What qualifies a series or film as "fantasy?"

[Black Dragon]

I've been giving this some thought as of late. When we use the term "fantasy," what do we really mean? Is the key aspect of fantasy the use of magic? Or is it extreme imagination?

Would a series such as Doctor Who qualify as a "fantasy" series? Or would it automatically fall under the category of sci-fi because aliens and space travel are involved? Where would Star Wars fall on this spectrum?

[Stewpot]

I believe that for a film or series to be counted as a fantasy, it has to have magic included. Series like Doctor Who are counted under the science fiction because it doesn't contain magic.

[chris7]

Fantasy makes me think of something like Harry Potter. There not my kind of films but some of the fantasy stuff in there is pretty epic.

[Black Dragon]

Yes, I agree that magic is part of it. But this raises another question: where do we draw the line between science and magic?

Allow me to explain. In Doctor Who, the Doctor time travels and does all sorts of incredible things. He controls minds, moves objects at a distance and even flies on occasion. All of these things, though, are "explained" through the presence of alien "technology." But really, there is no true explanation given. Whenever something is explained in passing, the explanation given is scientific gobbledygook with no actual meaning.

So really, how is this different from magic?

[kjjcarpenter]

Fantasy is defined by an imagination unrestricted by reality (Collins Dictionary, 2008). However, the term fantasy when related to fiction is referred to as this (and bear with me, as it is a fairly broad definition):

"Literature having a large fantasy content."

Essentially, if a series has only small themes revolving around the unrealistic it may not be classified in the fantasy genre. Then, of course, you have the question, how does this differ to science-fiction? So in retrospect the meaning is blurred. Another wrench in the cogs would consist of questioning where the threshold lies for determining when a series has enough unrealistic themes to be classed as "fantasy" and when it doesn't. What is too much?

Indeed, a very good, debatable question.

[chris7]

Hmm yes a very good debate, One that could go on and on and on lol without ever understanding.

Unrealistic to me would mean fantasy, But like you said there are a lot of unrealistic things that could be nothing to do with fantasy

[kjjcarpenter]

After thinking about it last night, I find that fantasy and sci-fi genres tend to limit their audiences. People are very biased. I was discussing this with my publisher last week, we agreed that people tend to stay away because they have this image in their head of dragons, spells and whatnot. It seems too "nerdy" and "unappealing" to them. That is probably why we see many television shows, books and movies that, by all rights, should be under the label "fantasy" instead of listed under "Adventure", "Drama", "Action", and so forth.

The massive influx of sub-genres would explain it also. If anyone has ever read Stephen King's "The Stand" you would know it falls under the "Post-Apocalyptic" genre. There are many themes and occurrences throughout that could easily place it in fantasy, though I would imagine, had it been listed as such, it would never have become King's most well-known book among his readers. His Magnum Opus, "The Dark Tower", consists of his least-known books ever written, and it's quite disheartening.

I suppose this would explain the cloudy definitions of said serials. A bit off topic from "what qualifies", I just get carried away with myself. Haha.

[Juiceman]

As someone who has experience in the field of television production, I must say that it is very important when producing to target a given demographic. Unless a network finds the package as being a money maker, it will go nowhere, no matter how good of or compelling a story it may be.

We have seen so many films lately that delve into the fantasy realm, and most of them target younger generations. It is more difficult to draw an audience from the key television demographic of 25-40 when it comes to fantasy.

The younger demo definitely enjoys magic being part of the story. The older demo seems to prefer a fantasy world.

Personally, a little magic mixed in with true fantasy worlds is a personal favorite of mine. It just seems to open up a new realm of being. Too bad it seems difficult for me to turn my fantasy imaginings into actual productions.

Despite knowing that a great production can start with simple story boards, it is often troubling to know the expense that goes into making a full-fledged rough-cut for a film or series just to be reviewed for possible production makes it a lot harder to pursue one's dreams. This kind of goes with the other thread's topic of making a living at fantasy.

[Greybeard]

As someone who has experience in the field of television production, I must say that it is very important when producing to target a given demographic. Unless a network finds the package as being a money maker, it will go nowhere, no matter how good of or compelling a story it may be.

Clearly labels are important to the bottom line. If a book isn't labeled with a genre, people won't know where to look for it at the bookstore.

[Graffikgal]

Simply put, I think that 'fantasy' is anything that deviates from what we consider reality. IMO, Die Hard is as much a fantasy to me as Lord of the Rings, Ladyhawke or the Wizard of Oz. My criteria? It certainly doesn't represent reality as I experience it. LOL

The entertainment industry seems to define 'fantasy' as anything that pertains to swords, sorcery, Medieval garb, wizards and magic.