Slashdot Mirror
Should There Be a Sci-Fi Category At the Oscars?
An anonymous reader writes "In this chat with the originator of the light-saber in Star Wars and the Nostromo in Alien, director Roger Christian argues that the Academy Awards needs a special category for 'best science-fiction film.' It's a thorny subject, since such a new category would inevitably either get lumped in with fantasy/horror or further 'ghetto-ise' the genre. But with 2001 and Avatar snubbed for best picture, among many others over the years, does ANY sci-fi film ever have a shot at Best Picture?"
'Proper' SF (which I dare not attempt to define, but feel free to have a go) will always be too 'niche' for the general public to appreciate in this way. Perhaps there should be a Best Picture category at the Hugos instead.
This. And it is why I hate SyFy so incredibly much for what they have done in recent years.
And just generally destroying shows as well, changing times around, etc.
I actually want them to die. They have done more damage than good to SciFi.
I'll stick with amateur productions, online productions and the like. Hell, even animation (anime in particular) has more hard SciFi than anything put out the last decade in film. That's just sad.
They are better than the trash put out these days. It is all action action action now to try pull in the action kiddies. No thanks, I like substance. (Even if it was acted by people in school for an English class!)
"Proper" SF isn't "hard SF" Although they're both difficult to get right, especially if you also want to be entertaining.
The idea of sci fi in general, and its main strength over other forms of literature, is to explore some social issue using fantastic elements to disguise the bits that would prejudice the reader. Like the film Gattaca, which explorers racism without prejudicing white viewers with actual race differences. (speaking of which.. why does the title have an extra letter?)
Hard scifi doesn't necessarily don't explore real issues, but instead plays with the what if [thing that's impossible] were everyday and commonplace scenario. Sometimes you get a story that's engrossing. Sometimes you get a product manual for products you can never buy. Frequently, you miss out on the "permanent and universal interest" part of enduring literature, though.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Science fiction is an existential metaphor that allows us to tell stories about the human condition. Isaac Asimov once said, "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinded critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
No actually you are wrong and missing the intent of science fiction. Take Star Trek for example, which went from good ol SciFi, to hand waving fantasy land. Yes I blame the writers.
Let's say I am writing a story and in the story I hit what I would call a dead end. In the case of Lord of the Rings it is when Gandor is taken down the bridge and "dies". At this point the question becomes how does the story adjust when it hits a dead end? In the case of fantasy a wand is waved and Gandor comes back as a new Gandor the white, who has progressed to the next level. In fantasy we accept that, but from a story line its hand waving and taking a short cut to get out of a story.
In contrast when a story hits a dead in with science fiction you can't hand wave. You HAVE TO figure it out as a puzzle with limits and boundaries. This is what makes SciFi so hard because it has limits on what is believable and what is not believable. Getting back to Star Trek in later episodes there was a quite a bit of hand waving. When the plot became difficult and hitting a dead end some magical technology appeared and all is ok in the Federation. That is violating the rules of Science Fiction.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
You mean like in the Babylon 5 season 3 finale, where Sheridan jumps to his death on Z'ha'dum and is brought back to life to lead the alliance against the Shadows and Vorlons?
Oh wait, that's the opposite of what you were trying to say.
And Babylon 5 was the best SF to ever hit TV...
I know I'll be demolished for this but, "I, Robot" takes a lot of undeserved criticism because it took some of the Asimov themes and characters but wasn't a direct copy of an Asimov story. I heard it got retitled at the last minute to drum up interest. The movie had some good, insightful moments (interview where the Robot asks Will Smith's character if HE could write a symphony, etc). By the way, the Asimov 'I, Robot' and 'Foundation'' series both jumped the shark when he tried to bring them together at the end. The movie was better than that.
"Everyone has to piss in it."
I'm acquainted* with a well known SF author who told some stories about going through the book-2-movie gristmill. His first book won both Huga and Nebula, and some years later, someone got a project going to make a movie out of it. His take on the process was (paraphrasing): "Everyone has to piss in it. You know, there's the screenwriter, and the producer, and the director, and the stars... each one has to piss in it, you know, to mark their territory. Everyone has to 'add' something to the story... and at the end of the process, what you end up with is a bucket of warm piss."
* "Acquainted" means: We have a lot of mutual friends, but only ever meet at SF cons every few years.