Here's a great quote on science fiction and films from the great Dr. Issac Asimov.

(Yes, it's from an article about I, Robot, which had me rather shocked to see it affixed to his name given how the film was so utterly contrary to the contemplative and insightful nature of the original stories.)

[...] Eye-sci-fi has an audience that is fundamentally different from that of science fiction. In order for eye-sci-fi to be profitable it must be seen by tens of millions of people; in order for science fiction to be profitable it need be read by only tens of thousands of people. This means that some ninety percent (perhaps as much as ninety-nine percent) of the people who go to see eye-sci-fi are likely never to have read science fiction.

The purveyors of eye-sci-fi cannot assume that their audience knows anything about science, has any experience with the scientific imagination, or even has any interest in science fiction.

But, in that case, why should the purveyors of eye-sci-fi expect anyone to see the pictures? Because they intend to supply something that has no essential connection with science fiction, but that tens of millions of people are willing to pay money to see. What is that? Why, scenes of destruction.

You can have spaceships destroying spaceships, monsters destroying cities, comets destroying the Earth. These are called 'special effects' and it is what people go for. A piece of eye-sci-fi without destruction is, I think, almost unheard of. If such a thing were made, no one would go to see it; or, if it were so good that it would indeed pull a small audience, it would not be thought of as science fiction of any kind.

This could explain why I love my favourite sci.fi films: they're not necessarily all about scenes of destruction.

The Abyss certainly has destruction in it, and mayhem and violence. However, it has more -- a story, a compelling depiction of a relationship that was on the rocks and is recovering due to forced partnership, and more.

Gattaca has no destruction, very little violence, and only one death. It, too, is story-driven, peopled by compelling characters and interaction. While the Abyss tries to have some unique plotting, Gattaca is the classic "the underdog trying to make up with will what nature did not provide."

Yes, I love violence fests like Terminator, Matrix and Aliens. I love other archetypical stories set in a sci-fi setting such as Serenity and Star Trek. However, they're loved for other reasons. For plotting, I agree with Asimov: give me sci.fi, not eye.sci.fi.

---
Oh, and one more 'money line,' this one from Ratatouille:

Django: This is the way things are; you can't change nature.
Remy: Change is nature, Dad. The part that we can influence. And it starts when we decide.
Django: Where are you going?
Remy: Hopefully, forward.

Overall, the film was good-to-great (I liked Cars more, largely because of its zinger of a money line, "I think The King should finish his last race.") But that one line made me glad I went.