Posts by rustywalker42

Walter Grant5 said:When I talk about psychological development, you probably just think about some literal "improvement" in psychology—like a field getting a facelift. That's all you see. Just the idea of things getting better.

If you think that's what you're proving with this post:

Psychological development? Give me a break. What are you even talking about? There’s zero character growth happening here. You're acting like people in movies suddenly sprout new senses or something, and then we're supposed to call it "development." In Mad Max, people are exactly how they've always been—cruel, heartless, and selfish. Honestly, look around today; you don't need a post-apocalyptic wasteland to see that. People haven't changed one bit.

Psychology is a pretty broad term. When I talk about development, I’m talking about the progression of events—the whole process of how society behaves, not just some individual's head space—that led to the situation in the movie. And obviously, the whole thing is just fiction.

And why set it in the future anyway? Seriously, what's the point?

What exactly are you referring to? Where? Which scene? Which specific line? Give me some visual or narrative context here. Look, I’m talking about the first Mad Max the whole time, not the sequels. It feels like you keep dragging the rest of the franchise into this.

Splitting hairs over tiny details. Total waste of time.

Where exactly does that show up in the movie? Where is that actually woven into the theme? Is Max some kind of psychologist analyzing how society's psyche evolves? What "societal psychological development" are we even talking about here? What does that even mean to you?

So, you need a character who basically sits there and deconstructs the whole collapse for the audience? Like, they have to explain exactly how the world ended. You're looking for that psychological angle, right? As if the viewer isn't smart enough to piece together how everything went south on their own. Instead, we need this one guy in the movie—some top-tier psychologist or something—who’s constantly hunting for clues or digging into the psyche of the chaos. InceptionLook, you’ve gotta dig deep into the character's headspace. Psychology isn't about how society acts as a whole; it's about the individual. You have to nail the psyche of that one person. And honestly? You need some high-level analysis methods to actually pull it off. Otherwise, what's the point?

What are you even getting at here? I’ve watched this movie like sixty times—I could practically recite the script in my sleep. Now I'm just sitting here waiting for you to finally break it down and give me a proper autopsy, but we're still spinning our wheels.

Look, you can try to nitpick all you want, but I’m not playing that game. You really want to sit here and argue over which exact minute a character killed someone over a can of oil? Forget it. It's not happening.

Look, cut the crap. It's my own creative freedom. I don't give a damn what you think should be included. My point is simple: you'd just lump that movie right in with Sci-Fi anyway.

So, you cooked up this totally fake version of the movie just so you could corner me into deciding if it counts as Sci-Fi or not. There isn't even a single real-world comparison where a director sets everything in the future just for the sake of it, but sure, let's pretend it's set in the future. Then, after asking my opinion, you hit me with that "I don't care what you think" routine. And get this—after I told you straight up that I wouldn't label it Sci-Fi unless it’s clear whether we're looking at reality or a dream, you pivot to: "The point is, you *would* put it in the Sci-Fi category." Like, wow. Thanks for the insight. It doesn't follow. Not even close.

Since when were we buddies? What are you even trying to get at here? Look, I'm telling you again: there’s enough dystopian stuff out there that it deserves its own damn genre. Just because nobody has officially carved it out yet doesn't mean they won't. Even an Oscar or a Grammy didn't have specific categories for everything at first, then they just added them. Change is the only constant.

Why do you think volume alone makes it a parent genre?

And how do you "not understand" what I'm saying? I'm saying that what YOU personally believe—that dystopian movies aren't Sci-Fi—is just your take (quote follows)

Well, if you strip away those dystopian films where society is almost always broken—which is my personal stance on keeping them out of Sci-Fi—then basically every legitimate representative of the Sci-Fi genre relies on some kind of advanced technology.

That's totally irrelevant. Stop saying "I think" and actually give me an argument that isn't just "I think there's enough dystopia for a new genre" and stuff like that.

Fine, list some movies you're interested in and I'll tell you if they're Sci-Fi or not, assuming I've actually seen them.

That still doesn't guarantee those movies are legitimate examples of Sci-Fi (as you put it), it just means you *think* they are. That's not an argument.

I didn't say that, though it looks like you just confirmed it yourself.

Unless you're claiming you didn't say exactly that. (Gotta preempt this since you love nitpicking) You didn't say it verbatim, but close enough.

I'm not the only one who thinks this; there are endless debates about this online. At the end of the day, I'm arguing with someone who thinks Mad Max is Sci-Fi. So, what now?

Nothing. Maybe one day someone will start arguing that 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't Sci-Fi. Guess I can't do anything against that. 🤷

Nah. I didn't say that. I said Mad Max is an apocalyptic action film. Just because it’s dystopian doesn't mean it has anything to do with Die Hard.

But it’s got action too. How can they even be in the same category? Die HardIt’s dystopian, isn't it? So how the hell can it even be in the same category as... Gattaca.? 😕

How can they not see the connection? Both are just satirical takes on society, just separated by a bit of time.

Most of them are just ironic, sarcastic takes on society. So how does that even work? Spaceballs I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. What's on your mind? Modern Times Same boat? I mean, if we're already in it... Star Trek I'm ready. Send over the text you want me to rework. I'll handle the heavy lifting—stripping out the fluff, swapping the locations to the States, and keeping my tone exactly how it should be: short, blunt, and a little bit jaded. Just drop the content whenever you're set. Mad Max Can't have both being Sci-Fi...

And that’s exactly where the real headache starts.

What's up, everyone. Just realized most people here don't see any issue unless it involves you.

Nah, I don't buy it. It's too vague and there's no way to actually measure it.

It's pretty dumb that you aren't counting that as the Science aspect. Science is just total knowledge, plain and simple. If the story is set in the future and you're watching it as an audience member, you've gotta assume something actually happened to get things to that point. It shouldn't just be some unexplained magic trick. That's the whole point—it's Science Fiction.

Look, read what you just wrote again. So, according to your theory, if the story is set in the future, it’s automatically Sci-Fi because it involves "newly discovered knowledge"? That's your logic? Even if the setting is a future where all knowledge has basically crumbled into nothing? Didn't that cross your mind?

Yeah, degradation? Absolutely. But honestly, that loss of knowledge is actually a scientifically sound concept. Even if it’s just a fictional trope for the future. In the realm of Sci-Fi, basically anything built on a scientific foundation—even if it's totally made up—counts. It doesn't matter what field you're looking at.

Not really. Just like you can't wrap your head around the fact that it’s actually Sci-Fi—but hey, admitting you're wrong is hard, I get it.

So how'd you decide to dump it into the post-apocalyptic category then? How would you even know it’s post-apocalyptic if it wasn't mentioned in the very first sentence? Honestly, even that opening line doesn't back up your theory. How can you be so sure the apocalypse actually happened? You're the one who said nothing has changed since 1979.

Yeah, the plot is totally straightforward. It’s just one guy out for revenge. I don't get it—what exactly is supposedly "off" about 1979?

So how are you even supposed to know the apocalypse actually happened? I mean, if we’re using that same logic you use to claim something isn't Sci-Fi—basically saying "you can't prove it," then you can't prove it's a post-apocalyptic story either. Since nobody can prove the world ended, does that mean the movie doesn't count? Makes sense, right? 😕

Since you clearly don't trust me, I'll cut this short right here. Here is what the screenwriter James McCausland actually said:

George and I wrote The [ Mad Max script based on the thesis that people would do almost anything to keep vehicles moving and the assumption that nations would not consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure for alternative energy until it was too late.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1111112631991

So, raw struggle for resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

And why set it in the future, anyway? What's the point?

Because Miller thought it would be more convincing if he set the action in the future.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on the rest, since you couldn't even manage to answer a simple question: how exactly would you see the story taking place in the future if that first sentence wasn't there? You're just talking in circles and dodging the simplest question of all.

northerncrane4 said:@rustywalker42, look—they’ve got you at the top of the page with a quote and a link from the Film Encyclopedia, which makes it crystal clear that Mad Max belongs in the Sci-Fi genre—it's even listed as a prime example of the sub-genre. So, grab a pen and write a letter to the Lexicographical Institute and Hrvoj Turković; go ahead and break down their sentences one by one, explain exactly where they missed the mark, and don't give them any peace until they fix the error. You could even leave a comment right there on the page.

I've already written it and I don't know why it's being ignored—that genre should be treated as its own thing. Besides, is any definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film art, the old dogmas get smashed. I don't get why you're being so cynical.

Besides, Australians*, whose cinema the film comes from, classify it as a road movie:

...Mad Max, a pure exponent of the road genre...

http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/__.../biber_new.pdf

* Before anyone starts questioning the validity of the article, keep in mind it was written by someone whose doctoral dissertation is titled:a Certain look in The Eye : Representations of Masculinity in Australian Cinema

Had to split this into two posts. Wouldn't fit in one.

nimblemarlin6 said:Replying to rustywalker42's question:

So, explain to me—why are (The Road and Mad Max) considered Sci-Fi films?

You can interpret Sci-Fi as just "Science," but I prefer looking at it as Speculative fiction.
Think of Sci-Fi as this sort of "umbrella genre"—it's a broad category where various different genres meet to explore specific speculative themes.
You've got space adventures, westerns, action flicks, war stories, dramas, and so on—and all of them can fall under the Sci-Fi banner.

Now, Mad Max and The Road fit perfectly because they speculate on how society and human relationships might evolve if the living conditions on Earth were to fundamentally shift in the future.
The Road depicts a world where the ecosystem has been completely decimated—exploring that through pure drama—whereas Mad Max shows a world running out of oil that, for some implied reason (likely a nuclear war), is collapsing into total anarchy—told through the lens of an action movie.

Both are serious Sci-Fi films, even if they don't feature high-tech gadgets or explicitly dwell on scientific theories; the Sci-Fi element is simply "packaged" inside the genre itself.

What you're talking about—specifically the bolded part—is basically how one... 1984.I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that. What are we talking about? Mad MaxDon't even try telling me you would. Mad Max Put him in the same tier as... 1984.?

nimblemarlin6 said:You could argue that the *Fast & Furious* flicks share some superficial DNA with *Mad Max*—they both lean into that same sense of being totally detached from reality, centered mostly on high-octane car chases and various explosive showdowns.
But, I mean, let’s be honest—it’s pretty obvious that *Mad Max* isn't just some mindless spectacle about anarchist outlaws racing cars and killing each other.

(My apologies to anyone who felt personally attacked by me putting those two movies in the same sentence. 😁)

Mad Max It's just a movie about one guy looking for revenge, set in some dystopian future. As such, it has absolutely zero connection to... Fast & FuriousEven if you stripped away that whole dystopian angle.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, they aren't even talking about scientific motives (don't want to sign off on The Road since I haven't actually seen it), it’s just obvious. Science is a system of knowledge—total human knowledge. If a story is set in the future, it's pretty clear we're looking at newly acquired info from whatever time passed before the movie kicks off. So, you're basically guessing at knowledge and science, which is just pure fiction, aka fantasy. That's how you get Science Fiction.

Let's try this again. Read what you just wrote. So, according to your theory, if the story is set in the future, it’s automatically Sci-Fi because it involves "newly discovered knowledge"? Is that it? Seriously? What if we're looking at a future where all knowledge has been lost and everything has devolved? Didn't that cross your mind?

northerncrane4 said:That opening line is part of the film—just like everything else. How could you possibly conclude that a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away was the setting if the movie didn't explicitly tell you? And besides, is Star Wars even Sci-Fi, considering how much scientific nonsense it's packed with?

Yeah, sure, it’s part of the movie. But my point is that the line just isn't there. There’s zero indication that this is even set in the future. Now I'm just sitting here waiting for you to jump back in with the usual "but it's an essential part of the film" argument. Typical.

How would you even tell that *Star Wars* is happening? A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... Doesn't the opening crawl tell you everything you need to know? And honestly, is Star Wars even Sci-Fi? It’s basically just a bunch of scientific nonsense piled on top of itself.

Maybe I wouldn't know if this was happening in some other galaxy, but the example still sucks. Why? Because... Star Wars Like you said yourself, they just cram everything in there. If it isn't Sci-Fi, then at least it's heavy Fantasy.

Walter Grant5 said:Totally. I was just about to call out rustywalker42 in my reply regarding that opening line, but then I noticed he tagged Mad Max as a post-apocalyptic film. My whole point was: how would anyone even know it's the apocalypse without that specific sentence? Based on his logic, the plot is totally normal. Everything happening in the movie fits right in with the era it was filmed in. So, where does the "after the end" part actually happen?

I mean, the whole concept of an apocalypse or post-apocalypse is pure Science Fiction.

Yeah, seriously? The plot is totally straightforward. It’s just about one guy getting revenge. I don't get it—what exactly is "off" about *1979*?

I mean, the whole concept of apocalypse and post-apocalypse? That's just straight-up Science Fiction.

Wait, so you're telling me an apocalypse isn't even possible? Seriously? 🙂

Christian Taylor3 said:Even that opening line (which is just a voiceover)...

the words: IN THE NEAR FUTURE...come across the screen

... isn't strictly necessary for you to grasp that we're looking at an imagined, non-existent world, or a state of existence presented as a plausible—scientifically grounded—possibility, perhaps as an evolutionary trajectory for our current world. Back when people were actually watching Mad Max, they weren't exactly killing each other over a single jerrycan of gas (you could argue with plenty of examples, since humans have been fighting over barrels of oil since the dawn of time, let's be honest. But not in a post-apocalyptic/setting like this).

By the time we got to Mad Max 2, the director used a narrator to lay it all out clearly for the audience (though, of course, he was nudged in that direction by American producers 😁):

NARRATOR V/O
But, most of all, I remember the
courage of a stranger, a road
warrior called Max. To understand
who he was you must go back to the
last days of the old world ...

So tell me, how exactly did you "realize" that? That sentence doesn't even mean anything. This isn't an answer. Give me a concrete example—what specifically did you realize?

Back when Mad Max first came out, people weren't killing each other over a single jerry can of fuel (sure, you can argue that people have been killing each other over barrels of oil since forever—that's just reality. But not in a post-apocalyptic/setting like this).

The movie was actually inspired by those oil crises back in '73 and '79, which were hitting hard right before they filmed Mad Max. Even the screenwriter, James McAusland, confirms it:

Yet there were further signs of the desperate measures individuals would take to ensure mobility. A couple of oil strikes that hit many pumps revealed the ferocity with which Americans would defend their right to fill a tank. Long queues formed at the stations with petrol – and anyone who tried to sneak ahead in the queue met raw violence.

......

George and I wrote the [Mad Max] script based on the thesis that people would do almost anything to keep vehicles moving and the assumption that nations would not consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure for alternative energy until it was too late.

By the time we got to Mad Max 2, Miller basically spelled it out for the audience using a narrator (mostly because American producers forced him to 😁):

I'm talking about the first movie the whole time.

Walter Grant5 said:Aaargh. Wait, you think psychology only counts when an author is dissecting a character's psyche? You ever heard of social psychology?

Look, I’m talking about the imagined psychological evolution of civilization in a movie. It’s the exact same thing you’re doing when you talk about the imagined development of technology in other films. We're both just looking at where fiction and Science intersect. You're the only one who thinks you've got it right, though.

Biology’s probably in on it too. You can smell the ecological disaster coming from a mile away. And please, don't even ask if I happened to notice some oil spilling on a few plants or whatever...

Because there are three footnotes pointing to three major dictionaries. Is that actually a solid enough argument?

Doesn't matter at all.

If we’re really gonna go at it, I’ll just tell you straight: you don't call the shots here. That's the moderator's job. But fine. Whatever.

I'm not blocking you. I just can't stand it when people jump in with that kind of crap. Facepalm. Aside from just messing around, honestly. If everyone actually did that, PDFs would be a total disaster because anyone could just drop in a smiley face.

Yeah, it’s not exactly a reliable source since anyone can just go in and edit the text whenever they feel like it. So you basically log in and write whatever you want. Mad Max Comedy is one thing. But when you start throwing in references, that's a whole different ballgame.

That's what I thought. You're the one deciding what's worth using and what isn't.

Here he comes again.
Man, that psychological influence HAS to show up in the visuals or the actual storytelling. I already told you that earlier. Did Goose stumble onto some new kind of cognitive behavioral therapy or what?

We're talking about how society's psyche evolves here, not necessarily about refining some treatment method.

It’s the little things that make a movie. Look, I'm trying to tell you—that whole scene where a gang of thugs is killing and looting just to get their hands on some fuel? That isn't even Sci-Fi. It's just reality happening somewhere in the world right now.

I’m not talking about the small details in the movie, I’m talking about the straws you’re clinging to. Misinterpreted minutiae.

Let's say the lead guy has a kid in 2014, the whole movie takes place in one room centered around that baby, and then it ends on some ambiguous note where you can't tell if it was a dream or reality. You’d immediately slap the Sci-Fi label on that? Look, I'm just making up a scenario here, but I'm trying to say that just because something happens in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

Man, what a character you are. Yeah, you're rambling. First off, I wouldn't call that movie Sci-Fi if the audience couldn't tell dream from reality. But come on, no director is going to set a movie in 2014 just so someone on a forum can prove that setting it in the future doesn't automatically make it Sci-Fi.

Look, I'm not claiming the movie doesn't take place in the future, I'm just saying without that opening line, you WOULDN'T know it's set in the future. And by Hells Angels, I mean a biker gang (wasn't referring to any specific movie, and based on your suggestion, looks like you took it that way—my bad if I missed the mark).

Check below under *

Well, if you exclude those dystopian films where society is almost always broken and strip them out of Sci-Fi (which is my personal stance), practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre involves some kind of advanced technology.

Buddy, you should have told me that right away. Especially that part in parentheses. "My personal stance"?! What does what you personally believe have to do with anything?

Same goes for this next bit: "...practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre..." I mean, how are we supposed to know which ones are true? It carries zero weight when you claim every "true" Sci-Fi has advanced tech. That's like saying "I argued." Anyone can write that. I could shove "true" into my own theory whenever I felt like it.

That is one of the core ideas of the Sci-Fi genre. You see it, for instance, in the works of Arthur C. Clarke.

Exactly.

No need for the sarcasm.

But following your logic, we basically end up at the conclusion that Sci-Fi only exists if it depicts advanced technology.

Post-apocalyptic/dystopian action film.

*Post-apocalyptic stories are a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Now, go ahead, fit that post-apocalyptic stuff into the question you asked me. How would you even know it's a post-apocalypse if there wasn't an opening line in the film?

And what does it all boil down to? I'm arguing with a guy whoPersonally. So he’s out here claiming post-apocalyptic and dystopian movies aren't actually Sci-Fi? That's a reach. I guess that's why he's trying so hard to prove it. Mad Max Isn't it Sci-Fi? Fits that theory, doesn't it?

That's exactly where things fall apart. Both belong to the Sci-Fi genre, but honestly? They have zero connection to each other.

The link between them is just that they're Sci-Fi.

And you said it was... Mad Max Action flicks, like say... Die Hard They barely have anything in common, honestly. But hey, they're both action flicks. I also threw in a few other titles that fall under the same umbrella—no real connection there besides being the same genre. Like... Monty Python I'm ready. Send over the text you need me to rework. Modern TimesLook, that’s not my issue. That's your problem. Besides, genre boundaries aren't some rigid cage; there are tons of subgenres and people mix them with other stuff all the time.

It’s not even me talking—it's just basic Sci-Fi theory. And honestly, I’m still sticking to my guns on this: I don't see any "Science" in that movie at all. Doesn't matter if you try to claim it's technical or social science. It's just not there.

Yeah, that's because you only see Science through this narrow lens of stuff you can actually touch. You don't even count social evolution as part of the scientific side of things. To you, Science just means tech upgrades, and now suddenly medical therapies count too? If it were up to you, "biological science" would probably just be some new species of weed.

Alright, let's take that theory of yours—the one I actually bothered to beef up—and put it to the test. Give me a specific example from the movie we're arguing about. Where exactly does this show up on screen?

I've said this a thousand times already. You’re just not getting the theory. Seriously, you haven't stumbled upon any new types of cognitive behavioral therapy.

Here you go again, doing things your way. I’m done arguing. You're just being stubborn, and honestly? Your theory is built on sand. You want to talk about how psychology influences film? Look at... Inception....but not in the movie. Mad Max.
So, by your logic, every single movie ever made has a dose of Science in it? Because characterization is just pure psychology? Really?

Look, what I’m talking about—this idea of a civilization's psychological evolution within a movie—is exactly like what you're saying about how technology evolves in other films. We're both just looking at where fiction and Science intersect. Only difference? You seem to think you're the only one who actually has it right.

Psychological development? Are you kidding me? What are you even talking about? There isn't any psychological development to be seen here. You’re acting like characters in some Sci-Fi film just suddenly grew new senses or something, and now we're supposed to discuss "development"? Give me a break. People are just... Mad MaxThey haven't changed one bit. Cruel, heartless, selfish—they've always been exactly like that. You don't even need a glimpse into the future to see it.

Biology's probably involved too. You can practically smell the ecological disaster coming. And please, don't even ask if I happened to notice some oil spilling on a few plants or something...

How does it look? Where exactly? Which scene? Which specific sentence? What’s the visual or narrative context here? Just a heads-up—I'm talking about the first movie the whole time. Mad MaxLook, I'm talking about one person here, not everyone else. And honestly? It feels like you're just trying to drag the rest of them into this. Why?

Doesn't matter. At all.

Look, it matters. These aren't just some random, pointless references.

That’s exactly what I thought. So you're the one deciding what’s credible enough to use and what isn't? Real convenient.

You seriously need this. 🤦And you know why? Because you don't get the difference between working with footnotes and working without them. If you’ve ever sat through a high school term paper, a college seminar, or written a single research paper in your life, you should know how this works: you use footnotes when you're pulling quotes, and then you list your sources at the end. That’s what gives a paper credibility. It’s not about someone's subjective opinion. Is that clear enough for you now?

We're talking about the evolution of social psychology here, not necessarily the development of some new treatment method.

Where exactly does that show up in the movie?! How is that even woven into the theme? Is Max some kind of psychologist analyzing the evolution of social psychology?! What "evolution of social psychology"? What does that even mean to you?

I’m not talking about the little details in the film; I'm talking about the straws you're clutching at. Misinterpreted minutiae.

And what is this supposed to mean? I've watched this movie about sixty times; I know it by heart. So now I'm just waiting for you to perform a fine dissection and explain it to me, since we clearly aren't getting anywhere.

Man, what a piece of work you are. Yeah, you're just rambling. First off, I wouldn't label that film Sci-Fi if the viewer can't even tell if they're dreaming or awake. But come on, no director is going to set a film in 2014 just so you can prove some point to someone on a forum that setting a story in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

Hey, stop talking nonsense. That's my creative freedom; I don't care if you wouldn't label it that way. The point is simply that *you* would put that film in Sci-Fi.

Buddy, you should have told me that immediately. Especially the part in parentheses. You personally advocate for it?! And what does it have to do with anything that you personally advocate for it?

Since when were we friends? 🙂 I don't get what you're trying to tell me right now. Look, I'll say it again: I believe there are enough dystopian works that there should be a specific genre. Just because nobody has thought to create one yet doesn't mean they won't. At the end of the day, neither an Oscar nor a Grammy had their own categories initially, and then they got them. Change is the only constant.

It's the same as this next bit: "...practically every real representative of the Sci-Fi genre has some...". I mean, how do we know which one is actually real? Your claim that every real Sci-Fi involves advanced technology carries zero weight. It's like writing "I argued." Anyone can write that. I could shove "real" into my theory too.

Feel free to list the movies you're interested in, and I'll tell you if they're Sci-Fi or not—assuming, of course, I've seen them.

But following your logic, we're basically arriving at the idea that Sci-Fi must exist only if it depicts advanced technology.

I didn't say that, though I see you just confirmed it yourself.

*Post-apocalyptic stories are a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Now, try fitting that "post-apocalyptic" bit into that question you asked me. How would you even know it's a post-apocalypse if there wasn't that opening sentence in the film?

Not really. Not even close. Just like you can't bring yourself to admit it belongs in Sci-Fi, but here we are. Too hard to swallow?

So, what’s the bottom line here? I'm stuck in this back-and-forth with some guy who... Personally? So he's out here claiming post-apocalyptic and dystopian movies aren't actually Sci-Fi? Really? Is that what we're doing now? Is that why you're so desperate to prove it? Mad Max Isn't it Sci-Fi? Fits that theory perfectly, doesn't it?

I'm definitely not the only one who thinks this. There are endless debates about this topic all over the web. At the end of the day, I’m basically just arguing with some guy who actually believes the theory that... Mad Max Sci-Fi. So, what now?

The link between them? They're both Sci-Fi.

And that’s exactly where the biggest problem lies.

But you already said that, didn't you? Mad Max An action movie, like say... Die Hard. With practically zero connection to it.

No. I didn't write that. I wrote that... Mad Max Post-apocalyptic action movie. Just because it's dystopian doesn't mean it has anything to do with... Die Hard. That's it. That's the post..

So, there you have it. Both are action-heavy. I also threw in a few more titles that fall under the same umbrella—they don't have anything in common besides being the exact same genre. Like... Monty Python I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. What's on your mind? Modern TimesThat’s not even the issue. That’s *your* issue. Besides, genre divisions aren't set in stone—there are endless subgenres and ways to mash them up with everything else.

How can they not see the link? Both are basically social satires, just separated by a bit of time.

That’s because you only view Science through the lens of things you can actually touch. You don't even consider social evolution as a scientific aspect. To you, Science is just tech advancements—now suddenly it includes medical therapies too? If it were up to you, the biological side of things would probably just be some new species of plant.

Nah, I don't think so. It’s not even clearly defined, let alone easy to measure.

I’ve said this countless times already. You just aren't grasping the theory. Seriously, you haven't stumbled upon any new types of cognitive behavioral therapy. Period.

Yeah, I’ve got a real problem with those flimsy theories. You know the ones—trying to force social science or psychology to be the main engine of a movie? It just doesn't work. Mad Max.

Don't have the time right now. I'll get back to the rest of you soon, but here's my quick take on this last one.

So, what would you base it on? Christian Taylor3So, he actually concluded that Mad Max is a Sci-Fi film just because that opening line isn't there? Seriously?

Walter Grant5 said:Where’s the psychology? Seriously, where’s the psychology? *I mean, damn, societal behavior is what drove things to become like they are in the movie, and psychology deals with societal behavior—shocker.

Yeah, nitpicking over tiny details and punctuation. For real, I wrote "they kill for cans of oil" and obviously, it was taken literally. I meant people fight for oil like it’s the last remaining supply of drinking water, but whatever. Probably the next argument would be something like: "How can you be sure it's just in those regions while the rest of the world is normal?"

I didn't say anything about internet evidence; you just jumped to that conclusion. I only said that Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source, especially if there's no original quote, let alone the internet itself. The theory in question was pulled from three dictionaries.

Among other things, including Wikipedia. How do we know it didn't originate on Wikipedia?

If my opening argument bothered you, you shouldn't have jumped in. And I don't get why you're hung up on those links. I told you Wikipedia isn't a credible source when it comes to certain things.

Look, don't start throwing emojis at me without any logic. That's not the start of a debate or an argument. Actually, it's just proof that all you know how to do is post a facepalm emoticon and nothing else.

You're saying Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for certain things. I guess you're the one deciding which things those are, since you criticized me (which I accepted) for linking to Wikipedia while feeling free to do the exact same thing.

Okay, so what does it matter? If they wrote it, then it's true, right? I mean, I don't get it. This is the second time I've dealt with this kind of attitude on this subforum. Just because I don't post much here doesn't mean I don't read it.

Try reading what you're responding to before you actually respond.

Moving on...

I'm waiting for someone to provide something? I asked you to define the Sci-Fi elements in the film we're discussing. What's the problem?

Well, for example, look at your way of debating. After I wrote about five times (give or take, and seriously, DON'T get hung up on that number like you do with everything else) where the psychological influence is in...Mad MaxYou’ve squinted at that same argument a dozen times already, asking "what kind of psychological impact are we even talking about here?" Mad Max?''

I write "they're killing each other over a can of oil," basically implying that in that era, oil is as good as gold. (Don't even bother asking me where in the movie it says oil equals gold—I know what I meant.) 🙂Look, saying they're stealing oil and basically waging war—come on, man. Don't start asking where the actual war is in the movie. You're interpreting it like some guy straight-up murdered people just to get his hands on fuel. You're splitting hairs over nothing.

So you kept pushing this idea that it was just some fictionalized version of a Bergman drama back in 2014. Look, come on, quit messing around. What’s the point? Seriously, why would an author bother cramming that kind of drama into a 2014 setting just for the sake of it being 2014? Did you actually think that through? Has anyone ever actually filmed a movie set in the future just because they wanted the setting to be the future?

So, why was it at the beginning? Mad Max ''A FEW YEARS FROM NOW...Why even bother pushing toward the future? Honestly, they’re just stealing fuel to keep things running. It's all a wash. Hells AngelsIt doesn't say anything about the rest of the world being in that state... so, what's the actual point?

So, you're still clinging to that "ultimate" argument of yours—the one where you claim technological progress is some absolute necessity for the Sci-Fi genre? You've been preaching that for ages, acting like you’ve already laid down the law on why it *has* to be that way. So, what’s the actual point? What specific argument are you even using to prove that? I am ready. Send the text. So, does Sci-Fi just mean tech upgrades rather than actual Science? It feels like the whole genre only exists to show off shiny new gadgets. I used to think there was more to it, but clearly, I was wrong. Sci-Fi is basically just a playground for previewing high-tech toys—flying cars, lightsabers, lasers, teleportation. Yeah, right. What a joke. I really thought it was supposed to be about how society evolves and everything around us shifts. My mistake. 2001: A Space Odyssey From now on, I’m only watching stuff to see if there's a flying ship. That's it. tech stuff. Advanced computer.

Where did I ever say Mad Max was a drama? 🙄

So what's the deal then? Action? Throwing it into the same bin as everything else that doesn't connect. Die Hard.Adventure or whatever... they're basically the same thing, tossed into the same bucket. No real difference. Indiana Jones.Look, you're missing the point. You can't just toss all these movies into the same bucket and expect them to make sense together. That's why your argument doesn't really hold water.

It’s ridiculous how people just lump everything into the Sci-Fi bucket. The term is way too broad. It doesn't actually describe the genre well enough, which leads to nonsense like putting Mad Max in the same category as Star Trek. You guys really think that's okay?

Whatever. That’s just a broad genre split. There are a million other reasons why those two movies don't belong in the same bucket, aside from just the general genre thing.

Look, if you're going to be this sensitive, just stay out of the debates. I don't know what else to tell you. Let me lay it out one more time: you’re rambling on about how much social sciences influence the Sci-Fi genre, and I’m telling you again—it’s just not right. By definition, Sci-Fi is about technology, progress, and scientific innovation. Where exactly are you finding those things in social sciences when we're talking about Sci-Fi? It doesn't track.

Another wrong reading of my post. I’m not talking about—or quoting—some "divine influence of social sciences on the SF genre." I'm talking about this. S in Sci-Fi, you kept pushing this idea just to wrap the whole thing up under S "tech, progress, and innovation."

Look, S Science is what defines Sci-Fi. Social science is just as much a branch of science as engineering or tech is. Sci-Fi doesn't just mean "tech, progress, and innovation" in the scientific sense. It’s about the marriage of Science and fiction—exactly what the name implies. Science is the sum of all human knowledge, not just a checklist of technological breakthroughs. Amen.

Man, where's the psychology in this movie?! Has Goose stumbled upon some new flavors of cognitive behavioral therapy to practice? Following your logic, I guess biology is involved too, seeing as there’s all kinds of low-lying weeds growing along the roadside.
You want to talk about psychology in movies? Since you're so obsessed with it? Fine. Here's an example. Inception.Do you even get the difference?

Yeah, here we go again—nitpicking over commas and tiny details. Seriously? I wrote "they're killing over scraps of oil," and of course, it gets taken literally. What I meant was that people are fighting for oil like it’s the last drops of drinking water on Earth, but whatever. I guess the next argument will be something like, "How can you be sure it isn't just happening in those specific areas while the rest of the world stays perfectly normal?"

So, what even counts as Sci-Fi? I already told you—we’ve got this stuff happening right now. People fighting over fuel, water, food. It's literal. Raw. On a purely individual level, people are killing each other just to survive. Is that Sci-Fi?

Between other things, too... WikipediaHow can we even tell if it isn't original? Wikipedia?

Because there are three footnotes pointing to three major dictionaries. Is that actually a solid enough argument?

Look, don't come at me with those random emojis like they actually mean something. It’s not a conversation starter. It’s not even an argument. It’s just proof you only know how to hit "post." Unbelievable. Just... facepalm. Just emojis and nothing else.

Look, if we’re really going to go toe-to-toe here, I'll just say it: you don't get to decide who does what around here. That’s the moderator's call. Fine. Whatever.

So you're saying... Wikipedia It’s hardly a reliable source when it comes to certain things. I guess you get to decide which things those are, since you were the one critiquing me—even though I actually took your point—when I posted that link to... Wikipedia And you think you're free enough to be exactly the same? Please.

Yeah, it’s not exactly a reliable source, right? Since anyone can just hop in and edit the text whenever they feel like it. So, you just log in and write whatever you want? Real professional. Mad Max Comedy is one thing. But when you start dropping references? That's a whole different ballgame.

Look at how you argue. Seriously. After I’ve pointed out—what, five times now? (Don't get hung up on the exact number, let's move on)—where the psychological influence lies in Mad Max, you just blink and ask, "What psychological influence is there in Mad Max?"

Here we go again.
Man, that psychological influence HAS to be visible in the film's visuals or narrative! I already explained that. What, did Goose discover some new type of cognitive behavioral therapy?

When I write "they're killing each other for a can of oil," I mean that in this era, oil is basically gold (and yeah, before you ask where it says oil equals gold in the movie 🙂), meaning they're stealing oil and fighting a literal war over it—seriously, don't ask me where the war is in the film—but you interpreted it as if some character literally murdered someone just to grab a barrel of fuel. You're nitpicking.

Details make a movie, but I'm trying to tell you that a gang of thugs killing and looting for fuel isn't some grand sci-fi concept; it's reality happening right now, somewhere in the world.

So you're stubbornly pushing this idea of a Bergman-style drama set in 2014. Come on, seriously, why? Why would an author bother cramming that kind of drama into 2014 just for the sake of it being 2014? Have you even thought about that? Has anyone ever filmed a movie set in the future just because it's the future?

Say the lead character has a baby in 2014, the whole movie takes place in one room around that baby, and it ends with an ambiguous finish—was it a dream or reality? Would you immediately label that Sci-Fi? I'm just making up a scenario here, but my point is: just because it happens in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

Then why does the beginning of Mad Max say ''A FEW YEARS FROM NOW...''? Why push it into the future? I mean, people steal fuel in Hells Angels too; it's never stated the rest of the world is in that state... okay, so why?

Look, I'm not claiming the movie isn't set in the future. I'm saying that without that opening line, you WOULDN'T know it was set in the future. And by Hells Angels, I meant the biker gang (not a movie, and given your suggestion in, it seems you misunderstood me—sorry if I was unclear)
.

And then there's your supposed ultimate argument: that technological advancement is a requirement for Sci-Fi, which you leaned on so hard when you said "I've argued my point." Exactly what? What argument proves that the S in Sci-Fi refers specifically to technology rather than Science in general?

Well, if you set aside these dystopian films—where society is almost always broken, which is my personal stance on excluding them from Sci-Fi—then practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre features some form of advanced technology.

So, does Sci-Fi only exist just to show off fancy new tech? Is that really all it is?

That’s just one of the core ideas in Science Fiction. Look at Arthur C. Clarke’s work, for example.

So, I thought there was more to it. Turns out I was dead wrong. Apparently, Science Fiction only exists so we can drool over futuristic tech—flying cars, lightsabers, lasers, teleportation. Yeah, right. What a joke. Who needs a deep dive into how human society actually evolves? Not this genre, clearly. 2001: A Space Odyssey From now on, I’m only watching movies to see the flying ships. That's it. Technological? An advanced computer. That's it? Just that?

No need for sarcasm.

So what is it then? Action? Just throws it in the same bin as everything else that doesn't matter. Die Hard. Classic.Adventure or mystery? Throwing them both into the same bucket like they have anything to do with each other. Really? Indiana Jones.Don't you get it? You can't just lump all these movies into the same bucket. So, what exactly is your point?

Post-apocalyptic action film.

Pointless. It's just a broad genre breakdown.Look, there are a million other reasons why those two movies don't belong in the same bucket, besides just the basic genre difference.

And that’s exactly where we hit a wall. Both fall under the Sci-Fi umbrella, sure, but let's be real—they have absolutely zero connection to each other.

Yet another wrong interpretation of my post. I’m not talking about—or quoting—some "divine influence of social sciences on the Sci-Fi genre." I'm talking about this. S So, in Sci-Fi, what exactly were you just insisting on? Just so we end up right back where we started? I'm ready. Send over the text you need me to rework. Reduced everything down to just "technology, progress, and innovation."

It’s not me, it’s just Sci-Fi theory. And honestly? I’m still digging my heels in on that "S." I don't see it in the movie at all, regardless of whether we're talking technical or social Science.

So, look, S Is "Science" even part of the term "Sci-Fi"? Social science is a branch of science just like technical science is, but Sci-Fi doesn't necessarily have to be about "technology, progress, or scientific innovation." Why assume it does? It’s just the marriage of Science and Science Fiction, exactly what the name implies. Simple, right?Science isn't just about tech breakthroughs. It's the whole sum of human knowledge. Period.

Alright, let's take that theory of yours—the one you just beefed up—and put it to the test. Give me a concrete example. Using the movie we’re actually arguing about, where exactly does that show up on screen?

Walter Grant5 said:Then you clearly misread your own words in the part of the post I quoted.

Which movies? Psychology. Does it actually count as Science?

In a lot of Sci-Fi films, society just evolves in a completely different direction. It really just depends on the movie.

What kind of social psychology are we even talking about here?

Human nature, man. Isn't it just human behavior that caused everything we see in the movie in the first place?

Where exactly is this state of the planet supposed to be visible? About what, exactly? You wouldn't have a clue if it weren't for that first sentence.

Nothing much. Just everything totally desolate. People killing each other over a single can of gas, eating canned pet food just to survive... that kind of thing. Typical. Just some ordinary stuff..

Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology. Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with the impact of imagined innovations in technology or science. Science Fiction.

So, we talk about innovations in Science and technology all the time. But what about psychological breakthroughs? Where do you actually see those kinds of shifts played out on screen?

Internet proof? What did we even say about that? You used to tear those things apart, now you're just dropping links left and right. Copy-pasting? Really?Look, you could've at least read the whole article before jumping in...

Read what's above.

For crying out loud, how much more logical can it get? Science Fiction. Sci-Fi. Fiction and Science. Pick one. End of Story.

No point comparing them. Just like they shouldn't be in the same genre.

Haven't checked the list yet. And look, like I said before, I don't see that movie as dystopian. We can argue about it if you want, though.

Look, Prika, I’m done. I honestly don't have the energy for this anymore. I gotta admit, you've worn me out—not even because of what you're saying, but just because of how you handle things. First thing you do is slap me in the face. facepalmom (🤦) Your way of debating sucks. You just keep moving the goalposts and throwing out arguments you were busy debunking two minutes ago. Like those links you sent.

That’s just your take. That's your theory. Give me one single dystopian film that doesn't involve some version of the future, an alternate past, or an alternate present.

Brain fogged. That's why I posted here—to see if anyone actually knew. northerncrane4 already said that 90% of the time, dystopian films fall under the Sci-Fi umbrella. Then Beaver brought up a film he thinks is dystopian but isn't Sci-Fi, which I haven't even seen. Don't blame me for citing them. I'm just saying this isn't just my own headcanon.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of how you argue. You just sit there waiting for someone to make a point so you can tear it down.

Yeah, and like I already said, I'd put all those movies in their own separate genre. Not Sci-Fi.

What you personally think doesn't matter. Obviously, not all Sci-Fi films are the same, just like not all comedies or action flicks are identical. There are tons of variables and genre-blending involved. You just can't wrap your head around the fact—and you admitted this yourself—that both Mad Max and Star Trek are Sci-Fi, so now you're trying to dismiss the whole genre because of it. I mean, how can you claim Mad Max is a drama just like some Bergman film? That makes way more sense than saying Sci-Fi is anything other than what it is, like Star Trek?

So, Science Fiction. It's a massive, sprawling concept involving science and fantasy. We aren't talking about strictly technical hard science stuff; we're talking about the broad genre. The genre is Sci-Fi, science fiction, science plus fiction. I don't think we're actually out here trying to prove that a movie set in the future isn't a Sci-Fi film. No, it's a drama set in the future. Fine. And then people start whining about what kind of questions should be asked in an educational thread like "Film Encyclopedia." Man, we really have a comprehension problem with entire genres on this forum. Just saying.

I don't know what part isn't clicking for you. Where is psychology as a science woven through the film?

Everything is just desolate,

That’s basically how most of Australia looks. What specifically makes this Sci-Fi?

people killing for a tin of oil,

Who gets killed in the movie over a tin of oil? Maybe it sounds like I'm being provocative, but it's a fair question. Fuel gets stolen in the film, sure, but that's stuff Hells Angels have done in the US all the time.

eating canned pet food

Remind me, which scene shows them eating that? 🤔

Internet evidence? What did we say about that? You were the first one trashing it, now you're constantly linking and copy/pasting. Fine, you could at least have read the whole article...

We didn't say anything about Internet evidence; you just jumped to that conclusion. I simply said that Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source, especially when there isn't an original quote, let alone the Internet itself. That specific theory was pulled from three dictionaries.

Look, I'm not interested. I have to admit, you've exhausted me. Not with arguments, but with your approach. First, you hit me with a facepalm (🤦), which isn't exactly a way to debate, then you went back and forth repeatedly using arguments you were denying at the start. Like those links, for example.

If my opening remarks bothered you, you shouldn't have jumped in. And I don't get why you're hung up on those links. I told you Wikipedia isn't a credible source when it comes to certain things.

Quote:
Look, I couldn't recall it offhand. That’s why I posted here—to see if anyone knew. Plus, northerncrane4 mentioned that in 90% of cases, dystopian films are just a sub-genre of Sci-Fi, and Beaver brought up a movie they consider dystopian that isn't Sci-Fi, which I haven't even seen. Don't take it personally that I'm citing them. I'm just saying this isn't just my own theory.

Tor

To be honest, I really don't like your debating style. You just sit there waiting for someone to make a claim so you can tear it down.

Me waiting for someone to make a claim? I asked you to define the Sci-Fi elements in the movie we're actually discussing. What's the big deal?

Tor

What you think personally doesn't matter. Obviously, not all Sci-Fi movies are the same, just like not all comedies or dramas are identical. There are tons of factors at play, genre-blending, whatever. You simply can't wrap your head around the fact—and you admitted this yourself—that both Mad Max and Star Trek are Sci-Fi, so now you're trying to debunk the whole genre's influence. I mean, how can you claim Mad Max is a drama on par with some Bergman film? Is that more believable than saying Sci-Fi is like Star Trek?

Where did I ever say Mad Max was a drama? 🙄

Tor

So, Science Fiction. Science is a damn broad concept, and so is fiction. We aren't talking about strictly technical hard sci-fi, but actual Science Fiction. The genre is Sci-Fi, Science Fiction, science and fiction. I don't think we're even trying to prove that a movie set in the future isn't a Sci-Fi film just because it's a post-apocalyptic story. No, it's a drama set in the future. Fine. And then people complain about what kind of questions are being asked in an educational thread like "Film Encyclopedia." Man, we really have comprehension issues with entire genres on this forum. That's just my observation.

Look, if you're this sensitive, maybe just don't join the debate. I don't know what else to tell you. Let me clarify one more time: you're talking about this supposed influence of social sciences on the Sci-Fi genre, and I'm telling you again, that's just not right. Sci-Fi implies—as the theory itself states—"technology, progress, and scientific innovation." Where exactly do you find that in social sciences in the context of Sci-Fi?

George Robinson43 said:If you can't demonstrate your competence in discussing Sci-Fi without relying on the most basic argument—clinging to that rudimentary "S" from nearly a century ago—then I'm afraid there's simply no helping you.

bye bye

Even better. That wasn't my "peak argument"—it was just one point I laid out clearly. Sure, a shallow mind might interpret it shallowly. But, as I predicted, you still haven't answered my last question regarding the movie that started this whole mess in the first place. ☕

Christian Taylor3 said:Apocalyptic fiction

😛

@rustywalker42, George Robinson43, Walter Grant5

Honestly, those were some pretty interesting and constructive points you guys made.

Though, we could probably skip all the extra labels like "You have no clue" or just calling people "Trolls"... I mean, what's the point? 🤷

I suppose I should paraphrase my Mother here: Server, I curse you to Christmas 2010! 😁

Ask George Robinson43; he’s the one who started with the insults. I'm just trying to explain my points constructively and objectively.

Walter Grant5 said:Aren't you basically arguing that just because a story is set in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi?

*

Can you explain this bolded sentence?

Already covered this. Psychology basically deals with how society acts—both on an individual level and as a whole. It's social science.

You can shove any human action into psychology if you try hard enough. Doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

We're talking about the collective psychology of an entire society—the kind of mindset that actually pushes people toward the state of things shown in the movie.

Biological world? Please. I don't see any emphasis on Science in this movie at all. Mad Max Still waiting on it. The cars from that era—yeah, they’re older—and the bikes too. Everything looks exactly like it did back in 1979. It doesn't even say it at the start of the movie.A few years down the road...So, what actually makes a movie Sci-Fi? Walk me through it. Explain your logic.

Look at the state of the planet. It's exactly where society's behavior has driven us. Already said that.

When we talk tech, we’re talking hard Science, not social studies. Period.

Here's the thing. We aren't even talking about technology. You’re out here rambling about tech, while I'm actually talking about Science. ScienceWhatever. I'm ready. Send the text over. Sci-Fi.

I don't get your argument. What's the actual scientific basis here? Like, how does a starship even fly? Enterprise I can't work with just "na." You didn't give me any text to rewrite. Send over what you need fixed and I'll get on it. Warp 9 9?

It’s just a premise. Theoretically, traveling at light speed is possible. Theoretically. How or under what conditions? Doesn't matter right now. It's just theory.

It doesn't matter if you actually know something is going to happen in the future. What matters is what the movie actually shows you through its visuals and its story. I already asked you—how would you even tell? Mad Max Sci-Fi film, you mean if there wasn't that one sentence at the start?

Already told you. Tech progress is tied to the hard sciences.

And social development falls under social sciences. Hard science, social science... basically just Science S in Sci-Fi. Unless the genre is called TZF or some hard science fiction thing? Haven't seen anyone call it that. 🤷

Why would every movie need its own specific genre? I’m not saying that. Movies need clear sorting, not jamming two totally unrelated films into the same box.

If that's how you want to look at it, sure. Those two movies are in the same box because they share a genre (and there aren't infinite genres). Doesn't mean anyone's actually out here comparing them side-by-side, though. Modern Times and Monty Python and the Holy Grail are worlds apart, but they're both comedies. Go ahead, try proving one isn't a comedy just because they don't match—they still sit in the same category.

Yeah, but why wouldn't I list works based on a specific theme? That's just a fact on its own.

Then why even bring it up when your "distopian" list includes Blue Velvet—which you won't even admit is dystopian? Isn't that connection kind of a self-own if you're claiming facts?

Besides, this whole debate started from your question about whether anyone knows a dystopian film that isn't Sci-Fi. Since you're insisting dystopia is inherently fiction—and specifically Science Fiction—I don't get why you asked in the first place. You posed a question you claim has no answer. Quite the paradox, right?

Mine does.

Anyway, just because a movie isn't Sci-Fi doesn't mean it can't have a dystopian idea. At this rate, you're implying every movie that isn't a biopic or a historical drama is just pure fiction. Pretty soon you'll be trying to convince me every movie is Sci-Fi just to win a point.

Yeah.

I already wrote this. Psychology deals with social behavior—both individual and collective. It's a social science. Simple as that.

Which movies? Psychology. That's it. Just one word. What are we even doing here? Diving into the deep end without a life jacket? Or just staring at the surface trying to figure out why people act the way they do? Hard to say. Does it even count as Science?

We’re talking about the collective psychology of an entire society here—the kind of mindset that actually drives people toward the state of chaos shown in the movie.

What kind of social psychology are we even talking about here?

Look at the state of the planet. Honestly, it’s just a direct result of how society behaves. I’ve already said this before. *

And where exactly is this planetary state supposed to be visible? About what, exactly? You wouldn't know a damn thing if it weren't for that very first sentence.

Here's the thing: we aren't even talking about technology. You’re out here rambling about tech, while I'm actually talking about Science. Science.That's it. That's the whole thing. S In Sci-Fi.

Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with how imagined breakthroughs in tech or science actually hit us. That's the core of it. Science Fiction quote: imagined innovations. Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology.

So, we talk about innovations in Science and technology. But what about innovations in psychology? Where do you actually see those played out on screen?

Social development in the social sciences. Technical science, social science... basically just Science, you know? I can't work with just one letter. What am I supposed to do with that? You want me to guess? Give me something to actually write about. In Sci-Fi. Only if you call the genre TZF or something like that. Hard Science Fiction.Wait, I just noticed—that's not actually what it's called. 🤷

Read what's above.

If you look at it that way, sure. Those two movies belong in the same drawer because they’re the same genre—and let's face it, there aren't an infinite number of them. That doesn't mean you actually have to compare them, though I'm hardly noticing anyone doing that anyway. Modern Times I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. You only typed "i". What's on your mind? Monty Python These two movies have zero business being in the same category, even if they both claim to be comedies. Seriously, go ahead—try to prove one of them isn't a comedy. I'll wait. You can't just toss two completely unrelated films into the same bucket like that.

There's no need to compare them. It's like trying to say they belong in the same genre. They don't.

So why even bother listing them when *Mad Max* is right there in that lineup of dystopian films you just gave me? Blue Velvet Who exactly are you saying doesn't agree it's dystopian? And that link—isn't it basically a fact? Isn't that just one giant argument against your own point?

Haven't checked the list. And no, like I already said, I don't consider that movie dystopian. We can argue about it if you want, sure.

Look, just because a movie isn't Sci-Fi doesn't mean it can't have a dystopian concept. What are you even doing? You're basically opening up this theory where every single film—unless it's a biopic or some historical drama—is somehow "fiction." At this rate, you'll be trying to convince me that every movie ever made is Sci-Fi just to prove a point. Real smart.

So you wrote that? That's just your theory. Give me one single dystopian film that doesn't mess around with the future, an alternate past, or some alternate present. Come on.

George Robinson43 said:Here is a fantastic description of what defines the world of Mad Max

Apocalyptic fiction

Apocalyptic fiction is a sub-genre of science fiction centered on the collapse of society due to nuclear war, pandemics, or other massive disasters. On the other hand, post-apocalyptic stories explore life in the aftermath of such devastation. These tales might dive straight into the chaos immediately following the fall, focusing on the grit and psyche of those trying to survive, or they might jump far ahead to a time when the old world has become nothing more than a legend or a myth. Often, these post-apocalyptic stories depict an agrarian, low-tech future or a wasteland littered with the decaying remnants of lost technology. It’s also quite common to see a significant overlap between this style of science fiction and narratives exploring false utopias or dystopian societies.

.

Yeah, like I already said—you could just lump all those movies into their own specific genre. Not Sci-Fi.

George Robinson43 said:I don't doubt that at all!
Your claim that Science is the sole defining pillar of the Sci-Fi genre suggests you aren't actually familiar with the field.
It's clear why classic dystopian works like "Fahrenheit 451," "The Postman," or "A Boy and His Dog" are completely foreign to you.
Just so you know, the Locus Award isn't some niche magazine prize; it's one of the three major annual Sci-Fi honors. The Postman, which shares a lot of DNA with Mad Max, was even a Hugo Award finalist—an honor presented at Worldcon (the premier Sci-Fi Convention)—and it also landed a spot as a Nebula Award finalist, which is awarded by the Sci-Fi Writers Guild.

Not necessarily, but it has to include that Science factor, which half the Sci-Fi films people endure totally lack.

Maybe Sci-Fi from the interwar period?
Since then, the genre has evolved beautifully; now we have entire dystopian series like Kim Stanley Robinson's "Three Californias" trilogy, which explores three different versions of California in the near future. In the first ("The Wild Shore"), we see California after a nuclear war; the second ("The Gold Coast") depicts a high-tech California; and the third ("Pacific Edge") shows a California that has become a sort of ecological oasis.
Back in his era during the eighties, he wrote a whole string of Sci-Fi dystopian novels where science isn't mentioned once—instead, they focus entirely on the struggles of individuals or society facing altered living conditions in the near future, whether in a post-apocalyptic wasteland or a world that seems perfect on the surface.

Not necessarily, but it has to include that Science factor, which half the Sci-Fi films people endure totally lack.

You presented your thesis the way a five-year-old who hasn't read a single Sci-Fi novel would explain it.
It all boils down to this: if there's no "Science," there's no Sci-Fi.
And yet, you still have the nerve to accuse someone else of being unargumentative and nonsensical. ☕

I don't know why you're using that as an argument when that's exactly my point—that Wikipedia isn't the gold standard—so I simply used the quote you originally cited.

You were the one turning this into a Wikipedia article by claiming Mad Max is a "dystopian movie." I was merely reflecting your own logic back to you by linking the source you used to classify it as Sci-Fi. Apparently, Wikipedia wasn't enough for you, because now you're pulling up some random wiki list of utopian and dystopian films.

Basically, let me clarify my take on this. There’s a massive spectrum of books, movies, and comics set within utopian or dystopian societies, usually following a post-apocalyptic scenario. To me, it feels absurd to lump everything under the umbrella of Sci-Fi; that term is just too broad to be useful. It leads to ridiculous situations where something like Mad Max ends up in the same category as Star Trek—does anyone actually think that makes sense?

Look, your perspective makes it crystal clear that you don't have a clue about Sci-Fi, yet you’re out here trying to lecture everyone else and making these sweeping, absolute claims about a genre you clearly don't understand.
And yes, Sci-Fi is a broad term. But this entire medium—literature, film, comic art—has evolved so far beyond its primitive "science" roots that only someone completely clueless would use something like Star Trek as their primary argument when defining the genre.
If you weren't so uninformed about Sci-Fi, you might realize that the genre contains a vast array of distinct subgenres (Hard Sci-Fi, Space Opera, Pavane, Dystopia-Utopia, Cyberpunk, Steampunk...) which makes any kind of absolute generalization like yours complete nonsense.

Regarding your point about whether a Bergman drama could be set in a 2014 Sci-Fi setting...
If that drama depicts the collapse of human civilization and the struggle for individual survival under altered living conditions—then yes, it would be a Sci-Fi film.

Honestly, come on. We have someone who hasn't even read The Postman trying to debate the nuances of Sci-Fi.
Too much.

Go debate something else. You'd probably have more luck with politics.

Sure, Science might be part of the genre's DNA, but it isn't everything. So now I'm the one who doesn't know anything?

That’s why this entire string of dystopian classics like "Fahrenheit 451", "The Postman", or "A Boy and His Dog" is completely unknown to you.

Just because I haven't watched The Postman doesn't mean I haven't read those other two. Why the ad hominem attacks?

By the way, just so you know, the Locus Award isn't some random magazine prize; it's one of the three biggest annual Sci-Fi awards out there. "The Postman," which is very similar to Mad Max, was even a Hugo Award finalist—that's the award given out at Worldcon (the biggest Sci-Fi Convention)—and it was also a Nebula Award finalist, which is presented by the Sci-Fi Writers Guild.

I said it was a magazine award, not "some random magazine." If you're smart enough, you'll see the difference. This whole dramatic act of yours is exactly that. And what kind of argument is that? Even the Oscar and the Grammy didn't start as genre-specific awards before they were added. So?

Maybe in Sci-Fi between the world wars.
Meanwhile, the genre evolved, so now you've got dystopian novels within the genre like Kim Stanley Robinson's "Three Californias" trilogy, which depicts three versions of California in the near future. In the first ("The Wild Shore"), it's a California ravaged by nuclear war; in the second ("The Gold Coast"), it's a high-tech version of California; and in the third ("Pacific Edge"), it's a California that has become a sort of ecological oasis.
Back in his time (the eighties), a whole series of Sci-Fi dystopian novels was written where not a single word mentions Science; instead, they focus entirely on the struggles of individuals or society facing altered living conditions in the near future, whether it's a post-apocalyptic world or a world where everything is perfect.

And? Are those Sci-Fi or just dystopian movies in the end?

You presented your thesis the way a five-year-old who has never read a Sci-Fi novel would explain it.
It all boils down to this: if there's no "Science," there's no Sci-Fi.
And then you have the nerve to accuse someone of being ungrounded and nonsensical. ☕

No, you’re just fixating on the word "Science." I’ve already made my point clear enough.

You were the one who posted that Wikipedia entry claiming Mad Max is just a "dystopian movie." I was simply mirroring your own logic by linking the source where it's categorized as Sci-Fi. Apparently, Wikipedia isn't enough for you, so now you're throwing lists of dystopian films at me too.

And you’re the one failing to follow the thread. I dropped that Wikipedia link as a response to Walter Grant5, who had previously used a different Wikipedia page to claim Mad Max is a Sci-Fi film. Try following the context instead of acting like a know-it-all.

Look, your take on this makes it crystal clear: you don't have a clue about Sci-Fi, yet you think you can lecture everyone else and drop these "ultimate truths" about a genre you clearly don't understand.

If you actually wrote something concrete instead of just attacking my quote, we might have an actual argument. Right now, this is just trolling.

And yeah, Sci-Fi is a broad term. This whole spectrum—literature, film, comics—has evolved so far beyond those primitive "science" roots that only someone totally clueless would use something like Star Trek as their primary benchmark for the entire genre.

That’s exactly why it needs clear definitions. Besides, dystopia as a theme has been around for over a century. Still going with the ad hominem attacks, are we?

If you weren't such a complete novice when it comes to Sci-Fi, you'd realize there are so many distinct subgenres—Hard Sci-Fi, Space Opera, Alternate History, Dystopia-Utopia, Cyberpunk, Steampunk...—that making an absolute statement like yours is pure nonsense.

Brilliant. Good to know. Honestly, two seconds on Google would have told me everything you just "discovered." But what does that have to do with anything, other than your insults and ad hominem tactics?

Regarding your claim about whether that Bergman drama is set in a 2014 Sci-Fi setting...
If that drama depicts the collapse of civilization and the struggle for survival under altered living conditions—then it's a Sci-Fi film.

Clearly not. Some people claim it's Sci-Fi just because it's set in 2014.

I mean, come on. We're discussing Sci-Fi with someone who hasn't even read The Postman.
Too much.

Whoa, didn't realize we were dealing with this much snobbery here. My bad. I’ll just go ahead and scatter some ashes since I'm clearly not a "big enough" person who's actually read that literary masterpiece. Can I, with your permission, continue participating on this subforum at least?
Because, if memory serves, this is the Film forum, not the Literature one.

Go argue about Middle Eastern politics instead. You'd be better at it.

Is this another ad hominem attack? Wow. Unbelievable. That nickname really suits you, troll.

Alright, since you're such a genius expert on Sci-Fi, why don't you point out the Sci-Fi elements in the movie Mad Max, excluding that very first sentence at the start?
Actually, you probably won't answer that. Because you don't know. ☕

Walter Grant5 said:Not aimed at me directly, but I’m on the same page. It’s basically just a Sci-Fi drama.

Alright. Where’s the actual science in all this? Where’s the "Science" in the Sci-Fi?

Where’s the science? Right here. It’s right there alongside any guess we make about what’s coming next. "Science" is such a massive, messy concept, though. It's all over the place. And then you've got those future projections... Mad Max It’s rooted in some actual science. How did we even get to that wasteland mess in Mad Max? Maybe it boils down to human behavior—stuff you'd study in psychology, which is just a branch of social science. And honestly, isn't the whole biological collapse in that movie basically a giant experiment in science?

It’s just basic science fiction. Sure, people usually point to flashy tech—stuff you see in most Sci-Fi films—to define the genre, but that’s not the whole story. You don't need gadgets flying around to call something Sci-Fi. Science isn't just about building better hardware; it's about the actual disciplines themselves. Like I said before, it's a broad concept. Don't get hung up on the shiny stuff.

Whatever, I was just giving you an example.

Fine, we all agreed—internet hype isn't everything.

I was thinking about that drama shot back in 2010 where the whole thing takes place in 2014.

My bad. My mistake.

I wasn't even tripping over the typo. I was asking you seriously—I genuinely thought it was some weird transliteration of a foreign word, not just "separation."

No worries.

Whatever the author wants. Doesn't mean it's automatically Sci-Fi.

Yeah, so it’s basically Sci-Fi by default because it’s set in some hypothetical future involving human evolution—and then some, but whatever, let's not get sidetracked. That's what science does. The "fiction" part is just that it's imagined, but the "science" part is that you can actually back it up with logic. If you can't justify it scientifically, then it wouldn't even qualify. Fantasy. Always with the magic and the dragons. Honestly, I’m over it. Give me some gritty, grounded stuff instead. Realism is overrated anyway, but at least you don't have to deal with wizards solving every problem with a wand. Just my two cents..

So, what exactly makes the movie different? Give me the specifics. Mad MaxSo, you're asking about 1979? When exactly was it filmed? Walk me through that logic. What’s the actual difference between 2009 and 2010 here? Technically, you could’ve shot a movie in 2009 that takes place in 2010. It's not rocket science.

Look, there's a difference. Over that year, there was actual development—minimal, sure, maybe even easy to miss if you aren't looking, but it happened. It’s undeniable. Besides, I already laid out the whole argument in my previous posts.

Not necessarily, but it should probably have that one too. SScience. There’s one thing half the Sci-Fi movies you guys suffer through are missing.

Look, I already told you, there is. And honestly? You seem to think science is nothing more than just tech development. That’s a pretty narrow way to look at it.

Look, let me lay out how I see this. You’ve got this endless stream of books, movies, and comics all centered around these utopian or dystopian societies—usually some kind of post-apocalyptic mess. Honestly, it feels pretty ridiculous to just dump everything under the "Sci-Fi" label. To me, that term is way too broad. It doesn't actually define the genre well enough, which is why you end up with... Mad Max In the same boat as... Star Trek If you think that's fine, then fine by me. Whatever.

Yeah, that's fair. Mad Max I think you missed the prompt there. What's on your mind? Star Trek Same genre. Just like... Se7en i Rear Window Thrillers. Modern Times I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. You only typed "i". What's on your mind? Monty Python and the Holy Grail Comedies and whatever else. Shrinking a genre down to nothing just creates this fake-ass problem where you claim two different movies don't belong together. If we actually followed that logic, every single movie would just be its own damn genre.

There’s enough work in this genre to stand entirely on its own, separate from Sci-Fi. Seriously, just look at these two links and tell me I'm wrong:

Just scrolled through the Wikipedia page on Utopian fiction. It’s a deep rabbit hole. Basically, it covers those stories where everything is perfect—or more often than not, where everything goes horribly wrong because "perfection" is a lie. It’s funny how much we obsess over these ideal worlds. Most of them feel like fever dreams once you actually sit down and think about how people behave in real life. You can't just legislate away human nature. I remember reading one of those old classics back in college, thinking it was some profound blueprint for a better society, only to realize halfway through that it was basically a horror story disguised as a dream. Anyway, if you're into seeing how writers try (and usually fail) to build a paradise, it's worth a look. Just don't expect any actual solutions to the mess we live in.

Check out this list of dystopian movies on Wikipedia. It’s a decent deep dive if you're looking for something bleak to watch.

Didn't we just argue that internet links don't even count as proof?

Nah, quite the opposite. If you think it’s possible, go ahead—prove it. You can't prove things are going to play out exactly like that 100% of the time. That's why it's called fiction.

Besides the fact that it’s set in the future, what else counts as Sci-Fi elements?

Where’s the Science? Right here. It’s right here, sitting pretty alongside all those wild theories about the future. Look, "Science" is a massive, sprawling concept. It's huge. You can't just pin it down easily. What if we actually look at how the future is being framed? Mad Max It’s based on some branches of Science.

Can you explain this bolded sentence to me?

How did we even get to the state of Earth in Mad Max? Maybe it’s just basic human behavior—the kind of stuff you study in psychology, or whatever branch of social science covers why people turn into monsters?

You can squeeze any human action into psychology if you try hard enough. Doesn't mean it suddenly becomes Sci-Fi.

Wasn't the whole biological state of that world in the movie meant to emphasize Science?

Biological world? Please. I don't see any emphasis on Science in this movie at all. Mad Max Still waiting on it. The cars from that era? Older. The bikes? Same thing—vintage. Everything looks exactly like it did back in 1979. And the movie doesn't even bother telling you that at the start.A few years from now... what? We just sitting here waiting? Or actually doing something?So, what exactly makes it a Sci-Fi film in your eyes? Please, walk me through your logic here.

It’s just Science Fiction. Sure, you see advanced tech—the stuff actual branches of science study—most easily in Sci-Fi films, but does a movie actually need that gear to qualify as Sci-Fi? Not necessarily. Science isn't just about gadgets and new tech; it's about entire fields of study. Like I said before: it's a broad concept.

When we talk technology, we’re talking hard Science. Not social studies. Period.

So, yeah, it’s definitely Sci-Fi. Why? Because it’s set in some hypothetical future based on human evolution—though we could go deeper than that, but let's not get sidetracked. That’s what Science is for. It’s fiction because it's imagined, sure, but it's "Science" because you can actually back it up with logic and justify it. If you couldn't explain it scientifically? Then it wouldn't be. Fantasy? Really? Just one word? You trying to start a conversation or just testing if the keyboard works? Give me something to work with here. What about it? Is it the magic systems? The dragons? Or are we talking about why every single book lately feels like a carbon copy of the last ten hits on the New York Times bestseller list? Pick a lane..

I don't get this argument of yours. What's the actual scientific basis here? How does a spaceship even fly? Enterprise na Warp 9. 9?

Look, the difference is that within that single year, some level of development happens—minimal, maybe even subtle, but it’s there and you can't deny it. Besides, I already laid out my reasoning in my previous posts.

It doesn't matter if you happen to know something is going to happen in the future. What matters is what the movie actually shows through its visuals and narrative. I already asked you: how would you even know Mad Max was a Sci-Fi film if it didn't have that opening line?

I already told you, it does. And another thing—you seem to think Science is strictly limited to technological advancement.

Like I said before. Technological progress is tied directly to technical sciences.

Sure, fine, Mad Max and Star Trek belong to the same genre. Just like Se7en and Rear Window are thrillers, or Modern Times and Monty Python and the Holy Grail are comedies. Reducing a genre to its bare minimum is exactly what creates this (totally non-existent) problem where two totally different movies can't be grouped together. If we followed your logic, every single movie would be its own unique genre.

Why would every movie need its own genre? No, that's not what I'm saying. Movies need clear categorization, not shoving two completely unrelated films into the same box.

Didn't we just finish arguing about whether internet links count as proof?

We did, but why shouldn't I provide a list of works that deal with a specific theme? That's just a fact in itself.

Besides, this whole debate started because of your question asking if anyone knows a dystopian film that isn't Sci-Fi. Since you're insisting that dystopia is inherently fiction—specifically Science Fiction—why even ask the question in the first place? You basically asked a question while claiming there's no answer. Talk about a paradox, huh?

mistyotter35 said:Well, I guess it comes down to the author's intent. That doesn't necessarily mean it automatically qualifies as Sci-Fi.

Actually, whether it was their intention or not, by placing the narrative in the future, it automatically becomes a Sci-Fi film.
So, an Ingmar Bergman style drama set in 2014 is suddenly Sci-Fi? The whole thing takes place in one room, and besides one single line of dialogue where the lead mentions the year, you don't see any actual futuristic influence.

Now you tell me—what exactly are the Sci-Fi elements here? And please, explain the "Sci" part of that acronym to me.

Jerry Martinez50 said:@rustywalker42
I see where you're coming from, I really do. But tell me, have you actually sat down and watched Letters of a Dead Man? Does that even count as sci-fi in your book?

Haven't seen the movie, so I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole. Can't really comment on it. Just read the end of my message if you want the reasoning.

Roger Allen3 said:It’s both! Honestly, do you think I’m a moderator or a human being? 🙂

Are you actually trolling right now, or what?

Jerry Martinez50 said:

What kind of reaction do you think someone would have after watching this movie?

And what do you think their reaction would be if I told them it's actually a dystopian film?😁

In principle, yes. It’s built on advanced technology—stuff we just don't have today.

Not necessarily.
Science fiction is all about exploring how scientific and technological leaps impact society and individuals. It predicts where humanity is headed or even imagines entirely new phenomena and tech. Plus, sci-fi sometimes dives into alternative history—those "what if" scenarios.
Analogy:
Mad Max examines the impact of scientific and technological progress on people and society.

Then again, genre debates are an old story. It's never easy to pin down exactly what belongs where, whether we're talking about books, movies, music... basically any form of art.

Look, if someone’s actually got half a brain, they’d get it. It's not that complicated. 🙂

Not necessary.
Science fiction isn't just about gadgets. It’s about how all that scientific progress actually hits society and the individual. How does tech change us? Where is humanity even heading? Sometimes it's about imagining entirely new phenomena or technologies out of thin air. And then there's the "what if" factor—diving into alternative history to see how the world might have turned out differently.
An analogy:
Mad Max? It’s basically just a deep dive into how scientific progress and tech advances absolutely wreck society and the people living in it.

This isn't clearly defined anywhere. Seriously?

Nicole Bailey6 said:Mad Max is a sci-fi film—it doesn't matter how you look at it, since the setting is fundamentally set in the future.

Whether people are pointing fingers at digital screens or scavenging for fuel in some desolate wasteland, we're talking about the future in both scenarios—more or less plausible or not, it’s irrelevant.

Personally, I’d much rather be part of some gritty outlaw gang rocking a mohawk than sitting behind a computer terminal "hacking" away, but hey, what can you do? Predictions vary.

😕

Merry Christmas 🙂

Yeah? And? I already asked—so what, a drama filmed in 2010 that takes place in 2014 is suddenly Sci-Fi?

Sad, is everyone just staring at their screens, or are we out there scavenging for gas in the middle of nowhere? Either way, we're talking about the future. Whether it’s actually going to happen or not? Doesn't matter.

So, does just because it's set in the future, it automatically counts as Sci-Fi?

Patrick Taylor9 said:Mad Max
R 88 min - Action | Adventure | Sci-Fi

Since when did IMDb become some kind of gold standard?

nimblemarlin6 said:Mad Max is a Sci-Fi film.

Is "The Road" a Sci-Fi film? Yeah, definitely.

So, you want me to explain what makes a movie Sci-Fi? Fine. Let's get into it.

Walter Grant5 said:Maybe the whole foundation is just fiction.

And then there's the English saying:

Mad Max is a 1979 Mad Max. Mad Max Mad Max

Check out this page on Mad Max. It’s basically the blueprint for everything we love about the genre. Just a quick look at how that whole wasteland vibe started.

So, what's next on the agenda?

Alright. Maybe I messed up. The internet isn't exactly proof.

Answer my question. Is that 2014 drama considered Sci-Fi?

Yeah. 2014 hadn't even happened yet, let alone from the perspective of the late 70s when they actually shot the thing. It’s just pure guesswork about the future—total fiction.

I'm not trolling. If you're aiming that at me, I'm just standing my ground on what I believe. If that counts as trolling, then I'm out. Done with this thread.

Hell no. I was talking about the woman who posted that, not some guy who didn't even write it.

"Separation"? I can't recall a single dystopian element in it. Blue Velvet.

Look, quit nitpicking over commas and tiny details. It's obvious what I meant. I was clearly talking about a separation. Typo.Look, you don't have to get all worked up about it, but hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Like I said, I've noticed people bringing it up in that context lately, and honestly, it’s worth a debate. If you want to drop a third rebuttal, be my guest. Knock yourself out.

Alright. Where’s the actual science in this whole thing? Where’s the "Science" in Science fiction?

Alright. Maybe I screwed up. The internet isn't exactly proof.

Whatever. I was just giving you an example.

Yeah. 2014 hadn't even happened yet—certainly not from the perspective of the late 70s when they actually filmed this. So what? It's just a total guess at the future. Pure fiction.

I was talking about that drama filmed back in 2010 where the story takes place in 2014.

Hell no. I was talking about the woman who actually wrote it. Definitely not some guy who didn't write it.

My bad. My mistake.

Look, quit nitpicking over commas and tiny details. It's obvious what I meant to write. Everyone knows I was going for "separation," so clearly we're talking about... Typo.Look, you don't have to obsess over it, but hey, if it makes you happy—be my guest. Like I said, I noticed people bringing it up in that context, and I figured it was worth a debate. If you really want to write a third rebuttal, go for it. Knock yourself out!

I wasn't nitpicking your typos. I was actually asking you seriously—I honestly thought that was some weird transliteration of a foreign word, not just "separation."

mistyotter35 said:So, what is the actual point of setting that story in the future, if not to present it as Sci-Fi? I suppose, then, it would technically fall under the Sci-Fi genre, simply because it takes place in the future, which is inherently fictional...

Well, if that's what the author wants. Doesn't mean it automatically becomes Sci-Fi, though.

Walter Grant5 said:Totally. Why even label that story as "the future"? And honestly, if we're talking about a future setting, it would look nothing like what we have now. That’s exactly how different the future looks in Mad Max compared to when it was first conceived—most people miss that because they're looking at tools and tech that haven't changed much since the day it was written. It's not some high-tech utopia.

Take Children of Men, for example. There’s basically zero advanced technology in there, yet it’s still a Sci-Fi film.

So, what exactly makes the movie different? Give me the specifics. Mad Max.Wait, since when was that filmed? 1979? Give me a break. Elaborate on that logic for a second. What’s actually the difference between 2009 and 2010? You could have easily shot a movie in 2009 that takes place in 2010. Makes sense, right?

Let's say. Children of MenLook, there's practically zero advanced tech in it, but hey, it's still a Sci-Fi film.

Not me. Just read the end of the message for the reasoning.

George Robinson43 said:🤦

It’s like saying Ellison’s "The Postman" has zero connection to Sci-Fi, even though he won a Locus for Best Sci-Fi book back in 1984!
Mad Max is a textbook example of the post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi genre. It’s much like Ellison's "A Boy and His Dog".

Your comment really highlights how narrow your definition of Sci-Fi is.
It seems if there aren't any robots, aliens, or space battles, you don't count it as Sci-Fi.

Oh, right... so this is your version of Sci-Fi:
It has to be built on advanced technology that we don't currently possess. 🤣 😂

In that case, how do we categorize "The Man in the High Castle"?

Even Wikipedia agrees.

List of science fiction films: 1970 to 1979 Mad Max

1979 Mad Max—listed right alongside Alien or Star Trek.

So, what's your move now?

Haven't read it. The PostmanHaven't even seen the movie, so I'm not touching that. But just because some magazine doesn't bother separating genres in their awards? Doesn't mean much. Does it?

That sentence right there? It just proves how narrow your view of Sci-Fi actually is.
Seems like if there aren't any robots, aliens, or space operas involved, the genre just doesn't exist. Is that really the rule now?

Not strictly necessary, though it could probably use that one too. SScience. A factor that half the Sci-Fi movies you people suffer through just don't have.

Oh right... so this is your idea of Sci-Fi?
It’s built on advanced tech we just don't have access to yet. Simple as that. 🤣 😂

Yeah. So what? I laid out my thesis and backed it up, yet you're just responding in line with your ridiculous username—completely senseless and totally unargued.

So, what are we supposed to do with The Man in the High Castle, for instance?

Where does she fit in? Mad Max.Read the end of the message for the explanation.

Wikipedia says this too.

List of science fiction films: 1970 to 1979 Mad Max

1979 Mad Max—should it be paired with Alien or Star Trek?

So, what now?

Why are you even throwing that at me? That’s exactly my point. I’m already saying Wikipedia isn't some holy grail of truth. I literally used the exact quote you just tried to use against me. Make it make sense.

Look, let me clarify how I see this whole thing. There’s this massive pile of books, movies, and comics all set in these utopian or dystopian societies—usually some kind of post-apocalyptic mess. Honestly? It feels ridiculous to just lump everything under the "Sci-Fi" label. That term is way too broad. It doesn't actually define the genre well enough, which is exactly why one... Mad Max. In the same boat as... Star Trek. So, you think that’s okay? Really? That's your take on it?
There’s enough work in this genre to justify calling it something entirely separate from Sci-Fi. Seriously, just look at these two links and tell me I'm wrong:

Ever heard of Utopian fiction? If you haven't, you're missing out. It’s basically the study of those "perfect world" scenarios that authors love to dream up. Or, more often than not, the setups for everything to go horribly wrong. Think about it—is a perfect society even possible, or is it just a fantasy we tell ourselves to feel better? There's a whole lot of literature dedicated to exploring this, ranging from idealistic visions to dark warnings about what happens when someone tries to build paradise from scratch. Worth a look if you're into deep dives.

Check out this list of dystopian films. Ever wonder why we’re so obsessed with watching the world end on screen? It's a weirdly popular genre. Which one of these actually holds up for you?

Jerry Martinez50 said:Mad Max is definitely a sci-fi film.

No, it isn't. Would you actually call that movie sci-fi if you were talking to someone who’s never even seen it? And if you did, what kind of reaction do you think they'd have once the credits actually roll?

Walter Grant5 said:There’s no "my logic" here. Mad Max is set in the future—that alone makes it sci-fi. What do you even think defines the genre? Just high-tech crap and spaceships?

But whatever, if you don't trust me, just check the web. I'm not saying Wikipedia is gospel, but it definitely shuts down that "according to your logic" line. No, this isn't my personal rulebook. A future setting is science fiction. 2014? If it were 2114, filled with wasteland scavengers, truckers, and bikers, I guess you'd claim that isn't sci-fi either. Just some drama set in 2114.

I brought up Blue Velvet because it's a dystopian film. I mentioned it because there might be something worth debating there. But clearly, nothing here is worth discussing except trolling another user with random interjections like "oh, and I noticed they mentioned Christ was Buddhist 🙂"...

Who knows why? Maybe there's a critique of social segregation or how the underworld develops. I'm just not sure if it's actually predictive. Or maybe it's already happening right now.

Look, I read on Wikipedia that the movie is classified as dystopian. I'm not saying it's a fact just because it's on Wikipedia, just that it's an interesting point to hash out.

In principle? Yeah. It’s all built on high-end tech we just don't have access to yet.

Look, if you don't want to take my word for it, fine. Believe whatever you want. Online? Seriously?I'm not saying that... Wikipedia. Some ultimate proof that actually shuts down that "according to your logic" argument? No. That’s not how my logic works.

And the Americans say:

Mad Max is an American cult classic from 1979. Dystopian action films? Really? Who even watches these anymore? Mad Max was directed by George Miller and written by Miller and Byron Kennedy.

Mad Max. That's the one. Pure adrenaline on celluloid. You ever seen anything like it? Just raw, unbridled chaos. It’s basically a high-octane fever dream set in an American wasteland. Total madness.

So, what now?

So, here's the thing about predicting the future... Sci-fi.2014? Please. If this were actually 2114, we’d be looking at nothing but wasteland scavengers, desert truckers, and... what else? Bikers? Really?So, you'd probably tell me it isn't even SF either? Please. It’s a drama set in 2114.

Answer me this. Was that drama filmed in 2014 in SF?

Matthew Anderson4 Quote: Blue Velvet I mentioned it because of that dystopian movie. Thought it might be worth a debate to see if the comparison actually holds water. But apparently, there’s nothing worth discussing here besides... Trolled. Another forum user sliding in with comments like...Wait, did I just catch that? Someone actually mentioned Christ was a Buddhist? Seriously? 🙂''...

I’m not trolling. If you think I am, that’s on you. I'm just defending my position. And if standing my ground counts as trolling? Then fine. I'm done with this thread.

Who knows? Maybe there's some commentary on social segregation or the rise of an underworld happening there. I just can't tell if it's a prediction or if we're already living in it.

"Segregation"? I don't recall a single dystopian element in Blue Velvet.

Roger Allen3 said:Would you call Out of the Past a movie or a noir? If you label it as a noir, does that mean it isn't a movie?

I honestly think it’s not quite sci-fi, but more like a subgenre of sci-fi. 😕 And bold that too. For goodness' sake!

And you, being a moderator, just love a good troll, don't you? Seriously, which part of my quote was confusing? In your eyes, is Out of the Past a crime thriller or a noir film?

I mean, it's not sci-fi, it's a subgenre of sci-fi 😕 and they even bolded it. For crying out loud.

I didn't say it was a sci-fi subgenre; you did. I said Mad Max isn't sci-fi and I'm sticking to that.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Just kill me now.

🙄

Roger Allen3 said:Wait, aren't post-apocalyptic films considered a subgenre of sci-fi? ☕

I... Noir. Just noir. It’s a crime subgenre, so what exactly are you trying to say? Out of the Past Is it a crime thriller or what? Noir? Really? Just one word? You trying to be deep or just lazy? So, we're talking about this film? Really?

Walter Grant5 said:rustywalker42, my bad. I messed up. Mad Max It’s pure SF. I mean, the setting being in the future is basically the genre's DNA, isn't it? But you brought it up in the context of a dystopian film—which is exactly what it is. That's a solid point.

What kind of sci-fi elements are actually in there? Mad Max So, according to your logic, a drama set in 2014 is somehow sci-fi?

So, Beaver mentioned a movie that’s dystopian but isn't actually sci-fi (haven't seen it, by the way). I noticed people online bringing up... Quote: Blue Velvet Feels like a dystopian flick. Definitely not SF.

Quote: Blue Velvet Dystopian? In what way?

Matthew Anderson4 said:Can't really recall much about Mad Max since it's been like 6 years since I last saw it (I know, 🤦), but I wouldn't say it isn't SF 🤷

How does someone on a film forum not remember Mad Max? 🤔

It's a cult classic. Seriously, it's like saying you don't remember Taxi Driver.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, Mad Max is straight-up sci-fi.

What do I know, maybe Princess Mononoke fits? It’s not really sci-fi, just feels kinda dystopian. 🤷

🤦

Give me a break. What "SF elements" are we even talking about here? Mad Max has absolutely nothing to do with SF.

Walter Grant5 said:By the way, can you even have a dystopian movie that isn't Sci-Fi? I'm drawing a total blank here.

Has nobody thought of the absolute classic Mad Max?

Gregory Howard said:The rule is strictly "short story."
And that isn't because I'm trying to act superior or pretend I know things others don't. It's simply to point out that:

1) correcting other people's spelling is never appropriate.
2) grammar rules are riddled with flaws. Beyond what's already been mentioned, you have nonsense abbreviations like "dictionary" when any sane person knows we should just use the full word—just like how anyone would use "messenger" instead of some truncated version. It’s ridiculous. We shouldn't be inventing bizarre, fake rules about vowel length and contraction that have no basis in reality.

If you want to label someone a linguistic nationalist, people—at least in public discourse—judge you based on your actual record. ☕

Fine. So what's the issue?

1) It isn't right to correct other people's grammar/spelling.

Of course it is, especially if people are accusing you of pushing some outdated hybrid dialect. What's the big deal? I won't hold it against someone for correcting me either—actually, I'd be grateful. My goal is to be literate, not illiterate.

2) Grammar rules have plenty of flaws—besides the stuff mentioned, there's also nonsense like the dictionary, when any sane person knows that if we're just going by "ear," then we should follow how things sound, like using certain spellings over others. Not to mention those bizarre pseudo-laws about vowel length and shortening that make zero sense.

Those aren't "pseudo-laws." I don't even get your logic. American English isn't the only language with inconsistencies. These are just irregularities you have to learn. But wait, why would we even have irregularities in the first place? If we followed that logic, there would never be a standard, because someone would always find something to complain about—just like how many people can't tell the difference between c and ch. Look, over on the Social Science subforum, they're actually suggesting getting rid of the letter j. You agree with that?

If you were some linguistic unifier, people would judge you based on your public statements.☕

They say, "Don't listen to what they say, look at who is saying it." This isn't directed at you; it's for the person who labeled me a defender of that bastardized hybrid language for no reason at all (probably just for their own reasons), much like if I suddenly called you a communist without any basis.
If anyone is against the idea of that bastardized mess, then it's me. If you love that garbage, go talk to Igor Mandić or Snježana Kordić, not me.

Gregory Howard said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_story

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Is that so?

Google pulls up way more hits for "short story," and I’ve actually got books sitting around my house with that exact title. Look, I don't have Smith's dictionary handy right now to double-check, so maybe I messed up—I'm happy to admit it. But I'm definitely doing better than the folks on this forum accusing me of pushing some weird linguistic agenda (?!), though God knows what they're basing that on.

Richard Wilson4 said:Are most of you guys supporting this American linguistic mess just because you're obsessed with spelling errors? 🤷

For crying out loud, where on earth am I supporting that dialect, you genius?!

Gregory Howard said:Besides, that whole convention is nonsense. Why can't we just write "worldwide"? For instance, we used to write "consciously" differently for a long time before the spelling changed. Or look at how certain words are spelled in literature today versus how they should technically be according to the rules. It’s inconsistent. It’s arbitrary.

The spelling is two words, but phonetically? It should be one. Logic dictates otherwise.
The system needs to allow for both phonetic variations. As it stands, the current logic is riddled with inconsistencies. It’s nonsensical.

It’s spelled "short story," not "shorter story." Get it right.

It’s written "two-part," but honestly? It should be "two part." Why make it harder than it needs to be?
We really need an option to choose between the "i" and "ije" spellings. This whole system is full of inconsistencies as it is. Why make it harder than it needs to be?

Don't get all worked up, but maybe if you actually knew your own language, you wouldn't be so sensitive. You're clearly just hearing what you want to hear.