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.'"

Comments

'Twas always this way

[Mikkeles]

'points the finger at the ultimate culprit: George Lucas... Star Wars ... '

It was always this way even before Lucas, with the possible exceptions of 'Things to Come' and '2001 A Space Odyssey'.

Re:'Twas always this way

[georgewad]

How about 'Forbidden Planet', 'The Day The Earth Stood Still', 'Silent Running', 'Soylent Green', 'Dark Star', 'Logan's Run'...
Even 'Deathrace 2000', 'Running Man' and 'Robocop' had socio-politcal statements to make.

Re:'Twas always this way

[erroneus]

Even Star Wars was hard get get moving though. I don't think Star Wars itself was necessarily the reason for this. Lucas had to make all sorts of concessions to make the movie happen and it just happens that one of the concessions made him billions of dollars and very powerful.

The industry just seems unwilling to depart from established formulas. The result is that everything they do frequently is a beat-down version of something else done before. It's ironic that the industry behaves this way when the rare departure often results in movies that are ridiculously popular... example, Napoleon Dynamite. (Let's face it-- "quirky" would be an understatement to describe the feeling of this movie.) Another example might be clerks... hrm... weren't both of those independant films? I know Clerks was. Perhaps what this shows is that the movie machine is uncreative and cares nothing about the audience save that they surrender their dollars.

Re:'Twas always this way

[mrbooze]

More importantly, why is it George Lucas's fault that audiences don't go to cerebral sci-fi films? It's not like they haven't made any over the years since then (Solaris, etc), they just usually don't get many people into the theaters.

Frankly, audiences don't clamor for cerebral films of any genre. The Fault, Dear Brutus, lies not in our Star Wars, but in ourselves.

Re:'Twas always this way

[theStorminMormon]

How about you RTFA?

After the serials of the '40s and the atomic monster movies of the '50s, science-fiction cinema seemed to grow up right alongside the literature itself in the '60s, culminating in the ultimate marriage of the two: "2001: A Space Odyssey." Director Stanley Kubrick went right to the source for his visionary classic, enlisting Arthur C. Clarke to write the screenplay with him and presenting perhaps the most serious, adult treatment of science-fiction themes to that date. Other literary adaptations followed. Kubrick did it again in 1971 with "A Clockwork Orange," while "Logan's Run," the remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," "Soylent Green" and the cult favorite, "A Boy and His Dog," all brought real science-fiction novels or novellas to the screen with varying degrees of success. Even nonliterary offerings such as "Silent Running" and Lucas' own "THX 1138" made sobering statements. But "Star Wars" effectively ended all that, substituting space battles, nonstop special effects and simple good-versus-evil archetypes for the more complex shadings and themes that marked science fiction to that point.

Seriously - this would be an interesting article to discuss if people actually read the article instead of treating this as another opportunity to publicly flaunt their indie cred. "Wath me list of sci-fi movies that show I'm so hardcore sci fi."

There goes any hope for an interesting discussion... /me cranks up "indier than thou"

No

[stoolpigeon]

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.

Re:No

[ajs]

Very, very true.

It's also true that Star Wars was more responsible for a mental-block on the part of those looking back at film history than it was for a change in later films.

Some films that came before Star Wars:

• Invisible Man, The (1966)
  
• 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
  
• Planet of the Apes (1968)
  
• Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
  
• Time Machine, The (1960)
  
• Andromeda Strain, The (1971)
  

Some films that came after Star Wars:

• Blade Runner (1982)
  
• Back to the Future (1985)
  
• Twelve Monkeys (1995)
  
• E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
  
• Gattaca (1997)
  
• Pi (1998)
  

You will notice that when you search for movies from these different periods, the primary thing that leaps out at you is that movies that treated science fiction as a serious genre (Pi, Gattaca, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Andromeda Strain) are about evenly spaced. There aren't a lot of them, but they get neither more nor less frequent over the decades... We just have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to history.

I partially blame...

[nebaz]

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.

There's plenty of SF movies

[L. VeGas]

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.

Science Fiction?

[Etherwalk]

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.)

Re:Might this yet change (Re: Ender's Game)?

[thrawn_aj]

Bad example IMO. While Ender's Game was brilliantly written, to say that

It has much to say on the human condition is a stretch. The fact is, and SF fans (like myself) should get used to it, most serious SF is NOT simple enough to be adapted to a 2 hour movie without serious losses in clarity. "2001" was understandable only if you'd read the book. Well, by understandable, I mean, all the nuances and the undercurrents. I would say that SF is more suited to the mini-series arena, with Dune being a perfect example. The ill-fated Riverworld is another. SF has a LOT to say about the human condition. However, I feel that the best medium for it will remain books because unlike other genres, which are fairly easy to visualize, the SF writer is precisely the person who goes beyond current memes, else he/she is a failure. Instead of blaming Lucas for the current state of SF cinema, I would applaud him for bringing at least one facet of SF into the public perception, Gordonian though it may be :P. Perhaps if the Sci-Fi channel focused on promoting more intelligent shows instead of the mindless dribble that panders to the paranoid schizoid crowd (wtf do psychics or Government conspiracies have to do with SF? :O), we have a better chance of seeing some of the greater SF works (Asimov's Foundation or Clarke's RAMA - a superb PC game was made of this a decade ago) showcased in all their glory. Of course, the sad fact is that most "SF fans" or at least people who call themselves that are simply X-files fanbois who never grew up.

Dune

[dedazo]

I think Dune represents a good example of why people don't take Sci-Fi movies seriously. Here's an incredible literary masterpiece that combines ecology, sex, religion, politics, technology and the ultimate essay on the fragility of the human spirit. Yet the movie and the two TV series that have been published not only do not do justice to the depth of the books, they ended up being, for lack of a better word, corny.

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.

TNG was all about science changing the hc

[master_p]

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.

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:_Th e_Next_Generation_episodes for the list of episodes and the tremendous catalog of topics TNG dealt with.

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.