Is Mad Max considered Sci-Fi?

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: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?

Aren't you basically arguing that just because a story is set in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi?

*

Can you explain this bolded sentence?

Already covered this. Psychology basically deals with how society acts—both on an individual level and as a whole. It's social science.

You can shove any human action into psychology if you try hard enough. Doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

We're talking about the collective psychology of an entire society—the kind of mindset that actually pushes people toward the state of things shown in the movie.

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—yeah, they’re older—and the bikes too. Everything looks exactly like it did back in 1979. It doesn't even say it at the start of the movie.A few years down the road...So, what actually makes a movie Sci-Fi? Walk me through it. Explain your logic.

Look at the state of the planet. It's exactly where society's behavior has driven us. Already said that.

When we talk tech, we’re talking hard Science, not social studies. Period.

Here's the thing. We aren't even talking about technology. You’re out here rambling about tech, while I'm actually talking about Science. ScienceWhatever. I'm ready. Send the text over. Sci-Fi.

I don't get your argument. What's the actual scientific basis here? Like, how does a starship even fly? Enterprise I can't work with just "na." You didn't give me any text to rewrite. Send over what you need fixed and I'll get on it. Warp 9 9?

It’s just a premise. Theoretically, traveling at light speed is possible. Theoretically. How or under what conditions? Doesn't matter right now. It's just theory.

It doesn't matter if you actually know something is going to happen in the future. What matters is what the movie actually shows you through its visuals and its story. I already asked you—how would you even tell? Mad Max Sci-Fi film, you mean if there wasn't that one sentence at the start?

Already told you. Tech progress is tied to the hard sciences.

And social development falls under social sciences. Hard science, social science... basically just Science S in Sci-Fi. Unless the genre is called TZF or some hard science fiction thing? Haven't seen anyone call it that. 🤷

Why would every movie need its own specific genre? I’m not saying that. Movies need clear sorting, not jamming two totally unrelated films into the same box.

If that's how you want to look at it, sure. Those two movies are in the same box because they share a genre (and there aren't infinite genres). Doesn't mean anyone's actually out here comparing them side-by-side, though. Modern Times and Monty Python and the Holy Grail are worlds apart, but they're both comedies. Go ahead, try proving one isn't a comedy just because they don't match—they still sit in the same category.

Yeah, but why wouldn't I list works based on a specific theme? That's just a fact on its own.

Then why even bring it up when your "distopian" list includes Blue Velvet—which you won't even admit is dystopian? Isn't that connection kind of a self-own if you're claiming facts?

Besides, this whole debate started from your question about whether anyone knows a dystopian film that isn't Sci-Fi. Since you're insisting dystopia is inherently fiction—and specifically Science Fiction—I don't get why you asked in the first place. You posed a question you claim has no answer. Quite the paradox, right?

Mine does.

Anyway, just because a movie isn't Sci-Fi doesn't mean it can't have a dystopian idea. At this rate, you're implying every movie that isn't a biopic or a historical drama is just pure fiction. Pretty soon you'll be trying to convince me every movie is Sci-Fi just to win a point.

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.

.

George Robinson43 said: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.

Sure, Science might be part of the genre's DNA, but it isn't everything. So now I'm the one who doesn't know anything?

That’s why this entire string of dystopian classics like "Fahrenheit 451", "The Postman", or "A Boy and His Dog" is completely unknown to you.

Just because I haven't watched The Postman doesn't mean I haven't read those other two. Why the ad hominem attacks?

By the way, just so you know, the Locus Award isn't some random magazine prize; it's one of the three biggest annual Sci-Fi awards out there. "The Postman," which is very similar to Mad Max, was even a Hugo Award finalist—that's the award given out at Worldcon (the biggest Sci-Fi Convention)—and it was also a Nebula Award finalist, which is presented by the Sci-Fi Writers Guild.

I said it was a magazine award, not "some random magazine." If you're smart enough, you'll see the difference. This whole dramatic act of yours is exactly that. And what kind of argument is that? Even the Oscar and the Grammy didn't start as genre-specific awards before they were added. So?

Maybe in Sci-Fi between the world wars.
Meanwhile, the genre evolved, so now you've got dystopian novels within the genre like Kim Stanley Robinson's "Three Californias" trilogy, which depicts three versions of California in the near future. In the first ("The Wild Shore"), it's a California ravaged by nuclear war; in the second ("The Gold Coast"), it's a high-tech version of California; and in the third ("Pacific Edge"), it's a California that has become a sort of ecological oasis.
Back in his time (the eighties), a whole series of Sci-Fi dystopian novels was written where not a single word mentions Science; instead, they focus entirely on the struggles of individuals or society facing altered living conditions in the near future, whether it's a post-apocalyptic world or a world where everything is perfect.

And? Are those Sci-Fi or just dystopian movies in the end?

You presented your thesis the way a five-year-old who has never read a Sci-Fi novel would explain it.
It all boils down to this: if there's no "Science," there's no Sci-Fi.
And then you have the nerve to accuse someone of being ungrounded and nonsensical. ☕

No, you’re just fixating on the word "Science." I’ve already made my point clear enough.

You were the one who posted that Wikipedia entry claiming Mad Max is just a "dystopian movie." I was simply mirroring your own logic by linking the source where it's categorized as Sci-Fi. Apparently, Wikipedia isn't enough for you, so now you're throwing lists of dystopian films at me too.

And you’re the one failing to follow the thread. I dropped that Wikipedia link as a response to Walter Grant5, who had previously used a different Wikipedia page to claim Mad Max is a Sci-Fi film. Try following the context instead of acting like a know-it-all.

Look, your take on this makes it crystal clear: you don't have a clue about Sci-Fi, yet you think you can lecture everyone else and drop these "ultimate truths" about a genre you clearly don't understand.

If you actually wrote something concrete instead of just attacking my quote, we might have an actual argument. Right now, this is just trolling.

And yeah, Sci-Fi is a broad term. This whole spectrum—literature, film, comics—has evolved so far beyond those primitive "science" roots that only someone totally clueless would use something like Star Trek as their primary benchmark for the entire genre.

That’s exactly why it needs clear definitions. Besides, dystopia as a theme has been around for over a century. Still going with the ad hominem attacks, are we?

If you weren't such a complete novice when it comes to Sci-Fi, you'd realize there are so many distinct subgenres—Hard Sci-Fi, Space Opera, Alternate History, Dystopia-Utopia, Cyberpunk, Steampunk...—that making an absolute statement like yours is pure nonsense.

Brilliant. Good to know. Honestly, two seconds on Google would have told me everything you just "discovered." But what does that have to do with anything, other than your insults and ad hominem tactics?

Regarding your claim about whether that Bergman drama is set in a 2014 Sci-Fi setting...
If that drama depicts the collapse of civilization and the struggle for survival under altered living conditions—then it's a Sci-Fi film.

Clearly not. Some people claim it's Sci-Fi just because it's set in 2014.

I mean, come on. We're discussing Sci-Fi with someone who hasn't even read The Postman.
Too much.

Whoa, didn't realize we were dealing with this much snobbery here. My bad. I’ll just go ahead and scatter some ashes since I'm clearly not a "big enough" person who's actually read that literary masterpiece. Can I, with your permission, continue participating on this subforum at least?
Because, if memory serves, this is the Film forum, not the Literature one.

Go argue about Middle Eastern politics instead. You'd be better at it.

Is this another ad hominem attack? Wow. Unbelievable. That nickname really suits you, troll.

Alright, since you're such a genius expert on Sci-Fi, why don't you point out the Sci-Fi elements in the movie Mad Max, excluding that very first sentence at the start?
Actually, you probably won't answer that. Because you don't know. ☕

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! 😁

Walter Grant5 said:Aren't you basically arguing that just because a story is set in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi?

*

Can you explain this bolded sentence?

Already covered this. Psychology basically deals with how society acts—both on an individual level and as a whole. It's social science.

You can shove any human action into psychology if you try hard enough. Doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

We're talking about the collective psychology of an entire society—the kind of mindset that actually pushes people toward the state of things shown in the movie.

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—yeah, they’re older—and the bikes too. Everything looks exactly like it did back in 1979. It doesn't even say it at the start of the movie.A few years down the road...So, what actually makes a movie Sci-Fi? Walk me through it. Explain your logic.

Look at the state of the planet. It's exactly where society's behavior has driven us. Already said that.

When we talk tech, we’re talking hard Science, not social studies. Period.

Here's the thing. We aren't even talking about technology. You’re out here rambling about tech, while I'm actually talking about Science. ScienceWhatever. I'm ready. Send the text over. Sci-Fi.

I don't get your argument. What's the actual scientific basis here? Like, how does a starship even fly? Enterprise I can't work with just "na." You didn't give me any text to rewrite. Send over what you need fixed and I'll get on it. Warp 9 9?

It’s just a premise. Theoretically, traveling at light speed is possible. Theoretically. How or under what conditions? Doesn't matter right now. It's just theory.

It doesn't matter if you actually know something is going to happen in the future. What matters is what the movie actually shows you through its visuals and its story. I already asked you—how would you even tell? Mad Max Sci-Fi film, you mean if there wasn't that one sentence at the start?

Already told you. Tech progress is tied to the hard sciences.

And social development falls under social sciences. Hard science, social science... basically just Science S in Sci-Fi. Unless the genre is called TZF or some hard science fiction thing? Haven't seen anyone call it that. 🤷

Why would every movie need its own specific genre? I’m not saying that. Movies need clear sorting, not jamming two totally unrelated films into the same box.

If that's how you want to look at it, sure. Those two movies are in the same box because they share a genre (and there aren't infinite genres). Doesn't mean anyone's actually out here comparing them side-by-side, though. Modern Times and Monty Python and the Holy Grail are worlds apart, but they're both comedies. Go ahead, try proving one isn't a comedy just because they don't match—they still sit in the same category.

Yeah, but why wouldn't I list works based on a specific theme? That's just a fact on its own.

Then why even bring it up when your "distopian" list includes Blue Velvet—which you won't even admit is dystopian? Isn't that connection kind of a self-own if you're claiming facts?

Besides, this whole debate started from your question about whether anyone knows a dystopian film that isn't Sci-Fi. Since you're insisting dystopia is inherently fiction—and specifically Science Fiction—I don't get why you asked in the first place. You posed a question you claim has no answer. Quite the paradox, right?

Mine does.

Anyway, just because a movie isn't Sci-Fi doesn't mean it can't have a dystopian idea. At this rate, you're implying every movie that isn't a biopic or a historical drama is just pure fiction. Pretty soon you'll be trying to convince me every movie is Sci-Fi just to win a point.

Yeah.

I already wrote this. Psychology deals with social behavior—both individual and collective. It's a social science. Simple as that.

Which movies? Psychology. That's it. Just one word. What are we even doing here? Diving into the deep end without a life jacket? Or just staring at the surface trying to figure out why people act the way they do? Hard to say. Does it even count as Science?

We’re talking about the collective psychology of an entire society here—the kind of mindset that actually drives people toward the state of chaos shown in the movie.

What kind of social psychology are we even talking about here?

Look at the state of the planet. Honestly, it’s just a direct result of how society behaves. I’ve already said this before. *

And where exactly is this planetary state supposed to be visible? About what, exactly? You wouldn't know a damn thing if it weren't for that very first sentence.

Here's the thing: we aren't even talking about technology. You’re out here rambling about tech, while I'm actually talking about Science. Science.That's it. That's the whole thing. S In Sci-Fi.

Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with how imagined breakthroughs in tech or science actually hit us. That's the core of it. Science Fiction quote: imagined innovations. Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology.

So, we talk about innovations in Science and technology. But what about innovations in psychology? Where do you actually see those played out on screen?

Social development in the social sciences. Technical science, social science... basically just Science, you know? I can't work with just one letter. What am I supposed to do with that? You want me to guess? Give me something to actually write about. In Sci-Fi. Only if you call the genre TZF or something like that. Hard Science Fiction.Wait, I just noticed—that's not actually what it's called. 🤷

Read what's above.

If you look at it that way, sure. Those two movies belong in the same drawer because they’re the same genre—and let's face it, there aren't an infinite number of them. That doesn't mean you actually have to compare them, though I'm hardly noticing anyone doing that anyway. Modern Times I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. You only typed "i". What's on your mind? Monty Python These two movies have zero business being in the same category, even if they both claim to be comedies. Seriously, go ahead—try to prove one of them isn't a comedy. I'll wait. You can't just toss two completely unrelated films into the same bucket like that.

There's no need to compare them. It's like trying to say they belong in the same genre. They don't.

So why even bother listing them when *Mad Max* is right there in that lineup of dystopian films you just gave me? Blue Velvet Who exactly are you saying doesn't agree it's dystopian? And that link—isn't it basically a fact? Isn't that just one giant argument against your own point?

Haven't checked the list. And no, like I already said, I don't consider that movie dystopian. We can argue about it if you want, sure.

Look, just because a movie isn't Sci-Fi doesn't mean it can't have a dystopian concept. What are you even doing? You're basically opening up this theory where every single film—unless it's a biopic or some historical drama—is somehow "fiction." At this rate, you'll be trying to convince me that every movie ever made is Sci-Fi just to prove a point. Real smart.

So you wrote that? That's just your theory. Give me one single dystopian film that doesn't mess around with the future, an alternate past, or some alternate present. Come on.

George Robinson43 said: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.

.

Yeah, like I already said—you could just lump all those movies into their own specific genre. Not Sci-Fi.

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! 😁

Ask George Robinson43; he’s the one who started with the insults. I'm just trying to explain my points constructively and objectively.

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

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!

George Robinson43 said: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

Even better. That wasn't my "peak argument"—it was just one point I laid out clearly. Sure, a shallow mind might interpret it shallowly. But, as I predicted, you still haven't answered my last question regarding the movie that started this whole mess in the first place. ☕

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.

rustywalker42 said:Yeah.

I already wrote this. Psychology deals with social behavior—both individual and collective. It's a social science. Simple as that.

Which movies? Psychology. That's it. Just one word. What are we even doing here? Diving into the deep end without a life jacket? Or just staring at the surface trying to figure out why people act the way they do? Hard to say. Does it even count as Science?

We’re talking about the collective psychology of an entire society here—the kind of mindset that actually drives people toward the state of chaos shown in the movie.

What kind of social psychology are we even talking about here?

Look at the state of the planet. Honestly, it’s just a direct result of how society behaves. I’ve already said this before. *

And where exactly is this planetary state supposed to be visible? About what, exactly? You wouldn't know a damn thing if it weren't for that very first sentence.

Here's the thing: we aren't even talking about technology. You’re out here rambling about tech, while I'm actually talking about Science. Science.That's it. That's the whole thing. S In Sci-Fi.

Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with how imagined breakthroughs in tech or science actually hit us. That's the core of it. Science Fiction quote: imagined innovations. Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology.

So, we talk about innovations in Science and technology. But what about innovations in psychology? Where do you actually see those played out on screen?

Social development in the social sciences. Technical science, social science... basically just Science, you know? I can't work with just one letter. What am I supposed to do with that? You want me to guess? Give me something to actually write about. In Sci-Fi. Only if you call the genre TZF or something like that. Hard Science Fiction.Wait, I just noticed—that's not actually what it's called. 🤷

Read what's above.

If you look at it that way, sure. Those two movies belong in the same drawer because they’re the same genre—and let's face it, there aren't an infinite number of them. That doesn't mean you actually have to compare them, though I'm hardly noticing anyone doing that anyway. Modern Times I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. You only typed "i". What's on your mind? Monty Python These two movies have zero business being in the same category, even if they both claim to be comedies. Seriously, go ahead—try to prove one of them isn't a comedy. I'll wait. You can't just toss two completely unrelated films into the same bucket like that.

There's no need to compare them. It's like trying to say they belong in the same genre. They don't.

So why even bother listing them when *Mad Max* is right there in that lineup of dystopian films you just gave me? Blue Velvet Who exactly are you saying doesn't agree it's dystopian? And that link—isn't it basically a fact? Isn't that just one giant argument against your own point?

Haven't checked the list. And no, like I already said, I don't consider that movie dystopian. We can argue about it if you want, sure.

Look, just because a movie isn't Sci-Fi doesn't mean it can't have a dystopian concept. What are you even doing? You're basically opening up this theory where every single film—unless it's a biopic or some historical drama—is somehow "fiction." At this rate, you'll be trying to convince me that every movie ever made is Sci-Fi just to prove a point. Real smart.

So you wrote that? That's just your theory. Give me one single dystopian film that doesn't mess around with the future, an alternate past, or some alternate present. Come on.

Yeah, like I already said—you could just lump all those movies into their own specific genre. Not Sci-Fi.

Then you clearly misread your own words in the part of the post I quoted.

Which movies? Psychology. Does it actually count as Science?

In a lot of Sci-Fi films, society just evolves in a completely different direction. It really just depends on the movie.

What kind of social psychology are we even talking about here?

Human nature, man. Isn't it just human behavior that caused everything we see in the movie in the first place?

Where exactly is this state of the planet supposed to be visible? About what, exactly? You wouldn't have a clue if it weren't for that first sentence.

Nothing much. Just everything totally desolate. People killing each other over a single can of gas, eating canned pet food just to survive... that kind of thing. Typical. Just some ordinary stuff..

Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology. Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with the impact of imagined innovations in technology or science. Science Fiction.

So, we talk about innovations in Science and technology all the time. But what about psychological breakthroughs? Where do you actually see those kinds of shifts played out on screen?

Internet proof? What did we even say about that? You used to tear those things apart, now you're just dropping links left and right. Copy-pasting? Really?Look, you could've at least read the whole article before jumping in...

Read what's above.

For crying out loud, how much more logical can it get? Science Fiction. Sci-Fi. Fiction and Science. Pick one. End of Story.

No point comparing them. Just like they shouldn't be in the same genre.

Haven't checked the list yet. And look, like I said before, I don't see that movie as dystopian. We can argue about it if you want, though.

Look, Prika, I’m done. I honestly don't have the energy for this anymore. I gotta admit, you've worn me out—not even because of what you're saying, but just because of how you handle things. First thing you do is slap me in the face. facepalmom (🤦) Your way of debating sucks. You just keep moving the goalposts and throwing out arguments you were busy debunking two minutes ago. Like those links you sent.

That’s just your take. That's your theory. Give me one single dystopian film that doesn't involve some version of the future, an alternate past, or an alternate present.

Brain fogged. That's why I posted here—to see if anyone actually knew. northerncrane4 already said that 90% of the time, dystopian films fall under the Sci-Fi umbrella. Then Beaver brought up a film he thinks is dystopian but isn't Sci-Fi, which I haven't even seen. Don't blame me for citing them. I'm just saying this isn't just my own headcanon.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of how you argue. You just sit there waiting for someone to make a point so you can tear it down.

Yeah, and like I already said, I'd put all those movies in their own separate genre. Not Sci-Fi.

What you personally think doesn't matter. Obviously, not all Sci-Fi films are the same, just like not all comedies or action flicks are identical. There are tons of variables and genre-blending involved. You just can't wrap your head around the fact—and you admitted this yourself—that both Mad Max and Star Trek are Sci-Fi, so now you're trying to dismiss the whole genre because of it. I mean, how can you claim Mad Max is a drama just like some Bergman film? That makes way more sense than saying Sci-Fi is anything other than what it is, like Star Trek?

So, Science Fiction. It's a massive, sprawling concept involving science and fantasy. We aren't talking about strictly technical hard science stuff; we're talking about the broad genre. The genre is Sci-Fi, science fiction, science plus fiction. I don't think we're actually out here trying to prove that a movie set in the future isn't a Sci-Fi film. No, it's a drama set in the future. Fine. And then people start whining about what kind of questions should be asked in an educational thread like "Film Encyclopedia." Man, we really have a comprehension problem with entire genres on this forum. Just saying.

Walter Grant5 said:Then you clearly misread your own words in the part of the post I quoted.

Which movies? Psychology. Does it actually count as Science?

In a lot of Sci-Fi films, society just evolves in a completely different direction. It really just depends on the movie.

What kind of social psychology are we even talking about here?

Human nature, man. Isn't it just human behavior that caused everything we see in the movie in the first place?

Where exactly is this state of the planet supposed to be visible? About what, exactly? You wouldn't have a clue if it weren't for that first sentence.

Nothing much. Just everything totally desolate. People killing each other over a single can of gas, eating canned pet food just to survive... that kind of thing. Typical. Just some ordinary stuff..

Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology. Science Fiction quote: Science Fiction deals with the impact of imagined innovations in technology or science. Science Fiction.

So, we talk about innovations in Science and technology all the time. But what about psychological breakthroughs? Where do you actually see those kinds of shifts played out on screen?

Internet proof? What did we even say about that? You used to tear those things apart, now you're just dropping links left and right. Copy-pasting? Really?Look, you could've at least read the whole article before jumping in...

Read what's above.

For crying out loud, how much more logical can it get? Science Fiction. Sci-Fi. Fiction and Science. Pick one. End of Story.

No point comparing them. Just like they shouldn't be in the same genre.

Haven't checked the list yet. And look, like I said before, I don't see that movie as dystopian. We can argue about it if you want, though.

Look, Prika, I’m done. I honestly don't have the energy for this anymore. I gotta admit, you've worn me out—not even because of what you're saying, but just because of how you handle things. First thing you do is slap me in the face. facepalmom (🤦) Your way of debating sucks. You just keep moving the goalposts and throwing out arguments you were busy debunking two minutes ago. Like those links you sent.

That’s just your take. That's your theory. Give me one single dystopian film that doesn't involve some version of the future, an alternate past, or an alternate present.

Brain fogged. That's why I posted here—to see if anyone actually knew. northerncrane4 already said that 90% of the time, dystopian films fall under the Sci-Fi umbrella. Then Beaver brought up a film he thinks is dystopian but isn't Sci-Fi, which I haven't even seen. Don't blame me for citing them. I'm just saying this isn't just my own headcanon.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of how you argue. You just sit there waiting for someone to make a point so you can tear it down.

Yeah, and like I already said, I'd put all those movies in their own separate genre. Not Sci-Fi.

What you personally think doesn't matter. Obviously, not all Sci-Fi films are the same, just like not all comedies or action flicks are identical. There are tons of variables and genre-blending involved. You just can't wrap your head around the fact—and you admitted this yourself—that both Mad Max and Star Trek are Sci-Fi, so now you're trying to dismiss the whole genre because of it. I mean, how can you claim Mad Max is a drama just like some Bergman film? That makes way more sense than saying Sci-Fi is anything other than what it is, like Star Trek?

So, Science Fiction. It's a massive, sprawling concept involving science and fantasy. We aren't talking about strictly technical hard science stuff; we're talking about the broad genre. The genre is Sci-Fi, science fiction, science plus fiction. I don't think we're actually out here trying to prove that a movie set in the future isn't a Sci-Fi film. No, it's a drama set in the future. Fine. And then people start whining about what kind of questions should be asked in an educational thread like "Film Encyclopedia." Man, we really have a comprehension problem with entire genres on this forum. Just saying.

I don't know what part isn't clicking for you. Where is psychology as a science woven through the film?

Everything is just desolate,

That’s basically how most of Australia looks. What specifically makes this Sci-Fi?

people killing for a tin of oil,

Who gets killed in the movie over a tin of oil? Maybe it sounds like I'm being provocative, but it's a fair question. Fuel gets stolen in the film, sure, but that's stuff Hells Angels have done in the US all the time.

eating canned pet food

Remind me, which scene shows them eating that? 🤔

Internet evidence? What did we say about that? You were the first one trashing it, now you're constantly linking and copy/pasting. Fine, you could at least have read the whole article...

We didn't say anything about Internet evidence; you just jumped to that conclusion. I simply said that Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source, especially when there isn't an original quote, let alone the Internet itself. That specific theory was pulled from three dictionaries.

Look, I'm not interested. I have to admit, you've exhausted me. Not with arguments, but with your approach. First, you hit me with a facepalm (🤦), which isn't exactly a way to debate, then you went back and forth repeatedly using arguments you were denying at the start. Like those links, for example.

If my opening remarks bothered you, you shouldn't have jumped in. And I don't get why you're hung up on those links. I told you Wikipedia isn't a credible source when it comes to certain things.

Quote:
Look, I couldn't recall it offhand. That’s why I posted here—to see if anyone knew. Plus, northerncrane4 mentioned that in 90% of cases, dystopian films are just a sub-genre of Sci-Fi, and Beaver brought up a movie they consider dystopian that isn't Sci-Fi, which I haven't even seen. Don't take it personally that I'm citing them. I'm just saying this isn't just my own theory.

Tor

To be honest, I really don't like your debating style. You just sit there waiting for someone to make a claim so you can tear it down.

Me waiting for someone to make a claim? I asked you to define the Sci-Fi elements in the movie we're actually discussing. What's the big deal?

Tor

What you think personally doesn't matter. Obviously, not all Sci-Fi movies are the same, just like not all comedies or dramas are identical. There are tons of factors at play, genre-blending, whatever. You simply can't wrap your head around the fact—and you admitted this yourself—that both Mad Max and Star Trek are Sci-Fi, so now you're trying to debunk the whole genre's influence. I mean, how can you claim Mad Max is a drama on par with some Bergman film? Is that more believable than saying Sci-Fi is like Star Trek?

Where did I ever say Mad Max was a drama? 🙄

Tor

So, Science Fiction. Science is a damn broad concept, and so is fiction. We aren't talking about strictly technical hard sci-fi, but actual Science Fiction. The genre is Sci-Fi, Science Fiction, science and fiction. I don't think we're even trying to prove that a movie set in the future isn't a Sci-Fi film just because it's a post-apocalyptic story. No, it's a drama set in the future. Fine. And then people complain about what kind of questions are being asked in an educational thread like "Film Encyclopedia." Man, we really have comprehension issues with entire genres on this forum. That's just my observation.

Look, if you're this sensitive, maybe just don't join the debate. I don't know what else to tell you. Let me clarify one more time: you're talking about this supposed influence of social sciences on the Sci-Fi genre, and I'm telling you again, that's just not right. Sci-Fi implies—as the theory itself states—"technology, progress, and scientific innovation." Where exactly do you find that in social sciences in the context of Sci-Fi?

Where’s the psychology? Seriously, where’s the psychology? *I mean, damn, societal behavior is what drove things to become like they are in the movie, and psychology deals with societal behavior—shocker.

Yeah, nitpicking over tiny details and punctuation. For real, I wrote "they kill for cans of oil" and obviously, it was taken literally. I meant people fight for oil like it’s the last remaining supply of drinking water, but whatever. Probably the next argument would be something like: "How can you be sure it's just in those regions while the rest of the world is normal?"

I didn't say anything about internet evidence; you just jumped to that conclusion. I only said that Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source, especially if there's no original quote, let alone the internet itself. The theory in question was pulled from three dictionaries.

Among other things, including Wikipedia. How do we know it didn't originate on Wikipedia?

If my opening argument bothered you, you shouldn't have jumped in. And I don't get why you're hung up on those links. I told you Wikipedia isn't a credible source when it comes to certain things.

Look, don't start throwing emojis at me without any logic. That's not the start of a debate or an argument. Actually, it's just proof that all you know how to do is post a facepalm emoticon and nothing else.

You're saying Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for certain things. I guess you're the one deciding which things those are, since you criticized me (which I accepted) for linking to Wikipedia while feeling free to do the exact same thing.

Okay, so what does it matter? If they wrote it, then it's true, right? I mean, I don't get it. This is the second time I've dealt with this kind of attitude on this subforum. Just because I don't post much here doesn't mean I don't read it.

Try reading what you're responding to before you actually respond.

Walter Grant5 said:I couldn't remember. That's why I posted in the thread to see if anyone knew. And northerncrane4 said that in 90% of cases a dystopian film is a sub-genre of Sci-Fi, and Beaver mentioned a film he considers dystopian that isn't Sci-Fi, which I haven't personally seen. Don't try to replace citing them. I'm just saying it's not just my own theory.

Moving on...

I'm waiting for someone to provide something? I asked you to define the Sci-Fi elements in the film we're discussing. What's the problem?

Well, for example, look at your way of debating. After I wrote about five times (give or take, and seriously, DON'T get hung up on that number like you do with everything else) where the psychological influence is in...Mad MaxYou’ve squinted at that same argument a dozen times already, asking "what kind of psychological impact are we even talking about here?" Mad Max?''

I write "they're killing each other over a can of oil," basically implying that in that era, oil is as good as gold. (Don't even bother asking me where in the movie it says oil equals gold—I know what I meant.) 🙂Look, saying they're stealing oil and basically waging war—come on, man. Don't start asking where the actual war is in the movie. You're interpreting it like some guy straight-up murdered people just to get his hands on fuel. You're splitting hairs over nothing.

So you kept pushing this idea that it was just some fictionalized version of a Bergman drama back in 2014. Look, come on, quit messing around. What’s the point? Seriously, why would an author bother cramming that kind of drama into a 2014 setting just for the sake of it being 2014? Did you actually think that through? Has anyone ever actually filmed a movie set in the future just because they wanted the setting to be the future?

So, why was it at the beginning? Mad Max ''A FEW YEARS FROM NOW...Why even bother pushing toward the future? Honestly, they’re just stealing fuel to keep things running. It's all a wash. Hells AngelsIt doesn't say anything about the rest of the world being in that state... so, what's the actual point?

So, you're still clinging to that "ultimate" argument of yours—the one where you claim technological progress is some absolute necessity for the Sci-Fi genre? You've been preaching that for ages, acting like you’ve already laid down the law on why it *has* to be that way. So, what’s the actual point? What specific argument are you even using to prove that? I am ready. Send the text. So, does Sci-Fi just mean tech upgrades rather than actual Science? It feels like the whole genre only exists to show off shiny new gadgets. I used to think there was more to it, but clearly, I was wrong. Sci-Fi is basically just a playground for previewing high-tech toys—flying cars, lightsabers, lasers, teleportation. Yeah, right. What a joke. I really thought it was supposed to be about how society evolves and everything around us shifts. My mistake. 2001: A Space Odyssey From now on, I’m only watching stuff to see if there's a flying ship. That's it. tech stuff. Advanced computer.

Where did I ever say Mad Max was a drama? 🙄

So what's the deal then? Action? Throwing it into the same bin as everything else that doesn't connect. Die Hard.Adventure or whatever... they're basically the same thing, tossed into the same bucket. No real difference. Indiana Jones.Look, you're missing the point. You can't just toss all these movies into the same bucket and expect them to make sense together. That's why your argument doesn't really hold water.

It’s ridiculous how people just lump everything into the Sci-Fi bucket. The term is way too broad. It doesn't actually describe the genre well enough, which leads to nonsense like putting Mad Max in the same category as Star Trek. You guys really think that's okay?

Whatever. That’s just a broad genre split. There are a million other reasons why those two movies don't belong in the same bucket, aside from just the general genre thing.

Look, if you're going to be this sensitive, just stay out of the debates. I don't know what else to tell you. Let me lay it out one more time: you’re rambling on about how much social sciences influence the Sci-Fi genre, and I’m telling you again—it’s just not right. By definition, Sci-Fi is about technology, progress, and scientific innovation. Where exactly are you finding those things in social sciences when we're talking about Sci-Fi? It doesn't track.

Another wrong reading of my post. I’m not talking about—or quoting—some "divine influence of social sciences on the SF genre." I'm talking about this. S in Sci-Fi, you kept pushing this idea just to wrap the whole thing up under S "tech, progress, and innovation."

Look, S Science is what defines Sci-Fi. Social science is just as much a branch of science as engineering or tech is. Sci-Fi doesn't just mean "tech, progress, and innovation" in the scientific sense. It’s about the marriage of Science and fiction—exactly what the name implies. Science is the sum of all human knowledge, not just a checklist of technological breakthroughs. Amen.

Walter Grant5 said:Where’s the psychology? Seriously, where’s the psychology? *I mean, damn, societal behavior is what drove things to become like they are in the movie, and psychology deals with societal behavior—shocker.

Yeah, nitpicking over tiny details and punctuation. For real, I wrote "they kill for cans of oil" and obviously, it was taken literally. I meant people fight for oil like it’s the last remaining supply of drinking water, but whatever. Probably the next argument would be something like: "How can you be sure it's just in those regions while the rest of the world is normal?"

I didn't say anything about internet evidence; you just jumped to that conclusion. I only said that Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source, especially if there's no original quote, let alone the internet itself. The theory in question was pulled from three dictionaries.

Among other things, including Wikipedia. How do we know it didn't originate on Wikipedia?

If my opening argument bothered you, you shouldn't have jumped in. And I don't get why you're hung up on those links. I told you Wikipedia isn't a credible source when it comes to certain things.

Look, don't start throwing emojis at me without any logic. That's not the start of a debate or an argument. Actually, it's just proof that all you know how to do is post a facepalm emoticon and nothing else.

You're saying Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for certain things. I guess you're the one deciding which things those are, since you criticized me (which I accepted) for linking to Wikipedia while feeling free to do the exact same thing.

Okay, so what does it matter? If they wrote it, then it's true, right? I mean, I don't get it. This is the second time I've dealt with this kind of attitude on this subforum. Just because I don't post much here doesn't mean I don't read it.

Try reading what you're responding to before you actually respond.

Moving on...

I'm waiting for someone to provide something? I asked you to define the Sci-Fi elements in the film we're discussing. What's the problem?

Well, for example, look at your way of debating. After I wrote about five times (give or take, and seriously, DON'T get hung up on that number like you do with everything else) where the psychological influence is in...Mad MaxYou’ve squinted at that same argument a dozen times already, asking "what kind of psychological impact are we even talking about here?" Mad Max?''

I write "they're killing each other over a can of oil," basically implying that in that era, oil is as good as gold. (Don't even bother asking me where in the movie it says oil equals gold—I know what I meant.) 🙂Look, saying they're stealing oil and basically waging war—come on, man. Don't start asking where the actual war is in the movie. You're interpreting it like some guy straight-up murdered people just to get his hands on fuel. You're splitting hairs over nothing.

So you kept pushing this idea that it was just some fictionalized version of a Bergman drama back in 2014. Look, come on, quit messing around. What’s the point? Seriously, why would an author bother cramming that kind of drama into a 2014 setting just for the sake of it being 2014? Did you actually think that through? Has anyone ever actually filmed a movie set in the future just because they wanted the setting to be the future?

So, why was it at the beginning? Mad Max ''A FEW YEARS FROM NOW...Why even bother pushing toward the future? Honestly, they’re just stealing fuel to keep things running. It's all a wash. Hells AngelsIt doesn't say anything about the rest of the world being in that state... so, what's the actual point?

So, you're still clinging to that "ultimate" argument of yours—the one where you claim technological progress is some absolute necessity for the Sci-Fi genre? You've been preaching that for ages, acting like you’ve already laid down the law on why it *has* to be that way. So, what’s the actual point? What specific argument are you even using to prove that? I am ready. Send the text. So, does Sci-Fi just mean tech upgrades rather than actual Science? It feels like the whole genre only exists to show off shiny new gadgets. I used to think there was more to it, but clearly, I was wrong. Sci-Fi is basically just a playground for previewing high-tech toys—flying cars, lightsabers, lasers, teleportation. Yeah, right. What a joke. I really thought it was supposed to be about how society evolves and everything around us shifts. My mistake. 2001: A Space Odyssey From now on, I’m only watching stuff to see if there's a flying ship. That's it. tech stuff. Advanced computer.

Where did I ever say Mad Max was a drama? 🙄

So what's the deal then? Action? Throwing it into the same bin as everything else that doesn't connect. Die Hard.Adventure or whatever... they're basically the same thing, tossed into the same bucket. No real difference. Indiana Jones.Look, you're missing the point. You can't just toss all these movies into the same bucket and expect them to make sense together. That's why your argument doesn't really hold water.

It’s ridiculous how people just lump everything into the Sci-Fi bucket. The term is way too broad. It doesn't actually describe the genre well enough, which leads to nonsense like putting Mad Max in the same category as Star Trek. You guys really think that's okay?

Whatever. That’s just a broad genre split. There are a million other reasons why those two movies don't belong in the same bucket, aside from just the general genre thing.

Look, if you're going to be this sensitive, just stay out of the debates. I don't know what else to tell you. Let me lay it out one more time: you’re rambling on about how much social sciences influence the Sci-Fi genre, and I’m telling you again—it’s just not right. By definition, Sci-Fi is about technology, progress, and scientific innovation. Where exactly are you finding those things in social sciences when we're talking about Sci-Fi? It doesn't track.

Another wrong reading of my post. I’m not talking about—or quoting—some "divine influence of social sciences on the SF genre." I'm talking about this. S in Sci-Fi, you kept pushing this idea just to wrap the whole thing up under S "tech, progress, and innovation."

Look, S Science is what defines Sci-Fi. Social science is just as much a branch of science as engineering or tech is. Sci-Fi doesn't just mean "tech, progress, and innovation" in the scientific sense. It’s about the marriage of Science and fiction—exactly what the name implies. Science is the sum of all human knowledge, not just a checklist of technological breakthroughs. Amen.

Man, where's the psychology in this movie?! Has Goose stumbled upon some new flavors of cognitive behavioral therapy to practice? Following your logic, I guess biology is involved too, seeing as there’s all kinds of low-lying weeds growing along the roadside.
You want to talk about psychology in movies? Since you're so obsessed with it? Fine. Here's an example. Inception.Do you even get the difference?

Yeah, here we go again—nitpicking over commas and tiny details. Seriously? I wrote "they're killing over scraps of oil," and of course, it gets taken literally. What I meant was that people are fighting for oil like it’s the last drops of drinking water on Earth, but whatever. I guess the next argument will be something like, "How can you be sure it isn't just happening in those specific areas while the rest of the world stays perfectly normal?"

So, what even counts as Sci-Fi? I already told you—we’ve got this stuff happening right now. People fighting over fuel, water, food. It's literal. Raw. On a purely individual level, people are killing each other just to survive. Is that Sci-Fi?

Between other things, too... WikipediaHow can we even tell if it isn't original? Wikipedia?

Because there are three footnotes pointing to three major dictionaries. Is that actually a solid enough argument?

Look, don't come at me with those random emojis like they actually mean something. It’s not a conversation starter. It’s not even an argument. It’s just proof you only know how to hit "post." Unbelievable. Just... facepalm. Just emojis and nothing else.

Look, if we’re really going to go toe-to-toe here, I'll just say it: you don't get to decide who does what around here. That’s the moderator's call. Fine. Whatever.

So you're saying... Wikipedia It’s hardly a reliable source when it comes to certain things. I guess you get to decide which things those are, since you were the one critiquing me—even though I actually took your point—when I posted that link to... Wikipedia And you think you're free enough to be exactly the same? Please.

Yeah, it’s not exactly a reliable source, right? Since anyone can just hop in and edit the text whenever they feel like it. So, you just log in and write whatever you want? Real professional. Mad Max Comedy is one thing. But when you start dropping references? That's a whole different ballgame.

Look at how you argue. Seriously. After I’ve pointed out—what, five times now? (Don't get hung up on the exact number, let's move on)—where the psychological influence lies in Mad Max, you just blink and ask, "What psychological influence is there in Mad Max?"

Here we go again.
Man, that psychological influence HAS to be visible in the film's visuals or narrative! I already explained that. What, did Goose discover some new type of cognitive behavioral therapy?

When I write "they're killing each other for a can of oil," I mean that in this era, oil is basically gold (and yeah, before you ask where it says oil equals gold in the movie 🙂), meaning they're stealing oil and fighting a literal war over it—seriously, don't ask me where the war is in the film—but you interpreted it as if some character literally murdered someone just to grab a barrel of fuel. You're nitpicking.

Details make a movie, but I'm trying to tell you that a gang of thugs killing and looting for fuel isn't some grand sci-fi concept; it's reality happening right now, somewhere in the world.

So you're stubbornly pushing this idea of a Bergman-style drama set in 2014. Come on, seriously, why? Why would an author bother cramming that kind of drama into 2014 just for the sake of it being 2014? Have you even thought about that? Has anyone ever filmed a movie set in the future just because it's the future?

Say the lead character has a baby in 2014, the whole movie takes place in one room around that baby, and it ends with an ambiguous finish—was it a dream or reality? Would you immediately label that Sci-Fi? I'm just making up a scenario here, but my point is: just because it happens in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

Then why does the beginning of Mad Max say ''A FEW YEARS FROM NOW...''? Why push it into the future? I mean, people steal fuel in Hells Angels too; it's never stated the rest of the world is in that state... okay, so why?

Look, I'm not claiming the movie isn't set in the future. I'm saying that without that opening line, you WOULDN'T know it was set in the future. And by Hells Angels, I meant the biker gang (not a movie, and given your suggestion in, it seems you misunderstood me—sorry if I was unclear)
.

And then there's your supposed ultimate argument: that technological advancement is a requirement for Sci-Fi, which you leaned on so hard when you said "I've argued my point." Exactly what? What argument proves that the S in Sci-Fi refers specifically to technology rather than Science in general?

Well, if you set aside these dystopian films—where society is almost always broken, which is my personal stance on excluding them from Sci-Fi—then practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre features some form of advanced technology.

So, does Sci-Fi only exist just to show off fancy new tech? Is that really all it is?

That’s just one of the core ideas in Science Fiction. Look at Arthur C. Clarke’s work, for example.

So, I thought there was more to it. Turns out I was dead wrong. Apparently, Science Fiction only exists so we can drool over futuristic tech—flying cars, lightsabers, lasers, teleportation. Yeah, right. What a joke. Who needs a deep dive into how human society actually evolves? Not this genre, clearly. 2001: A Space Odyssey From now on, I’m only watching movies to see the flying ships. That's it. Technological? An advanced computer. That's it? Just that?

No need for sarcasm.

So what is it then? Action? Just throws it in the same bin as everything else that doesn't matter. Die Hard. Classic.Adventure or mystery? Throwing them both into the same bucket like they have anything to do with each other. Really? Indiana Jones.Don't you get it? You can't just lump all these movies into the same bucket. So, what exactly is your point?

Post-apocalyptic action film.

Pointless. It's just a broad genre breakdown.Look, there are a million other reasons why those two movies don't belong in the same bucket, besides just the basic genre difference.

And that’s exactly where we hit a wall. Both fall under the Sci-Fi umbrella, sure, but let's be real—they have absolutely zero connection to each other.

Yet another wrong interpretation of my post. I’m not talking about—or quoting—some "divine influence of social sciences on the Sci-Fi genre." I'm talking about this. S So, in Sci-Fi, what exactly were you just insisting on? Just so we end up right back where we started? I'm ready. Send over the text you need me to rework. Reduced everything down to just "technology, progress, and innovation."

It’s not me, it’s just Sci-Fi theory. And honestly? I’m still digging my heels in on that "S." I don't see it in the movie at all, regardless of whether we're talking technical or social Science.

So, look, S Is "Science" even part of the term "Sci-Fi"? Social science is a branch of science just like technical science is, but Sci-Fi doesn't necessarily have to be about "technology, progress, or scientific innovation." Why assume it does? It’s just the marriage of Science and Science Fiction, exactly what the name implies. Simple, right?Science isn't just about tech breakthroughs. It's the whole sum of human knowledge. Period.

Alright, let's take that theory of yours—the one you just beefed up—and put it to the test. Give me a concrete example. Using the movie we’re actually arguing about, where exactly does that show up on screen?

rustywalker42 said:Man, where's the psychology in this movie?! Has Goose stumbled upon some new flavors of cognitive behavioral therapy to practice? Following your logic, I guess biology is involved too, seeing as there’s all kinds of low-lying weeds growing along the roadside.
You want to talk about psychology in movies? Since you're so obsessed with it? Fine. Here's an example. Inception.Do you even get the difference?

Yeah, here we go again—nitpicking over commas and tiny details. Seriously? I wrote "they're killing over scraps of oil," and of course, it gets taken literally. What I meant was that people are fighting for oil like it’s the last drops of drinking water on Earth, but whatever. I guess the next argument will be something like, "How can you be sure it isn't just happening in those specific areas while the rest of the world stays perfectly normal?"

So, what even counts as Sci-Fi? I already told you—we’ve got this stuff happening right now. People fighting over fuel, water, food. It's literal. Raw. On a purely individual level, people are killing each other just to survive. Is that Sci-Fi?

Between other things, too... WikipediaHow can we even tell if it isn't original? Wikipedia?

Because there are three footnotes pointing to three major dictionaries. Is that actually a solid enough argument?

Look, don't come at me with those random emojis like they actually mean something. It’s not a conversation starter. It’s not even an argument. It’s just proof you only know how to hit "post." Unbelievable. Just... facepalm. Just emojis and nothing else.

Look, if we’re really going to go toe-to-toe here, I'll just say it: you don't get to decide who does what around here. That’s the moderator's call. Fine. Whatever.

So you're saying... Wikipedia It’s hardly a reliable source when it comes to certain things. I guess you get to decide which things those are, since you were the one critiquing me—even though I actually took your point—when I posted that link to... Wikipedia And you think you're free enough to be exactly the same? Please.

Yeah, it’s not exactly a reliable source, right? Since anyone can just hop in and edit the text whenever they feel like it. So, you just log in and write whatever you want? Real professional. Mad Max Comedy is one thing. But when you start dropping references? That's a whole different ballgame.

Look at how you argue. Seriously. After I’ve pointed out—what, five times now? (Don't get hung up on the exact number, let's move on)—where the psychological influence lies in Mad Max, you just blink and ask, "What psychological influence is there in Mad Max?"

Here we go again.
Man, that psychological influence HAS to be visible in the film's visuals or narrative! I already explained that. What, did Goose discover some new type of cognitive behavioral therapy?

When I write "they're killing each other for a can of oil," I mean that in this era, oil is basically gold (and yeah, before you ask where it says oil equals gold in the movie 🙂), meaning they're stealing oil and fighting a literal war over it—seriously, don't ask me where the war is in the film—but you interpreted it as if some character literally murdered someone just to grab a barrel of fuel. You're nitpicking.

Details make a movie, but I'm trying to tell you that a gang of thugs killing and looting for fuel isn't some grand sci-fi concept; it's reality happening right now, somewhere in the world.

So you're stubbornly pushing this idea of a Bergman-style drama set in 2014. Come on, seriously, why? Why would an author bother cramming that kind of drama into 2014 just for the sake of it being 2014? Have you even thought about that? Has anyone ever filmed a movie set in the future just because it's the future?

Say the lead character has a baby in 2014, the whole movie takes place in one room around that baby, and it ends with an ambiguous finish—was it a dream or reality? Would you immediately label that Sci-Fi? I'm just making up a scenario here, but my point is: just because it happens in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

Then why does the beginning of Mad Max say ''A FEW YEARS FROM NOW...''? Why push it into the future? I mean, people steal fuel in Hells Angels too; it's never stated the rest of the world is in that state... okay, so why?

Look, I'm not claiming the movie isn't set in the future. I'm saying that without that opening line, you WOULDN'T know it was set in the future. And by Hells Angels, I meant the biker gang (not a movie, and given your suggestion in, it seems you misunderstood me—sorry if I was unclear)
.

And then there's your supposed ultimate argument: that technological advancement is a requirement for Sci-Fi, which you leaned on so hard when you said "I've argued my point." Exactly what? What argument proves that the S in Sci-Fi refers specifically to technology rather than Science in general?

Well, if you set aside these dystopian films—where society is almost always broken, which is my personal stance on excluding them from Sci-Fi—then practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre features some form of advanced technology.

So, does Sci-Fi only exist just to show off fancy new tech? Is that really all it is?

That’s just one of the core ideas in Science Fiction. Look at Arthur C. Clarke’s work, for example.

So, I thought there was more to it. Turns out I was dead wrong. Apparently, Science Fiction only exists so we can drool over futuristic tech—flying cars, lightsabers, lasers, teleportation. Yeah, right. What a joke. Who needs a deep dive into how human society actually evolves? Not this genre, clearly. 2001: A Space Odyssey From now on, I’m only watching movies to see the flying ships. That's it. Technological? An advanced computer. That's it? Just that?

No need for sarcasm.

So what is it then? Action? Just throws it in the same bin as everything else that doesn't matter. Die Hard. Classic.Adventure or mystery? Throwing them both into the same bucket like they have anything to do with each other. Really? Indiana Jones.Don't you get it? You can't just lump all these movies into the same bucket. So, what exactly is your point?

Post-apocalyptic action film.

Pointless. It's just a broad genre breakdown.Look, there are a million other reasons why those two movies don't belong in the same bucket, besides just the basic genre difference.

And that’s exactly where we hit a wall. Both fall under the Sci-Fi umbrella, sure, but let's be real—they have absolutely zero connection to each other.

Yet another wrong interpretation of my post. I’m not talking about—or quoting—some "divine influence of social sciences on the Sci-Fi genre." I'm talking about this. S So, in Sci-Fi, what exactly were you just insisting on? Just so we end up right back where we started? I'm ready. Send over the text you need me to rework. Reduced everything down to just "technology, progress, and innovation."

It’s not me, it’s just Sci-Fi theory. And honestly? I’m still digging my heels in on that "S." I don't see it in the movie at all, regardless of whether we're talking technical or social Science.

So, look, S Is "Science" even part of the term "Sci-Fi"? Social science is a branch of science just like technical science is, but Sci-Fi doesn't necessarily have to be about "technology, progress, or scientific innovation." Why assume it does? It’s just the marriage of Science and Science Fiction, exactly what the name implies. Simple, right?Science isn't just about tech breakthroughs. It's the whole sum of human knowledge. Period.

Alright, let's take that theory of yours—the one you just beefed up—and put it to the test. Give me a concrete example. Using the movie we’re actually arguing about, where exactly does that show up on screen?

Aaargh. Wait, you think psychology only counts when an author is dissecting a character's psyche? You ever heard of social psychology?

Look, I’m talking about the imagined psychological evolution of civilization in a movie. It’s the exact same thing you’re doing when you talk about the imagined development of technology in other films. We're both just looking at where fiction and Science intersect. You're the only one who thinks you've got it right, though.

Biology’s probably in on it too. You can smell the ecological disaster coming from a mile away. And please, don't even ask if I happened to notice some oil spilling on a few plants or whatever...

Because there are three footnotes pointing to three major dictionaries. Is that actually a solid enough argument?

Doesn't matter at all.

If we’re really gonna go at it, I’ll just tell you straight: you don't call the shots here. That's the moderator's job. But fine. Whatever.

I'm not blocking you. I just can't stand it when people jump in with that kind of crap. Facepalm. Aside from just messing around, honestly. If everyone actually did that, PDFs would be a total disaster because anyone could just drop in a smiley face.

Yeah, it’s not exactly a reliable source since anyone can just go in and edit the text whenever they feel like it. So you basically log in and write whatever you want. Mad Max Comedy is one thing. But when you start throwing in references, that's a whole different ballgame.

That's what I thought. You're the one deciding what's worth using and what isn't.

Here he comes again.
Man, that psychological influence HAS to show up in the visuals or the actual storytelling. I already told you that earlier. Did Goose stumble onto some new kind of cognitive behavioral therapy or what?

We're talking about how society's psyche evolves here, not necessarily about refining some treatment method.

It’s the little things that make a movie. Look, I'm trying to tell you—that whole scene where a gang of thugs is killing and looting just to get their hands on some fuel? That isn't even Sci-Fi. It's just reality happening somewhere in the world right now.

I’m not talking about the small details in the movie, I’m talking about the straws you’re clinging to. Misinterpreted minutiae.

Let's say the lead guy has a kid in 2014, the whole movie takes place in one room centered around that baby, and then it ends on some ambiguous note where you can't tell if it was a dream or reality. You’d immediately slap the Sci-Fi label on that? Look, I'm just making up a scenario here, but I'm trying to say that just because something happens in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

Man, what a character you are. Yeah, you're rambling. First off, I wouldn't call that movie Sci-Fi if the audience couldn't tell dream from reality. But come on, no director is going to set a movie in 2014 just so someone on a forum can prove that setting it in the future doesn't automatically make it Sci-Fi.

Look, I'm not claiming the movie doesn't take place in the future, I'm just saying without that opening line, you WOULDN'T know it's set in the future. And by Hells Angels, I mean a biker gang (wasn't referring to any specific movie, and based on your suggestion, looks like you took it that way—my bad if I missed the mark).

Check below under *

Well, if you exclude those dystopian films where society is almost always broken and strip them out of Sci-Fi (which is my personal stance), practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre involves some kind of advanced technology.

Buddy, you should have told me that right away. Especially that part in parentheses. "My personal stance"?! What does what you personally believe have to do with anything?

Same goes for this next bit: "...practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre..." I mean, how are we supposed to know which ones are true? It carries zero weight when you claim every "true" Sci-Fi has advanced tech. That's like saying "I argued." Anyone can write that. I could shove "true" into my own theory whenever I felt like it.

That is one of the core ideas of the Sci-Fi genre. You see it, for instance, in the works of Arthur C. Clarke.

Exactly.

No need for the sarcasm.

But following your logic, we basically end up at the conclusion that Sci-Fi only exists if it depicts advanced technology.

Post-apocalyptic/dystopian action film.

*Post-apocalyptic stories are a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Now, go ahead, fit that post-apocalyptic stuff into the question you asked me. How would you even know it's a post-apocalypse if there wasn't an opening line in the film?

And what does it all boil down to? I'm arguing with a guy whoPersonally. So he’s out here claiming post-apocalyptic and dystopian movies aren't actually Sci-Fi? That's a reach. I guess that's why he's trying so hard to prove it. Mad Max Isn't it Sci-Fi? Fits that theory, doesn't it?

That's exactly where things fall apart. Both belong to the Sci-Fi genre, but honestly? They have zero connection to each other.

The link between them is just that they're Sci-Fi.

And you said it was... Mad Max Action flicks, like say... Die Hard They barely have anything in common, honestly. But hey, they're both action flicks. I also threw in a few other titles that fall under the same umbrella—no real connection there besides being the same genre. Like... Monty Python I'm ready. Send over the text you need me to rework. Modern TimesLook, that’s not my issue. That's your problem. Besides, genre boundaries aren't some rigid cage; there are tons of subgenres and people mix them with other stuff all the time.

It’s not even me talking—it's just basic Sci-Fi theory. And honestly, I’m still sticking to my guns on this: I don't see any "Science" in that movie at all. Doesn't matter if you try to claim it's technical or social science. It's just not there.

Yeah, that's because you only see Science through this narrow lens of stuff you can actually touch. You don't even count social evolution as part of the scientific side of things. To you, Science just means tech upgrades, and now suddenly medical therapies count too? If it were up to you, "biological science" would probably just be some new species of weed.

Alright, let's take that theory of yours—the one I actually bothered to beef up—and put it to the test. Give me a specific example from the movie we're arguing about. Where exactly does this show up on screen?

I've said this a thousand times already. You’re just not getting the theory. Seriously, you haven't stumbled upon any new types of cognitive behavioral therapy.

Replying to rustywalker42's question:

So, explain to me—why are (The Road and Mad Max) considered Sci-Fi films?

You can interpret Sci-Fi as just "Science," but I prefer looking at it as Speculative fiction.
Think of Sci-Fi as this sort of "umbrella genre"—it's a broad category where various different genres meet to explore specific speculative themes.
You've got space adventures, westerns, action flicks, war stories, dramas, and so on—and all of them can fall under the Sci-Fi banner.

Now, Mad Max and The Road fit perfectly because they speculate on how society and human relationships might evolve if the living conditions on Earth were to fundamentally shift in the future.
The Road depicts a world where the ecosystem has been completely decimated—exploring that through pure drama—whereas Mad Max shows a world running out of oil that, for some implied reason (likely a nuclear war), is collapsing into total anarchy—told through the lens of an action movie.

Both are serious Sci-Fi films, even if they don't feature high-tech gadgets or explicitly dwell on scientific theories; the Sci-Fi element is simply "packaged" inside the genre itself.

You could argue that the *Fast & Furious* flicks share some superficial DNA with *Mad Max*—they both lean into that same sense of being totally detached from reality, centered mostly on high-octane car chases and various explosive showdowns.
But, I mean, let’s be honest—it’s pretty obvious that *Mad Max* isn't just some mindless spectacle about anarchist outlaws racing cars and killing each other.

(My apologies to anyone who felt personally attacked by me putting those two movies in the same sentence. 😁)

Look, they aren't even talking about scientific motives (don't want to sign off on The Road since I haven't actually seen it), it’s just obvious. Science is a system of knowledge—total human knowledge. If a story is set in the future, it's pretty clear we're looking at newly acquired info from whatever time passed before the movie kicks off. So, you're basically guessing at knowledge and science, which is just pure fiction, aka fantasy. That's how you get Science Fiction.

nimblemarlin6 said:You could argue that the *Fast & Furious* flicks share some superficial DNA with *Mad Max*—they both lean into that same sense of being totally detached from reality, centered mostly on high-octane car chases and various explosive showdowns.
But, I mean, let’s be honest—it’s pretty obvious that *Mad Max* isn't just some mindless spectacle about anarchist outlaws racing cars and killing each other.

(My apologies to anyone who felt personally attacked by me putting those two movies in the same sentence. 😁)

Those two films don't have anything in common, nor do they come anywhere close... In "Mad Max," you see post-apocalyptic nomads surviving by moving from one location to another in a desperate search for fuel, water, food, women, and other resources absolutely vital to their survival... There aren't any races (because honestly, who would waste fuel on such senseless displays in a world where a single gallon of gas is worth more than a human life?), what you actually saw there was classic hunting, just performed with vehicles and scavenging... While "Fast & Furious" features gangs, they aren't even remotely similar to those nomads—they might be, perhaps, if the law had completely vanished... 👍