Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns

[Morgoth]

Click

 

Sir Ridley said that 2001 was

[Walsingham]

2001 Is the second worst film I have ever seen. I don't believe it could be any more self-indulgent or boring.

[Pop]

I love 2001, just for the ending freakout. But then, I read the book before I saw the movie, so I had a kernel of an idea of what was going on.

 

He's right, though. Much as one might like Sunshine (the most recent sci-fi movie I can remember), it's still heavily indebted to movies that came before it, particularly Alien and 2001. If you're doing any movie in space, it's difficult not to crib from either of those movies, because they're both archetypal takes on sci-fi. If you want a squeaky-clean, optimistic future, you go with 2001 (you could make concessions to Star Trek as well). If you want a dark, dystopian future, you go with Alien (or alternately, Blade Runner), what with its future-class tensions and free market tyranny.

 

But as much as Ridley Scott practically birthed modern sci-fi himself, I'd have to disagree with him. Children of Men was a sci-fi movie and **** if it felt trite or played out.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Pop

[Gorth]

Forget 2001... go find a copy of Dark Star instead

[Pop]

There's a great band named after the main character of that movie.

 

And also, I failed to notice it earlier, but Westerns aren't dead either. There are plenty of neo-westerns, be they gothic (The Proposition), conventional (3:10 to Yuma) or, my favorite, Hong Kong (the soon to be released Exiled) If Westerns are indeed dead, they're dead like Punk, that is, the footprint's still there, and it's deep.

[Slowtrain]

That new Danny Boyle movie is supposed to be pretty good SF. Haven't seen it yet though.

[Gorgon]

He's dead on the money with sci fi, I can't even remember the last movie to take the genre seriously.

[Rosbjerg]

That new Danny Boyle movie is supposed to be pretty good SF. Haven't seen it yet though.

 

That's Sunshine, a pretty decent film - mostly due to it's very artistic tone and design.

 

I can't even remember the last movie to take the genre seriously.

 

I thought Solaris was a very interesting Sci-Fi, the original Russian film is albiet more groundbreaking - but still.

[Sand]

The best science fiction film ever made is Blade Runner. 2001 was okay but Blade Runner was superior in nearly every way except for its lack of bone flinging monkeys. Speaking of monkeys 12 Monkeys is also a very well done science fiction movie.

[Tale]

I wish Wals RE: 2001. First time I watched it I fell asleep fairly quickly. Second time I watched it, it was okay until the end, then it just got retarded.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Tale

[Hurlshort]

Children of Men was great. I see what he's saying, but we are still getting one or two good titles a year.

[Hurlshort]

After thinking about it a bit more, it's not like the 70's and 80's were filled with deep sci-fi movies. In between every good one you had numerous bad ones. Barbarella for teh win.

[Lyric Suite]

2001 is still the best and probably the only one i can still take seriously. I just saw Blade Runner again recently and i really don't get what's supposed to be so good about it. I loved it when i was a kid but now, bleh. Those type of films weren't really that great to begin with, much like Westerns i guess.

[kirottu]

After thinking about it a bit more, it's not like the 70's and 80's were filled with deep sci-fi movies. In between every good one you had numerous bad ones. Barbarella for teh win.

 

Barbarella is all kinds of awesome.

[Slowtrain]

Has SF ever been that big at the box office? I mean there is the occaisonal Blade Runner or 2001. You could stretch and probably make a reasonable argument for both Alien and Planet of the Apes (Heston version) as SF. Maybe The Matrix or Total Recall since they do use some aspect of technology which is fundamental to the narrative. But most big name "SF" films are more just action films dressed up with SF clothes.

 

I think you find more SF in minor films such as 12 Monkeys or Gattaca.

[Gfted1]

Has SF ever been that big at the box office? I mean there is the occaisonal Blade Runner or 2001. You could stretch and probably make a reasonable argument for both Alien and Planet of the Apes (Heston version) as SF. Maybe The Matrix or Total Recall since they do use some aspect of technology which is fundamental to the narrative. But most big name "SF" films are more just action films dressed up with SF clothes.

 

I think you find more SF in minor films such as 12 Monkeys or Gattaca.

 

 

You may want to roll in a little know francise called Star Wars. Maybe even the Star Trek's too.

[Tale]

Star Treks I could call Sci-fi. Star Wars are little more than space fantasy movies. Far too much mysticism in them to be sci-fi.

 

I look to Doctor Who to make this distinction. Sure, there are entire societies based on math, like we would use steel and brick, but at least it tries to pretend there's a scientific basis for it or at it least fabricates one.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Tale

[Oerwinde]

2001 was crap. It was like a boring acid trip.

 

And Serenity was awesome. As was Transformers.

 

Speaking of Transformers. Look what the freaking aussies get:

 

http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/795761

 

Bastards and their awesome DVD sets.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Oerwinde

[Slowtrain]

Has SF ever been that big at the box office? I mean there is the occaisonal Blade Runner or 2001. You could stretch and probably make a reasonable argument for both Alien and Planet of the Apes (Heston version) as SF. Maybe The Matrix or Total Recall since they do use some aspect of technology which is fundamental to the narrative. But most big name "SF" films are more just action films dressed up with SF clothes.

 

I think you find more SF in minor films such as 12 Monkeys or Gattaca.

 

 

You may want to roll in a little know francise called Star Wars. Maybe even the Star Trek's too.

 

 

I would argue that any film that has spaceships traveling in "hyperspace" or "warp speed" or "making the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs" (wtf?) is fantasy and not SF.

[Kelverin]

2001 was crap. It was like a boring acid trip.

Great, terrible maybe but never had a boring acid trip.

 

2001 was a great movie, loved the book as well.

 

If anything is dead it's film makers (Hollywood's) creativity. Remakes and sequels rule the day. Which of course explains the popularity of making films based on comic books - a large source of new "creative material"

 

Comics = new sci fi

Edited August 31, 2007 by Kelverin

[Hurlshort]

Just like video games, making movies is an expensive process. It's difficult to take risks in tis market, as it can literally break the studio if it flops.

[Rosbjerg]

I would argue that any film that has spaceships traveling in "hyperspace" or "warp speed" or "making the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs" (wtf?) is fantasy and not SF.

 

huh? Hyperspace, Warp Speed, Photon Torpedoes and Laser beams definitely fall into the catagory of fiction (and particularly science fiction at that).

[Gfted1]

^I was thinking the exact same thing but didnt understand the difference between "science fiction" and "science fantasy".

[Tale]

^I was thinking the exact same thing but didnt understand the difference between "science fiction" and "science fantasy".

Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting. The genre is generally distinguished from science fiction and horror by overall look, feel, and theme of the individual work, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three (collectively known as speculative fiction). In its broadest sense, fantasy comprises works by many writers, artists, filmmakers, and musicians, from ancient myths and legends to many recent works embraced by a wide audience today.

Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and case) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology. Science fiction is found in books, art, television, movies, games, theater, and other media.

 

 

Science-fiction books, magazines, film, TV, gaming and fannish materialIn organizational or marketing contexts, science fiction can be synonymous with the broader definition of speculative fiction, encompassing creative works incorporating imaginative elements not found in contemporary reality; this includes fantasy, horror, and related genres.[1]

 

Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are possible within established or postulated laws of nature.

 

Science fantasy would be a mixture of the two, it may take mythical or fantastical elements and find a way to apply scientific concepts to it. Futuristic fantasy would be fantasy that takes place with futuristic technology, but has significant core elements that are not "possible within established or postulated laws of nature."

 

I think hyperspace and similar are fall under "postulated laws of nature" but feel that Star Wars's The Force does not. Additionally, Star Wars build much mythos into its series.

[Pop]

And Serenity was awesome. As was Transformers.

zzzZZZzzz.

 

 

As for 2001, it's very much the art school kind of film. You get it or you don't. There are Stanley Kubrick people, and there are Bett Ratner people. A film with strong authorial vision that doesn't hand-feed its audience is going to repulse people.