Posts by William Lee64

cosmicgull said:I agree that many sci-fi and fantasy films sit right on the border between genres, but I have to disagree with you.

Is it totally possible? 😁

Spider-Man—there is zero explanation for how he defies gravity; he just flies. It feels quite unserious. What drives him? Apparently, his willpower. That alone places him firmly in the realm of pure fantasy.

The mutations you mentioned, those X-Men mutations, will never happen. Here on Earth, we experience the exact opposite—mental and physical stagnation. The direction you might be hinting at is called evolution.

When I said "totally possible," I meant it is presented as possible within their universe, not necessarily ours.
Remember the opening lines of X-Men and the first lesson regarding evolution.
Not all mutations are negative. In fact, mutation is how we evolved into our current species.
It stands to reason that we will evolve into a species superior to ourselves, which doesn't necessarily require a Kubrick's or Nietzsche's superman, nor Xavier / Magneto.
Similarly, some future advanced species will undergo its own evolution or mutation and end up being inferior to something else.

So many films defy simple categorization. Usually, about 90% of them end up labeled as dramas.
Take Stanley Kubrick, for instance.
Dr. Strangelove works as a black comedy satire, yet it functions as a disaster film too. 2001 is a philosophical work. Star Wars acts as a humanist anti-war story, though it also plays out like a courtroom drama.
A Clockwork Orange is perhaps the clearest example. It’s a dystopian crime film—which says more about the setting than the genre—but it qualifies as Sci-Fi because of its futuristic look at technology and humanity. It's also a satire due to the irony used alongside political themes. Plus, it's psychological.
Blade Runner is Sci-Fi, but it’s also noir, or rather neo-noir; it practically defined the Sci-Fi Noir genre.

A huge portion of Sci-Fi or Fantasy movies exist in this gray area. Specifically, comic book movies often lean on "scientific" explanations. For example, Spider-Man or X-Men are entirely plausible since mutations actually occur in our world. Of course, we haven't encountered those exact mutations in reality, but that doesn't mean we won't encounter something similar one day.

cosmicgull said:Please spare us these kinds of posts. Interstellar is Sci-Fi, which automatically places it in that genre, and there is nothing you can do about removing it from the opening post—that's where it belongs. Regardless of whether its scientific accuracy is questionable, the film is considered a top tier of the genre. This isn't a discussion about objective film quality or subjective opinions on it; this is about an objective breakdown of genres and a subjective stance on them. Have a nice day. 🙂

I don't believe I ever stated that Interstellar isn't Sci-Fi.
It is Sci-Fi, unquestionably. But the film is certainly not at the top of its genre, no matter how hard Nolan's fanbase pushes it.
Odyssey, Blade Runner, Metropolis, Solaris, and SW are among the true peaks of the genre.
A Clockwork Orange is often defined as Sci-Fi, so there is another masterpiece of the genre.

I get the point, but why is Interstellar being lumped in with the absolute peak of the genre in the opening post?
What is Interstellar doing in the same breath as the greatest movie ever made—the definitive masterpiece that every director keeps in mind whenever they approach Sci-Fi?
An Odyssey is sacred in cinema; it doesn't deserve to be cheapened by comparisons to a standard blockbuster that just offers some light entertainment and a few unusual themes.
It's pure blasphemy.