Cerebral Sci-Fi Films

[jefferiestubes8]

My impression of Minority Report was of an action film-but its been a few years. Perhaps I should go back and rewatch.

I bought the DVD used after not having seen it for say 6 years at the cinema.
I put it in and felt i needed to start fast forwarding. I couldn't bear to watch or own it so I wrapped it up and sold it right away. It has some good ideas of realistic near future scifi but no not very much a cerebral film. Very much a action movie.

 

[JarodRussell]

Frequency. Gotta love time travel stories.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Frequency. Gotta love time travel stories.

I saw it at the theater. It was okay.
If you really liked Frequency then you may like the film The Lake House (2006) which had time travel elements similar to Frequency. TLH though was a multi genre movie.

 

[Mistral]

Frequency. Gotta love time travel stories.

I saw it at the theater. It was okay.
If you really liked Frequency then you may like the film The Lake House (2006) which had time travel elements similar to Frequency. TLH though was a multi genre movie.

I thought Frequency bordered closer to Time Cop in its approach. That's just me-I hang on time travel stories. Always have. Sadly, most movies don't do the concept justice because the writers/directors aren't fans.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It's not about whether one wants certain stories to be Science Fiction-- I enjoy Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon serials as much as I enjoy Foundation--

Foundation is as plausible a technological extrapolation from our current reality as Flash Gordon. It's basically Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire... IN SPAAAAACE. It's bigger on ideas than Alex Raymond's adventure strip, but that doesn't make any of them plausibe extrapolations (psychohistory is kind of magical, really).

Foundation is both Space Opera and Science Fiction. The SF was Psychohistory (which is far from magical) and the rest is setting.

The Asimov Robot stories would have a better claim to being science fiction under your definition.

Yes, also Science Fiction-- and Space Opera, if you count the novels.

it's about accurate terminology

But I consider Philip K. Dick a science fiction author. I think it's accurate to do so. He called himself such.

Why wouldn't he be?

I'm more interested in what a phrase is used to mean rather then what its words look like it ought to mean. Hell, 'science fiction' sounds like fiction that could be all about, for example, J. Robert Oppenheimer. I suppose Doctor Atomic is a science fiction opera now.

I'm more interested in what a phrase is used to mean by people who know what the hell they're talking about, not some Joe Six-Pack who thinks Stephen King and Lord Of The Rings are science fiction.

Even if you're interested "what it looks like it ought to mean," I don't think RJ's definition necessarily follows. "Science fiction" as a term can be parsed any number of ways – fiction about real science, stories containing fictional science, or or fiction that has some science-type stuff rammed into it in some fashion which may or may not be the focus of the plot. I suppose it depends on what part of speech you interpret the "science" and "fiction" as being, and which word is modifying the other, or if they're both modifying a third term.

The point is that we know what it means, and both words contribute to that meaning.

At any rate, it's ambiguous enough that real-world usage is more fluid than the rigid definition would have it. Which is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned – no matter what anyone says, it just doesn't feel right to have a movie filled with spaceships and aliens and laser swords that's not called science fiction just because we don't get lectures on how the applied phlebotum works.

That's why we have terms like Space Opera. Calling Star Wars Science Fiction just because it has aliens is like calling Lord Of The Rings a Western just because it has horses.

"Science fiction" is nothing more than a marketing category, like "Romance" or "Mystery" or "Western" - clerks at Barnes & Noble use it as a guide to which books are stocked on what shelves. Beyond that, it's utility as an indicator of content is not and never has been good.

Nonsense. It's a genre and words have meanings. It doesn't matter how many mundanes think dolphins are fish, they are still mammals.

 

[Kegg]

Foundation is both Space Opera and Science Fiction. The SF was Psychohistory (which is far from magical) and the rest is setting.

Most of the time I'm not the best judge of what's plausible science fiction and what isn't. Most of my understanding of those dividing lines comes from arguments among sci-fi geeks, after all.

On the other hand, I do happen to know enough about history (not a lot, but apparently enough to graduate) to recognize that psychohistory is a lot of hooey. History is an art of hindsight, constructing various and not always contradictory rationales and causes and effects for how events which have already happened unfolded, and why.

Ask ten different historians about the causes of the English Civil War, for example, and you'll get ten different answers. It was either inevitable for decades or avoidable in in the final few years prior to it. The role of social bonds, religion, et cetera. And really there can be multiple causes and effects, cascading just so.

Shit's complicated and a glib reading of Gibbon of history as inexorable forces doesn't mean history can be understood as inexorable forces which can then be micromanaged. Because of this, and because of the ways our theories of history are shifting (and rightly so), sufficient understanding of history does not and cannot translate into the ability to accurately predict historical cause and effect centuries in advance.

Psychohistory is basically nothing more than prophecy given a sci-fi sounding name. It's a nice genre conceit and really the only idea in the Foundation trilogy worth a damn, but that doesn't make it plausible.

Why wouldn't he be?

Because by your definition a lot of his novels aren't involved in that kind of science fiction. Philip K. Dick is better at building worlds that fall apart than practical, realistic depictions of real futures.

I'm more interested in what a phrase is used to mean by people who know what the hell they're talking about, not some Joe Six-Pack who thinks Stephen King and Lord Of The Rings are science fiction.

That's a straw man. The issue isn't if Lord of the Rings is science fiction, but if science fiction without a key element of plausible science is science fiction. So, yes, whether science fiction in the sense Star Wars is science fiction.

 

[Sindatur]

SciFi/Fantasy is the Overall Genre name, so Space Opera, being a sub-class of SciFi (or Fantasy), most definitely is SciFi (Or Fantasy, depending upon it's Universe elements)?

 

[Greg Cox]

Nonsense. It's a genre and words have meanings. It doesn't matter how many mundanes think dolphins are fish, they are still mammals.

It's not just "mundanes" and "Joe Six-Pack." Last time I checked, the Hugo and Nebula Awards for Best Science Fiction were not reserved exclusively for ANALOG stories about the latest scientific developments. You seem to think that only hard sf is "real" sf, whereas, in fact, it's just another subcategory like space opera, steampunk, humorous sf, dystopias, or alternate history.

Ray Bradbury is science fiction. STAR WARS is science fiction. Godzilla is science fiction.

It's a big tent.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Foundation is both Space Opera and Science Fiction. The SF was Psychohistory (which is far from magical) and the rest is setting.

Most of the time I'm not the best judge of what's plausible science fiction and what isn't. Most of my understanding of those dividing lines comes from arguments among sci-fi geeks, after all.

On the other hand, I do happen to know enough about history (not a lot, but apparently enough to graduate) to recognize that psychohistory is a lot of hooey. History is an art of hindsight, constructing various and not always contradictory rationales and causes and effects for how events which have already happened unfolded, and why.

Ask ten different historians about the causes of the English Civil War, for example, and you'll get ten different answers. It was either inevitable for decades or avoidable in in the final few years prior to it. The role of social bonds, religion, et cetera. And really there can be multiple causes and effects, cascading just so.

Shit's complicated and a glib reading of Gibbon of history as inexorable forces doesn't mean history can be understood as inexorable forces which can then be micromanaged. Because of this, and because of the ways our theories of history are shifting (and rightly so), sufficient understanding of history does not and cannot translate into the ability to accurately predict historical cause and effect centuries in advance.

Psychohistory is basically nothing more than prophecy given a sci-fi sounding name. It's a nice genre conceit and really the only idea in the Foundation trilogy worth a damn, but that doesn't make it plausible.

Whether everybody thinks it's plausible doesn't really matter; enough people found it plausible enough to develop various statistical models and theories based on it over the years. In any case, this takes place thousands of years in the future, using unknown mathematics. It's an extrapolation of sociology, which is what makes it Science Fiction.

Why wouldn't he be?

Because by your definition a lot of his novels aren't involved in that kind of science fiction. Philip K. Dick is better at building worlds that fall apart than practical, realistic depictions of real futures.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Dude's the father of Cyberpunk. He extrapolates science and technology and speculates on the effect on the human condition.

I'm more interested in what a phrase is used to mean by people who know what the hell they're talking about, not some Joe Six-Pack who thinks Stephen King and Lord Of The Rings are science fiction.

That's a straw man. The issue isn't if Lord of the Rings is science fiction, but if science fiction without a key element of plausible science is science fiction. So, yes, whether science fiction in the sense Star Wars is science fiction.

Well, that's my point. Why make half the term meaningless?

Nonsense. It's a genre and words have meanings. It doesn't matter how many mundanes think dolphins are fish, they are still mammals.

It's not just "mundanes" and "Joe Six-Pack." Last time I checked, the Hugo and Nebula Awards for Best Science Fiction were not reserved exclusively for ANALOG stories about the latest scientific developments. You seem to think that only hard sf is "real" sf, whereas, in fact, it's just another subcategory like space opera, steampunk, humorous sf, dystopias, or alternate history.

Ray Bradbury is science fiction. STAR WARS is science fiction. Godzilla is science fiction.

It's a big tent.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea about the Hugos; I don't pay attention to awards. But if the term Science Fiction can include Ray Bradbury and Godzilla then it doesn't mean much. A term that can mean anything means nothing. We might as well say "stuff" or "thing."

 

[Gepard]

I can't be arsed to write a detailed response, so I'll say this: science fiction is like porn; we know it when we see it. It's a large collection of tropes and styles that we all recognize as sci-fi when they're in a book or on the screen.

It's not really that complicated.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Last time I checked, the Hugo and Nebula Awards for Best Science Fiction were not reserved exclusively for ANALOG stories about the latest scientific developments...

...Ray Bradbury is science fiction. STAR WARS is science fiction. Godzilla is science fiction.

It's a big tent.

Undeniably true.

SciFi/Fantasy is the Overall Genre name, so Space Opera, being a sub-class of SciFi (or Fantasy), most definitely is SciFi (Or Fantasy, depending upon it's Universe elements)?

They could call it "fruit salad" and it would still include all the things that it includes. The name doesn't mean anything more than "Fred" or "Ronald" - that is, while Alfred is supposed to mean "magic counsel" or somesuch in truth the name tells you absolutely nothing about the character or behavior or life history of the person it's attached to. To simplistically assert that "words have meanings" is, in this case, a smug and unthinking dodge that's easily refuted by any observation at all of actual fact.

 

[xortex]

Even calling Star Wars fantasy is strange to me. Just because of the force religion? It's absurd. It's futuristic extrapolation. Wow, how sci-fi do you have to be to be called sci-fi? It seems to me that that would be the sci-fiest of sci-fis. It's also a space opera, duh. It's more political intregue, mythologicilly based, is all. Cerebral can have no tech at all and be far subtler. The line can get blurry like with magic.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

damon knight's credited with the only "definition" of science fiction that suits the facts of the case: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it."

Knight knew a thing or two about the genre.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's a big tent.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea about the Hugos; I don't pay attention to awards. But if the term Science Fiction can include Ray Bradbury and Godzilla then it doesn't mean much. A term that can mean anything means nothing. We might as well say "stuff" or "thing."[/QUOTE]


It's all about communicating. And using the terms the way they're actually used in the real world, not the way you think they ought to be used. When people want to find STAR WARS at the video store, they look in the sci-fi section.

Ray Bradbury is widely considered to be one of the most famous science fiction writers in the world. If you read books and articles about the history of sf, he's going to be prominently featured. You take a college course on science fiction, he's going to be on the syllabus. In the fifties and sixties, he was pretty much the face of science fiction as far as the general public was concerned.

And we're not just talking clueless "mundanes" here. Heck, I've been in the science fiction biz my entire career and Bradbury has always been one of the big names in the field, along with Asimov, Heinlein, Andre Norton, Harlan Ellison, etc. Pretending that nobody really considers Bradbury a science fiction writer is like saying that Marilyn Monroe wasn't really a movie star or that Stephen King doesn't really write horror. You're speaking a different language than everybody else.

The term isn't meaningless. Nobody is going to call GONE WITH THE WIND or CATCHER IN THE RYE. or HIGH NOON science fiction. But in the real world, where words are actually used to communicate, science fiction is a broad term that encompasses everything from BUCK ROGERS to Ursula K. Le Guin.

 

[Gepard]

"Science fiction is what we point to when we say it."

I think I said the same thing using, like, ten times as many words.

Which is probably why he's a successful science fiction writer and I'm an idiot posting on a message board.

 

[Greg Cox]

damon knight's credited with the only "definition" of science fiction that suits the facts of the case: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it."

Knight knew a thing or two about the genre.

You mean he wasn't just a clueless mundane who didn't know what real science fiction was?

 

[xortex]

That's why Kirk and Spock brought McCoy down on landing parties. They needed a stupid opinion, or a dose of commen sense. Excluding Bradberry is like surgically removing your hand because it itches, or someone's brain because they have bad thoughts, based of course on four out of five doctor's recommendations.

 

[xortex]

damon knight's credited with the only "definition" of science fiction that suits the facts of the case: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it."

Knight knew a thing or two about the genre.

You mean he wasn't just a clueless mundane who didn't know what real science fiction was?

Today, he isn't.

or removing your heart if you're girlfriend left you.

Kirk- If I wanted a stupid opinion, Spock, I would have brought McCoy with us.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

damon knight's credited with the only "definition" of science fiction that suits the facts of the case: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it."

Knight knew a thing or two about the genre.

You mean he wasn't just a clueless mundane who didn't know what real science fiction was?

Well, not if words like "clueless mundanes" have meanings.

Of course, they don't exactly - they're words being used as a label, just as "science fiction" is, and the poster in question seems confused about how labels actually work. Although the phrase "Heinz 57 Varieties" on a bottle may imply that a condiment for hamburgers is inside, the word "Heinz" does not mean "ketchup."

 

[xortex]

damon knight's credited with the only "definition" of science fiction that suits the facts of the case: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it."

Knight knew a thing or two about the genre.

You mean he wasn't just a clueless mundane who didn't know what real science fiction was?

Well, not if words like "clueless mundanes" have meanings.

Of course, they don't exactly - they're words being used as a label, just as "science fiction" is, and the poster in question seems confused about how labels actually work. Although the phrase "Heinz 57 Varieties" on a bottle may imply that a condiment for hamburgers is inside, the word "Heinz" does not mean "ketchup."

Does that mean it could be some kind of red turpentine? Man, what kind of store do you shop at?