^ and out of the stories you mentioned that I know, both 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale are scientifically plausible (especially 1984--a good portion of that is actual reality now). So, the sci-fi title would apply. The Hunger Games, not so much.
Edit: And now that I think of it, I'm not sure about The Handmaid's Tale. I'll have to revisit that one of these days.
All those films listed are in the same genre. It's only fans that debate fantasy vs sci fi vs superheroes and argue about how to categorize and where is space opera and all that cud chewing. It's all stories told outside of the real world and it's all in the same category as far as media and the public goes.
Yes, and that genre is really the merging of two separate genres: Sci-Fi/
Fantasy. The slash mark is there for a reason. I have no problem with how they are categorized because the categorization is correct. It just so happens that almost all of those films are either purely fantasy or mostly fantasy, that is all. This is also probably the reason why the categories are housed as one, for Sci-Fi's benefit, because giving Sci-Fi its own section would mean that not much would be there.
EDIT: And actually teacake
, they are not all housed under the same genre, nor should they be. I just thought about some of these films, and where I would likely put them (especially the superhero films
), and it would be Action/Adventure.
I used iTunes as a test, and yup:
That's not to say that sci-fi/fantasy doesn't still apply to some extent.