SF and Hollywood's Dumbness: A Question About Burton's _Apes_ Movie (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Take The Mummy

I won't take it because it's an irrelevant example. This thread deals with science fiction, not campy fantasy.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Science fiction is by no means an area of expertise for me, but my understanding of it as a genre is to provide feasible "predictions" (not the right word but nothing else comes to mind) of what the future might be like. Also, the imagined future is used to comment on the present. Part of the problem may be that the lines separating fantasy and sci-fi have been blurred to where the terms are used interchangeably.

One of the better sci-fi films, in the strict definition of the term, is Gattaca. It's Brave New World-like themes are similar to issues we face to much lesser degrees now. Not quite as good, but probably a better example of sci-fi, is The 6th Day.

Jack, you're much better versed on this stuff than I am. Would you agree that these films are more representative of what is considered sci-fi than, say, Lost In Space?

 

[Brian_J]

You have to keep in mind that making films too true to their subject can be downright boring for the average person to watch. I always see computer geeks complaining about the way hacking is shown in movies but do we really want to see the way it really is? What would it take, like 20-minutes to show one 30-second scene and how entertaining would it be? The same holds true for certain aspects of science fiction that are "dumbed down." If they were not, only the true SF geeks would watch the movie (I use the term "geeks" in a loving manner btw). In my opinion, if you are complaining about the technical aspects of the science in Science Fiction you are worrying about the wrong things instead of the right things-like maybe the story. This does assume a certain minimum level of realism to SF of course. You should only have to suspend your disbelief so much for a given movie.

You know its far easier for me to suspend my disbelief for a SF movie like The Matrix than the typical non SF action movie (like Tomb Raider, where for instance our heros defy gravity and general laws of physics.

Brian

 

[Terrell]

Suspending disbelief works for fantasy but not for science fiction.

Sure it does. Suspension of disbelief has to work for a lot of movies, and it's not restricted to fantasy. Since when does a sci-fi film have to be exacting in it's science to be fun and believable?

 

[Jim_K]

Let me play devil's advocate here. A pet peeve of mine is the argument among science fiction enthusiasts of what constitutes true/hard science fiction. Let me quote the Webster's definition.
Science Fiction:
fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals;broadly: literary fantasy including a scientific factor as an essential orientating component.
Like it or not all of science fiction is a form of fantasy, which deals with either actual or imagined science however implausible. So true science fiction would include films of wide diversity such as: 2001, Bladerunner, Terminator, Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Flash Gordon, THEM!, Close Encounters, War of the Worlds, Alien, Total Recall, Jurassic Park, Frankenstein, etc... Would you dismiss Alien or Frankenstein from this category for their Horror elements? How about Terminator and Total Recall for Action? Star Wars and Flash Gordon for being too fantastic? Now none of these mentioned films would be the same without the science/technology real or imagined that they utilize hence true science fiction.
Now I’ll ask this to my fellow Sci-Fi enthusiasts on this board: What constitutes this so called true/hard science fiction category? Does the story have to be based on proven scientific fact without any element of fantasy?
If so then this would eliminate 2001 for the fantasy-like ending alone where:

Bowman is reborn as the Star Child

One could also classify 2001 as an Art film for the bizarre yet brilliantly cryptic last segment of the film.
Now I do agree that Hollywood has dumbed down in general (not just Sci-fi).

 

[Terrell]

Great post Jim, and a great point. I must admit I've never thought of it in those terms. Only that sci-fi is a loosely used term.

 

[Andrew_A_Paul]

I agree with what some are saying about today's SF movies. The directors and everyone else involved with movie need to do their homework. In the year that Armageddon and Deep Impact came out, Armageddon had the upperhand with Willis. Deep Impact was, however, correct. If we were to actually blow up an asteroid hurdling towards Earth from the inside, splitting it in half, the two pieces would pass by Earth only to sling around and impact on the other side. In Deep Impact they had people in the field of astronomy helping the special effects team to make the movie as real as possible, and it was.

 

[Andrew_A_Paul]

I don't understand why some are saying that some SF movies are not plausible. Isn't that the point of science FICTION?

 

[JoeDelan]

Andrew, some people are just anal about certain things. SOme people dont like Fantasy mixed in with Sci-Fi and some dont like Sci-Fi mixed in with Fantasy.

We all have our likes and dislikes, and how certain things irritate us. Me, I dont see anything wrong with what the original poster stated. Some do, some dont, but at least it's a thinking coversation...

 

[Terrell]

While I agree with your point somewhat Andrew, I doubt very seriously you could catch a comet from behind with a spaceship that is carrying nukes, and blow it up into bits. Especially a large one. The ship wouldn't be able to catch it. And the nukes, in all likelihood couldn't blow it completely up. So there's probably some very inaccurate info in both films. Although Armageddon throws complete logic out the window.

 

[Andrew_A_Paul]

The great part abotu SF is this. With imagination we can imagine that we have made a ship that can catch up to an asteroid. And given we have made a ship this fast, we can imagine that nukes could do enough to split the rock in two. To split the rock in two in Armageddon they drilled to 800 ft. if I remember right. We can image at that particular place the distance from one side to the other was only 1600 ft. One of my favorite sites to look at is movie-mistakes.com Very cool stuff (when it works). I believe that in any SF movie were one person finds a flaw another can propose an answer to the flaw and make it work. This makes for very interesting and endless debate. That is what is great about SF. Fantasy or not fantasy.

 

[Trace Downing]

In defense of Fantasy
It seems that there's a bit of disdain for the word fantasy, when you folks are talking about implausable "Space Operas" as if it's a dust bin catch all for those films that no other genre would be condescending enough to take.
To borrow words from the SF afficianados, HARD FANTASY are morality tales and is always rooted in history, cultural folklore, language, religion, mythology, social mores, the black arts, and lost civilizations. Some fantasy (like LOTR) has many combinations of all of them.
Many of these films that are immediately placed into fantasy don't work here either. I agree that Jack's Night of the Living Dead, is a prime example of hard fantasy, because it conforms to the folklore/religion aspects. Star Wars fits into that perfectly. POTA is just bad, whether you put it into SF or Fantasy, it doesn't work for either.
Some would call The Day the earth Stood Still and Soylent Green into the realm of SF. But as well made as both films are, I would put them in the cautionary tales of future shock that is also rooted in fantasy as well.
Is Frankenstein Science Fiction (re-animation of dead human tissue, to a living/thinking body) or Fantasy (a religious allegory, that to tinker with what God has ordained is bound for disaster) or both?
For every Armageddon you give, I could give a Willow. Willow started off well enough, but lost it's boundaries of fantasy and became implausable, with the unbelievably irritating brownies, and the light show excuse of a climax.
Dragonheart was rooted religiously in it's setup of the Feudal Dark Ages. The only thing missing was the Church...and then...The dragon talked. Talking Dragons would be fine, if he could talk to unicorns, gorgons, wraiths and other mythological creatures, in a fantastically realized world. But, in a world created so firmly rooted in a historically accurate world, a talking dragon is just out of place.
Every genre has it's share of bad. Armageddon is BAD Science Fiction, but it's SF anyhow. It's not Fantasy, as it doesn't deal with the roots of culture/folklore/religion/etc of Fantasy's rules. Relegating bad SF into fantasy does fantasy no favors.

 

[JoeDelan]

Wait? Dragons dont talk???

What up with that!

 

[Terrell]

Star Wars is not pure fantasy in my opinion. It's a cross between sci-fi and fantasy.

 

[Derek Miner]

I got all the way down in this thread to see that Mark and Jim had really laid out the same points I had going through my mind. I was even ready to cite Gattaca as well!

I think laying the blame on today's Hollywood is short-sighted. This debate about sci-fi and fantasy and plausibility has to have been around for years, probably even pre-dating films. "Sci-Fi" is pretty much been equated to futuristic or space fantasies by most moviegoers (not that I'm letting them off the hook - today's moviegoers helped Rush Hour 2 gross more than the original). I've heard the more traditional definitions of "science fiction" and in general I agree with them.

I don't think the important factor here is really "suspension of disbelief" but whether or not the movie attempts to use the "science fiction" elements to convey an idea or provoke thought. My understanding of the Burton Planet of the Apes (which I have not seen, so take that into account) is that it doesn't use the science fiction or fantasy elements to say anything, but rather to just look neat. That seems a more debatable thought than whether it should be considered science fiction or not.

 

[Trace Downing]

Terrel;

Star Wars is a historical fable. It takes place in a universe that's long since died away...Ancient civilizations.

A prophetic appearance of a chosen one (Anakin), A fall from Grace, ultimate redemtion. The messiah, Cain, and the prodigal son, all in one...religion

A 4th (or 5th) dimension of unlimited power that can be harnessed, used and controlled by those who learn the skill (The Force)...Black Arts.

Space ships don't move and bank like airplanes or roller coasters. Noise doesn't occur in the vacuum of space...unless there was oxygen a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.

A real gangster would've capped a smuggler if he stepped on his tail. This could be Sci-Fi, if Han had actually popped some kind of slug zit, releasing pent up endorphans, and allowed to gain him clairvoyance enough to buy a gold lamet bikini, just in case any rebel princess would drop by 2 movies later.

Midichlorians? Sci-Fi

Hyper Space? Sci-Fi

Yeah, I guess your right.

 

[Terrell]

Well, if you go by sci-fi literally, then maybe. But all of that you mentioned, that's where the fi part comes in. It's fiction. I didn't say it was science fact.

 

[Andrew_A_Paul]

I agree with Terrel. You have to have an imagination. When watching some movies you have to detatch yourself from the real world, otherwise only a hand full of movies would be considered good.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Even the truest, most hardcore science fiction is nothing more than a fantasy. Why? Because it is a fiction, a fabrication. It never happened and it most likely never will. Hence, it is a fantasy.

Whether or not a film abides by all the rules of physics and science is irrelevent. Obviously a film that wants to be noted as sci-fi can't have their heroes traveling to a far off, distant star on sail boat. That would be ridiculous. As a film watcher, all I ask of the filmmakers is that they establish a set of rules within the framework of that film and follow them. Don't make up a million exceptions to the rule just to work your way around a problem in the story. In the end, consistancy is all that really matters to me.

I'd like to ask, what constitutes real sci-fi in your mind, Jack? Is it just about the technology itself or is it about something else?

 

[Max Leung]

Science Fiction:
Interesting technology which we do not possess yet but also does not violate what we currently know about physics. For example: Wormholes, hyperspace, replicators. In cases where you can't adequately explain how a device works, then don't bother explaining it and hope it is consistent with the universe that the story inhabits. For example: Transporters, the Force, light sabers, time travel, and, um...hyperspace!
Star Trek tries to be scientific, and uses weird, complex, nonsensical jargon to "explain" how a device works. Comes out cheesy a lot of times, and a bit too much "deus ex machina" moments. Oh well. At least they try.
Star Wars has elements of both sci-fi and fantasy. The OT does not explain how the force works, or why light sabers can slice through anything. That's the fantasy element. Laser blasters, spaceships, battlestations, could arguably be science fiction elements.
Star Wars is analogous to the Final Fantasy series of videogames...high technology with spells, elves, dwarves, etc.
Fantasy:
Elements taken from medieval and more ancient myths. Typically has a medieval setting and costumes. Throw in the "traditional" races such as elves, gnomes, dwarves, trolls, etc. No attempt is made to explain how magic works. Many things violate the basic principles of physics, such as creating objects from thin air with no obvious device behind it aside from incanting a few words and waving of hands (unlike the replicator in Star Trek, which is a machine that rearranges "replicator molecules" into food and other objects).
Oh yes, very few fantasy films have big epic space battles. Outer space is generally not part of fantasy (Neverending Story excepted). Fantasy typically has the "I am the center of the universe" mentality...the fate of the world/realm rests on this one special person who has been prophesized to save/destory the world. Think Willow. Think Darth Vader.
Telekinesis, tea leave reading, enchantments, and imbibing herbs are typically found. No jet airplanes, hand grenades (except Monty Python), automobiles, cell phones, etc. will be found anywhere in a fantasy setting.
Also, you will find references to the "dark/evil magics" opposed by the "light/good magics". Science fiction does not usually refer to "evil science" and "good science". Technology is often portrayed as neutral...neither good or evil.
Science fiction and fantasy should be measured on a continuum.
Star Wars: Elements of science fiction and fantasy.
Lord of the Rings: Fantasy.
Contact: Science Fiction...slight fantastical element intelligent beings from outer space. Science: very plausible communication method (ingenius, actually), and the only movie that introduces the philisophy of science.
Big Trouble in Little China: Um...fantasy I guess.
2001: Science Fiction...slight fantastical element: intelligent beings from outer space. Science: No sounds in outer space.
Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within: Elements of both scifi and fantasy. You got your spaceships and big explosions. And you got your ghosts.
Demolition Man: Science fiction. Fantastical element: Sandra Bollock is many a man's fantasy!
etc. etc.