Top 5 Movies Mistaken for Sci-Fi That Aren’t
In literature, science fiction and fantasy are clearly defined. They are polar opposite in terms of their content: science fiction deals with things that could potentially happen, while fantasy deals with things that definitely couldn’t ever happen.
The two genres have had a tough time making the leap to the film world, a problem exacerbated by the confusion between the two genres. In most people’s minds, science fiction and fantasy are the same genre, an idea that is both confusing and alarming to fans of either genre in literature.
So this list is designed to give people a quick run-down of what science fiction is, and how to recognise it in its new habitat: the screen.
5 – Ghostbusters (1984)
Wikipedia lists the second Ghostbusters film as ‘science fiction,’ and many other websites categorise it as such as well; most people probably wouldn’t have thought of it as science fiction anyway, but it’s a good place to start, so bear with me:
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi: It’s about ghosts. That’s about as nebulous and un-scientific as you can get.
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Because the characters in the film treat ghosts as scientific phenomena, and pack high-tech gear to deal with the pesky paranormal poltergeists. The tech is treated as a means to an end, though; the focus of the film is obviously on humour, and the only explanations for the ghosts’ existence is mystical in nature. Ghostbusters is still a fine film, but sci-fi it ain’t.
4 – King Kong (1933)
In the 1930s, science fiction was a fledgling genre, barely a blip on the world’s consciousness. Space travel was as alien a concept to folk back then as the internet, and this, of course, was before the splitting of the atom inspired public interest in science, and before scientists like Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins came along to popularise the field.
Nevertheless, a quick google search for “sci fi king kong” turns up dozens of sci-fi sites dealing with the film. Why?
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi: It’s about a giant gorilla who lives on an island populated by extinct and fantastical creatures. Nothing about that synopsis mentions technology or hitherto unknown scientific phenomena.
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Like I said above, people seem to conflate science fiction with fantasy. There’s some real-world basis to the idea of an isolated ecosystem undergoing rapid and unchecked evolution into strange and unforeseen paths, but the focus of the film isn’t on evolution, but rather, the bond between a woman and a giant monkey thing. Also screaming. So much screaming.
3 – Serenity (2005)
Joss Whedon’s acclaimed but unwatched TV show Firefly mixed elements of adventure, the Western and space opera to create a cocktail alien to TV audiences at the time; Serenity was the follow-up movie that, despite a loyal fan-base, failed to drum up spectacular profits. Serenity takes place in space, so it must be sci-fi, right? Wrong.
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi: If you transplanted the action into some alternate-history Earth, with naval vessels replacing spacefaring ones, you’d have a fairly conventional adventure movie; future technology doesn’t impact on the story in any meaningful way (and let’s face it, River’s powers are pretty much mystical bullshit anyway).
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Probably the space setting. As I will go on to explain later, setting your story in space does not make it science fiction. Serenity counts as an adventure, with elements of Western style; I’d probably call it a ‘space opera’ if it operated on a slightly larger scale than it does.
2 – Transformers (2007 – 2011)
Michael Bay has made a career out of making movies that people think are sci-fi. Armageddon, The Island, and now this, the crowning jewel in the crown of awfulness, Transformers. Before Bay got his hands on these projects, they probably were genuine sci-fi flicks, but Bay has this peculiar way of taking anything – anything at all – and turning it into a chase / action movie where the young white guy gets the young white girl at the end of the day.
When I tell people I like sci-fi, I usually get a triumphant “Ah-ha! But you hated Transformers!” in response. This makes me wonder why I talk to people at all, but let me clear this up once and for all:
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi: Because the Autobots and Decepticons aren’t explained beyond their capacity for violence. How do robots reproduce? Who invented them? Why the hell do they need to change into vehicles? Why do they resemble human beings when they transform out of vehicle mode? A true science fiction project would answer (or at the very least, address) these obvious questions. Plus the Allspark is patently mystical in nature — a big no-no in true sci-fi.
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Because it’s about robot aliens, and technology far in advance of our own. However, it doesn’t say a single thing about the state of humanity and the way technology affects us; it focuses much more on cartoonish violence, and as such should probably fall under the “action” category.
1 – Star Wars (1977 – 2005)
George Lucas’ hallowed Star Wars trilogy contains all the hallmarks of science fiction: space travel, aliens, and advanced technology. But any genre fan worth her salt knows that it isn’t science fiction; no matter what angle you tackle it from, Star Wars just isn’t science fiction.
It’s the big one, too, the one that causes the most arguments among aficionados (read: geeks) and inspires the most confusion in the innocent mainstream. Let’s clear it up together, shall we?
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi:
- The aliens in the Star Wars universe are just there, like the different species (elf, dwarf, orc) in Tolkien-esque fantasy. Real sci-fi would’ve dealt with First Contact, represented racism between the various species in the Star Wars universe, had Luke Skywalker fall in love with a Wookiee or something, etc.
- The space travel in Star Wars is never explained, beyond the magic of hyperspace. A handy guide to differentiating sci-fi from fantasy is the AM/FM rule: AM stands for Actual Machine; FM stands for Fucking Magic. Star Wars falls firmly into the latter category.
- The Force. Nothing in this universe suggests some kind of intergalactic consciousness at a subatomic level; the Force is one of the fundamental cornerstones of the Star Wars mythos, and immediately flags Star Wars as being physically impossible. Magic is a prominent feature of fantasy literature, however.
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Because it takes place in outer space.
I don’t know quite what it is that makes people assume “outer space” = “science fiction.” It’s probably got something to do with the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey takes place (mostly) in space. But if you look at E.T., Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, Contact, The Abyss, Back To The Future, and a hefty chunk of sci-fi literature, most sci-fi takes place right here, on planet Earth. That helps to anchor sci-fi in some recognisable semblance of reality. But right from the start (A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away), Star Wars clearly sets itself up as a fantasy film. Is that so hard to comprehend?
The take-home message of this particularly geeky list is a two-parter: part 1 is that, as I’ve lamented previously, genre labels are genuinely useless and not to be trusted; part 2 is that science fiction is a serious and mature, but not entirely humourless genre, and deserves a lot more recognition than being confused with tripe like Transformers and shallow pulp like Star Wars.
That’s not to say any of the movies on this list aren’t good movies (except, of course, for Transformers) — they just aren’t science fiction movies. And for some reason, I found it very important to explain that to you.
View Commentsto “Top 5 Movies Mistaken for Sci-Fi That Aren’t”
Leave a Reply
Welcome! We're two Australian film graduates who enjoy going to (and working at) the cinema. Hollywood news and reviews with Aussie flavour.
Of course my first post would be conflicting, but for the most part Robin, I believe I have to disagree. I am not particularly a follower of the genre, but this is how I see it.
Science Fiction;
-A setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in an historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.
-A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens
-Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature.
-Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)
(Source – Wikipedia)
I can agree with Ghost Busters, because that is paranormal. However, their use of weapons that are unknown to us currently on a scientific basis, regardless of what they are utilized for, makes it in part sci-fi
King Kong I will say is Science Fiction on the principal that it is scientifically possible for the character of Mr. Kong to occur. The fact that their creatures, to our knowledge, that are currently extinct on this island, makes it even more far fetched, but not impossible.
Admittedly, I have never seen Serenity. But from what I know of the film, it is based on an alternate time line and encompasses scientific elements, whether or they are addressed it irrelevant.
Transformers is absolutely science fiction. Just because the elements are not explained does not make it any less Sci-fi.
Star Wars I am going to have to back as Science fiction, also. Alternate reality. Technology that is not available. Undiscovered creatures. You say that 'Real Sci-fi' would have dealt with first contact, but not if you are raised in that environment. It is not at all impossible for this to occur, although, it is highly improbable. As for the force, someone having the ability to control things on an atomic level with your mind, may generally fall into the realm of paranormal, but it could entirely be rooted in science, correct?
I don't think any of these films could be soley classed as SCIENCE FICTION, they would have to be accompanied by ACTION or COMEDY, but I believe they all deserve to be sitting on the sci-fi shelf of my local video store.
Perhaps it's video stores that are to blame? I want to rent Star Wars, I'm going straight to the Science Fiction shelf. That just makes sense. I don't think I've ever seen a 'fantasy' section. Ghostbusters has always been in 'comedy' and King Kong in 'classics'. The Peter Jackson remake is in 'Adventure'…
I think of science fiction in terms of its literary heritage: Arthur C Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Robert A Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Ray Bradbury, Larry Niven, Phillip K Dick, Ursula K LeGuin and more recently Orson Scott Card, Robert J Sawyer, and Greg Bear, and what they did to shape the genre over the decades.
As such I don't agree with Wikipedia's broad definition of sci-fi. That also includes speculative fiction and fantasy; like I said in the article, fantasy and sci-fi have always been opposed to, not complementary with, each other, in terms of content.
The reason I said real sci-fi would've dealt with First Contact is because to sci-fi, First Contact is a more interesting story than “aliens are normal.” Being brought up in a completely alternate, totally alien world is something fantasy chooses to portray — hence, Star Wars is fantasy / space opera (separate from SF).
Mr Kong is bigger than the biggest land mammal ever to have evolved; nature pushes her subjects to the limit, and nobody's come close to matching Kong and still retaining bipedalism and the semblence of sapience. There's no way Kong could've naturally evolved, and there's no hint of scientific manipulation in the island's back-story, so it's just a big old creature-feature adventure flick.
As for Transformers, part of sci-fi lies in the explanation of things, the wonder and awe of learning something new and mind-boggling. It's something sci-fi films often fail to accurately portray, but it's obvious that Bay was aiming more for the action crowd than the thinking crowd when he made Transformers. There are very basic elements of SF there, but they're used purely to advance the action, as a means to an end, and not the end itself.
The point of this article was to challenge the commonly held 'film' version of science fiction and try to reconcile it with SF literature — I guess it's even harder than I first thought …
I blamed video stores in my last post on genre — didn't want to keep scaping the same goat. Or is that goating the same scape? I dunno. Either way, there's no fantasy section because there aren't enough fantasy films to fill it. You'd have Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings, Harry Potter … Conan The Barbarian?
Yet another reason why the idea of genre hurts more than helps in film classification.
I understand the ideology behind the article, yet I guess I shall forever disagree. I see science fiction as things that are possible, yet improbably.
Kong, I don't see it being realistic, but it is fiction. Possible, yet improbable. Who knows, given the right elements and habitat, what is to stop something from growing to that scale? Sure, you would have to have a gradual increase in size over generations and millions of years.
Transformers, I disagree that to be a science fiction it has to be in the descriptive. I believe that it only needs to broadly describe how it is possible, not directly explain. We always complain about movies spelling things out to the audience, although this is slightly different, I think it relates. If they want to dive into the science entirely, then that is fine, it will change the film, but not the genre.
Science Fiction;
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
(Source- dictionary.com)
John W. Campbell, Jr. –
The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along…The basic nature of fantasy is “The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!” The basic rule of science fiction is “Set up a basic proposition–then develop its consistent, logical consequences.”
Benjamin Appel -
Science fiction reflects scientific thought; a fiction of things-to-come based on things-on-hand.
Robert A Heinlein –
Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate–and often very tightly reasoned–speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy.
Frederik Pohl –
Does the story tell me something worth knowing, that I had not known before, about the relationship between man and technology? Does it enlighten me on some area of science where I had been in the dark? Does it open a new horizon for my thinking? Does it lead me to think new kinds of thoughts, that I would not otherwise perhaps have thought at all? Does it suggest possibilities about the alternative possible future courses my world can take? Does it illuminate events and trends of today, by showing me where they may lead tomorrow? Does it give me a fresh and objective point of view on my own world and culture, perhaps by letting me see it through the eyes of a different kind of creature entirely, from a planet light-years away?
These qualities are not only among those which make science fiction good, they are what make it unique. Be it never so beautifully written, a story is not a good science fiction story unless it rates high in these aspects. The content of the story is as valid a criterion as the style.
This is the sci-fi that SF fans know; again, the online dictionary does a disservice to the breadth and depth of pure sci-fi by tossing it into the same pot as fantasy. And again, these definitions, from the founders of the genre, discount King Kong, Transformers, and Star Wars.
Does the definition of its founders totally define what science fiction has become?
All genre's have become broad. So to be a complete purist in the name of Science Fiction may be what the 'founders' determine it, but I think it is naive to think that these films don't encompass the definition of science fiction.
No, the point is that sci-fi is still the same now as it was then; sure you get more hybrid-genres like what Michael Crichton or Robert J Sawyer put out, but science fiction as a literary genre is still defined the same way today as it was in the Golden Era. The genre has expanded and deepened, but it hasn't completely transmuted into something that also encompasses fantasy, which (I feel like a broken record here) is mutually incompatible with science fiction.
Fantasy is an older genre than sci-fi — what's wrong with putting Star Wars and King Kong into that category, where they fit better? Fantasy isn't a more or less worthy genre, so what's wrong with wanting to put like with like?
There is nothing wrong with them going into it. I just don't agree with their placement in Fantasy.
Respectfully agree to disagree?
Haha I was going to suggest that in my next reply! Agreed indeed. Cheers for your thoughts.
Wow your discussion added much to the article. Im not even gonna bother with my opinion.
Excellent article! I honestly thought Star Wars was Sci-Fi so it was shocking to see that as number one. You do make very valid points but i cant get it around my head to define Star Wars as fantasy…maybe its marketers, maybe its blockbusters organisational skills. But in my head Fantasy is reserved for LOTR etc and Sci Fi is for Star Wars.
Btw i went to the iTunes store…i think for both you and Danny to agree…they've organised it correctly (See below link)
http://twitpic.com/217qf6
Haha so between Borders and iTunes I think we have definitive proof that these two genres are sold side-by-side …
I’m late as sin getting to this, but oh well.
You’re incorrect about Serenity for one crucial reason. You say that technology doesn’t really play a role in the movie because nothing technological cannot be easily replaced by an analogous past tech (spaceships to naval ships).
Except that it does. The answer for why the Reavers are the Reavers is a technological advancement: i.e. a disease/virus/medicine initially used to pacify entire populations goes horribly wrong and either kills a lot of people or turns some of them into raging lunatics. The only way you can translate that to the now is by pushing us into the future, since we don’t have the capability for any of that right this moment.
Just sayin’.