Official definition of sci-fi? [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

blckhawk542

10-25-2005, 03:22 PM

I knew someone was gonna make a thread defining what Sci-fi was sooner or later....same thing happened with the recent contest.
It started off as something about things being dead.....no specifics....but then people started saying...OO OO OO..ZOMBBIIEZZZ!!....then it turned into Zombiefest....hopefully everyone wont do just aliens for this contest...then we'll have to call it AlienFest...which kinda sounds..weird..

David G. Smith

10-25-2005, 04:11 PM

"Science fiction is a form of speculative fiction principally dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon society and persons as individuals. "

David, What he said.

Daniel Skubal

10-25-2005, 05:10 PM

I'm not doing aliens. It's a speculation of the future.

avery

10-25-2005, 06:34 PM

if i made a film about an angel coming to show the way to jesus would that be considered a sci-fi? or fantasy

David G. Smith

10-25-2005, 06:39 PM

if i made a film about an angel coming to show the way to jesus would that be considered a sci-fi? or fantasy

That would depend on where Jesus was. If he was on a UFO, it would be sci-fi. If he was in perfect place where there was total peace and harmony, that would be fantasy. If he was in Detroit, that would be an urban drama. If he was in 1870's Dodge City, that would be a western... you get the picture.

avery

10-25-2005, 06:41 PM

jesus on a ufo sounds awesome. what if i were to do something likeeee everyone was a robot except one person, or does everything have to do with an alien or like roger cormans gay ass dinocroc

arielman

10-26-2005, 04:55 PM

Sci -Fi can be the unexplained ..look at the classic show .."the Twilight Zone "
Robots and aliens do not always make a Sci-Fi .

Ian

crayolamarker

10-26-2005, 05:52 PM

"Fiction in which new and futuristic scientific developments propel the plot."

GenJerDan

10-26-2005, 06:00 PM

If that narrow a definition is going to be used...see ya.

KingVidiot

10-28-2005, 08:55 PM

if i made a film about an angel coming to show the way to jesus would that be considered a sci-fi? or fantasy

Better yet, someone should make a film about the freaks in this article:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/science.html

They gotta be from another planet, or at least mixing LSD and X!
Just read-on about Satan's Cotton Fingers...

OK, it's funny and extreme, but I've actually met a few people like this.

But seriously, I saw a great little film about 18 years ago that involved an alien in human form that ultimately tried to explain the existence of Jesus and his powers and how he was going to come back (actually the same alien, I think). Very interesting, and it required no special effects at all (if I remember correctly). It was all done through story and dialogue. I can't remember the name, but it involved the humanoid alien stranger, a boy, and his mother.

CallaghanFilms

10-28-2005, 09:09 PM

I thought this may help keep the genre on track...

Science Fiction
redefines physical laws within an extrapolation of current reality while downplaying spiritual laws. Think of it as saying "This is what might happen". It is essentially a humanistic literature.

Fantasy
redefines spiritual laws within an other-worldly reality while downplaying physical laws. Think of it as saying "This is what might happen elsewhere". It is essentially a theistic literature.

Mythopoeic
redefines spiritual and, perhaps, physical laws within a current or historical reality. Think of it as saying "This is what should have happened". This is perhaps best thought of as theistic science fiction.

Peter Murphy

10-29-2005, 01:31 AM

I'm more of a fantasy guy myself, but I still like robots. I don't however, like guys that wear forehead appliances and call themselves aliens.

GenJerDan

10-29-2005, 02:00 AM

Using the definitions above...a lot of stuff we like wouldn't qualify. Firefly, for instance, or just barely. Star Wars, Star Trek, Buckaroo Bonzai...

George Scithers split the genre a while back: SciFi and SF. SciF is "space opera" (adjusting for whether it actually occurs in Space, of course), SF being things that fall under the more restrictive definition.

CallaghanFilms

10-29-2005, 07:20 AM

I never considered Star Wars to be Science Fiction (Sci-Fi) anyway. I know there are those who do; and there are also those who created the label of "science-fantasy" just for it. As for myself, Star Wars shall always be pure-grain Fantasy.

However, even using the criteria stated above, Star Trek absolutely would be classified as Science Fiction.

For what it's worth my personal simplistic definition would be "A fantasy that is centered around, based in, or at least acknowledges our particular version of earth".

IMHO of course.

One other thing that confuses me, and others I'm sure...
With respect to Mr. Scithers - "Sci-Fi" is, more often than not, merely an abbreviated form of science fiction. :beer:

MattinSTL

10-29-2005, 07:46 AM

I'm more of a fantasy guy myself, but I still like robots. I don't however, like guys that wear forehead appliances and call themselves aliens.

Even thought I always liked Star Trek TNG this is something I have to just accept and trick my brain into turning off. Pop a purple scab on some chick's forehead and she's from a thousand lightyears away. Isn't it great that all those girls have bizzare foreheads and yet the rest of their bodies resembles human super-models? Wouldn't it be nuts if it was the other way around? I'll bet then #1 wouldn't brag about getting to 3-rd base with some Klingon chick. Picard would be like, (laughing) "no-ho-hoooo WAAAAYYY... REALLY?"

Dialog from Klingon chick: "WE... HAVE NO USE... for your HUMAN braziere!"

David Jimerson

10-29-2005, 10:20 AM

I don't know how you wouldn't consider Firefly, ST, and SW to be sci-fi. They're all heavily steeped in technologies which don't exist.

CallaghanFilms

10-29-2005, 11:59 AM

I don't know how you wouldn't consider Firefly, ST, and SW to be sci-fi. They're all heavily steeped in technologies which don't exist.
Yes, you are correct about Star Wars being steeped in nonexistant technologies.
But...
In it, our world (be it past, present or future) does not exist. Based on this factor, I would say it is more akin to the likes of Lord of the Rings, The Dark Crystal, Legend etc.

Of course that's just my opinion. With my sci-fi definition post I wasn't trying to be controversial, nor was I trying to start a series of debates on which films qualify as such. I only wanted to help anyone who has yet to visualize a storyline for their short. :beer:

(I didn't comment one way or the other on Firefly.)

David Jimerson

10-29-2005, 12:16 PM

Well, there's nothing to say our world doesn't exist. It's just taking place in a galaxy far, far away.

I *get* the fantasy thing; it's basically swords and sorcery. You can look at it any number of ways.

Me, I tend to dislike dragons, swords, archers, chain mail, medieval technology, etc.. I like lasers, robots, space ships, cool technology, etc.. SW has all that.

Maybe it's best described as fusion.

But I don't think Sci-Fi needs to have anything to do with Earth.

David G. Smith

10-29-2005, 12:36 PM

I have never considered Star Wars science fiction. I know, I am gonna get a lot of sh*t for this, but, Star Wars, actually set science fiction films back, way back. Calling Star Wars science fiction is like comparing The Andromeda Strain to Radar Men From The Moon. Action adventure, fantasy maybe, but not science fiction.

Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars (well the first three at least), but it is not science fiction.

IMHO.

David Jimerson

10-29-2005, 12:39 PM

GenJerDan

10-29-2005, 01:20 PM

I don't know how you wouldn't consider Firefly, ST, and SW to be sci-fi. They're all heavily steeped in technologies which don't exist.

Not really. Or not vital to the story until...um...maybe the Borg. They've got a lot of technologies we don't use...yet. But even ST's transporter...we've kinda sorta got that in its very beginning stages...and even in the 60's it wasn't something completely outrageous.

ST, SW, Firefly, and the rest of the pop films/tv shows. Space Opera. You could transplant the entire cast and story into the wild wild west and have a Horse Opera, instead.

Just like you could transplant the Seven Samurai into the West magnificently. You could then move them all out to Beta Cygni, given them mottled green skin and nano-blasters, and not affect the story at all.

Put Kirk on a schooner and have him encounter "alien cultures" in the Far East sometime in the middle-distant past. The stories could remain the same-ish, the technology doesn't matter.

MAybe that's why I prefer Space Opera for my entertainment...I like the story, not the setting or incidentals. Hard SF is interesting, but not as much fun. :)

David Jimerson

10-29-2005, 01:30 PM

Well, there's a mistake in assuming that the general rules of drama/writing don't apply to sci-fi.

What you say about sci-fi can be said about anything. The same general stories can be translated into any era, any genre. So, if you go by that, there's no such thing as a genre.

The core principle of any good storytelling is how the characters react to their surroundings. The only difference between sci-fi and any other genre is that it takes place in a world which doesn't exist, or which does exist with elements that don't. People are reacting to things which don't exist in our world, but if the story is any good, they react like humans beings really would.

Otherwise, it's just bad storytelling.

There's very little difference, really, between "Jaws" and "Jurassic Park." One is sci-fi; the other isn't. Sharks exist. Dinosaurs don't. But the story's pretty much the same.

GenJerDan

10-29-2005, 01:41 PM

David G. Smith

10-29-2005, 01:41 PM

Not giving you sh*t, David; just curious as to why you think it set sci-fi "way back."

You surely won't offend me; I've always liked Star Trek more. Just curious. I don't think I've heard anyone say that before.

Well prior to Star Wars, there were science fiction films that were aimed at adults and a lot of them sincrely tried to address issues of man and his relation to technology or other aspects of science. Films like the Andromeda Strain, 2001, A Space Oddessy, Solyaris, A Clockwork Orange, Silent Running, Fahrenheit 451, The Illustrated Man, Slaughter House Five and Roller Ball, among others asked questions that were, in many instances, uncomfortable or even frightening to consider.

With Star Wars, this was not the case. I think that it is a great film, and am a fan of the Joseph Campbell disertations on Star Wars as modern myth. The problem is that to the powers that be, unless a "science fiction" film had fantastic space battles and triumphant heroes, they did not consider making them. What did we get after Star Wars? Battle Star Gallactica and the Last Star Fighter! The emphasis shifted from ideas and questions about man's relationship to technology and the greater universe, to battles in space and black and white issues of good and bad.

Now, this is a broad generalization and am not saying that there were not some great science fiction films made after Star Wars. There has been. However, the form has changed. The films after Star Wars, are more violent and have much more emphasis on action. I find this disheartening. Others may not.

David Jimerson

10-29-2005, 01:45 PM

All fair points, David. Emphasis of action over ideas.

You might, then, like the NEW Battlestar Galactica.

David G. Smith

10-29-2005, 01:53 PM

All fair points, David. Emphasis of action over ideas.

You might, then, like the NEW Battlestar Galactica.

I just can't bring myself to watch it. Good looking out, though, thanks David. :thumbsup:

David Jimerson

10-29-2005, 01:54 PM

Well, yeah. But I mean the stories (I probably should say the theme and plots don't. Individual stories might as a plot point...) don't really depend on the technology. The advanced tech is just there because it's "the future", and no expects we'll still be riding horses and shooting six-guns from the hip.

Um...er...Hey, Joss!

Well, that's what I'm saying. The story should depend on the character's dealing with their surroundings. If it depends on the surroundings, then what IS the story?

I had a teacher way back when who correctly pointed out that all of my sci-fi stories were pretty much just illustrations of my theories of science, and the characters were basically marionettes to expound on that theory. They weren't important; the theory was.

He was right. The stories were weak because the characters were.

So, if you have a story which has a lot of science, but the human drama doesn't ring true, that's not inherently sci-fi; that's just inherently bad writing.

David G. Smith

10-29-2005, 01:59 PM

Well, that's what I'm saying. The story should depend on the character's dealing with their surroundings. If it depends on the surroundings, then what IS the story?

I had a teacher way back when who correctly pointed out that all of my sci-fi stories were pretty much just illustrations of my theories of science, and the characters were basically marionettes to expound on that theory. They weren't important; the theory was.

He was right. The stories were weak because the characters were.

So, if you have a story which has a lot of science, but the human drama doesn't ring true, that's not inherently sci-fi; that's just inherently bad writing.

That is the truest thing, I have heard in a while. You are absolutly right.

CallaghanFilms

10-29-2005, 03:02 PM

Well prior to Star Wars, there were science fiction films that were aimed at adults and a lot of them sincrely tried to address issues of man and his relation to technology or other aspects of science. Films like the Andromeda Strain, 2001, A Space Oddessy, Solyaris, A Clockwork Orange, Silent Running, Fahrenheit 451, The Illustrated Man, Slaughter House Five and Roller Ball, among others asked questions that were, in many instances, uncomfortable or even frightening to consider.

With Star Wars, this was not the case. I think that it is a great film, and am a fan of the Joseph Campbell disertations on Star Wars as modern myth. The problem is that to the powers that be, unless a "science fiction" film had fantastic space battles and triumphant heroes, they did not consider making them. What did we get after Star Wars? Battle Star Gallactica and the Last Star Fighter! The emphasis shifted from ideas and questions about man's relationship to technology and the greater universe, to battles in space and black and white issues of good and bad.

Now, this is a broad generalization and am not saying that there were not some great science fiction films made after Star Wars. There has been. However, the form has changed. The films after Star Wars, are more violent and have much more emphasis on action. I find this disheartening. Others may not.
You make some good points, David. Keep in mind, however, that that was the intention of Lucas in the first place. Well, in a manner of speaking. Lucas wanted to fill the void left after the 60's. In his own words, he has often inferred that particular generation of kids didn't have a mythology all their own. He wanted to craft a replacement world for that of the "Cowboy/Western", which had been lost. What I'm saying is that he never IMHO set out to redefine Science Fiction...nor even make a science fiction film. He wanted to give kids a world they could visit with their dads...and later, with their sons.

CallaghanFilms

10-29-2005, 03:11 PM

:beer:

David G. Smith

10-29-2005, 03:44 PM

You make some good points, David. Keep in mind, however, that that was the intention of Lucas in the first place. Well, in a manner of speaking. Lucas wanted to fill the void left after the 60's. In his own words, he has often inferred that particular generation of kids didn't have a mythology all their own. He wanted to craft a replacement world for that of the "Cowboy/Western", which had been lost. What I'm saying is that he never IMHO set out to redefine Science Fiction...nor even make a science fiction film. He wanted to give kids a world they could visit with their dads...and later, with their sons.

I am not dissing Lucas or the films. I am just describeing an inadvertent consequence of the success of the films. It has more to do with the lack of comprehension of the Hollywood power structure, than with any fault of the Star Wars films.

It is the same thing with Jaws. I think that Jaws is a masterpiece and one of the greatest films ever made. Yet, I also think that the success of the film and the way it was marketed, has had, in some ways, a negative impact on the film industry. The important lessons that Hollywood learned about Jaws was not to make compelling stories with compelling characters and to give talented filmmakers freedom to make these kinds of films. No, what Hollywood learned was "high concept", summer release and saturation booking. Sad.

CallaghanFilms

10-29-2005, 04:22 PM

I do see what you are saying...Ovitz is normally credited with coining high concept, but it was a mechanical shark named Bruce that actually broke the ground.

KingVidiot

10-29-2005, 04:31 PM

Not really. Or not vital to the story until...um...maybe the Borg. They've got a lot of technologies we don't use...yet. But even ST's transporter...we've kinda sorta got that in its very beginning stages...and even in the 60's it wasn't something completely outrageous.

Quite correct. If you follow physics and technology, you'll see some things come-about after the shows like Trek have used them (thanks to tech. consultants). Several things in recent memory are miniature long-distance comm. devices, a version of the hypospray, miniature self-contained medical computers, and I beleieve they recently did some experiments similar to molecular transport.
Wormholes, other dimensions, and other strange ideas are discussed by many physicists (read "The Physics of Star Trek" and "The Biology of Star Trek").

ST, SW, Firefly, and the rest of the pop films/tv shows. Space Opera. You could transplant the entire cast and story into the wild wild west and have a Horse Opera, instead.

Exactly, that's why they called Trek "wagon train to the stars."
Although, I refuse to lump Firefly in with Trek. Joss Whedon is a hack. If you are a teenager, he's probably a genius.

MAybe that's why I prefer Space Opera for my entertainment...I like the story, not the setting or incidentals. Hard SF is interesting, but not as much fun.

I actually enjoy both. Babylon 5 was excellent space opera with a cohesive story, although it fizzled-out at the end.

Hard SF is hard to pull-off without boring the audience, unless you are a science nut. The old Outer Limits was a mix of good and bad versions of hard SF.

2001 was hard SF except for the star child stuff and the monolith. It still is the only movie with honest space simulations without sound and fire-filled explosions.

David G. Smith

10-29-2005, 05:59 PM

Wormholes, other dimensions, and other strange ideas are discussed by many physicists (read "The Physics of Star Trek" and "The Biology of Star Trek").

"The Physics of Star Trek" and "The Biology of Star Trek"! Dude, did you get beat-up a lot in high school? :evil:

Jack Daniel Stanley

10-30-2005, 01:40 PM

Even though Mckee posits Sci FI as futuristic, couldn't we just, for the purposes of the contest, accept the Name of the Genre as the definition: Science that is fiction.

The zombie fest req. was that your film "must feature the undead"

how about"must feature an element of Science that is Fiction"

A story about people's hair falling out after exposure to radio active material wouldn't qualify.
A story about someone developing psychic powers after such an inciddent would (yes that sounds Super Hero genre, but not if the individual doesn't don a suit and try to save the world).
A story set in the future would qualify (star trek) a story set in an imagined world - future, past, or present - would qualify (star wars), and a story set in our world - future, past or present - would qualify (time machine, frankesntein), but all would contain an element of Science that is imagined.

Now it may seemlike I'm treading into other genre's but despite the fact that McKee defines Sci Fi as futuristic, he acknowledges that it can house any genre - action (total recall, aliens), horror (alien), fantasy (star wars). etc.

I think we should just be wary of the paranormal trying to qualify - Hellraiser wouldn't qualigy despite the fact that it opens the door to another dimension because the other dimension and the tool used for access are super natural. If, on the other hand, someone detected some sort of energy or theorized that with all of the suffering in the world their must be some dimensional repsoitory for that energy, and by carefully creating a device that can measure suffering as electronic energy, portals to that world could be located and open -- wel then there you go.

MattinSTL

10-30-2005, 02:08 PM

Hmm... have you been reading my script? I mean the one that I'll have written tomorrow?

David G. Smith

10-30-2005, 02:30 PM

Jack Daniel Stanley

10-30-2005, 02:43 PM

Maybe the best way to define science fiction is to take the same attitude that Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court did towards hardcore pornography, "... I know it when I see it...".
lol you probably have something there

the variation on that quote BTW is

"... I know it when I'd like to see it again."

And Mattin yes I read the script that you are going to write tomorrow after I was exposed to radiation and developed the psychic ability to read scripts before they have been written.

KingVidiot

10-30-2005, 02:47 PM

"The Physics of Star Trek" and "The Biology of Star Trek"! Dude, did you get beat-up a lot in high school? :evil:

Good one. Actually my degree is in biology and I've studied physics a lot. So, I guess you can call it basic reading.

Seriously, the books are well written and educational beyond the scope of average Star Trek nerds.

David G. Smith

10-30-2005, 06:10 PM

Good one. Actually my degree is in biology and I've studied physics a lot. So, I guess you can call it basic reading.

Seriously, the books are well written and educational beyond the scope of average Star Trek nerds.

Just kidding. I had the Star Trek, "Star Fleet Manual" when, I was a kid. I loved that stuff.

KingVidiot

10-31-2005, 04:18 PM

Just kidding. I had the Star Trek, "Star Fleet Manual" when, I was a kid. I loved that stuff.

OK, now that could earn you a beating... :grin:

Seriously, I'm one of the biggest Trek fans around, even though the only collectibles I have are the 2 books I already mentioned.

As I said somewhere already, Sci-Fi is a huge area.

None of it needs to have special effects to tell a good story, but proper use of eye candy is always good.

You're not just limited to aliens, time travel, space voyages, robots...

Anything remotely relating to science and/or technology and the "human condition" will do.

TimurCivan

10-31-2005, 06:09 PM

Watch Werner Herzog,s: Lessons of Darkness.

Herzog went to Kuwait after the first gulf war and shot, in 35mm, footage of the international Oil well Fire fighting team trying to cap flaming oil wells. The beauty of it was that he shot the events with no intention of it being a documentary. he used these men andthe devastated landscape as a "set" for a SCIFI film. he treated reality as scifi. and he edited it in such a way that you believe it isnt earth. and these men not human but spirits or aliens or demons or whatever.....

its really great.

HE calls it Science Fiction. and that kinda bends the rules a little.

what you think?

David G. Smith

11-01-2005, 12:57 AM

Lessons of Darkness is a great film. When Herzog calles it science fiction, I'd look for his tounge to be in his cheek.

Thomas J. O'Hara

11-17-2005, 01:57 PM

In terms of the aesthetics I think a X-files- ish kinda movie would do well in this contest, just because you don't need tons of effects, and there's no need to create an artificial landscape.

Brandon Rice

11-17-2005, 02:31 PM

mm... funny you should say that tjohara99. X-Files is one of the best TV Shows ever made!

Mark Harris

12-13-2005, 09:09 AM

Lessons of Darkness is a great film. When Herzog calles it science fiction, I'd look for his tounge to be in his cheek.

Dude, you have GOT to get rid of that avitar. I can't even go into threads where I see that. Gives me the heebee-jeebees.

Mark Harris

12-13-2005, 09:15 AM

Yeah, this is always a tough one. To me, most Sci-Fi movies don't qualify as Science Fiction. Star Wars certainly doesn't. I tend to think of Sci-Fi as dealing with Sci-Fi ideas, as in: Why are we here? Is the Universe designed for us? Is there anyone else out there? What is our place in the universe? As where Star Wars is basically WWII in space. Space is just the backdrop, and has nothing intrinsically to do with the story.

Not to bash Star Wars, just an example.

John Wesley Norton

12-14-2005, 05:50 AM

Agreed. Star Wars falls into the Fantasy category, Star Trek the Sci-Fi category because the science was always an integral part of the story. That should be the rule for this contest as well. The science (whatever kind) should be a key element of the story. I think that rule is broad enough to encompass many, many interpretations, but I hope there is a filter that these films pass through that pulls out non-sci-fi films. If it's the Sci-Fi Fest, then let's keep it a Sci-Fi Fest.