• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Cerebral Sci-Fi Films

Incidentally, the idea here is not to pile on Diogenes. I'm only harping on this because I keep running into similar attitudes here and elsewhere. It seems like every site I visit these days, from io9 to blastr or whatever, there are finicky scifi purists insisting that BUFFY or STAR WARS or LOST or whatever isn't "real" science fiction and how dare they contaminate our precious bodily fluids with all that icky-poo fantasy and paranormal stuff?

When did people get so concerned about protecting some arbitrary standard of genre purity? It's like some fans (not necessarily Diogenes) are afraid they're going to get cooties if they accidentally watch a show with vampires in it.

Plus, of course, there's this weird idea that "mundanes" don't count and only the opinions of "real" fans matter . . .
 
Greg Cox said:
When did people get so concerned about protecting some arbitrary standard of genre purity? It's like some fans (not necessarily Diogenes) are afraid they're going to get cooties if they accidentally watch a show with vampires in it.
Click to expand...

Well, Gernsback started complaining about it in print by the end of the 1920s - he considered "scientifiction" largely dead by that time, killed off by the undisciplined crap being published outside the august pages of Amazing Stories. As Vonnegut noted, pointless debates about what the label means and what should be included and excluded have been regular features of just about every sercon gathering or 'zine ever since - all without in any way influencing the evolution of the genre or more than marginally affecting the usage of the term by writers, publishers or the majority of science fiction consumers.

Greg Cox said:
Plus, of course, there's this weird idea that "mundanes" don't count and only the opinions of "real" fans matter . . .
Click to expand...

Hmm, the question is "matter to who?" It's a defensive position, not a reasoned one - as a very smart BNF once said to me "there are some clubs that you can only belong to by keeping other people out."
 
Last edited:
Greg, don't contaminate the Gene poo . Very Dr. Strange alien woman's Love here. The elitists are going to be herded into a barge under the guise of seeing the greatest cerebral film ever and floated out into open water to be picked up by aliens from another planet where they know everybody and everybody knows them.
 
xortex said:
Greg, don't contaminate the Gene poo . Very Dr. Strange alien woman's Love here. .
Click to expand...


Ah, Clea . . . I always liked her. Remember the time she was seduced by Benjamin Franklin? Alas, that was later retconned away as an illusion.

And, yeah, this is an old debate. Heck, Jules Verne didn't think that H. G. Wells was scientific enough . . . .
 
Gotta admit, I always preferred Wells myself . . . and that was before I found out "he" was actually a slinky femme fatale. :)
 
I like him even more now.
On a side note, I know this musician/guitarist/singer/songwriter who used to play in this small cafe but was not having any luck bringing in people. Since he left, people come in in droves now so they still advertise for him as in people just love the fact that he's not there even better. And now, not appearing tonight, as usual.. You know him, you love him. Here he isn't...!
 
Last edited:
RJDiogenes said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just because someone builds a statistical model of something doesn't mean it isn't nonsense, which psychohistory plainly is. I'm sure you could make statistical models about how lightsabers ought to work.

Quite frankly, you can't statistically predict history with the level of precision Hari Seldon had and honestly you can't 'predict' it period. I'm not that interested in what Joe Six-Packs and mundanes have to say about what's feasible or even remotely plausible in history. Psychohistory is sound in space.

It's an extrapolation of sociology, which is what makes it Science Fiction.
Click to expand...
It's the Roman Empire... IN SPAAAACE!

Come on this isn't Left Hand of Darkness or anything.

RJDiogenes said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure it does.

Let's take the first Godzilla film, Gojira, and the Foundation series as a point of comparison. On the surface there's really not a lot similar between Asimov's novel and Honda's monster movie.

However, both of them have elements of fantasy - monsters, prophecy - which are explained by means of pseudoscience. In Gojira, the fantastic suggestion is made that Godzilla is a vengeful god of the seas, but the 'truth' is that Godzilla is a dinosaur who survived extinction and has lived on the sea bed.

In both, a character presented as an academic professional - the historian Hari Seldon, and the scientist played by Takashi Shimura - are the characters who explain and these elements give them credibility.

I'm not suggesting this level of similarity is a requirement for a science fiction title, but I'm observing there are certain elements in the genre one can find in very, very different titles.
 
Godzilla was created by a radiation leak in a nuclear facility in China. Now if that doesn't make you think, I don't know what will. The term science fiction means something because of the likes of Ray Bradbury. He's synonymous with sci-fi.Go watch the Ray Bradbury theater.It's things like Aliens and Avatar that give it a bad name. Unbelievable.
 
So have we found the line yet? THIS is scifi and THIS isn't?
Because if we don't know the definition how can we decide if a movie is or isn't scif-even ignoring the OP regarding its cerebral status?
 
Mistral said:
So have we found the line yet? THIS is scifi and THIS isn't?
Because if we don't know the definition how can we decide if a movie is or isn't scifi...
Click to expand...

You can't.

As soon as someone insists that a given movie is science fiction someone will disagree, and as soon as someone asserts that a movie doesn't qualify someone will argue back.

That's simply the way it is.

You know, this forum is called Science Fiction & Fantasy, but the topic for The Muppet Movie is in the general entertainment forum. Since when are talking frogs and pigs not fantasy? :lol:
 
Dennis said:
Mistral said:
So have we found the line yet? THIS is scifi and THIS isn't?
Because if we don't know the definition how can we decide if a movie is or isn't scifi...
Click to expand...

You can't.

As soon as someone insists that a given movie is science fiction someone will disagree, and as soon as someone asserts that a movie doesn't qualify someone will argue back.

That's simply the way it is.

You know, this forum is called Science Fiction & Fantasy, but the topic for The Muppet Movie is in the general entertainment forum. Since when are talking frogs and pigs not fantasy? :lol:
Click to expand...

HEY! Kermit is my FRIEND and he's REAL!

You shut your mouth!



:guffaw:
 
Look at it this way: if you're at a barbecue and a new acquaintance mentions that THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is their favorite scifi movie, do you piously lecture them on how STAR WARS isn't "real" science fiction, or do you encourage their interest and suggest some other sf movies or books they might like? Maybe even a few "cerebral" ones?

Which approach is more likely to create new science fiction fans and readers?

If I'm speaking at a library or elementary school and some kid starts raving about TRANSFORMERS being the best science fiction movie ever, I'm not going to correct him or scold him for not preferring FORBIDDEN PLANET instead. Who knows? TRANSFORMERS could be the gateway drug that leads him to Heinlein or Bradbury or Peter Hamilton or whomever . . . .
 
Last edited:
The Muppets, preposterous! If they're fantasy, does that make Pigs In Space scientifiction? What would Gernsback say?

Greg Cox said:
Look at it this way: if you're at a barbecue and a new acquaintance mentions that THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is their favorite scifi movie, do you piously lecture them on how STAR WARS isn't "real" science fiction, or do you encourage their interest and suggest some other sf movies or books they might like?
Click to expand...


Incidentally, here's the list of best science fiction films that Arthur C. Clarke gave in the 1980s:
Arthur C. Clarke said:
1. Metropolis (1927)
2. Things to Come (1936)
3. Frankenstein (1931)
4. King Kong (original version) (1933)
5. Forbidden Planet (1956)
6. The Thing from Another World (original version) (1951)
7. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
8. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
9. Star Wars (1977)
10. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1980)
11. Alien (1979)
12. Blade Runner (1982)
Click to expand...

Who knows? TRANSFORMERS could be the gateway drug that leads him to Heinlein or Bradbury or Peter Hamilton or whomever . . . .
Click to expand...
I was a big Transformers fan as a kid, actually. Those were some damn well made toys.
 
Kegg said:
Who knows? TRANSFORMERS could be the gateway drug that leads him to Heinlein or Bradbury or Peter Hamilton or whomever . . . .
Click to expand...
I was a big Transformers fan as a kid, actually. Those were some damn well made toys.
Click to expand...

You're obviously younger than I am. I'm more of the "Major Matt Mason" generation . . .

Not to mention "Captain Action."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top