Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns

[Slowtrain]

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).

 

 

Depends on the approach. James Blish wrote a pretty cool short story about travling at light speed or very close to it), can't remeber the name since I read it many years ago, which I would definitely qualify as SF. Star Wars light speed doesn't qualify as SF.

[Gorgon]

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

 

Well theres one. It might not be to the liking of the puritans, and indeed, why re-make when you can cre-ate (ain't I clever)

 

It did take the genre seriously though.

 

Science fiction is what might be possible, staying within the realm of physics, science fantasy is what you wish were possible.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Gorgon

[metadigital]

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"

Gotta agree here: loved the book and I really enjoy Kubrick's artistic vision and superb skills.

 

Also, you young people are demonstrating an incredible myopia for the genre; the Golden Age of SF was the fourth and fifth decades of the twentieth century, together with a "New Wave" of the sixth and seventh decades.

 

Don't tell me you are all ignorant of classics like Metropolis (1927), The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Forbidden Planet (1956), the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), The Blob (1958), etcetra, etc!

 

As for the death of the genre, I would say that people are being a little premature ... AND I would say that the genre was very tired after a couple of decades and needed a rest ... a bit like how Doctor Who was bankrupt after John Nathan-Turner's production career and only returned when a diehard fan, in the person of Russell T Davies, with some vision could do so after a decade and a half lying fallow.

 

Now there is a resurgence of SF, like the recent films of from the books of PKD (Through a Scanner Darkly (2006): the only author with more film adaptations of his work is Stephen King ... no, Ian Fleming doesn't count ;p ) and Asimov (I, Robot (2004)), to name only two; the bar is a lot higher now because the audience contains (geeks) who understand a lot more science to a higher degree.

 

 

 

PS Ridley Scott freely admits (in the DVD special features) that the "dirty future" of Lucas's Star Wars film was a huge influence on his vision for the Nostromo and Alien.

[Dark_Raven]

2001 was weird as is all of Kubricks films. I prefered 2010.

[Kelverin]

I prefered 2010.

Also a good movie and novel. But I'll take the original.

[Dark_Raven]

I have not read the books, so I don't know how accurate the movies are to them.

 

 

When I called Kubrick's movies weird, it isn't an insult, Kubrick rules. They're just odd from the norm, they are movies that make you think.

[Oerwinde]

I personally never understood the Kubrick love. Dr Strangelove was awesome, Clockwork Orange was decent, Full Metal Jacket was half of a great movie, Eyes Wide Shut had some awesome boobs, but The Shining was crap and 2001 was crap. Still need to see Lolita and Spartacus. Basically, he's got some crap and he's got some good, but doesn't really have anything outstanding.

 

Thats not to say I'm in the "Yay a new Rush Hour movie!" crowd. I do like the odd "turn off my brain and enjoy" movie, like Last Action Hero, but then again Pan's Labyrinth, The Fountain, Requiem for a Dream, O Brother Where Art Thou, Lawrence of Arabia and such also grace my DVD collection.

[metadigital]

I haven't found a Kubrick film I don't like, and I've seen all the ones you just mentioned. (I did walk out on Eyes Wide Shut in the cinema, though ... it was too long a film for me with Kidman and Cruise ... but then the couple separated and I re-analyzed the film and I saw more in it, namely their separation was etched into the film and Kubrick captured it.)

 

2001 is not a film, it's a tonal play. Part of the challenge he faced in making the film was that the book dealt with such unfilmable concepts (how do you show proto-humans gaining the spark of insight, without dialogue or a voice-over?) ... Clarke was baffled by the desire for a sequel to his book (an updated epic that he named after Homer's work) ... how do you

write about the next ®evolutionary step for humans when the book ends with the birth of a new species?

 

 

See Spartacus.

 

Coincidentally I saw the trailer for the new Rush Hour 3 and it looked pretty good (and I wasn't impressed with the first two ...)

[Oerwinde]

I haven't found a Kubrick film I don't like, and I've seen all the ones you just mentioned. (I did walk out on Eyes Wide Shut in the cinema, though ... it was too long a film for me with Kidman and Cruise ... but then the couple separated and I re-analyzed the film and I saw more in it, namely their separation was etched into the film and Kubrick captured it.)

 

2001 is not a film, it's a tonal play. Part of the challenge he faced in making the film was that the book dealt with such unfilmable concepts (how do you show proto-humans gaining the spark of insight, without dialogue or a voice-over?) ... Clarke was baffled by the desire for a sequel to his book (an updated epic that he named after Homer's work) ... how do you

write about the next

[Musopticon?]

I'm curious, how much did you pay for the Lawrence of Arabia dvd?

[Lyric Suite]

I have not read the books, so I don't know how accurate the movies are to them.

 

I read the book, but i consider the movie to be a superior effort. You don't need the first to understand the latter. 2001 flows through symbols, the narrative expressed by the action (much like a silent film), the themes conveyed through direct experience rather then plot or character progression (as befitting their timeless significance). It's not that complicated, really. Here's a simple summary of the salient elements:

 

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

 

As for the extremely long intro, does anybody know what an 'overture' is?

[Lyric Suite]

they are movies that make you think.

 

Imagine that.

[Gorgon]

My opinion is that 2001 and 2010 are rather slow moving and extremely pretentious, but are good enough to forgive their faults.

 

They are also supremely skilled cinematography.

[Oerwinde]

I'm curious, how much did you pay for the Lawrence of Arabia dvd?

 

Not much, I think I got it at HMV in the 2 for 20 bin. It was a good watch, it was odd seing Peter O'Toole as a youngster, and I thought it ended too abruptly, but I liked it.

[Musopticon?]

It's probably my favorite movie.

[Lyric Suite]

My opinion is that 2001 and 2010 are rather slow moving and extremely pretentious, but are good enough to forgive their faults.

 

Pretentious? How, because it tries to stimulate the mind rather then fondle your imagination with the usual characterizations and escapist plots? Is cinema forever to be bound to being a lesser form of art?

 

And please, let's not mention 2010 in the same breath as the original, shall we?

Edited September 2, 2007 by Lyric Suite

[Dark_Raven]

Overture.

 

In motion pictures, an overture is a piece of music setting the mood for the film before the credits start. It does not underscore the credits or part of the plot but is seen as introductory music "in its own right". It is typically accompanied by a blank screen (played with the lights already dimmed and/or with closed curtains) or a still picture and can be several minutes long.

 

Many of these (epic) films also featured entr'actes and exit musics, which, together with the overtures, have often been cut from TV and video releases and can only be found on recent "restored" DVDs. Some of these "incidental musics" were made for roadshow presentation and were cut afterwards for the wide release.

 

Notable examples are: Gone with the Wind, West Side Story, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and, more recently, Dancer in the Dark. King Kong(1933)

 

The anime series Space Battleship Yamato (1974) had the distinction of a vocal overture instead of instrumental.

[Oerwinde]

It's probably my favorite movie.

 

Big fancy special edition

 

Bare bones cheapo edition

 

I have the cheapo edition.

[Walsingham]

Lyric Suite, I shall resist the urge to feel patronised since I'm sure that was not your intention. Your suggestion is, I take it, that:

 

1. 2001'a long seemingly empty segments of watching hostessses and men walking around are loaded with symbolism that makes them in fact full.

 

Whereas I put it to you that I have watched films that are seemingly empty, and are packed with stuff happening past the surface. 2001 is not one of those films. It is a case of the Emperor is extraordinarily dull and self-involved.

 

For comparison I draw your attention to

 

In the Mood for Love - Wong Kar Wai 9

Sonatine - Micheline Lanctot

 

The latter is especially apposite since it takes a short story and makes a short film out of it. Rather than taking a short story and dragging it out into a feature film.

[Musopticon?]

2001 brought to my mind one of those Cinemax "superfilms" where the camera anxiously zooms over the Rocky Mountains and an epic overture dulls your mind to the very simplest of stimuli. The viewer claps their flippers and jumps into the audiovisual arctic as happily as the rest of the penguins in the huge hall. In the end you go "ooh" and "aah" when they zoom into a grizzly bear's nose. It's like a new age brainburger.

[Lyric Suite]

1. 2001'a long seemingly empty segments of watching hostessses and men walking around are loaded with symbolism that makes them in fact full.

 

No. The 'empty' segments have to be enjoyed on their own accord (for their beauty, a concept which apparently is unknown in cinema). The symbolism is actually quite elementary and only a small portion of the whole.

 

 

Can't comment on those films since i haven't seen them, but judging from this trailer it doesn't look like something i might be interested in. My taste in cinema is fairly limited though. I tend to find the other arts (literature and music in particular) to be much more satisfying.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Lyric Suite

[Sand]

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.

 

I liked that episode. Logopolis and Block Transfer Computation, using math to save the universe from entropic collapse. A fine episode that marked the end of Tom Baker's role as the Doctor.

[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.

 

I liked that episode. Logopolis and Block Transfer Computation, using math to save the universe from entropic collapse. A fine episode that marked the end of Tom Baker's role as the Doctor.

I bought the boxed set with The Keeper of Traken, Logopolis, and Castrovalva.

[Walsingham]

1. 2001'a long seemingly empty segments of watching hostessses and men walking around are loaded with symbolism that makes them in fact full.

 

No. The 'empty' segments have to be enjoyed on their own accord (for their beauty, a concept which apparently is unknown in cinema). The symbolism is actually quite elementary and only a small portion of the whole.

 

 

Can't comment on those films since i haven't seen them, but judging from this trailer it doesn't look like something i might be interested in. My taste in cinema is fairly limited though. I tend to find the other arts (literature and music in particular) to be much more satisfying.

 

 

Their beauty? Surely you jest, sir! *drops monocle* How are they enjoyable in their own right? I meanI sat through the original opening of Lawrence of Arabia and enjoyed it, but I'm damned if staring at a man walking around in a circle followed by the equally thrilling experience of seeing him listlessly fulfil inflight checks qualifies as either edification or entertainment!

 

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.

[Lare Kikkeli]

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