Starting here is the remaining discussion from the short-lived duplicate Daredevil board from the Sci-Fi wing of Jake's Movies.

Luigi: We already have a board for this movie in the Action section.

I didn't know that. Since it involves a science fiction premise, and is not a straight action picture, that's where I looked for it. I didn't find it.

I think the only "sci-fi" element here is the relatively minor one of Matt Murdock's enahnced senses. The primary plot points will be his battles with Kingpin and Bullseye (action), his relationship with Elektra (action in more ways than one), and his partnership with Foggy nelson (buddy movie, with action in it, kinda like Lethal Weapon).

I don't see what primary plot points have to do with it. Science fiction is a premise, not a plot. Straight "action" movies that do not have sci-fi elements would be Die Hard, or Lethal Weapon. I don't know why some people seem to imply this, but "Science Fiction" does NOT have to mean stories that are necessarily set in the future, or that include aliens, spaceships, robots or time travel.

The premise is that Matt was blinded by this special substance that raised his four remaining sense to superhuman levels and gave him a radar perception. Such a thing doesn't exist in real life. Hence, that's science fiction. The fact that this it has an urban setting instead of an interstellar one doesn't preclude that. Sci-fi doesn't have to have wall-to-wall aliens, robots, time travel and clones and whatever.

Phenomenon, The Abyss, K-Pax and Extreme Measures are all examples of science fiction films, despite the fact that they don't have characters running around with laser blasters, and despite the fact that one is a small-town character drama, one is an underwater action thriller, one is a drama, and the other is a medical thriller.

IMO, science fiction is about what's inside, not what's draped on the outside.

Remember Cinscape's issue on best action and best sci-fi movies. They said that Robocop made the action list because it simply felt more like an action film.

To each their own. That movie is clearly science fiction. Besides, if not this above definition I suggested, then what criteria would you use to decide whether films should be placed under "Action" or "Science Fiction"? I think we should havd a common sense distinction between the two to avoid confusion, otherwise the decision on where to place a movie becomes entirely arbitrary.

Distinction implies that one negates the other, and that isn't the case. A film can be both an action film and a science fiction film. It would be like trying to classify Ghost as either a fantasy or a drama, when it is clearly both.

There are no hard and fast rules one can go by to classify such films (or fiction, for that matter), particularly when genres are blended together.

If E.T. is a science fiction film, why isn't Dragonheart.

I understand what you're saying. I even agree that Robocop is more science fiction than action (it's premise, plot, and themes are all science fiction staples). But what would you do with a film like Predator? Or the Bond pictures?

In a perfect world, these films would be cross-referenced so that a person could find them in both places. Unfortunately, the laws of physics prevent Blockbuster from shelving the video in both locations. Similarly, the limitations of Nitcentral prevent us from archiving the movies with both links.

Clearly? How nice of you to be the be-all-end-all of genre categorization. Calm down Luigi. 'Clearly' most of us see Daredevil as an Action flick, otherwise JD would've moved it HERE by now. Don't get your panties in a ruffle.

Darth Sarcasm: A film can be both an action film and a science fiction film.
Luigi Novi: Sure. But I would make a distinction between action films without a sci-fi/fantasy element, and ones with it. Dragonheart is a fantasy, so it would go under sci-fi/fantasy along with E.T.. The Bond films are action.

Clearly? How nice of you to be the be-all-end-all of genre categorization. Calm down Luigi.
Luigi Novi: Brian, I think I made clear that I was stating my opinions. Do I have to type "IMO" in every single post I make? If I noted that in a previous post, do I have to make it in every subsequent one? Since you're the one jumping to conclusions about me being "the be-all-end-all-whatever," perhaps it is you who could phrase your responses a tad less antagonistically.

Brian Webber: Calm down Luigi. 'Clearly' most of us see Daredevil as an Action flick...
Luigi Novi: No, you saw it that way. You put it under Action/Adventure, not "most of us."

Brian Webber: ...otherwise JD would've moved it HERE by now.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. The issue hadn't come up, and JD saw no reason to do so.

Dragonheart is a fantasy, so it would go under sci-fi/fantasy along with E.T.. - Luigi

So does that mean you consider E.T. a fantasy? Or sci-fi, which is often clumped together with fantasy?

My point is that a definitive distinction can't be made.


I would make a distinction between action films without a sci-fi/fantasy element.... The Bond films are action. - Luigi

Oh? So invisible cars, ice palaces, and satellites using diamonds to reflect and magnify the effects of the rays of the sun to a fixed point on Earth to detonate land mines and melt glaciers truly exist?


Since you're the one jumping to conclusions about me being "the be-all-end-all-whatever..." - Luigi

You were the one who said "a common sense distinction" needed to be made (the implication, as I read it, is that any distinction that doesn't agree with yours is senseless). imdb.com lists the film as an Action film first, followed by Fantasy, Crime, and Drama (science fiction isn't even on the list). I, for one, tend to agree that the movie is an action film, using a sci-fi premise as its catalyst.

Luigi: Well, using your definition of what a Sci-Fi/Fantasy film is, we need to have JD move The Green Mile over here to this area.

Darth: You were the one who said "a common sense distinction" needed to be made (the implication, as I read it, is that any distinction that doesn't agree with yours is senseless). That's what I was trying to say. Thank you for saying it better than I did.

Darth Sarcasm: So does that mean you consider E.T. a fantasy? Or sci-fi, which is often clumped together with fantasy?
Luigi Novi: I believe E.T. is a science fiction film.

Darth Sarcasm: My point is that a definitive distinction can't be made.
Luigi Novi: I respectfully disagree.

There is probably an ongoing question of what, if anything is the difference between sci-fi and fantasy, with some people having their own particular distinctions, and perhaps some choosing none at all.

Science fiction is a genre of story that stems from a premise involving a development, discovery or revelation that is new to the laws and paradigms of science or technology.

Fantasy would seem to be similar, except that the premises are not based on technicalities of science, but rather more nebulous or whimsical concepts of either magic (Alice and Wonderland, Harry Potter), and the mythological (Merlin, Jason and the Argonauts). I would also classify stories that make no attempt to explain the premise (The Green Mile) into fantasy by default. Phenomenon appears to be fantasy until toward the end of the movie, when George’s powers are discovered to be the result of a growth in his brain, which would make it science fiction. It should be pointed out, of course, that using this distinction means that certain premises normally thought of as science fiction (time travel, alternate dimensions, teleportation) can be fantasy if the explanation for it is a fantasy one (i.e.: It is a witch who can use magic travel through time, dimensions or space, instead of technology.)

But since modern science fiction, as I understand it, was created by writers and scientists who were trying to fathom some of the implications of the new exploding realms of science and technology in late 19th and early 20th centuries vis a vis the human condition, I can understand deciding to put them together (as many do when they use the single phrase "sci-fi/fantasy"), or refusing to acknowledge a distinction, particularly since fantasy is often used to do the exact same thing.

Luigi Novi: I would make a distinction between action films without a sci-fi/fantasy element.... The Bond films are action.

Darth Sarcasm: Oh? So invisible cars, ice palaces, and satellites using diamonds to reflect and magnify the effects of the rays of the sun to a fixed point on Earth to detonate land mines and melt glaciers truly exist?
Luigi Novi: Perhaps I should’ve phrase that previous statement with a more tentative qualifier. I’m not a huge fan of Bond films (I quite dislike many aspects of them), and haven’t seen that many of them. But I will try answering this by first focusing on the individual premises you suggested here, and then on the deeper reason why I don’t Bond films in general are science fiction.

I don’t recall seeing invisible cars, but since I am aware that ice palaces were in Die Another Day, I’m guessing that they were in that movie too. There is precedent for stealth technology, and I’ve heard speculative reports in Popular Mechanics about the possibilities of stealth planes that are optically invisible as well as electromagnetically invisible, which use mirror-like reflective surfaces. I’ve also heard of the search for personal stealth outfits for soldiers. If such a thing is plausible, and we’re not that far away from it, perhaps a movie showing a car that can actually do so is not that science fictional. As for ice palaces, I would say that I don’t know if they’re scientifically possible. I don’t know how big the ones in the movie were, whether they were intended to actually be lived in, what part of the planet they were located, etc. I also can’t comment on the use of diamonds you described, because I don’t know the technicalities involved in the use of them seen in the movie. I believe crystals are used in lasers. Is it possible that the diamonds used in the movie were used with the same principle in mind?

But I think the reason why Bond films would not be classified as science fiction, is that in science fiction, the premise is an integral, self-aware aspect of the plot. The premise informs the plot, and the plot in some requires it. You can’t have a ST Nemesis without space ships, aliens, clones and androids. Even the most troglodytic trash at the bottom of the sci-fi barrel like Independence Day does presume to tell a story that springs forth from the premise in question. The extent to which such a premise informs the stories of Daredevil is no less than for X-Men, Hulk, Spider-Man and Blade, which are all listed under Sci-Fi/Fantasy.
Die Another Day aside, the Bond films never seem to be about either questioning the implications of a given technology, nor do their stories absolutely require them. In that regard, whatever science fiction in the movie is simply a prop. It’s incidental. Taking out everything in a Bond film that doesn’t exist today would require comparatively simply rewrites. Not so with actual science fiction films that require the premise at the get-go in order to exist.

Luigi Novi: Since you're the one jumping to conclusions about me being "the be-all-end-all-whatever..."

Darth Sarcasm: You were the one who said "a common sense distinction" needed to be made
Luigi Novi: And? What’s your point? Saying we should have a some common sense criteria rather than arbitrary one to categorize films justifies condescending to me and telling me that I need to "calm down," as if trying to explain my thinking in this matter implies agitation on my part? Sorry, but I don’t buy it. Everyone likes to think that they use logic and common sense in analyzing and making conclusions. I like to think that. I’m sure Brian does. Don’t you think your conclusions and observations are governed by common sense and logic?

Darth Sarcasm: the implication, as I read it, is that any distinction that doesn't agree with yours is senseless).
Luigi Novi: I have no control over how you choose to interpret the things I say, Darth. All I meant to say was that what I was arguing seemed to me to be fairly logical and common-sense. Not that any different opinion was therefore not. Most of the other posters here, would probably have immediately understood that, or assumed that that’s what I meant, or at least asked me to elaborate on what I meant to be certain of what I meant before jumping to conclusions and insulting me.

Darth Sarcasm: imdb.com lists the film as an Action film first, followed by Fantasy, Crime, and Drama (science fiction isn't even on the list).
Luigi Novi: So? All that shows is that their categorization is different. They describe it as fantasy instead of science fiction. To each his own.

Brian Webber: Well, using your definition of what a Sci-Fi/Fantasy film is, we need to have JD move The Green Mile over here to this area.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. Jake can choose to do so, or he can decide that it's more of a drama, and leave it where it is. It's a message board website, not the Bureau of Weights and Measures.

Just dropped in to nitpick...

Darth Sarcasm: Oh? So ... ice palaces .. truly exist?

Is this close enough?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1096419.stm
North America's first ever ice hotel opened its doors to guests on Monday outside Quebec City in Canada.

Luigi: I don’t recall seeing invisible cars
That's strange. I can't see them either.

Luigi: I believe crystals are used in lasers.
Crystals are sometimes used in low power lasers. High powered lasers use a different technology.

Luigi: I agree that the sci-fi in Bond is incidental. For example, while I only read a bit of Ian Flemming's Man with the Golden Gun, I don't think there were lasers, flying planes and solar energy in it!

Luigi: I don’t recall seeing invisible cars.

Sophie: That's strange. I can't see them either.
Luigi Novi: LOL!! Okay, I walked right into that one.

Luigi: I don’t recall seeing invisible cars.

Sophie: That's strange. I can't see them either.
Luigi Novi: LOL!! Okay, I walked right into that one.

Well if it hadn't been invisible, you wouldn't have.

"And? What's your point?" "So?"

OK, does anyone else note Luigi's adversarial tone in the latter part of his post to me? Or am I (again) "misreading" it?

Luigi, I simply expressed my opinion on the matter (some of which jived with yours, some of which didn't).


Don’t you think your conclusions and observations are governed by common sense and logic? - Luigi

Of course. But that doesn't mean I can expect to tell someone that a differing opinion doesn't make sense, and then expect that person to not be insulted.


I have no control over how you choose to interpret the things I say, Darth. - Luigi

You imply here that I have not given you the benefit of the doubt on the matter, when I clearly stated "as I read it."

My point was not to point fingers or agitate you. My point was to show that Brian's perception of your state of mind on the matter was possibly guided by your phrasing. That's all.

That may not have been what you meant (though that doesn't really jive with your statement that any other method is "entirely arbitrary"). But I tried to point out that Brian may have read your post as antagonistic and insulting. I did not jump to any conclusions, nor did I insult.

Though I find your tone with me now to be insulting.


So? All that shows is that their categorization is different. They describe it as fantasy instead of science fiction. To each his own. - Luigi

What I meant to emphasize was that they list the film as Action first. So Brian's opinion is justified under the true meaning of "common sense."

Maybe, Luigi, you should've done a search. Then you would've SEEN the Daredevil board at Action/Adventure and we wouldn't be having this sutpid argument! CLEARLY we ned a better system than the one JD has right now. We have 2 boards each for the following flicks. Daredevil, Insomnia, and The Sum of all Fears. And that's just the ones I'm aware of!

BTW, we have a Hulk board at A/A as well so please take any notes you have on THAT movie (whihc looks like it's gonna be awesome) over there.

The Hulk is definitely a sci-fi flick if you ask me. It's a direct descendent of such sci-fi oriented tales as Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein. The premise (at least in the comic books) was Dr. Robert Bruce Banner is exposed to gamma rays the result of which is that in times of stress turns into a seven foot tall, 500 lbs. monster. That one is very definitely misplaced as an Action/Adventure film.

I think it's been already been suggested, but perhaps JD could create a new board: "Comic Books/Superheroes" to accomodate the incoming films based on comics series. Of course, there'll be some arguments over what belongs there. I can see Road to Perdition being one such focal point. Still, I think it's better than what we've got now.

Maybe, Luigi, you should've done a search. Then you would've SEEN the Daredevil board at Action/Adventure and we wouldn't be having this sutpid argument! - Brian Webber

Judging by the fact that he posted on that other board a number of times, it looks like Luigi already did know. Also, way back in June, he asked on the Hulk board (also under Action/Adventure) why that film and Daredevil weren't classified under Sci-fi/Fantasy.

Perhaps he forgot.


CLEARLY we ned a better system than the one JD has right now. - Brian Webber

JD is handicapped by the limitations of Nitcentral.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the system as is. I just think that we all need to make better use of the Keyword Search function.

Incidentally, Luigi... it seems like you've already seen the film. If so, is it any good?

Because I would rather have heard your review than read a list of specific references in the film I would have rather gleaned for myself. I think a spoiler warning would have been advisable (since the film is still a month from release).

"I think a spoiler warning would have been advisable (since the film is still a month from release)." - Darth Sarcasm

I told you, Luigi. I told you you should have included a "Spoiler Warning".

The Hulk is definitely a sci-fi flick if you ask me. - Benn

See, to me, it's more fantasy than sci-fi (I say the same about E.T.). The Hulk's abilities aren't based on any sound scientific extrapolation... the premise that gamma rays turns Banner into the Hulk is no more sci-fi than Goofy turning into SuperGoof by swallowing radioactive peanuts (assuming you ignore Goofy is a dog, of course).

As to whether it should be listed under Action/Adventure or Sci-Fi/Fantasy... I would agree with Cinescape in that it depends on which element is emphasized by the film. Judging about what I've heard about the film, you're right. And judging by what I've heard about Daredevil (just to keep things on-topic), Brian is right.

Darth, I agree. The Hulk is more fantasy than s/f. These days, I've come to accept it as a matter of principal that in the Marvel (Comics) Universe, radiation does not work the way it does in real life. In the Marvel Universe, it can activate a genetic predisposition towards "super powers". Mind you, this is far from canon. (What is canon in the Marvel Universe these days, anyway?) But it helps me suspend my disbelief when I read the comics. Otherwise, I'd go insane from screaming, "Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Matt Murdock, the Fantastic Four - They should be dead from radiation sickness!" But, hey. That's just me.

In the classic movie "Forbidden Planet", Altair calls her father by his proper name...Morbius. (All the rest of the time, she calls him "father" or "dad")

Also, in "Forbidden Planet", the Chef wears an apron and a cooker's hat for most of the movie. However, when he is reprimanded for getting drunk, he is wearing an uniform just like everyone else.

Another nit is where the crew turn on the huge magnet to lift the chef off of his feet....You can see the wire that lifts the chef off of the ground.

He probably got very cleaned up hoping the captain would go easier on him. Also, it might be the rules that during a disciplinary meeting, you must wear a uniform or a dress uniform. Any military people here know?

Speaking from personal experience, yes, you do dress more formally for a reprimand.

In that case, it was a nice touch of realism. Nit withdrawn.

I recently heard an Arthur C. Clarke quote that fits this topic. He was talking about how he defined the difference between sci-fi and fantasy. Note: I'm goign off memory but I'm sure I got the quote 98% accurate.

"Science fiction, is something that could happen, but you probably wouldn't want it to. Fantasy, is something you really wish would happen, though you know it never would."

Discuss.

Personally, I would rather not have a dark lord try to take over the world with the most powerful wizard around at his side.

But, I get what he's saying.

You know fantasy, the stories of the impossible. Sci-fi, OTOH...

Personally, I would rather not have a dark lord try to take over the world with the most powerful wizard around at his side.

True enough, but by the same token it would be pretty cool to converse with trees or temporarily paralyze people who •••• you of wouldn't it? ;)

So, you'd be temporarily paralyzing a lot of people then, eh, Brian?

Harry Turtledove wrote a short, "After the Last Dlf is Dead" -- (I think that's the title). He said he wrote it just to see what happens when the baddies win. It's in "Counting Up, Counting Down".

CR: I'f just start in Washington D.C. and work my way west (though in all honesty I could be in D.C. for weeks, so I may just decide the rest of the trip to be "not worth it"). ;-)

Darn... that's "Elf", not "Dlf".

I wondered about that, Scott. I just didn't want to say anything since I've never read any of Turtledove's works. I mean, for all I know the word really was "Dlf".

Science-Fiction = Technology of the future. Fantasy = Magic.

"Fireball XL5" and "The Lord Of The Rings" are NOT the same kind of thing. I love the one and have no use for the other. Are they both fantasy? Are they both science fiction? Are they both? Are they neither? Is one both and the other neither? I don't know any more.

So an organized crime syndicate using their own re-usable piloted spacecraft to hijack U.S. and Soviet space capsules isn't science fiction. And a villain using a laser satellite to destroy submarines, missile bases and other targets isn't science fiction. And a multibillionaire with his own space shuttles, his own training program, his own launch complex and his own space station, using an orchid-derived toxin to wipe out everyone who doesn't work for him, isn't science fiction. Now everything's as clear as mud.

That can often be a problem, trying to categorize things like that. Remember SeaQuest DSV? The first season was pretty much Sci-Fi; even the Halloween episode was rather ambiguous about weather or not they really saw ghosts or the whole thing was hallucinations brought on by nitrogen narcoses. In the second season they became more fantasy, even fighting a Greek God.

FORBIDDEN PLANET:

They never did explain why the tiger decided to pounce on Altaira

Wouldnt you pounce on Altaira too if given the chance?