Slashdot Mirror


In Praise of the Sci-fi Corridor

brumgrunt writes "Technically a corridor in a science-fiction movie should just be a means of getting from one big expensive set to the next, and yet Den Of Geek writes lovingly of the detailed conduits in films such as Alien, Outland, Solaris and even this year's Moon by Duncan Jones."

41 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. How to do a much shorter article next time by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They should do the next article on technology in scifi movies that DOESN'T go horribly wrong or lead to some nightmarish dystopia.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

      Without drama and conflict there's no story. Would you pay to see a story about a guy who went about his day in the future and didnt have any problems or anything interesting happen to him?

      Perhaps someone can combine twitter with scifi:

      futureguy: I am using my future toilet
      futureguy: I am driving my futurecar
      futureguy: I am sleeping in my futurebed

    2. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know. I thought the Jetsons had a pretty long run.

    3. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but there are also tired cliches (like the robot/computer that goes nuts and starts mercilessly killing humans). One of the reasons I liked the recent Moon is because it subverted that tired cliche.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Idiocracy may reach extreme levels and an AI born from the technological singularity may control everything.

      People may even have a total lack of privacy.

      As long as everyone is confortable (lack of privacy is not uncomfortable by itself, it's the negative reactions of the other people and your broken expectations that do it.) and entertained, nobody will care.

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    5. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by LitelySalted · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's not saying the future shouldn't have conflict, he's saying that future doesn't need to always emphasize how horrible EVERYTHING will turn out to be.

      That's why people like Star Trek movies, they have conflict, but at the same time, they point out that the future can be bright, technology can be helpful, people can be happy and life is worth living.

      Back to the main topic, corridors - they are cheap for filming. That probably influenced the reason to use them more than a necessity in "Sci-Fi" films. I recommend Cube if you'd like to see the minimalist set (hint: it's a cube and not a corridor).

    6. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Would you pay to see a story about a guy who went about his day in the future and didnt have any problems

      No but that doesn't mean you have to go extreme either. I thought the best Science Stories were those that took ordinary genres, but set them in the future:

      - Elijah Baley - a detective solving a murder in the year ~3,000

      - Tekwar - a detective solving crimes in ~2020

      - The Road Must Roll - a worker strike in the year ~2050

      - I Robot - a collection of short stories where a household appliance (robot) goes haywire, and the engineer's attempt to find why the problem happened.

      And so on. Science stories are best when they are tied to reality. It doesn't have to be some "nightmarish reality" to quote the grandparent..

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seinfeld 2049?

    8. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 3, Funny

      At this point in human development we've got a name for fiction based around a non-dystopian future... it's called fantasy.

    9. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think that's because some much sci fi (as distinct from space opera) invariably invokes our fears and anxiety to make compelling stories, rather than developing sophisticated drama. If it's just a story about something sciency, then something must go wrong somewhere in order for there to be conflict; it writes itself. Contrast that to Star Wars and Star Trek, where the science involved is a tool - starships and lasers and space stations - but the conflict comes from personal, character driven scenarios which require forethought and pathos.

      I don't think that catastrophe sci fi is anti-science, I just think it's easier - it's the 'disaster movie' equivalent.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    10. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by Noren · · Score: 2, Informative

      I must quibble- although Heinlein's short story "The Roads Must Roll"(1940) did not specify a setting date in its text, it was set in the same continuity in and occured prior to "The Man who Sold the Moon"(1949), which was set in the then-future of 1978. So, the strike (and associated terrorist activity) was to have been in the then-future 1960s or 1970s, not in 2050.

    11. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by Minwee · · Score: 2, Funny

      As long as everyone is confortable and entertained, nobody will care.

      Until some dickhead wearing mirror shades and a black trenchcoat came around and wrecked everything. That part would really suck.

    12. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by Maniacal · · Score: 2, Funny

      futureguy: I am using my future toilet
      futureguy: I am driving my futurecar
      futureguy: I am sleeping in my futurebed

      Oh great. They're still using Twitter in the future? Shoot me now.

      --
      MG
    13. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by onionman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? I thought 2001 was one of the best movies I had ever seen, and I watched it in 1992. Whereas far too many sci-fi films focus on explosions and space-battles that look like WWII dog fights, 2001 seemed clean and plot-driven to me.

    14. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by alexhard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sorry but I'm having a very hard time comprehending your post. Did you actually call Kubric's 2001 one of the worst movies you have ever seen?

      DOES NOT COMPUTE

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    15. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The plot can usually be summarized as:
      ...
      It seems to me that a lot of science fiction has an anti-science bent.


      You could just as well say that all non SciFi has the same problem... Govenrment wants to do something stupid and only the maverick politician can save the day; Spouse does something stupid and only two hours of dramatic avoiding-the-real-problem can reunite the couple; Boy wants girl but it takes 90 minutes of wacky adventures and two near-death experiences before he gets the courage to ask her out.

      The "best" SciFi doesn't make science out as the villain or the hero - Instead, it shows us the (possible) realities of everyday situations in a setting that extracts those problems from the limitations of "modern" science... ie, The boy will still take 90 minutes and nearly die before he gets up the courage to ask the girl out, whether he lives today, or in a dirt hovel 300 years ago, or on a colony station orbiting Jupiter in the year 3517.

      I think your real complaint applies to most forced-plot movies in general... You need some artificially-induced source of tension, followed by stalling and CGI to make the story last more than five minutes, followed by a completely predictable but somehow "unexpected" resolution to the original problem. Faux-science just happens to make for some good villians without needing to really justify their motivations. Why does the god-like AI want to enslave humanity? Because, um, er, humans look weak and inefficient (and what about dogs, trees, ants, and every other lower life form on the planet that A, humans don't see a need to enslave/exterminate, and B, we must look barely better than them to this god-like AI?).

      So blame Hollywood, not SciFi in general. :)

    16. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends. By the time I saw it, I was told its an Important Film and Important People made it and Important Things happen because its Important Art. As such, its interesting to watch and comment on all the little things that happen and more or less take it apart in your head and sit back and enjoy the swirling lights because they are Important Art. I think for the average filmgoer at the time of release it must have been somewhat unbearable. The critics at the time either loved it or hated it. I think this is typical of movies like this that have experimental elements and work more with broad themes like alienation and discovery and not concrete terms like "I need to win this prisonhouse arm wrestling match to win back my daughter!"

      Lets just say its an acquired taste. Its obviously pretty heavily influenced by social conventions at the time. The entire landing sequence is more or less an homage to the drug-heavy counter-culture at the time. I feel like an older more mature Kubrick would have done a much better job than the late 30s Kubrick who was still something of a counter-culture type himself. Luckily, his immense talent allows us to overlook some of the weaker if not outright silly parts of the movie.

    17. Re:How to do a much shorter article next time by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets just say its an acquired taste. Its obviously pretty heavily influenced by social conventions at the time. The entire landing sequence is more or less an homage to the drug-heavy counter-culture at the time.

      This.

      You realise that this was released before the Apollo landings ? There was nothing other than satellites and grainy B&W photos of earth. Then you associate lack of knowledge with drug use.But you treat the imagination of others like shit because they were too early ! Just you wait, grasshopper !

      (Before you bang on, let me explain that when the moon landing was on, I was watching it on about a 12" B&W tv. And that was a decent screen for the proles back then. Watching 2001 on a BIG screen back then made me jump. Literally. Apparently my parents had to take me out when the airlock opened when dave gets back in to the ship. )

      What many people don't get these days, is that we were already thinking in a futuristic direction, and 2001 was part of that. Then we actually made a start on the mechanics of the plot and found real life is a lot harder. That makes us look like we failed. No, we attempted to realise a dream. Fuck me if you don't appreciate it.

      The past need no excuses. Prove us wrong.

      [mumble}{mumble}
      I should really bang on about how history is a lot closer to you than you imagine right now, but you won't listen. You pooh pooh stories about how it used to be without realising that we're talking about yesterday. Think about it.

  2. Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's mostly wrong with the corridors in Stanley Donen's Saturn 3 (1980) is that the floor-surfaces resemble the base floor of a movie studio, something which had plagued the corridors in the medium-budget Star Wars three years earlier (more on Star Wars corridors in a moment).

    The movie that has an opening fight sequence in a corridor and later corridor after corridor on the death star followed by another fight sequence in a prison block corridor only leading up to the-equivalent-of-Jesus getting lightsabered in half in a corridor adjacent to a docking bay .... and you say "more on Star Wars corridors in a moment."

    And the second movie? Hoth ice corridors. IV, V & VI are so dependent on corridor shots.

    Did you mean to say "The Corridors of Star Wars article will be out later today with a 58 page thesis on the strength of corridor running and combat between rebels and imperials in the Star Wars cinema"?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Creepiest sci-fi corridor by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Event Horizon! Can you imagine trying to walk down that hall with the walls spinning around you?

    Of course, maybe Event Horizon doesn't actually qualify as science fiction.

    1. Re:Creepiest sci-fi corridor by polymath69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about the corridor of chompers in Galaxy Quest? Just imagine trying to wheel a food-service cart or carry an antigrav-attached magnetic bucket of antimatter down that one...

      --

      --
      I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
  4. SyFy? by ONOIML8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't you mean a syfy corridor?

    --
    . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
  5. Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A friend of mine who films his own movies has a corriodor in his basement. He says that corridor is one of his primary sets.

    The same was true with Trek. If they weren't on the bridge, they were in some damn corridor. One of the things I liked about DS9 and Babylon 5 was that they had lots of "open" sets, and tried to avoid corridors as much as possible.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  6. Sci-Fi by Broken+scope · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cause in the future we don't have cable management or flimsy plastic plates to cover up sensitive equipment and sharp corners.

    --
    You mad
    1. Re:Sci-Fi by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you seen the ISS? The future is looking pretty organized. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/177653main_UTBI1.jpg

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Sci-Fi by egburr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, once you invent artificial gravity, you're back to having to have dedicated floor space for walking, standing, sitting, etc. And when your habitat expands beyond just a six person capacity with everyone knowing everything, to a large community where people have specialized tasks, you will probably not want to have everything just sitting out in the open like that for people who don't know what they are doing to accidentally bump things on their way by and not know how to correct it. And when your habitat grows beyond just a few small rooms, you will have to have dedicated travel (dare I say it?) corridors, that are just that, corridors.

      When your entire environment is very small and contains a very few smart, well-trained people, you can make use of every available space like they do on the ISS.

      --

      Edward Burr
      Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
    3. Re:Sci-Fi by Spad · · Score: 2, Funny

      And we have an entire infrastructure of pipes dedicated to moving steam around every ship or building complex, for some reason.

  7. Tune in next week... by bigmaddog · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...for the space toilet special. An interview with George Lucas will explore the challenges of sci fi pooping, creating believable multi-species lavatories that account for physical as well as cultural differences, whether Jedi excrement has any force abilities, and the problems traditionally associated with merchandising this under-developed aspect of cinema.

    --

    Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!

  8. I'm damburger, and I'm a corridorholic by damburger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dear god, I thought I was alone.

    Corridors are the unappreciated bedrock of science fiction. I guess the original reason is because they could be repeatedly used for different parts of a ship/space station/alien planet, but they've taken on a life of their own.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  9. Non standar ones by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like the ones in Cube (and se/pre quels) that separate one room from another, short, high, but usually was enough to give a hint on what is forward, or at least see the fate to the first one that went in. Or the one in Coraline (ok, is no sci-fi, but probably qualifies as a "special" corridor).

  10. Re:I've always said it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any movie with a soundtrack by Queen is automatically one of the best movies ever made.

  11. Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can't really fault Trek for having so many corridors when most of the shots occur on the ship. If the space ships of Star Trek are anything like U.S. naval vessels, then they are mostly corridors connecting rooms. The rooms will be cargo, berthing, galleys, a few work shops, engineering, and the bridge. If the ship supports fly ops, it will have a hanger and flight deck.

    The important thing is that there will be no "open" decks. Everything will be enclosed, much like a modern submarine. Space will be at a premium due to life support considerations, so rooms will be small and packed together. Plus, depending on how long it takes to get around, there is the matter of food and water storage, recycling systems.

    In ST:TOS, the Enterprise would often be "three weeks out" from the starbase of the week. It had a crew of about 1,000. So, the ship had to have enough food, water, and air for 1,000 people for three weeks. Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. Ejecting it from the ship means loss of material, water, and air. Storing requires voids. Recycling it requires space for the recycling equipment.

    Also, a ship moves through space so it must have engines and fuel. The bigger the rooms, the bigger the ship, the more mass the ship has, the bigger the engines and the more fuel it needs.

    Most people forget many of the details required for life because those details are taken for granted on a planet.

    Corridors are the natural result of building large space ships with large crew compliments. Even a large cargo vessel will be some huge empty spaces for the cargo and a large space for engineering both connected to a small crew section which will be mostly small rooms off of corridors.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  12. Re:I never liked Sci Fi corridors. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have never been on a submarine have you? Space ships have a lot in common with submarines.

    Use that space for something! Put labs there!

    Yes, because no one would mind people walking through their work space. Who cares if one get's jostled by someone passing through while one is performing a delicate and/or dangerous step in a procedure or experiment?

    Crew quarters!

    Yes, because no one would mind people walking through their living and sleeping space at all hours of the day and night. I am sure those people on night watch won't mind have their sleep disturbed ever few minutes.

    Those corridors connect rooms together. They are hallways. No corridors, and you end up with one huge room which will result in no privacy, a huge waste of air, and is wonderful vulnerability because it takes just a hole or two to kill everyone on the ship.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  13. Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? by moose_hp · · Score: 4, Funny

    [...] Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. [...]

    You just solved both problems with the same solution.

    --
    DON'T PANIC.
  14. Re:Blakes 7 had the best corridors!!! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When a Sci-Fi corridor is mentioned I instantly think of old series Dr. Who. They were all flimsy and cheap, but they were interesting to look at and it always seemed like half the story involved the Doctor and/or an assistant running through them.

  15. Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 2, Funny

    In ST:TOS, the Enterprise would often be "three weeks out" from the starbase of the week. It had a crew of about 1,000. So, the ship had to have enough food, water, and air for 1,000 people for three weeks. Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. Ejecting it from the ship means loss of material, water, and air. Storing requires voids. Recycling it requires space for the recycling equipment.

    This problem is solved.

    --
    The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
  16. Best corridor(s) from the classic 2001 by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The best corridors were from the movie 2001. In it we have:

    - The long corridor connecting the crew module from the propulsion system on the Discovery. Note it was octagonal in section and had no up or down as it was only to be accessed in zero-g.
    - The short corridor/connector in the shuttle to the moon where the mod space stewardess walks in and, thanks to the tricks of a rotating set and fixed camera, travels up the wall onto the "ceiling" and exits. (She is supposedly held on by her velcro shoes).
    - The short connector on the Discovery which is where the non-rotating main part of the space-craft meets the rotating part of the crew module. The astronauts must float down it and then clamber down a spinning opening to the part of the spacecraft that has artificial gravity. This is also another great "corridor", here Stanley Kubrik built basically an enclosed ferris wheel and in some memorable shots, had his astronauts jogging all around the "wheel".

    Amazing what you can do with a script that isn't pseudo science and a director who cares (and has a good budget!).

  17. Satellite of Love by Vohar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd have to say my favorite Sci-Fi corridor is always going to be MST3K's during the transitions between sketch and movie.

    "Oh no we've got MOVIE SIIIIIIIIGN!"

  18. The lost art of gypsum drywall by Biff+Stu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just as people currently endeavor to recreate the manufacturing methods for medieval stained glass or the great pyramids, the people of the future will be awestruck at the ability of 20th and 21st people to make such smooth walls out of the mysterious and amazing material known as drywall.

  19. Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

    In ST:TOS, the Enterprise would often be "three weeks out" from the starbase of the week. It had a crew of about 1,000.

    No, it was usually somewhat more than 400, IIRC.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  20. Outstanding by P.+Legba · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the only thing I've read better than this article today have been the Slashdot responses.