Futuristic and Sci-Fi Movies

I think it’s worth clearing up the little confusion surrounding the word 'futuristic' when we talk about science fiction.

He’s basically trying to draw a line between one specific flavor of sci-fi (like New York City and Blade Runner ) and another completely different kind (think World War and Close Encounters of the Third Kind ).

...
So, are World War and Close Encounters.. actually sci-fi?
Sure they are.

But why?
Well, both movies depict a reality where aliens show up on our doorstep.

And are there any aliens currently hanging out in our actual world?
Not that we know of—or at least, that’s what we’re told. 😉

The point is, those two films are showing us a version of the world that doesn't exist right now.

Is that non-existent state scientifically plausible?
Totally—you just assume life evolved on some distant planet somewhere out there... blah, blah, blah.

-Now, here’s the kicker-

Do these films actually depict an evolutionary future for our own world?
Nope!

Why not?
In both cases, human civilization is stuck at the exact same technological and social level as the era the movie takes place in. Specifically, we're looking at the years '53 and '77.

So, strictly speaking, World War and Close Encounters… aren't really "futuristic" science fiction.

…
Then what about New York City and Blade Runner? Are they sci-fi?
Yes, absolutely.

And the reason is simple:
They portray an imagined, non-existent world (and I mean the state of the world itself). Back when these films were made, nothing even remotely resembling what they showed existed anywhere on Earth.

Is that imaginary world scientifically explainable?
It is.

And could that state of affairs be a possible evolutionary future for the world as it was back then?
Yeah, and in the case of Blade Runner, that future still feels entirely possible today.

That’s how you get New York City and Blade Runner being categorized as futuristic science fiction.

I don't know... I'm not really sure what to think anymore... it's late... or early, I guess... I'm done with this whole theoretical debate. I've already said my piece, and probably in way too much detail anyway.

I'd much rather talk about actual MOVIES... Metropolis... Mad Max... Blade Runner...

I'm exhausted. I've spent the last hour scouring the web for this one incredible site that broke down the plot of Mad Max in depth, but I lost it when my hard drive died about eighteen months ago. It can't be that the page is actually gone, can it? 😠 It was genuinely great. I'm heading to bed. Goodnight, film buffs...

That’s an interesting angle.

I finally caught what Jeffrey Edwards18 was getting at with his "breakdown" (man, Jeffrey, you could've just put that in one single post instead of dragging it out over twenty 😁 😳), and honestly, the logic holds up. But hey, Richard Hernandez13 already gave us the exact definition of how it works anyway..😉

Looks like my previous post got nuked by the mods for off-topic rambling... Hey, nimblemarlin17, you want to trade some movies? I haven't seen this much straight-up trash anywhere else on the web 😁
I was checking out the blog
👍

Bow to our master

🙏

Futurism is more about stuff that actually has a shot at happening down the road, and honestly, you don't even need high-tech gadgets for that. I’d throw disaster flicks in there too—you know, those movies where a comet decides to wreck everything. Sci-Fi is different. It deals with things we aren't even remotely close to achieving scientifically (like Star Trek) or things that are just pure fiction (like Star Wars). Futurism brushes up against reality, while Sci-Fi pretty much ignores it. That's my take on it...

Back in high school, I actually wrote my senior thesis on Sci-Fi films. During that process, I developed my own idiosyncratic system for classifying the genre. Here, have a look and tell me if I've missed the mark somewhere:

(In the actual paper, this was formatted as a table, but since I can't attach files here, I'll just list it...)

SCIENCE FICTION MOVIES:

1. BY ERA:
- past
- present
- future
- unknown time

2. BY SETTING:
- space
- planet Earth
- other locations
- unknown locations

3. BY FEASIBILITY:
- impossible
- perhaps possible
- possible

4. BY SOURCE MATERIAL:
- adapted from a novel
- adapted from a comic book
- adapted from other media (video games, etc.)
- original screenplay

5. BY TONE/APPROACH:
- entertainment/humorous
- ironic/critical
- scientific/serious

_________________________________________________

BY THEMATIC SUBJECT:

1. CLOSE ENCOUNTER

2. SPACE AND TIME TRAVEL

3. FUTURE HUMAN SOCIETY

4. MODERN SCIENTIFIC QUESTION

5. SCI-FI FANTASY

6. SUPERHERO

Essentially, the second section—which categorizes Sci-Fi by its core plot elements—is the more significant part. If I overlooked something, well, life goes on.

My only real dilemma was whether I should have included a specific category for cataclysms, though one could argue those fall under modern scientific question.

Jeffrey Edwards18> So, say an odyssey or Star Trek are considered Sci-Fi, right? That seems pretty obvious to everyone, isn't it? And I assume it's also crystal clear to everyone exactly why they fall into that category, wouldn't you agree?

So now we’re onto this other term—"futurism." Honestly, I don't even know if that counts as an "official" genre, and I'm really not sure what it would even mean for a genre to have an "official existence" in the first place.
I’ve been using the term "futuristic films" for a long time now to describe a very specific niche. I'm talking about movies that focus on the director's personal vision of what's ahead—since, let’s be honest, nobody actually knows how the future is going to turn out—but where hyper-advanced technology isn't the main attraction. In fact, I usually mean the kind of films where that high-tech stuff isn't even the focal point, or might not even be present at all.

Yeah, I think that’s what you were getting at, and honestly, I’m kind of on board with that—setting aside the official definitions for a second.

I guess I’m just a little bothered by how you're framing this whole "futurism" thing. It feels a bit off to me. Out. What does anyone even mean when they say Sci-Fi, really? I guess I don't really know what to make of this yet. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but I feel like there's more to the story here than what we're seeing on the surface. I'll probably have more thoughts once things settle down, but for now, I'm just sitting here wondering if anyone else feels this same sense of uncertainty.I don't know, something about it just doesn't sit right with me.

Even I find myself saying, I guess:

I still wouldn't go so far as to lump futurism under the umbrella of Sci-Fi. Personally, I see futurism as its own thing—a separate, equal genre that sits right alongside Sci-Fi rather than being tucked inside it.

Basically, you're trying to tell me that Sci-Fi and "futurism" aren't actually two different things, but rather that one just falls under the umbrella of the other. I guess that's how you see it, anyway.

Look, you said that was your own personal classification, and honestly, that’s fine. But you can't exactly expect everyone else to just fall in line and accept it, no matter how logical or sound you think it is. That’s really all there is to it.

Jeffrey Edwards18> Whenever I talk about futurism or movies that feel futuristic, my mind immediately jumps straight to Mad Max. For me, that’s the quintessential example of what a futuristic film should be. Honestly, I wouldn't even call it Sci-Fi; it feels a bit silly to label it "science fiction" when there isn't much "science" or "fiction" involved. I mean, how can you claim it's "scientific" when gas and bullets have become these rare luxuries, and everyone is just killing each other with basic rifles? And how can it be "fantasy" when we're all living in a world where the planet could realistically end up looking like Mad Max at any given moment?

Concept Dystopia. That’s all I can think about lately. It feels like we're constantly circling the drain, staring down the barrel of some dark, broken version of the future where everything we value just... evaporates. I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical, but it feels like we're living through the opening credits of a bleak sci-fi flick. Every time I turn on the news, it feels less like reality and more like a script written by someone who hates humanity. I guess it's easy to get lost in that mindset, but it's getting harder to ignore. I guess you just don't get it. It clearly means nothing to you. 😉

Look, I get it... I know dystopia isn't technically its own genre, it's more like a lens or a setting. But let’s be real—it almost always relies on those specific tropes and elements that you typically find sitting right inside the Sci-Fi genre anyway.

Look, instead of calling movies like Metro, MMax, and stuff like that "futurism," you could just call them dystopias. It’s simpler. I guess you could say it's a "minor mistake," but still.

Jeffrey Edwards18> I’m suggesting the moderators open up a new thread dedicated specifically to "film theory" and just move this whole discussion over there.

Why don't you just open it yourself?😉 Nobody is going to take the bait. 😁

Jeffrey Edwards18>Yeah. I’ve got a phone bill to pay. That's why I try to avoid replies that require thirty minutes of typing.

Pro tip: save the page to your hard drive, read it properly offline, and then write your reply in Word. 😉

Jeffrey Edwards18> "I honestly don't know if there are any 'official' classifications out there, and if there are, what they actually are or how their 'official' definitions go."

I just have a gut feeling about certain things. I feel like you can't just lump everything into one bucket—Star Wars, 2001: A space odyssey, Blade Runner, Metropolis, Star Trek, Mad Max..."

Okay... this isn't really about the main topic and please don't take this as a personal attack, but this kind of thing is exactly what bugs me.

You say "you feel certain things"... sorry man, but posts like that give off the impression that you think you're somehow above everyone else just because you operate on your own little system.

It sort of... comes off as arrogant, even though I'm not saying you are intentionally being that way... I haven't read enough of your stuff to have a definitive opinion.

Just watch out for those little nuances, okay?

Jeffrey Edwards18> It's just that I've never really cared much for other people's authority. I'd rather "impose" my views on others than have others "impose" theirs on me.

And there it is..."like Usagi Mihoshi making fun of having big eyes." 😂

@Richard Hernandez13

The voice of reason. 👍 Thanks for the definitions, first and foremost.

Yeah, I pretty much have to agree with what Richard Hernandez13 wrote here.

Though I don't really get why people are attacking him so much just because he has his own way of categorizing things.

As long as he expresses himself, how others interpret him or whether they agree is really his problem.

There is some logic to what he's saying, but the downside is that he keeps contradicting himself here and there, at least from my perspective.

Richard Hernandez13 said:"Futurism" is an art movement in painting and poetry that kicked off in the early 19th century in Italy. It basically glorifies technological progress and the Industrial Revolution—along with all the messy side effects that came with it back then, like war, imperialism, and fascism.

You mean the early 20th century—get it right. And it wasn't just limited to Italy, either; there was a completely separate but simultaneous movement popping up in Russia at the exact same time. Sure, they also obsessed over technological growth, speed, and how all that stuff alters our perception of reality, but their whole deal was linking everything back to communism once the revolution hit.

Oops. My bad—I clearly can't handle being in the 21st century yet!

I actually meant the year 1910.

There, fixed it.

Thanks for catching that! 🙂

Richard Hernandez13 said:Let me try to clear up this whole confusion regarding the word 'futuristic' when we talk about Sci-Fi.

He’s basically trying to draw a line between one type of Sci-Fi (like Metropolis and Blade Runner) and another type (things like world war and close encounters of the third kind).

...
So, are world war and close encounters.. Sci-Fi?
Yeah.

Why?
Both movies show a world where aliens arrive.

Are there aliens in our actual, objective world?
Not really, or at least that's what we're told. 😉

So, those two films depict a state of the world that doesn't exist.

Is that non-existent state scientifically explainable?
Sure—life evolved on some other planet... blah blah.

-now here's the important part-

Do those movies show an evolutionary future for our own world?
NO!

Why?
In both films, human civilization is at the exact same technological and social level as the era the movie actually takes place in. Specifically, the year '53 and '77.

So, I guess world war and close encounters... aren't futuristic Sci-Fi.

...
Are Metropolis and Blade Runner Sci-Fi?
Yes.

Why?
Because they depict an imagined, non-existent world (mind you, not just a non-existent state of the world). Back when both movies were made, nothing like the worlds shown in them existed anywhere.

Is that non-existent world scientifically explainable?
Yes.

Is that state of the world a possible evolutionary future for the worlds of that time?
Yes, though in Blade Runner, it's still entirely possible.

So, Metropolis and Blade Runner are futuristic Sci-Fi.

I don't want it to seem like I'm just taking Richard Hernandez13's side, but this is honestly such a great and clear explanation! 👍

Then again, I'm not really a fan of those hyper-theoretical, ultra-complex ways of splitting things into sub-genres and sub-sub-genres either. Since cinema changes (and honestly, since our whole civilization changes), certain settings change too. They might make sense now, or they might not, so sticking to old rules like a drunk driver seems pretty silly to me.

I mean, even dictionaries and encyclopedias get updated all the time, right?
🙂

But still, we have to stick to some rules during debates or discussions because we need some solid ground (or a "referee") to disagree on—otherwise, how would any progress or change ever happen?....
Just thinking out loud here. 🙂

Let me state this once more for the record: here is my classification of Sci-Fi films based on their core themes:

1. Alien contact

2. Time and space travel

3. Future human society

4. Modern scientific questions

5. Sci-Fi fantasy

6. Superhero

From these ideal archetypes, you get hybrids—which, let's be honest, accounts for the vast majority of Sci-Fi films out there.

Richard Howard2 said:I’ve come up with my own way to classify Sci-Fi genres. Take a look and let me know if I missed anything.

I see you also prefer setting your own rules rather than letting some "authority" dictate them to you.
(Why hasn't anyone here jumped in to tear apart your definitions the way they did mine?)

The breakdown is interesting; it's clear you know the genre well.
But in practice, I think your system is impractical.

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:I can tell you’re the type who prefers to sort things out on your own terms rather than letting some "authority figure" dictate the rules to you.
(It is curious, though—why hasn't anyone here stepped in to challenge your definitions of these terms, much like they did with mine?)

On another note, your classification system is quite interesting; it's clear you have a genuine passion and expertise in this field.
However, I suspect your way of dividing things would be entirely impractical in a real-world application.

Why the hesitation? Don't hold back on the details... 😉

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:I can see you're the type who prefers to figure things out on your own rather than letting some "authority figure" dictate how things should be.
(I mean, why hasn't anyone here jumped in to challenge your definitions of these terms, unlike when they went after mine?)

Honestly, I think it’s just because nobody has the energy to get into a massive blowout with Jang ever since that whole Lord of the Rings thread happened. 😂

Melissa Moore32 said:That’s just because nobody can be bothered to argue with Jang anymore, not after that whole Lord of the Rings thread. 😂

Are you suggesting that Jang simply refuses to descend to the level of a mere Lord of the Rings enthusiast? 😉

Richard Howard2 said:Why? You aren't exactly stingy with the posts... 😉

You mean—why is it impractical?

Once I give you an answer, I'll just end up getting pelted with stones again...

I can't quite put my finger on it... I just feel it's impractical... too massive... clunky...

If anyone ever actually wanted to analyze genres in Sci-Fi, using your classification would be way too complicated... probably... but hey, what do I know... it doesn't matter...

Richard Howard2 said:Are you telling me you're just too good for us mere Lord of the Rings fans now? 😉

Whatever...😎

I've tried to strip this down to its simplest form possible. In reality, most Sci-Fi films are much more complex hybrids of these core motifs.

I haven't been able to pinpoint a smaller set of fundamental themes that could encompass every single movie in the genre. This really is the most basic breakdown based on subject matter. There are other ways to categorize them—using different criteria altogether—which I’ve already mentioned in a few previous posts.

If you have a better way of looking at it, by all means, lay it out.

The real question is, what actually qualifies as science fiction? My take is pretty simple, perhaps even shallow: I define it as anything ranging from a tiny sliver of "science" paired with maximum "fiction," all the way up to maximum "science" with minimal "fiction." If it doesn't include at least a trace of both elements, I just don't call it Sci-Fi. Simple as that.

Melissa Moore32 said:Whatever...😎

Precisely. Lord of the Rings is nothing more than a sycophantic piece of cinema, engineered specifically to dazzle a mindless, frustrated audience hungry for supposed "mystery," "beauty," and "fairytale charm." They actually believe it’s somehow distinct from the usual mediocre sludge pumped out by the Hollywood machine. Yeah, right!

Alright... I just went over your breakdown again and realized why it feels off to me. Most of what you wrote is irrelevant. Categorizing by time or subject matters, but the rest of those divisions are pretty much useless when discussing movies.

I can't come up with a better way to organize this... mostly because I've never actually bothered to classify them. My mind is occupied with other things... like how to track down every movie I'm interested in and find out everything there is to know about them.