Concern for the Science Fiction genre

[George Ebersole]

I saw the latest Titan Fall trailer streamed from E3, and I was somewhat alarmed.

 

Computer games (I refuse to call them "video games", because to me that implies something you do with your TV from a console) are not movies, but the visual tie in is ethereal.

 

Growing up in the 70s and 80s one the major gripes of sci-fi fans was that there wasn't enough action, and by that I mean the deep Western made films. Ridley Scott changed that some with Alien and Blade Runner. Terminator injected a lot of action (maybe a little too much).

 

And where games, scifi games, have had an emphasis on the First Person Shooter genre, and so it's kind of a no brainer that military and action themes are the topic most accessible to the player, as an enthusiast of the scifi genre I feel like there's too much military action in games, and that it has the potential to truncate the film genre by overshadowing it.

 

I did not see Ridley Scott's latest scifi film Prometheus, nor Martian, but I did have a gander at Gravity and John Carter, and walked away with mixed feelings.

 

The latest Star Wars film, to me, felt a little to pact, and where it caught some of the film from 1977, it felt like an uncomfortable mix of over the top action and high-production values. I liked the film, but I kind of missed the more sedate and classic lensing of the first film that gave it that "major motion picture" feel.

 

When I used to see scifi films growing up in the 70s and 80s I often wondered why some threat wasn't dealt with by the Army. Well, then that happened a bit more and more. And now it's like you can't have a game without lots of military details.

 

What does that mean for movies? Well, if we see more game adaptations (as I knew would happen way back in the early 80s, and had hoped to ride that wave....but that's another story) we see more adaptation of game production values.

 

I saw "Guardians of the Galaxy" via a library DVD checkout. And for all the money that was dumped into it, to me, it really looked awful, and I was forever glad that I didn't pay money to see it in the theatre. I bought a used DVD of "Tomorrowland", and where Disney put their usual professional gloss to it, I felt a little more uncomfortable there as the film tended to be more spectacle than substance. And where it didn't have military themes in it (not too much anyway), it did have lots of action.

 

To me science fiction has always been more than just about action (which I think the genre needs). I really dislike overly contemplative films that take themselves way too seriously. But I am getting worried that the emphasis on action within the scifi genre is clouding the genre itself.

 

I am wondering if there are any other older scifi veterans here who may have noticed this trend, and if you have any thoughts on it.

 

Am I just being an old guy?

[Phil Rhodes]

I agree cautiously. I thought Guardians of the Galaxy was good fun. It's amusing if you approach it as a comedy, and it isn't really much of a comic book movie. It's a comedy space opera, and it's enjoyable, but I take the point that it certainly wasn't science fiction in the way that the better Alien stuff was.

 

The Martian, conversely, was about the hardest sci-fi you're ever likely to see produced as a major motion picture.

 

Possibly what's happening is that a lot of this very low-brow comic-book stuff (a category from which I consciously exclude Guardians) is taking up a lot of what the studios think of as space for sci fi, despite the fact that, say, X-Men is really more modern fantasy than sci-fi.

 

Either way, I would certainly go to the movies more if the content was better.

 

P

[George Ebersole]

Thanks Phil. You know, as a kid, when I saw Captain Kirk get into a fist fight I thought it was kind of cool. But Captain Kirk, for all the fights he got into, was not a one trick pony. He was a pretty smart guy, and had a pretty smart pointed eared friend advising him, who was against violence. And there was that little boy in me that wanted the U.S.S. Enterprise to blow up more stuff .... mix it up a bit more and destroy more Klingons and what not.

 

And I still have a bit of that in me. But now it's like it's all Hollywood produces. And you're right to be cautiously agreeing, because there are a few good movies out there,

 

 

 

Possibly what's happening is that a lot of this very low-brow comic-book stuff (a category from which I consciously exclude Guardians) is taking up a lot of what the studios think of as space for sci fi, despite the fact that, say, X-Men is really more modern fantasy than sci-fi

 

When I was growing up and going to the theatre with the family, we would see films like "The Electric Horseman" or "The Goodbye Girl" or "Terms of Endearment" ... "Chariots of Fire" ... "Kramer versus Kramer" and so forth.

 

Well, okay, drama still gets produced, but now it's a rarity. And when you went to a scifi film, my favorite genre, you got something like a "2001 Space Odyssey" or a "Star Trek 2; Wrath of Kahn". Something that was both entertaining, had action, but was mature. It didn't have teenagers as the primary audience, though teenagers liked those films.

 

Oh well. I guess I'm just rambling and venting.

 

Thanks for reading :)

[Tyler Purcell]

I truly detest pretty much everything coming out of hollywood today. The predictable committee written scripts, the gloss and over-use of visual effects, they've turned cinema into computer games. The SciFi genre is pretty much dead in the cinema. All of the film that WOULD have been SciFi turn into fantasy because evidently people want to see completely unrealistic things at the cinema.

 

The Martian was one movie that tried to be something different, but in my view it failed. For all the great science "fun" in my eyes it was a failure because the filmmakers went over-board on their designs and CG world. If you're gonna make an intelligent SciFi movie, don't fill it with dumb stuff that SMART people will point out as being obviously wrong. This is why I love big dumb action films, because nothing really matters. Series like Lethal Weapon and Beverly Hills cop. These were films that were written well, had excellent cast and were pretty low budget compared to todays standard. Yet they had no problem getting my attention without resorting to heavy visual effects and unrealistic stories about demigods.

 

I thought Interstellar was one of the best SciFi films made. People complain because it's dramatic story was a bit weak (the film was too long and they cut it down) and the ending didn't make sense to others (it did to me). I mean I've seen the film ohh... maybe 20 times now and I don't see how anyone could complain. It has all sorts of legitimate science bits, written by professional's about something, we don't really understand yet. It all made "sense" without introducing elements that are down-right stupid. Yet, it didn't do well in the box office, it was Nolan's first movie to not triple it's budget in profit domestically. I don't think it was the cast either, I think people just aren't interested in exploration and science, they don't want to think, they want to shut off their brains. Teenagers are still the biggest demographic of people going to the cinema. Do you a think a modern teenager would "get" Interstellar? HA!

 

So do we need more SciFi? Yes! But we need more "inexpensive", not visual effects driven stuff, like Star Trek. More "on the ship sciency" stuff, if that's a word.

[Mark Dunn]

It's not just me, then. Most reassuring.

An obscure channel had 'Places from the Heart' on the other day. Now that's a proper movie.

Mind you , it did have quite a few tornado opticals by Bran Ferren. Not a CGI in sight, of course.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Mark Dunn

[Max Field]

All I can add to this is video games need to stop trying to be movies because it never comes off as "true cinema".

[George Ebersole]

All I can add to this is video games need to stop trying to be movies because it never comes off as "true cinema".

 

The latest article I read from MSN was that movies are now going to try and emulate games.

 

Oh boy :(

[Tyler Purcell]

I don't think Warcraft is going to do well in the box office. I know the other video game movies haven't done too well, so I can't see that becoming a trend like the comic book movies have.

[George Ebersole]

I don't think Warcraft is going to do well in the box office. I know the other video game movies haven't done too well, so I can't see that becoming a trend like the comic book movies have.

 

I remember playing WC and WC2 in the 90s when I was a younger buck, and wondering if either game would make for an interesting movie. The first WC was just kind of a basic computer RTS with some fantasy elements. WC2 was essentially the same game with a few tweaks and upgraded graphics.

 

And where the cinematics invited you to play, ti didn't make for an interesting character story.

 

Then some years back WC3 hit the stores. I bought a copy out of curiosity. And the thing I noted was that all the tongue in cheek humor of the first two games was gone. The game had this ultra serious narrative. Which seemed odd since the in game graphics were real cartoony ... almost child like.

 

I mean, how do you make a movie out of that material?

 

I think it'll succeed, but that wont' make it a good film.

 

P.S. I know I'm not the target audience for either game or movie, but all I know is that when I was a teenager or pre-teen, both my friends and I, and just the kids at school, had better taste in movies (the odd teen sexploitation film not withstanding).

 

Just me.

[George Ebersole]

Boy, I hate to reply to my own post, but, growing up I recall two scifi films that Disney did;

 

The Black Hole

TRON

 

On the surface they're simple adventure films, and we can enjoy them on that level, but peeling back layers there's a kind of artistic intellect to them as per oil paintings and literature of old. There's alliteration, metaphors and similes layered in those films.

 

Regular dramatic films that came out at that time didn't need all the codifications, and simply wore their hearts on their sleeves. But scifi, at one time, had to be smarter.

 

And that's not the case anymore. The Black Hole was about how much of your self do you sacrifice to satiate your inner desires. TRON was about looking at the deification of the unknown. Bridges comes down from computer heaven to help out the programs, and the programs think he's some kind of demigod, but he says "hey, I'm just like you".

 

I don't get that kind of stuff from "Thor" or "Guardians", nor even "Tomorrowland" or a host of other films.

 

I miss good, classic, smart, scifi and films in general. And I guess those days are over.

[Satsuki Murashige]

There are two strains of science fiction, hard speculative fiction with its roots in literature, and space opera with its roots in comics and the fantasy genre. Hard sci-fi was always a fringe genre - the general public has always preferred adventure and myth to serious explorations of 'what if?'

 

I think the reason that you see so few big budget 'what if' films is that studios no longer want to make movies that don't appeal to the largest audience possible. And that means comic book movies for the most part. That said, you still had 'Ex Machina', 'The Martian', 'Moon', 'Source Code', 'Her', 'Under the Skin', 'District 9', 'Interstellar', and 'Inception' in theaters in recent years. So the hard sci-fi films are still out there, you just need to find them.

[George Ebersole]

There are two strains of science fiction, hard speculative fiction with its roots in literature, and space opera with its roots in comics and the fantasy genre. Hard sci-fi was always a fringe genre - the general public has always preferred adventure and myth to serious explorations of 'what if?'

 

I think the reason that you see so few big budget 'what if' films is that studios no longer want to make movies that don't appeal to the largest audience possible. And that means comic book movies for the most part. That said, you still had 'Ex Machina', 'The Martian', 'Moon', 'Source Code', 'Her', 'Under the Skin', 'District 9', 'Interstellar', and 'Inception' in theaters in recent years. So the hard sci-fi films are still out there, you just need to find them.

 

Well, I heard almost the exact same argument, word for word, at the SFO Hyatt Regency last Memorial Day weekend. And it concerns me as to how my net and personal interactions are operating. Oh well

 

Back on topic; I'm just going to come and say it, I think today's audience, for all the tech savvy learnedness of today's youth (and older tech types like me, who still build their own computers), I think in terms of art and social principles, are dumber than dirt.

 

Years back I remember sitting in the theatre with my girlfriend at the time watching previews, and the trailer for Independence Day came on. I think we might have actually been waiting for Toy Story or something. Something really family oriented or G-Rated audience oriented. And when the ID trailer was coming to an end there were lots of hoots and hollering.

 

Independence Day isn't exactly deep thoughtful scifi, and I acknowledge that, but it's like since then there's been a whole slew of these films. Aliens, when I was a teenager, sort of kind of fell into that territory, but it had some smarts to it.

 

Not everything needs to be on the caliber with Kubrick or Kurosawa, but there's more money spent on these big god-awful B-movie pieces of trash than anything I can remember

 

I hoped scifi would become more mainstream as society progressed technologically, and I had been hoping to ride the crest of the Superhero genre as well.

 

But now it's a giant "be careful what you wish for" kind of thing, because to me most of it just valueless junk.

 

If that's what the market wants, well, then great. But there was a time when Hollywood used to be able to crank out stuff that could be both entertaining and thought provoking, and didn't cater to 12 year old boys exclusively, or adult males with 12 year old sensibilities.

 

Don't mind me. I'm just venting. I've got games and books to keep me occupied.

[Tyler Purcell]

It's all up to the audience and to get that audience requires a lot of money in marketing/publicity. There is a huge risk to market something that may not sell, so studio's tend to make products with as little risk as possible.

 

Again, the reason we have the movies we have, is because there is a group of people, sitting in a basement, doing market research which is sold to the studio's. That research determines what the studio's will make, not what scripts filmmakers have in their back pockets.

 

In the past, writers would work under contract for the studio's to write whatever the studio wanted, but it wasn't based on market research, it was generally based on whatever another studio was releasing. Sure, intermixed with that were the one-off bought scripts and projects, but those are becoming more and more rare. We had a boom in the mid 2000's before the financial crisis, the sub 10M movie was king and today, it's more like $250k and you can't really make a good movie for $250k.

 

So sure, there are some small independent SciFi movies, but with $16 movie tickets, people would rather see poop blow up, then see something truly worth thinking about. I mean, I saw Batman V Superman because I wanted to see how good the 70mm print/projection was. I paid full boat for it and was happy to see good film projection and the movie met all my expectations as I walked into it expecting utter crap and it was.

 

Honestly, I love the SciFi genre, but outside of perhaps 5 films, the last decade has been void of anything really good. There have been films that border the SciFi world, but none that I would consider TRUE SciFi. For me, SciFi needs to have a bunch of nerd rants, like 'Interstellar'. I also personally don't like space movies that break all the rules like 'The Martian' with their HUGE space ship, with big glass windows. Please, give me a break, they'd all be dead. At least Nolan knows these things and hires designers to make sure they're right. All of the sets from 'Interstellar' were scientifically proven by professionals and looked very realistic/functional. For sure not perfect, for sure a little bit of design leeway, but not something that stands out. Again, nerds want to see that stuff done right and honestly, there are millions of nerds out there, all wanting to see whatever nerd film comes around next. Right now they're watching 'Star Wars', but if someone were to start a NEW space opera... the sky's the limit!

[George Ebersole]

*snip*

 

In the past, writers would work under contract for the studio's to write whatever the studio wanted, but it wasn't based on market research, it was generally based on whatever another studio was releasing.

 

*more snippage*

 

I think the other factor was that in the past studios researched what kids and people were reading, so you got a lot of movies like "Treasure Island" or "Gulliver's Travels" and what not being made. Stuff that had some merit to it.

 

But now since the studios have a tie in and control with the ever so popular, but, in my opinion, ever so vapid comic book publishers, who tend to publish pretty looking characters with seemingly lots of emotional issues, you get this incestuous "circular logic".

 

It's like the studio marketing genius wonder and think; "what's the 12 to 30 age bracket reading? Superduperman verse Cave-dude? Let's make that!" All the while they already own it, so they make their garbage.

 

I don't know, maybe I need to get out more. But it's like every-time I want to go see a film, even the serious dramas, feel like they were made for teenagers and not the adult film audience of ages past.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Well, I heard almost the exact same argument, word for word, at the SFO Hyatt Regency last Memorial Day weekend. And it concerns me as to how my net and personal interactions are operating. Oh well

 

I have no idea what you mean. Would you care to explain?

[Tyler Purcell]

I grew up right on the cusp of the technology boom in the 80's. So I saw the first real video games hit the household, I saw how kids stopped playing outside and started sitting in front of the television thanks to video games. When the internet hit in the mid to late 90's, that sealed the deal, once you can get everything at the touch of your finger, you don't need to research or find anything on your own.

 

Today, kids have their noses buried in phones and online almost every waking moment. This feature I just finished was an all-kid cast and the only times they weren't on their phones, was during a take. The moment the director yelled cut, the phones came out and they were back to being in their separate little worlds.

 

That's the generation the studio's are marketing to and unfortunately, its our future, for better or worse. Sure, I do live in Los Angeles, a place where this "problem" is a bit out of control. However, it's a systemic problem in this and other countries around the globe. It's the lack of imagination, why do kids need to imagine anything when the computer does it for them? Kids don't read comic books, they don't need to.

[Bill DiPietra]

I miss good, classic, smart, scifi and films in general. And I guess those days are over.

 

Tron & The Black Hole were two of my favorites, as a kid. Anybody remember the "Tron" arcade game?...

[Phil Rhodes]

Discs of Tron! They have one in a classic arcade bar in Los Angeles, I played it.

[Bill DiPietra]

One day...

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TRON-Fully-Restored-Original-Video-Arcade-Game-with-Warranty-Support-/152085030342?hash=item2368f965c6:g:A2IAAOxyGwNTE4go

[Max Field]

Just do the Star Wars Trilogy Arcade game that was at every Hoyts theater in the early 2000's and you're good to go.

a third of the price of tron.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[George Ebersole]

I have no idea what you mean. Would you care to explain?

 

There are times when it feels like my net's been hacked. I guess it's not a big deal on this forum, but when I had my ph# posted on my profile page I got hundreds of scam phone calls, most of which were from overseas. So I have to be suspicious and cautious.

 

Back on topic; maybe I'm over estimating the studios. B-movies have always been produced, but it's like now they're all the rage, and they've gone mainstream. And because of that they've overshadowed good productions. At least that's my perspective.

[Satsuki Murashige]

There are times when it feels like my net's been hacked. I guess it's not a big deal on this forum, but when I had my ph# posted on my profile page I got hundreds of scam phone calls, most of which were from overseas. So I have to be suspicious and cautious.

 

Back on topic; maybe I'm over estimating the studios. B-movies have always been produced, but it's like now they're all the rage, and they've gone mainstream. And because of that they've overshadowed good productions. At least that's my perspective.

Ah ok.

 

Big budget B-movies steadily taking over the market, well I guess you can blame Spielberg and Lucas for starting that. That was 40 years ago though...

[George Ebersole]

Well, I think those two helped rediscover the golden age of movies, when they were a little more face value and didn't carry a lot of social weight with them. And again, I've heard that exact same phrasing on other boards as of recent.

 

I think a lot of people have tried to mimic their formula, mostly with mixed results. On balance I guess most people like the recent stuff I've bitched about. And hey, you can't argue with success. Oh well.

[George Ebersole]

Well, I'm 46 minutes into Interstellar. It looks corporate, somewhat predictable, including the production values ... the leads "hushed voice", the robot with an attitude.

 

I don't know. It feels like a mish mash of 2001 and Close Encounters.

 

Currently I can't shoot a better film. But I will be able to. And I can write a better script.

[Landon D. Parks]

Give me fantasy any day of the week. Honestly, that is why I pay to see a movie: To be taken to a new place that does not exists in the real world, or experience things that cannot be experienced in real life. I'm an escapist in my entertainment. My book shelves are lined with fantasy books, I write fantasy books. I love fantasy movies and TV shows.

 

I want to address one thing though: I do not lump 'comic book movies' (or comic book anything) into the fantasy category. Yeah, they are 'fantasy', in so much as they are not real... But true fantasy is Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc. Then again, it could just be that I don't like comic books or the movies that come from them that is skewing my perspective.

 

As for space operas I'd say it hard to categorize them into fantasy at all. For example, as odd as it may seem, everything in star wars could potentially happen at some point in the future. The technology is almost already there. So really, there is nothing 'fantasy' about a movie like Star Wars. To me, for it be classified as fantasy, it has to contain mostly elements that are simply not possible: magic, dragons, wizards, etc. Therefore to me, Star Wars (and other similar movies) are straight SciFi.

 

Don't expect a lot of people to agree with me, but that is my $0.10 on the subject. My view on entertainment is that if I wanted the real world to invade my entertainment choices, I'd simply live in the real world where it actually happens - rather than paying $10 to see something ordinarily mundane.

 

PS) I was just having an argument the other day with a teenager I was tutoring. She was proclaiming that the Hunger Games series (I don't know if she meant the books or movies) was 'fantasy'. I really wish people would stop lumping realistic distopian SciFi with fantasy, lol. I guess I'm turning into a grump in my older years.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Landon D. Parks