What makes a Science Fiction film?

[Wolfenbarg]

This is something that has puzzled me for quite a while, but after watching two fundamentally different films that certain people consider sci-fi, Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Empire Strikes Back, I'd like to put it to you all. What makes sci-fi what it is? Many people don't consider Star Wars to be sci-fi, myself included. In no way does it use the technology to make any sort of profound statements or ask any deep questions that have to do with the human condition. Some call it science fantasy, but I just think it's straight fantasy. Not bashing Star Wars, as I'm one of the biggest nerds I know in real life when it comes that good old galaxy far, far away.

However, the distinction that Star Wars isn't sci-fi doesn't really explain anything behind the reason I ask this question. What I'm really wondering at the heart of this is: is it our current understanding of science applied to fiction that makes a sci-fi story, or is it the science OF said fiction that makes it sci-fi? For example: Star Trek is very obviously sci-fi. A lot of its ideas throw physics right out the window, but overall it uses an advanced and well cataloged futuristic setting to ask questions about morals and the human condition. However, let's say we have a story that deals with things far too fanciful or other worldly to ever possibly exist. If that story explains the fine details of the workings of that universe and uses them to ask similar questions about human nature or moralizing, is it still considered sci-fi? Or it is just fantasy?

So what do all of you consider to be true science fiction? What distinctions make or break what you put in that category? Examples would be wonderful.

 

[BonsaiK]

Deep questions, moralising, and detailed explanations of technology can exist in sci-fi, and often do, but certainly don't have to be present for something to qualify as sci-fi.

I think any film is a sci-fi where it shows past, present or future to be something other than it really is/was, due to advances (or lack of advances) in technology. This makes all films in the future sci-fi by default, as the future is yet to occur so it "really isn't" anything yet. Films in the present or past could be sci-fi if they show a different technological development to what really happened.

For example I consider the film Amelie to be a sci-fi, as well as the Thief computer games.

 

[That_Swedish_Guy]

Explosions. In space.

 

[demoMDK]

Explosions is space that somehow make A LOT of noise

 

[Merkavar]

sci fi is science fiction isnt it? so any movie that uses some sort of made up or significantly advanced technology is science fiction to me. so star wars is sci fi since it use all sort of robots and space ships and stuff that we dont have today.

But im not saying that all movies like this should be classed as science fiction, if the sci fi aspects are only minor then it should be classes as action or drama or thriller or what ever.

like with battle star galactica , from what i remember its a sci fi show but it focused alot on the people. they could have been in a submarine instead of a space ship and the show wouldnt have changed all that much. so its a sci fi show but should also be classed as a drma and action etc

 

[That_Swedish_Guy]

Explosions is space that somehow make A LOT of noise

Explosions. In space.

I know the first guy's being facetious, and I hope the second one is as well, because explosions in space don't work the way you think they do [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.100198-Space-Warfare-Almost-Everything-You-Know-Is-Probably-Wrong].

Yes, I wanted to post an answer to see if I could get someone to correct me. Cookies to you for providing a good source.

To be honest, a sci-fi film is about exploring humanity via the use of technology. A perfect example would be the fil Gattaca.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

What the hell is this?
Why does it need to ask bullshit moral questions to be science-fiction?

Public perception. Browse IMDB or some other forum on movies and there are always dozens of people that will move in and proclaim movies to not be "real sci-fi" in their eyes and cite examples of what they believe truly constitutes one. Since discussions like that typically break down into flame wars in a matter of minutes on those boards, I wanted to figure out the rationale here.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Public perception. Browse IMDB or some other forum on movies and there are always dozens of people that will move in and proclaim movies to not be "real sci-fi" in their eyes and cite examples of what they believe truly constitutes one. Since discussions like that typically break down into flame wars in a matter of minutes on those boards, I wanted to figure out the rationale here.

Ah...that's because good films and TV shows aren't sci-fi. Sci-fi is that stupid stuff for basement dwelling geeks, or so people believe. The creators of the new Battlestar Galactica denied having anything to do with sci-fi, because they wanted people to watch their show.

Stupid science fiction ghetto.

 

[Ciaran Lunt]

some scientific point is changed from our reality to look at it differently.
it's the different that's important anything that does the first but not the second is almost always a waste
eg avatar it just told an overused story and replaced depth of characters themes and ideas with a well developed world although a developed world can elevate it above its pears e.g. district 9, inception the characters, story and ideas are what's important.
I no insulting avatar makes me an anti-fan boy whatever there called in some of your eyes but if wanting to be engaged with characters makes me a fanboy then everyone who has ever seen a movie that's not saw is a fanboy

 

[Spade Lead]

Quick answer = Star Wars is fantasy, Star Trek is Sci-Fi

Long answer: The technical definition is that Science Fiction takes the time to explain how technology is feasible, while fantasy doesn't have to, it just is. In Star Trek, you have dilithium, trilithium, phasers, and warp. All of it is explained to varying degrees by the shows, books, what have you. NEVER ONCE, in ANY of the Star Wars novels is it explained how an X-Wing even turns. Is it from minuscule thrusters all over the hull, varying thrust from the quad engines, what? The Vipers from Galactica on the other hand, use blatantly obvious thrusters to maneuver.

In my novel, I am taking the time to describe how shielding works, how life exists on mars (This is so complex and convoluted that I am actually required to alter the current state of the universe to make it work, which is okay, because it isn't really set in the future, but in the past... If you get where I am going with that.)

And Lucas never claimed Star Wars was Sci-Fi, he said it was a Space Opera. That is different even than Fantasy...

 

[Anarchemitis]

It would be a science fiction if there was an alternate history in which the Apollo programs were extended so that we had a permanent Lunar base by 1985. Science Fiction does not mandate that it take place in the future.

 

[Drakmeire]

science fiction is defined by a story with fantasy elements that can be possible in the future or through scientific theory
example-
incredible shrinking man-shrunk by a spell=Fantasy
incredible shrinking man-Shrunk by illness=science fiction
if by some explanation it could be possible, it's sci-fi. if it is not possible no matter what, than it's fantasy.
another example
technology in star wars= science fiction
the force=fantasy
but prequels explain that the force is caused by genetic abnormalities so then it become sci-fi

 

[Kae]

Basically if it has any for of futuristic technology no matter how unexplained it is it will be called Science Fiction by 99% of people.

 

[GodofCider]

Three words: Science and Fiction.