*Hugo* and the Hugos

[nancylebov]

Is the movie science fiction and/or fantasy at all? If you're voting for the Hugos, does this matter?

Could the movie be snuck in as part of the fantastic? Is there something disquieting about using an adjective as a noun?

Comments

[tod-hollykim.livejournal.com]

Fantasy more than science fiction I'd say from what I've seen of it. Maybe a bit steampunk.

[nwhyte]

My view is that it clearly is not either science fiction or fantasy. The technology in the film is clearly realistic for the period in which it is set, and the fantasy elements are clearly delineated as dreams.

It's up to voters to decide if this matters. Myself, I prefer Hugos in the various fiction categories to go to sf or fantasy works, so I will not be giving it any of my preference votes.

[ckd]

"Any theatrical feature or other production, with a complete running time of more than 90 minutes, in any medium of dramatized science fiction, fantasy or related subjects that has been publicly presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year."

The portrayal of a fictionalized Méliès with specific reference to his SF film-making qualifies as a "related subject" in my book.

[avram]

Is there something disquieting about using an adjective as a noun?

Not if you accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. Or worry about the plight of the poor at the hands of the rich. Or distinguish between the raw and the cooked. Or follow the good and avoid the bad.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Or miss the Delany reference?

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

It's not SF, it's not fantasy, but I agree with ckd that it qualifies under "related subjects." I will be voting for it on my ballot, but I respect nwhyte's decision not to.

[andrewducker]

It's about Science Fiction. Not entirely, but at least partially. Whether that's sufficient is a personal choice.

Awesome movie though.

[avram]

Could be. Which book?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

"The Star Pit"-- specifically, the golden.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

The robot?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

It's got a clockwork robot in it, of a complexity that would be difficult to do today, and probably impossible without computer-assisted fabrication.

[avram]

I don't think I've even heard of that one, much less read it.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I recommend the story-- it's got a lot of good stuff in it.

[nwhyte]

Absolutely possible in the 1930s. In 1805 they were building automata that could draw pictures:

http://www.fi.edu/learn/sci-tech/automaton/automaton.php?cts=instrumentation

[papersky.livejournal.com]

It's in the collection Driftglass and in the new big collection.

It's one of my favourite of his things. It's a short novel or long novella -- it was originally the short half of an Ace double, I think.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Until everything on the ballot is of sufficient quality to deserve a Hugo, and until there are clearly several other things that could legitimately be on the ballot, I shall continue to put "No Award" first in the Dramatic Presentation categories.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

If you're doing that sort of protest of the long form Hugos, don't even look at the short form. They were dire.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It wasn't part of an Ace Double, but "Empire Star" was.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Don'y worry, I always vote No Award in both.

Though actually last year I did consider actually voting for "Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury" and this year I am considering voting for Chris Garcia's acceptance speech.

I really do feel that if there aren't more than five good candidates we shouldn't have a category.

No Award has won Dramatic Presentation before, and could again!