Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
What's your definition of sci-fi?
Stingray
Elite Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
Being somewhat of a movie fan (who isn't on this board?) I do check out the [url]www.imdb.com[/url] website quite a bit to get more information about the movies and shows I am watching.
And I've noticed that quite many people put movies into the sci-fi category without them having a shred of sci-fi to show for. Either I have a too narrow definition of sci-fi or it's the garbage category that all non-contemporary movies get dumped into.
Sci-fi, as far as I know is short for science-fiction, and this expression is made of science and fiction and is only to be used when you are confronted with fictional futuristic use of science in a literary or visual piece of work.
So why, for the love of the Great Maker, do people use this term when they are describing a medievally-themed, with swords-play and mysticism peppered film?
Even Star Wars is not a sci-fi film, why, because it's happening in the past.
Anyway, it's not a big issue, but it just boggles my mind. :D
And I've noticed that quite many people put movies into the sci-fi category without them having a shred of sci-fi to show for. Either I have a too narrow definition of sci-fi or it's the garbage category that all non-contemporary movies get dumped into.
Sci-fi, as far as I know is short for science-fiction, and this expression is made of science and fiction and is only to be used when you are confronted with fictional futuristic use of science in a literary or visual piece of work.
So why, for the love of the Great Maker, do people use this term when they are describing a medievally-themed, with swords-play and mysticism peppered film?
Even Star Wars is not a sci-fi film, why, because it's happening in the past.
Anyway, it's not a big issue, but it just boggles my mind. :D
Comments
My understanding is that sci-fi and science fiction actually have two separate meanings.
Sci-fi is fun with aliens, spaceships, robots and explosions. Stargate is a good example.
Science Fiction on the other hand is more about exploring themes and ideas. What if this happened? Think about the Minbari war, that's a good example of a what if scenario. What if we encounter an alien race and we don't understand their greeting.
Worf
swords with lasers = scifi. :D
- PJH
Science fiction usually takes place in current times or the future, unless time travel is involved. Science fiction involving the past tends to start to fade into alternate history generas. Both join fantasy under the larger umbrella of speculative fiction. I think what separates the two from fantasy is that both focus more on "What if." In general.
Most people have the opposite problem: they think science fiction is only space opera.
Sci-Fi doesn't care about using real science (climate collapse occurring in a few days!??, etc.), and is usually heavy on mistakes, misconceptions and scientifically impossible events.
SF: science fiction, speculative fiction
A type of literature that looks at the impact of science and technology on society, or otherwise uses scientific information as the basis for speculation to create the setting or background of a fictional story.
I've seen better definitions in some excellent SF anthologies, but this is the best I can come up with now, without going to those books.
There is no time frame limitation. This definition could include historical fiction about the last Neanderthal on Earth (as in "The Day is Done" a classic SF story by Lester del Rey), if they are based on scientific knowledge.
SF can include some ideas that are unproven (or even unlikely) according to known science (faster than light transportation, time travel, telepathy, etc).
Alternate history is also usually considered part of the SF field. Space Opera is also a subgenre. There's cyberpunk, new wave, hard SF, there are many subgenres. There is even a subgenre of SF called "alternate science, alternate history", which speculates from scientific theories we know to be false (e.g. homunculi) but were believed to be true in the past to build a background.
I prefer "hard SF" the one where the writers take care to use real science, thus usually sci-fi is unsatisfactory to me.
The distinction between SF and fantasy (and horror) is not a line, but a diffuse boundary, hence the need to have a term like "science fantasy". Some examples of that are Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" series (magic spells control ancient technology embedded in an Earth so old the sun is red), or Anne McCaffrey's "Dragon Riders of Pern."
However the distinction between sci-fi and SF is also not that clear. Some SF writers are very adamant that the two are different beasts, others use sci-fi as shorthand for "science fiction".
Then people who didn't know what the term meant just made up things. not caring about how it affected others. Or they just decided they were correct and everyone else is just wrong.
Stingray asked about Your definition, not the official one. :p
Repeating myself, emphasis added:
[b]Some SF writers are very adamant that the two are different beasts[/b].
I've read essays and opinions by many (IIRC Harlan Ellison is one of them) that say "sci-fi" is not the same as SF.
But as I said, other writers don't care, and AFAIK less and less people care. I think it's a useful distinction, but I don't mind that for most people "sci-fi" is shorthand for Science Fiction.
I do get somewhat upset sometimes when people believe that "sci-fi" (as defined in opposition to SF) is representative of SF, but even that is no big deal to me anymore.
The distinction between Sci-Fi/Fantasy and other stuff for me is the line between the perfectly ordinary, very possible, could-happen-to-anyone-tomorrow, and the unusual, likely (or definitely) not possible. For example, I count the romantic comedy "Kate and Leopold" as a Sci-Fi Romantic Comedy because of the time travel element.
I should mention though, just to clarify, that just because a lot of Hollywood movies have big explosions and overdone fight scenes and other stuff that wouldn't or couldn't really happen, they don't count as Sci-Fi unless the specific intent is to show something that wouldn't normally be possible in today's world. Most of those big spy and action/thriller movies are trying to say this is stuff we have now and can do now, we're just making it bigger and flashier than it actually is.
That would explain why I was a bit annoyed at the use of sci-fi to describe movies that didn't show humans in a futuristic setting or situation.
That's why I see [I]Blade Runner, Minority Report[/I] and [I]Star Trek[/I] as science fiction and [I]Star Wars[/I] and [I]Beowolf[/I] as fantasy.
Star Wars is also happening in another galaxy, so those aren't even humans (or earthlings) we are talking about.
Beowolf is definitely happening in the past. (And I don't mean flashbacks!! So don't come with the Minbari War, Babylon 5 is "speculative" science fiction. Isn't that what JMS said? :D )
Anyway, so sci-fi is much broader and less constricted.
Science fiction is more than technology. Most of what is regarded as the best science fiction actually explores the human and social elements. Sometimes it is science fiction, other times it is not. V for Vendetta I consider sci-fi in addition to alternate history for that very reason.
That's why I see [I]Blade Runner, Minority Report[/I] and [I]Star Trek[/I] as science fiction and [I]Star Wars[/I] and [I]Beowolf[/I] as fantasy.
Star Wars is also happening in another galaxy, so those aren't even humans (or earthlings) we are talking about.[/QUOTE]
That's still an incredibly narrow definition. By that definition, [url=http://baetzler.de/humor/meat_beings.html]They're made out of meat[/url] isn't science fiction. Why does it [i]have[/i] to involve humans?
Beowulf isn't science fiction any way you spin it. It's a heroic epic.
Worf
Robert A. Heinlein. 1947. "Realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method." Heinlein immediately adds that if you "strike out the word 'future' it can apply to all and not just almost all SF." Later in the same essay, Heinlein gives more detail: "Let's gather up the bits and pieces and define the Simon-pure science fiction story: 1. The conditions must be, in some respect, different from here-and-now, although the difference may lie only in an invention made in the course of the story. 2. The new conditions must be an essential part of the story. 3. The problem itself -- the "plot" -- must be a [I]human[/I] problem. 4. The human problem must be one which is created by, or indispensably affected by, the new conditions. 5. And lastly, no established fact shall be violated, and, furthermore, when the story requires that a theory contrary to present accepted theory be used, the new theory should be rendered reasonably plausible and it must include and explain established facts as satisfactorily as the one the author saw fit to junk. It may be far-fetched, it may seem fantastic, but it must not be at variance with observed facts, i.e., if you are going to assume that the human race descended from Martians, then you've got to explain our apparent close relationship to terrestrial anthropoid apes as well." (source: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction[/URL], there are plenty more people giving their definitions on that page, so there's bound to be one that fits your own. :D )
I just assumed it had to at least involve humans, without that, how else do we know it's in the future when we have nothing to compare to? I think the human factor needs to be included so we as viewers or readers have someone to identify with. Would Star Trek be as popular if it didn't have the Federation in it? Would Babylon 5 be as fun without the Earth Alliance?
According to IMDB, "They're Made Out of Meat" is Sci-Fi... which I'm now assuming is not Science Fiction.
[QUOTE]Beowulf isn't science fiction any way you spin it. It's a heroic epic.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but the IMDB doesn't. [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120604/"]Beowulf (1999)[/URL]
Curiously, the animated version is in the proper category, so I'm just assuming that the former is just a mistake. [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/"]Beowulf (2007)[/URL]
Humans aren't vital to give the reader something to relate to, either. Why can't the reader relate to aliens if said aliens have some traits in common with humans? The aliens in [i]They're made out of meat[/i] are very alien (they're not even carbon-based life-forms) but they have certain human traits to which we can relate to: difficulty accepting something outside their experience and a desire to take the easy action over the hard.
As for IMDB... why are you relying on such an unreliable source for your definition of what genre something belongs in? What's more, you're claiming the genre of a short film [i]based on[/i] a short story defines the genre of said short story.
Oh NOes! Now there's a difference between "hard" and "regular" science fiction. You are killing me. I'm afraid of what else is out there, "medium" science fiction, "light" (diet) science fiction, "the genre formerly known as" science fiction. :D
There doesn't appear to be a "Lord of the Sci-Fi Definitions" that rules them all. Depending on who you ask, you'll get a different answer. The wikipedia page shows that there's no consensus on that subject.
[QUOTE]Humans aren't vital to give the reader something to relate to, either.[/QUOTE]
Granted, but that's not the mainstream approach.
[QUOTE]As for IMDB... why are you relying on such an unreliable source for your definition of what genre something belongs in?[/QUOTE]
Do you know a better free online source for movie information? I sure would like to hear it because IMDB seems to rely too much on user input.
[QUOTE]What's more, you're claiming the genre of a short film [i]based on[/i] a short story defines the genre of said short story.[/QUOTE]
So just because the short story is literary in origin qualifies it to belong to the science fiction genre?
I've only ever heard the phrases "hard science fiction" and "soft science fiction" in the past. I'd never heard of there being a difference between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" before this thread.
[quote]There doesn't appear to be a "Lord of the Sci-Fi Definitions" that rules them all. Depending on who you ask, you'll get a different answer. The wikipedia page shows that there's no consensus on that subject.[/quote]
Of course there isn't. As I said before, it's such a blurry area you can't possibly hope to create a single definition that neatly sums it up. It's as bad as music genres (how is house different from club?).
[quote]Granted, but that's not the mainstream approach.[/quote]
Being mainstream or not doesn't mean it gets ruled out. :)
[quote]Do you know a better free online source for movie information? I sure would like to hear it because IMDB seems to rely too much on user input.[/quote]
Make up you're own. It'll be just as accurate. :D
[quote]So just because the short story is literary in origin qualifies it to belong to the science fiction genre?[/QUOTE]
I never said that, nor anything even resembling that. I call conversational terrorism!