In a message dated 97-12-03 13:45:05 EST, RHIAN.M.MERRIS@CPMX.MAIL.SAIC.COM
writes:
> In other words, I think that there are a lot of works that fall somewhere
> in between, and should not necessarily be dismissed in their entirety
> simply for being cloaked in the guise of one side or the other. I think
> that there is a lot of "SF" that is very entertaining, and a lot of
> "sci-fi" that can be thought provoking, and contain literary elements.
I'm not sure I can always make the distinction between SF and sci-fi. OK, I
can call Independence Day sci-fi, and Contact SF, but there are plenty of
works that I can't categorize.
Take Terminator 2, for example. I really like this movie, enough so that its
release on DVD was a hotly-awaited event at my house. But for years I assumed
it was sci-fi. After all, it was a blockbuster picture with plenty of chase
scenes and action, starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, and featured an overused
tagline ("Hasta la vista, baby.") How could it not be sci-fi? I considered
liking T2 to be a guilty pleasure.
Then I found out that Terminator 2 won a Hugo in 1992 for Best Dramatic
Presentation. Well, okay, that doesn't make it SF. But it does indicate that
a lot of people besides me thought it was a quality movie.
Or what about Babylon 5? I'm fond of this show, but I can't tell if it's SF
or sci-fi. Every time I think I've decided, I change my mind. But it's fun
and it's thought-provoking. Why categorize it?
I think it's time to retire the terms.
Anny
AnnyMiddon@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:39 PDT