Both. Maybe leaning a little bit more on sci-fi since they try to explain many things with science like kryptonite. But definitely also fantasy for X-Men, mutants have superpowers because the DNA does … things.
I dislike the common definition of sci-fi as science-flavored fantasy. It’s just not a useful distinction to me vs plain ‘fantasy’. What I love the most about sci-fi is the exploration of what it means to be human by projecting the implications of drastically improved technology. All a matter of taste, of course.
I’m curious, though: why should a kryptonite explanation be any more sciency than mutant DNA? I see one as an entirely unexplained magic rock, and the other as an extension of the scientific triumph of understanding genetics (plus hilariously and deliberately misunderstanding evolution). X-Men is very nearly sci-fi to me; if mutants were a human creation it would be.
I wanted to say that it’s hard to define exactly what is or isn’t sci-fi. Really I’m just a sci-fi enjoyer and am not qualified to say what is or isn’t sci-fi :D
Kryptonite for me is clearly a magic rock but in the movie it is in the realm of their science. Also there was a movie where the existence of superman led to a lot of questioning on its implications in defense politics so it could fit some part of your definition I guess?
So like superman is science-based and X-Men is also you’re right and it does clearly ask what it means to be human when there are augmented humans now. So clearly more sci-fi than superman.
But films can be both sci-fi and fantasy. It feels like a sliding rule depending on the amount the universe is based on hardcore science. On the DNA subject, Gattaca is not fantasy but X-Men is.
To me it feels similar to the debate about “hard magic” universes like Eragon (where every spell has a physical toll on the user, or other book series where the magic is really detailed in-universe and only mastered by experts who have to study their whole life for even a basic spell) and “soft magic” like Harry Potter where everyone can cast crucifixion spells at the speed of an automatic rifle (I’m slightly exaggerating).
Absolutely, genres are muddy bullshit. That’s what makes debates like these so fun.
Looking at things from the perspective of the characters is interesting, but I struggle to imagine how kryptonite would be ‘science’ even in-universe. I guess ‘technology’ is really what I mean, and kryptonite is a natural element. That’s how I see it. There is some engineering around kryptonite-based anti-superman weapons, but that’s ultimately ancillary to the philosophical meat of the series.
With Superman being a lens on geoplolitics, it’s simply the fact that he’s a natural being and not a human engineering accomplishment that makes it solidly not sci-fi to me. Many if not most great works examine the human condition to some extent no matter the genre.
With this technology lens, would Dune still be considered sci-fi? They have different technology sure but in many ways worse than what we have now (except for space travel), they don’t have computers and rely on hand to hand combat, their spies cannot hide mics so they hide in walls for days!
It’s another hyper militarized universe like what the Cold War has brought but with religion and drugs :^)
Perhaps not, interesting example. It’s more of a political drama overall, though it’s been ages since I read it.
The space travel is just a drop-in for different countries, really. The examination of humanity doesn’t extend specifically from the implications of advanced technology; I feel like it could be pretty easily re-framed into a mideval drama about a fief rich in (magical?) opium poppies.
What genre are superhero films? Fantasy? Sci-fi? E.g. what is Superman or X-Men?
Both. Maybe leaning a little bit more on sci-fi since they try to explain many things with science like kryptonite. But definitely also fantasy for X-Men, mutants have superpowers because the DNA does … things.
I dislike the common definition of sci-fi as science-flavored fantasy. It’s just not a useful distinction to me vs plain ‘fantasy’. What I love the most about sci-fi is the exploration of what it means to be human by projecting the implications of drastically improved technology. All a matter of taste, of course.
I’m curious, though: why should a kryptonite explanation be any more sciency than mutant DNA? I see one as an entirely unexplained magic rock, and the other as an extension of the scientific triumph of understanding genetics (plus hilariously and deliberately misunderstanding evolution). X-Men is very nearly sci-fi to me; if mutants were a human creation it would be.
I wanted to say that it’s hard to define exactly what is or isn’t sci-fi. Really I’m just a sci-fi enjoyer and am not qualified to say what is or isn’t sci-fi :D
Kryptonite for me is clearly a magic rock but in the movie it is in the realm of their science. Also there was a movie where the existence of superman led to a lot of questioning on its implications in defense politics so it could fit some part of your definition I guess?
So like superman is science-based and X-Men is also you’re right and it does clearly ask what it means to be human when there are augmented humans now. So clearly more sci-fi than superman.
But films can be both sci-fi and fantasy. It feels like a sliding rule depending on the amount the universe is based on hardcore science. On the DNA subject, Gattaca is not fantasy but X-Men is.
To me it feels similar to the debate about “hard magic” universes like Eragon (where every spell has a physical toll on the user, or other book series where the magic is really detailed in-universe and only mastered by experts who have to study their whole life for even a basic spell) and “soft magic” like Harry Potter where everyone can cast crucifixion spells at the speed of an automatic rifle (I’m slightly exaggerating).
Absolutely, genres are muddy bullshit. That’s what makes debates like these so fun.
Looking at things from the perspective of the characters is interesting, but I struggle to imagine how kryptonite would be ‘science’ even in-universe. I guess ‘technology’ is really what I mean, and kryptonite is a natural element. That’s how I see it. There is some engineering around kryptonite-based anti-superman weapons, but that’s ultimately ancillary to the philosophical meat of the series.
With Superman being a lens on geoplolitics, it’s simply the fact that he’s a natural being and not a human engineering accomplishment that makes it solidly not sci-fi to me. Many if not most great works examine the human condition to some extent no matter the genre.
With this technology lens, would Dune still be considered sci-fi? They have different technology sure but in many ways worse than what we have now (except for space travel), they don’t have computers and rely on hand to hand combat, their spies cannot hide mics so they hide in walls for days!
It’s another hyper militarized universe like what the Cold War has brought but with religion and drugs :^)
Perhaps not, interesting example. It’s more of a political drama overall, though it’s been ages since I read it.
The space travel is just a drop-in for different countries, really. The examination of humanity doesn’t extend specifically from the implications of advanced technology; I feel like it could be pretty easily re-framed into a mideval drama about a fief rich in (magical?) opium poppies.