I'm not an authority. however, I have an opinion and I can back it up. This opinion has been formed by attempting to sell science fiction in Hollywood for nearly 10 years, having known several people who have successfully sold science fiction in Hollywood for nearly 10 years, and from having written science fiction starting in 8th grade...
...which I think is a good decade or more before a lot of you whippersnappers were born.
So check it. One of the classic tropes of sci fi is that "Star Wars" ain't it. This probably seems like an odd statement on the face of it, but really - Star Wars is a Kurusawa film from 1958 called "Hidden Fortress."
Yeah, there's photon torpedoes and using the Force and all sorts of shit like that, but calling a taxi a "space taxi" does not make it science fiction. "Star Wars" is an epic about secession and rebellion that, for no real reason other than "it looks cool", happens a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
The definition of "science fiction" used by Analog Magazine is as follows:
- Basically, we publish science fiction stories. That is, stories in which some aspect of future science or technology is so integral to the plot that, if that aspect were removed, the story would collapse. Try to picture Mary Shelley's Frankenstein without the science and you'll see what I mean. No story!
- The science can be physical, sociological, psychological. The technology can be anything from electronic engineering to biogenetic engineering. But the stories must be strong and realistic, with believable people (who needn't be human) doing believable things–no matter how fantastic the background might be.
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is about a device that remakes entire planets and the cryogenically-suspended madman who wishes to use it for vengeance. It's science fiction. Take away the Genesis Device and you have no plot. Empire Strikes Back? Hoth could be dudes on horseback.
So what the fuck is a "space movie?"
I offer that a "space movie" is one in which the basic plot of the film does not happen without some aspect of it needing to happen in space.
Silent Running: - space greenhouses being taken care of by Bruce Dern and his merry robots. Space Movie.
Planet of the Apes: - Astronaut flashes forward into the future but who gives a fuck? "Astronaut" could just as easily be Rip Van Winkle.
Moon - Lone astronaut trapped on a moon base. It could be an island, really, but we'll give it a bye because hey, at least it almost all happens in space.
Wall-E - the humans are gone, yeah, but where they are isn't particularly space-like.
2001 - please.
Outland - same gray area as Moon. It was literally pitched as "High Noon in space" so using the Star Wars criteria it ain't a space movie. But it all happens in space, so...
Hitchhiker's Guide - happens almost entirely in space, and gets in for the restaurant at the end of the universe alone.
Gravity - same as 2001. Not even worth discussing.
Spaceballs - mmmmm.... you could go either way.
Star Wars - whether or not it's sci fi, it sure as fuck is a "space movie."
Solaris - happens entirely on planets.
Contact - "space" isn't really space, it's interdimensional weirdness.
Event Horizon - totally space movie.
My opinion, anyway. I'll bet I'm the only person here whose livelihood ever depended on winning that fight, though.
Right - so what we're looking for here is "give us a list of movies we've previously discussed, but also the feature-length version of Firefly because duh, obviously it needs to be discussed." I got up on the wrong side of the bed today (actually, the discount Ross-purchased yoga mat and furnie pad underneath the mixer) but this shit ain't helpin'.
There's a joke in here somewhere about art imitating life.movies where the protagonists would much rather not be in space
Okay well if we're ONLY doing Serenity, I am going to say it's a Western in space. The place doesn't really matter. But background and context matters right?: If we are going by Firefly, I'm going to say it's part of the "Space Genre" because there are reasons that they need to be in space, space plays a big role in some of the drama in the show and the distances the crew are from home.
Good answer. The episodes "Out of Gas" and "Objects in Space" are, I think, clearly space, um, movie-like things. Most of the other episodes are space Westerns.
What if the science in Frankenstein was replaced with Magic, the story would be unaffected pretty much. So as a thought experiment, if the space element cannot be removed without collapsing the story, could the space element be replaced with a different backdrop with only minor changes to plot? I think the majority of space movies could be replaced with a different setting and the story would still work (it may result in a less entertaining movie of course, cos ya know, SPACE!). Lets see. Moon - Needs a modern or future setting to cover the major plot surprise but as @Kleinbl00@ mentions it could be an island or somewhere else inhospitable. Deep underground perhaps. -- Not a space movie. Wall-E - The humans didnt leave the planet, they just left the dirty city and mended their ways. They left a child behind who was raised by a cockroach... Add in a macguffin to replace the plant and away you go -- Not a space movie. 2001 - Due to the amount of different ideas in this movie it would be difficult to reposition it anywhere else. Rather than skipping 4M years you could skip 400K years and try to work the story into a sailing into the unknown ocean but you rapidly run into problems regarding the other elements of the story. A sentient compass... the final transformation... It would be impossible to attain the same level of wonder on earth -- SPACE movie. Gravity - Reposition the story on a small boat far out at sea, Sandra grapples with a radio antenna at the top of the mast while George calmly talks her through her fear of heights, in the background we can see the small boat below them coming in and out of view as the mast sways in the strenghtening breeze. "Wind is picking up, time to get down" George states firmly, dark clouds gather on the horizon... Sure you lose the nice scenery but the story remains the same. Star Wars - Nope -- Naval Wars. Solaris - Nope. Contact - Nope Event Horizon - Nope, mix sailors and the Mary Celeste found far out at sea and see how far you can get. Silent Running: - Needs robots or some equivalent, doesnt need space -- Nope Planet of the Apes: - Replace with time travel, stasis or something else and away you go. Nope. So apart from 2001 none of these movies use their setting for more than a pretty backdrop. They don't grip the context enough to prevent them being repositioned with minor changes.
There's always the danger of reductivism for the sake of reductivism, though. Georges Polti argued there were only 36 dramatic situations; Aristotle broke it down even further than that. Also keep in mind: the basis of this discussion is the argument that "Star Wars" isn't sci fi. That right there pretty much makes the entire discussion esoteric at best. I think it's important to distinguish between "does the 'space' element matter to the story" and "can the 'space' element be replaced and still have a story." "High Noon in space" is still in space; it's a different movie than "high noon." "Samurai movie in space" is still in space. And, as discussed previously, Alien was originally set on a B-24 liberator in WWII but the movie as made does not happen on a B-24. It's not like any of this is binding anyway... but I'm cautious about defining away anything that anybody normal would consider a "space" movie. Eliminating Moon, Event Horizon and Silent Running does exactly that.
Oh we are definitely off the beaten track in terms of typical definitions, I personally wouldn't make the assertion that Star Wars is not a sci-fi flick or that Gravity is not a space movie outside of this post. My point was that the space element within the movies I listed played (to different degrees) more as a backdrop to the story rather than being a fundamental irreplaceable part.
Alien: Takes place entirely in space, and the fact that it does contributes greatly to the stresses of the crew helps build the characters etc etc. I like this distinction, my friends and I have been calling Star Wars "Hobbits in rocket ships" for years, but calling it a "Space Movie" feels much better and more accurate.
So
Apollo 13 = obvious Elysium = no 5th element = yes So what about Starship troopers and Enders game. Both of which featured distant sentient insectoid life capable of launching attacks using FTL technology. Yes to both. Avatar? Gets a bit shaky as the film has little to do with space travel but the story cant survive without a non earth setting. Unless of course you swap aliens for native americans and disabled space marine for damaged union soldier. Dune? Gotta say yes.
Avatar? Gets a bit shaky as the film has little to do with space travel but the story cant survive without a non earth setting.
-I'm not so sure. It did pretty well back when it was titled "Dances With Wolves."