The Imagination of Fantasy

What is the difference between Fantasy and mere Fiction?

I'm sure that most of us have walked into a video store that categorizes films by genre and found some titles that seemed out of place. I have noticed that the rental stores are switching more and more to a strictly alphabetical storage system. Not only does this new method seem more efficient and "user friendly," it also avoids the problems of deciding what genre a film should be placed in.

Aside from theoretical debates about what a genre is, the methods for using these types of film categories, and how to apply genres to films in an objective or technical manner, I would like to know what makes Fantasy so special to the members of this group. I know what I think of when I think Fantasy, but I also know that defining the category is quite a subjective experience. So, in an experiment to find a binding tie between people who love fantasy, I would like to know what the Least Common Denominator is, if there is one at all, between us. I'll start:

I immediately think of those busy and predominantly purple-and-blue-colored posters with unicorns, dolphins, alien landscapes, and wizards when I think of Fantasy. But that is just a primary image that pops into my mind. To me, Fantasy is more than the creatures and the settings they are in. That could easily fall off into science fiction. Of course, Fantasy could be just a branch of Sci-Fi, but I think they are actually seperate genres - cousins maybe. The films Legend, Willow, The Dark Crystal, and Labyrinth start swirling around when I think of films that epitomize Fantasy. But, then there are more adult oriented films that I still consider Fantasy, too. Conan the Barbarian / Destroyer, Reign of Fire, and even Deathstalker are movies that are not exactly made for children (even though that's when I saw them), and I still consider them to be in my Fantasy genre. The obvious common themes so far are: wizards and magic, swords and adventures, and good v. evil. Sure, that's fine for my first-thoughts list, but now I just have one of those crazy posters again, with a few more grisly weapons in the R-rated versions. What is it about these types of films that capture the essence of Fantasy - What separates them from just being fiction?

I'm not saying that Star Wars or Waterworld can't be Fantasy; I do not intend to put strict boundaries on the genre - not even in my own subjective little world. But I wouldn't count all Post-Apocalyptic themes in Fantasy, nor would I put all Time-Travel films in Fantasy. I actually think Waterworld is Fantasy (in part, at least), but, I would not consider The Postman to be Fantasy. Waterworld was a bold change of scenery from the world we live in now, and The Postman seemed to me to be a simple rearrangement of social class structure. 12 Monkeys (one of my top-five favorites) and The Butterfly Effect are interesting Time-Travel related films, but I can't force them into Fantasy. However, The Time Machine (which ever version) is Fantasy. There seems to be something about having strange and inventive creatures that makes the difference between the Time-Travel films.

I'm going to cut this off here - I might be barking up a boring tree for some people. I know that the act of trying to analyze and define things can mess up the beauty of the thought of them - so I won't be offended if everyone declines to comment. I don't know if we all have the same idea of what Fantasy is, but I think that we all could say "yay" or "nay" if given a random title to decide. I know what I think fantasy is, but I'm still not sure how I know it. Any takers?

Re: What is the difference between Fantasy and mere Fiction?

Thoughtful topic.  I'll throw out a few thoughts myself, since I've been building those lists.

Actually, due to some Spout retool, a previous conversation, fantasy vs. science fiction, has disappeared from the convo archives.  In that topic, I explained that science fiction is actually a technical subset of fantasy.  In fact, science fiction is often defined (see dictionary.com among other places) using the word fantasy because it is the fantasy of scientific progress (or consequence or whatever else).  Similarly, some scifis contain elements of the fantastic... Therefore, some scifis appear on our fantasy list because they have lots of fantastic elements.  For example, Star Wars...there are fancy ships like star destroyers and lasers and futuristic looking architecture, but there is also this mythical Force underlying everything and wizard-like folks called Jedi who know how to use it.

However, scifi is a genre in and of itself - a cousin as you put it.  I noticed "A Scanner Darkly" was added to the Fantasy to Look Forward to 2006 list...that film, though animated, I would consider more strict science fiction because the themes are actually grounded in a "realistic" view of the future with technical aspects.  Science and technology feature heavily in science fiction films, including that one, presumably.  Think the Star Treks - they are are a fantasy of our future and what it could be, but they are so grounded in technobabble and fire photon torpedoes and all, it's easier to call them scifi.  Yet, "A Scanner Darkly" could still be fantasy because of the "what if?" it asks and attempts to answer.

Which brings us to our definition of fantasy...a couple of us have struggled with that definition when considering movies like "The Da Vinci Code," which I called, arguably, fantasy for a bit because of the theme it was trying to convey and the journey of the main character, though it was open for discussion.  As the title of the group says, I like to think of fantasy as a product of the extremes of our imagination, which naturally gives us wizards and magic and faeries and stuff but also gives us movies that explore dreams or imaginary worlds or answers "what if" types of questions.  Also, I think you have to work harder to suspend your disbelief for films that can be called fantasy.  The Indiana Jones trilogy, for example, is an action/adventure series, sure, but also has the element of fantasy...the fantasy of exploring ancient ruins and uncovering something so awesome and ethereal as the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, both of which are stuff of legend.

Fantasy is separate from straight fiction because it contains those limits of the imagination, whereas straight fiction is a made-up story about anything.  Fantasy is, naturally, a subset of fiction by definition, but straight fiction does not contain those fantastic elements - those things that can only happen in our imaginations or dreams.   I'll use a comparison.  There are lots of John Grisham book-to-films.  They are all fiction but not fantasy.  You don't have to stretch your imagination - or suspend your disbelief - for too long to understand what's happening in those films because they are based on realistic elements such as crime, law, racism, corruption, and so on.   Waterworld, which is actually more of a dark fantasy, asks (and attempts to answer) the question what would it be like to live in a world submerged in water?  Only our imagination can answer that...Am I making any sense?

What I'm personally trying to encourage in this group is broadening the definition of fantasy, however, because I don't want it to be just about wizards and magic and stuff.  Perhaps you can argue that many "straight fiction" films are fantasy.  It's something we can discuss.

A lot of it is in the interpretation, too.  I don't view "The Butterfly Effect," which I've seen, as a time-travel film.  Ashton Kutcher's character, personally and directly without the aid of any device, has the ability - one might say power - to shift himself through time.  The film also answers, in another dark/adult way, what if one could do that?  I think it is every bit fantasy, especially since it doesn't bother to explain how he has this ability.  I see 12 Monkeys as a dark fantasy that poses a lot of what if questions about time and consequences.  It may be less fantasy (and more scifi) than many others on the list, but the fantastic part of it was the visions of the post-apocalyptic future and the idea "what if you could go back and change one thing?"

Also, I think it is absolutely necessary to include "adult" films like the Conan movies because fantasy and the imagination are not limited to youth.  Youth explore and accept those themes more readily (which is why more of these films are geared toward them), but there were fantasy films geared toward adults and always will be.  Lord of the Rings is not exactly family-friendly in some parts, for example, at least not for small children.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts, a bit stream of consciousness.  Anyone else want to weigh in?

Re: What is the difference between Fantasy and mere Fiction?

Tossing in my thoughts ....

 Fantasy, fiction, and science fiction are all similar in that they are not true stories - but where i see possible lines of division are in that

fiction is a story entirely made up from someone's imagination that is believeable; 

science fiction implies the technical (scientific) end, something fantastic but still possessing that modicum of believability in that our sciences are always evolving.... who would have once thought a TV could be just inches thick, and hundreds of songs could be stored and played in a small thin case barely bigger than our thumb, or computers would be portable and even hand-held and still be powerful? 

fantasy are those things that dreams are made of... the almost unimaginable of the imagination... the fantastically beautiful and awe-inspiring and mind-boggling, spiritual and/or philosophical meanderings into the unknowns, an awareness on an unexpected level..  nightmare or sweet - the dream or the concept is not of this world..

Re: What is the difference between Fantasy and mere Fiction?