Slashdot Mirror
The Sci-Fi Movie Stigma
An anonymous reader writes "MSN has up an article that explores why Sci-Fi is associated with cheesy Space-Operas and children's movies, and cerebral Sci-Fi films don't make it unless they are adulterated into 'Action' flicks. The piece covers upcoming projects like 'The Last Mizmey' and 'Next', and points the finger at the ultimate culprit: George Lucas. 'When Lucas made Star Wars in 1977, he was paying tribute to a subgenre of science fiction that he loved dearly as a boy: the space opera. But although the breathless serial adventures of Flash Gordon and his ilk had their pleasures, they were often treated with tolerance, at best, by more serious science-fiction writers and readers. Nevertheless, the success of Star Wars changed the movie industry's perception of science fiction forever. As much as we love Star Wars for what it is, it nearly killed Hollywood's willingness to fund science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition.'"
It was always this way even before Lucas, with the possible exceptions of 'Things to Come' and '2001 A Space Odyssey'.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
As fun as it might be -- George Lucas is not the ultimate reason for this. The ultimate reason is that the major film studios are afraid to innovate and want every film to be a sure thing. He didn't make hollywood that way.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Jules Verne wrote Science Fiction.
Persons who don't respect science fiction are worse than illiterate.
End of story. Nothing to see.. Move along...
The best recent "cerebral" Sci-Fi movie has been the Solaris remake with Clooney. I found it much more preferable to the Soviet version. It has better actors and an interesting twist was added in the end.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Noooooooooooooooo!
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
Hollywood's willingness to fund science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition
"human condition" what is that ?
what "human condition" does Flash Gordon series contain ? or early superman series ? they are run-off-the-mill american dream robotized characters that are fighting absurd evil characters that contain no humane feelings - just evil, for evil's sake.
im not a star wars fan, but boy, star wars contain heaploads of stuff for "human condition" than any of the sci-fi stuff this guy is talking about - its about humane fears, good and evil, greed, comradeship, high ideals and lowly cravings.
Read radical news here
You can't just blame Lucas. No one knew that the audiences would eat it up and that's what happened and that's where the blame lies: the audiences. The dude tried to get all cerebral with THX-1138 but the general movie audience didn't bite. With Star Wars, they came in whores.
I am waiting to see if the movie adaptation of Ender's Game (by Orson Scott Card) will receive similar treatment (be actionized). It has much to say on the human condition, and would be a great catalyst back toward intelligent science fiction as commentary on the human condition and current events.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
One of the better movies.
And don't just look at Hollywood. There's some great Science Fiction coming out of Japan. Such as Ghost in the Shell.
Additionally, the advent of special effects made the movies that went before look cheesy.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The SCI FI channel. They seem to cancel all the good series and throw on mindless movie of the week drivel. (And WRESTLING? What's up with that?) It's too bad, I used to like the network.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
I remember pre-SW sci-fi.
With only a few exceptions, it was all cheesy, and almost all action based. Lucas just made the action part look damn good for the time.
1970 Science fiction movies:
"The Andromeda Strain" (1971)
"Silent Running" (1972)
"Soylent Green" (1973)
"West World" (1973)
"Futureworld" (1976)
"Rollerball" (1975)
"Omega Man" (?)
"Planet of the Apes"
Some thinkers, mostly action based.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You want human condition? That franchise was driven into the group *points to Star Trek*. For as much crap as some people like to give ST for not sticking to science too well, go watch any series (except Voyager or Enterprise, they may make you gouge out your eyes) and tell me the series did not cover the human condition. Paramount paid for that franchise, though it probably also helped keep Paramount afloat on a few occasions. You might even see some of the human condition in the ST films. Actually, the films that are most panned (yes the Odd numbered ones) are the ones that often deal with more of the human condition and less action movie with Star Trek thrown in. (Not to say the others didn't have human condition issues either. Look at First Contact and Wrath of Khan.)
It might be hip or even fun to blame George Lucas for ruining science fiction films, but this is just a big mistake. Hollywood was unwilling to any science fiction before George Lucas, so honestly, some sci-fi, even overly "opera-ish" is better than none. Honestly, this isn't a trend that sticks to science fiction. Look how many books they've screwed up in Hollywood.
There is quite a bit of popular science fiction cinema that's not space western. It's simply not marketed as such. Off the top of my head...
The Truman Show
Being John Malcovich
Manchurian Candidate
Movie makers and marketing companies want their films to attract as broad an audience as possible. To call something "science fiction" automatically creates expectations in people's heads.
It happens in publishing as well. Margaret Atwood is a very famous example of someone that has intentionally distanced themselves from the label.
To name me is to limit me.
Best Windows Freeware
That's because "science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition" are incredible snore-fests, or depressing, preachy, quasi-intellectual, pompous kuck. Both are great solutions to insomnia. To wit:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Silent Running
THX-1138
Dune
The same can be said about pretty muc hevery other genre. Hollywood goes by the standard "follow-the-pattern" scheme, where they just stamp out modified copies of what made big bucks. So saying that Lucas killed Sci-Fi is like saying that Disney killed cartoons (or "animation"/"animated moveie"): names a single hollywood cartoon/animation that doesn't look like it was produced from Disney's grave (yes, anime doesn't count since it's japanese. flash animation also doesn't count, there's fantastic stuff on newgrounds.com, but it's pure creativity without any involvement of Hollywood).
I can find plenty of info on "Next," but what in the hell is "The Last Mizmey"? Googling mizmey turns up a distressing dearth of information. Are you sure that you didn't just make that title up when you couldn't think of a second sci-fi film in production?
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
But what about Blade Runner? That's about as serious as Sci-Fi gets and was made later than Star Wars.
I believe the problem is more with Hollywood studios not wanting to take any risks, always sticking to the same formula. The genre is irrelevant.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
I mean come on, it's science FICTION, FFS..
Who is to say how Sci-fi should be presented since it's bullshit from the get go.
Some people may get a chubby over the more recent Star Trek shows because they throw in some actual scientific lingo but it's just buzz words that make the eyes of the masses glaze over. Anyone with a decent IQ knows they are just spitting out buzz words and on a very rare occassion they throw out an actual working theory.
Hell, it's entertainment. Leave it alone. If it's space opera, then fine, let it be space opera.
I like the original "Space Westerns" concept. I am currently watching every episode of "Lost in Space" which I grew up with. It's the ultimate in cheesy sci-fi with very little "sci" and a whole lot of "fi"
Really, what else can fiction be but fiction?
2) Related to #1, thoughtful drama is the province of television now. Movies (and this is where Lucas and Spielberg are responsible) are about explosions.
3) Realistically, how good, or how thoughtful, a movie was 2001, anyway? It's as overblown and boring as Heinlein novels that the sci-fi fanboys also insist are Really Important.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
It's a recent, cerebral sci-fi movie, and a pretty good one at that. Though it may be the exception that proves the rule: most other good sci-fi movies have been, at least in part, action movies. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing: The Arrival was a somewhat cheesy action/sci-fi flick, but was surprisingly good at the same time.
If Hollywood insists on making space-opera movies, perhaps they should adapt some of Iain M. Banks' books to the silver screen.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
... movies that say something about the human condition have to have the message neatly and quietly tucked away into the background of space shoot-em-ups. In real sci-fi, the sci-fi is the SETTING, not the PLOT. Period pieces set in the PAST are treated with high regard by virtually anyone, whereas period pieces set in the future are regarded mostly with "why isn't there more shooting?" Also, I can't wait for Next... it actually looks like someone took a sci-fi idea, and made a good movie out of it.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Star Wars is not science fiction. It's fantasy.
Hollywood are a fickle bunch anyway. They rarely take chances, and when one succeeds, they copy it for for years. How many movies have there been about the urban kid who no one believed in who was good at dancing? Flash and 30 second trailers sell more than substance. Oh and Star Wars says nothing about the human condition? Are you kidding?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
TFA seems to be right, as most of the top ranked Sci-fi flicks at the imdb are just future-based action movies:
1. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
2. Star Wars
3. The Matrix
4. Metropolis
5. Alien
6. Aliens
7. 2001: A Space Odyssey
8. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
9. Blade Runner
10. Donnie Darko
Rest of the list, here.
--
Text link ads, the easiest way to earn money with your web!
whats wrong with them?
There are many good sci-fi films.
Just apparently they don't fit the need of the writer?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I was enjoying this article until they crapped upon Total Recall. Yes, the movie has be Schwarzeneggerized (try saying that three times fast) but it still maintains its Dickness. Sure, there's plenty of great action in the movie, but the the amazing part of the film is that we don't know if it ever happened. Pure Dick. Paul Verhoeven is awesome.
Primer
One Point O
Cypher
There are "Sci" in them. "Fi" does not dominate. Visual effects are where really needed.
Because of low budget? Maybe. I do not complain.
Big budget are (in most cases) just fiction flicks with visual effects. But SCIENCE-fiction?
That is indeed interesting and I'd have to agree with the notion that it's about fantasy where the normal rules don't apply and the like. But I wouldn't go so far as to say there is a link to pedophilia at least not in the "star trek causes pedophilia" sense. I have also heard an attempted connection between star trek and homosexuality as well, but it's not entirely likely that one causes the other either.
I think what is in common is that fans tend to be those that feel as if they don't fit in with the world around them. Star Trek offers a more ideal outlook on the future where everyone is equal, no one is held back and no one has to work for a living if they don't want to.
Science Fiction, hell. Star Wars (And Jaws, was it?) changed the way the production studios looked at film. The amount of money involved got so much bigger suddenly that it overwhelmed the vestigial idea that movies ought to be pieces of art. It's similar to the move in publishing over the last half-century, away from a climate where your goal, when looking at a book, is to decide whether it ought to be published because it's well-written or well-crafted or has an important message, towards a climate where you decide how many dollars it's going to rank in according to a simple formula or two. Does it catch my eye on the first page? Has the author written twenty books in the genre before? Does it have a snappy snyopsis? Will the language hold someone's eye, even if it's not saying anything, because it's snappy enough?
There are still good films and good books made, but greed has pushed the idea of being "good" rather far from the central idea of the major production houses, to the point where "good" and "bad" become conflated with "popular" and "unpopular." It's all about the money. The most popular actors are generally good, but there are countless incredible actors who never attain that sort of popularity, including some who are far better than some among the popular... because the popular people are part of the formula, and tend to bring in more money, even if their acting is worse than the acting of an unknown. The same applies to writers, and to almost all art where it's a producer/distributor generating the money, and more in it for the money than for the quality of the product. If art and culture really are the metrics we ought to use to measure the output of our civilization--if it wasn't just the Industrial Revolution that mattered, but also the Renaissance--then greed can be a terrible enemy to the quality of our productions.
(Though I'll admit it can also help, at times--the rich artist can grow soft, with no need to change and grow. Look at how comedians change as their success does.)
seriously, scifi hit it's peak as a genre around the late 90's.
i dont know if it's the whole post millennial dissillusionment or just plain lack of wherewithal to pioneer new plots***, but i'm just seeing precipitous drops in scifi content, even in anime, which to me has ALWAYS been synonymous with scifi. The scifi channel is now primarily horror, controversial paranormal investigations, and (WTF) ecw wrestling. NONE OF THOSE QUALIFY AS SCIFI!. And heck i havent seen a new scifi anime released in over 2 years now (and no gundam doesnt really count)
so i have to ask.. what is this scifi of which tfa speaks?
***(most of the good series from the late 90's early '00 were first laid out in the 60's)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The pattern for the last 20 or 30 years has been for movie studios to create movies that appeal especially to teenagers. They are the most likely to want to get out of the house on friday and saturday evenings, and the most willing to part with $10 for a movie ticket. It's fun, they get to hang out with their friends, see a movie, have some popcorn, get away from homework and the parents. Whatever.
The only reason the studioes release anything else is because they make money on DVD sales and rentals downstream. You want more sci-fi? Buy every battlestar galacta, star trek, star wars, dr. who, dune, LoTR, etc DVD. Individually they are about the same as a movie ticket + some popcorn; it will look awesome on your widescreen LCD; and it sends the message that sci-fi will be supported by the audience. (Star Wars actually went against this model because it took so long to get ep 1-3 onto DVD)
Mrs. Carroll, my English teacher in high school, was unconvinced that science fiction was on a par with classic literature, even though I trotted out examples like "Farenheit 451", "Foundation", and "Childhood's End". I got very sick of Shakespeare, Henry James, and that lot as they were continuously pounded into my head as "great writing." And now that I am partner in a company that releases a science fiction journal, I can look back and laugh. If there's any problem with science fiction right now it's the scarcity of good writers; I have to say I don't read as much current work as I did when I was kid, when I absorbed Clarke, Asimov, Heilein, Niven, Pournelle, etc.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Lynch's movie captured the "ambiance" that many people associated with Dune, but slaughtered the story. The SciFi channel series, with more time on their hands, did more justice to the story, but completely slaughtered the ambiance.
Battlefield Earth for example, once you take out the scientology crap out of the ecuation, is a eminently fun and well done sci-fi novel. Yet the movie was a fucking disaster.
What's the difference between the success of say, the Harry Potter and LOTR movies and the failures that are Dune and all the other crappy film treatments of fantasy/sci-fi books? I'm not sure, but hopefully someone will figure it out soon. There are a lot of excellent books out there - who wouldn't want to see a movie based on Niven's Ringworld series? Or Saberhagen's Berserker opera? - that would make fantastic movies.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Much as I can't stand GL, it's curious to point the finger at him when SF was basically dead as a movie genre because it was already associated with cheezy space operas. In fact that was the source of his problems in getting funding! I'm having a hard time following how the blame was reached, unless it was that GL simultaneously legitimized and homogenized the genre -- and that's quite debatable.
;)
One problem is the definition of "sci fi", and whether it has to focus on technology qua tech. If you count "fantasy" in the SF genre, it's a freakin renaissance: look no further than Lord of the Rings and Pan's Labyrinth.
Now if you go by the original movies of the SciFi Channel, I think we can all agree that SF is the pits
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
... You blame Star Wars for ruining the public's perception of sci-fi but still worship Star Wars (at least, the original trilogy), Star Trek, Babylon 5, Doctor Who, etc.? Shows/movies like that are what created the public perception of sci-fi. They're all about spaceships, goofy-looking aliens, "phasers set to stun", etc. It's all just a tad bit too nerdy for regular people.
Sci-fi fans made that stuff popular, so I'd say you have no one to blame but yourselves...
Cuaron and James aren't the only ones who shy away from the title. Even hacktastic authors like Margret Weis and Tracy Hickman don't like the term science-fiction. In their introduction to the "Star of the Guardians" series (if you haven't read it? Don't.) Weis used the term to distinguish their books - which took place in space but only peripherally involved science - from books like, say, those by Greg Bear or David Brin.
Of course, regular folks like you and me would call the one variety of books "science fiction," or maybe "space opera" (or, if you've read them, "bad"), and the other books "hard sci-fi." But if you're inherently ashamed of the genre you're exploring, I suppose such a distinction isn't sufficient.
Bah, I say.
C'mon down from that high horse there, buckaroo. What or who exactly is a "more serious science-fiction writers and reader"? Who designates them as more serious?
Science Fiction is just a thematic categorization of a fantasy writing placed in the future or focused on technology. It is frivolous, no matter what the setting, plot or characterization. It is escapism in its purest form. Inhale deeply.
To say that what many percieve as "campy" science fiction is less serious than "space opera" is folly. Neither is serious, they simply provide a different presentation of content and delivery mechanisms. It is a matter of taste.
I HATE doctor who for what I see as its silly premise, loved the Jurassic Park series, for its measured use of science fact, and lost my interest in Star Wars after enjoying the first one.
Just my 2... Collect the whole dime!
Mark
How do movies like "12 Monkeys", "Brazil", "Dark City", "Donnie Darko", "Outbreak", "The Abyss", and others fit in to this theory?
Also, how do movies that had some action mixed with many interesting ideas like "The Matrix" and "V for Vendetta" fit in?
And what about TV movies/series? Like the "Alien Nation" flicks, series such as "Dead Like Me" and "The X Files".
And anyway, before anyone plames Lucas, don't forget the sweaty, unthinking masses that vote with their ticket dollars. Hollywood will generally invest in whatever will get the largest part of the great unwashed horde to part with their money. Teach them to think and read and not only will the movies be better, but likely, so will everything else...
Until then, enjoy "American Idol", "Survivor", "Wife Swap", etc...
Actually, I blame Alien and Aliens for the problem. It's not the Sci-Fi action flick that I have a problem with. It's the alien/monster/horror Sci-Fi movie that I have a problem with. Go to Blockbuster and look in their SF section. Nearly every movie will have a monster/alien that the hero has to fight. Most of the action/SF movies now days aren't even included as SF. Just an action movie.
That was pretty decent (ok Philip K Dick purists flame me now). They even went out on a limb with A Scanner Darkly so there are still risk takers out there. Sometimes I wish SciFi channel would make an hourly series but with different stories being featured each week or something. It doesn't have to say something; just make us think once in a while, e.g. what if there *were* lesbo biker chicks on Mars, trying to quit smoking?
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
I'm a fan of Star Trek. All of it. Even Nemesis and Enterprise.
However, I am also a fan of Frank Herbert, Isaac Asmiov, Kurt Vonnegut, William Gibson, and Phillip K. Dick.
With all that said I'm going to reiterate something I said in college.
Star Trek killed science fiction. With a phaser. Star Wars helped, but Gene Rodenberry has a lot to answer for.
See, what they both did was take the science out of the fiction. Dune too, to a great extent. More and more often these stories are less about how science changes the human condition and instead are about how science simply enables a new setting for the same old story. The fiction goes from involving the scientific aspect to working around it.
For instance if anyone ever tells Oedipus Rex as a science fiction story you will know it's horseshit. In any scientific culture Oedipus would have had his DNA tested to reveal his ancestry.
IEEE Spectrum had an article on this many years ago where they pointed out that for all the SCIENCE in TOS it was always the captain and rarely the science officer or engineer who finally saved the day.
In all fairness maybe we shouldnt blame the writers but the publishers. Whose idea is it to put Sci-fi and fantasy in the same section of the bookstore. There's nothing more iritating than browsing in a bookstore for a good scifi book and finding something with sword laden dragon hunters or somesuch. What I'm saying is that Tolkein, Leguinn, and Pratchett should go find their own damn shelves.
This is the best argument that good sci-fi that's more than action can be made in modern times.
There are many good scifi films and shows with excellent premises, panoplys, and plot lines.
examples:
gattaca, rather dark, many complained it was boring, but it had a lot of soul and made the assertion that no matter how dominant technology became, human faith and will will ultimately make the difference.
green legend ran - an excellent earth legend with cautionary warnings about ecology and a seamless tie into the bible.
babylon 5 - excellent overarcing and complicated plot lines, a coherent and real ending, and every action take is well explained in the plot.
andromeda - again a plot line laid out a full 3 seasons in advance, but it should have ended at the episode entitled "the unconquerable man"... the final ending in season 5 left much to be desired, probably because of sudden and early cancellation.
blade runner - seriously do i need to justify blade runner to you?
akira - the final 30 minutes of this movie coalesce into a dense visual poetry that explains exactly what a god is.. not to mention the detail put into the animation was not equalled until ghost in the shell the movie over a decade later.
ghost in the shell stand alone complex - complicated plotlines dealing with obtuse philosophical concepts and the relative moral positions of those involved (the "evil" terrorists? the "evil" government agents of section 9 who literally assassinate for political convenience?)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I don't think the tendency towards making action films is any more prevalent in the sci-fi category than it is in most other categories. Hollywood has certainly spent quite a lot on sci-fi films that aren't exactly action/adventure flicks. Of the films I mentioned above, only Primer was an indie.
In making Star Wars the interest was more a retelling of the Hero mythos as postulated by Joseph Campbell (Hero with a Thousand Faces)than it was making a Sci-fi flick. A solid foundation in the tales thathave been told for thousands of years is as important as pushing trendy sociological hypotheses found in some 60's and 70's SF. My gripe is that nobody has pushed any Zelazny to the screen. Maybe a good thing since they would probably put his "Amber" fantasy stuff on before even looking at "Doorways in the Sand" or Lord of Light".
The best science fiction movies are the ones not immediately identified as such by the general public. The movies that show how people behave under stress using a science fiction premise as a backdrop allow us to enjoy the work even if they get some (OK, perhaps even most) of the science wrong. Deep Impact and The Day After Tomorrow both centered on people, not gizmos, and can rightfully be filed under DRAMA as well as SCI FI. Works like Outbreak should also be given a nod by simply showing something about our world in an entertaining way to those who, in more case than not, had no stinking idea that such horrors existed. Sure, there have been plenty of "shoot-em-ups" masquerading as movie versions of beloved SCIFI books and short stories, but there have also been some reasonably clever works recently that treat me like I might have a brain. As Hollywood realizes we (who have a brain) also have money, I think we'll be seeing more stuff that celebrates the genre rather than just "raiding" it.
I don't disagree that many good films have been made--but I think that many other good films have not been made, and they could have been. And I think there's been a lot of trash. Highlander 2 comes to mind, though I can't imagine why. =)
B5 was one of the greatest series of all time. Wonderfully written, by someone who knew how to use language in a way that few popular writers ever learn.
Blade Runner raises the specter of a terrible college class where the discussion was largely "But what does it mean that he's wearing shoes? This must be something about man's spiritual divide--no, no his physical divide, his real divide, from the solid earth. Or, when he's on the cement, from society, since it's society that creates the cement."
I think SciFi lends itself more readily to taking the easy way out. Throw in some lasers, a sweeping scene of an alien world, and you're good. But if you look at the LoTR, you can also see how well a movie of this type can be made. (I realize that Fantasy is different from SciFi, but from a Hollywood perspective they are essentially the same.) But doing so requires enormous effort and great risk- the two things for which Hollywood is least known.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Not that there's anyting wrong with that, it's contact with superior intelligence, it's supposed to be confusing to our feeble simian minds.
But the book and movie were made together, and are supposed to go together, it was an artistic experiment.
You can't take the sky from me...
Hollywood stays away from anything else because that's the only proven seller. My guess is that Hitchhiker's Guide was made only because LOTR did so well. Thinking that the books had enough of a cult following (like LOTR), they went with it. It didn't make alot of money, so it just re-enforced the idea that you can't make a sci-fi space movie that's not an action thriller, even if you do spend the money on special effects.
The movie is The Last Mimzy, not The Last Mizmey. The story it is based on is Mimsy Were the Borogoves, the title taken from a line in Jabberwocky by Lewis Carol, as far as I know.
...the classic:
The Lathe of Heaven
Presaged a good bit of the current crises, as the backdrop of a struggle between one man's desire to effect his version of utopia (with its incredible consequences... gray skin anyone?), and the protagonist's attempts to counter it, and just leave things be.
It is set approximately 30 years in the future, relative to when the book was first published, and overpopulation, famine, malnutrition, global warming, urban blight, and massive wars in the Middle East are a commonplace.
Science never settles, never rests.
Which exist in the serial film Lucas wanted to pay homage to, or emulate, or whatever you want to call it. You can't do a hero story without it being like others.
now, about Zelazny.(who was an ass to me when I met him.)
After "Damnation alley", Zelazny sqors no book of his would ever be released to film again.
FOrtunatly for us his estate has exactly no interest in abiding with his wishes, so you might see an Amber movie soon.
I really wish the would redo "Damnation alley" and make it true to the book. It is a damn god story. I consider it his finest story. Amber is good, but way over-rated. hmm I could use that same sentence to decribe an ex-girlfriend.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
future based. Are you new here ? A long time ago......
- Return of the Jedi (Fool me twice...)
- Solar Crisis
- The Core
- Deep Impact/Armageddon
- Independence Day
- Ad nauseum
I'm surprised that "The Day After Tomorrow" didn't have Dennis Quaid trying to set off a runaway reactor to counteract the temperature plunge. But that's "form following function". You have to get to climax in less than two hours. Shut up and watch the movie...However... this mentality is seeping into solving long term real-life problems. Asteroid impact, global warming, overpopulation, urban sprawl, concentration of food production (eggs) into one basket.
When a movie-goer sees these problems in their real life, they think that "there is no problem which cannot be solved by judicious application of high explosives." But it's quite the opposite.
Ignore the scifi angle, and compare something like Dark City to Memento.
Both were really good mysteries, both did 'meh' business. Guess which one cost more to make and therefore, made the studios more dough?
The only real 'stigma' against SciFi/Fantasy is that it's expensive. As a general rule, the bigger your budget, the more the studios insist on playing it safe. They aim at the big audiences more likely to earn back the investment and dial down anything challenging/quirky/contentious/etc.
The natural target? The 18-25 action/adventure crowd.
Why should a studio spend the extra money doing a SciFi mystery, if they cost more and gross about as much as a contemporary mystery? Similarly for a drama, comedy, horror, etc.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Didn't seem to stop Ridley Scott from making Alien and Blade Runner right after Star Wars. There is and will always be smart sci-fi out there. And there is and will always be pulp. I would actually argue that Star Wars is more than just pulp, especially in Empire Strikes Back, but nonetheless smart sci-fi continues to be made.
In fact, I can think of several recent films like The Fountain, Sunshine, and Solaris just off the top of my head; none of which could be described as "space opera" by a longshot.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I've always wondered the same thing... IMHO, the problem is that there's a misunderstanding of what constitutes science fiction. It's almost like watching a play versus a movie. In a play you don't think about the set so much as the story and the acting. If the clouds in a play look like pillows it's OK. But in a movie we want a lot of visual realism.
Many science fiction movies do a similar thing with theme. In a conventional movie it's desirable for the theme to be hidden. Apocalypse Now is only a war movie on the surface; same with Platoon or Saving Private Ryan. But with science fiction it's quite different. It's expected that the theme *is* the story. What are the consequences of genetic manipulation? What are the consequences of atomic power? If machines could think, should we give them the same rights as humans?
But critics have been trained since high school to look for the subtext, the hidden theme. Confronted with something new, they fall into their learned prejudices. Maybe they should red more literature from non-European, non-dead authors instead of being so closed-minded.
Hope they don't fuck it up. I mean, how can you 'actionize' quantum physics?
o ry_id=3987&page=2
(You could have a car chase, but by observing the chase you collapse the wave-form and the cat dies. Hmmmm, maybe Lynch could pull it off.)
Here's some amateur-created trailers:
http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?st
Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm a big fan of sci-fi in a number of different media, and I've come to have a healthy disgust for Lucas, but he's not the problem.
The predominant problem I see with sci-fi films which aren't space operas is that they are by and large boring. Yes, they have a cerebral point to make, but the plot unwinds itself very slowly, and rely on sweeping visuals of planets/landscapes and ethereal music to try to envelop you. There are very few such films which cause me to care about the characters or events. Case in point: Solaris. These films suffer from poor storytelling and/or pacing, even if the original source material is outstanding.
I've watched 2001: A Space Odyssey multiple times, and enjoy it. However, if you want to lay blame somewhere then point your finger at that film. It was remarkable for its time, both in the visuals and in the use of science fiction to make a point, but it (to my mind) was the film which set up the prototype for all sci-fi films which are not space operas. 2001 endures because it set the standard, but it's imitators quite literally lull me to sleep.
A secondary consideration is the visual style of these types of films. They almost always present space or the future as very sterile visual environments, and my brain gets incredibly bored. 2001. Solaris. THX 1138 (though that did have an interesting story that compensated). Minority Report. Aeon Flux. They all have this problem. The exceptions stand out, and keep my visual cortex engaged. Blade Runner. The Fifth Element. Robocop. Demolition Man (though the cheese factor is hard to ignore). Firefly. V. Dune.
Given the choice, I'll take the "space opera with a message" over the predominant sci-fi alternative any day.
Brent
Cyrano de Maniac
Most cerebral films simply don't put a lot of butts in the seats. They almost always play to a smaller audience then your action/eye-candy film. The problem is that sci-fi movies are going to usually be more expensive to produce because they generally have to use more special effects to be believable. Movies rarely get made if they don't make money and spending a huge chunck of change for a movie with a limited auidience isn't a great idea.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
I for one am a little sick of SF that tries to "comment on the human condition". Not that we need more of the formula action flicks that Hollywood has been churning out.
But great Space Opera should be mindless escapism to an extent. 'Doc' Smith defined Space Opera starting in the 1920's, followed (sometimes) by Heinlein and now 75 years later nothing from either author has made it to the big screen in any recognizable form (I don't count the animated Lensmen, or the couple of movies that used Heinlein's titles but otherwise ignored the book).
My idea of the ideal Space Opera would be more like 'Skylark' or 'Spacehounds of the IPC' than 'Blade Runner'
Another sub-genre (but not exactly Space Opera)classic I'd like to see made into a serious movie is 'Glory Road'. Heck I'd even love to see another try at 'Puppet Masters' or 'Starship Soldiers' if they could find someone who would make it faithful to the book.
The problem is not lack of good material, but producers without the guts to push something that is not 'Me Too' and already been done to death.
Never was there a finer commentary on the human condition than "Plan 9 From Outer Space".
"You see! You see! Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!"
Great dialogue, man. Or at least better than any that was in the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. ^_^
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I'd like to see the Foundation trilogy on the screen.
this is not my signature.
You can't take the sky from me...
Battlestar Galactica is their saving grace.
What does the original article think about it? - a space opera that deals with the human condition?
...Bakshi's Wizards. Better than any of the movies you mention.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
This is just bogus. It looks like someone has an axe to grind with Lucas. Science fiction was drive-in fodder back in the 50's. If anything, Lucas moved things forward. I'm not a huge fan but give credit where credit is due.
...was good because it was FUN. True, it's not High Art, but it was a roaring good time.
One of the main problems with the Prequels was George Lucas trying to be "profound" on the one hand, and on the other hand create all kinds of merchandising and toy making opportunities. (Jar Jar) The other problem he didn't have Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher (who is now an in-demand script doctor, no less!) to improv dialogue like he had in the first Star Wars movie, nor did he have Lawrence Kasdan to rewrite his crappy dialogue like he did with Empire and Jedi.
I rediscovered my love of Star Wars with Genndy Tartakovsky's brilliant Clone Wars animated short series. That put all the fun back. Too bad Tartakovsky isn't involved with the CGI animated series.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I think the fundamental mistake is that Hollywood is pushing Science Fiction as the end-game, or central point, of the movie, rather than simply the environment whereby a genuine story is presented.
Star Wars succeeds, more or less, as decent SF, if "Space Opera", because it's story would work just as well if set in medieval days and was told as farm-boy against the knights of the evil emperor. The sequels fail by the same measure since they are totally dependent on the Star Wars SCi-Fi elements and without those there is little story. They only succeeded to the extent they did because of the coat-tails of Star Wars.
Start with a good story, one that can be told in any environment, and then subtly weave the Sci-Fi elements into it, and it will be a good Sci-Fi movie. Start with space ships and ray guns and try to create a story around them, and it will be Hollywood dreck.
This is so basic, so obvious, that I cannot understand why Hollywood keeps missing it.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote that 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. Thus, there can be no easy classification between 'sci-fi' and 'fantasy'- especailly since many novels/games/movies intentionally straddle that line by having both technology and magic. For instance, Star Wars has technology, but also has 'magic' in the form of Jedi. Star Trek isn't any better, as it has telepaths, gods, etc. Even classic works like 'Dune' have prescience and Mentats, which are little better than Jedi are.
Also, having a technobabble explaination for how spaceships go faster than light, how telepathy works, or how force fields work is barely better than saying 'a wizard did it'.
There is no real difference between the two, both of them imagine a world that is different than our own, and the good ones tell a interesting, compelling story regarding how people act in that world (with implications to our own world). And don't think that something being 'Sci-fi' makes it any better fantasy- you can tell a great story (or a lame one) in either medium.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
I always thought it was the bad acting. Who can forget Roger Corman?
A few years ago, some friends of mine and I pitched the Sci-Fi channel, and I heard directly from a very highly-placed executive that the network was actually making a conscious effort to move away from SF programming and do more "Scare Tactics" style programming in an effort to capture portions of the SpikeTV market.
I foolishly (for the goal of selling a show to them) observed that running away from the very thing that made the network popular -- and was in the damn name, by the way -- probably wasn't the smartest thing to do, but the geek in me overpowered the hopeful businessman. Oh well.
Those craptacular movies you're referring to (I did two of them: Python and Deep Core) used to go directly to video in the USA, while also being sold to foreign markets to make back money for their investors. However, with the advent of basic cable and channels like Sci-Fi, they usually are produced by, and air on one of those stations (think Lifetime, TNT, etc.) before heading off to the bargain rack at the car wash.
One of the points made in TFA is that intelligent movies have been replaced with action movies, and thoughtful plots have been replaced with explosions and spectacle. One of the reasons I tend to agree with the parent on Sci-Fi being part of the problem here is that they still translate these movies into several different languages, and distribute them all over the world; an explosion and a scantily-clad starlet are essentially the same in any language or culture, so it's easier to sell those films (to Sci-Fi and to the foreign markets) when they're simplistic, "four-color" 90-minute packages, instead of complex 2001-esque masterpieces.
When Lucas made "Star Wars" in 1977, he was paying tribute to a subgenre of science fiction that he loved dearly as a boy
To which I have always said "bullshit".
The question for me has always been how Lucas went from THX 1138, which I love deeply for its vision, to Star Wars, which I considered a trivial comic space western out of the gate. The answer isn't that obtuse. Lucas self-censored to produce what the Hollywood bosses wanted. It was explained to us at an art museum showing of THX 1138 and lecture well over a decade ago that the executives hated THX 1138. Hate, hate, HATED IT! And buried it. Told their movie theaters at the initial release that they didn't have to honor the obligation to show the turkey for the agreed two weeks.
Now, if you want to be a film director and your bosses have just told you you've produced a steaming pile of dog crap, what do you do _after_ kissing a whole lot of butt? That's right. Produce box office fodder that will make the executives happy and never look back.
That's why I"ve always wondered whether Lucas sees himself as one of the most cynical in a cynical business. I guess my wish is that maybe before he dies he'll go full circle and make a deep sci fi movie again just to prove to himself he still has it in him.
Some problems with today's sci-fi...
1. The Sci-Fi channel. How can anyone sample this crap and take sci-fi seriously?
2. Long films. For those of you have have seen the 27 different versions of Dune, you understand. What version is best? The longest, of course, unless you have a good insight into the social and technological structure of the fantasy world it does take 45 minutes of explanation to understand why "the floating fat man" and the spacing guild are wanting to beat up on the baron and his son. The story line doesn't need to involve sci-fi but it does. Without a good amount of background the sci-fi just becomes so much babble (read: an obstacle for the viewer).
3. George Lucas/Steven Spielberg
4. Too many Trekkies. Maybe you're laughing or maybe you're shaking your fist at me but subcultures that become so heavily associated with a media franchise can do tons to harm it. Let's face facts: how many of you associate pro-wrestling with beer-bellied, screaming, toothless hicks? The same applies here.
5. There are so many sci-fi fans that really want this material. Stepping off the beaten path is a risk. Hollywood doesn't like risks.
Cookie cutter is the name of the game in all film today. I wonder more why sci-fi was picked on over, let's say, chick flicks? It's a format that people pick up on and staying with a solid proven formula (FTW!) doesn't seem like too bad of an idea when it's your money on the line.
Sadly once the formula becomes a dime a dozen it's hard to make any progress in any other direction without going independent.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Sometime before I die I hope someone out there will make a movie from the book Tau Zero. Even if they turn it into an action-thriller.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
Was Pi sci-fi at all? I thought it was just a straightforward case-study in schitzophrenia.
I think I'm turning into an old sap, but I liked BSG better when the humans were the good guys and the cylons were the bad guys. Seasons 1 and 2. I'll even give them the 2nd captain showing up and being a bitch since they disposed of her in a couple episodes.
Now BSG definitely IS a soap opera. We've got custody battles, affairs, elections, trials, family squabbles...
I liked it better when it was a Sci-Fi show about ships in space, not a daytime soap opera that just happens to take place on ships in space.
Just scan something and shoot it, damnit!
paintball
Why would both James, already a proven writer in another genre, and Cuarón, who previously dabbled in fantasy [yet another genre] with "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [a children's story for God's sake!]," be so determined to separate their work from a field whose practitioners include literary luminaries such as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Philip K. Dick, along with filmmakers such as Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg?
Maybe because they knew how incredibly outclassed they were?
the last two decades have seen "real" science-fiction cinema pushed almost to the fringes by space operas, video-game adaptations and comic-book franchises
Which the author names later: Total Recall, a very well done movie; Terminator 2, yet ANOTHER very well done movie, neither of which, contrary to the authors assertations, were in any way fit for kids to see; and here's a bit of incredible cluelessness for you, "Spielberg's childhood fantasy of 'Jurassic Park.'" Yeah, that's the right movie to take a CHILD to see, right up there with Terminator. Is the author a heroin addict or a crack head? I certainly wouldn't have taken my children to any of these movies; in fact, we made sure they were in bed before we put the tape in!
The moron doesn't even know the difference between comic book fantasy and science fiction. X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Batman, and Superman are by no means "science fiction. They're comic book fantasies.
Here's a gem from page 1: "To be fair, we haven't seen the film yet". But he goes on and critiques it any way, much like Christian preachers calling for a boycott of The Life of Brian.
"After the serials of the '40s and the atomic monster movies of the '50s..." No, Frankenstein and Dracula and Godzilla were no more science fiction than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. They were horror movies.
What about Saturn Five which really struck a chord with me, as my then-wife was having an affair with an older man? What about Sphere which I never saw, as the book so thoroughly creeped me out I couldn't bring myself to watch the movie, or read another of his books?
Take out the comic books and the horror movies, which are NOT "science fiction" and his whole premise falls apart. But that's what you get when you take someone who doesn't know what science fiction is and has likely never read Asimov or Heinlein or Clarke
This is something I could never get about network executives... They treat humans like a homogeneous blob which can be attracted, and never like the subgroups with diverse interests that humans actually are. SpikeTV has the SpikeTV market because it's aiming for that subgroup. If the Sci-Fi channel desires it, it can have an almost exclusive stranglehold on the sci-fi market by making more good shows like Battlestar Galactica or the Stargate franchise. If that particular COMPANY wants to make money on the SpikeTV market ALSO, then it should make a different channel like SpikeTV, not try to turn sci-fi into it.
I guarantee that if they try to take the Sci-Fi channel in a SpikeTV direction, they will lose the interest of the subgroup that actually likes sci-fi and forms the audience of their network, and this audience will shop around for entertainment from another company. This is so blatantly obvious that I can't understand why network executives, with all their studies of demographics, so frequently seem to not understand this.
Any ideas?
For those futilely attempting to find any reference anywhere to a movie entitled "The Last Mizmey": the writer no doubt intended "The Last Mimzy".
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Why all the whining? Who said Sci-Fi was supposed to be serious? You must be confusing it with SF.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I just want space ships, laser beams, women with big boobs, evil aliens (even better if they have big boobs and laser beams), and crap blowing up! I don't care for the romance that is NOW in Battle Star Galactica. Blow something up!!!
"One of the reasons I tend to agree with the parent on Sci-Fi being part of the problem here is that they still translate these movies into several different languages, and distribute them all over the world; an explosion and a scantily-clad starlet are essentially the same in any language or culture, so it's easier to sell those films (to Sci-Fi and to the foreign markets) when they're simplistic, "four-color" 90-minute packages, instead of complex 2001-esque masterpieces."
It couldn't have been that hard to translate 2001, as it had what, 2 minutes of dialog in it?
First off, I don't disagree, necessarily. However, Soderberg made an adaptation and didn't stay true to the book/russian film on purpose. Solaris the original movie was cool, but it's definitely dated. The current adaptation is much more modern and has a much more focused human element to it. The original, while good, took too long to say what it needed to say. I mean, it's a long watch for sure.
I think Solaris the modern version was crazy great, but it's definitely not for the masses. It's very dense in a short time and when you watch it again and again, you pick up more and more; sure this can be said about the original also. In an era of box office sure things and non-stop action, Solaris is cerebral sci-fi for sure and I love it.
I'm not knocking the book or the original, but there's nothing wrong with making something different and not staying 100% completely on track with the original idea. That's what great artists have always done: interpretation.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
--Lewis Carroll 1872
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
They bought the show, forced them into ridiculous storylines, and then killed it once they realized the show could never be like "Lexx".
I suggest you read Slashdot
You can't really blame the content creators for this problem. It is a business, and in business, high sales volume typically brings greater success. Unfortunately, stories about how science and human nature interract in the world do not appeal to most people. Most people tend to think in terms of high level social heuristics: familial ties, social hierarchies, sexual webs, etc... It takes a certain type of "intelligence" to integrate non-social heuristics into one's understanding of the world. Hence, stories that try to explore how such non-social phenomena impact the human condition do not make sense to most people. They literally can't follow along. Hence, if you realisticly want to change the nature of the movie industry, I would propose the following two pronged approach: genetic engineering and massive forced cyberization. By setting a standard intelligence level for all people, and using genetic and cyberized co-processor attachments to bring all people up to par, we would be able to create a market for intelligent science fiction.
I think you're dead on. But Sci-Fi has another component that I think is also responsible for some of it's failings: complexity. You place a story in the present you have an existing model to base your story in. Likewise, use the past and the same applies. But throw the story into an unquantifiable backdrop an you have to not only have a bit bigger budget but a much more complex vision.
I think this is the reason we have so few Blade Runners or Clockwork Oranges. Creating that kind of reality without it being garish and getting in the way of the story takes a lot of skill (and some cash!).
Quack, quack.
>> As much as we love Star Wars for what it is, it nearly killed Hollywood's willingness to fund science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition.'"
Oh come on. The Star Wars movies and franchising has made more money than just about any other product. I'm sure Hollywood would LOVE the opportunity to again pay a measly 4 million for another Star Wars-like boom.
The sutff Hollwood produces is entirely formulaic, unoriginal, predictable, moralistic and downright dull in comparison to most independent movie makers, so please dont try to suggest their motivation is anything other than blatant captialisation of their stranglehold on the mass marketplace rather than any real concern about furthering the arts.
"...while "Next" is simply the next Nicolas Cage orgy of destruction, with an ESP angle worked in."
"'I Am Legend,' has been filmed (for the third time) as an action vehicle for Will Smith."
If Nicolas Cage and Will Smith fought each other to the death with axes who would win?
A. Nicolas Cage
B. Will Smith
C. The movie going public
(apologies to David Letterman)
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
There have been lots of GREAT scifi movies, and I would argue that some of them are among the most important films ever made.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
1) Most sci-fi is mediocre. This isn't a slam on the genre, as most of everything is mediocre: movies, books, records, etc. Thing is, we tend to remember the small handful of good movies which come out every year and forget about the thousands of them which ranged from sort of okay to downright awful. And it was always this way. Take a look back at the number of quality of films released in Hollywood's "Golden Era" and you will see the vast majority were B and C grade westerns/gangster films/romantic comedies and the like. We remember Casablance, but not the hundreds of awful movies released in 1942.
Walk into your local book store and cruise the sci-fi aisle. You will find some great stuff. You will also find a lot of crap.
2) is related to 1): there exists an audience of people who will go and see any POS just because it's science fiction. Once again, this isn't a slam on sci-fi fans. There also exist people who will go see anything because it's an action film, or a romance, or a thriller and so on. However, IMO, a lot of the sci-fi television and movies I see seem to have no redeeming value other than the fact they they are sci-fi. I never understood how people could enjoy Stargate or the new Star Trek series. Remove the gloss of sci-fi from them and judge them by the standards of drama--character, character development, dialogue and plot--and they're downright awful, one-dimensional characters meoldramaing their way around the universe spouting technobabble. The only thing they have going for them is spaceships, explosions and aliens.
All that said, there's an even bigger issue: we're arguing about something which is inherently subjective. Who's to say what's good sci-fi and what's bad sci-fi? I think that Deep Space 9 was so unceasingly awful as to be parody. I also know there are people here who found the show fantastic. This leaves us with two options. One, the people who think DS9 is great are idiots who should be beaten until they change their minds or, two, that there's no way we're ever going to agree on what's good and what's bad, because appreciation of art is entirely subjective.
Lucas does suck, tho. THX-1138 was great. Everything else he's done by himself sucks ass.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
"human condition" what is that ?
what "human condition" does Flash Gordon series contain ? Read the fucking summary again, they specifically use Flash Gordon as an example of space opera WITHOUT a reflexion on human condition. Sheesh! no you read it again.
he have used flash gordon as an example of the type of sci fi that is not funded by hollywood anymore. 'When Lucas made Star Wars in 1977, he was paying tribute to a subgenre of science fiction that he loved dearly as a boy: the space opera. But although the breathless serial adventures of Flash Gordon and his ilk had their pleasures, they were often treated with tolerance, at best, by more serious science-fiction writers and readers. Nevertheless, the success of Star Wars changed the movie industry's perception of science fiction forever. As much as we love Star Wars for what it is, it nearly killed Hollywood's willingness to fund science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition.'
You can't take the sky from me...
I think it's silly to say that good sci-fi isn't still being made. What I see as a problem, though, is what people-at-large think when they hear 'sci-fi'. Nine out of ten people immediately think Star Wars, maybe Star Trek. Most people have never seen Blade Runner. I know that almost everybody here on /. has, but we're not a representative sample. People frequently ask me what kinds of books I like, because I'm an avid reader and I'm not afraid to show it. I say I like sci-fi, and they assume I'm talking about stuff with spaceships and explosions. I'm not talking about that at all, of course, I'm talking about Asimov and Dick and Bradbury.
I'll try to explain this to people, I'll try to tell them that science fiction is about future-based cautionary tales, or stories that take place in the (often exaggerated) future in order to give commentary on the world of today. I tell them that they take liberties and invent realities that can be used to deliver messages in more effective ways than strict realism allows. But they don't get it. Sci-fi is Star Wars, and Star Wars doesn't do any of these things. I seem to bespeaking nonsense and trying to justify my interest in a genre no more intellectually stimulating than romance novels. Frankly, I seem to be no different from those guys that sit in Borders reading manga. (I worked at Borders for a while, and if you do this, I'm sorry to say that you are almost certainly not looked at in a positive way.)
Sometimes, I can convince them, by mentioning specific works that they might not identify as sci-fi. Fahrenheit 451 can be a good one, but I've found that fewer people have read it than one might expect. THe one work I've had the most luck with is The Giver. I'm in my early 20's, and practically everybody I know around my age read it at some point in school, usually around 6th or 7th grade. It's a good example because the messages in it are really very obvious, it's a book for children, after all. Everybody gets it. Everybody sees the sci-fi aspects, and everybody sees that they help push the message.
Um, I like "sci-fi" just as much as the next guy. I think some one needs to show the difference between "Artsy" Scifi about the human condition/potential future hell holes with the use of X tech vs action flick with sexy woman sidekick/person to be saved. Think alittle. This isn't even about "scifi." Most people don't want to think about all that crap. They want to be entertained and have a good time. If I go into a movie wanting a good time, but come out freaking scared of X tech that could ruin the future if misused, I didn't have a good time and now some X tech won't be researched for fear of evil potential uses.
Sexy women and flashy explosions/effects sell orders of mag. better than any film that requires the audience to think to enjoy it. This applies to "every" type of film that I can think of.
If you go to IMDB.com and look at the All Time USA Box Office stats, you'll see lots of Star Wars movies at the top... I started from the top and counted down - Movies like Star Wars, ET, etc. are the big special effects movies that are talked about in the article. "Thinking Man" Sci Fi arguably starts after the first 13 or so shoot'em ups with Back To the Future.(A weak argument, IMHO) Terminator 2 follows that, and although I would personally look at the Terminator series as a thinking mans movie, there is no dismissing the fact that it is also a big sfx shoot'em up (Even though Arnold doesn't kill anyone in that particular movie). 3 more big budget shoot'em ups later, you land on the Planet of the Apes remake - BZZZT - sorry just doesn't qualify... 6 more shoot'em ups later, the list ends. Now I get that the list isn't indexed for inflation, but the Sound of Music is on that list, so is the Godfather, and even the Rocky Horror Picture show, all before Star Wars...At the end of the day, "thinking man's" sci fi doesn't sell. We, as a people, only have ourselves to blame for that.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
Some of the imagery is great, and the premise is good (if stolen). But it never quite comes together. You end up feel cheated by the time it winds it's way through. Like the director took too long to get there and then ran out of film and ideas so he just ended it.
On a scale of 1-5 stars, it gets 3 stars. It would be two except that the premise is so engaging.
Really, the same holds tree for movies in general. Thanks to the creation of the blockbuster movie in 70's, quieter moves that have something to say about the human condition have a hard time finding a large audience.
Not just Star Wars, but Jaws, but Towering Inferno, Posidon and others taught the movie industry that if you want to pack the house, you had to give them a great show. George Lucas didn't kill the more philosophical science fiction. The box office killed the philosophical movie. Science fiction was just collateral damage.
...and I liked Solaris a lot, but I have no doubt that it's anywheres near as good or thought-provoking as Primer, probably the best "pure" sci-fi film since 2001: A Space Odyssey. Featuring no action scenes (a rarity for a film that people categorize as sci-fi), and a mind-bender of a plot, and most importantly, logical turns instead of twists.
Don't forget about A Scanner Darkly either, which was much mroe faithful to the spirit of Phillip K. Dick than Spielberg's Minority Report which turned a compelling premise into a boring, bloated, and simplistic action/thriller picture.
"The Postman" has a good plot, Costner sometime plods along.
"Battlefield Earth" is fun to just watch, don't think about how bad the story (and anything written by L. Ron Hubbard) is.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
I would add Pi http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138704/ to your list. I enjoyed it quite a bit.
of course, this being slashdot, many people here will know solaris for what it is to aficionados of good science fiction: the art in high form by one of the greatest and most cerebral of it's artists, stanislaw lem
however, i want to introduce a different solaris to the slashdot crowd:
this solaris
look at that carefully folks: the contrast between the cost and the profit. some of you may be getting my point now
it had a big star, a bug budget, and a big director, and it lost money. why?
folks, we're talking about the MOVIES. we're not talking about a collegiate journal here. if you don't understand my drift, allow me to smash you over the head with it: a movie has to be somewhat dumb to succeed. if it is too brainy, most of your audience's eyes will glaze over, and you won't really have an audience
now before some of you grow despondent, i said SOMEWHAT dumb, not totally dumb
that's equally poisonous to a healthy box office profit
so the point is simple: too cerebral, and your science fiction story won't do good business. it's as simple as that. the story must match the iq of the audience. and so if the iq of the story is 175, then only people at that rarefied corner of the bell curve will go see the movie and enjoy it. (and it is equally true that if the iq of the story is 25, you are dealing with similar small subset of the population, fortunately)
you're science fiction must have an iq of 100. then it will be science fiction that will succeed at the box office. and unfortunately, science fiction being a genre that appeals to the intelligent amongst us, there will always be a disconnect between popular science fiction, and celebrated science fiction. always
but do not give up hope, dear brainiac movie/ sci fi lovers, every rule was meant to be broken
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm glad I had a copy of the book to read after I saw the movie (then rewatched it). All of the people I've explained the movie too have also enjoyed it much more once they know what the hell is going on.
And according to Roger Ebert talking about people taking hits and laying in the aisles when it first came out, your description of the last half hour as an "acid trip" isn't too far off.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I agree completely. However, this isn't just a problem with the TV market; the book sci-fi market has taken a similar tack in recent years. Honestly, I look at the shelves of recent sci-fi novels, and the ones I've read (an unfortunately much smaller number since I've had kids!) and I found that many of them are rather vapid regurgitations of earlier works, or action crap-fests that essentially try to boil a movie down into printed words.
;)
I honestly am starting to feel that the problem is cyclic; that the "dumbing down" of science fiction in general, and the fear exhibited by investors when those "terrible words" are used result in the inevitvable; people start hiding science fiction behind other plot devices or other means, essentially slipping sci-fi in through the back door. Although excellent in its own right, this is exemplified by the current Battlestar Galactica, which is only sci-fi in the extent that the backdrop is in space; the rest is pretty rote drama. This results in a lot of action movies and TV shows that portray a bad idea of what science fiction should really be to the young. Those young then take this flawed idea of what is science fiction, create a book / TV show / movie and create what they THINK is science fiction without actually creating anything scientific.
What does it say about the current science fiction book market that the last four books I read and enjoyed were (in order) the last three of the original Dune books (not the prequels), and "The Light of Other Days" by Arthur C Clarke; an old-school writer? Everything else I've picked up has been terrible.
What you encountered with sci-fi was further evidence that the market is indeed the problem, but that market's problem extends far beyond TV and movies. By the way, I do know what you're talking about; I've been on your side of the table a few times with Sci Fi and investors. Selling a good concept is hard, even when the stuff's good. Sci Fi particularly don't want to know. If they can't make it cheap and sell advertising high, hang the "Stargate" brand on it or cater to the lowest common denominator then they don't want to know. It's a pity because they HAVE produced some good stuff. Unfortunately they tend to be the exception rather than the rule these days.
And just FYI, a little pandering to our "celeb" here... I'm probably one of the few people who really enjoyed Mr. Stitch. I think I've got it on a VHS tape around here somewhere
This is bullshit. Star Wars makes a huge political statement whether George Lucas meant to or not. If you don't believe me, watch ALL 6 Star Wars movie in the order that they were released. You end up with the following pattern:
A rebellion defeats an empire and becomes a republic which becomes an empire...
Reminds me of a similar story from the real world:
A rebellion defeats an empire and becomes a democratic-republic which becomes an empire...
If you don't agree with me, thats fine, but I think the message is there, even if it was an accident.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
What gave them the right to badmouth Dune? Granted, it's the most avant-garde science fiction movie since, arguably, 2001, but it was fantastic at what it did. T'was a commercial bomb, of course, but what else would you expect from David Lynch?
I recognise "philosopher's stone" the same way that I recognise "holy grail". You put these two words together, and they refer to something very specific. The kids might not know this when they start reading the book, but they'll be familiar with the concept by the end of the non-US versions.
However, if you consider that your target audience is not going to recognise what that means, you might also consider dumbing it down to something that requires (or involves) less education.
BTW, I'm not making this up, you know. The reason why there hasn't been a hollywood adaptation of a Terry Pratchett novel by now is because he walked out when the producers insisted in dumbing his work down, and he wouldn't let 'em. You can get Pratchett in book, BBC movies, cartoons, plays, musicals, videogames, etc. He'll adapt, but he won't dumb down.
He has more faith in the intellects of American youth than Hollywood does.
You can't take the sky from me...
Wait, all these sci fi movies listed (good lists too) and no mention of Primer? If you thought Pi was indi-sci fi, this movie is a total mind fuck. It's an interesting story and well written but makes no concessions to a mainstream audience. I wish there were more like it (not that I don't like mainstream, but it's nice to see a movie push the envelope).
I'm glad to see at least one SF fan here. For those of you who don't understand the difference between SF and 'Sci Fi', consider the following, in addition to the X-File fanbois comments above. At a local con, the printed con program warned 'Sci Fi' fans that older fans, the hard core, used the phrase SF. 'Sci Fi', to an SF fan, was used to refer to the cheesy stuff that Hollywood and the television would put out under the label science fiction. But over time, 'Sci Fi' has become the accepted term amoung a lot of groups. (Except for the really hard core SF fans.) Personally I wouldn't mind seeing some of the David Brin stuff in movie form. Or, perhaps if you want something different, James White's Hospital Station series, which would include lots of aliens in a hospital environment where medical research is done.
...on the "since Star Wars" list (but in no particular order):
You may or may not like them all, but I'd argue that they were all "serious".
The other flaw in the "Blame Lucas" theory is that written SF has the same problem with being taken seriously by the "establishment" (...and I just watched a film clip of Philip K Dick shot in 1970-something complaining about that). Essentially the genre doesn't fit the value system of the artistic establishment (which is a polite way of saying that you need to know the difference between an atom and an electron to understand SF).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
If you read about the history of the movie (either on wikipedia, on imbd or on any other such site), you'll release that the movie has nothing to do with Asimov's work.
In fact it started s a genuinly original play (a classique Frankenstein complex).
But, as the author wasn't very known, the movie studio wanted to be sure to attract enough movie goers. So they choose to tie it with some widely known frnachise : asimov's robot stories.
So it's basically an original frankenstein story, with names, cameos and references to I Robot thrown in the middle.
If you look at it waiting to see something truthful to the books : It's an awful complete failure. It's completely untrue to the source material, because that metarial wasn't really the source, only a brnad that was put after-though.
Otherwise if you consider it just as a random story : It's not that bad for a frankenstein movie. And as an added bonus, you can have fun trying to spot all nods made to Asimov's work.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
This is something I could never get about network executives... They treat humans like a homogeneous blob which can be attracted, and never like the subgroups with diverse interests that humans actually are. SpikeTV has the SpikeTV market because it's aiming for that subgroup. If the Sci-Fi channel desires it, it can have an almost exclusive stranglehold on the sci-fi market by making more good shows like Battlestar Galactica or the Stargate franchise.
Here's the thing though -- crappy "reality" programs like Scare Tactics using random people or C-list actors are -dirt cheap-. Plus, you don't need any actual plot, so instead of hiring writers and actors, all you need is Joe Rogan. Science fiction can be expensive not only to shoot, but the special effects budget can be pretty hefty too. For the cost of one Battlestar Galactica, you could make five Scare Tactics or wrestling shows, and the TV executives want the largest return on their investment.
outer limits...
The ultimate example is pr0n. If your whole movie must consist of sex scenes, there's just no chance to make it good for anything except jerking off, no matter how you tried.
The movie don't have to be "like the collection". It should have the *spirit* of the collection even if the story isn't directly adapted from the book.
: :
Through his robot series, Asimov has his whole life fought ws he called the "Frankenstein complex"
before him every single story with a robot or some other kind of artificially made creatures can be brought down to the exact same core
If you look closely, even critically acclaimed recent movies like Blade Runner are just basically elaborated Frankenstein story (with the replicants in the role of the man-made creature rebelling and hunting their creators to coerce them into extending the maximum replicant life expectancy) with some interesting quirks.
Back in his time, Asimov was completely fed up with this state of affairs and decided to write his story. For him robot are just machine created by a man and shouldn't be any more homicidal than, say, a computer (remember this was happening long time before Microsoft Windows).
In fact, just like computer, using special programs you could even enforce safety and make sure they'll never represent a danger.
The 3 laws started as a plot device to make sure and obvious that, by no way a robot could end up acting in a Frankenstein-like way.
And then he managed to prove that, you don't need a catastrophe kind of story to make robot books successful. He could write a successful story were no single gun (or phaser) was shot. This by making the story more detective-like, where either a robot psychologist (ie.: a IA programmer/debugger) or some other figure was trying to find what has gone wrong and how to fix the problem to restore the work.
A movie could be a good Asimovian movie if it managed to grasp this concept. It could even tell a different story as long as it stay true to the principle and tried to avoid some catastrophic Frankenstein-like robot-goes-made-and-attemps-to-kill/enslave-humank ind.
And 'I Robot'-the movie completly misses that. It does the exact opposite : a story that isn't true to the spirit of the books with lots of superficial references to the books.
In fact that's normal, because it hadn't anything to do with Asimov's work initially : it was based on an original play.
But, because the author wasn't known enough known, the studio decided to tie the movie to some well known franchise, like Asimov's robots.
So they paid the rights, changed the title, and threw in names, cameos, situation and other references to the story.
But in the end, you don't have a Asimovian story, you have a Frankenstein-like heavy action movie, with explanations and details thrown in, in reference to the books.
I find it more that it was the Three Laws given as an optional explanation to a plot that completely contradict Asimov's quest to escaped from the Frankenstein complex.
But it's hard to port Asimov to the big silver screen. Because his robot texts are basically non-violent, and Holywood doesn't believe it could sell anything that doesn't have at least a couple of explosions and some gun fights.
It mostly reminds me of Terry Pratchett who was offered by some holywood studio to port one of his books - Mort - bu
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I find that rather uncompelling. It might have encouraged Hollywood to fund the other kind of scifi with big budgets, but it didn't stop Hollywood from funding scifi that was aimed more at commentary on society and the human condition. Minority Report? Contact (yes, it was less than expertly executed, but it was a scifi-as-social-commentary work, adapted from such a work of literary fiction, and funded by Hollywood. That the product may have been less than stellar is tangential to the argument TFA advances.)? Heck, several of the Star Trek films? (Yes, not at all hard scifi — but "hard scifi" isn't required for a work to be designed as a lens for the human condition.)
Now, what it may have done is destroyed Hollywood's desire to fund scifi films that weren't visually appealing whether or not they were social commentary; it certainly may have, through its effective (for the time) use of special effects raised the bar in that regard. But I don't think it stopped Hollywood from funding scifi as commentary on the human condition.
Let the market mavens of Hollywood take the Sci Fi channel and run it into the ground, tracking the demographics. Create an SF channel that actually focuses on SF. It would probably have a lower market share, but the fans would be people who are loyal and likely to be technophiles. Perhaps the SF channel could even cover things that are SF becoming reality. Imagine a 'future tech' show that has interviews with people like Burt Rutan (SpaceShipOne) and various Internet entrepreneurs, all set against classic SF.
Another thing about SF books - what has happened in the USA, land of Asimov, Heinlein, Doc Smith, Dick, Harrison, Herbert, Niven etc?
In the last 10-15 years the majority of the SF books I've bought have either been from England (Stephen Baxter, Peter F Hamilton, Micheal Marshall Smith, Douglas Adams, Neil Asher, Richard Morgan, Alistair Reynolds, Phillip Pullman*, Terry Pratchett*); Scotland (Iain M Banks, Ken McLeod) or Australia (Greg Egan) - and I'm not consioulsy selecting "local authors".
(* OK, Pullman's "Dark Materials" is borderline SF/Fantasy; and Pratchett published two SF books before hitting the big time).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I tis true that 99% of them are pure crap. But there are few winners like Alien Apocalypse starting Bruce Campbell http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0404756/ This is one of my favorite movies ever.
TNG was all about how science changing the human condition. That's why it was the best Star Trek show. DS9 was a simple soap opera, Voyager was a simple adventure in space, Enterprise was...better not tell, and TOS was cheesy.
h e_Next_Generation_episodes for the list of episodes and the tremendous catalog of topics TNG dealt with.
Where to start from...let's see...
artificial forms' rights? the whole story of Data was about that.
AI? Data, again. He even created a child.
3d hologram technology and consequences? lt Barcley's holodeck excursions, LaForge's love with a virtual character.
The consequences of very advanced weaponry? lots of stories here about balance of war.
Racism? Federation values and mistreatment of alien races.
Sexuality? Riker's affairs with asexual races, the trill woman and the doctor.
Cloning? Riker's brother, Lore.
What reality means in the presence of technology? Riker's episode in the hands of alien mind benders.
The consequences of nanotechnology? the episode with the nano-machines.
History and archeology? the episode where Picard finds out the common ancestor race for most races of the A and B quadrants.
Sociology and biology? unification.
Cyborg technology? the whole Borg story was about that.
Religion? many episodes where Picard was treated as god.
Politics? quite many episodes.
Money? the structure of the Federation as an advanced form of society that does not need money.
Evolution of civilization? Federation citizens evolved into people that aim to better themselves and not simply consume resources.
Strange stellar and time-space continuum phenomena? plenty of episodes as well.
Time travel and consquences? yet again, many episodes.
Terrorism and 'cause justifies the means'? season 3, episode with terrorists possessing a super-transporter device. Maquis.
Anti-gravity? Star Trek's home.
Psionics and telepathy? besides Deanna Troi, there were lots of episodes where telepathic races did various things with various consequences.
Espionage? plenty of Romulan-related episodes.
Tortures and human rights? 'I see 4 lights'.
Parenthood and what it means to raise children? lt Worf, his wife, his child Alexander.
Actually, La Forge and Data saved the day in quite a lot of episodes...in fact, in more episodes than Picard did.
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_T
TNG is above and beyond all other sci-fi shows.
Odyssey 2001? was HAL science? it was more magic than science. Artificial gravity in Odyssey 2001? yeah, it could work, but man will not go to the Stars in rotating cylinders. The monolith? increbible black magic box.
Blade Runner? yeah, cloning. Big deal. Seen and discussed a thousand times in TNG.
Doctor Who? let me laugh. The doctor, travelling in time, battling injustice? with a ship bigger from the inside? what kind of science is this? where is the science, actually?
Farscape? nothing that Star Trek has not shown before.
Galactica 2003? firearms instead of lazer guns, Christian God preaching instead of ancient Gods? no thank you sir. It is ridiculus. Galactica 1978 was much better.
So...Star Trek did not kill Sci-fi. TNG was the most popular show, because of its tremendous diversity in topics.
Sci-fi was killed by the mindless stupid and silly shows that followed.
Not much of the book made it into the film. The work of Mobius on sets etc turned what would be average Hollywood SF from what was left into something that looked good - the movie even survived the bit where the android runs out of time just as it has the hero helpless in a fight scene which would kill most other movies. It was the same with Fifth Element - another movie where so many things make it look like a good film in stills even if the plot doesn't do a lot.
Frequently an "SF Setting" (generally, "The Future", usually far enough to have space travel) is simply the chosen backdrop to another movie - generally an action movie, but maybe a romance or comedy. But in all cases you can imagine changing that backdrop and a few dozen words of dialogue and plot details - and turn it into a western, or a Roman costume drama.
Star Trek was described as "Wagon Train to the Stars" and Kirk as "Horatio Hornblower in Space". And a lot of the crapping on the show by SF purists is really over the issue that some episodes really were SF - asking the question "what if" and exploring the consequences of a radical change to some societal underpinning - but most were simple romances or action stories set against the SF backdrop. I'm prejudiced by a love of "true SF", but I think most of the best-loved episodes were the SF ones. "City on the Edge of Forever" explored the emotional problem of "could you kill somebody today if it would save millions in a decade", a problem that just didn't come up for cowboys or Romans.
Many of these movies (or series episodes) aren't merely "not SF" but also "BAD SF" that infuriate SF lovers. The reason being that the SF backdrop gives a bad-SF writer license to utterly contrive the physical & time settings to be anything convenient to their action or comedy plot:
- sometimes it takes months for the Enterprise to get back to Earth, or a week to even phone it. Next episode, it's two days away...BY SHUTTLECRAFT.
- space battles that don't incinerate the losing ship in a millisecond, but slowly degrade it, just like, oddly enough, wooden sailing ships Hornblower used. Niven & Pournelle wrote about contriving the "Mote In God's Eye" ships with their Langston Fields so that they would be staffed & operated like old wet-navy ships, with 3X the needed staff to keep running after losses in battle. That's the social environment they wanted, an existing, familiar one; just like Star Trek (and BG) ships. (My bet: real spaceships will be a bunch of professor types, and no dramatic control room; just "computer, go to Sirius". Dan Simmon's Hyperion had a great scene of a spaceship owner laughing at people who looked for the bridge; and Iain Banks giant ships certainly had none.)
- The Salon review of "Starship Troopers" picked on a great true-SF point that most reviews missed while they debated whether Heinlein was a fascist and such rot. Troopers proposed that the nature of warfare would change. Those ignorant cannon-fodder doughboys became more like modern aviators, working 30 minutes every 30 days while operating complex equipment and working in tight formations. Verhoeven explicitly WANTED a familiar WW2 movie, so he ditched the fancy suits and the army actually acted more like a Civil War rabble, a charging mob with little direction, blazing away with machine guns containing 10,000 bullets. They took away the true-SF "what if" proposition and just restaged Iwo Jima on Klendathau.
- You cannot, of course, get more contrived than Star Wars inventing a reason for swords to still be in use; that's the ultimate gold standard of technology contrived for the desired dramatics.
People listing movie names seem to have forgotten the Philip K. Dick material beyond "Blade Runner" - with "Total Recall" both a classic shoot 'em up actioner that also explored the question of identity and reality itself. (I still think Arnie was dreaming in a hospital bed after scene five.) Minority Report about arresting people for things they "would have" done.
"The Abyss" is mostly just an action movie in a bizarre location; until you get to the aliens at the end, and What If First Contact Was Right Here On Earth...that part was real SF.
I think the article's problem is that the steady appearance of fine SF movies is *diluted* by cowboys in space "not really SF" movies that embarrass & taint the whole genre...but there's lots of real SF out there; a year doesn't go b
If you haven't read it, don't read this post.
---
---
---
The greatest part of Dark City, IMO, is the spaceship towards the end. If you think about the "Star Trek" society where you have uber-reliable force-fields (reliable enough to use as back-ups in case the physical doors fail, as they do in Star Trek), why wouldn't you build a spaceship like that? All you need to do is put a forcefield around some ground, or an asteroid, and build your city on top. Tremendous idea. Of course you can't talk about it to anybody who hasn't already seen the movie because the fact that the movie has a spaceship in it is a spoiler by itself. I think that's why the Dark City ship never gets listed on those "top 10 spaceships" blog posts and such.
Comment of the year
I am going to be very broad here, but being a working American citizen, I know that most of us must work 40 hours a week to pay off massive debts. After the day is done, are we just too tired to think?
The Arnold Schwarzenegger Presidential Library is far closer to becoming a reality than they ever could have dreamed of in the early 90's.
"The Medici family does not produce movies, so the whole commissioning art for art's sake rarely if ever happens."
Pirates don't either. Something to think about next time someone on slashdot goes on an anti-copyright/new business model tirade.
I have recently been looking at the DVD of Forbidden Planet and each time I watch it I am impressed by how good it is. Some flowery dialog, but overall it is subtle, scientifically reasonable, no evil aliens and about universal issues. And it also has some wonderfully creepy moments: I still think the 'footprints' scene is one of the best in movie sci-fi. The debt of Star Trek etc to it is pretty obvious.
Before Star Wars there was a lot of serious SF, some depressingly so. After that it was space fantasy ... ok in small doses bug gees. I think the pendulum has now swung back a bit, for example compare the old and new versions of Battlestar Galactica.
Actually, nowadays with easy access to special effects etc I'm surprised indie developers aren't doing more intelligent SF movies. They don't have to special effects feasts, just use it where needed and no more. I would think there would be a niche for such movies, there's been a lot of good SF short stories and novellas written that would be great to see on the big screen or distributed via the net.
Bitter and proud of it.
It says you are deluded as to the quality of SF in the 'old days'. I lived through 'em - and Sturgeon's Law applied then too.
It isn't just Hollywood or Scifi's fault. It's mainly the audience's kneejerk science-fiction-is-always-campy responses that are mainly to blame.
I've introduced scifi television shows to a bunch of folks at work by swapping box sets of Firefly and the current Battlestar Galactica. One of the coworkers is a chick who is utterly entranced with Gilmore Girls and now adores BSG, but if I hadn't loaned her my boxsets, she admitted she never would have even given the scifi genre a chance.
Once they watch it, they like it, but getting them to watch it in the first place is like having teeth pulled.
Hollywood will air what is popular.
SF and pretty smart
OK, it wasn't the most amazing moving in the world, but I will say that after reading the pile of garbage that the late Carl Sagan wrote in the original book, the movie was 10x better or more. If you have seen the movie but havn't read the book.... DON'T!!!! The book will ruin the movie for you. Seriously. There are a couple of very minor gems in the book that weren't in the movie, but it isn't worth the brain damage to get to them. The screen play did a much better job of presenting the key ideas of how contact with other alien species might actually take place, starting with the discovery of a source that was pulsing out the first bunch of prime numbers between 2 and 101. From that point on the movie was fun until it started to get very spiritual and bizzare near the end. Even that was tolerable.
To save you the trouble with one of the "gems" in the book not covered in the movie: Having Dr. Arroway scanning through the digits of pi in order to find "hidden" messages, including a binary coded "message" around digits 100 quadrillion, with a hint that there was stored within the transendental number instructions for another "machine" even better than the one they got from Vega. Still, in hindsight this was a stupid idea and was a good thing to leave out of the movie.
While his "popular science" books weren't too bad (I like Comets), his attempts at science fiction were simply horrid, and that is being kind. I just don't think Dr. Sagan knew how to write fiction.
That perhaps a very good SF writer (Orson Scott Card or Jerry Pournelle?) might be able to "fix" Contact to become something very interesting if it were done as a remake, I am frankly amazed at what Robert Zemeckis actually did with this story given the original source material, and from my perspective he should get top billing for authorship on the story.
Lucas admitted somewhere that he borrowed the main themes and plot of Star Wars directly from Joseph Campbell's mythology book (very popular among game designers by the way), Hero With A Thousand Faces. Everything Luke goes through maps more or less directly onto The Hero's Journey as Campbell would relate it.
I'd like to add the Alien series to the list of serious science fiction.
... what about "Santa Claus and the Martians", eh?
Oh, and as for the good ole days
Do you really think the genre is going downhill? I think Lucas is an improvement on SCatM.
They don't make them like they used to. Thank goodness.
I am anarch of all I survey.
The potential, though, is huge. The Tomorrow People, Sapphire and Steel, Blake's 7 - these could make damn good movies. They'd need to be about the same sort of length as the individual LoTR movies, but there's now good reason to believe people will watch a truly good movie that is that long, so there's no excuses there. These series already dug deep into the human condition, but they were heavily limited by tiny budgets. (The Tomorrow People cost about $8,000 an episode - a Hollywood producer probably spends more on sodas for the crew than that show spent for its entire run!) They were also limited by attitudes, with TV execs thinking of sci-fi as a fad for children that was going to die any minute anyway.
They were also constrained by the technology of the time. Colour-Separated Overlay (CSO or "blue-screen") and plastic Airfix models packed with explosives were about the upper limit for special effects. Modern computer graphics, complete with high dynamic range and photorealistic rendering techniques, totally blows away anything these cult TV series could do at the time. And as good as the BBC Radiophonic Workshop were, nothing they could produce can rival a modern 11.1-channel 24-bit 88.2 KHz digitally-textured (eg: 3D sound, phase shifting, audio ray-tracing of post-production sounds, etc) environment.
What about American cult TV? Well, there really hasn't been much that was either powerful or memorable. American TV execs were stupider than the English ones and generally discouraged anything that was any good. Most American telefantasy has been soap operas that merely happened to include ideas borrowed from science-fiction, as opposed to being science-fiction that merely happened to borrow the occasional idea from soap operas (multi-threaded asynchronous stories, for example). There have been a few things that got through, but most got canceled once the execs escaped from the dungeon they'd been chained up in.
What about other sources? I'd like to see some of Bill Baggs' productions re-done on the big screen. (The Zero Imperative has definite possibilities, and these days a reworking of The Airzone Solution might well be good too.) Non-British/Non-American sources? Well, that's tougher. There are many excellent writers in many countries, but I can't think of any who have produced something that would work well in a movie format. Riverworld is far too long and complex, for example, to do well outside of a book format. Also, other cultures tend to have an idea of the human condition that is totally alien to the people who would likely be watching such a movie. This makes things difficult. (The fact that The Fifth Element was watched by fewer and bought by fewer than March of the Penguins shows that French science-fiction is out-matched by French science-fact in the eyes of American audiences. That may or may not be fair on French sci-fi writers, but the marketplace has never been known for fairness.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I have no idea whether it was based on a sci-fi novel or not, but it sure as hell *felt* like it; it was thoughtful, deliberate without being dull, took both the science and sociological angles as seriously as possible, etc. Excellent movie, highly recommended: IMDB Link
I interpret 2001 having a great, epic, meaning for which there is no story larger; the why and future of man's very existence.
The ability to tell a story, with stunning and realistic atmospherics, that transports you to the past, the near present, and ultimely the evolutionary future of humanity, traveling through pivotal points of human evolution, that demonstrates a thought-provoking possibility of subtle extraterrestrial origin or influence on our very being; still a little known idea, but more beleivable today and not as controversial as maybe it was in 1968/69.
If nothing more it demonstrates vividly, I think quite realistically, that early earth, long distance space travel, and ultimately the history of man is likely to be/been unfathomably long stretches of sometimes imperceptable change broken by extreme, unpredictable spurts of discovery and growth.
That in the era of its release, the closest most people came to technology was new Quasar color TVs with mechanical remote controls. Or a portable transistor radio. Overall, it had little to do with HAL, but a self-aware computer? (in 1960s, what is a computer?)
Seeing the ads at the time, but too young to go, I first saw the movie in 1979 at its 10 year rerelease and it was, and still is, groundbreaking to me.
I like the book. I own a ton of Asimov's books. I wouldn't see a movie based on "I, Robot," though. It's mostly a lot of talking, and while I like character-driven plots, "I, Robot" doesn't have a lot of character development or action.
I think that some of the Elijah Bailey novels would make good movies, but then, I'm not a movie producer.
I believe that unintended consequences of robotics was a theme in Asimov's works. But people can differ. But it's hard to port Asimov to the big silver screen. Because his robot texts are basically non-violent, and Holywood doesn't believe it could sell anything that doesn't have at least a couple of explosions and some gun fights. And they're right. If you're looking for a summer blockbuster, and not a Oscar-winning low-sales darling, that's what you need, because that's what more people will go see.
How about movies like: -Cocoon 1 and 2 - The Abyss - K-Pax - Contact - etc I know many who have at least the two first on their top 10 list of movies. I would love to see more movies like them to be honest.
If it's that easy to make money off of Scare Tactics (which I really doubt), then NBC (which owns the sci-fi channel) could just make a channel of all Scare Tactics type shows, and make money off of both, rather than sacrificing the profit from Sci-Fi to make only the money from Scare Tactics.
After all, is the goal to have the highest profit margin, or the highest profit?
Not true. The movie was written first. It was inspired by Clarke's "The Sentinel" and Borges' "The Aleph", but while the actual writing was done by Clarke, Kubrick demanded so many rewrites that Clarke himself admits that he didn't really write 2001 -- Kubrick did. The book was based on Clarke's understanding of what was going on in the movie, but the two stories are not the same, because (among other things) Kubrick is not Clarke. It's like saying that you have to watch Blade Runner to understand Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Yes, both works are strongly related, but they're not designed as a unitary whole, and treating them as such will lead you astray.
Read again the title of the book. Was it called "I, Robot" or "Robots and Empire" ?
(And it's not like even in that one, most of the action were comprising epic battles against robots army trying to establish a totalitarian regime - you're not allowed out during curfew ! - with constant huge explosions.)
The only good point of the movie is, people who never heard of Asimov, and went to the movie and liked it, may then go into a library, see a book with the movie poster on its' cover, buy it, actually read it and - THEN - discover Asimov's clever work.
I don't know. The movie seemed to me to be a long string of special effects and product placements with only a couple of reflexions thrown here and there.
But it's maybe just us Europeans who have to much high requirement when it comes to philosophical content of movies. For example, "Deep" isn't how we would define The Matrix series, even if it was sprayed with a couple of smart reflexions here and there.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I was at Worldcon the year Blade Runner won the Hugo. Ridley Scott was there to accept the award, and he said something to the effect of "apparently you people in this room are the only ones who saw it".
...
Granted, it came out on the same weekend as "E.T."
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Too true. We are coming to Idiocracy. In fact even that movie was dumbed down by making the main character an idiot in most peoples eyes.
I prefer to do my own research rather than to cite someone else's work. I cite my life experience.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
I'd be a lot more interested in an explanation of why science fiction is always lumped in with dragons and elves and wizards and all that fantasy-genre crap. They're about as diametrically opposed as it gets, with science fiction being extremely technology-oriented (usually), and fantasy being an essentially anything-goes pseudo-medieval situation. Granted there are "crossover" stories, but you're going to get that across the entire spectrum of writing.
As a sci-fi fan with a particular attraction to so-called "hard science" novels, I find it especially annoying to have to dig through endless reams of fantasy 10-part-series titles (inevitably named things like Dragon[fill-in-the-blank]) just to find a few decent sci-fi books.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Heh, yeah... I'd agree somewhat there. Trust me, I'm not deluded; there was always crap on the market. It just surprises me when I realize that the good sci-fi I've picked up in the last few years tends to be from established authors. In fact, they're often from authors I read when I was in my teens, some 20 years ago. If you can point me to some good quality authors who have just entered the scene in the last 10 years, I'm all ears!
The problem as I see it is that particularly in America those authors who are getting published all have an Hollywood idea of what science fiction should be. Quite often, the dollar talks; the publishing houses tend to publish that which they feel can make them money, and then by extension so do the authors. Often they feel that explosions and lasers are all anyone wants out of science fiction because that's what they've been taught science fiction is about. My favorite science fiction books and movies distinctly lack lasers or explosions... they're about people.
First, *real* science fiction, or sf (NOT sci-fi). 99.999% is WRITTEN. Evidence: I would guess that less than 1000 "sci-fi" movies have ever been made; meanwhile, I have over 3000 novels in my library, a fair-to-middlin' size collection for Real sf fans, and well under 100 are related in any way to any movie or tv series.
This, of course, cuts out most Americans, who *claim* to value education, etc... but the last time I saw a figure, they average 3-4 books PER YEAR. I would say, then, that between my family and myself alone, hundreds of Americans don't read a *single* book per year.
It also cuts out a large percentage of Americans, who avoided anything related to science in school or college, and know *nothing* about it. The popular ones, of course, added another layer to that: they began the crap of giving derogatory names to anyone who *did* know anything about anything, and looking down on them. Come on, how many folks reading this are not considered wonks, geeks, grinds, nerds, etc, etc, and not "worthy" of being in the in-crowd, and who are considered to have poor cleanliness, social skills, and so forth, and are definitely portrayed that way in the entertainment media? So many Americans think along the lines of "no user serviceable parts", and that those of us who *do* know stuff are self-evidently weird, and so why would they want to associate, or even read or watch stories about us?
Second, sci-fi (pronounced skiffy by real sf fans) is mostly associated with the science of Godzilla movies and movie reviewers with the attitudes mentioned above, who will, therefore, not even *consider* sf seriously. Point of evidence: months after Apollo XIII hit the theatres, I heard Siskal and Ebert pronounce that they didn't understand why it was still in the theatres.
Finally, with the ongoing consolidation of the media, the head honchos are especially from that in-crowd from high school that I mentioned above, with all those attitudes. When combined into a group of executives and a board, of course, the old truism is that the IQ is divided by the number of members involved.... Certainly, we have enough proof with Berman, who is in charge of the Trek franchise at Paramount, say in an interview that he hated it, and in general displayed, in print, the attitudes above towards sf.
Is that enough reasons that it's a stigma, in a know-nothing country?
mark
Not true. The movie was written first. It was inspired by Clarke's "The Sentinel" and Borges' "The Aleph", but while the actual writing was done by Clarke, Kubrick demanded so many rewrites that Clarke himself admits that he didn't really write 2001 -- Kubrick did. The book was based on Clarke's understanding of what was going on in the movie, but the two stories are not the same, because (among other things) Kubrick is not Clarke. It's like saying that you have to watch Blade Runner to understand Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Yes, both works are strongly related, but they're not designed as a unitary whole, and treating them as such will lead you astray.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a science-fiction narrative, produced in 1968 as both a film (directed by Stanley Kubrick) and a novel (written by Arthur C. Clarke). Both projects are based on a screenplay developed by Clarke and Kubrick in collaboration, which was loosely based on Clarke's 1950 short story "The Sentinel" and incorporated elements from various other Clarke stories. Although the film has become more famous due to its groundbreaking visual effects and ambiguous, abstract nature, the movie and book were meant to complement each other and are equal in importance.# Stanley Kubrick initially approached Arthur C. Clarke by saying that he wanted to make "the proverbial good science-fiction movie". Clarke suggested that "The Sentinel", a short story he wrote in 1948, story would provide a suitable premise. Clarke had written the story for a BBC competition, but it didn't even make the shortlist. "The Sentinel" corresponds only to the relatively short part of the movie that takes place on the moon.
# The screenplay was written primarily by Stanley Kubrick and the novel primarily by Arthur C. Clarke, each working simultaneously and also providing feedback to the other. As the story went through many revisions, changes in the novel were taken over into the screenplay and vice versa. It was also unclear whether film or novel would be released first; in the end it was the film. Kubrick was to have been credited as second author of the novel, but in the end was not. It is believed that Kubrick deliberately withheld his approval of the novel as to not hurt the release of the film.
You can't take the sky from me...
What are people talking about here? Blaming Hollywood for not making stodgy, boring, exquisite boutique SciFi (not scifi or whatever because apparently there's a difference) movies designed for an audience consisting of real world contemporaries of the Comic-Store guy from the Simpsons?
It's a lot like blaming McDonalds for not making cuisine suitable for the food-stacking jus guzzling professional restauranteurs so they can write pretentious articles about how high the food stacks are at their $200/plate 20 course meals.
Yeah, it's art. Hollywood is a business. Art either sells or it doesn't. If you need to make a profit, what movie will you make?
I like science. I like science fiction. I hate being bored out of my skull. I'll pick the science fiction in an entertaining wrapper.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
And thinking man's sci-fi tends to be dystopian nightmares of doom and gloom. A few still manage to be entertaining (Brazil, Blade Runner, Soylant Green, Matrix) but all to often they are dull and elitist movies (Gattaca, Logans Run). Perhaps proper science fiction is just better read than watched.
I am old fan of Stanislav Lems work. I have to say i would never call American version a remake (Are we calling all versions of "Hamlet" a remake after first one?" Tarkovsky is brilliant director, but unfortunately i have to say for director of his class borth "Solaris" and "Stalker" are plain failures. They still show his high class and much better that a lot of movies out there, but if you compare them to the rest of his work you can say that he is not really good Sci-fi director. You also need to realize that American and Russian version are talking about different things, and yes American Version is not following the book exactly ,but bring the central idea of the movie (not the book) better and that part of artistic process, finding something in the book and making a movie about it. Probably it will be more fair to call movie differently but say it's based on Solaris novell in this case (you can read lem comments about second movie here : http://www.lem.pl/cyberiadinfo/english/kiosk/kiosk .htm#solstation [www.lem.pl] ) Russian version unfortunately didn't really cover main idea of the book and tried to do too many things at the same time. You can read Lem comments about russian version here.: http://alek.xspaces.org/2005/07/28/lem-on-tarkovsk y [xspaces.org]a ris/solarispl.htm#1 [www.lem.pl]
Also you can read some ideas about book here : http://www.lem.pl/cyberiadinfo/english/dziela/sol
In general I have to say Lem probably wouldn't like the second movie either, but i still must say that doesn't make it a bad movie, it just probably should have have a different name and say --- based on the characters and event from the book instead of being called Solaris. As with many good books there are usually interesting ideas in them that authors might not have originally planned to explore. So it take good director and script writer to explore those. In my own opinion and based of what i know about Lem work i would say second movie bring some of those idea better that Tarkovsky did. If you really want to see great work by Tarkovsky you should see Andrey Rublev. But this is not science fiction. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060107/ [imdb.com]