Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:
^ 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.
So we're not counting Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Fahrenheit 451, and so on as science fiction anymore? That would probably come as a surprise to most people, including the folks who made the films!
How strict are we going to be about "scientifically plausible"? I doubt that many people really think that gorillas are going to take over the world, but PLANET OF THE APES is generally regarded as a science fiction classic. And what about BARBARELLA or THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN?
And STAR WARS may be more Flash Gordon than hard sf, but any definition of "science fiction" that excludes STAR WARS bears no relationship to the way the term is actually used by ninety percent of the world. Ask the man on the street to name the five most famous science fiction movies, easy money STAR WARS is going to be high on the list. And, hopefully, a STAR TREK movie, too.
It's not just about what's "plausible." Science fiction is a broad tent that includes everything from Buck Rogers and Godzilla to Heinlein and Asimov.