Your personal definition of Sci Fi?

[Airwings]

I listened to a podcast once. They only had one definition: sci fi is about what it means to be human, that it always deal with humankind vs technology. And no other element was crucial for sci fi.
Personally, I think they simplified the whole genre too much

But let's go through it here.
What is science fiction to you?

I have a bunch of questions!

To what extent should tech be a part of the film's main plot?
Can a film have scientific advancements we still not have in reality, without it being sci fi? What other genre should it be classified as then? Action? Spy thriller? Adventure? Fantasy?

What about films that are set in the future but there's no tech that we don't already have (Mad Max, Waterworld etc are examples).

Should earth-based films that' set today, deal with time travel or an alien invasion in order to be sci fi? Is it something else that can be included?

What earth-based sci fi sub-genre do you usually prefer between steam punk and cyberpunk?

A film that's set in space, what does it need to be called sci fi? Do the characters need to encounter another civilization or not?

Where do you draw the line between space-based sci fi and space opera?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Something that doesn't put me to sleep and not like I'm looking at a butterfly collection. Sci fi tends to be too cold an sterile to me, where character is in service of ideas, rather than humanity or characters. That Raised by Wolves show is exactly what I mean. Makes me want to blow my brains out. Just a bunch of people in sterile, minimalistic outfits on a barren planet pantomiming humanity while servicing ideas. I get that's the point, and that's why it's not my bag.

The only sci fi I really like is horror sci fi like Alien and The Thing and stuff like Blade Runner and Minority Report where it's more noir where its themes are more humanistic. Sci fi that blends genres that I actually enjoy. Sci fi on its own? Pass.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Space opera is a sub-genre of science fiction. Often Star Wars is given as the classic example of "it's fantasy, not science fiction" but that's not strictly true. While Star Wars does rely on a lot of unexplained mysticism, the characters actually do utilize and rely on conflicts that involve the use of technology with at least some foothold in existing science (frozen in carbonite, the Falcon's hyperdrive engines keep needing to be repaired, Luke and Vader's cybernetic parts, moisture farming, etc).

In terms of what defines science fiction over fantasy, there's an old definition from a British writer that I can't remember precisely, but it went along the lines of "science fiction is an attempt to use knowledge and/or reason to argue for a changed fictional world." So even a show that gets science like 80% wrong, like Star Trek, counts as science fiction because the attempt to explain or existence of futuristic technology or futuristic problems is a key part of the story. So even something like Quest For Fire or Clan of the Cave Bear is considered science fiction, because it deals with primitive people and their future, not necessarily ours. Whereas fantasy, the stuff that isn't realistic you just usually accept, and there's usually no attempt by the author to provide a reasonable explanation to why it exists that's actually germane to the story (e.g., there's dragons here, because this is a land where dragons live, so accept that and concentrate on the human characters and how they relate to their surroundings).

 

[jmc]

I know there's a debate about whether there's two categories, Science Fiction and Science Fantasy, but I'm actually of the opinion that the Sc-fi genre can be split into 3 categories - Science Fiction, Science Fantasy and Science Drama. I make the distinction because of how the three genres relate to real world physics.

Science Fiction is based on future technologies that can possibly be created in our world / universe. Things like Star Trek, Terminator, Alien, etc. These are very much rooted in what the future may hold for our reality, but it also takes liberties with what we are likely to achieve. It's only loosely tied to the laws of physics breaking them when the story calls for it.

Science Fantasy is a futuristic setting set beyond our universe and has a strong mythological / mystical components associated with it. Star Wars is the obvious example, but something like He-Man/She-Ra/ Masters of the Universe would also fall into this category. Generally the laws of physics don't apply to any great degree and some form of magic is often used. in Star Wars it's the force, He-Man/She-Ra it's the Sword of Power/Protection, etc.

And then there's Science Drama. Science Drama is set within our world, very close to where we are at this point in time, where the technology and understanding of physics at the time are applied strongly to the story. Interstellar, The Martian, Gravity, Arrival, these are all fantastical stories, but they are all very much rooted in real world science.

 

[Fincher]

For me it comes down to two different ways of looking at the world. Science is built on the belief that we can understand the world around us and that when we don't understand something it's because we just haven't studied it enough. Mysticism/fantasy is built on the belief that there things that are just beyond us and unknowable. So even if something is unrealistic nonsense, as long as it's presented as science then it's science fiction. That whole only using 10% of our brain thing isn't true, but when the movie Lucy has a scientist say we only use 10% of our brain and then use that as a foundation for the brain science for why Lucy can do what she does, it's science fiction because it's rooted in "science".

There are movies that blur boundaries. Flatliners is about people applying the scientific method to the traditionally mystical afterlife, but ultimately they're in over their head and I think you come away thinking they would never fully understand what they're dealing with. Tone has something to do with it, too. Both Groundhog Day and the TV Day Break involve repeating time, but I consider Groundhog Day fantasy and Day Break science fiction. If a reason were given for why time is repeating in Groundhog Day, I think it would be, "God did it to impart a lesson, now shut about up it," whereas if a reason were given in Day Break I think it would be a scientific experiment or quantum physics or something. They just have different vibes in terms of how they approach their world and their core conceit.

 

[Airwings]

You can also look up my question about fantasy

What are the most genre-typical traits in fantasy films?

 

[Micromind]

I listened to a podcast once. They only had one definition: sci fi is about what it means to be human, that it always deal with humankind vs technology. And no other element was crucial for sci fi.
Personally, I think they simplified the whole genre too much

But let's go through it here.
What is science fiction to you?

I have a bunch of questions!

To what extent should tech be a part of the film's main plot?
Can a film have scientific advancements we still not have in reality, without it being sci fi? What other genre should it be classified as then? Action? Spy thriller? Adventure? Fantasy?

What about films that are set in the future but there's no tech that we don't already have (Mad Max, Waterworld etc are examples).

Should earth-based films that' set today, deal with time travel or an alien invasion in order to be sci fi? Is it something else that can be included?

What earth-based sci fi sub-genre do you usually prefer between steam punk and cyberpunk?

A film that's set in space, what does it need to be called sci fi? Do the characters need to encounter another civilization or not?

Where do you draw the line between space-based sci fi and space opera?

This movie pretty much represents what I consider to be a good Sci-fi movie (and story)

 

[metaphysician]

I feel that this is one of those super hard questions with no really good answer. Like, a lot of people would argue that a movie like Star Wars isn't "really" science fiction, because the magic and lack of concern for any actual science or learning. . . but OTOH, it still portrays a world that is clearly *informed* by science, given the ubiquitous presence of the fruits of a technological civilization. Likewise, fantasy is not just "a world with magic in it", but a world in which the society and worldview are informed by pre-modern, pre-scientific ideas and principles.

I kind of lean towards an old answer: "If a robot would be more at home than a wizard, its science fiction". Along with a caution that no descriptor is binary. A work is not either "sci-fi" or "not sci-fi", but rather is more or less science fiction. I'd also caution against assuming there is only one defining "pole" on this spectrum, presumably some work of rigidly realistic "pure hard science fiction", with works being more or less science fiction depending on how closely they approach this pole. Arguably there are at least two poles: realism/plausibility on one hand, and rationalism/philosophy on the other. Which is more purely "science fiction", a movie that is rigidly realistic in its speculative science, or a movie that aggressively advocates and embodies the pursuit of knowledge through learning and exploration? I'd argue both are equally pure science fiction.

 

[Airwings]

Likewise, fantasy is not just "a world with magic in it", but a world in which the society and worldview are informed by pre-modern, pre-scientific ideas and principles.

Don't you mean "A world in which the society and the worldview live by (or follow) pre-modern, pre-scientific ideas and principles"?

A work is not either "sci-fi" or "not sci-fi", but rather is more or less science fiction. I'd also caution against assuming there is only one defining "pole" on this spectrum, presumably some work of rigidly realistic "pure hard science fiction", with works being more or less science fiction depending on how closely they approach this pole. Arguably there are at least two poles: realism/plausibility on one hand, and rationalism/philosophy on the other. Which is more purely "science fiction", a movie that is rigidly realistic in its speculative science, or a movie that aggressively advocates and embodies the pursuit of knowledge through learning and exploration? I'd argue both are equally pure science fiction.

I've read through this piece of text more than once. It's easy to interpret you wrong on someting there.
A film is "pure sci fi" to you if it, in your words, "embodies the pursuit of knowledge through learning and exploration".
I can't really understand what you are thinking here. Maybe I'm just slow
Your claim would mean that even a drama such as Stand By Me is "pure sci fi".
The exploration comes before the learning in that film, but it's just a minor detail.

 

[metaphysician]

So, silly question: is English your first language? Because if not, I'd put it down to that. I'm using what might be slightly unusual choices in words.

Anyway:

1. No, I do mean "informed by". A society and the people and worldviews that compose it are "informed by" various factors. Which is to say, the influence that compose those beliefs and actions and norms don't simply appear from nowhere. They are created, either intentionally ( in fiction ) or not ( real life ), out of various concepts and factors. A modern or science fiction world is informed by, among other things, the assumption of a single uniform reality in which a car or computer will just *work*, because its a tool that is designed in a certain way. Conversely, a medieval society in a fantasy setting is informed by, quite likely, the idea of a social hierarchy in which everyone has a role imbued upon them by the metaphysical order.

2. No, I really do mean "embodies the pursuit of knowledge through learning and exploration". Critical to science fiction being science fiction, IMO, is the idea that there is a world, you can understand it, and the way to understand it is by asking questions and trying things out. A story is "more sci-fi" the more this is the case, with the narrative encouraging and rewarding curiousity and change.

Also, yes, this does mean I think the cliched "Scientist pokes nose in thing he shouldn't, bad things happen" story is lesser sci-fi. Implicit in such is the lesson "Don't ask questions, don't try to learn things, bad things happen as a result". At least with Lovecraftian horror, there is a sort of morally neutral element of "Yes, your curiousity may have led you to something horrible, but that horrible thing was there anyway".