Great Movies and Series [Not Sci-Fi]

[Bystander]

Alias? Once you get past the "horse-drawn" computer/CIA premise (plus "Davinci Code" prophecy)...okay, I'm watching it with my wife. Still...

 

[mcastillo356]

The Russia House

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've enjoyed a Russian series on Netflix called "To The Lake".

"Raised by Wolves" is another good series.

I also like "Resident Alien", which is an alien sci-fi comedy series.

An interesting indie sci-fi comedy film is "Save Yourselves!"

Edit: Since the OA was mentioned I though the No Sci-Fi rule as been relaxed.

The OA is fantasy, not Sci Fi.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Crashing [British]
Like Fleabag, a favorite of mine, it was created and written by, and stars Phoebe Waller-Bridge.

It is rude and crude like Fleabag but I found it amusing.

 

[Jarvis323]

The OA is fantasy, not Sci Fi.

Is this a theory about what really happened in the show?

 

[DaveC426913]

Is this a theory about what really happened in the show?

No. What makes it fantasy is that things happen and the 'how' is irrelevant.

Regardless of how things might have "really" happened, the show doesn't know or care. Thus, fantasy.

 

[DaveC426913]

By that definition, none of the shows I mentioned are sci fi either I guess. Is that right?

I'm not sure. It doesn't have to have a lot of science to be sci fi, but the OA had none. There was literally no attempt at an explanation at all about how they were doing what they were doing. Like a magic potion or magic pill in plays of yore.

 

[Jarvis323]

I'm not sure. It doesn't have to have a lot of science to be sci do, but the OA had none. There was literally no explanation at all about how they were doing what they were doing. It was hand waving. Like a magic potion or magic pill in plays of yore.

What about the part where she was being held by a mad scientist who was doing human experiments on near death experiences?

My interpretation is that she was a lab rat for the experiments, but the acts of magic were open to interpretation, either delusion or real. There was never any demonstration of those magical powers outside the stories she told.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's not to say it doesn't have science in it. But the central premise - the conceit of the story - is a deliberate hand waving mystery.

 

[DaveC426913]

No science in the central premise - the conceit of the story.

What actual science is there in a mad scientist trying to drown people? That's really about character development than story premise.

How DID they keep coming back to life after being drowned? No science there. Just accept it and move on.

 

[Jarvis323]

No science in the central premise - the conceit of the story.

What actual science is there in a mad scientist trying to drown people? That's really about character development than story premise.

I don't know, it's labeled as sci fi by its distributors and elsewhere. Most of what is labeled as sci fi now days is not centrally premised on real science.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know, it's labeled as sci fi by its distributors and elsewhere. Most of what is labeled as sci fi now days is not centrally premised on real science.

It doesn't have to be real science to be sci fi. Star Trek is sci fi because advanced tech based on fictional science is critical to the premise.

No such science - real or fictional - is required for the premise of The OA. Magic or occultism or deism are perfectly plausible vehicles, and are defined by NOT being under the purview of scientific rationality. And that's OK - in fantasy.

 

[Jarvis323]

It doesn't have to be real science to be sci fi. Star Trek is sci do because advanced tech based on fictional science is critical to the premise.

No such science - real or fictional - is required for the premise of The OA

I think it would be a pretty different show if half of it wasn't about a scientist with advanced tech that is able to monitor near death experiences trying to prove the afterlife.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it would be a pretty different show if half of it wasn't about a scientist with advanced tech that is able to monitor near death experiences trying to prove the afterlife.

She was an angel - the Original Angel.

It doesn't get more mystical than that.

Your point is taken. It did have that sci-fi side to it. But ultimately the events were mystical and without explanation. And with her and her guide both being angels, it is hard to deny the mysticism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it would be a pretty different show if half of it wasn't about a scientist with advanced tech that is able to monitor near death experiences trying to prove the afterlife.

She was an angel - the Original Angel.

It doesn't get more mystical than that.

Your point is taken. It did have that sci-fi side to it. But ultimately the events were mystical and without explanation. And with her and her guide both being angels, it is hard to deny the mysticism.

One way to contrast the idea [sci vs fantasy] is to watch what I consider to be the best hard sci-fi movie ever made - Primer

If you watch Primer a number of times and think very hard about the plot, it can all be reverse engineered. But this is not true with The OA. The mystical events are unpredictable even retrospectively.

 

[collinsmark]

I think it would be a pretty different show if half of it wasn't about a scientist with advanced tech that is able to monitor near death experiences trying to prove the afterlife.

I sort of have to agree with @Ivan Seeking insofar as the ambiguous nature of what was actually discovered in the OA.

Yes, it's true whatever was discovered was done so by a scientist with advanced tech, monitoring near death experiences, trying to prove the afterlife. But as the series progresses, the scientist's hypothesis is proven wrong. Whatever was discovered was not the afterlife -- at least not an afterlife of a traditionally believed nature. It was something else. Something different. What exactly it is isn't clear.

So yeah, there's science in the show. But the "science" part is debunked, at least a little, as part of the plot. So is that still science fiction? Maybe, but not necessarily certainly.

It would seem that what was actually discovered was some sort of proof of an Everttian interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). But was it? The show could have done some hand-waving along those lines bringing it solidly back into the realm of science fiction. But they didn't actually do any invocation of QM. Well, not yet anyway.

So I guess we'll see, if there's another season.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I loved 95% of it! It is one of my favorite series by far. But they started losing me at the end. The robots were stupid. But I guess that is just because they violated my interpretation that it has to be a person for the mystical stuff to work. LOL!

My god machines will even replace us in the afterlife!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Have we mentioned Young Sheldon? I like that show!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not to be forgotten...

SYNOPSIS: “Mindwalk,” like “My Dinner with Andre,” is a dialogue-driven film, which explores basic philosophical questions. In this case, the principal subject is holistic vs. atomistic ways of viewing the world. The film was directed by Austiran-born Bernt Capra, a Hollywood production designer. He also wrote the story behind the film, which he adapted from the popular book The Turning Point (1983) by his brother Fritjof Capra, noted physicist and environmentalist...
http://www.philfilms.utm.edu/1/mindwalk.htm