Oppenheimer and Star Wars
For a long time now I have sustained that Star Wars is not science fiction - and indeed it isn't. Based on the same criteria, neither is Oppenheimer a movie about science - at least, not explicitly. Science Fiction Science Fiction is a specific genre. Although it lacks an exact definition, it usually involved the exploration of Mankind's "future", based on scientific concepts.
@volkris The Death Star is a valid point. However, keep in mind that the Death Star itself was never a plot point in the movie; the plans for it were but they could be substituted by any number of McGuffins. The fact that the story - which really revolves around the eternal strife between Good and Evil - happens in a technologically advanced environment is trivial, because the same story could be told in any other context (e.g. medieval Japan).
@volkris Foundation for example is a story that isn't transferrable to another historic context. Its story cannot be directly transposed to a less advanced stage of human history (for example). It's centered about the science of psychohistory and the reactions of people to it.
Another example would be Star Trek, which is centered around warp travel, contact with alien species and the technological future of Mankind. Transferring it into a non-technological context would ruin its main argument.
That's fair, and yeah I thought it was kind of a close call, and I did have to think a little long to come up with that scifi angle :)
@fmneto
Hmmmmm I'd say the focus on revolutionary technologies like the Death Star, that change the equation so fundamentally between number of people needed to attack it versus number of people to be saved by destroying it do push Star Wars over the boundary and into science fiction.
It might not be hard science fiction, but it does explore issues of the future where such force multipliers are enabled by new technology.
But what is your definition to the extent that this fails to meet it?