Is Mad Max considered Sci-Fi?

Mad Max is a Sci-Fi film.

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

Man, getting S out of Sci-Fi was a total nightmare 🙂

No.

Personally, I feel Mad Max doesn't really count as a Sci-Fi film at all... And neither does The Road...🤷

A movie doesn't necessarily have to be set in the future, or revolve around advanced tech or an alien invasion, just to qualify as Sci-Fi. I suppose a Sci-Fi film could just as easily take place in the distant past. The core requirement, I think, is simply that it incorporates elements of fiction that can't be scientifically proven—which is essentially why we call it Science fiction. And since the plot is often framed within a future setting, proving its veracity becomes quite a challenge...
Regardless of how you look at it, I am fairly certain it isn't a hoax. 🙂

rustywalker42 said: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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wait a second... if you were to film something like "Love Actually" right now and claim the plot takes place in 2050, would you call that Sci-Fi? I mean, I honestly can't believe that's how we're defining it...

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...

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.

Sure, you could argue there are elements of Sci-Fi in there, but I’ve never really experienced it that way. It feels more like a genre mashup—and if we're being honest, there's hardly any Sci-Fi to speak of, especially in the first part.

No.

Mad Max is speculative fiction, which basically means it's Sci-Fi😁

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?

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?

rustywalker42 said: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.

Are you actually trolling right now, or what?

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?

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?

Since when did IMDb become some kind of gold standard?

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

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."

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

I really have to say it again: there has to be a legitimate reason for setting a story in the future. If it isn't true Science fiction, then I guess the entire narrative structure loses its purpose and its sense of credibility. But this... well, it’s just simple. If you set a plot in the future, you can't scientifically prove it's actually possible or even determine if things will turn out that way, even if we are only talking about a future just a few months down the line.

rustywalker42 said: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.

Are you actually trolling right now, or what?

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?

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?

Since when did IMDb become some kind of gold standard?

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

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."

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

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.

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?

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?

mistyotter35 said:I really have to say it again: there has to be a legitimate reason for setting a story in the future. If it isn't true Science fiction, then I guess the entire narrative structure loses its purpose and its sense of credibility. But this... well, it’s just simple. If you set a plot in the future, you can't scientifically prove it's actually possible or even determine if things will turn out that way, even if we are only talking about a future just a few months down the line.

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.

rustywalker42 said: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.

1) No director sets a story in 2014 unless they actually mean something by it.
2) Just because a character mentions it's 2014, does the audience have to just assume nothing happened in the years between when the movie was made and then? Like time just froze and jumped straight to 2014?

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?