What would get hollywood making realistic films.

[Skyskimmer]

I mean I'm sure these kinds of threads get overdone but what would it take to have a resurgence in 2001 one type films. I mean it just amazes me the amount of room we have to work with if you get mildly creative. Avatar for better or worst was pretty realistic, could this be a new trend.

Oh yeah just so we can be somewhat agreed, it don't need to be 100 percent, simple things like antigravity aliens and ftl are not needed. I mean if you just assume genetically engineered life forums will populate the solar system in a few hundred years, there's an infinte amount of stories that can be told.

Just think of the movie Aliens can you tell me how the story would be very differnent if it was a corporate expierment in the kuiper belt other than the name of course.

 

[SJQ]

What would get Hollywood making realistic films? An educated Hollywood and a knowledgeable audience.

But I think you'd need to get the knowledgeable audience first, because:

a) Hollywood doesn't often innovate (and even then, it's largely accidental), and
b) Hollywood always follows the money.....

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I mean I'm sure these kinds of threads get overdone but what would it take to have a resurgence in 2001 one type films. I mean it just amazes me the amount of room we have to work with if you get mildly creative. ....
Just think of the movie Aliens can you tell me how the story would be very differnent if it was a corporate expierment in the kuiper belt other than the name of course.

I'll give you a hint.. in dialogue!

Writer - "OK, then the alien thing.."
Producer - "Monster"
Writer - "Uh, OK.. the Monster. Well, it goes on a rampage through the ship, tearing a hole in the bulkhead to the massive engineering section where the Albecurrie drive is located.. So."
Producer - "No"
Writer - "Huh?"
Producer - "It costs us a million dollars a day, average, for filming and CGI work. It takes 10 grand just to suit up the live actor in the monster suit for the close-ups. Then, we're paying for three sets, even when we're not using them. Adding another one is out of the picture."
Writer - "But, the alien .."
Producer - "Monster. If it's an alien, then we need back-story and the audience is too stupid to understand one."
Writer - "But.. The Monster has laid its eggs near the ducts for the Albecurrie drive, using strange matter's radiation to incubate the eggs in a displaced time field in order to get them to hatch.. It's the pivotal plot piece because.."
Producer - "No, too complicated. The Audience won't understand it."
Writer - "But, we've got hints all during the opening parts of the movie and the Engineer can explai.."
Producer - "No. We cut the Engineer. Too "techy."
Writer - "WHAT? But, the whole subplot.."
Producer - "We've rewritten the subplot."
Writer - "Huh? WTF?"
Producer - "Yup. Here, check it out for yourself."
Writer - "... What does "s'plosions" mean?
Producer - "Box office, baby... Box office.."

 

[Skyskimmer]

What would get Hollywood making realistic films? An educated Hollywood and a knowledgeable audience.

But I think you'd need to get the knowledgeable audience first, because:

a) Hollywood doesn't often innovate (and even then, it's largely accidental), and
b) Hollywood always follows the money.....

I think that's a bit of truth that hollywood dosen't know how to inovate. I mean it's not that most people aren't aware that there is no FTL therefore no way to visit aliens, It's that there hasn't been many sucessful if any realistic sci fi's until Avatar.

I mean in the past alot of it had to do with cost, but with todays push for 3d computer graphics it's becoming less of an issue.
I honestly think it's the science community that dosen't give hollywood enough praise when they get things right.

I mean Avatar was almost perfect. Compare that to star trek which is loaded with pseudo science dialogue is complete garabage, even when they did a reboot on the series they made no attempt to fix any of the completely out there parts of the ST universe.

I think if there was a small push to make things be more logical hollywood would listen. Because i think it's been proving, that no adherence to some level of realism, cause a plot to be loaded full of loop wholes and out their ideas(see voyager )

There no need to cut back on action or explosions, just some need to make the world your in have some level of weight with the euducated viewing audience.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Hollywood is big business and big business abhors risk above almost all else. Innovation has risk. So unless innovative movies are low budget they won't be picked to be made inlieu of a standard formula, "guaranteed" $$ movies. When someone does something new and successful it gets copied because it's cheaper and less risk to do so. It's all about the money.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc[/youtube]

 

[bdewoody]

Write a plausible realistic script or book about doable near term space flight and see who buys it. My bet is no one.

 

[Skyskimmer]

Write a plausible realistic script or book about doable near term space flight and see who buys it. My bet is no one.

Aliens could easily be rewritten to take place within the kuiper belt.
Predator .
Terminator's.
Tv shows like andromeda ould be written to be near our system.
A long lists of others.

 

[SJQ]

Write a plausible realistic script or book about doable near term space flight and see who buys it. My bet is no one.

Aliens could easily be rewritten to take place within the kuiper belt.
Predator .
Terminator's.
Tv shows like andromeda ould be written to be near our system.
A long lists of others.

bdewoody, you just won your bet. You owe me a beer..... Romulan Ale would do just fine.

 

[bdewoody]

Write a plausible realistic script or book about doable near term space flight and see who buys it. My bet is no one.

Aliens could easily be rewritten to take place within the kuiper belt.
Predator .
Terminator's.
Tv shows like andromeda ould be written to be near our system.
A long lists of others.

And those are realistic? The only realistic space series I recall was Space 1999, that is until the moon took off on it's own out in the galaxy.

To me a realistic space series set say 50-100 years in the future would be more about developing a colony on the moon, then on Mars and possibly mining some of the larger asteroids. Realistic would include space vehicles that take 6 months to get to Mars not 6 minutes. They could mabe have some drama on the moon with an occasional meteor strike and dealing with the damage caused or a moon buggy breaking down requiring a rescue party to go out and get them before a CME kills them. That is what realistic is about. And nobody would watch it.

 

[strandedonearth]

To me a realistic space series set say 50-100 years in the future would be more about developing a colony on the moon, then on Mars and possibly mining some of the larger asteroids. Realistic would include space vehicles that take 6 months to get to Mars not 6 minutes. They could mabe have some drama on the moon with an occasional meteor strike and dealing with the damage caused or a moon buggy breaking down requiring a rescue party to go out and get them before a CME kills them. That is what realistic is about. And nobody would watch it.

Sure they would, as long as it had a scantily-clad Pamela Anderson running down the moon-base corridors (in 1/6th gee :shock: ), while McDreamy and Pitt work out in the gym to keep their muscles from atrophying.

Oh, and where's the ka-boom? There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering ka-boom?

 

[Skyskimmer]

To me a realistic space series set say 50-100 years in the future would be more about developing a colony on the moon, then on Mars and possibly mining some of the larger asteroids. Realistic would include space vehicles that take 6 months to get to Mars not 6 minutes. They could mabe have some drama on the moon with an occasional meteor strike and dealing with the damage caused or a moon buggy breaking down requiring a rescue party to go out and get them before a CME kills them. That is what realistic is about. And nobody would watch it.

Sure they would, as long as it had a scantily-clad Pamela Anderson running down the moon-base corridors (in 1/6th gee :shock: ), while McDreamy and Pitt work out in the gym to keep their muscles from atrophying.

Oh, and where's the ka-boom? There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering ka-boom?

What's wrong with that, atleast it's social. If you can't mix social with science don't even bother trying to appeal to the average person. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Sci fi watchers look for some purism, instead of a realistic blend.
Alot of action movies or big budget flicks could easily be transposed to a realistic space setting with no need for endless days of techno babble.

On the upside if ridley scott can get the funding he wants he's gonna make an alien prequel, with no ftl's.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Obviously, we have different opinions on what is realistic... you consider Alien and the Terminator realistic; to me they're pure SciFi.

 

[bdewoody]

Obviously, we have different opinions on what is realistic... you consider Alien and the Terminator realistic; to me they're pure SciFi.

Thanks, that's what I've been trying to get across.

 

[StarRider1701]

You need to define "Realistic."

Terminator involves sentient machines and time travel. Except that one must travel naked because in-animate matter will not go through. Except the machines figured out how to send a machine covered in human flesh. Realistic? Perhaps. I liked it.

Even without FTL, Alien involved Aliens. You think some big corporate bioengineering an "Alien-like" animal more relistic than it being an alien? Not sure I'd buy that, a natural monster is much more realistic to me.

Predator? Aliens from somewhere who do nothing but hunt other species for the trophies? And who care absolutely nothing at all for anything else? Not very realistic to me, even though I liked the original movie and had some fun watching some of the others in the series. The Alien VS Predator movies were kinda fun.

Why doesn't Hollywood make better, more realistic SciFi? Where there is no such thing as Faster than Light travel or Time travel or Sentient Robots or anything else that we don't know how to do yet? Becasue they would be too dang boring!

Have you ever read any Science Fiction? Most of it is about humans in the future, dealing with the problems associated with such new technology as Stargates or Starships. Although some of the older stuff is now getting a bit dated, when it was written, most SciFi was about things we had not yet done or knew exactly how to do yet. That why it was called SCIENCE FICTION (what SciFi stands for.) It is normally a good story set at some point in our future, when we have newfangled stuff like space travel and/or time travel and/or instantaneous matter transmittal to other places, and/or other fun stuff like that! A book set in the here and now, using only the technology that we currently have might be a good or fun story, but it would NOT be SciFi.

Personal note: I really get ticked off when all the science idiots really nit-pick the crap out of an otherwise good movie that didn't get the "science" exactly perfect. My comment is usually - Geeze, get a life! Or a sense of humor!
And, I am a Star Trek Fan. I watched and enjoyed ALL of the Star Trek shows, including Voyager. In fact, Janeway is my second favorite Starship Captian in the Federation Universe. I don't expect everyone to like Star Trek. But if you don't like it, the concept is really simple - don't watch it. And stop bitching about it!

 

[bdewoody]

The OP wanted to know why Hollywood doesn't make more "realistic" movies and cited "2001 A Space Odessy" as an example. I assume that to be movies that fall in the realm of activities that we are capable of or at least will be capable of without breaking any laws of physics. Unfortunately the capabilities of movie CGI has completely outstripped actual physical capabilities. And Hollywood won't gamble on what could be regarded as a boring realistic movie.

A case in point is A.C. Clarke's Rendesvoux with Rama. Morgan Freeman tried for several years to get this story on the silver screen but to no avail so far. If the screen writers stick closely to the book there won't be any fighting in spaces and the most interesting things will be robots he called biots doing cleanup chores. Only in the fourth book is there an opportunity to put together a Hollywood type movie when the human colony in Rama tries to take over the whole spaceship.

I'd like to see a movie or even a series of movies about the Rama epic but it looks like it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Skyskimmer]

Obviously, we have different opinions on what is realistic... you consider Alien and the Terminator realistic; to me they're pure SciFi.

I said I considered they to be workable into a real universe your tuning out half of what I'm saying.
The basic premise of terminator movies is machine hunting people. (please no debate about the time travel aspects) It does not have to revolve around time travel, nor is sentinent supercomputers that unrealistic. sure the details would be altered, but the general ark of the movies can be done in a realistic setting.

Same with alien. There's no need for ftl's artifical gravity, and the society portrayed in these movies is very likely to happen. So it could easily be remade "rebooted" into a setting is science based.

I think alot of what is missing in these type of issues. Is the difference between a science fiction plot versus a science fiction setting. In hollywood were talking about settings that are realistic. (within our solar system ) no artificial gravity etc. The plots can usually function just the same with minor difference that will mostly aid in the cohernece of a plot.

What I'm not a fan of is science fantasy, where the setting is fictional, and the plot revolves around a fictional science such as "the force" "going to warp speed" etc.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

..What I'm not a fan of is science fantasy, where the setting is fictional, and the plot revolves around a fictional science such as "the force" "going to warp speed" etc.

You are a discriminating fan of Science Fiction.

There is a difference between Sci-Fi and Science Fiction. (There's an article posted and an interview in the Harlan Ellison thread, if you're interested in seeing more.)

True science fiction has always been about the impact of technology on humans and their society. The farther it strays from that, the more like "fantasy" it becomes. At least, to a certain point.. There are some that seem to stray very far from that, but really don't.

Take "Dune." At first read, it may appear to be overly fanciful and techno-centered. After all, there are Pilots bending space with their mind, magic "dust" that makes things.. magical, giant worms rampaging like dragons and brave dragon-riders, taming the beasts and leading them into battle. There's the oppressive overlords, the corrupt Emperor and all the trappings of a fantasy including knights, princesses and the whole shebang.

But, it's about control. The control of resources, people and even ideas. "He who controls the spice, controls the Universe." It's about freedom from oppression brought on by the iron grip of those who control the resources that we all need to survive. So, it does make a literary statement after all, addressing the impact of this very unique and highly controlled substance on an Empire-wide society. Then, it devolved into a Learyesque drug induced spiritual journey where man becomes god..etc.. blah blah blah and I stopped reading there.

 

[StarRider1701]

You are a discriminating fan of Science Fiction.

He's a boring Science Fiction fan. He wants to limit himself (and everyone else) to SF that takes place only within the next 100 to 200 years from now.
But true Science Fiction knows no limits! The fact is, the farther in the future the story is set, the more "Fiction" the science becomes. Take a man from 500 years ago. Bring him into the here and now. What he will see will boggle his mind, at first he will be unable to comprehend all the little things that we take for granted today. Nevermind the big things like cars, planes, refrigerators, microwave ovens and central heat and AC. Most of us carry around in our pockets 2 things that he would likely Kill for - instant communications and instant fire! A cell phone and a Bic lighter, two simple things to us that we don't even think about.
So, can we go 500 years into our future and "know" what devices and technologies they will have? What 2 things will those folk carry in thier pockets that would be totally revolutionary for us? We CANNOT know! But we can guess.
So, making up future science and technology is what Science Fiction is all about! Not to mention weaving a great story around that technology. Used to be, all a SF fan expected of the "Science" part of Science Fiction was that it at least tried to remain true to itself. That is, the author set the "Logic" of the future science and then stuck to those principles. Now, too many folk try to judge SF by the meager standards and abilities of our current science. "We can't do it now, so therefore it cannot ever be done." Seems to be a recurring theme in the judgement of much of todays Sf, especially the TV shows and movies. Sad, sad, sad... and boring.

 

[bdewoody]

I like Science Fantasy and Science Fiction both short term and long term. Star Trek, Star Wars, Bab 5, BSG old and new and the Stargate group are all among my favorites. But I also loved 2001 a Space Odessy, Outland, and to a certain extent Alien the first movie and they all have the human participants doing things and in ships that are plausible. I think they need to find a way to make good space movies that depict space vehicles that obey the laws of physics and show people what we are really capable of. The movie that comes to mind that totally innaccurately portrays human space flight is Armageddon and there are others that do the same. Unfortunately a lot of people believe we have space vehicles that can do the impossible.

 

[Skyskimmer]

I like Science Fantasy and Science Fiction both short term and long term. Star Trek, Star Wars, Bab 5, BSG old and new and the Stargate group are all among my favorites. But I also loved 2001 a Space Odessy, Outland, and to a certain extent Alien the first movie and they all have the human participants doing things and in ships that are plausible. I think they need to find a way to make good space movies that depict space vehicles that obey the laws of physics and show people what we are really capable of. The movie that comes to mind that totally innaccurately portrays human space flight is Armageddon and there are others that do the same. Unfortunately a lot of people believe we have space vehicles that can do the impossible.

I was a huge fan of space fantasy(space setting with no science) as a kid. Never understand fictional science in the least( plot based on speculative science) I love action scifi(predator,starship troopers, battlestar,aliens,5th element etc)
However I fell in love in realistic sci fi, like 2001. There's such a beauty to trying to make things realistiic a real mystery to it, and at the same time alot of room for interesting stories. It's just frustrating to see the lack of vision some people have or the desire to depend on cliche's to get through a plot(ftl's etc)

 

[a_lost_packet_]

He's a boring Science Fiction fan. He wants to limit himself (and everyone else) to SF that takes place only within the next 100 to 200 years from now.

I just mean that he knows the difference, that's all.

But true Science Fiction knows no limits!

True Science Fiction has always been, and will always be, the impact of technology on human beings and their society. That is Science Fiction.

So, making up future science and technology is what Science Fiction is all about! Not to mention weaving a great story around that technology. Used to be, all a SF fan expected of the "Science" part of Science Fiction was that it at least tried to remain true to itself. That is, the author set the "Logic" of the future science and then stuck to those principles. Now, too many folk try to judge SF by the meager standards and abilities of our current science. "We can't do it now, so therefore it cannot ever be done." Seems to be a recurring theme in the judgement of much of todays Sf, especially the TV shows and movies. Sad, sad, sad... and boring.

It's not about making up the coolest gadgets or the most believable future science. There's nothing in doing that if there is no story of its impact on human beings. But, even in the most fantastical science fiction imaginable, like "Dune" or Zelazny's "Lord of Light", there must be a human element and some sort of conflict stemming from technology or science or else it's not true science fiction.

Slaughterhouse Five - That's very "near future"... kind of.. and is high Science Fiction.
Dune - Far future, very fantastic, but still Science Fiction.
World of Tiers - So far into outrageous science fiction that it is near fantasy, but it's still Science Fiction. (not a movie, though)
Runaway - Very near future, yet still Science Fiction.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace - Far future, fantastic gadgets but CRAP as far as Science Fiction goes. It's Sci Fi.
Starship Troopers: Future, lots of science fictiony stuff.. But, lost most of its Science Fiction merit 15 minutes into the movie. Sci-Fi.

I can speak for Skyskimmer, but there's a definite difference between Sci Fi and Science Fiction. It seems that the more fantastical gadgets, 'splosions and special effects they want to put into a movie, the farther removed they tend to get from stories about characters actually being impacted by that technology. With less techy stuff, usually comes more "story."

For instance, Robin Williams character in "The Final Cut" witnesses something with the new technology of being able to download and edit a person's life history. Everything that person saw, experienced, did, etc.. can be edited on tape and there's a fad to presenting such "Life Histories" to bereaving relatives at the time of a person's death. There's no wild tech in this movie other than the idea of having access to such information from an implant. There's no 'splosions or aliens. There's simply a neat bit of tech and an interesting story about a character dramatically effected by that technology. That's Science Fiction. It doesn't have to be set in the near future. But, most movies tend to put "story driven science ficiton" in the near future because they don't need a lot of flash and glitter to interest the viewer.

In howitzer-space-blowup-stuff, you can simply crowd the screen with as many special effects as you possibly can and it's possible to ignore any potential for a story while still keeping the audience mesmerized by bells and whistles. That is Sci Fi. It's hard to pull off Sci Fi in the near future. When someone tries to do it, it's usually regarded as a cheesy B movie.

 

[StarRider1701]

It's not about making up the coolest gadgets or the most believable future science. There's nothing in doing that if there is no story of its impact on human beings.

Starship Troopers: Future, lots of science fictiony stuff.. But, lost most of its Science Fiction merit 15 minutes into the movie. Sci-Fi.

Of course stories are about people. Haven't read or seen or even heard about a story that didn't have people (not necessarily humans) in it.

As to Starship Troopers, your are both wrong and right. The Robert A. Heinlein book was a great work of art. Totally Science Fiction. The movie was such a complete disappointment to me! What amazes me the most is that they've made sequels to it!!!

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Of course stories are about people. Haven't read or seen or even heard about a story that didn't have people (not necessarily humans) in it.

Correct. But, I think there have been stories that weren't about people, at least, not "characters" in the classic sense. What's are some poems about? (Though, they're more to evoke feelings than tell a story.) But, IIRC, there have been several short stories that didn't have any recognizable classic character. To get an idea, what about a story like this?

"The little toy robot sat underneath the bed. The dusty coat it wore was its only companion. It had been witness to an age of joy, where all was possible within the little domain of the child's room. But, laughter and frantic races across starry vistas haunted by giant space monsters, terrible empires and filled with spontaneous acts of heroism were no more. The child was gone."

Where's the "character?" Is it the robot?

As to Starship Troopers, your are both wrong and right. The Robert A. Heinlein book was a great work of art. Totally Science Fiction. The movie was such a complete disappointment to me! What amazes me the most is that they've made sequels to it!!!

I agree. Starship Troopers was an awesome sci-fi adventure story! The movie was a farce and an insult for Starship Troopers fans. But, I still enjoyed it for what it was. I didn't let myself have any expectations when I saw that movie, so I wasn't as disappointed as most. Honestly, I think it was a pretty good movie and poked a lot of fun at itself and made some pretty dramatic (overly dramatic) social commentary as well. All in all, I liked it for what it was.

But, the sequel.. I saw for a few minutes as I was flipping channels one day.. All I can say is it appeared to take itself much too seriously.

 

[StarRider1701]

"The little toy robot sat underneath the bed. The dusty coat it wore was its only companion. It had been witness to an age of joy, where all was possible within the little domain of the child's room. But, laughter and frantic races across starry vistas haunted by giant space monsters, terrible empires and filled with spontaneous acts of heroism were no more. The child was gone."

Where's the "character?" Is it the robot?

Cute little made-up nonsensical bullcrap. But throughout the whole thread we were talking about complete books or movies, not some little paragraph of wishy-washy nonsense or poems. Let's not stray off topic, shall we?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Cute little made-up nonsensical bullcrap. But throughout the whole thread we were talking about complete books or movies, not some little paragraph of wishy-washy nonsense or poems. Let's not stray off topic, shall we?

I shouldn't have posted that anyway since it's a bit of a sidetrack. But, I'm not surprised you don't get the point I was trying to make.