Flare Sci-Fi Forums: How do you define Sci-Fi?

This is topic How do you define Sci-Fi? in forum General Sci-Fi at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/8/173.html

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

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 by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

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 by TSN (Member # 31) on :

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 by Krenim (Member # 22) on :

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 by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

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 by TSN (Member # 31) on :

True, but it's a special case. I actually meant Earth-based sci-fi.

Posted by Xentrick (Member # 64) on :

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

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

Does that make Inspector Gadget Sci-Fi?

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Yep. :-)

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

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 by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Ooh, yeah, I'd forgotten about Fatherland... One of the exceptions to the "future" thing...

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

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

------------------
"While it is true that 15% of home accidents are caused by large penis related incidents, only a small number have ever been known to be fatal."
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"!

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

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�

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

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.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

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).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

SF satire isn't SF? Does that mean that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy isn't science fiction?

(Blatent self-promotion: Another good example of SF comedy can be found by following the link attached to the bottom of my post. )

I think one of the problems is that SF is an incredibly broad category, one which can accomodate a vast range of subject material. It doesn't help that the genre has been marginalized for as long as it's been around, despite producing some of the justifiably "great novels" of the 20th century, or that any SF author who writes something so undeniably wonderful that it can't be ignored is immediately labeled as something, anything other than a science fiction author by the press. "Oh, it isn't fantasy, it's magical realism." Etc.

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

Okay, so I generalized the world of comic books, sorry. However I stand that SF satire should be classified with comedy (yes, another broad subject, but comedy seems to have sub-genres that are identifiable and distinct.) Superman (Yes, I know he's an alien, but so is Marvin the Martian. Upon later description of SF, he doesn't seem believable.) has no real science base to him(See Xentric's definition--Superpowers from the earth's yellow sun doesn't seem rational, does it?). The super powers in the comic book realm seem less scientific than just plain fictional (unless the basis is something like bionic/cybornetic implants or something like that. As for the fantasy thing, I didn't mean magic fantasy, I meant more into the fictional aspect.). How can anyone believe a radioactive spider can be a scientific base for a super power? Every story has some sort of science in it, but that doesn't make it Sci-fi per se (if it did, I'd have to consider Road Runner cartoons sci-fi.)

Science fiction to me has always been based on the science in the story, or a story on how we see ourselves changed by the advancements we make, or could have made(alternate timeline theory). Star trek is based on the advancement of technologies to where we can explore the galaxy in days, instead of millenia. Its technology seemed believable to the extent of copying it in our devices today. Star Wars was a light show of technology advancments to hold an ordinary war on a galactic scale. 1984 showed us how the human race could be controlled by a central power (and it's possible with the satellite and cable technologies we have today.).

I'll even concede some comics and cartoons are Sci-Fi. Gundam Wing is based on the advancements that we can create giant robots to win our wars for us. Quest for Odin is based on an interstellar transport to find a lost world. Vehicle Voltron has the same basis as Battlestar Gallactica, the search for a new Earth using interstellar transport (and of course the giant kick-ass robot). However, such cartoons as Dragonball Z seem to have powers and aliens, yet are not based on science or magic, as much as superhuman strength. I wouldn't consider these to be sci-fi (and this is where I classify Superman). I think this should have its own genre (comic-book fiction?). As for Spawn, wasn't his powers given to him by the devil? And isn't Blade like half-human, half-vampire? Where's the science in those?

Nimrod- for the record, I believe Vampires, werewolves, demons, angels (I am religious, but still.), and the such to still be considered fantasy characters, since they have no scientific base to them(this goes for telepathy, ESP, telekenesis, pyrokenesis, since these haven't been proven by science {nor probably will ever}, and mostly are based in the fantasy world). As for the Aliens, well that can be argued. I guess it all depends on the context to them (A story based in an alien world with the setting of something like "The hobbit" might be fantasy, but a story about aliens coming to Earth is definitely sci-fi)

And as for the Geordi & Ro thing, they didn't fall through the floors because the producers didn't want them to. I, like all realistic people was laughing my ass off at the fact they can throw someone through the bulk head, but not fall through the floor themselves.
Sol, I agree with you on that last part. Didn't Asimov and Sagan author books on real science that were labeled as sci-fi because of the history of the authors?

[This message has been edited by Saiyanman Benjita (edited June 06, 2000).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I think that when you say science fiction you specifically mean hard science fiction with perhaps a smattering of the softer stuff, excluding a certain amount of "science fantasy". (Under which falls, I would argue, the examples of ST and SW.)

Of course, this is why the term speculative fiction was invented, to provide an umbrella term for any story that is told in an environment suitably alien to our own. Using this sort of classification, we can see why works as different as The Hobbit and A Scanner Darkly get grouped together, while the latest Clancy gets to parade around as military drama.

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

No, more including the certain amount of "Science Fantasy" Like ST, SW, (B5, Sliders, etc.)

As for the other classifications you mentioned, I agree.

Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :

Science Fiction (from Dictionary.com):

"A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background."

I agree with this, BUT to me fantasy in this case is the synonym of imagination.

------------------
"Do you want to be President?"
"Yes."
"Put you hand on the book and say 'I do'."
"I do."
"Good, done. Let's eat!"

- G'kar and Sheridan, Babylon 5.

(-=\V/=-)