rabidrabbit said:
What makes SciFi a SciFi? Why ET or JP aren't SciFi? Had they been done in the 50's would they have been called SciFi then?
Well for example, would you classify the XFiles as scifi ? I would not.
It shares some identical elements though with ET. It has its own mythology that it presents as current and not derived from science, its effect or extrapolation of its effect (even if there is some scientific advances in the show that don't seem possible with our current technology, but so do James bond movies).
ET and Jurassic park are set in a contemporary environment (it would even be the past by now). ET doesn't figure extensive change of society based on science and its discoveries, rather it takes an extraneous element to shed some light on our own society.
Jurassic park isn't that far fetched, it may just be categorized as a fiction with maybe some elements of fantasy (which draws inspiration from fantasy pieces like the "lost world".). The science is just "there" to explain the presence of live dinosaurs in the movie (like the radioactive bite is there to explain the existence of spiderman but spiderman isn't science fiction).
I know it's a thin line. I know most people won't bother and will put everything under one roof called "sci fi and fantasy". I know putting everything into categories is bad, especially when works can be so diverse and appeal to different audiences.
In France, most science fiction novels are under the term "anticipation" because they deal with the future or an alternative present and aren't necessarily based on science like the term "science fiction" seems to imply.
Ok so here is some science fiction works :
- star wars, dune, cow boy bebop, fifth element.
- robocop, 1984, neuromancer, blade runner, twelve monkeys, logan's run.
Some that are not science fiction to my mind :
- Jurassic park, X-files, the Sixth sense, the Tommyknockers, Conan the barbarian, Land of the deads, Spiderman.
Of course you can disagree.