The Sword and Laser discussion
Scifi / Fantasy News
>
It's 2 Feb (again)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Warren
(new)
Feb 01, 2016 08:23PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iweOS...
reply
|
flag
*puts on troll face* Yes, but is Groundhog's Day the movie science fiction? *runs away giggling*
I'd classify it as urban fantasy, personally. :P
Sky wrote: "I thought it was a bad acid trip"Tell her that he did too much LDS back in the 60's
She ain't gonna buy that
Sci-fi to me should revolve a piece of technology or a technological world that re-contextualizes humanity. If the glitch in the world of Groundhog's Day is technological, I don't see any evidence to support it. Instead, Groundhog's Day, revolves a magical phenomenon, which is more like a fairy tale.
So, I'll classify Groundhog's Day as fantasy of some kind, as in a tale of fancy, as in: of the faculty of the imagination. Magical realism perhaps.
Mod
or to involve scientific concepts (actual or theoretical)
Groundhog Day is "almost" sci-fi, but does have a fantasy element.
If the the phenomenon in Groundhog Day to happen were the result of an alternate timeline caught in a loop, caused by a subtle fracture in the time-space continuum, would that then make it sci-fi?
It seems to me that in 95%+ of the sci-fi I've read, science = magic, whether that science is "explained" or not -- even in many books where the author is a "hard sci-fi" writer, and has gone to great lengths to make the tech or scientific phenomena etc believable & acceptable to people who understand and enjoy thinking about science and the empirical thought process. In fact, I'd posit that in most sci-fi, "science" serves the exact same function in the story as magic does in fantasy :-)
Agreed on the scientific concepts addition. Didn't even cross my mind, and you're right. How is it "almost" sci-fi? Where does it start to be sci-fi?
In the way it's conceptualized, I think. If you assume it's magic causing Bill Murray to wake up in the same day over and over, or a plague of karmic retribution, then it's less sci-fi-like and more fantasy-like. If you assume the phenomenon can be explained with metaphysics and subatomic theory and modern physics, then it's more sci-fi-ish :-) There is some sci-fi, of course, that very much is *science* fiction in the purest respect of the word. It's based in science (usually as we know it, as opposed to what has been theorized but not yet "proved"), and often has scientists as its characters. That's a generalization, of course, but I thought I'd tip my hat to fiction that has actual science as its heart & soul :-)
Warren wrote: "Sky wrote: "I thought it was a bad acid trip"Tell her that he did too much LDS back in the 60's
She ain't gonna buy that"
hehehehe
Gaines wrote: "It seems to me that in 95%+ of the sci-fi I've read, science = magic, whether that science is "explained" or not -- even in many books where the author is a "hard sci-fi" writer, and has gone to gr..."It may be that in a lot of 'science fiction' science equals magic in fantasy. On the surface that bugs me because I have a bigger bone to pick with the usage of magic in fantasy as well. It's too often a lazy narrative device by the writer to either obstruct or save the protagonist, or an obnoxiously complicated worldset technicality that I couldn't care less about. Magic or science, if it's used in this way, I'm checked out.
In the broadest terms, I see science fiction as humanity grappling with more control than they can handle (a delightful paradox) and fantasy as humanity grappling with the lack of control or understanding, which can be easily inverted just like ‘too much control’ as in discovering that the protagonist is actually quite powerful, like the small halfling who destroys the most powerful magical device in the world. The worldsets of sci-fi and fantasy tend to be divided between future worlds and fantastic recreations of the past. There's a huge grey area between them, though.
And, it's possible to see those distinctions as interchangeable, for magic to be seen as a science, or vice versa. Both can be seen as a study of the characters and the world grappling with too much control or struggling with the lack. Frankenstein is about a monster born of science run amok. Is it sci-fi or fantasy?
All that said, authors and their fiction don’t have to play by rules. They write the stories as they see fit. We draw categories for them to abbreviate descriptions and analyses. It’s fun to discuss the potential differences, but it’s an upside down conversation in some ways.
Mod
Well put. That is exactly what I meant by "almost" sci-fi.
There is the implication that time reverts back to normal once he becomes a better person.
SW wrote: "All that said, authors and their fiction don’t have to play by rules. They write the stories as they see fit. We draw categories for them to abbreviate descriptions and analyses. It’s fun to discuss the potential differences, but it’s an upside down conversation in some ways. "Exactly :-)
I will 100% agree that if it is a good story, that is the important part, not the classification. And I do consider "Groundhog Day" a very good story. I also think it is fun to talk about stories, and what they are. All that being said, I don't think there is anyway someone is going to convince me that GD comes anywhere near science fiction. It is a fantastical story, and like a lot of fantasy, involves no active use of magic or mythical creatures.
John (Nevets) wrote: "It is a fantastical story, and like a lot of fantasy, involves no active use of magic or mythical creatures."Well, Bill Murray encountered and struggled with a mythical creature in Caddyshack. Does that not make him mythical, by transitive relation?
Not to mention his mythic hairdo in Kingpin :-p
Gaines wrote: "If the the phenomenon in Groundhog Day to happen were the result of an alternate timeline caught in a loop, caused by a subtle fracture in the time-space continuum, would that then make it sci-fi?"So...like 12:01 and 12:01 PM then?
Gaines wrote: "John (Nevets) wrote: "It is a fantastical story, and like a lot of fantasy, involves no active use of magic or mythical creatures."Well, Bill Murray encountered and struggled with a mythical crea..."
If he had defeated said mythical creature, and taken it's soul, I think you might have a good argument, but otherwise no.
And I always thought the hairdo from Kingpin was a side affect from his dealings with Gozer.
Linnea wrote: "So...like 12:01 and 12:01 PM then? "Never seen those... I'll have to check them out :-) Thanks!
John (Nevets) wrote: "And I always thought the hairdo from Kingpin was a side affect from his dealings with Gozer."
Subcreatures! Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, the Traveler, has come! Choose and perish!
Gaines wrote: "Linnea wrote: "So...like 12:01 and 12:01 PM then? "Never seen those... I'll have to check them out :-) Thanks! "
12:01 PM is a short film (made before Groundhog Day, I might add), and 12:01 is technically the full-length remake of it, though they have slightly different tones. 12:01 PM is a bit more philisophical, if I remember it correctly, while 12:01 is more of an adventure movie. Both are definitely science fiction though.
Oooh, I remember 12:01. I liked it. I saw it before I ever saw Groundhog Day, and Groundhog always seemed like it's depressing little brother. I never understood why Groundhog Day was the more popular of the two but that's probably because I'd heard so many people raving about it and it didn't match the reviews. Yeah, 12:01 definitely had a more sci-fi feel to it.
