Posts by Jeffrey Edwards18

David Sanchez6 said:Can someone tell me what genre "Fatherland" actually falls into?

It's an alternate history.😁>

Alright... I just went over your breakdown again and realized why it feels off to me. Most of what you wrote is irrelevant. Categorizing by time or subject matters, but the rest of those divisions are pretty much useless when discussing movies.

I can't come up with a better way to organize this... mostly because I've never actually bothered to classify them. My mind is occupied with other things... like how to track down every movie I'm interested in and find out everything there is to know about them.

Richard Howard2 said:Why? You aren't exactly stingy with the posts... 😉

You mean—why is it impractical?

Once I give you an answer, I'll just end up getting pelted with stones again...

I can't quite put my finger on it... I just feel it's impractical... too massive... clunky...

If anyone ever actually wanted to analyze genres in Sci-Fi, using your classification would be way too complicated... probably... but hey, what do I know... it doesn't matter...

Richard Howard2 said:I’ve come up with my own way to classify Sci-Fi genres. Take a look and let me know if I missed anything.

I see you also prefer setting your own rules rather than letting some "authority" dictate them to you.
(Why hasn't anyone here jumped in to tear apart your definitions the way they did mine?)

The breakdown is interesting; it's clear you know the genre well.
But in practice, I think your system is impractical.

I don't know... I'm not really sure what to think anymore... it's late... or early, I guess... I'm done with this whole theoretical debate. I've already said my piece, and probably in way too much detail anyway.

I'd much rather talk about actual MOVIES... Metropolis... Mad Max... Blade Runner...

I'm exhausted. I've spent the last hour scouring the web for this one incredible site that broke down the plot of Mad Max in depth, but I lost it when my hard drive died about eighteen months ago. It can't be that the page is actually gone, can it? 😠 It was genuinely great. I'm heading to bed. Goodnight, film buffs...

Well...

Things get complicated when you talk about Mad Max. Even the box sets for the first two films label them as post-apocalyptic stories, but that’s just fundamentally wrong.

There is plenty of deep diving to be done on this topic, such as here:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~alexm/madmax/

If you consider yourself a Mad Max fan, check this out:
http://www.mainforcepatrol.com/ 😁

Richard Hernandez13 said:Where did you get this Mad Max thing from?

I didn't make it up. It’s just the reality of it. I'm a massive Mad Max fan—borderline obsessive, really. I've done the work to learn everything about that trilogy, including the backstory. You can find all the detailed breakdowns and timelines online if you look. But even if you just watch the films closely, it becomes obvious that the apocalypse actually happened AFTER the second installment. There isn't much else to say about it.

Richard Hernandez13 said:That definition of Science Fiction isn't "mine"—it was pulled straight from the Film Encyclopedia.
You don't get to have "personal" definitions for scientific terms. Definitions require precision.
Then there's the subgenre known as "dystopia" ( Blade Runner, Logan's Run, Fahrenheit 451 ). Metropolis fits right in there too.

Fine... here's what I actually said at the start:

"I have no idea if there are any 'official' classifications out there, or if they exist, what they look like, or how their 'official' definitions work.

I just go by gut feeling. It feels wrong to lump everything into one bucket—Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Metropolis, Star Trek, Mad Max..."

I learned something tonight. An official definition. Thanks. Though I've never been much for following authority. I'd rather push my own views than have others push theirs on me.

But if those are the official definitions, then fine... the scope of this thread is clear. This is an interesting discussion, and I'll probably save it in my film archive on my hard drive.

casualotter21 said:I think Sci-Fi should ideally be both: it ought to explore how a new technology or social phenomenon shapes the behavior of society and the individual within it.

Why?
Why "should" it?
Trying to set boundaries for creativity beforehand just doesn't make sense.

Fine... now we know what the "official" stance is.

I never claimed that A Trip to the Moon isn't Sci-Fi. Many film history texts label Metropolis as the first Sci-Fi movie, but I wasn't stating that as my own opinion. A Trip to the Moon is Sci-Fi... and it was the first. 🙂

Your point about "nouns and adjectives" missed the mark and was unnecessary.

"Science Fiction" and "futurism" are nouns, while "sci-fi" and "futuristic" are adjectives. My previous posts on this topic make it clear that I have a solid grasp of the terminology... and besides, I don't have to adopt every "official definition" as my own.

Why?

I think my explanation regarding the distinction between Sci-Fi and futuristic films is perfectly clear, concise, and logical. I still wouldn't categorize futurism UNDER Sci-Fi; instead, I view futurism ALONGSIDE Sci-Fi as a second, equal genre.
You suggest the subgenre "post-apocalyptic films"? That might apply to Mad Max, but it doesn't work for Metropolis—there was no apocalypse there. Speaking of Mad Max, though—the apocalypse, specifically a nuclear war, didn't actually happen until between the second and third Mad Max movies. Therefore, the first two Mad Max films are futuristic, but they aren't post-apocalyptic because the apocalypse hadn't occurred yet. (Most people probably assume otherwise... but if you actually look at the chronology of the Mad Max series...)

p.s. — Me, rambling blindly? Sure... clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to movies...

p.p.s. — By the way, Back to the Future doesn't belong to the Sci-Fi subgenre of "time travel movies"; it belongs to the comedy genre. 😁

casualotter21 said:So, was that actually as bad as it looked? 🙂

Yeah. I’ve got a phone bill to pay. That's why I avoid any questions that require a thirty-minute essay to answer.

Alright. Everything seems fine. 😎

You reminded me... Fahrenheit 451 is another prime example of top-tier futurism. I'm also struggling to recall the exact title of another one—I think it's Green Sun. It's a pretty famous film. There are plenty more like it, and they aren't exactly upbeat. Then there’s Woody Allen’s brilliant futuristic parody, Sleeper. 😁

Take Sci-Fi, for instance. I went with Clarke (The Odyssey). 😕

I think I've addressed what casualotter21 wrote about me.

As for why I didn't reply immediately?

You want the truth?

I assumed you already knew the answer and fully grasped my point regarding the distinction between futurism and Sci-Fi. I took your question as a little jab.

I was being honest, so be honest too—was that a genuine question born out of curiosity, or were you just trying to mess with me?

Either way, it's all good on my end. 😎

Melissa Moore32 said:I need you to explain this classification of yours a bit more.

I have a hunch what you mean, but my own understanding of these categories isn't exactly clear.

Well...

I honestly don't know if there are any "official" classifications out there, or if there are, what their "official" definitions actually look like.

I just go by instinct. I feel like you can't lump everything into the same bucket—Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Metropolis, Star Trek, Mad Max...

Basically, there probably aren't any precise "objective" explanations here. To me, these distinctions are obvious... and it seems logical that they should be obvious to others, at least those with enough "film experience."

Fine.

For instance, The Odyssey and Star Trek are Science Fiction, right? Everyone agrees on that, right? And everyone understands why they fall under Sci-Fi, right?

Now, we have this other term—"futurism." I don't know if that's an "official" genre, nor do I know what "official existence of a genre" would even imply.
I've been using the term "futuristic films" for a long time—referring to movies that present an author's vision of the future (since nobody currently knows for sure what the future will look like) but where advanced technology—which seems fantastic to us today—isn't the main focus, or isn't even present.

When I talk about or think of futurism or a futuristic film, Mad Max always comes to mind first. To me, that's a textbook example of a futuristic film. I wouldn't call it Sci-Fi; it feels silly to label it "science fiction" when there is nothing particularly "scientific" or "fantastic" about it. How can it be "scientific" when gasoline and bullets are rare luxuries and people are killing each other with revolvers? How can it be "fantastic" when we're all witnesses to how easily our planet could end up looking like the world in Mad Max?
And yet, I wouldn't call Mad Max a drama either—even though it's a "dramatic" series of films, the term drama usually applies to a completely different type of movie (not to get into a longer lecture here). You can't call Mad Max a Western, even if the average viewer might find it reminiscent of one. You can't call it a fantasy film either, because there's no fantasy involved... The Lord of the Rings, being the most famous fantasy, really has nothing in common with Mad Max, does it?
And so on, and so forth... I don't know about everyone else, but I put that film in the "futuristic films" category.

Everything I just said regarding Mad Max as a prime example can also apply to: Metropolis, Rollerball, The Salute of the Jugger... They are all classic futuristic films. You might even include some slightly different films under "futurism": Brazil, 1984, A Clockwork Orange...

Did someone mention Blade Runner? 🙂
Yeah... I also experience that film as futuristic rather than Sci-Fi... even if it is perhaps (and very successfully!) a blend of both genres...

There... I really went all out there... 🙂

(I suggest the moderators open a new thread for "film theory" and move this post over there.)

casualotter21 said:"I have this ultra-brilliant way of splitting movies into Sci-Fi and futurism.
It's hard for me to take a stance on anything if it hasn't been properly explained first."

That distinction isn't "ultra-brilliant"; it's just common sense.

I think my examples made the difference between those two concepts clear enough for anyone with even a basic understanding of cinema. If someone actually wants to debate film theory and terminology, they should start a dedicated thread. We can discuss it there—nicely or otherwise, depending on the mood.

Nick, you're acting foolish, but I don't think you actually are, and I suspect you know exactly what I meant.

I have no idea why you feel the need to get defensive, but that's your business.

casualotter21 said:What's the actual difference between Sci-Fi and futurism?

I'm not really in the mood to explain this... you either get it or you don't. There's a massive gap between the two. If you consider yourself a film buff, you should already know... if not, here’s the short version:
Sci-Fi - "2001: A Space Odyssey";
Futurism - "Metropolis", "Mad Max", "Rollerball"...

(Of course, you don't have to agree... it's all subjective...)

Jeffrey Green16 said:I'm wondering if anyone here actually knows this band or heard anything about them.

I know Blue Öyster Cult. 😁

casualotter21 said:And on top of all that, I still find time to regularly watch Star Trek, which I absolutely love!

Right... so you only watch stuff with costumes?

Did your mom sew you that cute little Federation uniform too?

Or are you one of those other types?

The ones wearing Klingon costumes?

😁

casualotter21 said:Duke d'Escargot: "Revolution without me"[/i]

I won't even bother quoting the part about work and pleasure; it's just pathetic. 😁

Ah... there are still some connoisseurs left...

Revolution without me

(from 1969)

🙂

Pegasus said:Which films in this genre have left the biggest impression on you, specifically regarding their cinematography?

There are plenty to choose from... but the first one that comes to mind is "The Warriors." 👍

p.s. (offtopic):
Would moderators ban an avatar featuring Nazi symbols or the Nazi flag? Why is Blue Eyes allowed to use the America flag as an avatar? 👎