Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:25 amDeckard BR26354 wrote:Personally, I don't consider Star Wars as true Sci-Fi ...
In movie guides and books it's definitely called science fiction.
In movie guides and books it's definitely called science fiction.
BladeZone's Off World Forums
Discussion Group for the film, books, games and world of Blade Runner
http://www.bladezone.com/bz_forum/
Prequels, remakes and sequels...
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:25 amIn movie guides and books it's definitely called science fiction.
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:56 am
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:49 amLeon Corporation wrote:Maybe. My first reaction would be "yes", but when thinking about what made the previous ones (2001, Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner and even Gattaca) so special, I'm suddenly not altogether sure if The Matrix fits the bill. The martial arts fighting was so important that it might overshadow other elements in that movie. Could it be that The Matrix is a good action film but nothing more? I wonder...
Well...martial arts aside...you do have to admit that it did (even if it was just after that first movie) manage to get really deep into the whole aspect of "what is real?"
I think the first film could have been made a classic...had they not ruined the whole thing by making sequels. But hey...thats me.
So does that mean The Fifth Element doesn't count as a true sci fi?
Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:38 amIf Space Opera counts as a sub-genre of Sci-Fi (I'm inclined to think it is), then yes the Fifth Element is sci-fi.
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:31 pmSo does that mean The Fifth Element doesn't count as a true sci fi?
Erm, in my book, no - it's just another action fantasy that happens to be set in the future - it's closer to Lord of the Rings and Star Wars than it is Blade Runner. It meets two of the three attributes that I use to measure a good Sci-Fi story.
The whole point of a Sci-fi story is to explore a current scientific concept or technology and inform the viewer/reader of the possible issues associated with advancing the concept/technology in that direction. Secondary themes might include social, economic and political trends.
In my opinion a true Sci-Fi story must:
1 - explore current "cutting-edge" technology/concepts
2 - explore the effects on our society/civilisation (the human condition)
3 - maintain a plausable version of a possible future or explicitly describe a reasonable alternative historic path for the human race.
The fifth element meets attributes 2 and 3 only. Sure, it shows lots of technology but none of it is crucial to the story - it's all just advanced 'tools' , 'weapons' and 'vehicles'.
Star Wars meets none of the criteria and is therefore not Sci-Fi. The emphasis is purely on the action.
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:46 amThe only criterium a SF movie must have is a scene involving the 2nd Street Tunnel.
Yep, only true SF fans know what I'm talking about
.
Yep, only true SF fans know what I'm talking about
.Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:59 amis this in reference to THX-1138?
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:50 amPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:41 amI have not seen I, Robot but lots of other SF movies make use of this tunnel too.
I thought BR fans had an eye for detail? I must've been wrong then
. Maybe you're all in it for the cool action scenes after all 
.Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:46 amLeon Corporation wrote:In movie guides and books it's definitely called science fiction.
They obviously don't understand the genre, then.
BTW, I've just been watching the original Star Wars Trilogy on DVD and on at least two occasions (so far) George Lucas quite clearly states that he doesn't consider Star Wars to be Sci-Fi - he uses phrases like "fantasy" and "space opera". So there
Oh and The Matrix is definitely Sci-Fi.