Futuristic and Sci-Fi Movies

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:You don't have to agree with me. I don't even agree with myself, because I personally don't consider Metropolis to be Sci-Fi at all, but rather a futurist film. I see a massive distinction there, even if most people don't.

What exactly is the difference between Sci-Fi and futurism?

casualotter21 said:What's the actual difference between Sci-Fi and futurism?

I'm not really in the mood to explain this... you either get it or you don't. There's a massive gap between the two. If you consider yourself a film buff, you should already know... if not, here’s the short version:
Sci-Fi - "2001: A Space Odyssey";
Futurism - "Metropolis", "Mad Max", "Rollerball"...

(Of course, you don't have to agree... it's all subjective...)

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:I really don't have the energy to explain this... you either get it or you don't. There isn't much middle ground. If you consider yourself a true cinephile, it should be common knowledge...

"I maintain a very strict distinction between Sci-Fi and futurism. But since this is just a public forum for movie discussions, I can't be bothered to exhaust myself by explaining that distinction after I've already mentioned it once."

(Of course, you don't have to agree... it's all a matter of personal perception...)

It is difficult for me to adopt any particular stance on a concept that hasn't actually been explained to me.

casualotter21 said:"I have this ultra-brilliant way of splitting movies into Sci-Fi and futurism.
It's hard for me to take a stance on anything if it hasn't been properly explained first."

That distinction isn't "ultra-brilliant"; it's just common sense.

I think my examples made the difference between those two concepts clear enough for anyone with even a basic understanding of cinema. If someone actually wants to debate film theory and terminology, they should start a dedicated thread. We can discuss it there—nicely or otherwise, depending on the mood.

Nick, you're acting foolish, but I don't think you actually are, and I suspect you know exactly what I meant.

I have no idea why you feel the need to get defensive, but that's your business.

I know this is probably going to kick off another endless cycle of arguments over what actually counts as Sci-Fi and all that nonsense, but I really need you to walk me through your classification logic.

I have a hunch about where you're coming from, but my understanding of the genre feels a bit fuzzy on certain points.

BTW, didn't we have that one thread titled "Mom, what even is Sci-Fi?" once upon a time? 🤔

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:I believe my examples sufficiently clarified the distinction between those two concepts, at least for anyone with even a modicum of "film education." If someone wishes to debate film terminology and theory, they should start a dedicated thread for that. We can then engage in a polite (or perhaps not so polite—that's your call) discussion there, should we feel inclined.

Essentially, the sole reason I initiated this thread was that Jeffrey Edwards18 refused to immediately explain his distinction between Sci-Fi and futuristic films. I am hopeful he might finally do so within this discussion. That is all.

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:This distinction isn't "brilliant"; it's actually quite standard and logical.
I believe my choice of examples sufficiently illustrated the nuance between those two concepts, at least for anyone possessing even a modicum of "film education."

Or perhaps not. If I find it necessary to ask about the difference between futurism and Sci-Fi, one might assume I am unfamiliar with said distinction. And if I don't grasp the logic behind a classification, simply listing films under that label doesn't offer much substance.

Furthermore, given the sheer volume of text you've produced thus far, you could have easily provided a brief explanation of that division.

If someone genuinely wants to debate film theory and terminology, they should just start a dedicated thread for it. We can then have a civilized—or perhaps not, depending on your mood—discussion if we feel like participating.

Fine. Consider the floor open.

Nick is an idiot, but I suspect you aren't actually dim, and that you understand exactly what I meant.

No, I am not, which is evidenced by the fact that I requested an explanation of the distinction—an explanation you seem increasingly reluctant to provide.

Why you feel the need to get defensive is beyond me; that’s your business.

I asked a question that you are refusing to answer despite clearly knowing the answer. On a forum, this behavior is generally considered rude, as it implies a refusal to engage in actual dialogue with other members. Dropping vague Annotations about your hidden expertise won't get you anywhere here. People tend to prefer interlocutors who are slightly more concrete and willing to put in a minimal amount of effort to demonstrate their understanding.

Melissa Moore32 said:I need you to explain this classification of yours a bit more.

I have a hunch what you mean, but my own understanding of these categories isn't exactly clear.

Well...

I honestly don't know if there are any "official" classifications out there, or if there are, what their "official" definitions actually look like.

I just go by instinct. I feel like you can't lump everything into the same bucket—Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Metropolis, Star Trek, Mad Max...

Basically, there probably aren't any precise "objective" explanations here. To me, these distinctions are obvious... and it seems logical that they should be obvious to others, at least those with enough "film experience."

Fine.

For instance, The Odyssey and Star Trek are Science Fiction, right? Everyone agrees on that, right? And everyone understands why they fall under Sci-Fi, right?

Now, we have this other term—"futurism." I don't know if that's an "official" genre, nor do I know what "official existence of a genre" would even imply.
I've been using the term "futuristic films" for a long time—referring to movies that present an author's vision of the future (since nobody currently knows for sure what the future will look like) but where advanced technology—which seems fantastic to us today—isn't the main focus, or isn't even present.

When I talk about or think of futurism or a futuristic film, Mad Max always comes to mind first. To me, that's a textbook example of a futuristic film. I wouldn't call it Sci-Fi; it feels silly to label it "science fiction" when there is nothing particularly "scientific" or "fantastic" about it. How can it be "scientific" when gasoline and bullets are rare luxuries and people are killing each other with revolvers? How can it be "fantastic" when we're all witnesses to how easily our planet could end up looking like the world in Mad Max?
And yet, I wouldn't call Mad Max a drama either—even though it's a "dramatic" series of films, the term drama usually applies to a completely different type of movie (not to get into a longer lecture here). You can't call Mad Max a Western, even if the average viewer might find it reminiscent of one. You can't call it a fantasy film either, because there's no fantasy involved... The Lord of the Rings, being the most famous fantasy, really has nothing in common with Mad Max, does it?
And so on, and so forth... I don't know about everyone else, but I put that film in the "futuristic films" category.

Everything I just said regarding Mad Max as a prime example can also apply to: Metropolis, Rollerball, The Salute of the Jugger... They are all classic futuristic films. You might even include some slightly different films under "futurism": Brazil, 1984, A Clockwork Orange...

Did someone mention Blade Runner? 🙂
Yeah... I also experience that film as futuristic rather than Sci-Fi... even if it is perhaps (and very successfully!) a blend of both genres...

There... I really went all out there... 🙂

(I suggest the moderators open a new thread for "film theory" and move this post over there.)

I think I've addressed what casualotter21 wrote about me.

As for why I didn't reply immediately?

You want the truth?

I assumed you already knew the answer and fully grasped my point regarding the distinction between futurism and Sci-Fi. I took your question as a little jab.

I was being honest, so be honest too—was that a genuine question born out of curiosity, or were you just trying to mess with me?

Either way, it's all good on my end. 😎

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:So now we have this other term—"futurism." I’m honestly not sure if that's an officially recognized genre, or even what "official existence of a genre" would actually entail.
For a long time, I’ve just used the phrase "futuristic films" to describe movies that present an author's vision of the future—since nobody can say for certain what the future will actually look like—but where ultra-advanced technology (which seems fantastical to us today) isn't the primary focus, or is barely even present at all.

There, was that a total fail? 🙂

I see your point now: you’re calling movies Sci-Fi when the plot hinges on technology, whereas in "futuristic" films, the future is merely a backdrop for a different kind of story.

That distinction makes sense, though I suspect Sci-Fi should ideally be both: it ought to explore how a specific new technology or social phenomenon shapes the behavior of society and the individuals within it. Nothing comes to mind immediately... it's late, though, so perhaps I'll think of something by tomorrow...

AHA! I've got it! "Gattaca"! That’s a perfect example. The entire film revolves around genetic engineering and its potential societal fallout. Without introducing that technology, there practically wouldn't be a plot. But the story isn't about the mechanics of how to clone someone; instead, it focuses on the practical consequences of gene manipulation on society (like the emergence of a new form of discrimination).

--------
Postscript: No, I didn't catch the distinction the first time. If I were picking examples of Sci-Fi, I’d go for something more extreme that leans heavily into the tech. In those cases, I always think of novels by Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke, who seem much more interested in describing scientifically grounded future tech than bothering with deep character development. The so-called "hard Sci-Fi."

On the other end of the spectrum—your version of "futurism"—would be Ray Bradbury. "Fahrenheit 451" could take place anytime, anywhere. There is virtually no technology featured; the core idea is simply the burning of books and censorship driven by political correctness and mass culture.

casualotter21 said:So, was that actually as bad as it looked? 🙂

Yeah. I’ve got a phone bill to pay. That's why I avoid any questions that require a thirty-minute essay to answer.

Alright. Everything seems fine. 😎

You reminded me... Fahrenheit 451 is another prime example of top-tier futurism. I'm also struggling to recall the exact title of another one—I think it's Green Sun. It's a pretty famous film. There are plenty more like it, and they aren't exactly upbeat. Then there’s Woody Allen’s brilliant futuristic parody, Sleeper. 😁

Take Sci-Fi, for instance. I went with Clarke (The Odyssey). 😕

Sci-Fi doesn't necessarily have to be set in the future.

Sorry Jeffrey Edwards18, but you’re really missing the mark here.

First things first:
Science Fiction is a film genre.
Futuristic is just an adjective.

Secondly:
Maybe put aside those personal definitions of yours for a second and take a quick look at some actual professional literature:

Science Fiction is a feature film genre, specifically a subgenre of fantasy cinema. In Sci-Fi movies, we see imagined, non-existent worlds or states of being presented as if they were real possibilities—either through scientifically grounded explanations, like an evolutionary future of our own world ( futuristic science fiction), or via encounters with unknown contemporary worlds and their inhabitants (like aliens, extraterrestrial civilizations, or parallel universes).

Some prominent subgenres include:
-Space opera, basically space movies ( Star Trek, Star Wars )
-time travel movies ( Back to the Future )
-post-apocalyptic movies ( Mad Max )

Science Fiction falls under the umbrella of the fantasy film genre, which also encompasses horror, adventure-fantasy, surrealist film, fairy tales, and sword and sorcery ( or rather high fantasy, fantasy films, fantasy ).

So, Metropolis is definitely futuristic science fiction because it tried to extrapolate the social, urban, and physical trends of its time. Basically, it is science fiction.

…
Whether a movie belongs to a certain genre isn't determined by how "serious" it feels, but rather by whether it hits those specific genre tropes. By that logic, both A Trip to the Moon and Metropolis qualify as science fiction.
Just because you feel like the Méliès film is "silly" and doesn't count as Sci-Fi because people are getting shot at the moon with cannons and getting hit with Selenite umbrellas, you have to remember that it was adapted from a book written in the 19th century, whereas Metropolis was made over twenty-five years later—in that gap, not only did scientific reality change profoundly, but so did the vision of its evolution, or science fiction itself.

Just try to think about how much Sci-Fi from the 40s differs from the stuff in the 70s, and consider how much science actually changed during that period.

....
Sorry about all the italics! It didn't look nearly this overwhelming when I was typing with the tags.
😁

Fine... now we know what the "official" stance is.

I never claimed that A Trip to the Moon isn't Sci-Fi. Many film history texts label Metropolis as the first Sci-Fi movie, but I wasn't stating that as my own opinion. A Trip to the Moon is Sci-Fi... and it was the first. 🙂

Your point about "nouns and adjectives" missed the mark and was unnecessary.

"Science Fiction" and "futurism" are nouns, while "sci-fi" and "futuristic" are adjectives. My previous posts on this topic make it clear that I have a solid grasp of the terminology... and besides, I don't have to adopt every "official definition" as my own.

Why?

I think my explanation regarding the distinction between Sci-Fi and futuristic films is perfectly clear, concise, and logical. I still wouldn't categorize futurism UNDER Sci-Fi; instead, I view futurism ALONGSIDE Sci-Fi as a second, equal genre.
You suggest the subgenre "post-apocalyptic films"? That might apply to Mad Max, but it doesn't work for Metropolis—there was no apocalypse there. Speaking of Mad Max, though—the apocalypse, specifically a nuclear war, didn't actually happen until between the second and third Mad Max movies. Therefore, the first two Mad Max films are futuristic, but they aren't post-apocalyptic because the apocalypse hadn't occurred yet. (Most people probably assume otherwise... but if you actually look at the chronology of the Mad Max series...)

p.s. — Me, rambling blindly? Sure... clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to movies...

p.p.s. — By the way, Back to the Future doesn't belong to the Sci-Fi subgenre of "time travel movies"; it belongs to the comedy genre. 😁

To definition of Science Fiction isn't actually "mine," I just lifted it straight from the Film Encyclopedia.
The Annotation was penned by the film scholar Dr. Hrvoje Turković.

...
I mean, you can't really claim "personal" definitions for scientific concepts, right? A definition is supposed to be precise.

...
Then there’s the whole subgenre of Sci-Fi known as 'dystopia' ( Blade Runner, Logan's Run, Fahrenheit 451 ). In that same vein, Metropolis would definitely fit in there too.

...
"Futurism" is an artistic movement in painting and poetry that kicked off in the early twentieth century over in Italy. It basically celebrates technological progress and the Industrial Revolution (along with all the messy side effects of that era, like war, imperialism, and fascism).

...
Wait, where on earth did you get Mad Max from?

casualotter21 said:I think Sci-Fi should ideally be both: it ought to explore how a new technology or social phenomenon shapes the behavior of society and the individual within it.

Why?
Why "should" it?
Trying to set boundaries for creativity beforehand just doesn't make sense.

Richard Hernandez13 said:That definition of Science Fiction isn't "mine"—it was pulled straight from the Film Encyclopedia.
You don't get to have "personal" definitions for scientific terms. Definitions require precision.
Then there's the subgenre known as "dystopia" ( Blade Runner, Logan's Run, Fahrenheit 451 ). Metropolis fits right in there too.

Fine... here's what I actually said at the start:

"I have no idea if there are any 'official' classifications out there, or if they exist, what they look like, or how their 'official' definitions work.

I just go by gut feeling. It feels wrong to lump everything into one bucket—Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Metropolis, Star Trek, Mad Max..."

I learned something tonight. An official definition. Thanks. Though I've never been much for following authority. I'd rather push my own views than have others push theirs on me.

But if those are the official definitions, then fine... the scope of this thread is clear. This is an interesting discussion, and I'll probably save it in my film archive on my hard drive.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Where did you get this Mad Max thing from?

I didn't make it up. It’s just the reality of it. I'm a massive Mad Max fan—borderline obsessive, really. I've done the work to learn everything about that trilogy, including the backstory. You can find all the detailed breakdowns and timelines online if you look. But even if you just watch the films closely, it becomes obvious that the apocalypse actually happened AFTER the second installment. There isn't much else to say about it.

To make a long story short.
Let me cut to the chase... 🙂

Of course, everyone can intuitively tell the difference between various shades and subgenres of Sci-Fi. But let's not go making a whole mess of genres and subgenres out of it! There's really no need to split hairs over such trivial distinctions.

Kafka is Sci-Fi, Orwell is Sci-Fi, H.G. Wells is Sci-Fi, Huxley is Sci-Fi, Asimov is Sci-Fi, Philip K. Dick is Sci-Fi, Star Trek is Sci-Fi, "Red Dwarf" is Sci-Fi, "12 Monkeys" is Sci-Fi, "Sixth Sense" is Sci-Fi, "Flying Teddy Bear" is Sci-Fi ...

I suppose almost everything worth reading or watching from 20th-century literature and film falls under the umbrella of Sci-Fi.

And that’s just how it is. Does anyone happen to disagree?

🙂

Well...

Things get complicated when you talk about Mad Max. Even the box sets for the first two films label them as post-apocalyptic stories, but that’s just fundamentally wrong.

There is plenty of deep diving to be done on this topic, such as here:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~alexm/madmax/

If you consider yourself a Mad Max fan, check this out:
http://www.mainforcepatrol.com/ 😁