Why can't we have more science fiction movies? (1 Viewer)

[Mike Updike]

Actually, the first few episodes of Lost in Space were very good attempts at TV scifi. Unfortunately, they quickly degraded into the much-maligned Dr Smith, man-eating plants, et. al., episodes that we have come to hate.
If they ever release the first epsisodes on DVD, I will be amongst the first to buy--especially "The Hungry Sea" episode.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, let's get clear on the premise here:
Most films called "science fiction" are not science fiction, but badly wrought fantasy. Using the criteria of literary (i.e., print) SF, only a very few films would then qualify as the real deal. In fact, I doubt more than a few score (if that many) would qualify.
In a way, science fiction is even harder to do right than standard, mainstream fiction. Not only must it adhere to the basic concepts of good story, good characterization, and plausibility, it must remain staunchly faithful to science as it is known at the time of its telling (meaning, for example, that 1950's Destination Moon--based on a story by Robert A. Heinlien--qualifies as "real" SF, even though it is hopelessly dated and not accurate based on what we know today).
For every 2001, there is a depressing plethora of Lost in Spaces.
Sad. Given what's possible today, a good (read: real) science-fiction film would be marvelous to behold.
------------------

 

[Edwin-S]

---Does an outer space setting automatically denote "science fiction"?---
IMO...no. I make a distinction between "sci-fi" as put out by Hollywood and real "SF". Movies like "Lost in Space" and "Alien" are not "true" SF in my book. "2001 A Space Odyssey", while not being the most exciting movie, really is an "SF" movie. The forthcoming "Rendevous with Rama" is an SF movie because...assuming it follows the book...it deals with Mankind's realization that we are not alone in the universe and the ramifications on society that result.
------------------

 

[Jack Briggs]

That's a distinction Harlan Ellison likes to make: "SF" (that is, "real" science fiction) versus "Sci-Fi" (the garbage Hollywood commonly passes off as "science fiction"). Good point, though I disagree, of course, about 2001: A Space Odyssey not being "exciting." I can't think of a film anywhere near as exciting as 2001.
The mainstream media would call Fox's The X Files "science fiction" when nothing could be further from the case. It's fantasy. Star Trek, as much as I love it, is only occasionally science fiction.
------------------

 

[Edwin-S]

Sorry...doubled posted same comment. Deleted same.
[Edited last by Edwin-S on September 19, 2001 at 02:39 PM]

 

[Edwin-S]

I guess when I use "exciting", I am referring more to the pacing than to the content. A lot of movies tend to have a more rapid pacing, especially modern films. After watching some older films, I have noticed that the pacing of modern films has definitely increased in speed. Images bombard you and a lot of times the story is presented in a fragmentary way. When you go back and watch something like "2001 A Space Odyssey", after being exposed to the type of filmmaking taking place today, a person would tend to say it is not an "exciting" film. This in no way reflects on its content. "2001 A Space Odyssey", even considering its age, is still the definitive "SF" movie, IMO. It portrayed space travel as accurately as it could, based on best knowledge at the time. The pacing of the film is "operatic". Considering the structure of the film leaves plenty of room for discussion and interpretation, I am still amazed that it ever got made in the first place.....especially by a large studio. I believe that in todays filmmaking environment this film would stand almost no chance of ever being made.
I really am waiting with anticipation for "Rendevous with Rama". The book was one of my favorite Arthur C. Clarke tales and I hope to god they do the book justice.
It would also be interesting to see an adaptation of Nivens and Pournelle's, "The Mote in God's Eye" but that is just wishful thinking on my part.
------------------

 

[Jason Seaver]

) science-fiction film would be marvelous to behold.

Still haven't seen A.I., have you?

 

[Jason Seaver]

Let's see if this will "unstick" my posts...

 

[AaronNWilson]

What about the movie sphere? I really liked this movie but I have read multiple times on the HTF that other people didn't like this movie. How do science fiction afficionados feel about the movie sphere?
Aaron

 

[Jeff Adams]

Well Aaron, the movie Sphere just didn't do it for me. I have only seen it once and that was along time ago. Maybe if I watched it again, I would feel different. The thing is, I really cant remember why I did not like it. What I can't understand is why people don't like Lost in Space. I really enjoyed that movie. I thought the story was cool and the special effects were great.
------------------
"I'm your Huckelberry"

 

[GaryM]

The movie Sphere sucked because of the weak ending - which as true to the book which also sucks. Basicly they imagined it hadn't happened, got a momentarily confused look on their faces, and reality was changed. Give me a break already - Sphere was a big budget production with several big name stars and a script based on a Michael Crichton novel - it should have been a lot better than it was.
The same basic premise was handled much better in the 1980 film The Lathe of Heaven, also based on an SF novel of the same name written by Ursula K LeGuin. The movie was a low-budget PBS production with an unknown cast shot on analog videotape using those really heavy Videocams of that era, with no sets whatsoever and next to no costumes or makeup. Yet the end result was a much better movie than Sphere.
To slightly change the topic, there are recognized sub-genres of SF:
Space Opera: Humans go places in spacecraft and fight evildoers. Examples: Star Wars and Star Trek: First Contact.
BEMs: Bug-Eyed-Monsters from outer space try to take over our planet. Examples: War of the Worlds and Independance Day.
SF Disaster Movies: Self-explanatory, related to more standard disaster movies but with an SF theme. Examples: Crack in the World and Deep Impact.
SF Horror: Horror but with an SF theme. Examples: From Beyond and Ghosts of Mars.
SF Adventure: Self Explanatory. Examples: Total Recall and The Fifth Element.
Etc. Etc.
Take all of the Sub-Genres collectively, and you have a fairly large number of SF films. Occasionally a really unique work happens which defies classification in any existing genre. Examples: Existenz and The Matrix.
I'm sure more than one of you will want to debate or refine or extend my own list of sub-genres above. My point being, in the broadest definition of SF, there are a LOT of films -but most people pick out one or more genres, and think "Science Fiction", and ignore the rest.
Gary
[Edited last by GaryM on September 21, 2001 at 06:06 PM]

 

[andreasingo]

I liked the premise for Sphere but I thought it was very poorly executed.
The movie tells us the characters perception of reality changes changes when they think about something. In the end all of them agree to think that nothing that took place in the film happened. This is a plot hole. By talking about it they already have thought about it and their perception should have changed immediately, not later. There is more examples of this throughout the movie but this situation is a good example.

 

[Brad_W]

CONTACT was an intelligent, well written and thought provoking Sci-Fi based film. What I also liked was the fact that the film was really ALL story. It didn't hit you over the head constantly with explosions and special effects such as a movie like ARMEGEDDON.(Mike S)
I couldn't agree with this more. I hated armageddeon or as I call it, "Arm-a-lame-on." But in all seriousness my personal fave is Mission to Mars and I will defend that movie feverously. Way to go De Palma! Contact is also a GOD. We do need more Sci-Fi... it is the epitome of letting yourself be submerged into another reality and getting away from this one. Sci-Fi allows us to see what other people imagine or dream about. Hell, if it wasn't for sci-fi, we wouldn't have some of the technology we have today: ie fax, etc. Sorry for taking this WAY too seriously.
------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)
My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html

 

[Brad_W]

Mike,
I would have to agree with you about space cowboys. It has Tommy Lee Jones and Clint Eastwood, what went wrong? Well old guys don't go into space for a reason, THEY'RE OLD.
Aaron
_________________________________________________
Space Cowboys = only a movie my dad would like. As a matter-of-fact... he loves that movie. I fell asleep and my wife told me the rest after I woke up: we never spoke of that movie again... until now.
------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)
My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html

 

[Brad_W]

2001 A Space Odyssey", after being exposed to the type of filmmaking taking place today, a person would tend to say it is not an "exciting" film. This in no way reflects on its content. "2001 A Space Odyssey", even considering its age, is still the definitive "SF" movie, IMO
-----------------------------------------------
2001 was beautiful. The fact that the first two minutes or so of the movie is black is amazing. I love long scenes with no cuts. 2001 defines epic. Television, especially MTV (the devil's network) has warped our minds and killed our attention spans. God forbid that we sit quietly and think, watch, and wonder during a film. Armalame-on is the best example of the worst for hi-speed edditing. That movie is essentially, "what would happen if MTV was hit by a comet."
I could go on, but I won't.
------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)
My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html