Forums » Off-Topic
I have not read Michael Crichton (yet), but I agree with you; a story does not necessarily need to be in the future (however near-term) in order to be considered science fiction.
Incidentally, have you read any of Lukyanenko's books, Chaos? They may be a bit long-winded, as Russian authors can be, but I found them to be thoroughly enjoyable. Although for me, nothing tops Lem when it comes to sci-fi, they are pretty intricate.
Incidentally, have you read any of Lukyanenko's books, Chaos? They may be a bit long-winded, as Russian authors can be, but I found them to be thoroughly enjoyable. Although for me, nothing tops Lem when it comes to sci-fi, they are pretty intricate.
you really missed the point there prof chaos the terminator isn't a stand in for some middle eastern terrorists. The terminator was created out of humanities unwillingness to neogotiate and intollerance of each other, hence the whole skynet project in the cold war.
I hadn't seen Primer until you mentioned it. Thanks for the note. It wasn't bad.
As far as Time Travel Movies:
Somewhere In Time ---------- Mostly because it has Jane Seymour
The Time Traveler's Wife --- Mostly because it has Rachel McAdams
and least we forget:
[airguitar]
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
[/airguitar]
As far as Time Travel Movies:
Somewhere In Time ---------- Mostly because it has Jane Seymour
The Time Traveler's Wife --- Mostly because it has Rachel McAdams
and least we forget:
[airguitar]
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
[/airguitar]
toshiro: Crichton got lazy in his later days, but his early work was brilliant. Start with Jurassic Park, because that of course is the Michael Crichton book, but Sphere was my favorite.
Will: How could I forget Bill & Ted?!? Yes, that one is up there on the list for sure! The scene where they make an elaborate plan involving them putting props in key places after the fact is actually one of the most profoundly brilliant time travel scenes ever! "How will we get the keys to ourselves?" "Why not put them right... here!" Man it's been forever since I've seen that...
peytros: I never suggested that the Terminator was a direct stand-in for middle-eastern terrorists. What I said was that Hollywood writers/producers can make a movie that so accurately portrays human nature, and then fail to apply that understanding to real life. The comparison is in the possibility of negotiating with an enemy who is not interested in anything but seeing you dead. T-1000 would gladly have sat down with John Connor to negotiate a peace treaty, just so he could lure John into a trap and kill him. He was interested in nothing else. Negotiations have never stopped anyone from attacking Israel, only encouraged it. Negotiating won't stop Ahmedinejad from nuking Israel, would not have prevented 9/11, etc. etc. Negotiating with Japan in WWII only worked when it was clear to them they had lost the war, and wanted us to stop nuking them. How can Hollywood understand there are enemies you can't negotiate with in movies, and not see that there are enemies you can't negotiate with in real life?
Will: How could I forget Bill & Ted?!? Yes, that one is up there on the list for sure! The scene where they make an elaborate plan involving them putting props in key places after the fact is actually one of the most profoundly brilliant time travel scenes ever! "How will we get the keys to ourselves?" "Why not put them right... here!" Man it's been forever since I've seen that...
peytros: I never suggested that the Terminator was a direct stand-in for middle-eastern terrorists. What I said was that Hollywood writers/producers can make a movie that so accurately portrays human nature, and then fail to apply that understanding to real life. The comparison is in the possibility of negotiating with an enemy who is not interested in anything but seeing you dead. T-1000 would gladly have sat down with John Connor to negotiate a peace treaty, just so he could lure John into a trap and kill him. He was interested in nothing else. Negotiations have never stopped anyone from attacking Israel, only encouraged it. Negotiating won't stop Ahmedinejad from nuking Israel, would not have prevented 9/11, etc. etc. Negotiating with Japan in WWII only worked when it was clear to them they had lost the war, and wanted us to stop nuking them. How can Hollywood understand there are enemies you can't negotiate with in movies, and not see that there are enemies you can't negotiate with in real life?
The idea is unpleasant for them, PC. That's why they make movies about it, but also prefer to ignore the possibility of such things also having a shared humanity.
I'd bash peytroll's head in for turning this thread into a political discussion, if I were not so disinclined to use violence to get my point across.
Bill: (reading) "The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing."
Ted: (gasps) That's us, dude!
Bill: Yeah!
Ted: (gasps) That's us, dude!
Bill: Yeah!
Army of Darkness.
>.>
Trying to think of others. I seem to know a lot but can't recall what they are.
Read "The Time Traveler's Wife". Very good story.
>.>
Trying to think of others. I seem to know a lot but can't recall what they are.
Read "The Time Traveler's Wife". Very good story.
i didn't turn this into a political debate i was just saying that the terminator more so skynet was not to be taken as it is literally shown, an uncompromising enemy but as humanity failing to work things out hence we have to reap what we sow. If you want to ignore the fact that skynet was created out of this "we have to be ready for anything or the soviets will win" mentality fine but its doing much of a disservice to the screen writers.
toshiro: To be fair to peytros, I made the first political comment.
peytros: To show how short-sighted your point is, let's try taking it at face value. "we have to reap what we sow" is definitely true. Every action has consequences. So, the consequence of turning control of your defensive nukular arsenal to a machine out of paranoia, then making that machine super smart, is that the machine turns on humanity and tries to wipe us out to the man. What do we reap? An uncompromising enemy! So regardless of whether your point is true or not, that happens before (after?) the movie, and the movie centers around the conflict between John and Sarah Connor and an uncompromising enemy. My point remains valid: How do you negotiate with a Terminator? You can't. That's why in T2 the idea of sparing innocent lives and killing T-1000 aren't in conflict. If the enemy will stop at nothing to kill you and anyone else, you must kill that enemy first.
Now apply this to 9/11. Regardless of who caused them to want to knock our buildings down, how do you negotiate a peaceful end to this? The terrorists were committed to dying to kill thousands of us. You could talk on the radio all day, offer them all the money you want, and it would do no good because it's not what they want. The only solution is to take down the planes, which the passengers of one plane did. Hitler will stop at nothing to kill the Jews? Gotta kill Hitler. Ahmedinejad says nothing can stop him from nuking Tel Aviv? Gotta take away Iran's nukes, and the bad dude's head while you're at it.
The problem is that liberals view war as the ultimate example of "it takes two to tango". It might take two to tango, but it just takes one to kill the other guy, unless someone does something about it. The problem with SkyNet isn't that we had a defensive nukular arsenal, but that we turned it over to a machine (um... fictionally, that is). Sure the writers put in the message that if a machine can learn the value of human life, there's hope for humanity, and that is true. But violence will not end until every last human decides not to be violent. Until then, you value human life by defending it against those who don't, not by laying down your weapons and letting genocide happen because you are opposed to violence. If you have the opportunity and ability to stop an evil act, and don't, you share responsibility for that act, in my opinion.
peytros: To show how short-sighted your point is, let's try taking it at face value. "we have to reap what we sow" is definitely true. Every action has consequences. So, the consequence of turning control of your defensive nukular arsenal to a machine out of paranoia, then making that machine super smart, is that the machine turns on humanity and tries to wipe us out to the man. What do we reap? An uncompromising enemy! So regardless of whether your point is true or not, that happens before (after?) the movie, and the movie centers around the conflict between John and Sarah Connor and an uncompromising enemy. My point remains valid: How do you negotiate with a Terminator? You can't. That's why in T2 the idea of sparing innocent lives and killing T-1000 aren't in conflict. If the enemy will stop at nothing to kill you and anyone else, you must kill that enemy first.
Now apply this to 9/11. Regardless of who caused them to want to knock our buildings down, how do you negotiate a peaceful end to this? The terrorists were committed to dying to kill thousands of us. You could talk on the radio all day, offer them all the money you want, and it would do no good because it's not what they want. The only solution is to take down the planes, which the passengers of one plane did. Hitler will stop at nothing to kill the Jews? Gotta kill Hitler. Ahmedinejad says nothing can stop him from nuking Tel Aviv? Gotta take away Iran's nukes, and the bad dude's head while you're at it.
The problem is that liberals view war as the ultimate example of "it takes two to tango". It might take two to tango, but it just takes one to kill the other guy, unless someone does something about it. The problem with SkyNet isn't that we had a defensive nukular arsenal, but that we turned it over to a machine (um... fictionally, that is). Sure the writers put in the message that if a machine can learn the value of human life, there's hope for humanity, and that is true. But violence will not end until every last human decides not to be violent. Until then, you value human life by defending it against those who don't, not by laying down your weapons and letting genocide happen because you are opposed to violence. If you have the opportunity and ability to stop an evil act, and don't, you share responsibility for that act, in my opinion.
He carried on with it. It takes two to tango >_>
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
In general, I agree with your si vis pacem, para bellum doctrine. It's why I think that armed forces are a necessary evil, and should be kept as efficient as possible (in my country, those who think that way, i.e. me, and have the necessary experience, i.e. not me, are not in the position to decide about the army, directly, sadly). What I have a problem with is that I do not think it is that simple, just to lop off a few heads, figuratively speaking, and get on with it.
What needs to be done (among other things) is that the parts of the islamic world which fight or counteract advancements such as equal rights need to be dragged into the 21st century (even the 19th would be an improvement), and a wealthy middle class with relatively high eduction needs to come into existence (in some cases, like Iran, 'again' could be suffixed to that sentence). Before that, discussions (with whatever means) with such countries are unlikely to suceed.
And personally, if I were SkyNet, I'd make my machines be able to process organic matter into some kind of useable form of energy. And then breed them like cattle. The Matrix was right in that respect.
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
In general, I agree with your si vis pacem, para bellum doctrine. It's why I think that armed forces are a necessary evil, and should be kept as efficient as possible (in my country, those who think that way, i.e. me, and have the necessary experience, i.e. not me, are not in the position to decide about the army, directly, sadly). What I have a problem with is that I do not think it is that simple, just to lop off a few heads, figuratively speaking, and get on with it.
What needs to be done (among other things) is that the parts of the islamic world which fight or counteract advancements such as equal rights need to be dragged into the 21st century (even the 19th would be an improvement), and a wealthy middle class with relatively high eduction needs to come into existence (in some cases, like Iran, 'again' could be suffixed to that sentence). Before that, discussions (with whatever means) with such countries are unlikely to suceed.
And personally, if I were SkyNet, I'd make my machines be able to process organic matter into some kind of useable form of energy. And then breed them like cattle. The Matrix was right in that respect.
Before that, discussions (with whatever means) with such countries are unlikely to suceed.
Oh, there is another perfectly workable way, Tosh. You just don't like to contemplate it. I'll grant, however, that one cannot just lop off a few heads . . . and get on with it.
After the third (and final) revolt in Iudaea, Hadrian's men razed Jerusalem to the ground in a manner not even contemplated by the Romans in their suppression of the two previous Jewish rebellions -- neither of which were gentle. While not the destruction of Carthage, it was nonetheless an impressively thorough act of genocide. The Romans went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils, and then they exiled or sold into slavery far enough away to sever all ties to their former homeland those few who remained alive. The denuded lands were resettled with foreigners, whose descendents -- for almost two thousand years -- enjoyed peace and quiet in what was, until quite recently, Palestine.
I'll also note that, here in the United States, it has been a long damn time since any Indian war, raid, or other conflict has occured. And I don't think we gave them a middle class.
Oh, there is another perfectly workable way, Tosh. You just don't like to contemplate it. I'll grant, however, that one cannot just lop off a few heads . . . and get on with it.
After the third (and final) revolt in Iudaea, Hadrian's men razed Jerusalem to the ground in a manner not even contemplated by the Romans in their suppression of the two previous Jewish rebellions -- neither of which were gentle. While not the destruction of Carthage, it was nonetheless an impressively thorough act of genocide. The Romans went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils, and then they exiled or sold into slavery far enough away to sever all ties to their former homeland those few who remained alive. The denuded lands were resettled with foreigners, whose descendents -- for almost two thousand years -- enjoyed peace and quiet in what was, until quite recently, Palestine.
I'll also note that, here in the United States, it has been a long damn time since any Indian war, raid, or other conflict has occured. And I don't think we gave them a middle class.
Thankfully, I can comment now and get the topic back on track!
I'll admit to playing a bit of a provocateur in my previous posts, if only to stir discussion like this. I'll take my success and carry forward!
Before dealing with what a "time travel movie" is, I should get to my consideration of what "good" sci-fi is.
Good science fiction is that genre of fiction where a technology, place or imagined future is used to examine fundamental human characteristics and behavior. Some examples illustrating this are below in no particular order:
1. Tarkovsky's Solaris: the meeting of the human with an utterly alien entity (the Ocean) which produces human-like mimics creates a place where the characters must actually face the question of what it is to be human. The sci-fi element is essential to raising the question of what human is, what life is, because it has to be beyond the ordinary workings of earth.
2. Battlestar Galactica (new series): The creation and treatment of other humanoids, Cylons, raises issues (again) of what it is to be human. When could one dehumanize the enemy, etc. Though, I'd say the series is iffy in terms of good/bad episodes on this subject though. That the Cylons are created is essential to the questions posed.
3. Fahrenheit 451: Imagines the uncontrolled rise of video/surveillance technology and government intrusion to explore both themes and the impact on family life and society in general. The technology is an essential element is addressing how de-personalizing these technologies could be alongside the mass-media "brainwashing" that occurs alongside an illiterate populous.
I would juxtapose this definition of sci-fi with "space-opera", where the setting is created or technology is present, but is not fundamentally important to the story (even though these stories can also address fundamental human characteristics and behavior). Here are some examples:
1. Babylon 5: I *love* this series, but it really is more space-opera than sci-fi. One could easily replace the station with the UN, the alien races with various stereotypical factions and not really have much change in the overall story-arch. The psi-corp is probably the most sci-fi element there is as the human fear/power aspects are explored somewhat.
2. Star Wars: Great space-opera. Hardly asks very deep questions at all, but it's a fun plot. I think it's not too much of a stretch to say the setting is not essential to the story since much of the plot was taken from a prior Kurosawa movie.
3. Star Trek: Space opera. We're in a ship flying around encountering problems (also the premise behind a swath of other popular shows). The social commentary is transposed into an environment that got past censors, however the fundamental impact of the science, technology, what-have-you on humanity is not present. The "enlightenment" factor of the utopian federation is not clearly linked to the technology (causative relation etc), but is merely part of the setting. Each week the crew of the ship get a new zany adventure, but the issues are not explored very well.
Not that everything can fit neatly into one of the two categories (particularly since the series' individual episodes may run the gamut), but I think many people can see where stories might fit on the whole.
So, I wouldn't say that being in one of the two categories makes a bad movie, on the contrary: a good and compelling story can be had in either - that's just a good story. What differentiates them is whether the science-fiction element is fundamental to the story created, or if it provides an otherwise replaceable setting.
I'll admit to playing a bit of a provocateur in my previous posts, if only to stir discussion like this. I'll take my success and carry forward!
Before dealing with what a "time travel movie" is, I should get to my consideration of what "good" sci-fi is.
Good science fiction is that genre of fiction where a technology, place or imagined future is used to examine fundamental human characteristics and behavior. Some examples illustrating this are below in no particular order:
1. Tarkovsky's Solaris: the meeting of the human with an utterly alien entity (the Ocean) which produces human-like mimics creates a place where the characters must actually face the question of what it is to be human. The sci-fi element is essential to raising the question of what human is, what life is, because it has to be beyond the ordinary workings of earth.
2. Battlestar Galactica (new series): The creation and treatment of other humanoids, Cylons, raises issues (again) of what it is to be human. When could one dehumanize the enemy, etc. Though, I'd say the series is iffy in terms of good/bad episodes on this subject though. That the Cylons are created is essential to the questions posed.
3. Fahrenheit 451: Imagines the uncontrolled rise of video/surveillance technology and government intrusion to explore both themes and the impact on family life and society in general. The technology is an essential element is addressing how de-personalizing these technologies could be alongside the mass-media "brainwashing" that occurs alongside an illiterate populous.
I would juxtapose this definition of sci-fi with "space-opera", where the setting is created or technology is present, but is not fundamentally important to the story (even though these stories can also address fundamental human characteristics and behavior). Here are some examples:
1. Babylon 5: I *love* this series, but it really is more space-opera than sci-fi. One could easily replace the station with the UN, the alien races with various stereotypical factions and not really have much change in the overall story-arch. The psi-corp is probably the most sci-fi element there is as the human fear/power aspects are explored somewhat.
2. Star Wars: Great space-opera. Hardly asks very deep questions at all, but it's a fun plot. I think it's not too much of a stretch to say the setting is not essential to the story since much of the plot was taken from a prior Kurosawa movie.
3. Star Trek: Space opera. We're in a ship flying around encountering problems (also the premise behind a swath of other popular shows). The social commentary is transposed into an environment that got past censors, however the fundamental impact of the science, technology, what-have-you on humanity is not present. The "enlightenment" factor of the utopian federation is not clearly linked to the technology (causative relation etc), but is merely part of the setting. Each week the crew of the ship get a new zany adventure, but the issues are not explored very well.
Not that everything can fit neatly into one of the two categories (particularly since the series' individual episodes may run the gamut), but I think many people can see where stories might fit on the whole.
So, I wouldn't say that being in one of the two categories makes a bad movie, on the contrary: a good and compelling story can be had in either - that's just a good story. What differentiates them is whether the science-fiction element is fundamental to the story created, or if it provides an otherwise replaceable setting.
So, how is a time-travel movie good sci-fi or not?
Well, the time travel has to be essential to the action and has to ask some serious questions about humanity. The fate/no-fate issues raised in T2 are good, but the plot holes sink the ship, in my opinion.
That's the problem with time-travel movies: it's really easy not to be coherent because of the paradoxes. This is why I place Primer high on the list, because it is self-consistent and asks fundamental questions about how the power they gain changes them and their friendship and their relationships with others.
12 Monkeys ranks high because of the self-consistency as well. It solves its issues of paradoxes and changing the past by making it so that he just *can't* change the past and it's always been that way. It does illustrate the fundamental human drive to make things better if you can, it just happens that he can't.
Well, the time travel has to be essential to the action and has to ask some serious questions about humanity. The fate/no-fate issues raised in T2 are good, but the plot holes sink the ship, in my opinion.
That's the problem with time-travel movies: it's really easy not to be coherent because of the paradoxes. This is why I place Primer high on the list, because it is self-consistent and asks fundamental questions about how the power they gain changes them and their friendship and their relationships with others.
12 Monkeys ranks high because of the self-consistency as well. It solves its issues of paradoxes and changing the past by making it so that he just *can't* change the past and it's always been that way. It does illustrate the fundamental human drive to make things better if you can, it just happens that he can't.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Dohohoho :P
Dohohoho :P
Oh shi-!
How could I forget "Dexter's Laboratory: Ego Trip"
Now THAT is good sci-fi :P
How could I forget "Dexter's Laboratory: Ego Trip"
Now THAT is good sci-fi :P
DivisionByZero:
I've been meaning to read Fahrenheit 451, but it'll be awhile. I also want to watch the original Battlestar Galactica, but have little to no interest in the new one, mostly based on the opinion of a reviewer who I generally trust, and whose remarks about the show resonate with me (who knows, maybe I'll watch it and decide it's awesome). It's an interesting review either way, as it comes from a Mormon point of view, and the original show is based on obscure Mormon scripture taken out of context, interpreted badly, and adapted for sci-fi with aliens added. I've never seen Solaris, either, and wasn't impressed with Babylon 5.
"Good science fiction is that genre of fiction where a technology, place or imagined future is used to examine fundamental human characteristics and behavior." I mostly agree, though I would omit place, and even future. A story could happen on another planet and not be sci-fi. It can even happen in the future and not be sci-fi. A good example is The Wheel of Time, in which it is unclear whether the story takes place in the distant past or the distant future. To be sci-fi, all it needs is fictional science, nothing more. To be good sci-fi, I agree completely that the story must examine fundamental human characteristics and behavior. On the other hand, that's what any good story should do. So, to be "good sci-fi", it must qualify as "sci-fi" by having fictional science (usually in the form of fictional technology), and have a good story to go with it (which means a fully realized world, no matter how big or small, and characters with depth and realistic motivations for their actions, driving the story rather than reacting to it).
"I would juxtapose this definition of sci-fi with "space-opera", where the setting is created or technology is present, but is not fundamentally important to the story..." Here I disagree. For one thing, from what I know of Battlestar Galactica, you could easily change planets to continents or islands, and keep the story intact. There's plenty of good sci-fi in which the setting/technology is expendable to the story, and plenty of bad sci-fi or "space opera" that depends on a technology. The term "space opera" is really not well defined anyway. I would typically call a story that happens in space, occurs on a large scale, and focuses on a few heroic characters and has an adventure feel to it a "space opera". It could absolutely depend on technology/setting/future, for example if the story revolves around an extra-terrestrial threat to Earth, and a hero or heroes who save the day. It could even offer profound insights on the nature of mankind.
I think a better way to divide sci-fi stories into categories other than "good" and "bad" is to simply use "hard" and "soft". "Hard" sci-fi simply means special attention was given to the technology to be sure it is plausible, and rigid rules apply to the science of the story. "Soft" sci-fi means that enough attention was paid to the science so that the audience isn't put off by it, and the rules are often flexible. Both categories can have great stories. Larry Niven is an example of an amazing hard science fiction author, and Douglas Adams writes excellent soft science fiction. "Hard" and "soft" can apply to fantasy, as well, depending on how rigidly the rules are set. For example, Harry Potter is my favorite soft fantasy series, while Mistborn is my favorite hard fantasy series, and favorite series overall.
For T2, I don't think it's so much plot holes as it is paradoxes. The challenge writing a good time travel story is dealing with the paradoxes, and balancing them against a good story (you kind of said this already). Obviously just sending a few more robots to help the original Terminator would have made for a lousy story that ends in five minutes with Sarah Connor dead. Instead they decided there were questions to be asked that the first movie, being nothing more than an action/romance, didn't address, and so sent T-1000 to a later point so they could essentially re-make the movie without undoing the movie. In this, T2 is unique among sequels in that it really is a complete re-imagining of the original. So it's not a ship-sinking plot hole, just one of the common ways of dealing with a paradox: ignoring it.
To be honest, I'd rather see/read a story that glaring paradox issues and yet is driven by compelling characters with realistic, believable motives, and asks interesting questions about morality or other issues. Back to the Future does this, as does T2 and several episodes of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I can watch a time travel movie that is entirely internally consistent and be impressed by it's consistency, and yet be completely bored or irritated by the story/characters, and call it bad sci-fi.
On that note, another great sci-fi time travel movie that has blatant paradox problems: Star Trek: First Contact. I take the first 30 minutes or so with about a pound of salt, then enjoy the very good movie that comes after. Seriously, if the Borg can send a ship back in time, why not make that Plan A instead of Plan B? No race in the universe would stand a chance (unless they had time-travel, too)! But then, the Borg have always been over-powered as villains, as was Q. And yet, most of the best episodes were the ones with Q or the Borg, because despite the major problems, those episodes tend to ask interesting questions and show all the characters at their best.
Speaking of which, I've always considered the series finale of The Next Generation, "All Good Things", to be a feature film, due to its length. It's also a time-travel movie, and in my opinion, possibly the best episode of the whole series. A perfect finale, if nothing else.
And Shadoen, good call on Prizoner of Azkaban. Very well handled paradox, completely internally consistent. My only problems with it are first, if the Department of Mysteries has Time Turners, why not use them to stop Voldemort? Sure, they say that too much of the past would be changed, and that's true at the time of the story; but why not use them when it first became apparent he was a bad dude who would cause big trouble? Maybe they hadn't collected them, yet. (I just now realized, Voldemort should have used one if he could get one. The bad guys are never afraid to use big weapons like time machines or nukes, even if the good guys are restrained by their concept of right and wrong.) Second, even Hermione shouldn't be entrusted with a device like that, and I refuse to believe even Dumbledore has the influence with the Ministry to allow her to borrow one. No matter how responsible Hermione is, there's just too much that can go wrong. People can ask the right questions to figure it out, and you've got a problem on your hands; or worse, it could get stolen. Still, major kudos to Rowling for handling time-travel paradoxes so well.
Okay... done with long post.
I've been meaning to read Fahrenheit 451, but it'll be awhile. I also want to watch the original Battlestar Galactica, but have little to no interest in the new one, mostly based on the opinion of a reviewer who I generally trust, and whose remarks about the show resonate with me (who knows, maybe I'll watch it and decide it's awesome). It's an interesting review either way, as it comes from a Mormon point of view, and the original show is based on obscure Mormon scripture taken out of context, interpreted badly, and adapted for sci-fi with aliens added. I've never seen Solaris, either, and wasn't impressed with Babylon 5.
"Good science fiction is that genre of fiction where a technology, place or imagined future is used to examine fundamental human characteristics and behavior." I mostly agree, though I would omit place, and even future. A story could happen on another planet and not be sci-fi. It can even happen in the future and not be sci-fi. A good example is The Wheel of Time, in which it is unclear whether the story takes place in the distant past or the distant future. To be sci-fi, all it needs is fictional science, nothing more. To be good sci-fi, I agree completely that the story must examine fundamental human characteristics and behavior. On the other hand, that's what any good story should do. So, to be "good sci-fi", it must qualify as "sci-fi" by having fictional science (usually in the form of fictional technology), and have a good story to go with it (which means a fully realized world, no matter how big or small, and characters with depth and realistic motivations for their actions, driving the story rather than reacting to it).
"I would juxtapose this definition of sci-fi with "space-opera", where the setting is created or technology is present, but is not fundamentally important to the story..." Here I disagree. For one thing, from what I know of Battlestar Galactica, you could easily change planets to continents or islands, and keep the story intact. There's plenty of good sci-fi in which the setting/technology is expendable to the story, and plenty of bad sci-fi or "space opera" that depends on a technology. The term "space opera" is really not well defined anyway. I would typically call a story that happens in space, occurs on a large scale, and focuses on a few heroic characters and has an adventure feel to it a "space opera". It could absolutely depend on technology/setting/future, for example if the story revolves around an extra-terrestrial threat to Earth, and a hero or heroes who save the day. It could even offer profound insights on the nature of mankind.
I think a better way to divide sci-fi stories into categories other than "good" and "bad" is to simply use "hard" and "soft". "Hard" sci-fi simply means special attention was given to the technology to be sure it is plausible, and rigid rules apply to the science of the story. "Soft" sci-fi means that enough attention was paid to the science so that the audience isn't put off by it, and the rules are often flexible. Both categories can have great stories. Larry Niven is an example of an amazing hard science fiction author, and Douglas Adams writes excellent soft science fiction. "Hard" and "soft" can apply to fantasy, as well, depending on how rigidly the rules are set. For example, Harry Potter is my favorite soft fantasy series, while Mistborn is my favorite hard fantasy series, and favorite series overall.
For T2, I don't think it's so much plot holes as it is paradoxes. The challenge writing a good time travel story is dealing with the paradoxes, and balancing them against a good story (you kind of said this already). Obviously just sending a few more robots to help the original Terminator would have made for a lousy story that ends in five minutes with Sarah Connor dead. Instead they decided there were questions to be asked that the first movie, being nothing more than an action/romance, didn't address, and so sent T-1000 to a later point so they could essentially re-make the movie without undoing the movie. In this, T2 is unique among sequels in that it really is a complete re-imagining of the original. So it's not a ship-sinking plot hole, just one of the common ways of dealing with a paradox: ignoring it.
To be honest, I'd rather see/read a story that glaring paradox issues and yet is driven by compelling characters with realistic, believable motives, and asks interesting questions about morality or other issues. Back to the Future does this, as does T2 and several episodes of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I can watch a time travel movie that is entirely internally consistent and be impressed by it's consistency, and yet be completely bored or irritated by the story/characters, and call it bad sci-fi.
On that note, another great sci-fi time travel movie that has blatant paradox problems: Star Trek: First Contact. I take the first 30 minutes or so with about a pound of salt, then enjoy the very good movie that comes after. Seriously, if the Borg can send a ship back in time, why not make that Plan A instead of Plan B? No race in the universe would stand a chance (unless they had time-travel, too)! But then, the Borg have always been over-powered as villains, as was Q. And yet, most of the best episodes were the ones with Q or the Borg, because despite the major problems, those episodes tend to ask interesting questions and show all the characters at their best.
Speaking of which, I've always considered the series finale of The Next Generation, "All Good Things", to be a feature film, due to its length. It's also a time-travel movie, and in my opinion, possibly the best episode of the whole series. A perfect finale, if nothing else.
And Shadoen, good call on Prizoner of Azkaban. Very well handled paradox, completely internally consistent. My only problems with it are first, if the Department of Mysteries has Time Turners, why not use them to stop Voldemort? Sure, they say that too much of the past would be changed, and that's true at the time of the story; but why not use them when it first became apparent he was a bad dude who would cause big trouble? Maybe they hadn't collected them, yet. (I just now realized, Voldemort should have used one if he could get one. The bad guys are never afraid to use big weapons like time machines or nukes, even if the good guys are restrained by their concept of right and wrong.) Second, even Hermione shouldn't be entrusted with a device like that, and I refuse to believe even Dumbledore has the influence with the Ministry to allow her to borrow one. No matter how responsible Hermione is, there's just too much that can go wrong. People can ask the right questions to figure it out, and you've got a problem on your hands; or worse, it could get stolen. Still, major kudos to Rowling for handling time-travel paradoxes so well.
Okay... done with long post.
Not a movie (not that I know of, at least), but the Atlan series, a spin-off from the original Perry Rhodan, deals with the idea that alien intervention prompted the birth of civilization on the planet earth. I do not agree with the answers the books are trying to give, but the Perry Rhodan series and its spin-offs are usually meticulous in their description of future tech.
Also, there's Inu-Yasha, dealing with time travel (and rebirth and Japanese mythology, while we're at it).
Also, there's Inu-Yasha, dealing with time travel (and rebirth and Japanese mythology, while we're at it).
Back to the time travel ... not a movie but a classic TV series. Quantum Leap
Man, I miss that show. Great sci-fi, there!