Badmovies.org Forum

This is a great term I picked up from John Brosnan's book, The Primal Screen: A History of Science Fiction Film. A fake SF film is basically sci-fi that isn't sci-fi at all. None of the SF elements are essential to the story, which could just as easily be filmed as a straight drama, action, comedy or whatever with no major changes to the plot.

I'll start the list of with:

1. Outland - It's High Noon in space.

2)  Night Skies - some kids in a camper are terrorized by aliens.  However, it could just as easily be cult members, demons, Bigfoot, whatever.  It's not like the fact that they're aliens really plays any real part in the film.

3. Star Wars.  It's really more of a fantasy film then a sci-fi film. 

The line between SF and fantasy can be fuzzy at times. Still, Star Wars, stripped down into its essential plot, doesn't need to be in space. Make it about seagoing ships and fighter planes, swap planets for foreign countries and droids for a human servant class, and make the Jedi into plain old martial artists, and you could tell the same story. So, yeah, it's totally fake SF.

Andy, would Silent Running fit into this?  :question:

It's really IMO a film about preserving nature, rather than a sci-fi film.

Contact

It's got nothing to do with sci-fi it only pretends it is. It's a faith film.
Grrr.....

I don't think so, although it is about preserving nature the only scenario it really works in is in a imperiled ship containing the world's last forests.

4)  Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity - it's just The Most Dangerous Game, with a bit of sci-fi tossed in for decoration.  And some boobies for decoration too  :teddyr:

That's an interesting one. I'm inclined to think that it is real SF, because the premise does centre around speculation of the future, regardless of how silly some of it is. In the future, we've killed off all the forests, and what are the consequences of that? I think the SF elements are more than window dressing. I suppose the hallmark might be whether the same story could be set in a real time and place without major modification. I think somebody saving the last forest after we've killed off all the others would require more than a little tinkering to change the setting.

Here's a perfect example:

5. Robinson Crusoe on Mars. The title pretty much says it all. Same story, but thrown into an SF setting.

Seldom do I speak up and point out the absurdity of something but I think I will today.  Because if we're really going to be so hypercritical as to put STAR WARS- as iconic a work of mainstream science-fantasy space opera as you're likely to find- onto a list of "fake SF"* then why not just save us all the time and effort and just say NOTHING is real SF*.  Or, better yet, why not start a list of what's REAL SF* so we have a benchmark?

(*) And just WHAT do you mean by "SF" anyway?  SF = Speculative Fiction, Science Fiction, Science Fantasy.  Which are we lambasting?

Because if STAR WARS doesn't count I can fill this list up in about a second.  Let's start with the Italian spaghetti space opera's, most of which were STAR WARS knock-offs anyhow. .

THE HUMANOID
STAR CRASH
WAR OF THE ROBOTS
STAR ODYSSEY
BEAST IN SPACE
&TC

Then let's move on to ALIEN and the Alien knock-offs, because those are just horror movies using sci-fi trappings, just like OUTLAND isn't sci-fi. .  :lookingup:

ALIENS
STAR CRYSTAL
INSEMINOID
BREEDERS
GALAXY OF TERROR
FORBIDDEN WORLD
&tc

For that matter it's also been proven that FORBIDDEN PLANET is just a work of Shakespeare using sci-fi trappings as well so let's add that to the list too, why don't we!  Oh, yeah, and since that's on the list we might as well include STAR TREK. It's a well known "fact" amongst those who hate the sci-fi genre that Roddenberry was a carnie huckster who ripped off his entire idea for the series from the aforementioned movie and the western genre.  The man himself even likened it to being WAGON TRAIN TO THE STARS; thus not science-fiction at al. BTW we might as well put BATTLESTAR GALACTICA on the list as that was Mormon/Bible propaganda and BABYLON 5 was a blantant Tolkien rip-off.

Oh, yeah, and all those "alien invasion" and "UFO" movies of the 50s weren't about sci-fi either.  They were "red menace" allegories so let's put them on the list too!

My point: Sometimes you just have to enjoy a genre and not over think.

 :cheers:

Not really. It's the same story when it's people just trying to save one species of plant or animal. Although I love Silent Running, the core story isn't much of a SciFi story. To me it feels the same as 'Medicine Man' where they're actually in a much more primitive environment and trying to save a vital piece of earth biology. It could have been done the same in present times. As you pointed out earlier, scale alone doesn't make it Sci-Fi, which means pretty much every Star Trek movie is out also.


Personally, I don't find 2001 to have much of a Sci-Fi feel to it. There's so much fluff like the people eating in Zero-G and the guy talking to his daughter long-distance that are made to give it the Sci-Fi feel, but really add nothing to the movie. A guy argues with a computer? BFD.

Wow.

And now 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY isn't good enough to qualify as Sci-Fi either.

 :buggedout:

Granted the VFX are a bit dated but considering our space program has stalled and we don't even have anything approaching the type of craft seen in that movie I would have thought that, alone, would qualify this as speculative fiction.  But if you consider the craft/sets mere trappings and it's just the story you're looking at, yeah, you're right.  It's not sci-fi. Then agian NOTHING IS.

If all you want to do is deconstruct a movie and reduce it to it's core plot then just call it a day because, you're right, there's nothing out there that's Sci-Fi.  It's all just terrestrial drama and horror.

 :lookingup:

Uh, I was being Ironic. .. Just taking the theme of the moment and applying it to all that it can be applied to.

Geez, how ironic is that piece of advice?

This is not about overthinking or lambasting anything. It's just a mental exercise, a bit of fun, just like all the other "100" lists on here. How many can we come up with, going one at a time and not posting laundry lists, quibbling over definitions or b***hing about other people's contributions to show everybody how smart we are? :tongueout:

This is not about deeming one movie or another unworthy of the genre, or in any way commenting on the quality. I like all the movies mentioned here so far. "Fake" is in quotes for a reason - because it's borrowing someone's term, not declaring that these movies are in any way false.

As with all of these lists, it's really up to the individual posters to explain their own reasons for the choices. Myself, I wouldn't include a lot of movies in this list because they aren't considered primarily science fiction to begin with. I wouldn't include any that were glaringly obvious. I would also, in this instance, use science fiction and fantasy interchangeably. Whether something is accomplished by technology or by magic is not the issue, but whether this unreal element is essential to telling essentially the same story.

I was actually going to put up a list of guidelines, since this is open to so much interpretation, but where would the fun be in that? Individual interpretation is part of the exercise. And discussing the choices (without getting pi$$y) is part of it too. So, I chose not to be a bossy killjoy and let people decide for themselves.

And, if you want to know, I was about 50/50 on whether Star Wars belonged here, but as much as I like it, I have to agree that setting alone does not make a science fiction story by the strictest definition, and this being regarded as a great science fiction/fantasy story makes it more than eligible for this list, in my opinion.

Now, as for Forbidden Planet, that was one I considered putting on, but decided it didn't belong. First of all, The Tempest is a story with elements of fantasy. Second, Forbidden Planet was more based on The Tempest than adapted directly. Right at the centre of the movie is one very strong SF theme - a machine that gives substance to any of man's desires, and the potential consequences of such a machine.

So, feel free to participate by whatever criteria you find satisfying. But take your own advice and lighten up. :smile:

Wow, remind me never to respond to a "100 top___"  thread again.

For straters, I'm not exactly alone in thinking Star Wars is more of a fantasy film then a science fiction film. http://hubpages.com/hub/Star-Wars-is-not-Science-Fiction (http://hubpages.com/hub/Star-Wars-is-not-Science-Fiction)  Take from that what you will.

From my standing, not only were the "science" elements in Star Wars sort of on the back burner (and more for visual effect), but there is a strong mystical/magical element that is more prominent. 

But I'll recant somewhat.  Are we talking about science fiction or sci-fi?  Science fiction is often considered to be taking a serious look at advancement of technology and the future.  For genteic enginering, a science ficton movie would be Gattica.  Looking at real out comes of the future.  Sci Fi is more entertainment based.  Going back to Genteics, something like Jurassic Park would be sci-fi.

Anyway, AndyC, I think this thread might have gotten away from you.  I apologize.

I think Star Wars is pure fantasy. You take away the "Space" and you got a typical  Sword and Scandal story... :)

As for "Fake Science Fiction" I'm not really sure how the rules of "fake" would apply to movies like Event Horizon (1997) its science fiction but the story is more like The Amityville Horror. Although, science is used to explain how the ship got haunted (somewhat) but I would think it could be easily done by a simple Séance gone bad.

AndyC,

423 words to say: "Who cares, let's just have fun!"

Obviously you've never encountered a hardcore science-fiction fanboi.   :wink:

IMO the lack of including those pesky "guidelines" is, I feel, the real problem.  Thus, I reiterate, what do you mean by "SF" and "sci-fi"?

They mean very different things to different people.

The "SF" label is pretty meaningless as it has various potential connotations; as I duly pointed out in my initial post.   Too, using "sci-fi" can be worse as many view that as rancorous.  (I've gotten bashed harder than a whack-a-mole at a Hulk convention for using that shorthand in the past so I know of what I speak.)  Entire essays have been written about what is, or should be considered, science fiction.  But is that what we're talking about here?  Science fiction is very different from speculative fiction and neither have any resemblance to science fantasy.

I would not categorize the movie A SOUND OF THUNDER as good science fiction even though it is speculative fiction rooted in a pseudo-science premise (time travel) it really plays more like science fantasy.

STAR WARS falls into the category of space opera, which is a subset of science fantasy, yet STAR TREK, which is also space opera, could be argued that it more properly falls into the category of science fiction as many of it's gadgets and widgetry seem to have prefigured our own current technological advances.  Yet, at the time it aired, it would best be said to be science fantasy rooted in speculative fiction.

Do you see where I am going with this?  Words and terminology have meaning.  Ignore them at your peril.

 :cheers:


ADDENDUM: Just looked the author you got the idea for this top list from on IMDB.  Found this fascinating entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnosaur_(novel) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnosaur_(novel)) in which is stated, in part, "The novel bears several similarities to Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park, though Carnosaur preceded the latter work by six years."

CARNOSAUR and JURASSIC PARK are fun specultive fiction premises but how would you rate them as science fiction?

I'm going to stop you right there.  The OP did NOT specify this list is for discussion of "science fiction" he said "SF" and "sci-fi", which means very different things to different people.

Not your fault.  It's the lack of clarity about what this is a top list for.

And you're absolutely right about "not only were the "science" elements in Star Wars sort of on the back burner (and more for visual effect), but there is a strong mystical/magical element that is more prominent" and it become more pronounced in the prequel trilogy.

A NEW HOPE = A rehash of the Legend of Exalibur/Arthurian fantasy

EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (and the prequel trilogy) = Romance/swashbuckler set against a re-envisioned retelling of the fall of the Roman Empire; rf. the Republic's transition into an Empire.

RETURN OF THE JEDI = This is what happens when you take LSD.  Talking teddy bears, green alien dudes disappearing before your eyes, bikes leaving vapor trails in forests, &tc. :wink:

 :cheers:

EVENT HORIZON always struck me as more of a Bermuda Triangle in space story.

Another problem with the "fake" science fiction concept is our technology is constantly getting better.  If you look at older speculative fiction movies like THINGS TO COME or METROPOLIS they may seem borderline absurd to a modern audience.

So is that fake sci-fi or merely dated sci-fi?

Quite an interesting discussion.  One of my big complaints about...um...this sort of "stuff" is that my imagination is far more stimulated by watching something on the Science Channel.  Pondering what it would be like to be on the surface of Venus, with the tremendous atmospheric pressure and heat, or on one of the moons of Jupiter where there's so much radiation that you would be able to see an Aurora Borealis effect dancing over your fingertips.  Then I tune into some fictional show and it's just cowboys and Indians in space or whatever.  I think it's a very good topic, it makes me think about which movies actually have interesting science elements in them, and how many more don't.

Dated Sci-fi is as fun as watching old James Bond films. Rollerball, Fahrenheit 451, Logan's Run and 2001 is quite dated... hehehe... 2001 is so dated that HAL would be smaller then a labtop, it would make the ending climax quite fun to watch if they did make HAL that small.


Would you call James Bond be a typical "fake" Science Fiction????

hehehe...

Real Genius has to be "fake" Science Fiction

Weird Science is pure Fantasy

OK, we can probably narrow this down. I've been trying to keep it wide open, so I haven't been overly specific. Let's say we're talking about movies that appear to be science fiction (or fantasy for that matter) on the surface, but use these elements of the fantastic, whether technological or supernatural as decoration, standing in for real things that can be found in an existing time and place. If you could take your science fiction or fantasy story and, without significant modification, set it in the real world at any point in history, then it qualifies as fake by my interpretation of the John Brosnan definition. For older movies, whether their predictions have since proven inaccurate is not that important. Look at them in the context of when they were made.

So, for our purposes, science fiction, fantasy, speculative fiction, etc. can all be considered the same thing. Science fiction and fantasy plots are often pretty much interchangeable, just trade the advanced technology for some magic.

Symbolism is kind of tricky. Alien invaders standing in for Russians could still be science fiction depending on the story. Same with Godzilla representing "The Bomb." I think we have to ignore the subtext and just consider the story at face value.

Oh, and for the borderline movies, maybe we need to look at where they would go in a video store. Would a Bond film be found in the sci-fi/fantasy section, or would it be under action?

Would a movie like Weird Science be more properly called a comedy? Then again, even though the science is pure hocus pocus, without a shred of scientific basis, the premise of the movie is science fiction. Two unpopular boys, through technological means, acquire their perfect woman and become popular, but there are also consequences. But it is, first and foremost, a teen comedy.

I still find it hard to determine. Sometimes the science is used to explain away the loopholes in the story and at times they are beyond real...


Example 1: Horror of the Blood Monsters (1970), a guy explains the effects of a light (Ok, I forget what the light gun is called) by shooting colored light to the girl that he was actually making love with a little earlier. This science is so far out that its quite funny.

Example 2: Encino Man (1992), reguardless they actually used science to explain how it happen... Yet, we all know this is off the wall science.


I would actually consider these movies "fake" science fiction films, although I dont see how we could relate them in the real world... :)

I didn't realize SF, sci-fi, and science fiction were considered different by anyone.  To me, SF and sci-fi are just shortened forms of science fiction.  Interesting language use, but I find that kind of annoying since people DO use SF very frequently as short for "science fiction" online.  How am I supposed to be able to tell the difference?


To be fair, the world's most powerful supercomputers and processing places still are very large.  They'll link a bunch of machines together to make one big one, basically.  And even the most powerful of these still don't have any real AI like HAL does.

As far as the fake SF films go...  How do we count films that don't even try to have real science?  Is Them! a fake SF film?

That's because you're a normal person.  Most work-a-day normal folk don't have random encounters with hardcore fanbois.  Visit the forums they do sometime and comment critically on anything remotely related to the work of Harlan Ellison.  You'll find out how a water buffalo encircled by a pride of lions feels.

Not that I am suggesting there is anything unnatural or bizarre about fanbois.  Just saying.

 :bouncegiggle:


Ask.  Just do it politely and with more tact than I did.  Or, at the very least, start a second post to inquire and vent you're ire about seeing [INSERT MOVIE HERE] lambasted in it's own post.


Conceptually what the OP meant by "fake science-fiction" (and please correct me if I am wrong) are those movies that merely use the trappings of the genre yet aren't really science fiction.  Meaning they have no real speculative science or coherent fictionalized scientific elements; *insert joke about TNG technobable here*.  Viz. SPACE THING, ZETA ONE, SPACED OUT, BREEDERS, FEMALIEN, PLEASURECRAFT, VIRTUAL ENCOUNTERS, &TC.

Is it mere coincidence that most of those are exploitation movies?

I have no idea what number we're up but here goes trying to get the thread back on topic. Hope you don't mind my upating the count to insert Silent Running into it's proper place order. . .

1. Outland - It's High Noon in space.
2. Night Skies
3. Star Wars
4. Silent Running
5. Contact
6. Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity
7. Robinson Crusoe on Mars

And my contribution to the "fake science fiction" list will officially be. .

8. FEMALIEN

If you've never seen this it's just an excuse for softcore vignettes.  Very threadbare sci-fi premise.  No real science on display.  No real story.  Nothing.  Just lots of gratuitous nudity.  :thumbup:  I mean. . .  :thumbdown:

 :teddyr:

Hmm.  Science Fiction was defined to me as the body of fiction wherein the plot depends upon a principle of science; generally as a speculation as to the consequences of current trends, discoveries and projected future developments. So the science is essential: it causes the situation/conflict to be what/as it is.  This includes the social consequences (situations) that could arise from the changes we make/undergo due to adopting (and adapting to) developments in science and technological advances.

(Yeah, I took a course once long ago...)  :lookingup:

As far as I can see, this includes a good deal of speculative fiction.   :question:

And I never could stand Harlan Ellison.   :tongueout: