the record, I'd argue that all of the above counts as science fiction but I'm interested to see what others say) As for Star Wars, I'd still argue that it's sci-fi and I don't like the idea of exempting it on the basis of its mythology. "The Force" in Star Wars isn't magic, it's a supernatural force based on Eastern mysticism and shares similarities with the mystic elements of Wachowski films like The Matrix and Cloud Atlas whose statuses aren't nearly as contested (and don't forget about Avatar with its Mother Earth fantasy). Star Trek is very similar to Star Wars minus the mythology, and the tenets of Eastern mysticism dubious as they might be in the real world aren't considered "magic." I don't know why they should be considered magic in a fictional universe just because they happen to exist in that world. Maybe I'm in a minority here, but the fantastical workings of the Star Wars universe never struck me as magical. I just took them at face value as supernatural energy that happens to exist in this world. Am I alone in that?? It's also worth considering how much Star Wars takes from our own world that isn't fantastical, like the Empire's relationship to historical fascism particularly of the Hitler/Mussolini brand. This is a work of fiction using fantastical science fiction elements and worldbuilding to comment on our own world. And I need to stress that comparison with the Wachowski films. Cloud Atlas particularly focuses on the struggle between good and evil in ourselves, and The Matrix also follows a Hero's Journey and is more based in philosophy and mysticism than science. If we're going to exclude Star Wars on the basis of its mythology and narrative structure, I'd argue that we should also exclude The Matrix and Cloud Atlas (which would be a shame because they're fantastic). here are some others to consider in addition to the ones that have already been mentioned that are marked "sci-fi" according to letterboxd: Seconds Stalker The Rocky Horror Picture Show (weird I know, but he's technically an alien right?) VideodromeNever Let Me Go is definitely sci-fi, in my opinion. Children Of Men as well. A Clockwork Orange is a much trickier one: it is futuristic and dystopian, but is it enough to call it sci-fi? Ditto for Brazil. That said, I'd still vote Yes on them.
The zombie movies are both sci-fi and horror, I'd say.
I'd say the Wachowskis are sci-fi. Certainly The Matrix. It's about a simulated reality after all. Cloud Atlas is a tougher one because, as you say, it's a story so full of mysticism. Let's see what the others say.
Videodrome is sci-fi, I say.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Dec 5, 2018 22:49:55 GMT
Glad that most people here see Star Wars as fantasy, not sci-fi. I definitely think it should be excluded. I also think superhero movies should be excluded since they've become a whole other genre unto themselves.
Gravity is the tricky one. I respect those two quotes that Stephen listed towards its inclusion, but honestly, I just don't see that movie as representative of any of the themes/tropes that the science fiction genre so often draws upon. It's a survival thriller that just happens to be set in space. For Asimov's quote, yes Gravity features authentic scientific knowledge that is utilized for plot purposes, but then again so does a movie like Searching, which is entirely predicated on a technological conceit (the whole thing is set inside a computer) but is clearly not sci-fi. And re: Clarke's quote, yes Gravity "could happen," but so could any other film that doesn't feature the supernatural. Maybe that's being pedantic. Even so, I think it should be disqualified because regardless of its official categorization, there's bound to be quite a few voters that may love the film but still won't vote for it because they just don't see it as science fiction. Thus, its placement on the list wouldn't really be an accurate indication of the board's view on it quality-wise. Personally, I'm maybe a bigger fan of Gravity than anyone on this board (it's one of my ten favorite movies of all time), but I'd feel really weird voting for it when I don't even consider it science fiction. In any case, I'll adhere to the verdict, but my vote is definitely for exclusion.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Dec 6, 2018 2:08:20 GMT
Regarding Star Wars, I think being fantasy doesn't exclude it from also being sci-fi. There's way too much sci-fi in it too ignore. Space travel (especially inter-galactic), alien races and artificial intelligence are staples of the genre, plus it neatly fits the definition of a space opera, which has always been considered a sub-genre of science fiction. And if Star Wars isn't sci-fi, then what about other space opera films like the Star Trek films (particularly The Wrath of Khan) and Serenity?
|
|