Movies: Must see science fiction

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
This might be painfully obvious to the sci-fi nerds in this thread, but Star Wars isn't sci-fi. I know there's no exact measure for true sci-fi, but I'll impose one anyway. IMO, the "Science" part of Science Fiction requires the story to connect the science behind what we are to the science behind what we become. Want to feature alien life forms? Give them some science-based technology that allows us to meet, and some science-based reason for them to make the effort. In other words, show your work. Make us believe that, holy cow, this could happen.

Bottom line: It ain't sci-fi without some legitimate 'sci' mixed into the 'fi'. The spaceships and aliens in Star Wars are part of the same fantasy world as the white walkers and dragons in Game of Thrones. They exist in their own universe without any need for science or any connection to our universe*. Place Star Wars in Westeros and GoT in space and both stories could remain almost identical.

On the other hand, a film like Her is excellent sci-fi without a single space battle or alien, because it builds a beautiful story on the science of A.I. and society's adaptation to it.

How much thought have I given this? A full 12 minutes, so my argument is obviously air-tight.

*Just thought of Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, which isn't connected to our universe. However, the entire story is a monumental metaphor anchored in the sciences of sociology/psychology.

I gotta disagree in principle. On these sorts of things there's no hard written rule to define a genre and what it it can change over time depending how people see it. Case in point, Star Wars was inspired by the pre-space race campy sci-fi like Flash Gordon. I'm not really that familiar with the property but I'm assuming it holds up poorly to your definition of "sci-fi", yet that was what there was before we got to the Arthur C Clarke generation of writers.

But basically, you can't really "well actually" Star Wars as not being sci-fi when the vast majority of people consider it to be sci-fi. At this point space and aliens and space ships is enough to fit the bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
But let's be clear -- while science fiction isn't one thing, it's not all things. There must be specific properties that separate "Sci-Fi" from other genres, even if they spillover into each other. As inclusive as you claim to be, I doubt you'd call Game of Thrones a sci-fi story. Does that make you a snob?

Well actually... :sarcasm:

Seriously though, before GRRM became a big fantasy author he wrote for TV. Before he wrote for TV he was a writer writing short stories. After he became a famous author they republished his short stories and almost all of it is sci-fi. Generally set with ambiguous space travel in a Milky Way galaxy teaming with alien civilizations.

One of the stories though was set in a semi-medieval setting, reminiscence of Winterfell where you have winters that can last an indeterminate time and vampire-like ice creatures that stalk the living... and the protagonist stumbles upon a crashed spaceship and goes for a little space adventure.

Another story was more of his typical sci-fi, but following a very nasty religion idolizing... I forget specifically what the symbolism was but a pale child or something like that, and the plot was how a colony of them get duped by some psionic alien creature(s) they were trying to purge. In ASoIF when Arya enters the Faceless temple and is seeing different religious symbols, ^ that one is in there.

Not really related to the thread but just a neat Easter Egg GRRM snuck in from his old work that while no one would mistake it for the genre does give ASoIF it a link to sci-fi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JabbaJabba

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,826
2,673
Case in point, Star Wars was inspired by the pre-space race campy sci-fi like Flash Gordon.

You mean this? Flash Gordon (TV Series 1954–1955) - IMDb

IMDB is pretty loose in its genre definition and it considers FG fantasy, and not science-fiction. And again, I'll refer you to the Lucas quote on the previous page: he says himself that he was aiming at recreating these space fantasies that existed before science took over.

But basically, you can't really "well actually" Star Wars as not being sci-fi when the vast majority of people consider it to be sci-fi.

I guess it depends what crowds you mix with, but yeah, SW fans will argue non-stop that it is science-fiction. They're still wrong.
 

Lshap

Hardline Moderate
Jun 6, 2011
27,274
24,853
Montreal
Just because you could tell the same story without the technological elements of Star Wars doesn’t mean that those elements are merely props. You could tell the exact same story as Arrival without the technological or extraterrestrial elements if you set it up as the story of Aboriginal Americans encountering Europeans for the first time. Are the aliens and their technology merely props?

The Star Wars story is absolutely linked to science. It doesn’t exist without science because interstellar travel doesn’t exist without science. Because artificially intelligent beings don’t exist without science. Because planet destroying energy weapons don’t exist without science.

These things don’t need an explicit link. We understand the link implicitly. The essence of the story isn’t a scientific one, but that’s true of a vast number of movies no one would ever argue over whether it’s science fiction. I could make the argument that the essence of at least half of the movies named in this thread isn’t scientific.
For me, the mere presence of a spaceship or an alien isn't enough. Dropping those things into a scene doesn't connect it with science any more than a scene with a telephone connects it to science. Those things are just there as characters and props. Star Wars isn't a story about scientific progress, discovery, or speculation, nor is it a story about humanity's adaptation to science. There isn't even a sense of awe -- "OMG, it's an alien species!!" -- which is what pulses through every scene of Arrival.

My science-fiction needs the science to be at least as important as the fiction. Yes, the Deathstar and the Millennium Falcon don't exist without science, but helicopters and napalm don't exist without science either, but it doesn't make Apocalypse Now a sci-fi film.

Seriously, I appreciate what you're saying about certain elements being implicitly sci-fi. It's a legitimate counterpoint, which is what I asked for. The difference is I need more than the 'feel' of sci-fi. I need something more explicit -- an idea, a message, a perspective -- something that's tied directly to our own science or the science of another species. Which I guess marks me as being from the hard-sci-fi school of Arthur C. Clarke.
 

Lshap

Hardline Moderate
Jun 6, 2011
27,274
24,853
Montreal
I gotta disagree in principle. On these sorts of things there's no hard written rule to define a genre and what it it can change over time depending how people see it. Case in point, Star Wars was inspired by the pre-space race campy sci-fi like Flash Gordon. I'm not really that familiar with the property but I'm assuming it holds up poorly to your definition of "sci-fi", yet that was what there was before we got to the Arthur C Clarke generation of writers.

But basically, you can't really "well actually" Star Wars as not being sci-fi when the vast majority of people consider it to be sci-fi. At this point space and aliens and space ships is enough to fit the bill.
That same vast majority would prefer Star Wars to most films listed in this thread. Does that mean Star Wars is a better sci-fi film than Arrival? Only if you believe subjective things like quality and genres are decided by a vast majority.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,395
Charlotte, NC
For me, the mere presence of a spaceship or an alien isn't enough. Dropping those things into a scene doesn't connect it with science any more than a scene with a telephone connects it to science. Those things are just there as characters and props. Star Wars isn't a story about scientific progress, discovery, or speculation, nor is it a story about humanity's adaptation to science. There isn't even a sense of awe -- "OMG, it's an alien species!!" -- which is what pulses through every scene of Arrival.

My science-fiction needs the science to be at least as important as the fiction. Yes, the Deathstar and the Millennium Falcon don't exist without science, but helicopters and napalm don't exist without science either, but it doesn't make Apocalypse Now a sci-fi film.

Seriously, I appreciate what you're saying about certain elements being implicitly sci-fi. It's a legitimate counterpoint, which is what I asked for. The difference is I need more than the 'feel' of sci-fi. I need something more explicit -- an idea, a message, a perspective -- something that's tied directly to our own science or the science of another species. Which I guess marks me as being from the hard-sci-fi school of Arthur C. Clarke.

There was certainly a sense of awe when it was released. And yes, I mean awe of the technology. Absolutely. The fact that you don't see that sense of awe now is more of a testament to the influence the SW has had on the sci-fi genre than anything. Either that, or it's that you fundamentally don't like Star Wars. That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but it doesn't make SW not science fiction.

The Apocalypse Now analogy doesn't work, because the technology for something to be sci-fi needs to be advanced technology. It has to be something that could theoretically be developed in the future.

I would argue, by the way, that Star Wars does have an idea, message, and perspective that's tied directly in to science and technology. It's the idea that rebellion against tyranny is something that transcends those things. That, no matter the setting, that kind of rebellion is always valuable. Isaac Asimov made a very similar point with the basic underpinnings of psychohistory: that the human condition, and therefore the responses of society, is not governed by the advancement of science and technology. The approach he gave Hari Seldon was ultimately to try to change it, using beings other-than-human, but it's a central concept to Foundation, just as it is to Star Wars. Many, many of the best science fiction stories have that essential theme: the science and technology don't fundamentally matter. Not all. There are plenty of science fiction stories that don't have that theme. That theme is a direct tie-in to the science and technology in the story, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lshap

Lshap

Hardline Moderate
Jun 6, 2011
27,274
24,853
Montreal
There was certainly a sense of awe when it was released. And yes, I mean awe of the technology. Absolutely. The fact that you don't see that sense of awe now is more of a testament to the influence the SW has had on the sci-fi genre than anything. Either that, or it's that you fundamentally don't like Star Wars. That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but it doesn't make SW not science fiction.

The Apocalypse Now analogy doesn't work, because the technology for something to be sci-fi needs to be advanced technology. It has to be something that could theoretically be developed in the future.

I would argue, by the way, that Star Wars does have an idea, message, and perspective that's tied directly in to science and technology. It's the idea that rebellion against tyranny is something that transcends those things. That, no matter the setting, that kind of rebellion is always valuable. Isaac Asimov made a very similar point with the basic underpinnings of psychohistory: that the human condition, and therefore the responses of society, is not governed by the advancement of science and technology. The approach he gave Hari Seldon was ultimately to try to change it, using beings other-than-human, but it's a central concept to Foundation, just as it is to Star Wars. Many, many of the best science fiction stories have that essential theme: the science and technology don't fundamentally matter. Not all. There are plenty of science fiction stories that don't have that theme. That theme is a direct tie-in to the science and technology in the story, though.
I saw Star Wars when it first came out and you're right -- it was awesome, as in full-of-awe. And for the record, I loved it, though I was a young teen. But my awe was directed at the special effects, which were freakin cool. Pretty revolutionary filmmaking (although 2001 Space Odyssey did most of it first). The story itself was as simple as it gets, which isn't a criticism as much as my litmus test for why I don't rank it as science fiction. Yeah, I can see the metaphor you mentioned, but it still feels closer to the Marvel universe than the Star Trek one. What it boils down to is that my version of sci-fi includes a theme or a concept where the pivot-point is the science itself. Not just technology for its own sake, but how a technology changes our lives individually and as a society. For me, Star Wars is the fancy clothing of sci-fi, Star Trek is the heart of sci-fi, and films like 2001 A Space Odyssey and Arrival are its soul.

Good post, by the way. It almost convinces me to rewatch Star Wars with fresh eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,395
Charlotte, NC
I saw Star Wars when it first came out and you're right -- it was awesome, as in full-of-awe. And for the record, I loved it, though I was a young teen. But my awe was directed at the special effects, which were freakin cool. Pretty revolutionary filmmaking (although 2001 Space Odyssey did most of it first). The story itself was as simple as it gets, which isn't a criticism as much as my litmus test for why I don't rank it as science fiction. Yeah, I can see the metaphor you mentioned, but it still feels closer to the Marvel universe than the Star Trek one. What it boils down to is that my version of sci-fi includes a theme or a concept where the pivot-point is the science itself. Not just technology for its own sake, but how a technology changes our lives individually and as a society. For me, Star Wars is the fancy clothing of sci-fi, Star Trek is the heart of sci-fi, and films like 2001 A Space Odyssey and Arrival are its soul.

Good post, by the way. It almost convinces me to rewatch Star Wars with fresh eyes.

Well, hey... there's a lot of stuff in the Marvel Universe that I would consider to be sci-fi (not all of it). The Thor films, for example, basically use an Einstein-Rosen bridge as a central plot mechanic. There are concepts in those things that tend to get covered when someone is addressing the science in science fiction. Yet another reason to embrace the term speculative fiction, as that covers comic book movies too.

I don't disagree with the fancy clothing, heart, and soul ideas. I just consider the fancy clothing to be part of it all and not a disqualifier.
 

saluki

Registered User
Nov 18, 2017
730
397
My science-fiction needs the science to be at least as important as the fiction. Yes, the Deathstar and the Millennium Falcon don't exist without science, but helicopters and napalm don't exist without science either, but it doesn't make Apocalypse Now a sci-fi film.

I'm not sure I get that comparison.

A huge component of Sci Fi is technology that is not currently available to us. Tech from a future time we can only imagine, not implement.

It's about looking forward, not backward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
78,946
64,127
Don't know if it's been mentioned already but Minority Report is one of Spielberg's best, which is saying something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: x Tame Impala

Eisen

Registered User
Sep 30, 2009
16,737
3,101
Duesseldorf
To be fair, a lot of the films named in this thread wouldn't really be sci-fi to a purist. As for Star Wars, you're absolutely right, it is fantasy and the only thing making it maybe look like sci-fi are the spaceships - but last time I underlined that fact I almost got crucified.
Sci fi is very broad and it's never a stand alone criterium. You have classical whodunits in scifi, space opera, dramas etc. What makes Dune scifi? I guess everyone agrees that it's scifi. There is barely any sci in it, infact, quite the opposite. In addition, if you claim Star Wars is fantasy you need to define that as well. Fantasy suffers from the same flaw as scifi, namely that it is very, very broad and has many different facets and not every facet needs to be present to identify it as such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,092
9,353
Wikipedia has an entry on "science fantasy" that boils down the difference between science fiction and fantasy to the former trying to adhere to scientific principles and the latter not bothering to. For example, science fiction will go out of its way to respect the law of gravity (ex. Ringworld, 2001), whereas fantasy might introduce beings that can defy gravity (ex. Superman, Star Wars). Science fantasy is a mixture of the two genres in which some of the laws of science as we know them are violated, yet attempts are often made to provide science-like explanations for them (ex. midichlorians).

Sci fi is very broad and it's never a stand alone criterium. You have classical whodunits in scifi, space opera, dramas etc. What makes Dune scifi? I guess everyone agrees that it's scifi. There is barely any sci in it, infact, quite the opposite. In addition, if you claim Star Wars is fantasy you need to define that as well. Fantasy suffers from the same flaw as scifi, namely that it is very, very broad and has many different facets and not every facet needs to be present to identify it as such.

I think that one of the reasons that Dune is considered sci-fi is that it concerns ecology. That's not one of the sciences that most sci-fi revolves around, but it still is one. Another reason could be what I just spoke of, since Dune is relatively grounded and realistic. There are a few fantastical elements, so you might not call it "hard sci-fi," but it's probably still sci-fi, rather than science fantasy, IMO.
 

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,347
59,256
Ottawa, ON
Science fiction to me requires asking questions that have pertinence to current society.

Good science fiction is almost inherently some form of societal criticism.

Ultimately it’s about asking “what if”.

Star Wars is a space-based fantasy but does not really ask any compelling questions.

It’s better labeled as a “space opera”.
 

Eisen

Registered User
Sep 30, 2009
16,737
3,101
Duesseldorf
Science fiction to me requires asking questions that have pertinence to current society.

Good science fiction is almost inherently some form of societal criticism.

Ultimately it’s about asking “what if”.

Star Wars is a space-based fantasy but does not really ask any compelling questions.

It’s better labeled as a “space opera”.
Space opera is usually seen as a subset of scifi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos

JMCx4

Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Sep 3, 2017
13,466
8,326
St. Louis, MO
Science fiction to me requires asking questions that have pertinence to current society.

Good science fiction is almost inherently some form of societal criticism.

Ultimately it’s about asking “what if”.

Star Wars is a space-based fantasy but does not really ask any compelling questions.

It’s better labeled as a “space opera”.
The Star Wars franchise started as a social commentary on American imperialism, post-Vietnam War. No compelling questions in that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stylizer1

Eisen

Registered User
Sep 30, 2009
16,737
3,101
Duesseldorf
Wikipedia has an entry on "science fantasy" that boils down the difference between science fiction and fantasy to the former trying to adhere to scientific principles and the latter not bothering to. For example, science fiction will go out of its way to respect the law of gravity (ex. Ringworld, 2001), whereas fantasy might introduce beings that can defy gravity (ex. Superman, Star Wars). Science fantasy is a mixture of the two genres in which some of the laws of science as we know them are violated, yet attempts are often made to provide science-like explanations for them (ex. midichlorians).



I think that one of the reasons that Dune is considered sci-fi is that it concerns ecology. That's not one of the sciences that most sci-fi revolves around, but it still is one. Another reason could be what I just spoke of, since Dune is relatively grounded and realistic. There are a few fantastical elements, so you might not call it "hard sci-fi," but it's probably still sci-fi, rather than science fantasy, IMO.
About Dune. I agree that it's scifi. The funny thing is, as mentioned, it has very little science. Even the ecology, despite being an important trait of Dune, is barely discussed in depth. Yet the crucial topic, the spice, often discussed in the book is entirely fantastic and is accompanied by mysticism. It would not look out of place in a fantasy novel. There are a couple of examples like that later, the ghola, the voice of the Reverend Mothers, the superspeed of Miles Teg, the existence of the God Emperor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,092
9,353
Science fiction to me requires asking questions that have pertinence to current society.

Good science fiction is almost inherently some form of societal criticism.

Ultimately it’s about asking “what if”.

A lot of modern sci-fi has that, but I wouldn't say that it's a necessary component. Alien is science fiction, yet doesn't ask any questions or offer any criticisms. It's just "Jaws in space," as the writers pitched it. Similarly, The Martian was just "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" (which is also the name of another good science fiction movie). Both are just adventures in space, not commentaries of any kind. Edit: Another is Event Horizon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos and Eisen

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,092
9,353
The Star Wars franchise started as a social commentary on American imperialism, post-Vietnam War. No compelling questions in that?

Star Wars was partly inspired by the Vietnam War (in how the Rebels ought to be no match for the technologically superior Empire), but I don't think that it was really a commentary on it. Lucas drew inspiration from lots of places: Nazi Germany, Greek myth, ancient Rome, the Vietnam War, Samurai movies and more. He's said that entertainment in the 70s was missing the adventure and romance that he remembered and he wanted to make something that was fun and exciting for kids and young adults. I think that, if anything, he recognized that Vietnam and other things (like Watergate) had made the nation depressed and cynical and he wanted to give them something positive and hopeful. I suspect that a movie with serious themes and commentary was the last thing that he intended.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos and JMCx4

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,395
Charlotte, NC
Something that happens with "niche" genres is that the die-hards fans of that style, and sometimes the people creating works in that style, start to set a high bar for what qualifies to be part of the niche. Science fiction isn't as much of a niche as it once was, but it still shows its roots of being one. I'm not just thinking of movies and TV... or even literature. You see the same kind of thing happen in music... and especially in heavy metal. I'm not entirely sure why that is. One explanation would be that their own extreme familiarity with it means they can see narrower distinctions and even revel in those distinctions. Another explanation could be that the niche interest gives a person a feeling of uniqueness that would be damaged by accepting more and more into it. And it could be a mixture of both. Are there other explanations?

Those things are perfectly reasonable. My own instinct is to focus less on narrow distinctions, but that's what can make these conversations interesting as long as the condescension stays in check.
 

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,826
2,673
the die-hards fans of that style, and sometimes the people creating works in that style, start to set a high bar for what qualifies to be part of the niche.

What? You forgot the scholars.

What you're trying to say is that once you study something, you get to understand it better. Yeah, go figure.

And after that comes all the people who didn't study, but still want to say they know as much as the people who did. These people will normally try and cover their lack of actual knowledge by baseless affirmations, and instead of opening a book, will add more and more crap until they're the only ones talking. See what's happening everywhere right now, every FB user is a virologist, an epidemiologist, and also specializes in racism and economy.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,395
Charlotte, NC
What? You forgot the scholars.

What you're trying to say is that once you study something, you get to understand it better. Yeah, go figure.

And after that comes all the people who didn't study, but still want to say they know as much as the people who did. These people will normally try and cover their lack of actual knowledge by baseless affirmations, and instead of opening a book, will add more and more crap until they're the only ones talking. See what's happening everywhere right now, every FB use is a virologist, an epidemiologist, and also specializes in racism and economy.

You’re right. I didn’t include the scholars. But there again, they’re people who have an interest in setting a high bar.

Don’t reinterpret my words. I was not trying to say that once you study something, you understand it better. That wouldn’t even be worth mentioning. Narrow distinctions aren’t the only result of understanding something better. You can have expertise at something and view the topic holistically. Atomistic viewpoints are not the only result of expertise. What I was saying that there’s something about niche forms of art that especially lends itself to people thinking about them like this. It was the reveling in the narrow distinctions that was the main point of that sentence. Maybe I didn’t write it well.

And because I wasn’t making any point about studying, you’re discussing something different with that last paragraph that’s really unrelated to what I said and we don’t need to get into.
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
27,435
11,781
Don't know if it's been mentioned already but Minority Report is one of Spielberg's best, which is saying something.

Cruise does Sci-Fi very well. Minority Report, Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion, almost want to say War of the Worlds too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cloned

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
27,435
11,781
So with what you guys have been talking about the last few days, does the “Indiana Jones” series count as Sci-Fi or no?
 

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
78,946
64,127
Cruise does Sci-Fi very well. Minority Report, Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion, almost want to say War of the Worlds too.

He does a lot of movie genres very well. Underrated actor who gets a lot of flack because of some of his beliefs (some of that flack is justified).
 
  • Like
Reactions: x Tame Impala

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->