Official definition of sci-fi?

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.
 
David Jimerson said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
David Jimerson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
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.
 
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!
 
David Jimerson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

You might, then, like the NEW Battlestar Galactica.
Click to expand...

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

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 Jimerson said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is the truest thing, I have heard in a while. You are absolutly right.
 
David G. Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
GenJerDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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").


GenJerDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


GenJerDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
KingVidiot said:
Wormholes, other dimensions, and other strange ideas are discussed by many physicists (read "The Physics of Star Trek" and "The Biology of Star Trek").
Click to expand...

"The Physics of Star Trek" and "The Biology of Star Trek"! Dude, did you get beat-up a lot in high school? :evil:
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top