Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns

[astr0creep]

First, Blade Runner did NOT do well in theaters. It was a flop. It attained true cult status and made most of its money later on video.

 

Second, Mr. Scott is talking about Hollywood Sci-Fi which, since Star Wars, is made for the obviously sole purpose of making money.

 

These days, not many Sci-Fi films aren't blockbusters or aren't conceived as such. Most of these films have huge budgets and so are marketed as blockbusters in order for the studios to make some profit. So we almost always get dazzling special effects as the lure.

 

They're not dead but as with all the other genres in Hollywood, they need an infusion of original, creative thinking. They need to be written by writers and directed by directors, not rewritten and directed by producers.

[Walsingham]

I've got two words for you: smoke weed. Everything is better when high.

 

Not so. It greatly complicates urine tests.

[Lyric Suite]

How are they enjoyable in their own right?

 

The same way you enjoy a photograph, or a painting. Even when the subject contains aspects which are often arbitrary and even mundane, it's the way they are represented that brings out their full aesthetic impulse. Other times, it's the novelty of the subject at hand that leaves a mark.

 

Ultimately, you have to understand of course that 2001 looked much different when it was first released then it does now. Many of the images contained in the film were probably shocking and awe inspiring when they were first screened. Nobody had seen pictures like those before, and that's also the effect Kubrick wanted to achieve.

 

Today, it's hard to understand what made 2001 such a powerful experience back in 1968, but this can be said for many other classics as well.

 

I am sorry to be so strident, but Kubrick abused my goodwill generated in his other films and stole two and whatever hours of my life! If he were still alive I'd bloody well take them off him! I've never been so bored, and I've been to Witney.

 

Different strokes for different people i guess. The first time i saw 2001 i was enthralled right from the beginning.

 

If you think 2001 was boring, god forbid you watch a Tarkosvky film.

[Gorgon]

I prefer movies with a strong human acting component. 2001 has practically none. I still like it for other reasons, but there isen't much rewach quaility in they eye candy alone. Despite all this it's still a good sci fi movie.

[Lyric Suite]

eye candy

 

Ha, are all visual arts to be reduced to this then? Is Michelangelo also nothing but eye candy? Rembrandt perhaps? You don't think film making shares a similar plane of existence, considering how crucial the visual element is to the form? If photography is to be considered art, then likewise for the visual counterpart of a film, which can become even more engrossing when you add other forms of stimulation (like music).

 

I prefer movies with a strong human acting component.

 

I don't have a preference, as long as a film aims at the highest order of craft and expression. 2001 does this, and i think it earns great distinction from being so peculiar in the first place.

[Rosbjerg]

It greatly depends if you view films as a media capable of potraying art. Most people don't - which is perfectly understandable. But this distinction makes artistic films have a rather hard time as they are judged by "entertaining" standards.

[Gorgon]

eye candy

 

Ha, are all visual arts to be reduced to this then? Is Michelangelo also nothing but eye candy? Rembrandt perhaps? You don't think film making shares a similar plane of existence, considering how crucial the visual element is to the form? If photography is to be considered art, then likewise for the visual counterpart of a film, which can become even more engrossing when you add other forms of stimulation (like music).

 

I prefer movies with a strong human acting component.

 

I don't have a preference, as long as a film aims at the highest order of craft and expression. 2001 does this, and i think it earns great distinction from being so peculiar in the first place.

I realise that this is how it usually is, but, it can get pretty annoying when people take one part of one of my my posts and reply at lenght pretending the rest doesen't exist. Let me just remind you that I also said it was superb cinematography.

 

Even if the graphics are out of the ordinary, I need a strong story to keep me interested. The sixteenth chapel it is not.

[Pop]

Sistine Chapel?

[Gorgon]

heh, yeah.

 

Brainfart.