Random Thoughts

[Grouchy]

"Sci-fi" can't be considered a genre in the same way as "action". The first implies specific plot elements, namely, fantastic speculation based on our existing scientific knowledge. An action film can feature those elements. Action is something that can happen in any genre - children's animation is filled with it.

"Horror" is more similar to "Action". Its many sub-genres, though, like the slasher or the creature feature, are much more specific.

[Irish]

Action as a genre is definitely a thing though. It may be unique to the movies because action lends itself to the form; it photographs well and it's easy to understand outside language and culture.

I think of American (ie, United-Statesian) action movies I think of:

- either extremely high budget or extremely low budget
- procedural with buddy elements
- scripts written specifically around set pieces or otherwise "high concept"

The high water mark was probably sometime around the early to mid-90s. ("The Last Action Hero" might have been a little too on the nose there.) Afterwards, heavily F/X based genre movies took over, while borrowing from pure action films. ("Jurassic Park," "Terminator 2," "Twister," "Independence Day," "Armageddon.")

[Irish]

Hard to believe I wrote this six years ago, but I tried to suss out what "genre" means and how useful it is on my old blog. My big takeaway was that I look at genre as a mosaic, where, from a distance, you can get a fairly clear picture of what horror or action or romance looks like, but the more up-close you get, the more you look at individual films, the more the lines begin to blur and definitions become borderline impossible.

I once walked into a McDonald's and ordered a coupla hamburgers to go. The cashier ran it as a special to give me a discount. On the receipt, the burgers were listed boldly as "CHEESEBURGERS WITHOUT CHEESE."

I stared at the receipt as I ate and wondered whether something could lack an essential part of itself and still qualify as that thing. (A friend of my is a philosophy professor and loved this anecdote; he immediately recommended a half dozen books about the philosophy of language.)

By which I mean: I liked your blog post but I've always disliked this argument --- genre isn't an essentially contested concept, even when it might seem to be.

[Grouchy]

I think about that everytime I see a vegetarian menu. "Tofu hamburger" or "vegetable sausage" - I mean, is it only the shape that makes a hamburger a hamburger or a sausage a sausage?

[Dukefrukem]

Never seen "Tofu hamburger" before. But-I've seen Tofu-burger.

[megladon8]

Sci fi is one I’m very picky about, but I know it’s my own insanity and not common thinking.

For example, I don’t consider Star Wars sci fi. It’s as fantasy as fantasy gets. The presence of spaceships does not sci fi make.

I personally see true sci fi as being more about concepts, ideas, and human interaction with technology and its advancements.

Common thinking would say sci fi is setting something in space, which I disagree with.

[Grouchy]

Action as a genre is definitely a thing though. It may be unique to the movies because action lends itself to the form; it photographs well and it's easy to understand outside language and culture.

I think of American (ie, United-Statesian) action movies I think of:

- either extremely high budget or extremely low budget
- procedural with buddy elements
- scripts written specifically around set pieces or otherwise "high concept"

The high water mark was probably sometime around the early to mid-90s. ("The Last Action Hero" might have been a little too on the nose there.) Afterwards, heavily F/X based genre movies took over, while borrowing from pure action films. ("Jurassic Park," "Terminator 2," "Twister," "Independence Day," "Armageddon.")

What about kung fu films, though? Those are centered around action set pieces and precede North by Northwest by at least three decades.

[Grouchy]

For example, I don’t consider Star Wars sci fi. It’s as fantasy as fantasy gets. The presence of spaceships does not sci fi make.

It's a sub-genre of science fiction called "space opera" and it appeared first in literature. The specific problem with Star Wars is that the Force is central to the story and is an entirely magical concept which exists independently from the futuristic technology that surrounds it.

[megladon8]

It's a sub-genre of science fiction called "space opera" and it appeared first in literature. The specific problem with Star Wars is that the Force is central to the story and is an entirely magical concept which exists independently from the futuristic technology that surrounds it.

I’m well aware of space opera, and it’s this magical side that to me negates it from this genre and makes it fantasy.

Star Wars is pretty much Lord of the Rings in space.

Something I would consider space opera would be Battlestar Galactica.

[Dukefrukem]

Sci fi is one I’m very picky about, but I know it’s my own insanity and not common thinking.

For example, I don’t consider Star Wars sci fi. It’s as fantasy as fantasy gets. The presence of spaceships does not sci fi make.

I personally see true sci fi as being more about concepts, ideas, and human interaction with technology and its advancements.

Common thinking would say sci fi is setting something in space, which I disagree with.

This goes back to the Intelligent sci-Fi discussion we've had a few times and we all agree Star Wars not intelligent sci-fi. But it is sci-fi.

[megladon8]

Well, I don’t agree.

So in your face.

[Grouchy]

Star Wars is pretty much Lord of the Rings in space.

I used to say this too but now I have my doubts. Despite the relevance of the Force in the narrative everything else (not only the spaceships but the robots and the forms of government in the different parts of the galaxy) calls back to old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers stories.

It's a true hybrid of genres.

[Skitch]

Let's back up a bit. Instead of debating which films are science fiction...what is science fiction? My definition is broad. Its "known science" that adds in "fictional elements". We all know the realities of known science in our world (and a bit more), but I personally believe there is plenty we don't know and don't doubt that known science could expand as we explore the universe further. Meaning, "in a galaxy far far away" maybe there are beings sensitive to dark matter or an unknown environmental element that allows them to move objects by will alone, or maybe theres a weird mineral that doesn't exist in our galaxy that allows for a laser to extend three feet and then stop without refraction/reflection.

But I'm just a public school kid, so what the hell do I know.

[[ETM]]

Star Wars has a few sci-fi concepts but they are not different from anything in Lord of the Rings. Lightsabers or light speed drives are equally scientifically plausible as rings of power or enchanted Elvish weapons. I'd go with "Science Fantasy" myself.

And Lord of the Rings in space is not Star Wars... it's Babylon 5.

[Grouchy]

Lightsabers or light speed drives are equally scientifically plausible as rings of power or enchanted Elvish weapons.

What? No, they're obviously not. Key word being "enchanted".

[MadMan]

Jaws is terrifying and very much a horror movie. Also I agree that North by Northwest is an action thiller, and its an amazing film, too. The final scene on Mt. Rushmore is kind of ridiculously entertaining.

[Dukefrukem]

Really fun internet game. https://geoguessr.com/world/play

Drops you in a google street view and you need to figure out where you are in the world.

[[ETM]]

What? No, they're obviously not. Key word being "enchanted".

Well, enchanted magical crystals power a beam of light that has a fixed length and diameter and magically cuts through everything but itself and the hilt it emits from? Yeah...

BTW, greetings from 2019.

[MadMan]

Hopefully 2019 is less shitty.

[Skitch]

If the dems back Elizabeth Warren's run at presidency, you can just go ahead and book another 4 years of Trump. You've been warned.

[Ezee E]

If the dems back Elizabeth Warren's run at presidency, you can just go ahead and book another 4 years of Trump. You've been warned.

The disorganization of the Democrats will make a great movie 10-20 years from now.

[Dukefrukem]

Happy 2019. And yes, if Warren runs, just hand the 4 years to Trump now.

[StuSmallz]

If the dems back Elizabeth Warren's run at presidency, you can just go ahead and book another 4 years of Trump. You've been warned.

Huh?

[baby doll]

Trump is likely going to win no matter who the Democrats nominate.

[Dukefrukem]

Huh?

Because Warren is awful.