Entertainment Weekly's Best Sci-Fi of the Last 25 Years - Page 4

I can see that point, but I'd argue the story proposes that the technology used to save, and ultimately enslave, Vader, is a metaphor for becoming an obedient lackey to the Emperor. In essence, he has already forsaken his humanity when he swears allegiance to Sidious. Becoming a literal machine, rather than a figurative one, is just the consequence of his choice.

Really, a lot of what makes Star Wars what it is is the essential struggle between man and machine, albeit in an allegorical way. The Empire, with its cold, emotionless, stoic and regimented ways, is representative of The Machine, while the Rebels, who are emotional, warm, bickering, flawed and loyal, represent Life. Vader, having forsaken Life to become part of The Machine, is representative of the central struggle of the entire saga. When the Rebels and the Ewoks defeat the Empire's superior technology through primitive means, it's a triumph of Life over The Machine. It presents the theme of the entire piece in an overt way, while Vader's triumph over The Machine and return to Life presents it in a more allegorical way.

So yes, technology is an important factor in Star Wars.

Thank you, Joseph Campbell.

You expect a quantitative difference? Movie X is science fiction because it has three spaceships, movie Y is not because it only has two? Of course it's a qualitative judgement.

But what's certain is that the alien being an alien doesn't make Alien science fiction. The Wikipedia definiton is what I'm calling science fiction.

There's nothing speculative about Alien, the space stuff just sets the scene for a horror movie. Gattaca is speculative. A story written in 1880 about traffic jams would have been science fiction too. Anyone could've guessed that carriages would one day be horseless, it would have taken a science fiction author to see the effects these horseless carriages would have; traffic jams, drive-in restaurants, and so on.

The point is that it shouldn't be a judgement on quality. It can be good science fiction or bad, in your opinion, but still science fiction. The judgement of good or bad shouldn't be the deciding factor on genre classification.



Let's exchange a few words in what you wrote:

A story written in 1979 about coming into contact with a hostile alien on an alien planet would have been science fiction too. Anyone could've guessed that humans would perfect interstellar travel, it would have taken a science fiction author to see the effects interstellar travel would have; hostile aliens, planetary exploration, and so on.

There doesn't need to be any more profound a meaning attached to Alien other than, "Holy shit, we need to be more careful while we are out here in space". Because, honestly, I can't see a difference in a traffic jam as an effect of horseless carriages and getting killed by an alien due to interstellar exploration. That's the speculative effect proposed by Alien.

Unless you are getting hung up on sci-fi being about something that absolutely will happen, but science fiction isn't about what will happen. It's a "what if" scenario. I'm sure you know that. The "what if" scenario in Alien should be obvious.

I never said it was. Alien is an excellent movie.

One is speculating on the effects something would have, the other is making stuff up. Interstellar travel doesn't cause alien distress beacons to go off thereby luring crews to their deaths. Geez.

I'm not talking about qualifying Alien as a movie, I'm talking about qualifying the science fiction in Alien as a way to classify it's genre. Genre, Seabass, genre.



So you really are getting hung up on science fiction being about something that absolutely will happen. Science fiction is a "what if" scenario, Seabass. What if?! Speculating that interstellar travel could set off an alien distress signal and lead to the Nostromo crew's death is a "what if" scenario. Do you think that Arthur C. Clarke really expected for us to dig up a monolith on the moon? 2001 is a "what if" scenario. Here's a clue: it's 2007... still no monolith.

I think the next 2 pages should be devoted to quibbling about what it means to speculate.

Have at it, by all means. This is not worth spinning my wheels over.

Unexplained Phenomena, Madness, Philosophy, Feasabilty, and Fable

It's been great reading this thread. Who would think that a crappy EW list would spawn a debate about the definition of Sci-Fi? I've been chewing on this all day and have much food for thought. Forgive me if the following stuff comes off as a little nutty (I like a good conspiracy):

- What of unexplained phenomena? UFO's and ESP are considered sci-fi, but not ghosts, demons, and the Chupacabra... Certain episodes of the X-Files are sci-fi and others aren't. Because something unknown (and scientifically unproven) comes from space of all places? Why isn't the Crypto-zoological idea of a dinosaur beating extinction and surviving to modern day sci-fi (it's only sci-fi if we clone it?)? The existence of a missing link or undiscovered hominid (like Sasquatch) isn't sci-fi? Is a story based on phenomena exhibited in White Noise supernatural or sci-fi (there is actual evidence)?

- The philosophical questions "Are we alone in the universe?" and "Where do you go when you die?" are both valid debates and human concerns. But one's covered under religion and the other speculative/sci-fi. Why? I don't want to get into a faith VS science debate, but unprovable events/entities remain unprovable until we either prove them or disprove them. What determines feasibility? Can someone believe in ghosts AND aliens? The existence of other dimensions (as is the concept of "time") has been debated/discussed by the scientific community. Just because something isn't fathomable or measurable by an instrument of our own design and understanding, doesn't mean it's not sci-fi, does it? Remember there was a time not that long ago when superstition treated menstrual cycles, plagues, and birth defects as supernatural? Aliens (according to a ton of eye witness accounts from reputable sources) may exist or they may just be the next stage in a collective unconscious archetype/myth, like ghosts, angels, demons, mermaids, etc.

- Different focuses, yet similar subjects: Frankenstein (destination) and Flatliners (journey) both cover bringing someone back from death. Does the philosophical question determine the genre?

- The Human Mind: It's Potential and Sicknesses... I've seen plenty of films about madness, hallucinations, multiple personalities, psychic phenomena. Not ever personally having suffered from the condition/s in Jacob's Ladder, The Machinist, Fight Club or a David Lynch film, I wonder about artistic license, exaggerated representation and giving the audience a window into what the character sees. I can't begin to even understand what the human mind actually perceives under these conditions. How crazy can a film dip into before it becomes sci-fi? Can someone actual believe they are in another existence (ala Brazil, The Cell, etc)? What of the exploration of consciousness (Science of Sleep, Dreamscape, etc)? Untapped mental potential (Scanners, Dead Zone, Altered States, etc)? Are many of these films sci-fi merely because the human brain is an organ studied by the medical and scientific communities? Is speculation about the human mind considered sci-fi because there's so much we don't know about it and because there's a percentage of the brain that seems to be unused/unmeasurable? Is it because the brain is something we can touch, study, and put under a microscope (much like the atom or gene), so the speculation seems feasible?

- That leads me to the subject of feasibilty. Aliens are feasible because we exist on this planet and there are uncountable planets in the universe? Therefore, the prediction (as in a sci-fi flick/story) of one day meeting an alien race (especially an intelligent one) because of ODDS gives the concept feasibilty, I suppose. What about ESP, or Pre-Cog stuff? Why is that feasible? Because of unproven accounts of unexplained phenomena? Or is Minority Report sci-fi because it's mentioned that genetic engineering is what made pre-cog a possibilty? I would say the opposite is the case in what makes Altered States sci-fi instead of horror like Jacob's Ladder= the presence of a feasible plot point (using the human mind and pharmeceuticals to physically change) to push the boundaries of reality (physical manifestation, not character perception) in an unfeasible way. Sure the mind has power over the body, but de-evolving into an ape doesn't seem plausable to most. And it's an interesting reversal on the widely accepted subject of evolution as featured in 2001 and Planet of the Apes. I think Sci-Fi is playing the "what if?" game with CURRENT impossibilities.

- That leads me into the next subject: Impossibilities & Fables. What of that crazy fantastical phenomena that sets the story into motion in modern day fables like Liar/Liar, Family Man, Stranger Than Fiction, Pleasantville, etc? Does an explanation have to be presented (like the unrealistic, yet relateable Truman Show) for a story to be sci-fi? A powerful wish, whether it's making your father tell the truth on your birthday or something more sinister (Twilight Zone's 'It's a Good Life'), alters the pre-existing reality of the main characters in a way to reflect on some human condition. Fables (like good sci-fi and good horror) reflect the fears/concerns/hopes of the human consciousness/spirit and they can very well be described as a "What If" scenarios (and I'm not talking about a create-able "What If" situation like you see in Reality TV or an 80's sitcom). Twilight Zone eps would vary from genre to genre if we needed to exclude the Fable.


Sorry for the long ramble, and I hope to not offend anyone with all this junk, but I love this genre.

I love where this thread has gone. i've been super busy over the past few days, hence my disappearance, but I'm looking forward to jumping back in.

F**kin' A!

EDIT: What of removing technology from mankind in some sort of post-apocalyptic scenario? Does setting something in the future (regardless of the state of tech) qualify as sci-fi? What of "steampunk"? It's placing technology in (an alternate reality kinda way) a historical setting where it previously didn't exist. Or would that be "hypothetical-historical fiction"? What if Hitler wasn't defeated? What if we lost the Cold War? What if Jon Peters had his way and America had secret agents during the Civil War era that fought legless maniacal midgets with mechanical spiders?

EDIT#2: I'm sorry, but I think that the wonder/horror of discovery (especially one that has scientific merit) as in ALIEN, qualifies as sci-fi. Remember the emphasis on physiology and reproduction in scenes like the dissection and Ash's confession? The alien was considered a valuable asset (military maybe?) much like an advanced technology. It's cross-genre, but ALIEN is sci-fi as well as horror.

EDIT#3: Do morals (as they relate to the creature in question) have anything to do in determining if a monster flick is sci-fi or horror? An EVIL presence (as opposed to a creature behaving instinctual or according to nature) may delineate a more horror vibe (Phantoms, Society, Prince of Darkness), but I think an argument can be made for sci-fi there as well (if you can explain that the presence was always here and not crossing over from heaven/hell). Evil conjures up supernatural connotations (an outside influence, maybe even the devil). I'm not talking about an oppressive alien race (like a fascist government) that enslaves and seems more concerned with its own power and survival taken to the extreme. But something that kills for the sake of killing. A xenomorph does it to breed & feed, but what if the creature in question was more malicious? Just more rambling...

EDIT#4: SPOILER for Watcher in the Woods (and Forgotten): Besides being "not as good as I recall from my childhood", the Watcher in the Woods is a weird example of cross-genre. You're meant to believe that the strange goings-on are supernatural in nature until the other-dimensional "alien" is revealed in the end. It's like the film switches genre while you watch it (like the Forgotton).

EDIT#5: What about Lost World scenarios? A plateau, island, or underground environment where evolution has frozen in time. I find the writings of Doyle, Burroughs, and Verne to be very sci-fi in their respective living dinosaur stories, because from their point of view and time period there were undiscovered corners of the Earth (like Kong's Skull Island). There's that theme of DISCOVERY again.

EDIT#6: Is the Descent not sci-fi, but Planet of the Apes is? Both explore evolution, brutality, etc. Sounds like it's the trappings (dressings, style, approach) and not really the themes that make a difference here.

Yeah, I don't see how speculating on the future of space travel and the nature and form of alien life is any different than the example he gave. They're both speculative science fiction.

Gald to see you back. I think if this thread continues I'm going to have to sit it out. I've pretty much exhausted any arguments I could make. It's been a great and truly enjoyable discussion, though.

Aw man. Don't go yet, I just brought a few more questions/observations to the table...

Bumpin' this thread... cause I like where the discussion went.

More please.

I know Iggy sticks to horror related subjects for the most part, but I would love to hear his opinions on some of the debates in this thread.

Good call. I just put out the Iggy signal...

The midichlorian thing seemed to ground all that fantasy stuff back in the realms of the non-supernatural for me, so I was never really cool with labelling Star Wars as having fantasy conceits just becuase of the the Jedi/Force angle.

I think I'm a sucker for technology and hardware: if the narrative contains machinary and technology more advanced or other worldly than the time the tale was originally told in, that's enough for me to call it Science Fiction.
I think literature blurs that boundry more than films does, but hey.

You called, and (belatedly) I answered. Sorry, But I, too have been busy the last few evenings.

As to the topic, I always saw Star Wars as pure sci fi; I never thought The Force and Jedis added a fantasy element to it. Why not? probably a personal failing, but because I was never quite clear on just what "Fantasy" meant. It seems to me that most things that are called "Fantasy" always have a sword and sorcery bent to them. Conan? Fanasy novels/films. D&D? A Fantasy RPG. I was never sure WHY this was what we called 'Fantasy", but there it is. The space travel, ray guns, droids and aliens meant to me that Star Wars was clearly sci fi. Themes like the Force have been explored in sci fi novels a lot. I've never been as much a sci fi fan as a horror fan, but I'm pretty sure themes like psychic powers becoming more commonplace in future generations, the stories set in the future and similar things have been tried; and these works are always considered, to the best of my knowledge, sci fi and not fantasy.

I guess the short answer as to why is the typical Death Surge response that for good or ill, the public has come to associate fantasy with sword & sorcery, so that's what publishing houses will call it, just for increased brand recognition from the fanboys spending the money. It would confuse the public (and its money) if space movies started getting called "fantasies".

In response to the talk of "Alien" and whether it's sci fi or horror, I think I agree that it's the tone and approach a film takes more than anything else that decides which way it falls on the continuuim, when it blends genres. You could certainly look at Alien as sci fi, but I think it's more definitively a horro film because we have familiar horror trappings in abundance; the sense of isolation being on a spaceship, fear of the unknown alien organism and its reproductive cycle and capabilities, violent & gory deaths, dark sets, etc. Were this a sci fi more than a horrorfilm,I think the emphasis would have been more on meeting an alien race and how we rected to that situation (a favorite theme in what sci fi I have read). Even if the alien was harmful, there would, I think, have been fewer crew deaths, they would have been less gruesome, there would probably have been more of an action/adventure feel to the contest with the alien life form (use of actual weapons, maybe, as opposed to jury rigged mining equipment and such, for example), and a generally more sanguine (read: less dark, isolated & hopeless) tone. Maybe the Nostromo's crew had to get to a rendevous to get saved, but had to make sure the alien was eliminated before they got there so as not to spread the contagion to all of humanity, or something like that, as opposed to being isolated in deep space for the better part of a century yet to come, whilst sleeping off hyperspace travel in cryo-chambers, light years from any human contact. In space, no one can hear you scream, after all.

I'd argue that the same holds true of Planet of the Apes. It's meant to freak you out with the topsy turvy state the world Taylor comes to is in, with mutant apes in charge of bestial, slave humans. Even the discovery of the other astronauts dead & stuffed in the museum, while providing maybe a minor jump scare, is more for the alien-ness of the situation (i.e., humans being the ones stuffed & mounted rather than the apes). The Descent by contrast was meant to scare you with the horrific creatures, dark, claustrophobic setting, and violent, gory deaths. The apes could hardly be called terrifying (at least in their appearance), and there was none of the other stuff to be had in PotA.

Since the hour groweth late, I'll hold off on my thoughts on historical fiction (the 'What if Hitler had lived?" kind of stuff) until tomorrow. Thanks for inviting me to join this discussion. Hope I add meaningfully to it.

But, applying my own theory above, I'm not sure what to call "Pitch Black". It may be the closest example to a 50/50 split between sci fi and horror in a cross-genre film ever. Thoughts?

Since I got some unexpected time on my hands, I guess I'll throw out there that I agree with Matt that in order for a story to be science fiction, there has to be some aspect of science to it. Hence, IMO, alternate history films, generally speaking, don't strike me as sci fi, because an historical divergence isn't necessarily the result of some new technology. With poor strategic decisions & late US involvement, a better Russia invasion strategy, or what have you - none of which are dependent on new scientific discoveries - the outcome of WWII could have been very different. So "What if the Nazis had won?" or something similar by itself doth not a sci fi film make. I'd go so far as to say this would apply if the theme of the film is they developed the Bomb before we did, because they had guys working on it too. It's entirely possible they could have gotten it 1st. Many of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project, as I understand it, were German emigres anyway. One minor thing could have gone wrong in one's escape plan, they might not have gotten out of Germany, and been forced to work for the regime or die (or have their family killed, etc.). Or maybe one was a loyalist and stayed willingly in the alternate future posited. Perhaps nazi spies got the one piece of the puzzle they were missing to them in time for them to beat us to the punch, while we were still developing another aspect of the research they had already figured out? Nothing in even these scenarios requires the development of fictional science, which is the bedrock on which sci fi is built, I think.