Wise, calm down!  We're supposed to be having a friendly debate so don't go overboard.  I'm not coming up my own definition of science-fiction to fit my own point of view because the one I've given you (more than once I might add!) is the accepted or popular version.  If anyone is making up their own definition of sci-fi it's you, because you have virtually said as much, and that's not necessarily wrong, mind you, but let's get that straight.  You've also told me that I was wrong but yet said that science-fiction has a definition but it wasn't your definition and if that's true then how can I be wrong other than just having a different opinion?  Check out WKP "Science fiction is a genre of fiction with imaginative but more or less plausible content such as settings in the future, futuristic science, technology, space travel, parallel universes, aliens, and paranormal abilities."  "Fantasy is generally distinguished from sci-fi by the speculation that it steers clear from scientific themes."  As far as werewolves and vampires are concerned, perhaps they do have an element of sci-fi, after all Frankenstein is sci-fi mascarading as horror so maybe the same can be said of vampires and werewolves.  As I've said before, I'm open to several of Superman's abilities being in the category of fantasy or perhaps better yet science-fantasy if you will, so if that's your overall original arguement then we're in agreement.  But earlier you've stated that Superman (aside from his abilities) was pure fantasy so if that's the case then we're in disagreement.  If you don't see that then we'll have to agree to disagree.  I think Vitieddie may have said it best, most superheroes may fit into the science-fantasy genre.

BTW, I agree that the Exorcist does have supernatural elements in it but at the end of the day it is horror, it's meant to scare you!  The supernatural elements in it is just dressing.  There is no real "supernatural genre" because supernatural or paranormal films usually fall into either horror or sci-fi.

No hard feelings, Wise, Merry Christmas to you and everyone else here at Mania!!!

Actually I said the exact opposite about Superman.

And I'm the one that pointed out science fantasy, sorry viti ;)
 

And I never said "my definition" about sci/fi. I'm going by the definition quoted by most sources which is close to the one you cite above and guess what Superman's abilities don't really fit 

And I AM CALM!!!! 

MERRY CHRISTMAS :) 

Actually, Wise, sorry to break your bubble but if you check back on this thread you'll see that I'm the one who introduced "science-fantasy" on this thread...not that that matters!  Anyway, one of the best things about "genre" is that it has many different aspects to it, be it horror, fantasy, sci-fi, mystery, suspense, action, or any combination of those.  That's perhaps one of the reasons why we love them so much and rightfully so, it has so much depth, much more than any other type of film of tv series, literature, etc.   

 a big group of my friends just got back from watching it and they all said it was far from the LOTR, had to many funy parts and the not as good as what they hoped it would be..and that group i'm talking about 15 people all feel it's not really worth the almost 3hours, and that it was a let down..

So KD in other words I was right all along and you agree with me. So why were we arguing?

You know Wise, I'm willing to concede now that you were half-right so yeah, why were we arguing?  LOL!!

 BTW, i was talking bout the new hobit movie...and as far as fantasy goes there are a number of sci-fi fantasy movies out there, like the old school KRULL''