Concern for the Science Fiction genre

[Satsuki Murashige]

I was a big fantasy reader in my teens and twenties as well. To me, fantasy is about creating new worlds and mythologies. It's a look inward, exploring archetypes and universal human experiences through magical settings. It can be dressed up in swords and sandals, medieval armor, or space suits, but that is all just window dressing. If the technology and physics basically comes down to magic, then that's fantasy.

 

Science fiction is about the world we live in and how it might work in the distant future. It's a look outward, a commentary on present-day social concerns and how technology and the universe outside of our own limited vision might affect us. Mostly, it's about ideas.

 

I think at its heart, the original trilogy Star Wars is a fantasy story surrounded by the trappings of science fiction. It's a western/war film about a young callow pilot and an old mystical wizard-knight who rescue a badass princess and blow up the dark lord's space fortress.

 

I will grant you - the verisimilitude and lived-in quality of the technology and environments is a testament to the vision of George Lucas, Ralph McQuarrie, the art, camera, visual effects, editing, and sound departments. That and the droid=slave commentary is about as close to science fiction as Star Wars gets.

 

But those details are there primarily to immerse you in the story - notice that there is no attempt to simulate the realism of actual space travel or communication when it does not serve the story and would be considered boring. Instead, traveling in space in the Star Wars universe is like riding the bus; dogfighting in an X-Wing is like WW2-era air-to-air combat; Han Solo's blaster looks like John Wayne's old single action Colt revolver. Every new thing reminds you of something familiar and old. That's not science, that's mythology.

[David Mullen ASC]

Some of that is just good filmmaking, letting the story be the primary driver. When Gene Roddenberry started "Star Trek" he told the writers to never stop the story to explain how a phaser or a transporter works any more than in a contemporary drama where a police officer never stops to explain how a revolver works. And "Star Wars" is even less science-oriented than "Star Trek" -- in that case, it was more important that props and spaceships felt lived-in and real, whether or not there was any science behind the choices being made. But one of the reasons to make things look familiar was just to speed the story along.

 

Another story I remember about "Star Trek" was that the prop department made some hi-tech futuristic salt & pepper shakers for "The Man Trap" (where there is a creature who craves salt) and in the last moment, they used salt & pepper shakers from the studio commissary because it was more important that the audience understand what they were without explanation. The futuristic salt & pepper shakers ended up being McCoy's medical instruments.

[Phil Rhodes]

I think I possibly grew up on that same Star Trek making-of book.

[Bill DiPietra]

I think I possibly grew up on that same Star Trek making-of book.

 

I was just thinking of that book the other day. Read it as a kid when I was watching the original series for the first time. I lost my copy in Hurricane Sandy and I don't recall the title.

 

Would this be it?...

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/THE-WORLD-OF-STAR-TREK-by-David-Gerrold-1973-paperback-BEHIND-THE-SCENES-SCOOP-/152141922338?hash=item236c5d8022:g:o2wAAOSw9N1V1-Ys

[Phil Rhodes]

The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry.

[David Mullen ASC]

Those two books were very important to me growing up... David Gerrold's book is more about the making of his episode and covers the second and third season, whereas Stephen Whitfield (Stephen Poe) wrote more about the development of the series from pilot through the first two seasons.

[Jay Young]

I feel Interstellar is possibly the best science fiction film made in the last 20 years, maybe longer. In my view, it goes second after 2001. I love the Star Trek franchise, but to me that rings of more 'action film' than anything else. Sunshine also let me down when it turned into another horror flick, but it did have some excellent moments up till then. Star Trek VI in 1991 was excellent on the big screen, and while at age 13 Star Trek Generations might not have made as meaningful an impact, I have grown to enjoy its particular unique story. Still, I feel as a purely sci-fi film, Interstellar wins.

 

The Martian was interesting, but not ground breaking.

 

I'm not one to quibble over which category a film should fall in, but I do draw a hard line between Sci-Fi and Fantasy.

[Bill DiPietra]

I feel Interstellar is possibly the best science fiction film made in the last 20 years, maybe longer. In my view, it goes second after 2001. I love the Star Trek franchise, but to me that rings of more 'action film' than anything else.

 

Funny - I never really put 2001 solely in to the sci-fi category like so many others, simply because it challenges the audience with themes that are so larger in scope. Yes, sci-fi is definitely one of the genres that it belongs to, but in something of an incidental way.

 

The same could be said for the original Star Trek movies. You could easily compare Gene Roddenberry's themes of love and friendship (between Kirk & Spock) in Star Trek II (1982) & Star Trek III (1984,) respectively, with the loving relationship between the boy and the projectionist in Cinema Paradiso (1988) because they are all universal themes. But if you are holding to the 20-year time-frame, yes - the Star Trek franchise has become very thin in plot & story, being more about action than human drama every since J.J. Abrams took the helm.

 

And I just don't get the big appeal with Interstellar. Maybe it's generational but I just thought it was okay.

[David Mullen ASC]

Certainly "2001" is a science fiction movie, I don't think that's controversial to say. The genre is pretty broad, just compare Arthur C. Clarke to Ray Bradbury... Where it gets harder to pin down as science fiction is when there is no science at all, such as some of Harlan Ellison's stories (or Kafka.)

 

The original "Star Trek" and also "2001" were sold the their studios as "wagon train to the stars" sort of exploration adventures, "Star Trek" obviously followed that idea a little more than "2001" did. There were also strong hints of the naval adventures of Horatio Hornblower, something that Nicholas Meyer discovered on his own when doing "Star Trek 2" even though Roddenberry had mentioned the novels while developing "Star Trek" (but by the time of the movies, Roddenberry was determined to reduce the military aspects of Starfleet whereas Meyer went even further than before with them.)

 

Science fiction has always blended other genres, being a somewhat broad and vague genre itself without the same structures as, let's say, the mystery genre -- so you can end up with a science-fiction mystery, romance, horror, action, etc. story. The main problem today is that everything is action in movies; it seems to be the one genre that the studios feel is international in popularity.

 

Some people have said that "Star Trek" is better off as a series where the format allows for more tangents beyond action-adventure.

[David Mullen ASC]

BTW, I just watched the new blu-ray of "Star Trek 2" which is the director's cut (only four minutes longer however, it's not a major difference.) Looks good -- reading online, I found out that the 2009 box set of Trek movies on blu-ray were all made from older HD transfers except for "Wrath of Khan", which did a 4K scan of the original negative, due to some fears about aging damage. Now this new blu-ray is from a new 4K transfer again, which is nice -- I wish they'd do the same treatment to the other titles. The high-speed Fuji stock used for Khan is a bit soft & grainy, which is more apparent in this new transfer. You can see some occasional use of what I think is Mitchell diffusion filters on a few close-ups (mainly of the women in the movie.)

 

Meyer's commentary was entertaining as usual. He said that the only way he could figure out how to direct the movie was to turn it into a naval setting, some scenes being like sailing ships at seas firing cannons at each other, the last scene being a submarine movie. The production designer, Joe Jennings, who had served in the military, thought it was a bit crazy having cadets pulling up grates with hooks in a torpedo room with a long track; he says in an interview that of course a real torpedo system would be all internal and automated but Meyer wanted sailing ship type action for the extras to do.

 

I felt a little old (I just turned 54) when I found out that Shatner was 50 years old when he made "Star Trek 2" in a story about dealing with age. Shatner resisted a lot of the story elements, he didn't want to feel like he was getting older, didn't want to dwell on it, but Meyer convinced him that he was playing a part, an interesting one, about Kirk getting older, not Shatner, who got it eventually (and probably delivered his best performance in a Trek movie). There were moments when Meyer had to get both Shatner and Montalban to dial down their performances... I recall that the first time Meyer told Montalban to deliver the scene more quietly, Montalban said "Ah... you're going to DIRECT me... (long pause) That's good, I need direction."

[Bill DiPietra]

Some people have said that "Star Trek" is better off as a series where the format allows for more tangents beyond action-adventure.

 

I'd love to see another Trek series come on TV. The trouble is I think it would cater to the same audience as the J.J. Abrams films and feel more of a loyalty to action rather than cerebral situations that the original series and Next Generation were so successful in posing.

 

But it'd be better than no option at all (which it what we have right now.)

[David Mullen ASC]

I got to go to a DGA screening waaaay back when "Star Trek 3" was released, with director Nimoy speaking afterwards. He had a lot of interesting stories, in particular Paramount complaining about the amount of smoke he was using on the sets, so he screened a print of one of their own recent hits for them, "Flashdance".

 

I asked him how he would describe his directorial approach compared to Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer and he said he was somewhere in between. He didn't put down "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", he said it was quite lovely to look at but what interested him about "Star Trek" was the relationships. However, he continued and said that "Star Trek" was many things to many people, all of those interests were valid, from imagining what society would be like in the future, to what the technology would be, to what alien cultures and life forms would be like, or how Trek could comment on contemporary social issues by putting them into a science fiction construct. But for him, it was interesting mainly in terms of the dynamics of the characters (which is hardly surprising since he acted as one of those characters.)

[Jay Young]

BTW, I just watched the new blu-ray of "Star Trek 2" which is the director's cut (only four minutes longer however, it's not a major difference.) Looks good -- reading online, I found out that the 2009 box set of Trek movies on blu-ray were all made from older HD transfers except for "Wrath of Khan", which did a 4K scan of the original negative, due to some fears about aging damage. Now this new blu-ray is from a new 4K transfer again, which is nice -- I wish they'd do the same treatment to the other titles. The high-speed Fuji stock used for Khan is a bit soft & grainy, which is more apparent in this new transfer. You can see some occasional use of what I think is Mitchell diffusion filters on a few close-ups (mainly of the women in the movie.)

 

The production designer, Joe Jennings, who had served in the military, thought it was a bit crazy having cadets pulling up grates with hooks in a torpedo room with a long track; he says in an interview that of course a real torpedo system would be all internal and automated but Meyer wanted sailing ship type action for the extras to do.

You could easily compare Gene Roddenberry's themes of love and friendship (between Kirk & Spock) in Star Trek II (1982) & Star Trek III (1984,) respectively, with the loving relationship between the boy and the projectionist in Cinema Paradiso (1988) because they are all universal themes.

 

 

As a kid seeing those actions of pulling up the deck grid - it was so cool! Even now, I'm a huge fan of the films for going that direction. I can take or leave militaryesque action flicks, but submarines in space^TM just works, in my opinion.

 

I am holding out for a re-scan of the Indiana Jones films as well. There may be a 2K version that I don't know about.

 

I just watched Cinema Paradiso the other day for the first time, fantastic film! I wonder why more American filmmakers don't explore films like that - I guess there are not enough explosions. Maybe James Cameron can make a film where two explosions fall in love?

[George Ebersole]

It's funny, because I just bough the bluray set of the classic era Trek films, and the thought that struck me as I was watching the section where the Enterprise is venturing into V'Ger's power field and overlooking the vessel's massive structure, is that the only narrative was that of the Enterprise travelling over this alien ship. I think another director might have added some dialogue and plot driven moments to flesh out what the Enterprise crew thought the alien vessel might be, or where it came from.

 

One of the big criticisms of that film, if I recall correctly, were all the long space sequences. Me, when I saw it in the theatre, I was just happy to see it, but felt a little empty when I left the Century theatre in that big famous mall in downtown LA .... can't remember the name of it. I think Wise was hung up on studio instructions to make a big SFX pic to ride off of Star Wars the year before. In any event the film was about a fleet ship, but it was about solving a threat with means at their disposal because their armaments were inferior to the threat in question.

 

As a contrast to that, take something like "Thor" or one of the other Marvel superhero films, where the US military always seems to be involved, the heroes are interested in both the physical action and any romantic relationship, but seem to dismiss the hows and whys of the conflict they're involved in. And the resolution involves high tech fisticuffs or some amazing feat on the part of the hero.

 

And contrast that to a game like Starcraft 2 or the sci-fi Call of Duty, where it's all military and application of soldiers and other forces to overcome the threat.

 

I've played both the original Starcraft and the sequel, DOOM and all its iterations and a number of other violent sci-fi shooters. It's a fun experience. But not every problem can be solved with the use of weapons, and this comment comes from a very pro-military person.

 

When I think of the classic westerns I grew up with, Bonanza, the Rifleman, Gunsmoke and so forth, not every episode involved a gunfight at the end. And yet today's sci-fi is being written as if they were a 21st century impression of what westerns were; a mish-mash of genres.

 

That's my concern.

 

I hope that makes sense to some of the readers here.

[Tyler Purcell]

I just bought and watched the new Star Trek 2 bluray, wow it's quite amazing. I was shocked they didn't do any cleanup work what so ever. You could see the matte lines and everything, quite cool if you ask me.

 

I was also amazed how many soft shots there were. I have unfortunately never seen it on film and the older VHS, Laserdisc and DVD I still own, don't hold a candle to this wonderful new transfer.

 

Really great to see Paramount is holding true to what the series is all about and not mucking about like so may others have done in the past. The very few added shots were seamless as well.

 

Great recommendation David, really recommend it to any other trekkies.

[Satsuki Murashige]

In the wake of the 'Ghostbusters' (2016) fan backlash, I've been thinking more about our knee-jerk reactions to current release films and how they always seem to pale in comparison to the films of our youth.

 

Though many sequels, remakes, and reboots are objectively inferior to their original source material (practically inevitable when you re-make a popular classic), I think the fact that we can't enjoy them comes down to the fact that we are no longer the target audience for these films.

 

Not only have we already seen the originals, but most of us have also had the opportunity to see better versions of the same story. 'The Avengers' is going to seem much better and more original to an audience that hasn't yet seen 'The Magnificent Seven' or 'The Seven Samurai.'

 

Similarly, the re-boot of 'Ghostbusters' or 'Star Trek' is naturally going to work much better for a young person who has only heard of the originals and hasn't already formed a strong emotional connection to them. The older folks who actually remember and love those films are going to be much harder to please. We are not the core target audience, any more than New Coke was for fans of Coca-Cola; New Coke was about regaining market share from upstart Pepsi. We might grumble, but we'll keep drinking Coke.

 

Ultimately, we can blame the studios for being overly conservative and acting as irresponsible shepherds of their own properties, but we all know there are undeniable financial motivators that are driving these decisions.

 

The best thing we can do to combat this is to introduce young people to cinema. Once the audience knows better, they won't be as easily satisfied with re-heated leftovers and the studios will be forced to make better product. Until then... well, you know.

[George Ebersole]

That's possible, Satsuki, but I also think the directorial styles are much different. There's a real "over the top" graphic-novel like style to these films, largely because I think the core audience was raised on comic books that were a little more touted as art from the late 80s up to today. I just think the shooting style and story telling is trying to mimic the graphic novel for the big SFX laden films because they think that's what the audience is expecting.

 

As for the Ghostbusters' reboot ... I shrug my shoulders at it. I know absolutely nothing about the film other than it's an all female cast. I mean, is it an actual reboot with women, or is it just one of those "20 years later" sequels that'll tie into the first couple of films? I think the backlash is coming from a segment of the traditional male population who believe they're having messages pushed in their faces for the sake of social progress through commercial films. Reading some of the backlash posts it seems like those people feel they've put up with a lot of what they call "social engineering" in other films, and have had enough of it.

 

For me it's just another movie, and I'm actually hopeful that regardless of anyone's politics, that it'll hearken back to classic film making as opposed to the graphic-novel style seen in so many superhero or other SFX laden films.

 

Now, as a Trek fan, I do have to say that the JJ Abrams' take on the characters seem more like caricatures. I mean I paid to see the first one with Nimoy making his cameo, and noted some real cartoony or over the top performances. Is that what today's youth audience is expecting? Possibly. But when you and I were growing up we were exposed to the dialed back performances that hit dramatic cues differently in an assortment of films.

 

When I saw "Our Idiot Brother" a year or two back in the theatres it was like I was seeing a normal movie again. Classic Trek had normal actors doing extraordinary things, but otherwise behaving normally. In Abrams films his Scotty makes it a point of ACTING like Scotty. Ditto with the rest of the leads. Combine that with some real over the top SFX sequences, and I'm wondering if the bar for good films hasn't been lowered.

[Tyler Purcell]

I also think it's down to the studio's not willing to take ANY risks. Most studio films are made by committee in their final on-screen presentations. Directors and Producers don't have the same clout in the final product as they did only 10 years ago. So if you wish to make a studio film, if you want to make a lot of money, you just follow whatever they ask you to do.

 

Just look at what happened to the Fantastic Four Reboot, or even Star Wars Rogue One. Both films that had extensive re-shoots because the first generation finished product was not general public enough. Rogue One suffered from being "too star wars", which is just retarded. That's the whole POINT of a Star Wars film. The last Star Wars film was pretty tame as well, nothing controversial, nothing really interesting, just meh... it's a Star Wars film. Lots of whiz bang to keep your mind occupied and the rest is all a well planned formula.

 

When I watch MODERN movies, I see mathematical formulas, everything is so hyped up, everything is so flashy, everything is to clean and precise. You've gotta watch the non-studio produced films, to see anything like the movies I grew up with, which is really sad. So I don't think it has much to do with not getting it. We're just making worse films. Yes, there are a few that sneak by, usually made by the same filmmakers over and over again, Christopher Nolan being one of them. What confuses me is how Nolan can make these big movies, which are well made, well written and make a lot of money, but nobody else can. Even the likes of Steven Spielberg struggle in today's market.

 

So yea, I mean there is something to be said of our youth not understanding particular subjects like comic book or star trek stories. But what about the rest of the crap that shows up every week? I mean most aren't based on "classic" franchises, most are original stories. I mean I look at the utter crap available to us at the box office and I say to myself, how long is going to last?

[George Ebersole]

I think one of the real issues is that where films have always followed a formula, they didn't rely on market data to enhance features in films that audiences say they want.

 

An example; video-games, and by this I do mean console games that are played on one's TV, are now under a new formula where the emphasis isn't on gameplay, but making the player (pre-teen to 20-something, possibly early thirties) "feel powerful". I've seen a few mini-docs on this. And the narrative and model is always about game developers creating in game characters that the player controls, who can do numerous things to get through a map or a puzzle or whatnot.

 

So the emphasis isn't on the world nor story nor anything surrounding the player's "playing piece", but on making them feel as if they are more capable or powerful as they progress. Ergo a lot of games these days have the complaint that it's too short, too easy, and so forth.

 

I see the same thing in the science fiction genre aimed at pre-teens to teens. If you look at something like "Ender's Game" (and no, I haven't read the book) it's all about making the audience identify with the main character who gets more powerful the further along he moves through the movie. There's no exploration of the war that's being fought, there's no articulation of who they're fighting (or extremely little), there's no addressing of themes that you might have found in a sci-fi film made prior to the 2000s or 1990s.

 

So, on top of the market research data, you have a new story model derived from that market research that all but eschews a lot of basic human values.

 

In fact films like "Ender's Game" base morality on consensus in spite of that film's final scene where the main character empathizes with an insect like alien. And that's how you get these films that are primitive, don't have a whole lot of value to them other than defeat the bad guy and get the girl anyway you can [if you want].

 

If you look at the original Star Wars film Luke didn't get the girl in the end (well, not as such, though he did get her recognition) but struggled with how and why he needed to help the robots and some old guy take on a real menacing threat. You don't get too much of that these days.

 

I could go on and on, but should probably take a break from the net. :)

[Satsuki Murashige]

As for the Ghostbusters' reboot ...

 

I think the backlash is coming from a segment of the traditional male population who believe they're having messages pushed in their faces for the sake of social progress through commercial films.

 

That could be true for the older or more conservative audience. I would guess that most people blogging and posting videos on social media tend to be younger and more liberal, so I think the backlash is more than simply rage at the rapidly changing social landscape. I think most people are simply tired of lazy re-makes of their favorite films, quickly and carelessly slapped together for profit.

 

 

Now, as a Trek fan, I do have to say that the JJ Abrams' take on the characters seem more like caricatures.

 

I think those are mainly writing and directorial choices. For some perspective on why the 'Star Trek' reboot was the way it was, I found this both funny and insightful:

 

NSFW

https://youtu.be/RiHnqv098LY

[Satsuki Murashige]

If you look at something like "Ender's Game" (and no, I haven't read the book) it's all about making the audience identify with the main character who gets more powerful the further along he moves through the movie. There's no exploration of the war that's being fought, there's no articulation of who they're fighting (or extremely little), there's no addressing of themes that you might have found in a sci-fi film made prior to the 2000s or 1990s.

 

So, on top of the market research data, you have a new story model derived from that market research that all but eschews a lot of basic human values.

 

In fact films like "Ender's Game" base morality on consensus in spite of that film's final scene where the main character empathizes with an insect like alien.

 

It's too bad that you haven't read the novel, because that's exactly how it's written. It's not the product of market research in this case. Ender and the rest of the children are much younger in the novel. I think he's 10 when the story ends, which might explain why so few of the kids question authority.

 

The novel began as an award-winning 1977 short story which Orson Scott Card later expanded into a novel. I think the short story version is better. Though I do like the subsequent sequel, 'Speaker For the Dead' in which the mistakes Ender makes in his youth haunt him well into his old age. That story is all about wrestling with morality of colonization, the conflict of civilizations, xenophobia, and our own inner darkness. I always thought it would make a great science fiction film.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

I think the backlash is coming from a segment of the traditional male population who believe they're having messages pushed in their faces for the sake of social progress through commercial films.

 

My reaction to the idea (I haven't seen the movie) was more: aha, they've deliberately taken a very different tack in order to avoid the standard curses of obvious cash-ins on an old, beloved property. This is probably the best way of doing something that's ultimately a terrible idea.

 

P

[Tyler Purcell]

I think those are mainly writing and directorial choices. For some perspective on why the 'Star Trek' reboot was the way it was, I found this both funny and insightful:

 

NSFW

https://youtu.be/RiHnqv098LY

ROFL!!!! I love that guy! :D

 

He kinda has it nailed.

[George Ebersole]

Satsuki; in regards to Ghostbusters, I suppose. Most of what I read appears to be fan stuff that's referencing the "original movies". To be honest I never really got into either of them. I saw the first one opening day, thought it was decent entertainment, then moved on wtih my life. But a lot of the guys I saw that movie with really got stuck on it for some reason.

 

I'm guessing the female cast was chosen as a means of maybe trying to get more women involved in real science and maybe to send the message of being able to see through junk or pseudo science. And I think that's a good thing. I'm just sorry there is such a backlash.

 

Ender's Game is actually written like that? That's amazing. Because that's how a lot of mini docs on YouTube describe today's game design model. Wow, what a coincidence. Life imitating art imitating life. Crazy.

 

The Trek films were and are essentially Trek for non-Trek fans. So there's not much to really examine there. But it strikes me as odd that Star Wars and Empire Strikes back were made for fans of the genre, but had cross demographic appeal as well as being good films unto themselves.

I think in due course we'll get some memorable scifi films again.

[Max Field]

Dudes freaking out over Girlbusters are mostly people that have fallen for the petty "anti-feminism" agenda, in an attempt to encourage others to hate it, they'll try to act like the original Ghostbusters was on the level of Silence of the Lambs or something.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Macks Fiiod