GENRE WARS

Genre argument time! Is 1984 Science Fiction? Is Silence of the Lambs Horror? Is The Revenant a Western? Discuss your favorite maybe-genre distinctions here.

I dunno if this is a related question, but what I really want to know is how long should a movie be popular or relevant for before it's considered a classic?

Yes, yes and yes

> Is 1984 Science Fiction
No
>Is Silence of the Lambs Horror
Maybe very mild, so mild they invented a word for it - thriller
>Is The Revenant a Western
Yes

I always thought "thriller" was a stupid term. SotL is definitely a horror movie.

That's a really good question. I suspect that a movie could be a classic without having enjoyed widespread popularity at release, and likewise I suspect the reverse is true, that a top grossing movie can pass into obscurity within years. Pic possibly double related?

>Maybe very mild, so mild they invented a word for it - thriller
Thrillers are definitely a different genre that just has some horror overlap. You can have action thrillers and erotic thrillers and political thrillers, you can't really have political horror. Outside of, I guess, the Manchurian Candidate or maybe Videodrome.

It has only 2 scary scenes, when Lecter escapes and when Clarice confronts Buffalo Bill in the basement. It's not scary for too much of the film to call it horror

Cyberpunk?

>Is 1984 Science Fiction?
lol, no.

Literature cannot be science fiction.

Nigga u dumb

there's nothing in it about robots or technology, it's set in the present (or at least near future), it doesn't even have a cyberpunk aesthetic so a big fat no

Is there a line between Fantasy and Magical Realism? Where does Big Fish fall on that line? And help me out here, because nobody's ever had a decent answer for me, is Forrest Gump Magical Realism, and if it's not, what exactly excludes it?

It's literally the plot of Neuromancer only it's explicitly about dreams instead of implicitly.

>Literature cannot be science fiction.

fistful of dollars has the same plot as yojimbo but that doesn't make it a samurai film

What about this? Why does it commonly get labeled as science fiction?

It's basically a "what if?" movie set in the near future. The very few times they use future technology it isn't integral to the plot.

maybe lump this in with 1984, if dystopian or philosophical was a genre.

Yojimbo is set in the late 1800s and has a sixgun shootout in a dusty street. Is it a western?

If 1984 is Science Fiction, so is Handmaiden's Tale, the Republic, and Gulliver's Travels.

Which is to say, yes, it's science fiction.

It's one of the codifiers of dystopian sci fi. Of course it's in the genre, it's a leading example.

I consider Silence a Horror/Mystery personally.

My question: Jaws - horror?

I'M FUCKING TIRED OF THESE STUPID ARGUMENTS FROM INBRED FUCKSTICKS SO IMMA GONNA LAID DOWN SOME TRUTH BOMBS TO EDUCATE YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS!!!

1984 is SCIENCE FICTION which is basically SPECULATIVE FICTION about how technology affects the human condition.

The Silence of the Lambs is a HORROR MOVIE but Hollywood doesn't like being associated with the genre because they think it's beneath them, so they call Lambs a THRILLER because they're a bunch of fucking snobs despite the fact that most of those cocksuckers got their start in the genre and end up back in it once their careers go down the fucking shitter.

I don't give a shit about the Revenant because TOM HARDY's nickname around Hollywood is FAGGOTLIPS but at least DiCaprio finally got his precious widdle Oscar to placate his ego.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?!? NO, GOOD, NOW FUCK OFF!!!FACT!!!

Absolutely. Daylight horror.

Personally, I always thought the Great Gatsby was a black comedy in the style of Catch 22 or Catcher in the Rye, but it seems most directors disagree and focus on making it into a sappy melodrama.

Science Fiction isn't about technology, it's about speculation. "What if" scenarios are science fiction by their very nature.

Star Wars, for example, is not science fiction, as it is explicitly set in a fictional universe. It is fantasy.

>political horror
Another good description for 1984

Magical Realism really emphasizes the "realism" part of it. Say for example there's a story about witches and wizards living on our Earth, but it focuses on some dramatic plot about their magic and alternate worlds or an epic battle between good and evil or something, then it's Fantasy. If instead, like they just kind of live their normal every day lives, and people know they're magic but everyone just kind of treats it normally, and the plot's more character driven, then it's Magical Realism.

Sometimes it doesn't have to be usual fantasy archetypes like witches and wizards, but just a general fantastic whimsical atmosphere where strange things can happen all the time, like in Forrest Gump.

Of course genre distinctions this close together can be very hazy. Some people say Magical Realism is just a snobby term for fantasy, but I think there's enough difference for the term to be useful.

documentary or mockumentary?

Ooooooh, this one carries some >implications to it, doesn't it. Is it a mockumentary about an absurd character, or a documentary about how people respond to such a character and what it illustrates about their biases and behaviors?

It's not about the impact of technology on people, it's about the impact of medicine on people.

... oh shit... is Contagion sci-fi?

Battle Royale

Often listed as horror. I consider it action - melodrama. You guys?

is Melancholia sci-fi?

Magical realism.

i consider battle royale a dystopian thriller

?

Is this SCI-FI ?

science fantasy

Definitely fantasy.

Does anyone else find Foxcatcher to be horror?

I've heard Primer described as "Sci-Fi Realism". What exactly is that, and are there any other examples of the genre?

Yeah I'd say it's psychological horror or something like that. Though the movie also is about wrestling, the parts with Steve Carell are definitely meant to be creepy and unsettling.

>"Sci-Fi Realism"

I've never heard that term before. That sounds like something that person just made up himself.

He even has monster prosthetics on.

this is a horror movie

>Millenials once again start re-labeling things
This is one of the many reasons why your generation is pure shit.

Unpopular opinion here, but I think Alien is much better at fusing science fiction with horror than 2001 was. 2001's A plot and B plot basically represent the fantastical silver age sci fi plot and the horror plot and never really intertwine. HAL 9000 would have turned into a horror movie villain no matter what it was the crew was sent to investigate, alien monolith or decommissioned spy satellite. Alien, meanwhile, marries the two plots together so pleasingly, and both take their sci fi element (the very fantastical "an alien that is to humans what wasps are to caterpillars" and the very Asimovian "a robot doctor struggling with incompatible assignments") and make beautiful, terrifying horror out of them.

You're a fag.!!!FACT!!!

Not who you responded to, but I think that sci-fi realism would be any sci-fi that isn't focused on typical sci-fi things like flying cities and crap like that. I think Alien would fit that mold where it's basically just normal people on a spaceship. (IDK though, most sci-fi movies keep away from realism because it's not as interesting as future tech.)

Also, I think people call Primer "realism" because they throw out some bs equations while they make a time machine. Obviously that adds some authenticity, but it doesn't make a time machine "realistic." Personally, I think sci-fi realism is a bit of an oxymoron and not a good combo.

What was the purpose of that anyway? Why couldn't they just dye his hair and call it a day?

problem with the term sci-fi realism is that sci-fi keeps getting more and more realistic as time goes on.

Honestly, I really think it's supposed to make him seem more monstrous, push him into the uncanny valley, so that he'll be unsettling just the moment you lay eyes on him, before you see any of his weird autistic habits.

Is Star Wars /sc/ fiction?

No, pure fantasy.

this is a fantasy film

Not a frontier =/= not a Western
the jury is still out on whether Australian frontier movies count

Does it have to be a western frontier to be a Western?

Could you have a Roman Western set in some frontier town in Palestine or Britain?

I would define a Western as a story taking place in either a frontier or in some other situation that allows combines freedom with danger. I'd count some post apocalyptic films as well (Mad Max, for instance).

Tom Hardy is a great actor! FACT!!!

By this logic Singing in the Rain is the greatest Sci Fi film of all time