Entertainment Weekly's Best Sci-Fi of the Last 25 Years - Page 2

It just seems like you are limiting the concept of science fiction to machines only while I would argue that theorizing the physiological make-up of alien beings is just as much a part of science fiction.

Yeah, that's all way too specific for me. It limits the amount of actual science fiction to a pretty low number. I don't understand why you'd want to define the genre that specifically. I can take this argument to ridiculous extremes. 2001 isn't science fiction because HAL doesn't have to be a computer. He could just be a crazy guy driving the bus.

Of course it's subjective -- sci-fi is the broadest genre umbrella out there. That's why it's so contentious, and so much fun. Ask ten different noted sci-fi pioneers/creators and you'll get ten different definitions of what it is. I merely offered up my own. You don't have to agree with it.

But saying the sci fi has to be about something we created just really seems out of left field, and very difficult to justify.

The monolith isn't man made. If we took the Discovery's crew and their relationship with HAL out of the film and only left the monolith would it no longer be science fiction?

What's the Arthur C Clarke quote? - I forget it exactly, but it's along the lines of "science you don't/can't explain is magic."

Great question -- why is 2001 sci-fi for most people? Because it takes place in space?

The first appearance of the monolith bumps our awareness forward to being able to use tools, and we're able to find the second appearance of the monolith because of the science and technology that are the end result of that evolution.

If my definition is too limiting, then offer others. I simply find that a space setting isn't enough -- it's what the material is fundamentally getting at.

Well, the space setting is important; also it took place 30+ years in the future, using technology FAR beyond what we had achieved to that point (interplanetary flight, AI).

The whole factor of the monolith almost makes it a "spiritual" film - the monolith is clearly either a tool (or entity?) from a civilization FAR more advanced than ours. The contact with that civilization results in...um....I think the pot was really hittin' me at the end because it really got weird.

That's a fair enough point - Outland is set in space, but aside from some flourishes, does the outer-space setting have that much of an impact on the plot?

(of course, someone made the same criticism to me of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series and I near blew a gasket)

I'm not arguing setting, though. I'm just arguing what constitutes science in science fiction and you seem to want to limit that definition to technology only. But there are many different types of sciences and therefore many ways to extrapolate a fiction around them. Biological science being one of them. So I see no reason why Ash would be the only component that would justify Alien as science fiction when the biological and evolutional design of the alien, itself, is a work of science fiction.


Then your dealing with virology, another science. So wouldn't an alien virus be a science fiction concept?

Also, going back to this. Um, yeah, I would say a film made in 1968 dealing with interplanetary space travel could justifiably be called science fiction. Even if you subtract the HAL and monolith storylines.

Learning some good shit in this thread. Keep up the good work, fellas.

Ok, now I'm confused. Some valid points are being made. I am seriously going to rethink my position. Thanks for the questions.

No, because it's basically "High Noon" in space. Being set on Jupiter is irrelevant. The point of the story has nothing to do with the sci-fi stuff. So, ok. I see it now. Alien is sci-fi.

Two more thoughts I like to add on the subject of what constitutes true science fiction and whether THE THING can be considered a sci-fi film.


If I were to use our current knowledge in the sciences of planetology and astrogeography to theorize a hospitable alien planet and then use our understandings of biological evolution to create an alien species native to that planet and then wrote a story about them, would that be science fiction? There would be no humans involved in the story. It would simply be about an alien culture dealing with there own evolution towards a scientifically advanced society. One could say i'm simply using this alien society as a metaphor for human beings, but that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.


And concerning THE THING: If the plot had left the creature completely unexplained then I could see the argument that it is just a monster movie. But as soon as the creature is revealed to be an extraterrestrial organism(which is done in the very first shot of the movie... just sayin') and Blaire theorizes the time table of a planet wide contamination by the organism then the film is now dealing with a purely science fictional concept. It seems like if you are taking the stance that it isn't science fiction that you are arguing degrees or possibly the over-all quality of the sci-fi concept in question. When it should really be a question of genre and sub-genre. With THE THING, just as with ALIEN, they should be looked at as sci-fi/horror but not relegated to not being science fiction in any way.

I consider sci-fi to be speculative fiction upon a scientific basis - a "what-if" formula, so to speak.
Primer asks what if we could travel in time.
Bits of Alien ask what would space flight be practically like (Gritty atmosphere, fairly ordinary characters) or how people would react to alien organisms.

There's nothing what-if about Star wars, or Serenity. They're pure fantasy/drama.

If the crew of the Nostromo was using an understanding of biological science to combat the Alien, then maybe. That is, if the Alien factored into the story in a way owing to science rather than fear. Since they're just using common sense and weapons -- something available at any point on any timeline outside of IDIOCRACY -- I think it's not enough.

Marine biology is a science, so are JAWS and (hopefully) MEG sci-fi, or monster movies?

Or GODZILLA and THE HOST, where the monsters are created or awoken by man? Sci-fi, or monster?

Again, to me, it's all about fundamentals and intent. If the creatures in any of those four movies, regardless of origin, were harnassed or controlled, or if our sciences were brought to bear on them in a way that then affected or turned against us, they'd be closer to sci-fi.

(What is DEEP BLUE SEA, then?)

But since those movies are just about escaping and defeating a monstrous force, even if we've created it as in THE HOST, then it's definite monster movie territory. Same for THE THING. And, if you took Ash out of the equation, pretty much the same for ALIEN.

(Proposed monster movie genre definition: If the question is merely 'can they survive' then it's a monster movie. If it's 'how does this thing affect us/society?', which implies that we CAN survive, then it's sci-fi.)

And if you want to go back to the old school, a la WAR OF THE WORLDS, then FRANKENSTEIN is sci-fi.

So the evolutionary stages of the alien isn't a science fiction concept? What about the Nostromo and LV426? These elements of the story don't owe themselves to theoretical sciences?

And going back to 2001, Is the monolith ever explained in a way that we or the characters in the film can understand it? How does the monolith factor into the story in a way owing to science as understood by humans? Can't the same be said about the alien?

Come on, Russ, are you arguing that a great white shark is science fiction? I can see where the survival of a megalodon may be a stretch, but we live in a world were the coelacanth was thought to be extinct. If I wrote a story where aliens were responsible for the sudden reappearance of a megalodon then, yeah, it would be science fiction.

You seem intent on involving humans in your definition of science fiction, but you didn't answer if a story set on an alien world solely involving alien characters could be considered science fiction.

Or the Abyss, for that matter. But, unlike Jaws or Meg, I have no idea where that might fit, if not sf.

The presence of alien races and such seems to strongly suggest sf with or without a human scientific component. Here's something to consider - in E.T., I'm pretty sure that the alien is not analyzed using anything outside of the realm of early 80s technology. What makes the film s/f is the alien's presence, not necessarily humanity's way of dealing with him. But I think most of us would agree that it is, indeed, a science-fiction movie. I'm not sure what consequences this might have on how we perceive Predator or Alien - unlike those movies, which might fit comfortably in another genre in lieu of sf (action film or horror film, respectively), the obvious default for E.T. is sf. But is the absence of another niche enough to make something sf? Because E.T. has more-or-less exactly the same claim to the classification as Predator, but doesn't have another obvious niche into which it might be classified.

I don't think I buy that. It just doesn't seem to me that the level of threat (external or internal) to humanity has all that much to do with status as sf. Survival is an unstated goal within any genre, whether we're talking about the impact of replicants on humanity in Blade Runner or the uncontrolled spread of the Thing (or the Andromeda Strain, for that matter). And if survival is at stake, that also implies some analysis of how this thing affects us/society in the most fundamental way.

Definitely.

The mini-series, "Children of Dune" should be on the list.

No, it shouldn't. It sucks.

Lost in front of Heroes...thank you very much.

I'd say anyone who doesn't realize that Frankenstein is sf is, well, stupid.

Well, shit. I had completely forgotten about CoD since...whenever the hell it aired. And it was pretty fucking disappointing.

The first one stinks. COD is good stuff.

No, it isn't. Dune, in general, sucks.

Babylon 5 does not hold up AT ALL.

What about 'Space: Above and Beyond'?

Yeah, this is why I can't see how you wouldn't classify THE THING as sci-fi. It's the fictional concept of world wide contamination and replication by an alien organism and the characters attempts to contain that organism. When the characters calculate the effect this creature will have on our society then there's your science fiction. Not to mention, the very concept of the creature is, itself, a work of science fiction.

With Jaws and Meg, well, great white sharks exist today and at one time so did Megalodons. You're not having to take marine biology and extrapolate a fictional creature out of it. The only leap needed would be the existence of a meg in the present day. And since there is precedence of ancient marine life, that was once thought to be extinct, still existing today you would just be basing a story on a possible yet highly unlikely premise. Now, if the megalodon used a time machine to get to the present day...

With Godzilla and The Host, as Dickson said, both creatures created through man's scientific folly. The same with Frankenstein. So, yeah definite works of science fiction. If you don't want to look at it that way then it strikes me more as elitism in judging something as true or plausible science fiction and then we are getting into a qualitative argument. You can argue that a film or book is an example of good sci-fi or bad sci-fi, profound and complex or silly and implausible. Here is my time machine. Yes, it works. Here is some ridiculous techno-babble to lend believability to my time machine. Here is a giant radioactive dinosaur. Here is a ridiculous explanation in how it came to be. Again, like art, you can judge it as good or bad but not claim it is non-art. It is the work of a particular medium. With sci-fi, simplistic or complex, you still have to look at it as a work within the genre of science fiction whether you find it particularly profound or relating to the human experience or in any way plausible. Otherwise, you would have to discount a majority of time travel stories.

An alien crash lands in the Mojave desert. It ponders the desert in which it has landed. It dies alone never having met a single human being. The end.

The alien and it's crashed spacecraft are science fiction. There doesn't need to be any contact with humans to say it is. The alien, itself, is the science fiction concept. But, by Russ's definition, if the alien never interacts with a human being it can't be science fiction. That just strikes me as incredibly and unnecessarily limiting. It's why you could strip away the alien and ALIEN is still science fiction. You could strip away Ash and it is still science fiction because you are left with interstellar travel.

This just seems to comes down to not wanting to classify certain films into a sub-genre of science fiction.

Alien: sci-fi/horror.

The Thing: sci-fi/horror.

Predator: sci-fi/action

Back to the Future: sci-fi/comedy

Depends on the story. Is it a tale about a plucky legal assistant who breaks open an environmental abuse case? If so, ERIN BROCKOVICH with aliens isn't really SF. And a lot of times, stuff with aliens just uses them as a hook to get audiences interested.

ENEMY MINE: is it fundamentally sci-fi or a drama about culture and race? It's got aliens and treats them in a serious way, but the story it tells isn't really any different from HELL IN THE PACIFIC.

DaveB brings up a great point with ET and THE ABYSS, which highlights the very reason I define SF so strictly for my own use. That is, much like Potter Stewart's famous obscenity quote ("I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . .") the genre turns into a shelter for ideas that have no other home. Or, for the more cynical, it becomes a sales tag for ideas that have no other easy encapulation.

Again, ENEMY MINE: "It's a tense war of wills between representatives of two cultures, who finally come to a hard-won understanding." That, or "It's a cutting-edge sci-fi tale about futuristic soldiers learning to survive on a barren planet."

That's probably not the best example (I think I was 12 last time I saw it, so maybe I'm forgetting some element) but hopefully what I'm getting at is clear. ENEMY MINE becomes SF because that's the best description, even though when you look at what the story is doing, it really isn't SF at all.

Now, if we accept that the shape-shifting Alien and Thing are fundamentally sci-fi concepts, what is a werewolf? You've got an infection that allows (forces) humans to change shape and display non-human characteristics. No one would call a werewolf a sci-fi concept. Is that because wolves are terrestrial, or because the concept predates most of what we call sci-fi?

John Jameson finds a ruby in space and becomes the Man-Wolf. Is it sci-fi because the ruby came from space, or is it just a monster story because he's a werewolf, which no-one call sci-fi. Does it matter?

This all boils down to classification, which is only important if you're trying to find a movie in a DVD store or on a list. Whether I consider ALIEN sci-fi and THE THING and PREDATOR not is ultimately of no consequence.

I just wanted to say that when I typed this, my brain was misfiring. For some reason it was registering things as the best sci-fi of the last 20 years, despite actually knowing it was of the last 25.

Thanks to Amphibatron for pointing out my retardation.

Is an alien society a science fiction concept? The only way it could be justified as science fiction is if they are interacting with technology? Again, you are discounting aliens in favor of their relationship with fictional technology. But aliens are a biological fiction in science fiction stories, so why should their technology, or their relationship with it, have to be the deciding factor?

If you want to discount human drama in a sci-fi setting then you would have to disregard a huge chunk of Star Trek.

I have no problem with you using this strict definition for your own use, but when you enter it into a discussion about the classification of science fiction then I think you need to justify it in some way.

Reading this, I'm left wondering how you would classify Children of Men.

If the story is trying to create a scientific explanation for a guy turning into a wolf then I would classify it as science fiction. But, if you are going by the concept of a curse, as in The Wolfman and An American Werewolf in London, then you are dealing with the supernatural. The same with vampires. Dracula=supernatural. Lifeforce=science fiction. Again, what is the monolith? Is it explained in a scientific way or is the audience left to intuit that it is the creation of an advanced alien race? Is it magic? Is it a product of fantasy? Now, look at the creatures in ALIEN and THE THING the same way you would the monolith. These aren't fantasy creatures. The audience is asked to accept that these creatures are based on some form of plausible science, the same as the monolith, even if it is a science that can't be easily understood from our viewpoint.

Is the origin of the Fantastic Four science fiction? It's silly science fiction, but sci-fi, nonetheless. And that makes it an argument about quality.

It's only of consequence because you came into the thread and said you didn't consider THE THING science fiction and then gave a very limiting definition of science fiction, hence the friendly debate.

If you were right, I would agree with you.

I actually just re-watched it, and it's still engaging, still exciting, still fun.

By saying it doesn't hold up, I sincerely hope you aren't referring to the effects. If that's the case, we need to cancel everything on that list more than five years old.

Painfully inadequate list.

Keep saying stuff like that and I'll be forced to not like you anymore.

Dune is one of my favorite books of all time. I've read it at least five times. Yes, the two Sci Fi Channel miniseries were an embarrassment to everything Frank Herbert wrote, and to the human race as a creative species. Lynch's movie, while deeply flawed, I feel some fondness for, and cut a lot of slack because it was so off-the-wall as adaptation.

So, in conclusion, Dune doesn't suck. Read the book.

Dune is brilliant. The sequels get progressively more and more asstacular, though. I'm still not even sure what happened at the end of the original series, but I know it was confusing. (disclaimer: I read them at 16, so my memory is fuzzy)

Don't worry about it. You could have read the last books yesterday and still be confused.

I had a nice long reply last night that died with my internet connection. I'll write it again later today. I do love the friendly debate, though.

Sure, but, as mentioned, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I think this might also apply to inexplicable phenomena that science hasn't been able to explain. If I recall, the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo used to explain the space vampires in Lifeforce isn't really rooted in science any more than various explanations for more specifically Earth-bound vampires.

Here's more fuel for the fire: what about zombies? In some zombie movies, there's no explanation for the living dead. In others, there's a vague, scientific rationale grafted on (or, if we take 28 Days Later as a zombie movie, an even more specific scientific rationale grafted on). Despite the fact that some attempt to invoke science, I'm not sure this changes the nature of the genre from science-fiction to horror. The point is never the science (maybe in Re-Animator, if we squeeze that one into the genre, but that's more a Frankenstein riff), but the fact that hungry, cannibalistic corpses are lumbering around.

Then again, the very analysis of human interaction with the bizarre or inexplicable might fall well within the boundaries of soft s/f (Ellison, Bradbury, etc.). Although it might just as well fall within the boundaries of fantasy or even magic-realism or something.

Well, lets look at the scientific explanation for the transformation in THE FLY. If Brundle had mixed his molecules with a wolf would he be a werewolf in the sense of supernatural lore? I'd say it would fall in the realm of science experiment gone wrong. He's just Brundlewolf instead of Brundlefly. If for some inexplicable reason a pentagram appeared on his hand after stepping out of the telepod and his transformation only took place during a full moon then you're back into supernatural territory. The same could be said for vampires. If the story jettisons the more supernatural aspects of vampirism and instead concentrates on some form of scientific explanation for the vampire-like characteristics then I'd say you're dealing with science fiction.

This seems to imply that there has to be a solid if somewhat speculative scientific explanation for the concept involved in a science fiction story. But, in many cases of time travel stories the science is implied or completely glossed over and the audience has to take for granted that the machine simply works. How does the time machine in H. G. Wells story work? It just does. We are left to make the leap that there is a scientific explanation for a functional time machine to exist. So, basically just implying that science is involved is all that is needed for the story to go from fantasy to science fiction. And if implication is the only thing needed then I don't see how you couldn't call a vampire a science fiction concept if a particular story implies that science is involved in it's creation instead of the supernatural.

With zombies, well, that's a good question. How is the experimental nerve gas in Return of the Living Dead any different than Frankenstein's experiments with re-animation through electricity? Or Tommy Jarvis' use of the Frankenstein method to re-animate Jason Vorhees? I'd definitely call Frankenstein science fiction, but I'm not so sure I'm prepared to do the same with Return of the Living Dead and definitely not with Friday The 13th part VI. But, then I would have to ask myself why? With Frankenstein, I'd have to say it is science fiction because the doctor has to face the moral consequences of his scientific experiments(which clearly falls into Russ's definition). In the case of ROTLD it's just a quasi-scientific excuse for zombies to run amok . So, once you switch out the "science gone wrong" zombies with the alien from THE THING then I can begin to see Russ's point. Where's the line there?


However, if you are going to discount an alien presence as a sole decider on whether something is sci-fi then you have to go back to E.T. and rethink whether it too should be classified as sci-fi. The film offers up a sci-fi explanation for this story of a friendship between a boy and creature. The creature could be a troll, for all it matters, but once the children begin to help E.T. return home using everyday items to build an advanced communication array does it not then become science fiction? This goes back to my argument about The Thing. Say we disregard how the creature comes to figure into the story, OK, but once Blair uses a computer program to calculate the spread of a worldwide contamination then that is the science fiction. The same with War of the Worlds. Disregard the aliens as simply monsters if you want to, but doesn't the science fiction still come into play in how they are ultimately defeated?


The zombie question definitely throws a monkey wrench into the works. I'll definitely have to give that some thought.

And just to go back for a second since the debate is starting to branch off a bit...

This quote was really where the debate started and what I feel needed to be addressed. I don't see why a story about humans dealing with an external science fiction concept, whether it be biological or technological, couldn't be considered science fiction. I don't see why it has to be something we specifically created.

To comment on another aspect of that post, A Scanner Darkly features more than just sci-fi trappings. While the thematic concern is simply "drugs," the fictional drugs in play serve an important, central role in the plot. Thematically, you can reduce the film to simply an anti-drug message, but the fragmentation of Arctor's personality is integral to the plot - as far as I know, there aren't drugs with this specific side-effect, currently, so we have to accept the drugs as a science-fictional element. Unlike the scramble suits, etc., their influence on the story goes far beyond window-dressing.

I think we do have to pay some attention to the trappings, in any case. Nearly any story, reduced enough, can be taken out of a given genre in terms of theme. When evaluating for genre, I think you need to consider them in terms of plot to some extent - this might necessitate the consideration of setting and other things that might seem inconsequential to the overall theme.

And looking at my own post, I'll allow that it's certainly restrictive, at least in relationship to THE THING. (Though I'll maintain that it's a horror/monster movie, not sci-fi.)

With respect to A SCANNER DARKLY, I think that's an ideal example of the non-SF story appropriating trappings to make a rather tough core set of ideas more appealing. Looking at PKD's postscript, with the litany of people disabled with 'permanent psychosis', I suspect that while Substance D isn't real, there are real-world drugs with effects similar enough that the central plot need not be considered in the realm of SF. Furthermore, Actor's plight is a clear enough metaphor for addiction and a drug-affected existence that it places the story squarely within a 'real' experience.

Amphibatron brought up the classification of CHILDREN OF MEN, which I wouldn't call SF for similar reasons. The futuristic/SF elements serve to provide a framework for the story, but don't inform it beyond that.

(How to deal with the zero birth rate is a good question; since no explanation is offered, people seem to head towards a sci-fi explanation. I didn't even bother with an explanation, since the other questions and ideas of the film were more interesting and engaging.)

Bringing up CHILDREN is also interesting, since at least a few people involved, including Cuaron, claim that it is not sci-fi.

I would argue that your definition is even more restrictive than that. Your definition seems to disallow for any type of moral dilemma or enlightenment involving alien technology, religion or philosophy. The story may require a ship of our own design to come into contact with these alien concepts, or not, but our own technology and our relationship to it doesn't have to be the point of the story. It's how we deal with the aliens and their existence. How would you classify Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land? How is that story about humans dealing with their own technology?


So, if a science fiction story is being used as a metaphor for something else it can't be science fiction? I don't think I can agree with that.




I can see the argument that Children of Men is dystopian fiction rather than pure science fiction, but does the science have to figure directly into the story? Is science really a huge factor in Brazil or Fahrenheit 451? Do these fall into the area of a speculative future society and not science fiction? Is there a difference? As DaveB pointed out, it would seem this comes down to soft science fiction vs. hard science fiction as many of the dystopian societies, such as the ones described in 1984, Brazil and even Children of Men, exist due to a governments ability to keep track and control individuals through advancing technology. Something that is becoming less and less a science fiction by the day.

Yeah, I'd have to say that there are some definite problems with the metaphoric exception rule. If we take Frankenstein, one of the defining texts of the genre, as metaphor, it's basically just a warning about playing God with technology. The message doesn't necessarily have to apply to future technology. If you interpret A Scanner Darkly as being applicable to drugs available right now with Substance D a mere futuristic stand-in, I think you have to accept Frankenstein in the same way: it's applicable to science available in the early 19th century, and Frankenstein's monster is merely a futuristic stand-in. By this criterion, if Dick's book isn't sf, I'm not so sure Shelley's is, either.

You can stretch this rule of exclusion to accommodate a large amount of what has traditionally been considered sf (Starship Troopers is a metaphor for militaristic societies; The Matrix is an illustration of gnosticism, solipsism, and other isms in action; Eternal Sunshine is an examination of love and memory). Basically, you can reduce virtually any science-fictional plot element to a metaphoric device, clearing the way for a non-sf interpretation.

I tend to think of futuristic stories as, by default, "speculative fiction." Since "speculative fiction" is basically just a neologism cooked up to replace "science-fiction," I can't see making too many distinctions. Thus I tend to put 1984, Brazil, Children of Men, Fahrenheit 451, A Clockwork Orange, Idiocracy, etc. into the sf category by default, even if it's not an exclusionary category. They fit equally well into broader genres like drama and comedy, as well.

Goddammit. After 100 posts we STILL don't have consensus on whether or not Demolition Man is science fiction?