Evaluating Sci Fi Films Wells Style

H. G. Wells' review of "Metatropolis" allows us to see how a professional might wish to evaluate s sci fi film. He seems to feel that a good sci fi film is one that proposes new posibilities and ideas, that are relevant and different for the time period. In his opinion the German film failed to come up with any original ideas, and failed to be a successful film because of this. The technology in this film was current with no imaginative inovation, and the systems in which people worked were not only present, but seemingly "on the way out." Using Wells' criteria for evaluating a sci fi film, I would say that "Things to Come" effectivly presents possible futuristic technologies that were creative for the time period. As most everyone has mentioned the TVs and transportation are good examples of this. The movie offers new ideas while posing questions of the future that seem probable, unlike the workings of the world in Metatropolis.

This is the way Wells chooses to analyze a Sci Fi film in terms of is success, but i dont think that is necessarily the proper way. Although I do agree that sci fi needs inovative technologies that seem realistic in a new advanced world, the entertainment factor is important. Sci Fi movies arent successful at all unless they are entertaining, and that obviously comes from personal experience when viewing the film. Personally, and it might just be because I am biased watching this movie decades later, I thought "Things to Come" didnt hold my interest and often dragged on. To touch on "The Day The Earth Stood Still," I thought this film was much better. Although the amount of new technologies was limited to the people of the Alien world that landed I still think that by Wells' standards they were probable for a sci fi film in that time period, 1950s. It was also more entertaining, and I think that sci fi films need to still touch on some aspects of realism to be more relateable to an audience.

Evaluating Sci-Fi Fairly

When evaluating the genre of science fiction, I think, heavily depends on the context of the time period it was made of. Going from this, we have to see how they depict the future and see how it is different from the time period the film was made in. H.G. Well's review of the German film, Metropolis, was unfavorable due to its 'unoriginality.' I think he has a valid point here, according to Wells, the movie did not depict any changes to the technology of the city supposedly a hundred years from the future. The airplanes appear the same as they were at the time the film was made, showing no advancement. Along with this, Wells finds an issue with the themes used by Metropolis, appearing to be overusing the notion of man vs. machine and doing nothing with it to make it interesting or different. I agree with him on both parts, because if a city is to be set one hundred years in the future, then why are no technological advancements evident? It is strange the airplanes from a hundred years in the future look the same as the ones from the current time period; technology is always improving and moving forward - bound to look different as the years go by, let along one hundred. With the overused themes, I agree with Wells, admittedly, the theme of man vs. machine has been overdone, but makes a sci-fi film with this theme successful is making it interesting. Whether it be introducing a new plot twist to it or taking a new side, the fact that it something new, will have the viewers more invested. The fact that Metropolis did not include any original ideas disinclined Wells from being more interested.

Evaluating Things to Come, I think it was pretty successful. This is considering that the appearances of technology have changed dramatically (transportation in the city, flat-screen tvs, little projectors). The technological advancements in the film have made the futuristic approach more plausible, showing that change has taken place. When it comes to dealing with the context of time period, I think the film did very well in establishing that it was taking place in the future, with new-age technology such as the rockets and appliances.

H.G. Wells review seems to be pessimistic, longing for attention. He keeps stating all the impossibilities  within the Sci-Fi film, he points out how technologically impossible situations and things are. But he is totally missing the point of Sci-Fi film in general. Sci-Fi is not meant to show the present, its to think and wonder about the possibilities of the future. Its wondering about other world and other civilizations - not just our present ones. So the question arises, how does one evaluate Sci-Fi films? We could evaluate them on their pure entertainment factor, or we could judge them by how they depict society and/or what kind of message they are willing to put out about society. I believe the biggest evaluator of a film (including Sci-Fi films) are their ability to be believable. If the characters and story are developed enough that one can become entangled in the films world, it is a good film. As for "Things to Come it had some great elements. But the viewer would consistently drop out of the world of the film because it was a slow-paced movie that was a little too dramatic.

The art of new ideas

One thing that H.G. Wells highlights in his review of Metropolis is the lack of new ideas.  I agree with Wells that science fiction really should be evaluated at least in part by its ingenuity.  What is the point of a science fiction film that does not include, "a single instance of artistic creation or even intelligent anticipation?" In my opinion, Things to Come, strives to do exactly that.  Even down to the costumes, Things to Come tried to reinvent the way that we view the world. Things to Come  paid special attention to specific details from the uncomfortably short togas in the last scene to the clear communicators characters used.  Though, as we have the benefit of looking at this film from the future and know which technological advancements are archaic even now, in 1936, these ideas were brand new. However, I have a question.  Wells goes on a long rant about how the, "vertical city of the future," explored in Metropolis is an idea that has already been explored. How is his world in Things to Come different?

Evaluating Science Fiction- Originality and Believability

In order to figure out a system for evaluating science fiction films, I returned to my definition of a science fiction film. To be one, a film’s world, however fantastical and “futuristic”, must be grounded in real concepts and technologies that could possibly exist; it should be focused on a large-scale change; and its topic must serve as a framework for a story about a human crisis, or a rumination on the human condition. But to be a great science fiction film, it has to be original, and it has to be believable. These were some of H.G. Well’s main criticisms of Fritz Lang’s science fiction film Metropolis. Though the film featured a new society built with complex machinery and robots and explored the disadvantages of severe social stratification, making it a science fiction film, it failed to treat these ideas in a new way. The supposed “advanced” technology featured in the film was hardly different from what the film’s audiences were seeing outside the theater. Also, because the film seemed to ignore the logic of how such a society would work with aforementioned technology and hierarchy, (notably, that it would fail because machines cannot make wealth by themselves, and the efficiency of an industry cannot rely on the unskilled masses). H.G. Wells calls the entire plot “essential nonsense”. So, Metropolis is not a great science fiction film because it does not plausibly portray “what could be”, and its attempt lacks originality.

It’s hard to evaluate Things to Come using the first criterion because our judgment of originality is skewed. It was made nearly 80 years ago, so we’ve seen most of the film’s major elements in both newer films and real life. However, we can fairly judge the logic of the story and the structure of the world the filmmakers created, and I have to say I found it a little ridiculous. 
The reason these two characteristics make a science fiction film great is due to the impact they have on the audience. A truly original film wows the audience and holds their attention throughout, while the creation of a believable world not only ensures that the film will not be forgotten, but also allows the audience to connect on a human level.

(Insert more creative tittle than "evaluating Sci-fi" here)

I don't see why we have to evaluate science fiction any differently than we evaluate all movies.  After all, even though sci fi is considered a different genre, it is still a movie.  There are many other movies that make (or attempt to make) predictions about the future, deep metaphors/questions about life/whatever it is we decided sci fi was trying to get at when we answered the last question.  Technology in all movies eventually becomes outdated- the cameras when film was first getting started compared to the cameras now can barely be considered on the same playing field (did I get that analogy right?  Also, was that the correct use of analogy?  But anyways...) Just because the movie is considered science fiction does not mean that we should treat the special effects any differently than the special effects of a movie in a different genre.  However, that being said, I do believe that we have to take the time into some consideration.  Like "those special effects were great... for that time" or "______ movie came out at the same time as _________ but the special effects were so much better."   I think that science fiction shouldn't be evaluated any differently from any other (narrative) movie that we see/evaluate, however it is that we do that.  I feel like I'm contradicting myself.  Whatever.  Opinion of the moment stated.

Evaluating Sci-Fi

In his review, H.G. Wells criticizes many aspects of the film "Metropolis".  He begins by criticizing the lack of creativity in the film, especially when it comes to automobiles or airplanes that are in the film. I think this is a fair argument, especially given his claims that the cars and planes are no different than the one's of 1926. For a science fiction film that is set in 2027, there should be some effort to try to be creative and imagine what cars or planes may look like in 100 years. We wouldn't expect a car released in 2013 to be in a film set in 2113, and it would seem very out of place.
However, Wells goes on to criticize the fact that the vertical cities in the film are "highly improbable". I feel that the point of a fictional film is to be "improbable" or unexpected in some way; otherwise the film wouldn't be fiction. There has to be some element of fiction in order to make it a science fiction film. While I can understand his criticism of the vertical cities being an old idea, criticizing a fictional setting for being unrealistic isn't really fair. People don't go watch a sci-fi movie to see a realistic representation of society.
While sci-fi films should be grounded in reality in some ways (so it doesn't just become fantasy), I feel that a sci-fi film shouldn't be evaluated  on how realistic its depiction of the future is. Creativity in the film's depiction, the first point brought up by Wells, should be one area that should be evaluated. The film should try to imagine what kind of technological advancements may happen in the future. The film should also be evaluated on how well it conveys and communicates the message of the film. Movies like Wall-E warn us of what the future could look like if we continue our current habits that hurt the environment.
If you were to evaluate a sci-fi film based on its realistic representation of the future like Wells, then, yes, it would matter if the film is 77 years old. If you evaluate a film based on creativity, how it conveys its message, and most importantly, if it is entertaining to the viewer, how old a film is doesn't matter.

Evaluating what we can

Evaluating Science Fiction Films

CARY SPECTOR

            First off, I find H.G. Wells review of Metropolis quite pretentious. He points out how technologically impossible the vertical city is, comparing it to modern day cities. To me this is the wrong approach to evaluating a Science-Fiction film or really any story in general. You don’t go to a Science-Fiction film for its complete devotion to realism. You go to catch a glimpse of the future or alternate present to be amazed by the range of possibilities that could befall or rise from humanity. It will create a better connection with the audience if the world is more realistic, but either way it is going to be a sight to behold, assuming the mind behind the world is innovative enough.

            So, how should we evaluate sci-fi films? Like any other film. Does it have a coherent story? Are the characters relatable? Is the film paced well, in that it keeps you interested in what is happening on screen? Sci-Fi tends to have the bonus of being able to dazzle the audience with special effects and outstanding scenery, but this would probably fall under mise en scene.

            The reason that the original Star Wars was such a successful Sci-Fi film is that it simply was a great movie. The characters are realistic and relatable, the story was engaging, and the antagonist strikes fear into your heart without even being on screen for more than 20 minutes. What people at the time raved about was how the special effects were like nothing they had ever seen. Which is part of the appeal for sci-fi; to see something you wouldn’t regularly witness. But the effects aren’t what make films good. Example A for Avatar. 

Beautiful effects built around a dull story with duller characters.

            Of course, there is a flaw in my argument, in that a bad movie can be a good sci-fi film. Things to Come is a great science fiction film. It shows a possible future and mixes in more advanced technology, but ultimately keeps it as human as possible. The thing is gets wrong is everything else, by modern standards at least. The characters can be quite hokey and the messages are about as obvious as pedophile at Wiggles concert (see example A for Ambrose).

 The pacing of the movie was incredibly slow and I don’t believe I was the only one that became overwhelmed with exhaustion after attempting to watch the film for more than 5 minutes.

            Ultimately, evaluating Science-Fiction films requires a two-step process:

1.     Does it work as a film?

2.     Does it work as a science-fiction film?

Story and characters are the most important part of a film, but science-fiction also has to reach certain criteria of its own, which is what we talked about with our last post. 

Evaluating Sci-Fi With Respect To Origin and Purpose

H.G. Wells spends a large part of his review criticizing Metropolis because it, in his opinion, presents a depiction of the future that, given current trends, is unlikely to happen. I don’t think this criticism is completely fair. As Cary pointed out to me in a comment on a comment I made during the last post, every sci-fi film’s depiction of the future is a product of the time, place, and culture it comes from. This makes it hard to validate criticism that a sci-fi film is ‘unrealistic’. The future shown in Metropolis may have seemed unrealistic to H.G. Wells, but it could have been perfectly realistic in Germany, where it was made.

So if we can’t judge a sci-fi film by its prediction of the future, we have to find another way. I think what is common to film and art overall is that the audience gets something out of it. They take away an idea, a lesson, something. They don’t all necessarily take away the same thing, but I think a lot of films, like Metropolis and Things to Come, are trying to get the audience to take something from the film. Because of this, I think we should evaluate a sci-fi film through how its depiction of the future contributes to the takeaway and the overall point of the film.

I haven’t seen Metropolis, but I think it’s possible that the extreme portrayal of the future show there is purposely extreme. The extreme stratification of the upper and lower classes could be there to emphasize the film’s message about society, rather than be a plausible future.  I think we can look at Things to Come in the same way, but I don’t know if that helps the film. I really didn’t know what to take away from the film. It presented depictions of the future in parts, and to me it seemed a bit disjointed with the separate parts not having too much of an overlying message. So, even though the film got some things about the future right, I don’t think that validates the film as a whole because I don’t see how those elements worked toward the film’s story and message overall.

Evaluating Sci-Fi

My belief is that the best way to evaluate a sci-fi film is how realistically it depicts the future. So it really doesn't matter when a sci-fi film is from as much as how real the world in the film is created. Is the plot believable? Could this film happen in the next few years or are we many years off? Those kinds of questions are the ones I find myself asking when I watch a sci-fi film. And so in Things to Come as Mr. B pointed out a number of times I noticed numerous "possibilities for the future" in the film that since the movie's release have come to be reality. Things like landing on the moon and flat screen televisions and projector screens are all a commonly accepted reality to us living today.
The most eerie of the "possibilities" I think was the prediction of World War II. But that makes me think about how those in 1936 interpreted these "possibilities". There was plenty of tension in Europe possibly indicative of a war but to predict the timing so closely is somewhat unsettling. But did the people living then really think there would be a moon landing? Or flat screen televisions? Or radio watches? I don't think I would've believed those things to be possible had I lived then.
Then there's Wells who thought that the other sci-fi film around the same time as Things to Come, titled Metropolis was a pitiful excuse for a sci-fi film. While I can't comment on the actual film itself Wells's criticism of the film seems to be entirely based on his soreness because some of the ideas seen in the film are also in his book and one of his films. For this Wells called the Germans behind Metropolis unoriginal. While I think there very well be a link between Wells's work and Metropolis's content I don't think it gives Wells the opportunity to bash a film that was merely doing what sci-fi does, predict the future! Wells criticizes the film for being wholly unrealistic in its portrayal of a "vertical city", and while we don't truly have vertical cities today, we certainly have very very tall cities, like Dubai for starters. And so I feel that while some of Wells's criticisms are justified, I think some of his claims of the sci-fi genre are unwarranted and made in an attempt to get back at the Germans for using some of his ideas.

Response to Question 2: The Evaluation of Sci-fi and Wells diagnosis

First off let me say that I have watched this version of metropolis, which I did against the better judgment and warnings of my film enthusiast mother, and found it to be an incredible and absolute bore. I was so sure that since it belonged to a list of great cinematic features and was so recognizable and well-known, that it would be amazing; instead I fell asleep 30 minutes in.

H.G Wells shows great dissatisfaction of the film, due to the fact that “It has nothing to do with any social or moral issue before the world or with any that can ever conceivably arise.”, and thus the “fiction” is lost from “Science-Fiction”.  Not only that but as he points the numerous stylistic and philosophical errors of the film, I have to wonder if science fiction can only be evaluated pending on how comparable it can be to the possibilities of the past and current world. If so all science-fiction films that merit to be worthy of the title need to have some sort of proof or basis for their depiction of the future.

And if by evaluating a sci-fi film I take H.G. Wells guidelines, a sci-fi film would be evaluated by how well it portrays the reality that could be the future, by which I mean “is it creative and fantastically futuristic while still retaining realism?”. Thus if implementing this to a critic of “the day the earth stood still”, the film retains realism of the way earth’s citizens and powers would react to aliens but not of the actual aliens themselves which are portrayed with no actual scientific basis.

I guess that it comes to how creative and futuristically fantastic can a sci-fi film be while still being believable, and if it’s not believable or conceivable it does not merit that prognosis. While I don’t agree with H.G. Well’s evaluation, I can’t really think of my own, and thus am still open on the idea of how we should evaluate a sci-fi film. 

Evaluating Sci-Fi Gabe R.F.

I think that the most straightforward and literal way of evaluating a sci-fi film is to determine two things:
1. Is it sci-fi?
2. Is it good?
As we know from the last wave of blog posts, whether or not a film should be considered sci-fi can be as subjective as whether or not a film is good, so this system of evaluation has little concreteness.

I believe that a sci-fi film can be evaluated in another way. Assuming the film is sci-fi, one can ask "is it good sci-fi?" which feels wholly different from "is it good?". So what determines good or bad sci-fi? H.G. Wells' review of Metropolis asserts that good sci-fi takes seriously what is possible and impossible, likely and unlikely, realistic and unrealistic. The plot holes and silly details that the author pointed out are evidence of a much more significant flaw. That being: the producers of Metropolis had no concern for what is realistic and settled for superficial spectacle (I have not seen Metropolis so I don't know if this is true, for the sake of this response let's pretend we are speaking about a film with all of the flaws that Well's mentioned. Such films are out there, even if Metropolis doesn't count). Wells believes that a good sci-fi film has something to say to the people of the present, and since Metropolis is essentially depicting the future, it is flawed in that it has little respect for what the future might actually look like (based on the "present" of 1927). Based on the overwhelmingly positive response to Metropolis that has lasted to this day, it is clear that it's a good movie. But assuming it is flawed in the ways that Wells claims it is, then I would agree with him that it is bad sci-fi.
From my present day perspective, Things To Come is just the opposite. So-so film. Good sci-fi film. Time has not been kind to the 40 or so extended monologues that lie within the uneasy structure of the film, but it predicted modern technology very well. I know so, because I'm here, in the future. This begs the question: should it matter how accurate a sci-fi film that predicts the future ends up being, or should it matter the seriousness and informedness of the prediction at the time it was made? Often the two are related. Serious contemplation and research tend to predict trends quite well. However, it seems unfair to evaluate the quality of sci-fi from the future. A well-researched and sensible author could have predicted that the average American would be 7 feet tall by 2013, but if his prediction missed then isn't it still more valuable than a comedy piece that lightly jests that Americans will all be fat by 2013 (as that is decidedly more true, as we are indeed quite fat). Intent is a loose concept, but it is important to attempt to define the undefinable so that we can at least make out a shape. Considering the fact that I do not know what sci-fi is, I believe that good sci-fi is derived from a genuine concern with what is possible and likely. Now of course not all sci-fi aims to predict the future, but most of it does, and I believe that this is evidence of a core function that sci-fi can serve: to anticipate and speculate for the benefit of the present.

Figure 1 - H.G. Wells

Exploring What Could Be

I think that the most valid way to evaluate a sci-fi film is in terms of whether or not it explores what could possibly be. It does not matter if a film is 77 years old or 3 years old; if the filmmakers attempt to investigate some sort of natural phenomenon that could happen, might happen, or eventually will happen, the film is science fiction.
In Things to Come, the filmmakers explore what they think the future holds, and in 1936 this was an entirely creative endeavor. From a modern point of view, it is almost eerie how correctly they predicted the world from World War II onward, including the technological advances of television, landing on the moon, and bombs flattening cities. I, for one, was impressed with how spot on their exploration into the future was, and it makes me wonder if in another seventy years, will we be saying the same about modern sci-fi films such as I, Robot?
H.G. Wells believes that Metropolis was a horrible waste of time and money because it lacked all sort of originality and was not logical or realistic. I have not seen Metropolis, but from this one review I can tell that the filmmakers did create what they saw as a possible future, regardless of what Wells thinks. The fact that the film is not a realistic depiction of mechanization is irrelevant--almost all science-fiction films include a level of surrealism and play to the audience. Also, it is very likely that when Things to Come was produced, critics slashed it as being nonsensical and entirely impossible of ever happening. Seventy-seven years later, where are we?

Measuring Originality

The question of how to evaluate science fiction is an interesting one because sci-fi is a genre that seems like once they become out-of-date, there may be less value to them. 2001: A Space Odyssy, for example, takes place already 12 years ago and may seem farfetched to modern audiences. Below is a shot from the film, and it looks more like the 60s (when the film was created) than 2001. Films that were once considered amazing, such as E.T., seem less impressive now.



To be more reasonable, the originality might be the most viable method of evaluating the sci-fi genre and in order to know how original the films are, the time they were made is important. They cannot be compared to sci-fi films from current day because of the changes in technology that have given current filmmakers an advantage. By placing a film in its original context, the measure of originality will be more fair.

H.G. Wells critized Metropolis very harshly mostly for its lack of originality. He called it "Unimaginative" and that the creators were "intellectually lazy". Possibly the goal of science fiction is to be as creative as possible, but still realistic. In a way, science-fiction attempts to create a realistic prediction of the future.

With Things to Come, the predictions they made of the future actually played out; such as flat screen tvs. This foresight and originality makes the film a better science fiction film and more impressive.

QUESTION 2: HOW SHOULD WE EVALUATE SCI FI FILMS?

William Menzies' Things to Come (1936), with a screenplay by H. G. Wells, is an example of one of the earliest, big budget, studio-produced science fiction films.  It presents us with an interesting problem:  some aspects of the film seem comically hokey to us now, whereas other parts of the film really do seem to predict the future.  The film, written throughout 1934, is notable for predicting World War II, being only 16 months off by having it start on Christmas 1940, rather than 1 September 1939. Its graphic depiction of strategic bombing in the scenes in which Everytown is flattened by air attack and society collapses into barbarism, echo pre-war concerns about the threat of "the bomber will always get through."  The film also features a moon launch and large, flat-screen TV monitors (before even clunky TVs were invented, mind you) among other scientific advancements.  In short, much of the science fiction seemed spot on. 

Charles Silver, curator of the Department of Film at MoMA, goes so far as to argue that Menziies crossed the line into auteurism because of his art direction:  "Menzies’s vision of the future features spectacular sets, tempered with throwback tunics reminiscent of the Roman Empire. This seems to have anticipated Michael Anderson’s Logan’s Run (1976), not to mention George Lucas’s Star Wars."

So, how does one evaluate a sci fi film and should it matter if it's 77 years old or not?  Before answering, I want you to read how H. G. Wells evaluated another sci fi film the time period.  It isn't a very favorible review, but do you think it's a fair one?  Please use Wells' review as a springboard into your own ideas about evaluating a sci fi film.  By the end of your post, your evaluation of Things to Come should also be clear.

Late comment on Sci-fi

Sci-fi is a film genre that explores things of an otherworldly and fantastical nature, but within the film it can be explained using fake science. Sci-fi is also a literary genre but it has a huge culture in film, which began earlier than people might think. Below is a picture of one of the original sci-fi films from 1904.

The most succesful science fiction films now seem to deal with aliens and future worlds with war. They attempt to invent new special affects to make the science in the film look as realistic as possible, and sometimes invent completely different wardrobes and languages for the modern world created for the film.

I think that science fiction is not only a genre but its own class of story telling, meaning that the very way the story is written and evolves is different from most others. They have their plot, usually involving other world travel, past travel, future travel or really a journey to any other un-ontainable place in our society, but what makes them unique and have that element of science fiction is the way they comment on humanity. Science fiction films take a human element, apply it to the impossible and then proceed to comment on humanity. Most films take the viewpoint of humans when commenting on humanity, science fiction allows us to improve because we are being critiqued by characters and situations that we cannot relate to, it makes us more keen to the message rather than just the entertainment. Of course the entertainment is there as well.

Sci-fi

 

 

I think the key part of defining science fiction is the science part. When I think of science fiction, I think of fictional science. That's why I didn't really think that Zelig was science fiction. Yes it was fiction, and yes there was science involved in the plot, but the science that was in the film was accurate to the time period. Science fiction, like all other genres, can be combined with other genres like horror or comedy. I think that it's important for there to be an aspect of reality in all films, science fiction especially. This is because if there is no reality the movie become ridiculous, and un-believable, which I guess can sometimes be funny, but that's probably not what the directors were going for.

FINAL THOUGHTS ON POST #1

Lots of interesting discussions about the difference between fantasy and sci fi.  This writer explores it in some depth.  Give it a read:  http://dlmorrese.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/the-difference-between-science-fiction-and-fantasy/

Science Fiction? Science Fiction!

Science fiction is such a broad category that I don't think that any one definition can sum it up.  To me, Science fiction is made-up science incorporated into a story, oftentimes with bits of real proven science mixed up in there.  But I'm sure that someone's going to be all "NOOOOOOOO what about __________" (probably in a really obnoxious voice).  Not-real science can include all types of science, everything from psychology to physics, so it keeps it pretty broad.  For some reason (actually I know why, it's because I'm watching it as I write this) when I try and think of examples, I keep thinking about Fullmetal Alchemist which I never really thought of as science fiction until I had to think about how I define science fiction.  Alchemy would be the "made-up science" because transmutation by drawing circles is not possible (as far as I know) but there are bits of real science in there like how they constantly mention the periodic table, the law of conservation of mass, and the law of natural providence.  Don't take what I'm  saying as a rule though.  I can think of several episodes of the Twilight Zone that I would call science fiction that don't follow that rule.  This is a hard question.  It's the AM now... oops.
P.S. I'm watching the 2009 series not the 2003 series because the 2003 series stunk.  In case anyone cares. I don't expect you to.

Defining the Sci-Fi Genre in Film

When you first think of a Sci-Fi film, the first thought that comes to most minds is outer space, Star Wars, Star Trek etc. A living and breathing civilization in another galaxy far, far, away. However it is, as Molly pointed out, a subcategory of fantasy. It's only specified for futuristic environments with technological advancements in an imaginary (or possibly even future) civilization. Also another thing to note is most of these films have a civilization in peril or it begins at the brink of war. We usually have our main characters be very important in this world as well, such as a king, or a general. So, gathering all these bits and pieces that stand out in this genre, it can basically can be defined as very specific category of fantasy.  A possible near future, with a civilization in a new world, usually in outer space or a different galaxy, in a very advanced technological environment; and said world being in peril somehow. It never really occurred to me what the definition of Sci-Fi was before, and I still don't think I gave the best definition of it, but throughout this unit I will hopefully get a better understanding of the genre since it's not something I would typically watch.

Sci Fi

Science fiction is not a genre that I typically watch so I think it is safe to say my opinions and preconceptions of it are just as stereotypical as most peoples. When I think of science fiction, I immediately think of either the future, space, or fantasy. I don't want to look much more into the genre right now because I think it will be interesting to come back to this post and see how my opinion of the genre changes after the unit. Obviously for a film to be sci fi it has to be a fictional story, and often times the fictional elements of the story are also what contribute to the "science" part of the film, the advanced technologies and characters, or futuristic settings. I do agree with James E. Gunn that science fiction most often uses the unusual settings and stories to provide some type of commentary on real world issues and problems, these problems usually revolving around technology and technological change. Other than that, I really know nothing about this genre and hope by the end it becomes a genre I am more excited about.

Logical definition of Sci-Fi

Science fiction has two parts to its definition. I believe the first part is quite simple, that it is fiction. Something about the story, either events or people have to be imaginary. The second part is the Science part, I think that in order for a film to fall under this category it must have something to do with science. (either as an idea or a plot point etc.) There usually could be a scientific discovery or invention, or it could involve technological advances, unearthly concepts/beings/things. Sometimes it can presupposes a technology, or finds a new purpose for current tech. There are so many different things that can cause a film to be considered science fiction, but I think that these are the biggest things, and the biggest signs.

My Take on Science Fiction

To me science fiction films are films that have a scientific and futuristic element to it. Usually whenI think about sci-fi, I think of computers and technological advances that have either progressed humanity or caused it to fall apart. I also think that science fiction serves as either a warning or a glimpse into the future. Just my two cents.

On Science Fiction

While I've always been a huge fan of the genre science fiction I've never really thought about what defines it. To me science fiction is the future, what could possibly be. Usually that deals with huge technological advances such as laser guns and whatnot. This brings such franchises as Star Wars and Star Trek to mind as these are the most popular. But what really defines the genre? After reading through some of the suggested definitions I've mashed a few together into: a story that uses technology to comment on the position of a group of persons, possibly even the entire human race is what I discern as science fiction.