I found
myself siding with Ray Bradbury’s definition; that science fiction is “the art
of the possible”. Regular fiction tends to be grounded in the reality we are
used to, obeying our laws of physics and creating an environment we understand.
Fantasy makes it’s own rules and throws out everything that could be considered
“normal”. Science fiction has the ability to subtly combine these two. The
regular world interactions tend to be recognizable and anything new to the
audience tends to be believable in their own imagination. Namely, when we watch
a movie set in the future we automatically accept space travel as it is because
in our own minds we believe that is what the future holds.
What a lot
of science fiction does to hold its own sense of realism is the manipulation of
science. Through the use of pseudo-science you can pretty much explain anything
as long as it is either confusing enough or sounds so intricate that it becomes
believable. TV shows like Fringe use pseudo-science to justify heads imploding
and telekinesis when if you break apart what is really being said, it’s just
silly. This is found throughout any film with time travel, time travel either
being explained almost science-y (Back to the Future), or just enough to show
it works and you, as the audience, shouldn’t care about how really because it
does so just deal with it (Looper).
Ultimately,
what defines science fiction for me is that sense of reality. The presentation
of a different place or reality that is able to hold the belief of the audience
by being believable. Everything shown is possible in one’s own image of the
future or is possible in one’s, possibly skewed, interpretation of science. All
the possible impossibilities are made into solid fact via science fiction,
which couldn’t be possible if everything didn’t seem plausible.
you're the worst because you put too much effort into this and you're going to make my post look bad.
ReplyDeletetrust me, i am sure you can do that on your own
DeleteSo, if my pseudo-science definition is stupid enough ("Time travel is possible because Myles Ambrose is possible"), do I leave the realm of sci fi? Remember have it eventually came out that only those with a high concentration of midi-chlorians can access the force and be a Jedi? Is this a place that Episode One crossed into the realm of fantasy?
ReplyDeleteSort of in response to both Mr. Boswell's comment and Cary's post, I think that sci-fi exists as a separate genre from fantasy because it suspends our disbelief to a higher extent than fantasy can. This isn't only because the explanation; the explanation actually has to be believable (to a portion of the general public) to at least a certain extent.
ReplyDeleteI saw a really bad movie last year called Battlefield Earth that didn't even attempt to explain anything scientifically, but still tried to pass as sci-fi. The movie was bad for many reasons, and wasn't believable for a lot of reasons, but I think that was a big one. Also, every shot was tilted for some reason.
I agree with Cary. I think the reason why so many people are drawn to the genre is because many sci-fi films give the viewer a reality that we can relate to but is far more advance technology wise, thus making a statement about what we could essentially accomplish via technological advances. However, there is a sense of naivety in a grown man enjoying fantasy because our society believes they should grow up and not believe that they will once find their prince charming. Science fiction gives the viewer the sense of escape that many go to the cinema for, but the topics of the film can be somewhat rationalized or backed up with theories or science.
ReplyDelete