Posts by George Robinson43

Gips > Joško.

Good grief. This debate just won't quit.
You've got a point there.
I surrender to your undeniable logic and deep expertise on this subject.

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! 😁

Me?
Just like how the Star Wars films fall under the space opera umbrella within Sci-Fi,
Neuromancer serves as a classic example of the cyberpunk sub-genre.
Similarly, Anubis Gates fits perfectly into the steampunk category.
And even The Man in the High Castle can be classified under the dieselpunk label!

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

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.

.

rustywalker42 said:I haven't read The Postman or seen the movie, so I won't comment on that, but just because a magazine doesn't separate genres in its awards doesn't mean much.

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.

rustywalker42 said: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.

🤦

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

🤦

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"?

And the English version said:Mad Max is a Mad Max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max

So, where does that leave us?

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?

Absolutely. 🙂

Henry Cox78 said:And his father's. 🙂

Actually, that's not quite right. A man's true sons don't tear him down on internet forums; instead, they meet him on the street and give him a respectful pat on the shoulder. 😁

Fak put it perfectly—it’s only the "mommy's boys" who spend their time attacking people online.

Henry Cox78 said:Not for any particular reason, just because. We are simply debating for the sake of debate. 😁

Henry Cox78, my dear boy. 🙂

Listen up, boys!
Why on earth are you wasting your breath on these forums? 😂
Seriously, you're all losing sleep over someone like John. Are you guys out of your minds? What could he possibly have done to deserve this much of your precious time?

Roger Ward3 said:George Robinson43, you’re losing it. This is straight-up acute paranoia. 🙄

Well, look at this mess.
Are you seriously suggesting that the tension between Americans and our southern neighbors over the last few years is just a product of my imagination?

Kudos 🙏 🙏

Folks, whatever happened, it simply didn't occur. It was nothing more than a shared delusion in our own minds. 🙂

It’s a simple truth: 99% of the people on this planet are just everyday folks going about their daily grind.
However, we absolutely cannot overlook the immense amount of respect, genuine friendship, and neighborly spirit those same hardworking individuals across the border have consistently shown their neighbors.
That sense of community is the sole reason a figure as insignificant as Fak is even getting any attention at all. If he had gone to a remote corner of sub-Saharan Africa instead, our media wouldn't have wasted more than a single sentence on him.
Given that he traveled to a region where tactics like blockades and extortionist behavior have been served up to us for years—and where nearly half the population still believes bullying is a valid way to treat a neighbor—it really isn't surprising that there is a segment of people who find Fak utterly repulsive.

Look at him trying to play the victim on Facebook. 😂

Let me set the record straight.
The people from our neighboring states have proven themselves to be wonderful neighbors, true friends, and genuinely great people. ☕

Honestly, I don't think anyone would even give Fak a second thought if he had chosen to represent any nation other than Canada. He’s just an insignificant figure in a sport that holds zero interest for us here in the States.
Given how we view our neighbors across the border, all this complaining about Fak is unnecessary. One should simply ignore him, much like one ignores any other Canadian.
If his lifelong ambition was to be Canadian, then more power to him. It’s a shame he didn't renounce his American citizenship when he decided it was better to retire rather than compete for the US. Clearly, the guy is a quitter, but I suppose that's expected—you can't exactly stand out when you're Canadian. 🙂

Please lock this thread.
He’s finally gone, faded into total obscurity.

All we can do is feel for those poor folks in Canada regarding their mounting expenses. 🤮
A neighborly type wouldn't even hand you a glass of water if you were parched, but for heaven's sake, this is about one of their own! It’s almost comical that they balk at spending $100,000, yet suddenly find millions to chase another medal. Honestly, who cares? That's their business. At the end of the day, whether or not some Canadian athlete makes it to the Biathlon World Cup isn't our concern.

Not a single one of these guys ever stepped onto the field for the American National Team. If they had, there would have been zero chance of them playing for teams in Belgium, Austria, or Canada.
Soccer is an incredibly rigid sport. Just look at the whole Cvitanich situation.
Of course, that’s nothing compared to smaller individual sports like biathlon. Honestly, you only have to look at the absolute mockery the Sheikhs from Qatar and the Emirates made of track and field a few years back. Thankfully, that era has passed; otherwise, they would have just bought up every single athlete in existence!

Paul Jones7 said:you simply ignored—or perhaps weren't even aware of—the fact that in sports like this, while you wait out an international break, you can easily stay active with club sports. This allows you to compete, maintain peak physical condition, and even earn a paycheck along the way.

What can you even do in the meantime in biathlon? Just sit around twiddling your thumbs?

Of course. You could just resign from the Federation and go waste your time doing nothing. In almost any individual sport, if you aren't a member of the governing body, you essentially don't exist.
That just goes to show how unnecessary the Federation is; it's nothing more than redundant overhead.
Furthermore, hardly any single sport has a mechanism to penalize defectors if they haven't received clearance from their primary national federation.
Take Lennox Lewis, for example: after the 1984 Olympics, he wanted to box for Great Britain, but he couldn't do so without a hiatus, eventually switching allegiances only once he turned professional.
In club-based sports, you can always fall back on club play, which is precisely why there is zero tolerance for defectors today.
While there might be slightly more leeway in individual sports, the concept of punishing those who switch sides is well-established. If the parent federation doesn't grant permission, you have to sit out.
The exact same logic applies to biathlon.
I see absolutely no reason to give preferential treatment to Canadian athletes. If the Canadians don't want to foot the bill for their own citizen and athlete, then let him take a break.
As I have stated before, using blackmail and stalling is a perfectly legitimate tactic for them to protect their own interests and prevent someone else's progress—and they do this in matters far more significant than biathlon.

What are you all even rambling about?
In any major arena, Jack Fak would typically be forced into a two or three-year hiatus, assuming the Federation granted him a free release and threw him a farewell gala on the way out.
What would he do then? Just whine to the World Federation? Instances where an athlete switches nationality and country in sports like this are punished by a suspension. It’s rare to find a sport that doesn't mandate a mandatory waiting period when two federations reach an agreement. It used to be more lenient in handball, but they tightened those rules too, so suspensions happen there as well. In certain sports, if you've stepped onto the field just once for your home country, switching to represent another nation is practically impossible.
And none of these athletes were handed handouts by their federation. In most cases, we are talking about professionals who earn their own bread.
Every athlete can act as a freelancer, but if they want to compete in anything from national meets to world championships, they have to join the federation. After all, the single national governing body is the only entity that clears them for international competition and medals. That is the entire purpose of these organizations.
Personally, I've complained about membership fees, various registration costs, and having to foot the bill for endless travel myself, but if I hadn't been a member of my sport's federation, I wouldn't have seen a single competition. There were times my parents had to subsidize plane tickets just so I could play for the national team, and even then, without the right connections, I wouldn't have stood a chance. If I had brushed them off, my athletic career would have ended right then and there.
Frankly, it is a disgrace that a sport where you can swap countries as you please is included in the Olympics. It would be wonderful if Jack Fak's situation served as a turning point for this sport, much like how various defections led to much stricter rules regarding the sale of citizenship in other disciplines.
Let Jack head to the cellar, but let him be the very last biathlete to pull a stunt like this overnight.