Talk:History of science fiction films

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Science Fiction High‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

"Except for Star Trek and Star Wars films, the only films set off Earth that appeared in the first half of the 2000s were the poorly received Mission to Mars and Serenity, a continuation of Joss Whedon's tv series Firefly."

As I came to this, Serenity had not even been released, just under a month from hitting theatres - so how accurate is it to say that it's been poorly received? Since I haven't been following reports and updates of the film, I'm going to leave that to someone else to sort out. --Bacteria 12:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the assertions made after the "1980s" section deserve to be looked at very critically. See: "Except for Star Trek and Star Wars films, the only films set off Earth that appeared in the first half of the 2000s were Serenity and the poorly received Mission to Mars and Red Planet."

Whoever wrote this section not only gave in to some pretty rampant speculation with no evidence cited (i.e. Star Trek: Nemesis' failure as a factor in the author's perceived overall failure of space sci-fi), but ignored several key films during the time period mentioned, many of which took place in part or in whole in space. Soderberg's Solaris remake, etc. While the author states that fantasy has taken over the role previously filled by sci-fi, that's only really true for huge-budget films, i.e. the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter type record-smashers. It could be argued that the first decade of the 21st century has so far seen science fiction moving from its blockbuster roots and getting smarter, leaner, and scrappier in smaller semi-independent productions now feasible with CGI special effects, such as Solaris or the recently-released Sunshine.

The article needs work.

Hamiltondaniel 07:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Films Before the 1980s

I disagree with the respondent's rather incredible claim that there were almost no fantasy films before the 1980s that weren't horror. What about:- the various versions of The Thief of Bagdad (1924 and 1940), Disney's various ventures into feature-length animation, Ray Harryhausen's The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) and The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1974), Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971), Dr Dolittle (1967), Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) to name but a handful of titles that immediately come to mind. Certainly the point made that there was a convergence between sf and fantasy in the 1980s is a pertinent one.

Titles

I notice a correspondent has recently specifically created an edit to list Star Wars as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and 2010 as 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Star Wars was only retitled Episode IV: A New Hope in re-release, but not in the original version. Similarly 2010 is only known as 2010 on the screen title, the only place the subtitle The Year We Make Contact appears in on the film's poster. Maybe we could come to some sort of consensus on what the correct title should be could be reached? My feeling is that the title that appears on screen and the one that appears in the original release should be the official title.

--203.118.131.65 10:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Matrix-DVD.jpg

Image:Matrix-DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Star wars episode three poster2.jpg

Image:Star wars episode three poster2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Time After Time DVD.jpg

Image:Time After Time DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dawn1.JPG

Image:Dawn1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Silent running.jpg

The image Image:Silent running.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Worldcollide.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of science fiction films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails at the first hurdle

Unfortunately this article fails at the very first hurdle of even accurately understanding what Science Fiction is. ET is not a Science Fiction film, it's pure fantasy. So is Star Wars. Star Wars is a film essentially based on magic and spiritualism, not science. There is nothing scientific about "the Force". Just because it's based in space and has laser94.175.102.211 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC) guns in it, doesn't make a film science fiction.[reply]