Can Sci-Fi films actually be taken seriously?

rowdyowl said:Is that San Francisco horror?
Or more like Spy movies?
.

Is The Grey the one with Liam Neeson? Are the wolves supernatural or tech-related, or is it just a standard thriller about animals attacking?

Spy movies—like the ones with Nicole Kidman?

Aside from those robots that show up much later, we barely see anything that doesn't look like the United States at the start of the 21st century.

The clothes, the looks, the architecture—you can't even tell them apart. If I made a movie where everything looked identical, but the Axis powers had won WWII, people would immediately call it Science Fiction.

rowdyowl said:Before 35 Lipa Street even starts, I could claim it takes place in a different galaxy in the year 3000. Would that make it Science Fiction then?

Yes. It would be bad Science Fiction sitcom material.

Don't forget that Caprica and BSG are dramatic Science Fiction. The emotions a film or series evokes also define its genre. If they are meant to terrify you like The Grey or Spy films, they are primarily Horror. If we have aliens like in Alien or Creature, then it's Science Fiction Horror.

David Price5 said:Is The Grey the one with Liam Neeson? Are they doing anything supernatural with the wolves, maybe some high-tech stuff, or is it just a standard thriller about animals attacking people?

Spies—like those in the movies with Tom Cruise?

NO, The Grey refers to the Greys. You see them in the X-Files and basically every movie about abductions and close encounters of the fourth kind.

Maybe it isn't called "spies," it was a long time ago, but I think it’s something like that—about a woman being visited and abducted by Greys since she was a kid, always at 3:00 AM.

I know I watched stuff like that when I was little, and back then, going to bed was terrifying.😁

I'm not exactly a mind reader... but anything visiting us from outer space falls squarely under the umbrella of Sci-Fi by default.

If you try to label the Star Wars saga as just pure Fiction, then honestly, the whole "Science Fiction" label loses its damn meaning.

The whole plot of Star Wars takes place in a universe just like ours—and what people totally miss is the disclaimer at the start of every single movie, cartoon, or game: "A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far away..."

So, technically, we're talking about Fantasy set in a specific corner of space and time. And if you think there isn't a scientific foundation there, you're dead wrong. I’m always flipping through the Star Wars Encyclopedia in my profile—mostly because it's packed with cool art and I still have that inner child in me 😁—and it’s full of technical breakdowns and conceptual designs for ships. It shows exactly how every little part of an X-wing or the Death Star actually functions. I mean, I don't usually geek out over that level of detail, but it's more than enough proof to justify the "science" in Sci-Fi.

In other words, just because Luke Skywalker uses whatever mysterious Force exists, or because Han Solo falls for his sister, doesn't make the saga any less Sci-Fi than when Jean-Luc Picard plays captain of a 24th-century starship while Deanna Troi stands next to him acting like she's having a continuous orgasm.

We once had a similar debate over whether Excalibur belongs in the historical category or if it’s pure Fantasy.
I’m sticking to my guns: it’s Fantasy. It sounds paradoxical, I know, especially since the combat scenes feel more grounded and realistic than most "historical" flicks—the knights move with that heavy, sluggish weight in their armor and all that.

But that’s beside the point.

Look, Star Wars definitely features space, lasers, droids, and hyperdrive. Even Han Solo has to run the math just to make sure they don't plow straight into a planet or a star.

Well, if you see dragons and magic on screen, that’s usually a pretty clear giveaway that we're looking at Fantasy. Besides, most other stuff is presented as historically accurate when it really isn't quite.

It doesn't have to be. The story could easily take place in the present day. Of course, it all really comes down to how much of an alternative you want to include. Take Braveheart, for example; it's categorized as a historical epic even though it's packed with historical inaccuracies.

Star Wars takes place in our own universe—not some alternate dimension or anything—just like Star Trek does. Though, if you really think about it, you could argue Star Trek is actually more "alternative" than Star Wars. I mean, the future they imagined back in the 60s and 70s for the year 2000 never actually happened! Meanwhile, Star Wars deals with this ancient past that we can't even wrap our heads around yet.
In other words, if the writers decided Jean-Luc Picard should travel back in time to take on Darth Vader, there wouldn't be any plot holes or logical issues at all.

But my whole point is this: if Star Trek is considered the gold standard for Science Fiction, then Star Wars definitely deserves that same title.

It all comes down to San Francisco—you just have to find that sweet spot between the Sci-Fi and the Fantasy elements. It’s really about finding the right balance, you know? Like
is it a 50/50 split, or maybe 30% Sci-Fi and 70% Fantasy? To me, the ratio is everything because it determines which side takes center stage. For instance, I'd say Star Trek leans much more toward the Fantasy side, whereas Star Wars feels more grounded in Sci-Fi—it actually feels closer to reality for me, unlike Star Trek where that Fantasy vibe tends to pull it away from being pure Fiction.

Frank Chase6 said:Star Wars takes place in our own universe, and it isn't an alternative reality at all, just like Star Trek. Actually, you could argue that ST is even more "alternative" than SW, because the future they imagined back in the 60s and 70s for the year 2000 never actually happened. Meanwhile, SW deals with a past that we can't even access yet.
In other words, Jean-Luc Picard could travel back in time and take on Darth Vader if the writers decided to go that route, and there wouldn't be any plot holes or logical inconsistencies.

I’m just saying, if ST is considered the gold standard for science Fiction, then SW has to be too.

Offtopic, is Dune an alternate history where Alexander the Great lived longer, or is that just an urban legend and an internet theory?

Dune is actually a rare kind of book that gets serious respect despite being Fiction. Sure, you have guys like Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov, but movies don't get that much credit, even if Dune does more than most other sci-fi films.