|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Maybe the definition of "sci-fi" is not so much about the science part,
> but about the fiction part, in other words, the storytelling. But that
> becomes even harder to define accurately.
I know I've said this before, but I usually define sci-fi as needing to be
about the science and technology rather than the personalities. An
exploration of "what would the world be like if this science were
available." If you can tell essentially the same story without the science
element, it isn't sci-fi.
In the case of Moon, you would have a very hard time telling the story
without the cloning aspect. Avatar, on the other hand, is Pocohantas in
space, so it doesn't really count as sci-fi in my book.
It's a little easier to figure out with books and such than it is with
movies, unless it's really extreme.
I haven't decided how I feel about fantasy that's consistent and the story
is about the fantastic element. Something like "Master of the Five Magics"
seemed very sci-fi'ish to me, even though the story was about the apprentice
learning the "technologies" of all five types of magic.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |