Both. Maybe leaning a little bit more on sci-fi since they try to explain many things with science like kryptonite. But definitely also fantasy for X-Men, mutants have superpowers because the DNA does … things.
I dislike the common definition of sci-fi as science-flavored fantasy. It’s just not a useful distinction to me vs plain ‘fantasy’. What I love the most about sci-fi is the exploration of what it means to be human by projecting the implications of drastically improved technology. All a matter of taste, of course.
I’m curious, though: why should a kryptonite explanation be any more sciency than mutant DNA? I see one as an entirely unexplained magic rock, and the other as an extension of the scientific triumph of understanding genetics (plus hilariously and deliberately misunderstanding evolution). X-Men is very nearly sci-fi to me; if mutants were a human creation it would be.
I wanted to say that it’s hard to define exactly what is or isn’t sci-fi. Really I’m just a sci-fi enjoyer and am not qualified to say what is or isn’t sci-fi :D
Kryptonite for me is clearly a magic rock but in the movie it is in the realm of their science. Also there was a movie where the existence of superman led to a lot of questioning on its implications in defense politics so it could fit some part of your definition I guess?
So like superman is science-based and X-Men is also you’re right and it does clearly ask what it means to be human when there are augmented humans now. So clearly more sci-fi than superman.
But films can be both sci-fi and fantasy. It feels like a sliding rule depending on the amount the universe is based on hardcore science. On the DNA subject, Gattaca is not fantasy but X-Men is.
To me it feels similar to the debate about “hard magic” universes like Eragon (where every spell has a physical toll on the user, or other book series where the magic is really detailed in-universe and only mastered by experts who have to study their whole life for even a basic spell) and “soft magic” like Harry Potter where everyone can cast crucifixion spells at the speed of an automatic rifle (I’m slightly exaggerating).
Absolutely, genres are muddy bullshit. That’s what makes debates like these so fun.
Looking at things from the perspective of the characters is interesting, but I struggle to imagine how kryptonite would be ‘science’ even in-universe. I guess ‘technology’ is really what I mean, and kryptonite is a natural element. That’s how I see it. There is some engineering around kryptonite-based anti-superman weapons, but that’s ultimately ancillary to the philosophical meat of the series.
With Superman being a lens on geoplolitics, it’s simply the fact that he’s a natural being and not a human engineering accomplishment that makes it solidly not sci-fi to me. Many if not most great works examine the human condition to some extent no matter the genre.
With this technology lens, would Dune still be considered sci-fi? They have different technology sure but in many ways worse than what we have now (except for space travel), they don’t have computers and rely on hand to hand combat, their spies cannot hide mics so they hide in walls for days!
It’s another hyper militarized universe like what the Cold War has brought but with religion and drugs :^)
Perhaps not, interesting example. It’s more of a political drama overall, though it’s been ages since I read it.
The space travel is just a drop-in for different countries, really. The examination of humanity doesn’t extend specifically from the implications of advanced technology; I feel like it could be pretty easily re-framed into a mideval drama about a fief rich in (magical?) opium poppies.
It says so in the text there. This feels like the only way anyway, since the boundaries between genres are fuzzy and it’s not possible to decisively compare genre tags on IMDB.
Nanook of the North (1922) is considered to be the first documentary ever made, so how is there a giant spike on the documentary graph at 1910, and a smaller one shortly after?
What do you hate about it?
I’m generally just uninterested in genres I don’t enjoy, save for movies that instill and spread hate and intolerance or try to pass off falsehoods as fact.
I hate horror just because I cannot withstand it and begin panicking. It’s damn too stressful, esp. when there’s too much stress IRL. That’s what I meant.
Also the fact that Thrillers and Horrors are steadily becoming more popular is kind of concerning. There seems to be a growing latent appetite for murder in the general population. lol
It’s quite funny that it has become a genre comparable to comedy or thriller. Imagine a genre inspired by Senegalese Fishermen, or Nepalese Yak herders, that becomes 10% of all movies produced.
You can also try to recoup your money by releasing a behind the scenes documentary about the horrifying financial crimes that went on during production of the first film.
If I see Lord of the Rings listed in my science fiction category again I’m gonna reach through the internet to back hand whoever decided that through their computer screen.
No, The Expanse does not count as Fantasy.
Is it fantastical? I guess.
Does it fit the movie genre of Fantasy?
Fuck no. It’s 'Hard science fiction" as in science fiction based on real world science. Star trek is more soft science fiction. Possible, but basically magic to us. Star WARS on the other hand, I’d say fits into both.
Most of my gripes come from science fiction categories and how their movies are labeled. I swear I once saw Bridget Jones listed in science fiction.
It’s too bad this data only runs up to 2018. The current/post pandemic era I think has made us all somewhat different consumers of film nowadays. Still cool to see though what we trending towards.
It really is a shame, even though the actual west was nothing like most if not all westerns, it’s so unique and I think has a lot of untapped potential
Edit: I think the best we’ll ever get is westerns made in a different genre, this is my opinion but I think Inglourious Basterds is a western set in WWII. I could see more things like that from different directors, although in fairness you could make that comparison to a lot of Tarantinos work
I think of westerns as a fantasy historical period genre. That period was chosen because it represented a jingoistic mythical American origin story. But we could build myths about a different period instead. There’s lots of untapped historical and cultural potential out there.
I agree, it effectively already is that, it’s just that at least half of those myths are fucking horrific. But the genre, in my very white opinion, doesn’t have to be problematic. And while I know it’s not a film but Red Dead 2 is a good example
The entire Japanese film industry wouldn’t exist as it does today were it not for Akira Kurosawa and his obsession with westerns. The reason for lack of interest is lack of quality or even presence of the genre in modern day theaters
Depends on the goal of the visualization. This is an excellent choice if the goal is to show relative popularity changes over time, not absolute popularity relative to each other.
That said, the y-axes should be more prominent to draw readers’ attention to the differing scales to decrease the chance this graph is misread.
It’s also not explicitly stated that movies can be tagged with more than one genre, but, eyeballing the numbers, I’m pretty sure that must be the case.
Add comment