Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

So what is science-fiction? Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451, The Martian Chronicles, and countless short stories) defines the genre simply, "Science fiction is really sociological studies of the future, things that the writer believes are going to happen by putting two and two together." Philip K Dick explains further and in more detail:

I will define science fiction, first, by saying what SF is not. It cannot be defined as " a story (or novel or play) set in the future," since there exists such a thing as space adventures, which is set in the future but is not SF. It is just that: adventure, fights, and wars in the future in space involving super-advanced technology. Why, then, is it not science fiction? It would seem to be, and Doris Lessing (e.g.) supposes that it is. However, space adventure lacks the distinct new idea that is the essential ingredient. Also, there can be science fiction set in the present: the alternate-world story or novel. So if we separate SF from the future and also from ultra-advanced technology, what then do we have that can be called SF? We have a fictitious world; that is the first step: It is a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our known society-that is, our known society acts as a jumping-off point for it; the society advances out of our own in some way, perhaps orthogonally, as with the alternate-world story or novel. It is our own world dislocated by some kind of mental effort on the part of the author, our world transformed into that which it is not or not yet. This world must differ from the given in at least one way, and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society-or in any known society present or past. There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation: that is, the dislocation must be a conceptual one, not merely a trivial or a bizarre one-this is the essence of science fiction, the conceptual dislocation within the society so that as a result a new society is generated in the author's mind, transferred to paper, and from paper it occurs as a convulsive shock in the reader's mind, the shock of dysrecognition. He knows that it is not his actual world that he is reading about.

-(From his 1981 essay "What is Science Fiction" published in THE SHIFTING REALITIES OF PHILIP K DICK by Vintage Books)

So Bradbury would consider STAR WARS as Science Fiction while PKD would not. Personally, I like Bradbury's decription and think the genre covers unique territory in conceptionalizing the future: even if tainted by soap-opera narrative conventions. I just shy away from most of that stuff.

I grew up watching science fiction television shows and movies with my mother; sometimes we'd stay up until 11PM on a Friday or hurry home on Saturday afternoon to make Dr. Shock Theatre. Other times, we'd go to Wednesday matinees for a dollar (yes! ONE FUCKING DOLLAR!) to see the latest and sometimes not-so-greatest science fiction releases. That was in the early-to-mid-seventies before Star Wars hit big and there was actually some acceptable science fiction films; after the Lucas epic almost all SF was reduced to formulaic copies. Science Fiction should not be a pulp genre, disposable entertainment for the "Lowest Common Denominator" but Star Wars, Star Trek, and countless imitations that have relegated other important thought provoking films to the nadir of the cinematic hierarchy.

Here's a short list of some of my favorite films (and yes, I have a soft spot in my heart for the original STAR TREK).

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
SOLARIS (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972)
BLADE RUNNER (Ridley Scott, 1982)
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (Robert Wise, 1951)
BRAZIL (Terry Gilliam, 1985)
GOJIRA (Ishiro Honda, 1954)
THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (Nicolas Roeg, 1976)

I was considering not joining this group because I've never really considered myself a big fan of Science Fiction, but looking at this thread already--and in particular to that list right above me--there's no way I can stay out of this with a good conscience.

For me what Science Fiction could and should be is something much different from what it has become, and I think you articulated that perfectly Alex: "Science Fiction should not be a pulp genre, disposable entertainment for the 'Lowest Common Denominator.'" When I watch 2001 and Solyaris, I can't help but think that what Science Fiction really is is not a genre at all--it is simply a backdrop against which different questions can be asked. In particular both of those films use the inhuman proportions of space and their possibilities to really get down to the basic question of humanity. 2001 asks if humans are a part of a larger chain, if there are things which precede human thought and will eventually outlast it, and finally follows the mind-bending descent one must personally take to confront these questions. Solyaris uses space as isolation and gets to the basic problem with human life and thoughts about the afterlife--there is the true look of horror on Hari's face when she comes back to life, asking "Is it me?"

These movies, I think, depart greatly from what many consider to be Sci-Fi--there are no cool space wars, no sexy alien babes, no futuristic weapons which cleave through man and beast, and, much more importantly, no clear answers. What Science Fiction can, has, and should continue to be is a way to raise different questions--a tableau which is familiar yet distinctly different from our everyday experience, allowing us to look at familiar situations differently.

Another perfect example of Science Fiction as backdrop as opposed to genre, I think, is the damn-near-perfect anime series Cowboy Bebop. I say damn near perfect anime series not because it is almost perfect anime, but because it is simply almost perfect. Here Science Fiction serves as the final backdrop behind a larger set of backdrops, taking genre conventions, twisting them together in a sentimental destruction of sentiment, and mashing western, anime, sci-fi, samurai, jazz, rock, hip hop, drama, action, and adventure into pulp which is so willing and comfortable as pulp that it transcends its pulpiness. I find this show almost impossible to articulate simply because there are so many things going on in it, and so many things to say about it, but it is always simpler than any haughty discussion about it yet still needs to be discussed.

But the point is: Sci-fi = backdrop. And, Alex, god bless you for making and approaching this group so goddamned intelligently! I think this is going to be very good.

Thank you Mike and I can't wait for more of your intelligent contributions towards this group! I've never seen Cowboy Be-Bop and, like I said in my review of PAPRIKA, I'm no anime fan. But you make this series seem damn interesting so I'll have to check it out. Sigh, so many many films and only one life...

Isn't that always the way?

I, as well, would not consider myself a huge anime fan. Like any medium there are some gems within it, but anime nerds tend to make it look pretty bad because they'll simply like anything anime. Cowboy Bebop, I think is really a sterling example of a really good show that happens to be anime. There is a Cowboy Bebop movie which is good, though it is nowhere near the strength of the series, so if you do check it out, I'd start with the series.

Another example I thought of as well: Alien uses the sci-fi backdrop to be horror.

Rob: I'm totally with you. Never been a huge Sci-Fi fan but looking at the people and the names Alex posted about I could tell that this was something different than the Sci-Fi Channel brand of Science Fiction.

Rob, you get uber brownie points for joining the group! I'm not sure how you redeem them though...

Yes, this is a group for people who are tired of the soap-opera "sci-fi" garbage, where Days of Our Lives meet outer space. I'm not interested in plot holes such as : how could the Ewoks kill Stormtroopers with only wooden sticks? If people want this type of inane discussion (though sometime hilarious) they can go somewhere else.

I hope we can talk about the best of the genre, films that are social commentary and ave some artistic merit and value. I just watched Truffaut's FAHRENHEIT 451 and willl post my review shortly.

Phillip K Dick is my favorite science fiction writer and he fought the pulp label that poisons the genre for most of his life. The films that have been made from his work range from the great (BLADE RUNNER), the mediocre (A SCANNER DARKLY), to the bad (TOTAL RECALL, MINORITY REPORT, THE GOLDEN MAN, SCREAMERS, PAYCHECK). I would like to see his work in the hands of Terry Gilliam or even Wong Kar-wai.

I loved CHILDREN OF MEN and thought it a wonderful science fiction film with an interesting premise, beautifully detailed world, but with a conventional plot. Still one of my favorites in the last few years!

Alex, thanks for the invite to join this group, I'm sure there'll be a lot of thought-provocation going on!

For the record, I'm not at all a science fiction fan as such. I've read my share, like Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov (in my youth it was virtually impossible to get through high school without reading the FOUNDATION trilogy). I pick up the occasional interesting looking work, like Gene Wolfe's astonishing BOOK OF THE NEW SUN series, but I don't seek it out by definition. I finally got turned on to Philip K. Dick, more because I came across an inexpensive batch of his novels than anything else, and thought to myself, "I really should see if the novel of A SCANNER DARKLY makes any more sense than the film." And of course, it does.

Film wise, I find that a lot of my favorite films are science-fiction films, or at least what might be termed heightened-reality films, like BRAZIL, ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN, TWELVE MONKEYS, CHILDREN OF MEN, METROPOLIS, etc. I like that Alex mentioned Schaffner's PLANET OF THE APES, with its explicit anti-theocratic messages.

Looking forward to some good solid fun in this group.

I read a lot of science fiction. Unfortunately its been my experience that the movie version is a sorry disappointment of my expectations. I suppose that can be said of almost every other genre as well.

I remember being totally disgusted when the movie version of Dune arrived in 1984. Its the only time when I've left the theatre with an ache in my stomach.

The beauty of science fiction is that it has a wide scope. It can be thought provoking such as in Solaris or topical such as the near future in Soylent Green or Silent Running. It can be highly
optimistic such as the Star Trek series and even just escapist fun such as Star Wars. There is something to appeal to most anyone.

Tom, oddly enough with your caveat, you sound perfectly fitted for the group so far. I'm not much into science fiction either, but I think this group is capable of looking at things differently than normal.

I like Rod Serling's definition of SF & Fantasy, "Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible."

I've been reading SF, Fantasy & such for a long time & often have trouble pinning a novel down to a specific genre, if I really care. I don't read/watch any of it for education, but for pleasure. Whether a good adventure story is dressed up like SF, Fantasy, Horror or mix doesn't make much difference to me. Sometimes the story can draw enough on real life to make a statement & that's fine, but I want a good story - bottom line.

Good point Jim, a good story is always the bottom line! Sometimes the story is vague and abstract but must be interesting, to draw us in and believe in the characters.

I agree with liking the old, cheesy SF flicks. 'The First Space Ship on Venus' (1960) was one that had a lot of ideas in it that, while poorly done, were cool & ahead of their time. I forget the specifics that I liked in this case, but it's worth watching now & then.

There's a good site that lists a bunch of the old SF flicks Check it out, if only to visit with some old friends & remember them.

I love the film I MARRIED A MONSTER FROM OUTER SPACE! Thanks for mentioning that one Rob! Also, the original INVADERS FROM MARS still creeps me out. I think there is value in most of the "cheesy" classic science fiction: for example, I MARRIED A MONSTER can be seen as McCarthyism run amok, a film reflective of its time.

I haven't seen a TON of science fiction films, but I've seen a lot of the good ones. I just read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for my book club (called by some the first science fiction novel, although I think that title is thrown around loosely). To me, Frankenstein is science fiction not because it's set in the future, or involves space, but because science is used as a plot device to propel the narrative, and there is a huge suspension of disbelief required, in that it takes science beyond what we have actually been able to accomplish with it, i.e. a mysterious, unnamed "spark" re-animates a mass of old corpse parts and gives life to an object that was once dead tissue. This is the MAIN conflict at the heart of Frankenstein (using science to give back life) and it is beyond the realm of what science can actually do.

Make any sense? Oddly, I don't consider the old (or even new) Frankenstein films as belonging to the science fiction genre. They seem to fall into horror. But then again, they're very different from the novel.

You're right Alison, FRANKENSTEIN could be considered one of the first science fiction novels and I like your explanation. I never thought of Shelly's novel in quite that way but it is very interesting to consider. Thanks!

Thanks Alex for the invitation. Great to find all my favourite movies friends here. May I share some of the brownie points ? I'm totally (or almost) ignorant on Sci-Fi,both literature and movies.But, like some said above , seen the participant names, I joined because I know I will learn a lot from you all. Your introduction was great and though I can't promise comments or discussions, I will read yours as much as possible to become at least a bit more knowledged.
Some of the movies in your list I've seen and liked(those of 50's, the Lucas epic, Clockwork Orange-should review it,BTW why is this SF?-Farheneit 451,Planet of the Apes)
Some other(sigh! the most important ones..) are among those famous "milestone not yet seen".
Agree with Mike, too many films for such a short time!!!but will try and recuperate..

I too haven't seen that much sci-fi movies but have read quite a few books. So I am using this group to watch all kinds of new movies! I really want to get into movies that aren't so main stream and have some depth! And as always... I love Alex's reviews so I get more of those in this group!

Thank you Angie! And I get many recommendations from these Forums that broaden my cinematic horizons too.

Hi Rob, telling you the truth I'm afraid you're right.As far as I could know or remember, only B series(if not C) and trash in italian sci-fi.
However I am going to search better, so far there is one,considered good,also mentioned in Imdb,:
"Nirvana" by G.Salvatores-'97, almost all italian,direction-production & casting.Haven't seen but remember had a good public. It's about video games,viruses and so on.
Then, surprisingly and just for info, I discovered that "Barbarella",(it's listed among sci-fi!!!) with J.Fonda was an italian-french production in'68(never saw it)

I saw it, and cheese it was, too.

which one George?

Hi! I just joined the group and am trying to catch up with the discussions. = )

I think this is an interesting topic, because the term 'science fiction' is one of the most-maligned ones I know in the literary world. I recently joined a book group who seem to be focusing on the Oprah book club selections and general fiction, when I asked if any science fiction works would be considered, the immediate reaction from at least three people was: "Oh, I don't read science fiction." But when I ask, well, what about Fahrenheit 451 or Flowers for Algernon or Anthem - well, once I describe the plot, then they are interested. I think one of the things that makes science fiction so interesting is also what makes it so hard to define - there are genres *within* scifi.

So I would define science fiction somewhat differently than you seem to be doing. I would split it into those genres within scifi.
I think of 'deep' science fiction as work which takes either a technological change or a sociological/philosophical change to a society and explores this change and it's effects through a specific character/plot. This includes a huge range of things like the invention of some great gadget, the development of mental powers or the effects of a catastrophic event.

Then there's the 'pulp' science fiction or space opera which generally have an action/adventure theme but still must revolve around some kind of tech/socio change in order to make the story work, or as background for the story. Both are science fiction, just with different levels of depth by the author into those cause/effects.
I don't think you can really get away from 'pulp' scifi (or not label it as 'science fiction'), since essentialy that is how much of science fiction started (not counting 'Frankenstein', which has since devolved into just a horror flick.)

I enjoy watching 'action' scifi just as much as I enjoy 'deep' scifi, but for different reasons, and with different parts of my brain, I think.

Finally, I would like to point out that even in TV series such as Star Trek you'll see some of that 'deeper' stuff occasionally - episodes that highlight issues of racial intolerance, majority/minority rule issues, medical experimentation on people, how a society copes with returning veterans, eugenics, slavery, apportioning or protecting dwindling natural resources, generations-long wars of intolerance, etc. Even if 'dressed up pretty' and wrapped up nicely by the end of the episode (which not all of these were), they were a call to deeper thinking about the particular issue, rather than the knee-jerk sound-bite reaction so many people have to issues.

OK, have at me now! = )

Thank you Carolyn! Your insights are greatly appreciated. Science Fiction just can't seem to escape the pulp label and isn't taken seriously, though Kurt Vonnegut, in my opinion, is as much a SF writer as Phillip K Dick. I also consider Orwell's 1984 one of the great SF novels!
Nice mention of FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON. I read the novel in 5th grade and cried. It was made into the film CHARLY and Cliff Robertson grabbed an Academy Award for his performance!

I had hoped that attitude against SF had gone away somewhere over the years. I went to a snooty Eastern Prep school & caused quite a stir when I wrote a report on "Dune" in the 70's. Most of the controversy was about whether an SF novel was worthy. We weren't encouraged to read 'trash'. Thankfully, my teacher was a bit more open-minded than most. I didn't have to do a second report on a different book, 'Dune' was well written enough to pass. I know there were a lot of stinkers done in the genre, both in books & film, but there have been plenty done in other genre's too.

I've always wondered if SF got a bad rap because it contains ideas beyond the norm that aren't just fantasy. They could be possible, but which ones & how requires opening the mind, which most of the PTB don't like to do.

Thanks for the welcome Alex! I must admit, I cried when I read the story *and* when I saw the film. (Jim, what is a PTB? gotta admit, I'm stumped)

I think SF gets a bad rap from people who think only of the pulp/space opera stuff, or who think of SF as either technical/boring or as horror/violent/gore.

Some SF definitely has been written that is overly technical/boring for the layperson (the hard-science PhD's love it, so it still has an audience. = ) Way too much of the horror stuff bills itself as SF, when really, it's just horror. Actually, maybe it's just the concept of 'science' in the genre name that scares people away. I dunno. But the reaction I've seen is immediate and dismissive when I mention that something I'm reading is scifi.

The 'deep' scifi that has been picked up in classrooms isn't billed as such, it is just labeled as the generic 'classic', so I think a lot of people don't realize they are reading science fiction when they read 1984, Slaughterhouse Five or Catch-22. (All of which are definitely Science Fiction!)

One of the latest 'book-club books' that has been wildly popular is
The Time Traveler's Wife.
I think most of the fans would be shocked to find that this book would be classed as scifi - in the time traveling genre. (The time traveling is a genetic condition/mutation.)
Look at these denials from reviews on the page for the book here at GR:
"The Time Traveler's Wife is a love story concealed inside a suspense novel but is far from a science fiction exploration of the space-time continuum."
"...in that it was trying to "scientifically" explain time travel, or to put it another way, explaining something fictional with soemthing scientific. Was this a neccessary part of the book? I tend to think not, but this is a work of FICTION so the science is really fiction, too."
"I'm not usually a fan of sci-fi, if this can be deemed such,..."
"The story of a couple who have to live with a genetic disorder borders on science fiction and has all the elements of magic realism."
"If I had to describe the novel in terms of genre � well, I’d be pretty stuck for a while, but I think I’d call it a postmodern realist bildungsroman."
One reviewer goes on at length that this book is *not* a scifi book, it is a romance. As if you can't have romance within a science fiction novel? In some ways, this book reminds me of Anne McCaffrey's Get off the Unicorn, which is full of stories in which people who have manifested various types of psychic powers (a genetic mutation) have to cope with the effects of it on their lives. Hmmmm....

Anyways, back to the film component, I hear that the book has been optioned to make a movie, so that one would be interesting to review here once it came out - if they did more than lip service to the time travel element.

Carolyn, sorry, PTB = Powers That Be
(I hate it when people use unknown acronyms so, of course, I do it myself. )

"Catch 22" is SF?

I like to sort books & flicks by genre. I have a lot of difficulty with it, though. So many mix genres, sometimes its hard to even name the predominant one & we've seen a lot of definitions for SF. The definitions I like the best tend to be the most vague.

Generally, I don't care whether I'm reading/viewing Fantasy, Horror or Romance, but some of the vampire books get shelved in weird ways - they're often considered Paranormal-Romance. Horror, SF/Fantasy & Romance are usually 3 separate shelf sets in bookstores & libraries. I've seen these books in all 3 places. Makes them tough to find when I don't think of myself as reading Horror or Romance novels. Same thing happens with flicks, although they're generally simpler to shelve correctly.

Carolyn, how is CATCH-22 classifiable as SF? I just don't see it. Can you elaborate?

Whoops, slipped up when I stuck Catch-22 in there - sorry - I was on a run with the classic 'number' books (1984, Slaughterhouse 5, ...)

Sorry for the confusion!

You meant 'Ice 9' then, right?
;-)

No problem, but you had me wondering if I slipped a cog.

Well here I am. I am very glad I read this thread because I didn't think I was into sci-fi. But, some of the movies that you have mentioned I did love and the definition of sci-fi is tugging at me.

There are a lot of people in here from our Movies group that I admire and that write very intelligent insights so here I am.

Welcome Meg! Glad you joined:)

rob, put away your PU-36 explosive space modulator, meg is in the room!

you're all good folks and have great taste in films. i'm all ears.

i can't say i'm a sci-fi fan, but there have been a lot of good films come through the genre. a lot of stinkers as well, as in any genre. i've enjoyed a lot of the films that have been mentioned so far.

i had fun trying to figure out what constitutes a horror film. is this so different? there are some common factors - like the link of humanity gone awry. with horror, that shift from human to something else (monster, demon, killer) comes from a shift in a psychological aspect (for the most part), whereas in sci fi that transformation usually comes from a shift in biological perspective.

does that work? i'm just making this up as i go along.

I am so happy to know I have protection.....I am going to need hand holding all the way.

i've got your back, meg.



can i hold your hand now?

Yup!

yippie!

OK because I am new to this genre. What makes Clockwork Orange science fiction. I loved that movie!

"Sociological study of the future" as defined by Ray Bradbury would fit A CLOCKWORK ORANGE perfectly.

absolutely. and not only is it a sociological study, don't forget the various predictions of the future: gang violence run amok and mind control (alex's "treatment") as a way of curing society.

and, ROB: i have only the most honorable intentions when it comes to miss seff!

wow, meg - i wouldn't have anticipated this was a film you would really enjoy. it's nice to have your assumptions demolished.

Well I am singing in the rain.............

Seriously, thanx for the clarification.

I'm sure it's all very chaste, Rob. How could it be otherwise with you chaperoning and hovering all around...? ;)

REALLY: thanks for looking out for me, becky; it's like a junior high school dance up in here.

now i'm all flustered....what were we talking about????????

Have they played "Stairway to Heaven" yet?

you're not helping!

; 0

...sorry.

:(

it's ok, you made me laugh...

it's been a while since i thought about stairway to heaven. that would have been one of the songs that played at one of my junior high dances actually. i went to dance in junior high, but would never have gone in high school. ( ??? )

Mmmm, and I thought Becky was looking out for me.

Oh sure, you yell at me and now you're laughing at me.

:*(

now i am confused.
who am i yelling at?
no, wait,
who am i laughing at?

****

either way, i'm looking out for meg.
that's how we got in this position to begin with.

****

i'm cool with both of you!
why aren't we all watching a movie together?

actually, i'm reading Gravity's Rainbow, there's a sci-fi book that I love to read out loud.

Well.. its a little hard to see your TV from here, but I'll do my best. What're we watching?