Christmas Show

[CrypticMirror]

Could be Gravity, people have argued that it is just a 70s Disaster Movie rebooted for the space age. Since we routinely send people into orbit, and have a permanent presence in space, it is less sci-fi and more just an exotic and rare, but still everyday, location.

[TGLS]

The Day After Tomorrow.

Just a random thought, but "some" in "Some might insist it's not a science fiction OR fantasy film" could refer to really dumb people who think it's reality.

Anyway, got a list of 300 films from 2000-2014 that aren't adaptations. Just need something objective to narrow down further.

[clearspira]

Funny though because Interstellar almost does have both sci-fi and fantasy elements.

Still could be Signs.

How is it not sci-fi though?

Ah, but here's the thing: Chuck's exact words are ''Some might insist it's not a science fiction OR fantasy film''. This means that some do and some don't.

I don't know what you know about the allegory behind ''Signs'' but those aliens? Aren't aliens. They're actually meant to be demons. That's why they have that stupid weakness to water - as some have said, this would be the equivalent of us invading Venus what with the flesh melting rain. But when you think of them as monsters instead of aliens, then it all suddenly makes sense AKA The Wicked Witch of the West. This whole film is meant to be God testing Mel Gibson.

God allows his wife to get run over but keeps the guy who did it alive to warn him later on of the weakness to water, God gives his son asthma so that he would be immune to the toxic gas later on, God makes his daughter never finish her water so that there are plenty of glasses of water about for the final fight, God makes his brother a pro-baseball player so that he has a baseball bat handy for the final fight.

Its all contrived bullshit in a terrible film, and this God would have to be a petty asshole to do all of this, but ''Signs'' isn't science fiction. Its a religious movie.

[TGLS]

I dunno. It seems more like you're twisting the movie around the preacher character's faith arc.

I mean, from my big list of SF films from the period, I can find a half-dozen that fit better:
-> Save the Green Planet! Crazy guy kidnaps pharma executive because he thinks he's an alien. The only SF element is the exec actually being an alien, which is only revealed after the crazy guy is killed (and thus can be written off as a dying dream).
-> Sex and Death 101 Guy gets a list of all the women he ends up sleeping with in order, past, present and future. Still more of a sex comedy than sci-fi
-> 2046 Romantic drama with four arcs, one of which is in the far future.
-> Alien Autopsy A comic retelling of the alien autopsy film that was published in the 90s.
-> The Day After Tomorrow Based on seriously published pseudoscience.
-> 2012 Disaster movie with a fantastical premise.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Funny though because Interstellar almost does have both sci-fi and fantasy elements.

Still could be Signs.

How is it not sci-fi though?

Ah, but here's the thing: Chuck's exact words are ''Some might insist it's not a science fiction OR fantasy film''. This means that some do and some don't.

I don't know what you know about the allegory behind ''Signs'' but those aliens? Aren't aliens. They're actually meant to be demons. That's why they have that stupid weakness to water - as some have said, this would be the equivalent of us invading Venus what with the flesh melting rain. But when you think of them as monsters instead of aliens, then it all suddenly makes sense AKA The Wicked Witch of the West. This whole film is meant to be God testing Mel Gibson.

God allows his wife to get run over but keeps the guy who did it alive to warn him later on of the weakness to water, God gives his son asthma so that he would be immune to the toxic gas later on, God makes his daughter never finish her water so that there are plenty of glasses of water about for the final fight, God makes his brother a pro-baseball player so that he has a baseball bat handy for the final fight.

Its all contrived bullshit in a terrible film, and this God would have to be a petty asshole to do all of this, but ''Signs'' isn't science fiction. Its a religious movie.

Yeah but that's still fantasy lol.

[Makeitstop]

I can see a few different ways in which something can meet the ''Some might insist it's not a science fiction OR fantasy film'' requirement.

1. They are taking narrow view of what constitutes sci fi and fantasy in general. James bond is unrealistic and presents fictional technology, but it isn't really sci fi.
2. It isn't sci fi or fantasy because some other genre trumps those labels. Twilight isn't fantasy it is teen romance.
3. It isn't sci fi or fantasy because those elements are interpreted out of the movie. K-pax isn't sci fi because he isn't an alien, he's just delusional.
4. It isn't sci fi because the supposedly fantastical elements are believed to actually be real. Incident at loch ness isn't sci fi because the loch ness monster is real.
5. It isn't sci fi because it is clearly coming true. Idiocracy isn't sci fi, it is the true story that is unfolding around us.
6. It isn't one or the other because it is both. Star wars is science fantasy.
7. It is sci fi or fantasy, but they are arguing it isn't a film. Bright doesn't count, it was shot digitally and released on netflix.
8. Some people insist that it isn't one, despite agreeing that it is is the other. Of course lord of the rings is fantasy, but it isn't sci fi.
9. It is totally sci fi or fantasy, but there is always someone willing to argue a stupid point. Star trek isn't science fiction, it doesn't follow the scientific process, there's no peer reviewed studies, it has nothing to do with how science works.

I doubt it will be anything too weaselly. But it could definitely be an alternate interpretation thing or a definition argument.

[CrypticMirror]

I can see a few different ways in which something can meet the ''Some might insist it's not a science fiction OR fantasy film'' requirement.

1. They are taking narrow view of what constitutes sci fi and fantasy in general. James bond is unrealistic and presents fictional technology, but it isn't really sci fi.
2. It isn't sci fi or fantasy because some other genre trumps those labels. Twilight isn't fantasy it is teen romance.
3. It isn't sci fi or fantasy because those elements are interpreted out of the movie. K-pax isn't sci fi because he isn't an alien, he's just delusional.
4. It isn't sci fi because the supposedly fantastical elements are believed to actually be real. Incident at loch ness isn't sci fi because the loch ness monster is real.
5. It isn't sci fi because it is clearly coming true. Idiocracy isn't sci fi, it is the true story that is unfolding around us.
6. It isn't one or the other because it is both. Star wars is science fantasy.
7. It is sci fi or fantasy, but they are arguing it isn't a film. Bright doesn't count, it was shot digitally and released on netflix.
8. Some people that it isn't one, despite agreeing that it is is the other. Of course lord of the rings is fantasy, but it isn't sci fi.
9. It is totally sci fi or fantasy, but there is always someone willing to argue a stupid point. Star trek isn't science fiction, it doesn't follow the scientific process, there's no peer reviewed studies, it has nothing to do with how science works.

I doubt it will be anything too weaselly. But it could definitely be an alternate interpretation thing or a definition argument.

As long as it doesn't end up being The Human Centipede, which is technically a mad science movie but was actually just vile.

[TGLS]

As long as it doesn't end up being The Human Centipede, which is technically a mad science movie but was actually just vile.

The old request page had rules like:
-> No Slashers (except possibly with supernatural twist like Nightmare on Elm Street)
-> No Gorn (Not a typo)
-> No Star Wars Prequels
-> Nothing Twilight Related

So probably no Human Centipede

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Memento

[Captain Crimson]

Put me in the camp for it being Signs as well.