Star Wars is a little too science-deficient to fit well within that definition. I don’t consider fictional technology speculative if there’s no plausible physical mechanism behind how it works, or if there’s little in the way of extrapolation from existing technologies. I also don’t think a film that ultimately predicates its message on religious literalism or magical powers fits the scientific side of the equation.
Again, I’m not denying that it’s sci-fi. Star Wars can be classified as science fiction, but it’s not GOOD science fiction. It’s not a very representative example of the genre and it poorly fits the genre’s conventions. As you yourself said, the masses (in other words, people who have not looked into the genre to see what it’s really all about) think of Star Wars as sci-fi because it has space and lasers and shit like that. Perhaps, on that most superficial of levels, it does seem very sci-fi. But if you want GOOD sci-fi–something that uses scientific concepts as storytelling devices, extrapolates futuristic technologies, or what have you–Star Wars isn’t the first place I’d recommend looking.
^^ A very important point. The scenes with ships flying around in space are the most overtly sci-fi thing about Star Wars, so they’re a pretty crucial litmus test as far as how much “sci” goes into the “fi.” Aerodynamic ships executing complex maneuvers and making all kinds of sounds give evidence that the filmmakers didn’t even bother to consider that the scenes are supposed to be taking place in a vacuum.
Dark City is a good pick. It’s like the Matrix, but less actioney and more… darkery.
I also like Blade Runner, Pi, The Fly (Cronenberg’s version), Planet of the Apes (has anybody not seen this?), Gattaca, and Minority Report. I like Star Trek: the Original Series, but I prefer the show over the movies. A.I.: Artificial Intelligence is okay, if you can deal with the clusterfuck that happens when Spielberg’s and Kubrick’s respective world views collide. And though it’s kind of an atypical choice, I’d say Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an example of good sci-fi.
And don’t forget classics like Destination: Moon (which I have not seen, but have read the very good short story), Frankenstein, Metropolis, and the Twilight Zone (show, not movie).
once again, i’m NOT arguing that it’s GOOD sience fiction, just that it is, in fact science fiction. that’s it. i don’t need three paragraphs that i’m never going to read to try and convince me otherwise…
i definately agree that eternal sunshine is science fiction. same with being john malkovich.
edit: not a robocop fan. it’s the same with terminator and for the most part, predator. i understand why people like them, but i just don’t. i’m more the 2001 science fiction type…
Yeah, Being John Malkovich is good. Not to be a pretentious ass (as I usually am), but I think Charlie Kaufman is a damn brilliant writer.
I know what you’re saying, but I think Robocop works on a deeper level than most action-oriented sci-fi. There’s a dense layer of satire that I don’t think many people think to use in science fiction. Maybe Terry Gilliam and a few others.
This is like the stupidest idea ever but I have an idea for Bad Dudes: The Movie. Put Keanu Reeves and Nicholas Cage in it as members of top commando squad and make the top agency guy who gives them their mission a conspirator (Have like a “villain” actor play him like Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, or Christopher Walken). Have him be the closet head of a Batman Begins style ninja cult that kidnaps the president and just add tons of explosions, senseless violence, and pointless nudity for an awesome movie. Imagine how unintentionally hilarious the scene where they realize they got set up and their entire mission is a trap would be.
i only saw the first one and really liked it, but it really fell off the cliff after that
third had to be the worst by far
the ending of 4 was confusing too, maybe just bc i was bored and given up on the film, but i didn’t realize they were switching back and forth between the saw 3 ending and the saw 4 ending, i thought both were happening at the same time whoops
and i guess the autopsy in the beginning was after the events of the film and not before??
i really think if they sat down after the 2nd one and just wrote all three at once and maybe filmed them all at once it would of been better. i mean its not like they have huge budgets anyway so if 2 or 3 bombed, the others could go straight to DVD and recoup the budget most likely. plus it would be cheaper
i remember seeing on a matrix documentary that they saved almost 50 million dollars by filming 2 and 3 at the same time, mostly because they were reusing the same sets and if they filmed them separately they would of knocked down the sets and rebuilt them