Personally, I’m a firm believer that the absolute best movies out there are the ones directed by Michael Bay, mostly because they’re just so much more high-octane and packed with nonstop action, plus you don't really have to worry about all that tedious dialogue getting in the way.
What’s truly bizarre—and honestly, a little heartbreaking—is that this script wasn't just slapped together by some Hollywood hack who doesn't know any better. Instead, it was actually penned by David Benioff, the same talented guy behind the novels and the screenplay for 25th Hour.
You know, I should probably say a little more about all those extra goodies you get on the DVD, like the audio commentaries and that whole side of things. It really makes such a difference when you can actually sit back and hear the creators break down their process, doesn't it?
... For example. Cecil B. Demented Honestly, I think the movie becomes so much more enjoyable when you watch it alongside a commentary track by John Waters.
Well, that specific term... Scientific plausibility. It’s not necessarily saying that the state of the world depicted in some novel has to be justified by the scientific breakthroughs or theories we're familiar with today; rather, it should be explained through the lens of the scientific advancements that exist within the world of that specific book or film.
I’m not exactly looking for a book or a movie to act like some kind of technical manual that painstakingly explains every single scientific detail on screen. Honestly, just like with any other form of art—even within Sci-Fi—what I’m really hunting for is... well, emotion.
... When it comes to the whole terminology side of things... I think we have an issue here. Sci-Fi Fantasy I'm honestly wondering which category all those stories belong to—you know, the ones that depict a world where the fundamental rules or the state of reality clash so sharply with our own lived experience. To be perfectly honest, I don't see any reason why you couldn't just group all those novels and films we discussed into that specific category. Speculative Fiction It feels more like a euphemism you use when you're talking to girls—you know, just so you don't come across as too much of a total geek.
Now the real question is, which genre are we actually talking about? Fatherland, High Castle... I honestly feel like they just belong together. To me, it seems like we're really looking at... I've always had such a soft spot for the whole Fantasy genre, you know? There’s just something about those sweeping, magical worlds that pulls me in every single time, even if I sometimes feel like I spend a little too much time lost in them instead of being productive. I mean, I don't exactly have his specific definition memorized, though I'm assuming it doesn't just limit itself to things like orcs, goblins, dwarves, and those other kinds of creatures. To me, the subgenre would really be... I’ve always been fascinated by the concept of an alternative reality, that strange "what if" feeling that lingers in the back of your mind after you finish a great book or a gripping movie. There's just something so captivating about the idea that our entire world could have taken a different turn based on one tiny, seemingly insignificant moment in history. It makes you wonder about all those invisible threads that shape our lives. Whether it's through the lens of a classic sci-fi novel or a mind-bending film, exploring these parallel timelines feels like a way to process the chaos of our own existence, almost like we're trying to make sense of the sheer unpredictability of being alive.. 😕
It feels like we just don't have a perfectly fitting American term to describe the concept of Fantasy. I realized I misspoke a few posts back when I called that whole thing "magical fantasy" or a "sword and sorcery film"—honestly, my bad! I should have been more precise, since those are really just specific subgenres rather than being the entire genre itself.
For any good Sci-Fi story, you really need that scientific plausibility regarding the current state of the world—but I just can't seem to find any of that in Fatherland, or maybe I'm just missing it. The whole premise is basically just a "what if" scenario where the German spring offensive against the USSR turned out completely differently.
The technology in the movie feels like it’s sitting right at that 1963 level, which is exactly when the story takes place.
From what I can gather, Fatherland, at its core, isn't actually any less believable than Shakespeare in Love (I mean, was there actually a character playing Gwyneth Paltrow? Did those events truly happen as shown? Or is that also just a giant "what if" setup?).
I think it’s worth clearing up the little confusion surrounding the word 'futuristic' when we talk about science fiction.
He’s basically trying to draw a line between one specific flavor of sci-fi (like New York City and Blade Runner ) and another completely different kind (think World War and Close Encounters of the Third Kind ).
... So, are World War and Close Encounters.. actually sci-fi? Sure they are.
But why? Well, both movies depict a reality where aliens show up on our doorstep.
And are there any aliens currently hanging out in our actual world? Not that we know of—or at least, that’s what we’re told. 😉
The point is, those two films are showing us a version of the world that doesn't exist right now.
Is that non-existent state scientifically plausible? Totally—you just assume life evolved on some distant planet somewhere out there... blah, blah, blah.
-Now, here’s the kicker-
Do these films actually depict an evolutionary future for our own world? Nope!
Why not? In both cases, human civilization is stuck at the exact same technological and social level as the era the movie takes place in. Specifically, we're looking at the years '53 and '77.
So, strictly speaking, World War and Close Encounters… aren't really "futuristic" science fiction.
… Then what about New York City and Blade Runner? Are they sci-fi? Yes, absolutely.
And the reason is simple: They portray an imagined, non-existent world (and I mean the state of the world itself). Back when these films were made, nothing even remotely resembling what they showed existed anywhere on Earth.
Is that imaginary world scientifically explainable? It is.
And could that state of affairs be a possible evolutionary future for the world as it was back then? Yeah, and in the case of Blade Runner, that future still feels entirely possible today.
That’s how you get New York City and Blade Runner being categorized as futuristic science fiction.
To definition of Science Fiction isn't actually "mine," I just lifted it straight from the Film Encyclopedia. The Annotation was penned by the film scholar Dr. Hrvoje Turković.
... I mean, you can't really claim "personal" definitions for scientific concepts, right? A definition is supposed to be precise.
... Then there’s the whole subgenre of Sci-Fi known as 'dystopia' ( Blade Runner, Logan's Run, Fahrenheit 451 ). In that same vein, Metropolis would definitely fit in there too.
... "Futurism" is an artistic movement in painting and poetry that kicked off in the early twentieth century over in Italy. It basically celebrates technological progress and the Industrial Revolution (along with all the messy side effects of that era, like war, imperialism, and fascism).
... Wait, where on earth did you get Mad Max from?
Sorry Jeffrey Edwards18, but you’re really missing the mark here.
First things first: Science Fiction is a film genre. Futuristic is just an adjective.
Secondly: Maybe put aside those personal definitions of yours for a second and take a quick look at some actual professional literature:
Science Fiction is a feature film genre, specifically a subgenre of fantasy cinema. In Sci-Fi movies, we see imagined, non-existent worlds or states of being presented as if they were real possibilities—either through scientifically grounded explanations, like an evolutionary future of our own world ( futuristic science fiction), or via encounters with unknown contemporary worlds and their inhabitants (like aliens, extraterrestrial civilizations, or parallel universes).
Some prominent subgenres include: -Space opera, basically space movies ( Star Trek, Star Wars ) -time travel movies ( Back to the Future ) -post-apocalyptic movies ( Mad Max )
Science Fiction falls under the umbrella of the fantasy film genre, which also encompasses horror, adventure-fantasy, surrealist film, fairy tales, and sword and sorcery ( or rather high fantasy, fantasy films, fantasy ).
So, Metropolis is definitely futuristic science fiction because it tried to extrapolate the social, urban, and physical trends of its time. Basically, it is science fiction.
… Whether a movie belongs to a certain genre isn't determined by how "serious" it feels, but rather by whether it hits those specific genre tropes. By that logic, both A Trip to the Moon and Metropolis qualify as science fiction. Just because you feel like the Méliès film is "silly" and doesn't count as Sci-Fi because people are getting shot at the moon with cannons and getting hit with Selenite umbrellas, you have to remember that it was adapted from a book written in the 19th century, whereas Metropolis was made over twenty-five years later—in that gap, not only did scientific reality change profoundly, but so did the vision of its evolution, or science fiction itself.
Just try to think about how much Sci-Fi from the 40s differs from the stuff in the 70s, and consider how much science actually changed during that period.
.... Sorry about all the italics! It didn't look nearly this overwhelming when I was typing with the tags. 😁
Michelle Alvarez8 said:Did anyone else catch that one shot where Brad Pitt is just standing there holding his sword, looking all intense and staring off into the distance, while a commercial airliner happens to be cruising right through the sky behind him? 😂
Honestly, he looked just like Apollo driving his chariot. 😁
casualotter21 said:The drama is actually titled Madness of King George, but they ended up changing the movie title because they were terrified that American audiences would mistakenly think it was some kind of third installment in a series. 😁 Honestly, the acting in this is just top-tier; you have such an incredible lineup including Ian Holm, Rupert Everett playing the Prince of Wales, and Nigel Hawthorne as Sir Humphrey from *Yes, Minister* stepping into the role of King George III.
I had such a good laugh when I finally realized that the guy played by Rupert Everett is actually the Prince Regent from season three! Black Swan (as interpreted by Hugh Laurie) 😁
Honestly, his old man’s brand of madness was way more entertaining.
casualotter21 said:He spent years building up his strength just like a hardworking carpenter, 2) he's actually tough enough to carry a massive cross all on his own, 3) and he can handle just about any amount of pain or physical punishment.
But you're forgetting one big thing:
4) He’d gladly take every blow from Apollo if it meant being close to him, because at the end of the day, love really does conquer everything.
Richard Hernandez13 said:Wait, what am I looking at here? Is this a biopic or some kind of docu-series? It definitely sounds pretty intriguing.🙂
It’s a biographical film—and if I'm remembering correctly, it's actually a TV movie produced for Netflix (think along the lines of The Wire or The Sopranos...)
