posted
is something I've been thinking about recently. I've noticed that authors generally try to be more accurate in their stories than filmmakers do, and I suspect that this is because writing allows for (or maybe requires) more exposition.
Somewhere in OSC's how-to book he mentions that perhaps the most commonly accepted boundary between sci-fi and fantasy was the level of technology involved -- if something fantastic was done with a spell or chant, it's fantasy; if the same act was done with a machine, it's scifi. There's probably more to that definition, but that's the general idea.
Here's another (para?)quote from the same book: "...science fiction is about what could be but isn't; fantasy is about what couldn't be."
So say you took one idea and looked at it as both a movie and a book. Assume it doesn't involve space or the future (as both are almost always associated with scifi -- and I know this appeals to a very narrow definition of the genre but hear me out). Maybe the story takes place in an entirely different world altogether, where there are machines, but no magic or anything like that. Some aspects of the world go against of physics, biology, chemistry and various laws of the universe -- not because of magic, but simply for the story's sake.
Scifi, or fantasy?
If the creator strays completely outside of reality, the book version would probably be listed as fantasy. But movies are often based on ideas and technologies that are impossible (not just "impossible with our technology" impossible, but impossible impossible) and are still be classified as scifi. Since it has machines, this story's movie could be sold as scifi.
So theoretically, the movie is scifi and the book isn't.
In short, the definition of science fiction used by filmmakers seems different from the one used by publishers -- movies tend to subscribe the the first definition, but not the second. Is that because the two media have different audiences, or because of they have differnet creators (writers vs. filmmakers)?
Also books seem to fall under multiple genres less often than movies do -- I'm guessing the reason for this might simply be a physical issue. The story could be both scifi or fantasy, but in a bookstore or library it has to go somewhere, since it can't be in two places at once. However, a movie doesn't have to be "put" anywhere until it appears on DVD and is probably won't be sorted by genre until then, so it can comfortably fit under two genres while it is being advertised.
--j_k, who didn't intend to type that much
[ May 08, 2006, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rating system (whether a book os SF or fantasy or whatever,) is just a marketing tool used to classify things. I never really pay attention to it anyway.
I'm pretty sure you're right about the movies.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well....I'm not going to answer your specific question, but I'm going to put a thought out there.
Star Wars is considered by many to be the epitome of theatrical science fiction. But 'the Force,' which is at the center of much of Star Wars, is wizardy by another name. It's magic, spells, enchantments, etc. So is Star Wars fantasy?
Of course, in the prequels, the Force is explained as being an attribute of midichlorians (sp?), which brings everything back to the realm of good ol' sci-fi, but yea.
Just an interesting tangent. Sorry for the hijacking.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Star Wars is considered by many to be the epitome of theatrical science fiction. But 'the Force,' which is at the center of much of Star Wars, is wizardy by another name. It's magic, spells, enchantments, etc. So is Star Wars fantasy?
IIRC, Lucas calls it "science fantasy" or "space fantasy" or something to that effect. And even with the midichlorians (I'm curious about the etymology of that word, heh). I'd call it both.
I've never read any of the Star Wars books, but I've seen some of them listed under sci-fi. My guess is that is mostly because the movies are generally considered scifi. Had the books been written first, would they be listed as science fiction (because of the technology) or fantasy (because of the Force)? Kind of an odd example, because space almost always means scifi, and so much of Star Wars is in space. Including the title.
posted
I think the difference mostly is that you have two sets of vastly different sizes: there are a lot more books than there are movies. So the classification of books has become a lot more stratified than the classification of movies.
Really it could all be lumped under "speculative fiction". Most people who've written "sci-fi" have written "fantasy" and vice versa. They're both ways of telling stories about things that aren't.
I consider Star Wars to be "Wuxia... in... Spaaaace!" Which isn't a bad thing, but there's no science in it.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: In short, the definition of science fiction used by filmmakers seems different from the one used by publishers -- movies tend to subscribe the the first definition, but not the second. Is that because the two media have different audiences, or because of they have differnet creators (writers vs. filmmakers)?
I think one key difference is that movies tend towards treating their audiences as if they were very stupid. The whole idea of movies supports that notion, I mean, how many stupid people read alot of books? How many stupid people go to the movies all the time? (generalizing here in a big way- don't get angry!)
Films bank harder on selling to a big audience all at once, and often they don't have staying power. As a result a successful movie, (thus any movie made by a previously sucessful filmaking team), is often one that presents a clear and concise picture. No interpretation needed, no thinking beyond the time it takes to get home in your car, for most movies.
Books on the other hand are digested and sold differently. You can be more free to challenge the reader because the reader can turn the light out and go to bed, and pick it up over lunch the next day. Books rely on becoming a part of your life in a way, they can appeal to a huge range of emotions and topics because their "rythm" is a longer one.
I've often noticed that a movie works VERY hard to make one thing believable and get you to agree with it. Sometimes even that fails, and the movie is a complete bust. But since it only has around two hours to do all its going to do, a movie benefits from treating you like your stupid, AND tricking you into thinking you are smart. Maybe that is cyncism on my part, but we've all felt manipulated in the movies. Chances are we at least feel we've had a fair go at a book we don't agree with. There is the off movie that lingers, and that one is special, that is what movies could be, and by chance or luck, sometimes are.
Books are more often like that I think, because a book can assume that the reader is taking alot of time and attention to the task of reading. Movies rely on flash and sex, but this isn't really possible in a book, you still have to read the words and they still have to be good. Even if you really like what is being depicted, a bad depiction is a turn off. Movies frequently capitalize on being tastless and cliched, because audiences sometimes don't care to discern between good and bad story-tellings. There is still the alure of the tasteless popcorn flick.
This happens too in books, but such books get less attention from the public (so I assume, maybe I'm wrong about that!).
So there you go, movies sell better as sci-fi, and that's why they are more often sci-fi.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Palliard: I consider Star Wars to be "Wuxia... in... Spaaaace!" Which isn't a bad thing, but there's no science in it.
That's quite true. I've often wondered what isn't fantastical about Star Wars, and what IS scientific.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
