70s Sci Fi Sleepers

[dragoner]

I have seen them all, though I guess I am old? That is the message? Thanks. They aren't sleepers. Is The Black Hole a sleeper? Get trapped in a robot in hell!

I would add that there is a definite overlap between the late 60's and early 70's and late 70's and early 80's. It's hard to put Saturn III as an 80's film, maybe much less so than Outland.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

but I do feel it should have supernatural (as in, do not and have never existed in our world and is basically not possible with current science) science-based elements which are important to the plot

Okay so that's definitely a bad definition of sci-fi and a lot of sci-fi doesn't fit that mould. Including vaste swathes of "hard sci-fi". If it's gatekeeping it's the most inept kind because it directs actual successful sci-fi authors away from the gate, whilst letting in terrible science-fantasy and just straight up supernatural horror, which like, time to hire another gatekeeper honestly.

With Star Wars you're calling it "science fiction" purely on the basis of "supernatural elements", which is really funny because if anything, that's the defining trait of fantasy, not science fiction. There's a reason it's regarded as science fantasy, not science fiction, if we're gonna gatekeep.

set in an icy post apocalyptic future

Uhhhh that is what makes it science fiction, buddy. Sorry.

You could like micro-gatekeep and say "Oh well okay but it's speculative fiction not science fiction", but let's be real, 99.9% of people don't distinguish between those.

Certainly these are all speculative fiction. Capricorn One arguably isn't even that, that's the distinguishing factor. It's just a straight-up conspiracy thriller about something a lot of people actually believed.

 

[Deset Gled]

Come on, you can't take Silent Running off and then just put that on, because frankly, way more people know Space Battleship Yamato, especially people under 40, than Silent Running. Not that Silent Running is a "sleeper", you're right to say it's not, but neither is Yamato.

What do you call it when a well known TV series has a completely forgotten film version?

Lots of people know the TV show version of Yamato, yes. But the film is barely known. The American and UK theatrical releases were so small web sites don't even have box office data for it. AFAIK, it's also not available on DVD or any streaming service in the US. If it wasn't for some small VHS runs in the 80s the dub version could be lost media.

The movie was primarily made by editing scenes from the first season of the show. But in addition to its own dub, the movie cut has a new and different ending not seen on TV. Combined, the 1977 and 1979 sequel versions of Yamato have their own continuity that is separate from the TV series.

 

[jian]

Okay so that's definitely a bad definition of sci-fi and a lot of sci-fi doesn't fit that mould. Including vaste swathes of "hard sci-fi". If it's gatekeeping it's the most inept kind because it directs actual successful sci-fi authors away from the gate, whilst letting in terrible science-fantasy and just straight up supernatural horror, which like, time to hire another gatekeeper honestly.

With Star Wars you're calling it "science fiction" purely on the basis of "supernatural elements", which is really funny because if anything, that's the defining trait of fantasy, not science fiction. There's a reason it's regarded as science fantasy, not science fiction, if we're gonna gatekeep.


Uhhhh that is what makes it science fiction, buddy. Sorry.

You could like micro-gatekeep and say "Oh well okay but it's speculative fiction not science fiction", but let's be real, 99.9% of people don't distinguish between those.

Certainly these are all speculative fiction. Capricorn One arguably isn't even that, that's the distinguishing factor. It's just a straight-up conspiracy thriller about something a lot of people actually believed.

Yeah, I basically disagree with all of that. Supernatural is required for fantasy, of course, but it’s by definition non-scientific. What definition of science fiction would you use that is any use as a distinction or classification?

(Supernatural is of course relative to the time of writing, so The Land Ironclads counts because tanks didn’t exist in 1903; The War in the Air counts because transatlantic aircraft didn’t exist in 1907.)

To help you out, let us note that the OED defines science fiction as:

“Fiction in which the setting and story feature hypothetical scientific or technological advances, the existence of alien life, space or time travel, etc., esp. such fiction set in the future, or an imagined alternative universe.”

So Quintet gets by on “imagined alternative universe” but nothing else. And a large number of non science fiction works, such as a lot of fantasy, would also qualify under that, which would presumably be a problem. I don’t think it’s great to declare The Lord of the Rings science fiction, as a useful definition.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So Quintet gets by on “imagined alternative universe” but nothing else.

Okay, no.

First off, it has "the sun is dying", which is complete science-fiction and drives the entire plot. You seem to have completely forgotten that rather significant element.

Second off, it has "imagined alternative universe or future" (it's unclear which it is).

That's easily enough to qualify as solid science-fiction. It's not even borderline.

So you've made my point for me here with the OED, thanks I guess lol.

I don’t think it’s great to declare The Lord of the Rings science fiction, as a useful definition.

It's funny you say that, because LotR was widely regarded as science fiction when it was originally published, and pretty much for exactly the reason you're unhappy with. People assumed it was post-apoc SF for a very long time - it even inspired other authors. The Stones of Shannara is basically "what if fan theories from the 1960s re: LotR were actually right".

(For more info I refer you to the sadly hard to find BBC documentary Worlds of Fantasy - I think the episode is The Epic Imagination, but I can only find the episode after that, Through the Looking Glass, right now.)

 

[Koloth]

Remembered a couple more 70's movies. Omega Man and Soylent Green.

 

[jian]

Okay, no.

First off, it has "the sun is dying", which is complete science-fiction and drives the entire plot. You seem to have completely forgotten that rather significant element.

Second off, it has "imagined alternative universe or future" (it's unclear which it is).

That's easily enough to qualify as solid science-fiction. It's not even borderline.

So you've made my point for me here with the OED, thanks I guess lol.


It's funny you say that, because LotR was widely regarded as science fiction when it was originally published, and pretty much for exactly the reason you're unhappy with. People assumed it was post-apoc SF for a very long time - it even inspired other authors. The Stones of Shannara is basically "what if fan theories from the 1960s re: LotR were actually right".

The sun dying is not covered by “hypothetical scientific or technological advances, the existence of alien life, space or time travel”. It’s not even a uniquely sci-fi trope, it shows up in plenty of fantasy. So no, sorry, no points for you.

I think that’s a reasonable speculation about LotR but it was explicitly written as an alternative English mythology and fanciful creation myth, so no, it doesn’t really count.

 

[jian]

Remembered a couple more 70's movies. Omega Man and Soylent Green.

I guess they’re not sleepers (which means obscure or forgotten, I guess). Well, Omega Man probably is, it should take Capricorn One’s slot. Relatively few people have seen SG but many more people have heard of it and know about the twist via popular culture.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The sun dying is not covered by “hypothetical scientific or technological advances, the existence of alien life, space or time travel”. It’s not even a uniquely sci-fi trope, it shows up in plenty of fantasy. So no, sorry, no points for you.

I think that’s a reasonable speculation about LotR but it was explicitly written as an alternative English mythology and fanciful creation myth, so no, it doesn’t really count.

I think you're really continuing to prove my point here, by engaging in this failed attempted pedantry. The fact is, the sun is dying is a sci-fi trope (one we've seen very, very recently I might note!), and Quintet is speculative fiction at the very least, a term interchangeable with science fiction for most people, especially when the speculative fiction doesn't involve fantasy.

EDIT:

If we want to be super-precise, the top layer is "Speculative fiction" - i.e. all what-if fiction. Sometimes phrased "Speculative fiction/fantasy" (i.e. SF/F, you've presumably seen this acronym).

Then below that, we have science fiction, fantasy, post-apocalyptic fiction, and a variety of other genres and an infinity of subgenres. All of which overlap heavily, most of which get used interchangeably to some extent. So trying to be "Well I don't think my narrow interpretation of the OED's limit dictionary definition includes this!" is at best unhelpful pedantry. It doesn't even get you to "technically correct, the best kind of correct", because it's too vague and insubstantial.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The sun dying is not covered by “hypothetical scientific or technological advances

It very much is. Our sun has about 4.5 billion years worth of hydrogen fuel left in its core, then it will die. Unless “sufficiently advanced technology”.

Of course there is other weird stuff that can happen to stars which we don’t understand very well, such as neutrino shenanigans, so it may not have that long.