- Status
1. Poor adaptations from other media. IOW, don't give romance writers a space war to adapt.
2. A lack of prduction designers with a sci-fi background.
3. Not hiring production advisors, or hiring ones who don't know crap about storytelling.
4. Directors/producers who think they know more than the good writers & production advisors. See Joel Schumacher.
5. A lack of well skilled F/X folks who can stick to a budget. Too many blow the budget before the project even gets to post, then the main effects suffer.
2. A lack of prduction designers with a sci-fi background.
3. Not hiring production advisors, or hiring ones who don't know crap about storytelling.
4. Directors/producers who think they know more than the good writers & production advisors. See Joel Schumacher.
5. A lack of well skilled F/X folks who can stick to a budget. Too many blow the budget before the project even gets to post, then the main effects suffer.
ZenGalacticore":vutchz7m said:
Because the number of "hacks" exceeds the number of talented writers, directors, etc.
Because $$s matter more than "quality" when you don't have enough of the former and people, by and large, don't demand much of the latter.
Because special effects, awe and shocking the viewer are more valued than good scripts and good solid acting.
I would say because Good Science fiction is harder to write than standard fiction, or fantasy
With standard fiction, you don't have to create a new world, just interesting characters in our normal world. With fantasy, you can create ANY world you want to serve as a backdrop to your characters.
With any form of science fiction, from the "real world" stuff like Fringe, to the way out stuff like Star Wars, your world must be recognizable, but inspirational at the same time. You have to keep a balance between Domestic dust and Fairy dust. That is REALLY hard to do.
With standard fiction, you don't have to create a new world, just interesting characters in our normal world. With fantasy, you can create ANY world you want to serve as a backdrop to your characters.
With any form of science fiction, from the "real world" stuff like Fringe, to the way out stuff like Star Wars, your world must be recognizable, but inspirational at the same time. You have to keep a balance between Domestic dust and Fairy dust. That is REALLY hard to do.
ZGC didn't specify films in the title or text. But I guess we can assume he's not referring to books although there are some pretty poor Sci Fi books as well.
With films recently too many are concentrating on fancy CGI and other special effects and ignoring whether the story line makes sense or not.
With films recently too many are concentrating on fancy CGI and other special effects and ignoring whether the story line makes sense or not.
Because sci fi fans will watch anything and tend to support sub par shows. I mean just think of district 9 probally the top sci fi of it's year, and it's sub par at best, yet gets a huge audience. Don't get me wrong I liked it, but sci fi fans are predictably loyal.
Don't get me wrong I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else. But the simple fact remains that it's niche audience, there's not enough of an audience to support quality.
Even stargate star trek the best before galactica had alot of garbage episodes etc, and their big budget shows. I'm pretty bitter I have to admit.
It's a true case of it being the audience's fault.
Don't get me wrong I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else. But the simple fact remains that it's niche audience, there's not enough of an audience to support quality.
Even stargate star trek the best before galactica had alot of garbage episodes etc, and their big budget shows. I'm pretty bitter I have to admit.
It's a true case of it being the audience's fault.
Too much focus on Sci-Fi (whizbang special effects and Oooo/Ahhhh factor) and not enough focus on interesting storylines with memorable characters.
See I'd believe that. Except it's a two way street. Big budget CGI films are a niche audience entirely different from sci fi.a_lost_packet_":3med3tvm said:
The merger of the too is a dual relationship. The problem is the sci fi community isn't organized enough to ensure that it gets done properly.
Just think the other big cgi films are Comic book movies, fantasy films based on books, and historical films(Troy,Gladiator, titanic, band of brothers etc). In each case studios are aware you'd can't piss off the fanbase as it can make or break a movie. In the case of sci fi this is never an issue, as sci fi fans are overly divivded on what is acceptable.
Skyskimmer":15dkh53w said:
I would hardly put Troy, Gladiator and Titanic in the same category as Brand of Brothers. The last was characterised by an outstanding committment to historcial realism and accuracy. The first three were not. Unlike Band of Brothers, the first three were driven by a sopay plot and cheap CGI trills. The effects were excellent in Band of Brothers, but entirely subsurvient to the story, they were just neccessary details to a plot and character driven story.
Yes but overall it was made with a level of quality, people wouldn't of watched it if people messed up the details.JonClarke":1ajx4xxr said:
There's always a tradeoff between boredom, and budget. It has to met, if people in the third world can't understand it, or kids don't like it, your going on a dwarf budget from the get go.
a_lost_packet_":awig8cfm said:
And when they do take a really good Science Fiction story and make a movie out of it, like Starship Troopers, they hack the heck out of the book! If movie makers would stay a little truer to the original story, the movies have the potential to be so much better...!
ZenGalacticore":2qctxn3z said:
Well, let's see where you are coming from. What do you consider "good" Science-fiction?
Skyskimmer":27u57alk said:
Gladiator was a bit dodgy in places historically but it was primarily plot and character driven with excellent direction and cast. Plus a high level of historical accuracy waw not crucial to the story.
Try on the other hand made no attempt to be historically accurate, 300 on marginsally so, and were both execretable. Titanic was visually stunning but with a risibly implausible plot and characters. I don't call that a level of quality.
There is no tradeoff between boredom and budget. Some low budget movies are excellent, some high budgetones are terrible.
People in the third world need to understand it? Third world people are just as capable of understanding film as people in the first world and there is a thriving movie industry in the third world.
JonClarke":2jy4bzcy said:
Have you ever watch bollywood films
Or honk kong films :? Even people from the countries themselves say their garbage, (not talking about ones that are made for foreign audiecne slumdog milliaire or anything like that).
Regardless if you don't speak english plot and acting become secondary, I've seen this 100 times. with alot of my friends.
Regardless, 300 was not suppose to be accurate, it was anti accurate, it was suppose to be mythical by nature.
Starship troopers, though was alright in the first one I'd think it was meant to be the way it was it was intinally different from the book that I can handle, it was still relatively good, even if it weren't perfect, the sequels on the other hand were the worst films to ever be made.StarRider1701":p4f0wyhm said:
Why do horror movies and barbarian fantasy movies get lumped in with Sci Fi. The Sci stands for Science and in my book a story has to deal with some sort of new plausible science development. If it's probably doable but not done yet it is fiction. If it's way out there impossible it's Fantasy. To me Science Fiction and Science Fantasy are two different story types.
I prefer the word space fantasy but I know what you mean. I think part of the problem though is that too many so called "good" sci fi's have opened the flood gates. Star trek, Starship troopers etc, automatically blur the line the second you put in aliens or ftl's. It just turns things into an awful mess.bdewoody":1bgtwkm9 said:
The most important thing to me is a story. If its a good story then it will be a good book, or a good movie. Sci-fi or not.
movies and TV sci-fi mostly bites because the people who make it assume that people who enjoy it are nerds that will go "oooooh" and "aaaaahhhhhh" over CGI and hot babes in tight outfits. most of the recent sucky sci-fi looks like the intended audience was a roomful of horny 14 year old boys.
That's bull when they make stuff like that people just skimm over it. How many people around here regularly talk about gattaca. If I never brought the movie up I' wouldn't even believe anyone ever saw it.keeper96":1zpqvf19 said:
Actually, the answer to the OP is simple: the people who write for movies have no real understanding of good Science Fiction; they're only in this to make a fast buck as easily as possible.
It takes time and care and good science to make a true SF novel or movie to work - Hollywood writers just aren't invested into it that way.
It takes time and care and good science to make a true SF novel or movie to work - Hollywood writers just aren't invested into it that way.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
2 astronaut taxis: Why NASA wants both Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Dragon
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 7
-
James Webb Space Telescope forecasts clouds of melted rock on this blisteringly hot exoplanet
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
A Switzerland-size hole opened in Antarctica's sea ice in 2016-17. Now we know why
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
It almost feels unreal': NASA astronauts excited for 1st crewed Boeing Starliner launch May 6
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
NASA prepares for intense sun storms on Mars during 'solar maximum
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram