Why is science fiction so hard to define?

BBC ^ | July 30, 2014 | Quentin Cooper

[EveningStar]

A recent list of top science fiction films had some unusual choices and left out some well-regarded classics. But, says Quentin Cooper, that's part of the problem – sci-fi is such a broad church it's often very hard to define.

Time Out, the weekly listings magazine, recently ranked the 100 best sci-fi movies of all time. They did it by polling 150 "leading sci-fi experts, filmmakers, science fiction writers, film critics and scientists" and getting them to each provide their 10 favourites.

As lists go it's a decent one. It's hard for me to take issue with a top three of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner and Alien. Especially as my not-quite-four-year-old is named Hal partly after the homicidal computer in 2001. If we'd had a girl it was toss-up between Pris and Ripley.

Once you begin to get away from the top though, things soon get less clear cut. With only 150 people voting, some of the films near the bottom of the chart will only have had a vote or two, so if you'd asked different "leading" figures you'd have likely got different results.

[jocon307]

I finally watched Blade Runner after hearing it praised for decades. It really did nothing for me. I didn’t understand what was going on and found it quite leaden. But, maybe I too should give it another try.

[reformedliberal]

For me, if it is internally logical, I can suspend disbelief for the duration of the story. I think most readers may even skim the technical parts of some novels and simply accept the premises.

[FredZarguna]

Think of the androids as humans, the police as angels, and Eldon Tyrell as God. Then watch it again.

[a fool in paradise]

I don’t like having to click through 20-100 pages to get the “names” (and some of the media sites love linking to umpteen dozen youtube clips, each of which then attempt to load).

Bloated page load and overhyped page clicks.

I can search for more info on films if I feel the need.

[ZOOKER]

bfl

[Perdogg]

ping

[trisham]

"Free Republic is here to continue fighting for independence and freedom and against the unconstitutional encroachment of ever expanding socialist government...

We believe in the founding principles with all our hearts and mean to defend them to our dying breath..."

~Jim Robinson

Please support Free Republic
click the pic!

[Bender2]

Gadzooks! It takes forever to get to the list... and then their choices are terrible.

Such as 1954's Them! not on the list while 1951's The Thing from Another World at 67 and The Day the Earth Stood Still at 31. These three should be in the top five, not for their special effects but for their plots and believability that survived across the 60 plus years since they were produced.

Today's sci-fi films are 99.9% special effects, .01% plot and no believability as the target audience are 10 to 14 year old boys & girls (and many of today's grown men & women with the same maturity level) who will come back to see the film over and over and over.

Some days I almost wish... Helen had never said "Klaatu barada nikto" to Gort--

[Tijeras_Slim]

See the final director’s cut on blu-ray.... far superior to prior versions even though the changes are small and subtle.

Bladerunner is a visual masterpiece, considering it’s one of the last of the “analog” sci-fi films, in that it had no CGI, all props and camera effects.

It has a few awkward spots, but all in all is amazing.

[Chickensoup]

I like Primer. Filmed by a conservative for 7K

Won Sundance.

Worth the watch, again and again.

[GeronL]

bump

I always thought a good sci-fi story could come from everyone living in tall towers, shopping, restaurants, movie theaters, schools are all in the towers, all towers connected by bridges, some nice and some ghetto. Going outside being a very rare thing, might even be illegal depending on the story.

[GeronL]

There were probably a lot of readers skipping the 7-page instruction on the inner-workings of how a tank fires a tank shell in a Tom Clancey novel too.

I made that up but some of his books had stuff like that in them.

[GeronL]

Here is the trailer for PRIMER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE

[EvilOverlord]

Going outside being a very rare thing, might even be illegal depending on the story.

Asimov's The Caves Of Steel and The Naked Sun covered some of that territory. Humanity lived in crowded megacities, always crowded and always indoors. No one ever saw the sun. The protagonist shook in fear, as in a phobia, when he had to step outdoors.

They were written as detective stories, but explored the consequencies of living in such crowded circumstances. The planet Solaria (one of the 50 human colonized planets) in the second book explored the consequences of people living in extremely isolated circumstances.

[GeronL]

interesting

More books to look up and put on the long long list

[Chickensoup]

Terrific film. Loved it.

[Chickensoup]

Have you read the Foundation Trilogy and his fourth add on? the fifth isn’t worth it.

[EvilOverlord]

Well, the fifth one, Foundation and Earth is essentially a sequal to The Naked Sun, as it shows the evolution of Solaria's society 30,000 years after The Naked Sun takes place. It takes Solaria's isolation to an extreme.

[TrueKnightGalahad]

Who can take seriously a list of the “best” 100 sci-fi films that includes dreck like Pacific Rim, Avatar, The Truman Show, The Prestige?

[GeronL]

I did read the Trilogy at some point. I dunno about that fifth thing.