Are comic book films considered sci-fi?

Many of the superheroes get their powers through science. Superman's strength comes from the difference in gravity between Earth and Krypton; Spider Man was bitten by a radioactive spider. Captain America got his powers through scientific experimentation. The Hulk got his from exposure to gamma rays. The X-Men are mutants who are born to regular humans. Okay, Thor's a god, but I did say 'many.'

As far as I'm concerned, that places them within science fiction. Sure, some of the premises are unlikely--but that goes for a lot of classic science fiction, too.

SF is a huge category, and not every protagonist is "just a [hu]man." Sometimes humans have advanced technology like time machines and spaceships and fancy weapons; sometimes they are the advanced technology. Sometimes, the protagonist isn't a human at all, so can't possibly be the star of a story about how a regular human deals with an extraordinary situation (Wall-E is #2 on the list, for instance). And #1 is Star Wars--Jedi aren't "just human" either.

What about manga?

If by comic book films you mean the current crop of Marvel movies, I think they're a distinct beast. I'm an advocate of the theory that the superhero story is a distinct genre of its own. That doesn't mean there can't be sci fi comic book movies, though. There are enough sci fi comics.

Not all comic book stories are about superheroes, surely. Some could be more standard types of SF tales. Like Albedo, I tend to think of superhero stories as a genre beneath the speculative umbrella unto themselves, though they can have considerable overlap with SF and/or fantasy with regards to the tropes that are present.

SF is a really broad genre, though, with many different, subgroupings, different thematic elements, and different degrees of "hardness," in terms of emphasis on the scientific elements as the major driver of the plot vs a story that is exploring futuristic issues that are more sociological in nature to ones where the scientific elements are more about window dressing or aesthetic (and it is really a a swashbuckling adventure story, or western, or sword and sorcery, or mystery, or romance, or superhero story, or thriller etc. set in space or another futuristic setting).

Writer-1 said:

I'm not very up on manga.

Click to expand...

You should give it okay.

Categorization is a fun game, but ever since SF began people have been arguing about what belongs in or out of it, or in or out of what genre, sub-genre, sub-sub-genre. I've rarely seen any arguments turn into useful results, however.

Is Star Wars science fiction, science fantasy, or just an ordinary story with incidental SFnal elements? I just call it SF of a particular sort. Certainly the characters are micron thin and the plots comic-book stupid, but so what? The visuals are to me visual masterpieces and I enjoy the films for that. I take my grandkids and such to see them and enjoy the films as much for them as for myself.

Ditto for comic-books adaptations.

I am pleased that some SF space opera shows touches of social conscience, influenced it seems by Gene Rodenberry's ideas, but lately it feels to me almost as if those touches are becoming rote and preachy. I am also pleased that comics adaptations are showing some signs of moral complexity, but I'd also be unhappy if they carried that too far.

In my book, Science Fiction is defined by putting scientific advances or science thinking front and center. That definition is muddled because a lot of SF does it poorly, but every time someone on Star Trek comes up with some inconceivable tech speak to solve a problem, they're reaffirming that it's supposed to be SF. Star Wars, on the other hand, is pure Fantasy, even though they did try to solve a problem with technobabble in The Last Jedi - the world-building conceit is essentially magic, even the technological bits, and the writers don't bother keeping up with their audience's science literacy. (Just watch the rebels drop (!) bombs in outer space in the latest installment to see what I mean.)

That's why, if anything, I'd place superhero movies within Fantasy rather than Science Fiction. The origin story may have a science angle, but the focus usually isn't on the science experiment that gave our hero his or her powers. It's on those amazing powers and what the hero can do with them. Also, the scientific incident doesn't really justify the powers in any meaningful sense - if anything, it adds specific flavors to events that are, again, essentially magic.

That said, some recent superhero writng has been better at keeping up with science than Star Wars has. Even if it's wacky comic book science. The Marvel movies even gave Nordic gods a science-compatible angle by claiming thery're from a parallel universe.

Max Vaehling said:

In my book, Science Fiction is defined by putting scientific advances or science thinking front and center.

Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their own definition. But, as you properly point out, this is only one: yours. I've heard it expressed as, if the story could have been told without the science or technology based on the science, it isn't SF.

But others have a different definition. One is that if it has any fragments of science or sci-tech, it's SF. In other words, if it's even lightly stained by SF, it's SF. Equally valid, in my opinion.

There are several other definitions floating around, some having to do with the degree of science/sci-tech. Then there are hybrids: science fantasy has both science and fantasy (in the sense of the presence of magic).

I've seen this wrangling go for more than 50 years. Totally useless as far as I can see. I've never noticed anyone change their minds. They just keep saying (even shouting) the definition THEY prefer.

Laer Carroll said:

Everyone is entitled to their own definition. But, as you properly point out, this is only one: yours. I've heard it expressed as, if the story could have been told without the science or technology based on the science, it isn't SF.

But others have a different definition. One is that if it has any fragments of science or sci-tech, it's SF. In other words, if it's even lightly stained by SF, it's SF. Equally valid, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Well, we certainly agree about opinions being just that. (Hardly needed pointing out, actually.) I'm not entirely on board with the notion of "any fragments of science or sci-tech" as equally valid, though, because by the same logic any notion of magic would necessarily make it fantasy and the appearance of ghosts would make it horror. It's just not very helpful for defining things, especially superhero stories that traditionally have taken on flavors from lots of genres. For a definition, it's better to look what the focus or the central conceit is. In the case of (most) superhero movies, it's not the presence of science but the notion of extraordinary powers (or abilities, to not exclude Batman) that may or may not be the result of something sciencey. I'm not saying that necessarily makes it Fantasy because there are more genres than those two, but I stick to those powers being essentially magic, from a storytelling perspective. (Even Batman's, to a degree.) Some are even rooted in actual magic - Green Lantern, for one, or Captain Marvel (the Shazam one, not Carol Danvers). Different root, same mechanism.

I'm perfectly happy putting super hero films in the Sci-Fi genre if they are based around science fiction, as pedantic as that sounds (I really don't mean it to be!). But where is the value in dividing the categories? From a marketing standpoint, sure I get it, but not from the angle of analysis or criticism.

Like Iron Man is about a dude building technologically advanced suits of armor. If it didn't have the "Marvel" label, I doubt anyone would argue against that being Sci-Fi (albeit on the softer end).

Dr. Strange is about a wizard. Who explicitly does magic. So I'd call that a fantasy film.

Batman can be Sci-Fi if you play up those elements of the mythos, but he doesn't have to be (see the Batman Begins/The Dark Knight/The Dark Knight Rises, which are thrillers). Superman is an alien (Sci-fi), Wonder Woman is a ancient Amazon warrior (Fantasy). One of my favorite things about super hero films is that you can combine all kinds of genres but still have a unifying thematic element that makes everything work.

Flip it around and what a stops film like Robocop from being a considered super hero movie?

Note, I'm only talking films here, I think comics is a different discussion.

PyriteFool said:

I'm perfectly happy putting super hero films in the Sci-Fi genre if they are based around science fiction....
...
I'm only talking films here, I think comics is a different discussion.

Click to expand...

I think films, comics, text-mostly fiction are all pretty much the same as far as discussing categories are concerned.

Some people insist on categorizing SF and fantasy as distinct, with a sharp line between the two. Fantasy has magical processes including beings powered by or using magic (ghosts, elves, flying broomsticks, and so on). SF instead has natural processes.

I don't. I'm perfectly happy reading (and writing) stories where both supernatural and natural forces co-exist. There's even a long-standing name for it - science fantasy.

In some of the stories one or the other predominates. In others they are pretty equal.

In some the writer tries to merge the supernatural into the natural. "Magic is a newly discovered force of nature." That's the tack taken by Wen Spencer in her Elfhome series.

In others the writer claims the "magic" is just a technology so advanced beyond our understanding that it seems but is not supernatural.