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.'"
Noooooooooooooooo!
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
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.
Zardoz!
You forgot Zardoz!
You did it on purpose, didn't you?
Soylent Green wasn't "about" people, it IS people!
If one can't figure out why the sci-fi genre isn't taken seriously by the time one gets back home, they'll never get it.
Next time say that in Klingon, it gets the point home more forcefully.
Dont blame Lucas... BLAME CANADA
future based. Are you new here ? A long time ago......
Don't go there....just don't go there.
And the audience seems perfectly happy to do so. Witness the success of such future classics as Norbit.
"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?
Here is what I, Robot was like:
Robot (does something or whatever).
Will Smith: Dayamn! You did NOT just do that! Nuh-uh! You be trippin'!
And no, I'm not kidding. That is exactly what the movie was like.
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.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Starship Troopers was a superb film on so many levels. I highly recommend getting a hold of the collectors edition and listening to the full length commentary by the directors.
Verhoven's commentaries are always priceless
You can't take the sky from me...