Slashdot Mirror
The Sci-fi Films To Look Forward To In 2013
brumgrunt writes "Not every sci-fi film released in 2013 will be a sequel or franchise movie. Den Of Geek has highlighted the ten sci-fi movies that might just offer something a little different from the PG-13, family-centric norm."
The list includes Elysium, from the writer/director of District 9. It's "set in 2159, where Earth has become so hopelessly overcrowded that the richest members of society live on a luxurious orbiting space station." There's also After Earth, directed (but not written) by M. Night Shyamalan, which stars Will Smith and his son Jaden. They "crash land on Earth at some point in the future, by which time it's become a dangerous place devoid of human life." And, of course, there's Ender's Game.
I don't intend to contribute to a Movie Star promoting his son into Movie Star II, I'll rather go and see Elysium or Ender's Game.
unfortunately Ender's Game didn't age well. It was awesome when I read it in the early 90's. Now, not so sure.
Some of the main plot points depend on us believing that a smart psychopath 13-year old assumes great powers by posting wise articles on the Net. Well the Net is really here, and we have Slashdot and Twitter and blogs... we can post wisdom until cows come home and no great powers will have been gained.
Where's the promised Rendezvous With Rama? I want to see the cylindrical sea, dammit.
There's enough Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. And no more remake of movies from 20th century. And whatever movie that will be made, increase writer's budget by 500% and cut special effects budget by 80%. Yes, it's a bitch to produce a movie with a compelling story that engages the audience. If CGI is used, remember a good story and nobody will notice the CGI (sounds weird but it's true, like reading a good book you become so drawn into the story you don't notice if fonts sans serif corrupted).
mfwright@batnet.com
The contradiction is only apparent since that is not what ST was about. It was about the idea that you cannot have social responsibility without first being willing to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good, and that letting those who aren't willing to do so have a say in the society is detrimental. In the novel, such willingness is shown through federal service, but that service was not necessarily military. Also, about military citizenship, people in the military were not allowed to vote. It is only after service that franchise is gained, so nobody in the service can be running the country.
This novel is similar to SiaSL in that contemporary social norms are challenged. In our democracy it's automatically assumed to be a fundamental right that everybody gets to vote, and Heinlein challenges this. Also at the time our army was a conscripted force, still mostly segregated by race, and with deep divides on ethnicity. Women at the time had a very peripheral role in the military. Heinlein used the concept of a completely volunteer force that is integrated by race and ethnicity, and in which women serve equally. The idea of a free person is taken so far that a soldier could legally quit to avoid being sent into battle, since you can't force a person to be willing to sacrifice for the good of the society. Many concepts of the novel were quite socially progressive for its time, and some these are still now.
And of course the strongest connection between the two novels is that Hershal in SiaSL and the teacher in ST are both considered to be the voice of Heinlein speaking through his characters.