Posts by cosmicgull

You know what I think? We really need to use some actual logic here and split scientific elements from special abilities. Let's start with flight. I might have gone overboard saying Iron Man is pure fantasy, but honestly, it’s a 50/50 split. His tech is definitely grounded in science-based flight principles, even if the suit hits supersonic speeds—which, let's be real, would basically turn a human body into mush without a pressurized cabin (think aircraft). We already know the human body can handle about 834 miles/h or 1.24 Gs, thanks to Felix Baumgartner’s jump from 39,045 meters. Plus, Iron Man works using a modified version of existing tech: the so-called Jetpack , which we saw back in James Bond's era, specifically in the 1965 movie Thunderball starring Sean Connery. So, in this department, we aren't even talking about a Sci-Fi concept, just 😲😁

Then you have the characters (whether humans or aliens) who just... fly. No explanation. I'm looking at you, Superman. The "explanation" we get is nothing more than "higher powers." Sure, give him wings... but no, he just sticks his arm out. That is pure fantasy. It's not enough, and it's not a valid reason to lump him into the Sci-Fi genre just because he's an alien. An alien doesn't automatically make a character Sci-Fi—this is a classic case of a Fantasy alien. Sometimes we overestimate what the universe could actually offer us in reality. At most, it's just imagination. Based on basic physics, Superman wouldn't move any differently on Pluto, where gravity is 0.658 m/s2 and an 80 kg body weighs only 4.55 kg, than any regular guy.

Karen Chavez77 said:I noticed this too and it immediately clicked because I recently watched 🙂 - Chronicles. It wasn't bad, but I was pretty disappointed by the end; they could have fleshed it out much better. As it stands, it's just a teen flick with some fantasy elements.

Yep, that's the movie. Pure fantasy. It sits right next to Superman 😁

feralharbor8 said:Did you mix up Spider-Man and Superman?

Yeah.😁My bad, I typed Spider-Man when I actually meant Superman. 🙂

bluenomad2 said:But the real kicker is calling Edge of Tomorrow fantasy. 🤣

Whatever, Edge of Tomorrow is basically sci-fi half Fantasy anyway. 😉

briskhound2 said:Look, there are robots. Transformers are basically just oversized robots. So, I don't see why they aren't considered sci-fi. They aren't using magic to power up or casting spells at their enemies; everything about them operates within the laws of physics—just highly advanced versions of it.

briskhound2. The robots shown in the movie have souls just like humans do. Those laws of physics you're talking about are exactly why a machine built entirely out of metal and precious alloys can't just spontaneously develop a soul. deus ex machina.

Just keep making it all about you and dodging the question. Go find someone else to mess with 😉

P.s. No explanation needed? Hahaha 😁

bluenomad2, I’m gonna ask you one more time since you totally ignored my last question: #5

Even within the same franchise, you can see where they trip over their own feet. Take The Avengers versus Avengers: Age of Ultron—it’s like they can't decide if they're making Sci-Fi or pure Fantasy. My point? The Avengers isn't Sci-Fi, period.

Hold up, hold up. So you're telling me Iron Man is Sci-Fi, but the Avengers is Fantasy even though Iron Man is literally right there in the mix? How does that even work?

Hey bluenomad2, what’s actually the difference between Natural Science and Science Fiction? 😁

Got a problem with me holding this view? Look, just keep it civil and don't make this personal.

William Lee64 said:A huge chunk of Sci-Fi or fantasy movies live in this weird gray area. Specifically, comic book flicks love to lean on "scientific" justifications, which makes things like Spider-Man or X-Men feel totally plausible since mutations actually exist in our world. Sure, we haven't seen those exact mutations yet, but that doesn't mean we won't stumble onto something similar one day.

I get that a lot of Sci-Fi and fantasy films sit right on the border between genres, but I’m gonna have to disagree with you there.

Totally plausible? 😁

Take Spider-Man—there’s zero actual explanation for how he defies gravity; the guy just flies. It's honestly kind of ridiculous. What exactly is powering him? Based on everything we see, it's just his willpower. What does that tell us? It tells us enough to put him firmly in the realm of pure fantasy.

And those mutations you're talking about? Those X-Men mutations aren't happening. Here on Earth, we're seeing the exact opposite—mental and physical stagnation. The direction you're hinting at is called evolution, and we aren't quite there yet.

_____________________________

Someone help me out here... what's the name of that newer movie? It's good, actually great. Very "grounded" vibe. A group of friends finds a meteorite and gets superpowers... then one of them loses it and goes evil. I wouldn't call that Sci-Fi; it's straight-up fantasy.

briskhound2 said:I could list a dozen tropes that make those movies work as Sci-Fi. Telepathy, telekinesis, teleportation... that’s just the tip of the iceberg for the X-Men franchise. Just because they aren't cruising through deep space on starships doesn't mean they aren't Sci-Fi any more than Superman is. You've got Batman and Iron Man relying on high-end tech. Every flick has its own hook. But yeah, they lean into Fantasy too. You can't just shove them into one box and call it a day. If we're being pedantic, what even is Frequency? Is it Sci-Fi or a thriller?

Telepathy and telekinesis have zero connection to actual science; those terms belong in the pseudoscience pile. They're basically just baseless nonsense—imaginary stuff cooked up by the human brain. You'll find debates about that kind of mystical junk on some conspiracy blog rather than in a Natural Science journal, whereas teleportation is an actual scientific concept. And why does everyone assume I'm defining Sci-Fi solely as "space stuff"? I haven't claimed that once in any of my posts.

Mark Cruz15 said:Don't judge it based on special effects. There are plenty of movies out there with zero CGI that we still label as Sci-Fi. If the setting is the future, you've already hit the mark. Look at all those post-apocalyptic flicks that don't rely on flashy visuals.
One of the heavy hitters, Stalker, barely uses any effects at all, if I recall correctly.

As for superheroes, Spider-Man got bitten by a spider, Hulk was hit by radiation, Batman uses futuristic gadgets, Superman is an alien, Captain America is basically a walking tech miracle... a lot of them have a Sci-Fi background.
On the flip side, Catwoman is pure fantasy. According to that one bad movie (my only source), she's tied to some ancient Egyptian cat thing. Some kind of old-school magic.

Jessica Morris6 is just going to copy-paste this:

Spider-Man got bitten by a spider
Hulk was hit by radiation
Batman uses futuristic gadgets
Superman is an alien
Captain America is a tech miracle

Catwoman is pure fantasy.

briskhound2 said:Sci-Fi. It’s basically theoretical physics—everything is possible, even if it sounds insane, as long as you play by some set of rules. Take time travel or faster-than-light travel; both are impossible right now, but you can build a logical foundation for them. Fantasy, on the other hand, uses elements that have zero connection to actual science—magic, sorcery, mythology, you name it. Sometimes the lines get blurry, like with Star Wars, but you can't call something like Lord of the Rings Sci-Fi when there isn't a single scientific concept in sight. Then again, you can't call Transformers fantasy because those movies are screaming science and fiction from the rooftops.

Look, artistic freedom is great and all, but I seriously cannot bring myself to call Superman, Batman and Robin, Catwoman, X-Men, or the Avengers "Sci-Fi." There is absolutely nothing scientific about those movies. Trying to lump them into the Sci-Fi genre is just a bad idea.

William Lee64 said:Look, I get it, but what is Interstellar even doing in the opening post alongside movies listed as the absolute peak of the genre?
How can you put Interstellar in the same breath as the greatest movie ever made—maybe even the biggest film in history—the one movie that defines this entire genre and is basically the blueprint every director keeps in mind when they touch Sci-Fi?
In cinema, an Odyssey is sacred. It doesn't deserve to be dragged down by comparisons to a standard blockbuster that just happens to be entertaining and touches on some deep themes.
Pure blasphemy.

Please, spare us the melodrama. Interstellar is Sci-Fi, which means it’s automatically part of the club, and there’s nothing you can do to kick it out of the intro post where it belongs anyway. Even if you think the science is a bit shaky, the movie is still top-tier for the genre. This isn't a debate about whether a movie is "good" or "bad" based on your personal taste; we're talking about an objective breakdown of genres and how they're categorized. Have a nice day.🙂

Noah (2014) Action, Adventure, Drama 🤣

This is the textbook definition of what I’ve been ranting about in this thread. ☕
Just look at the absolute mess of a genre mashup they tried to pull off here. 🤦

Honestly, either some religious lobby pushed this through or the studio execs are just brain-dead,
or maybe it’s a perfect storm of both. 😁

Even if we ignore the fact that the whole biblical premise is pure Fantasy,
the movie itself is basically Fantasy on steroids.

Mark Cruz15 said:I was overthinking things yesterday, trying to figure out what I don't actually consider Sci-Fi—like how people keep shoving movies like "Gravity" into that category.🤔
It's those virus epidemic flicks. They’re set right now, and the only "fantasy" element is some supercharged virus taking down the world. But honestly? That's just reality.

Movie Contagion (2011)
Series The Last of Us

Then there are the natural disaster movies too.
Volcano (1997)

In my book, none of this is Sci-Fi. What do you guys think?

I get where you're coming from. Totally agree. Those movies aren't really Sci-Fi because they're based on stuff that actually happens in the real world.

With a movie like Contagion, you can easily draw a line to the Ebola tragedy in Africa (or any other viral outbreak). For comparison, look at a movie with the exact same theme that isn't even labeled Sci-Fi: Sci-Fi out of control (1995). It just goes to show how inconsistent genre classification can be.

Volcano, personally, doesn't fit the Sci-Fi genre either, mostly because we're talking about natural processes that have existed for 13.8 billion years. They probably slapped the Sci-Fi label on it because it takes place in LA and features a crater in the middle of a city rather than a standard volcano, but that shouldn't count. There are actual lava fields and lava fields near LA, plus Amboy Crater, and let's not forget > isn't exactly a world away either. My point is, volcanoes have underground networks; seeing lava erupting, even in a city center, isn't exactly science fiction. To me, that movie isn't Sci-Fi, though maybe they found one tiny element to justify it. As an example of a non-Sci-Fi movie with similar themes, I'll throw out Dante's Peak (1997).

Mark Cruz15 said:Again, how is Gravity Sci-Fi? It's an action movie.

wiredraven82 said:👍

P.S.: Look, it isn't even Sci-Fi. There isn't a single thing in Gravity that fits the genre. Plus, let's be real—we've become way too soft as a species to even step off our own front porch, let alone head into deep space. So when we see anything set up in orbit, everyone starts screaming "Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi!" like it's some magic label.

Seriously though, if Gravity counts as Sci-Fi, then we might as well call Apollo 13 SF, right? But that doesn't work because that's just History. Is it "maybe" Sci-Fi if you just take a modern setting and include zero invented technology regarding space travel? That's a wild way to look at it.

So here's my proposal: starting today, let's just classify EVERYTHING that isn't a Drama as Sci-Fi. Just imagine the setting happens in space and boom—it's Sci-Fi. 🙂

Let's say we take Se7en but move it to space—there, now we've got Sci-Fi. Let's go, man. Everything is Sci-Fi. Since the whole plot is made up, from now on, everything that isn't a documentary is Sci-Fi. Deal? ☕😁

The bottom line is this: Gravity is a Pure Thriller-Drama (with some action thrown in), without any intention of being a Sci-Fi film. Only people with a certain type of brain wiring would think otherwise.

I didn't really look at the movie that way, and honestly, yeah, it lacks Sci-Fi elements. I'm totally with you on this.

Grace Sanchez50 said:Then 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't even Sci-Fi🤷 according to your logic

Look, do me a favor and quit with the sarcasm before you dig this hole any deeper.

Thanks, guys! 👍 So, basically you're telling me I should skip it if it doesn't have HT?

Karen Chavez77 said:I feel like we’re missing an entire genre here. It’d be a pretty solid fix. 😁 Let’s break things down into Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Fiction. To me, Sci-Fi movies need that heavy scientific or realistic edge—think future tech that actually feels like it could happen. Fantasy is your classic magic setup, those mystical worlds and whatnot. Then you've got Fiction, which sits right in the middle; I'd say most superhero flicks fall into that bucket. Honestly, though, Fiction probably needs its own subcategories to make sense.

Man, I didn't even catch your comment, but honestly? "Stressed out" is probably the most accurate description for anyone on this forum. I love it. I’m totally with you on this one—that’s exactly how my brain works too. There is just one catch, though... fantasy and fiction basically mean the exact same thing.

Time travel is mostly a Sci-Fi trope, but honestly, that depends entirely on the plot and what the movie is actually trying to say. Messing with time shows up in all sorts of genres; it’s usually just a tool rather than the thing that defines the whole category. I’d personally slot Edge of Tomorrow into the Sci-Fi bucket because of two things: (a) you've got aliens with high-tech gear, and (b) there's actual grounded Earth tech involved. That said, Edge of Tomorrow is still light on other Sci-Fi tropes. It might be more accurate to call it an action flick with some Sci-Fi elements sprinkled in. 😁

In Interstellar, information actually travels through time, making the whole thing a total Sci-Fi masterpiece from top to bottom.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban deals with time travel, and honestly, the whole movie is just pure Fantasy.

Totally. The whole time travel thing doesn't even need extra Sci-Fi tropes to work, but the catch with this movie is that we aren't even told it's about time travel. We're completely in the dark. That’s the actual issue. I keep telling that one guy on the forum—if we actually knew he was traveling through time from the jump, he wouldn't even bother bringing up the Fantasy genre, but instead, he's out here acting like it's some mystical, spiritual experience happening day after day. 😁 That whole "reset and repeat" thing feels like straight-up Fantasy to me. Maybe I went a bit overboard calling the entire movie Fantasy, but honestly? I’m sticking to my guns on this one.

Honestly, this whole situation boils down to one thing: it’s all about the deal.

Alright, I'm officially out of the running on this one. How can I tell if it's not HT?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/pc-listings/example-link-123

Hey everyone, is it worth picking one of these up just for browsing and Word? Are they even decent? Which one's the "better" bet?

1. setup: $167 with monitor:

Processor: Intel Pentium 4 HT Dual-Core 3.2 GHz RAM
RAM: 2 GB
Hard Drive: 80.0 GB - Serial ATA
Graphics: Ati Radeon 4550 767MB with HDMI
Optical Drive: DVD±RW (±R DL) / DVD-RAM

2. setup: $167 without monitor:

CPU: Intel Pentium dual core 2.8GHz (2x 2.8GHz)
RAM: 2GB DDR2 (max. 4GB)
Graphics: Intel HD 945 (pci-e slot available)
Hard Drive: WD 160GB SATA 7200rpm
OS: Windows 7 + Original license for XP Pro Optical Drive
Optical Drive: CD-RW / DVD-RW
network card: Broadcom Gigabit ethernet NIC
audio: AC '97

lonehound2 said:cosmicgull
You’re missing the point. In that movie, he dies and just relives the exact same day over and over. Time travel is pure Sci-Fi, not some random fantasy trope. And look, you don't need a spaceship to call something Sci-Fi. There are plenty of examples where it isn't even set in space, yet it's still definitely Sci-Fi:

Divergent (2014)

The Hunger Games

Oblivion (2013)

District 9 / Chappie

Chappie (2015)

Robocop (2014)

I don't even know where to start with this one.

Don't you dare try telling me I don't get it. I didn't start this thread just to be lectured—if you're lost, go back and actually read the intro. Since when did you decide that Sci-Fi only happens in outer space? You honestly think I'm some kind of idiot?

casualcanyon3 said:Look, the problem is you’re taking everything way too literally. You basically dropped a nuclear catastrophe into the middle of Lord of the Rings and then had the nerve to ask, "Wait, is this Sci-Fi now?" Honestly, I don't think it gets more literal than that.

Look, I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse here. The analogy is pretty damn obvious.

Haven't seen it yet, but I'll probably catch it tonight since the reviews look pretty solid. Mostly just want to see what all the hype is about with that violin scene.

Take a look.

So, let me get this straight. You’re looking at a movie that’s basically built out of Sci-Fi DNA—written by one of the most legendary Sci-Fi authors out there—and you're calling it Fantasy or some kind of "quasi-Sci-Fi" just because of one single element? That seems like a massive stretch to me.
You realize that genres can overlap sometimes, right?

You’re just being reductive at this point. You can't just mechanically strip away genres and claim something isn't Sci-Fi just because it happens to have a few non-Sci-Fi elements mixed in.

See? Told you I could. Genres overlap in pretty much every movie anyway. I get it.

If we’re following your literal logic, then Tiger and Dragon are basically just Fantasy since the characters fly around while they fight.

That’s just not how I see it. We aren't even talking about those kinds of movies here.

You’re doing too much for me today. You're seriously killing my vibe.

wiredraven82 said:Man, I’ve officially lost it. This is my breaking point. Seriously, can someone please explain to me what kind of logic makes Gravity 2013 Sci-Fi? Like, please, walk me through it. Who’s gonna be the first one to explain this to me? I'm waiting.

Look, I'll tell you why some people call Gravity 2013 "Sci-Fi." It's for the simplest, dumbest reason: because it takes place in space. That's it. That's the whole argument. Bottom line. Honestly, Impossible Mission deals with way more impossible stuff than Gravity does, but hey, wouldn't want to ruin the fun by pointing out that Impossible Mission isn't set in orbit, right?

So, if it's in space, it's automatically Sci-Fi? Got it. Doesn't matter that the tech used in the movie is straight out of the freaking present day. Doesn't matter that there isn't a single piece of non-existent technology or imaginary gadget in the entire film. It doesn't matter that the story is Set in the present, using current space tech, just happening to take place in space—if it's up there, it's "Sci-Fi," right? Is that how we're playing this?

God, I just want to throw everything out the window when I see this kind of nonsense.

See? This is exactly why I started this thread. You don't get why people call Gravity Sci-Fi either. And honestly, yeah, I'd agree it isn't really sci-fi—unless you count the ending... (yeah, the end is definitely Sci-Fi).😁 At least someone here gets where I'm coming from.🙂

casualcanyon3 said:So, how does a nuclear meltdown actually lead to some kind of evil Sauron figure? magic He slipped the ring on, and now that thing is basically an antenna. Magic? Please. Give me some actual sci-fi any day. He’s just spreading pure evil everywhere, basically acting like a walking apocalypse because of his whole Sauron thing. magical Powers?
You can't just slap a "nuclear catastrophe" right before the plot of LOTR just to force some forced comparison. It’s cheap, and frankly, it makes zero sense.
You know, it might actually make sense to ask: is LOTR really Sci-Fi if Sauron is just some genetically modified entity pumping out a specific type of radiation that the common folk are too clueless to recognize, so they just call it magic?
You didn't really get anywhere with that attempt. It just doesn't hold water once you actually look at the plot of LOTR. 🤷

Nuclear disasters and genetic engineering usually go hand in hand. Don't take me too literally here—I'm just using it as an example.

Look, we aren't even talking about LOTR here. Sauron is a fantasy character, so I'm glad we're finally on the same page.

So, how am I supposed to explain a Sci-Fi hit like Predestination, where the lead travels through time using a violin? Seriously, what’s even the difference between actual magic and a musical instrument in that scenario? Where's the science in any of that?

So, what’s the deal with the ending of Predestination? Are we looking at some contradictory quasi-Sci-Fi, or is it just straight-up Fantasy?

lonehound2 said:In Edge of Tomorrow - Fantasy, the main guy isn't even traveling through time; he’s just stuck reliving the exact same day over and over. You've got aliens, futuristic fighter jets, and all that—that's definitely Sci-Fi, not fantasy. To me, fantasy movies are the ones with dragons, fairies, wizards, and trolls. That's the real deal.

So, how do you even explain surviving the exact same day by just traveling through time? Seriously, this is what I'm talking about. The whole plot is so much pure fantasy that even actual fantasy feels grounded by comparison. There’s zero logical explanation here; it completely ignores the laws of physics and just spits in the face of how the universe actually works.

__________________________

We could also throw in one more ultimate Fantasy masquerading as Sci-Fi: Sci-Fi: Cloud Atlas What's the actual proof that fantasy doesn't have to be all about dragons, elves, wizards, and trolls?

lonehound2 said:Edge of Tomorrow Fantasy? I wouldn't call it that.

I actually would, because they never really explain how those time loops even work (setting the plot aside). It’s the same deal with Predestination; I mean, the guy just uses some violin (or whatever) to travel through time. Seriously? 😁

How is that any different from the Tooth Fairy?

Edit: just so we're clear; it's a great movie.