And now for something completely different...
To me, there's a clear difference between "science fiction" and "space opera".
The latter may be set in a futuristic or high-tech setting, but focuses on aspects of the story that are independent of the technology involved. Star Trek, for all its amazing gadgetry, was never really about exploring the impact of technological advances on human society. The gadgets, from Warp Drive to Phasers to Transporters to Holodecks, are all just convient brain-candy plot devices for putting the characters into formulaic dramatic situations.
The former is about trying to imagine how humanity would react or change, in the face of some new technology.
Sciene Fiction asks, "how would humans--either individually or as a society--react to a time-travel device, or cheap and easy cloning, or a teleporter, or virtual reality, or...?"
Space Opera is unconcerned with the social impact of technology.
You could set most of the episodes of classic Trek in pre-Roman Spain, with Julius Caesar standing in for Captain Kirk, and Roman and Druid magic in place of technology, and Gauls and Carthaginians in place of Klingons and Romulans, and still get all the same stories...
Okay, that may be a stretch, but still.
Star Wars is a classic example of Space Opera. The technology is completely beside the point. "Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away" could just as easily be "one upon a time in China" or "how the West was won".
So when Myrrander brings up Star Wars and Star Trek, I say, "bah, space opera; they have no place in a serious discussion of science fiction".
I, Robot, on the other hand, for all its flaws (and it had many), was actually about humanity's relationship with technology. In this case, robots and their effect on society. The movie tries to explore the human reaction to robots among them. How we might cope, what attitudes we might develop, what customs we might evolve. At the end of the movie, we have the ultimate idea in Sci-Fi: how might technology react to us? If the question "how might society react to new technology" is the Alpha Question of Science Fiction, then the story of a robot that must cope with its own humanity asks the Omega Question. Bad movie? Maybe? Powerful and compelling ideas? Definitely.
I also think that Myrrander casts his net on the wrong side of the boat, so to speak. There's plenty of Sci-Fi fish to catch on the other side, I think. Television and books are both still fertile ground for debate about the quality of Sci-Fi today, if you know what to look for.
William Gibson's "cyberpunk" novels, whether you like them or not, are richly detailed and deeply textured imaginings of a near future society totally transformed in both gross and subtle ways by technology that we are developing right now. My friends and I have taken to measuring--only half-jokingly--our passage into The Future in "Gibsons": technological developments from his novels that have become reality since the novels were published. Example: In his recent novel, Pattern Recognition, Gibson imagines a next-generation Hummer that is smaller than the modes current at the time of publication. The book was published last year. This year, Hummer announced its H3: a smaller Hummer. By my calculations, that puts us at least one Gibson into The Future. (In reality, I think we're at least two Gibsons in; Virtual Light describes armed police helicopter drones, which are being prototyped right now, and Mona Lisa Overdrive describes next-generation stealth planes not far beyond the Joint Strike Fighter.) Regardless, Gibson's novels are all about the social impact of technological advance. To me, that is what Sci-Fi is all about.
Another good piece of Sci-Fi storytelling, in my opinion, is Stargate SG-1. While it is packed with soap-opera elements and storytelling conventions, there is a very real underlying sense of wonder and curiosity about what humans might do in response to the incredible piece of technology the Stargate represents.
Another good Science Fiction author is John Varley. His short stories especially, but also his longer novels. Dan Simmons' Hyperion novels also deal very intimately with the social impact of advanced technology.
Here's my take on Myrrander's list:
Star Trek: Insurrection: Space opera. Myrrander makes the point himself: "all that technology", and the winning tactic would be just at home in an epic tale of adventure set at the battle of Thermopylae, with Greek war galleys ramming ships of the Persian invasion fleet.
Battlefield Earth: Space opera of the worst kind.
Independence Day: Space opera.
War of the Worlds: Haven't seen it, but I suspect it's space opera.
The Island: It attempts to answer the question, "how might society change if cloning technology advanced to the point of usefulness?" Sci-Fi. Maybe bad Sci-Fi, but Sci-Fi nonetheless.
The Phantom Menace: Space opera. Bad, bad, bad space opera.
I, Robot: Sci-Fi, as I've already said.
Movies based on comic books: "space opera", unless the comic book itself adresses itself to Sci-Fi themes. I think Myrrander has too low an opinion of them, though. As G. K. Chesterton put it, "Fairy tales are more than true - not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten." But that is a different article altogether.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not disputing that there's some pretty ass Sci-Fi out there. I agree with Myrrander about that. But personally, I give Sci-Fi some credit even when the story is badly told, because I'm interested in the questions the story asks.
Tron, for example: What happens when we turn over management of our affairs to powerful autonomous computers? What might motivate us to do such a thing? How might we react to the discovery that our decision was ill-advised.
The Matrix movies take up that question as well.
Equilibrium explores the use of mood-altering drugs to eliminate violent tendencies in human communities.
Iain Banks and Larry Niven have created whole worlds rich with the social implications of advanced technology. Banks' Culture novels explore the question, "what would human society be like, if it had unlimited supplies of energy and matter, and the technology to do whatever it wanted with them?" It's a powerful idea, and he develops it with a sure and masterful touch.
Knight Rider asks what would happen if David Hasselhoff drove around in a Robot Car, solving crimes.
Okay, I admit, Knight Rider is space opera. I was just checking to see if you're still with me.
So when Myrrander asks, "what happened to Sci-Fi?", my answer is, "not much; it's been where it's always been."
Some of it is good, some of it... not so much. But don't get distracted or disheartened by the varying quality of the Space Opera offerings out there. The good Sci Fi is still going strong, and still very much relevant to us today, who are living in a society that is constantly being changed by constant technological advances.
What about you? What counts as "Sci-Fi", and what counts as "Space Opera", in your book? What stories are asking the questions you want answered, about technolgy and humanity?