Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
A valid question. apparently someone (no names here, Sol.) figures a discussion about the movie Mystery Men should be a Sci-Fi discussion. The question is, why would a purely satiricle movie be considered Sci-Fi (next on Sci-Fi channel: Spaceballs!)?
So what do you consider characteristics of Sci-Fi? (And be specific. "Because it has a space ship" just doesn't cut it.)
------------------ Well I'm a Bada$$ cowboy living in a cowboy day wicky-wicky-wak yo yo bang bang me and Artemus Clydefrog go save Selma Hayek from the big metal spider Wicky-wicky-wak wicky-wicky-wicky-wak Bada$$ cowboy from the West Si-yiide
[This message has been edited by Saiyanman Benjita (edited June 01, 2000).]
posted
If it has anything to do with science, in the least way, real science or not, I tend to think of it as Sci-Fi. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't really comment on it.
------------------ Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!! Gandalf
posted
Well, for one thing, unless it's a time-travel story, it couldn't really be set in the past (relative to when it was written), so that rules out a lot of "fantasy" stories. The difference is pretty much that sci-fi deals w/ science (hence, the term "science fiction"), while fantasy usually uses magic and such. Also, sci-fi tends to work w/ possibilities for the future (new science, things we haven't found because they're off-planet, etc.). Fantasy usually rewrites the past (or maybe the present, but I don't think, usually, the future) into something we know it isn't by adding magical and mythological aspects to it (wizards, elves, talking lion-gods, what-have-you).
Anyway, that's how I see it.
------------------ "This is Major Tom to ground control. I'm stepping through the door, and I'm floating in a most peculiar way. And the stars look very different today..." -David Bowie, "Space Oddity"
posted
TSN pretty much got it right. Sci-Fi is basically when you imagine what life would be like with a technology or science that does not exist yet (or at least not commonplace or used in new ways). A story about a psycho with a submarine written today would not be Sci-Fi, but it was in Jules Verne's time. Today, we have such things as alien technology, human genetic engineering, faster-than-light travel, etc.
Fantasy is basically the same thing, except that the technology or science is replaced by magic or dragons or somesuch.
That is why I thought Mystery Men should go here. It's hard to tell whether superheroes fit in Sci-Fi or Fantasy, but both genres have traditionally been put here (I site LotR as a prime example).
------------------ "Not so fast, Space Clown! My time-space manipulator has assembled an army of invisible cavemen to block your reverse polarity ray!"
- Future Man, Curses, Space Ghost: Coast to Coast.
posted
Well, I'd definitely consider Star Wars to be sci-fi, but it takes place a long, long time ago.
------------------ Frank's Home Page June is National Accordion Awareness Month. "I usually feature the accordion on three or four songs every album, which is three or four more accordion-based songs than most Top 40 albums have." - Weird Al Yankovic
posted
True, but it's a special case. I actually meant Earth-based sci-fi.
------------------ "This is Major Tom to ground control. I'm stepping through the door, and I'm floating in a most peculiar way. And the stars look very different today..." -David Bowie, "Space Oddity"
posted
have this in my files, part of a long article by a Mr. Swiniarski about creating a science fiction setting for would-be writers:
What is Science Fiction? A working definition of SF: If we define Fantastic Literature as fiction placed in a setting that is divergent from the reality the writer inhabits, then SF is that class of Fantastic Literature where this divergence is the result of a rational extrapolation of a change in the writer's reality. (i.e. SF opposed to Fantasy� theoretically, in SF, you can get there from here.)
Major elements of SF: Difference and Reason The foundation of most SF is a sense of change, of a different world, coupled with a rational attitude. Most SF appeals to Reason. SF worlds are logical constructions. The world is assumed to behave by knowable (if not known) and discoverable (if not yet discovered) laws. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
as for myself, I always thought of sci fi as fiction made possible by known or theorized science-- allowing for time travel (the "Back to the Box Office" movie trilogy) or alternate-history (Sliders.) X-Files is iffy, UFO's crossed with the pseduo-science of ghosts and Uri Geller. sword&sorcery is right out.
superheroes can fall into the SF neighborhood by way of their techno gadgets, superweapons, and "mutant powers." Mystery Men live in the trailer park on the edge of town.
-------------------------------------- counting the days until the X-MEN movie
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
Does that make Inspector Gadget Sci-Fi?
------------------ Well I'm a Bada$$ cowboy living in a cowboy day wicky-wicky-wak yo yo bang bang me and Artemus Clydefrog go save Selma Hayek from the big metal spider Wicky-wicky-wak wicky-wicky-wicky-wak Bada$$ cowboy from the West Si-yiide
------------------ "This is Major Tom to ground control. I'm stepping through the door, and I'm floating in a most peculiar way. And the stars look very different today..." -David Bowie, "Space Oddity"
posted
Basically, science-fiction is when a movie contains a "what if?". Alternate history is a great example, like "Fatherland", showing mid-60's Germany after Hitler had won the war. Others like Mad Max, 1984, Gattaca, and Waterworld also deal with that.
As we have concluded, most people forget that the "what if" isn't restricted to technology, but technology seems to be the most widely used "what if"-area in books and movies.
------------------ I'm not an atheist, I'm a maybeist�
[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited June 03, 2000).]
posted
Ooh, yeah, I'd forgotten about Fatherland... One of the exceptions to the "future" thing...
------------------ "This is Major Tom to ground control. I'm stepping through the door, and I'm floating in a most peculiar way. And the stars look very different today..." -David Bowie, "Space Oddity"
posted
SF is also very time-dependant. In other words, 10,000 years ago cavemen might have wowed each other with incredible science fiction tales about the discovery of such exotic technologies as pants and shared currency. It all depends on where you are.
Is Silence of the Lambs, for instance, science fiction? It's certainly a tale based on science. Criminal psychology, in this case.
I remember reading a good essay about this once. I'll have to see if I can dig it up
posted
That sounds like a dance with semantics. There's danger in misinterpreting the word fiction.
Do you mean that Hannibal is more mentally ill than the human mind allows?
In "The Hunt For Red October" the russian sub had an aquatic caterpillar-device installed which is only a theory today, but it had very little part in the story which makes it a bit pedantic to label it SCI-FI, when the weight lies in the threat of WWIII and the chemistry between Connery/Baldwin.
In "DIE HARD: With A Vengeance" Sam Jackson makes some political statements about his views on racism. Does that make it a ghetto/blaxploitation-movie or does it stay just an action-movie?
------------------ I'm not an atheist, I'm a maybeist�
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
Okay, Nimrod. I can see the Alternate Timeline theory. I'd even accept that as a Science Fiction quality. But I don't agree with the stretch into the fantasy world (ala comic books, etc.) I'd consider Superman as more of a fantasy character than a science fiction character. Coming from another world just simply isn't enough to render it as "Science". Super-powers aren't science-based (Earth's yellow sun may be a great power source, but... I mean, c'mon.) Batman may be on the border, but I would classify it more as action than Science-Fiction. Inspector Gadget, if it were more serious may have made it onto the list, but I don't think satire of Science-Fiction should be considered Sci-Fi.
Tell me if I'm out on a limb here.
------------------ Well I'm a Bada$$ cowboy living in a cowboy day wicky-wicky-wak yo yo bang bang me and Artemus Clydefrog go save Selma Hayek from the big metal spider Wicky-wicky-wak wicky-wicky-wicky-wak Bada$$ cowboy from the West Si-yiide
posted
Please don't be mad now, I'm only trying to add to our mutual enlightenment.
Saiyanman: "I don't agree with the stretch into the fantasy world (ala comic books, etc.)"
Are you saying that comic-books can't be sci-fi? What about the Star Trek comic books? Or Spawn? Or Blade?
Except documentaries, aren't all novels, movies and tv-shows sprung from a fantasy world? Or did you mean J.R.R Tolkien-fantasy? If you did, I don't think Superman belongs in there.
"Super-powers aren't science-based" Are you trolling here ?
Did Bruce Banner try to cure himself from the Hulk any other way than with science??
From the top of my head, Batman is the only exception in the DC realm. Superman OTOH IS an alien and should be treated accordingly (since we haven't seen any real ones yet). The majority of super-heroes and villains from Marvel/DC comics/Dark Horse are sci-fi based, you can't argue with that. Telepathy, pyrokinesis, telekinesis, teleportation, werewolves, techno-organic beings and a shitload of alien empires (Skrull, Kree, Shi'ar, Phalanx). You name it, they've got it.
I think I understand what you meant about superpowers not being science-based. Some are hard to explain, so we just accept them and keep on reading. But those "accepting" things exist in Star Trek too sometimes, like in that TNG-ep with Geordi and Ro, where they're intangible and can go through walls but doesn't fall through the floor. There are just more of them in comic-books, like how "Ghost Rider" can see when his head is a burning skull, lacking eyeballs.
Inspector Gadget was a clown, invented for small kids. The stunts he pulled in his show WAS unreal, more like something from Hot Shots 1&2, and shouldn't be held in the same regard as Star Wars or Star Trek.
Sol, I'm sorry if my initial reaction to the SotL/Sci-Fi thing came out harsh. It really would be interesting to hear about that essay. ------------------ I'm not an atheist, I'm a maybeist�
[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited June 05, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited June 05, 2000).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
