Why Is It Most Science-Fiction Bites?

[Skyskimmer]

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.

You can't blame the directors in something like sci fi, it's not like it's indie film where large budgets aren't needed.


It's the audience plain and simple. And you can't blame people that aren't educated, children, have zero interest in sci fi, or don't speak english well. It's the fact that sci fi audiences aren't savvy, they don't realize supporting sub par series out of loyalty(star gate universe;;relative to it's price) are destroying itself from the inside.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I liked HGTTG, but I doubt it did well in the theatres.

Good SciFi:

Forbidden Planet

The Day the Earth Stood Still

The original Twilight Zone TV series.

 

[believer_since_1956]

I liked HGTTG, but I doubt it did well in the theatres.

Good SciFi:

Forbidden Planet

The Day the Earth Stood Still

The original Twilight Zone TV series.

I certainly agree. I would humbly suggest

The original Outer Limits
A little know TV series called Men Into Space (50's TV series)
The Abyss
Destination Moon (Plot so-so but inspired me to work in the space industry)
Star Trek First Contact (I know I will take some flack for that one LOL)

 

[believer_since_1956]

If we are talking Books

I believe every thing I've read from David Weber I have a hard time putting down, usually I consume the book in about a week averaging > 100 pages a night.

Along the lines of 1920-1960
E.E. Smith brings back many fond memories I re-read "The Lensmen Series" once a year.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well, unfortunately we don't know what Zen's intent was since hasn't been back since his first post. Somehow, not too suprising. :roll: He probably forgot he started it.

So we can make the subject be whatever we want within the topic title.

I didn't like most of the Outer Limits myself...not as intellectual as TZ, and with no CGI, lots of cheezy rubber "monsters".

MW

 

[believer_since_1956]

Well, unfortunately we don't know what Zen's intent was since hasn't been back since his first post. Somehow, not too suprising. :roll: He probably forgot he started it.

So we can make the subject be whatever we want within the topic title.

I didn't like most of the Outer Limits myself...not as intellectual as TZ, and with no CGI, lots of cheezy rubber "monsters".

MW

Well yeah, but at 17 years old who cares LOL. However one exception to the rubber monsters might be "Creature with the Glass Hand"

 

[MeteorWayne]

You you just answered Zen's question:

"Well yeah, but at 17 years old who cares LOL"

 

[yevaud]

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.

You can't blame the directors in something like sci fi, it's not like it's indie film where large budgets aren't needed.

Of course, I only said "writers." Hmm.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Zen, you say most scifi films, but do you have any that come to mind?

I didn't actually specify the film medium. I can, however, think of many Sci-Fi films that absolutely suck. (It's hard to remember the actual titles of them though, because they were so atrociously horrendous. But I'll try:

'Mission to Mars' (Or whatever the one with Val Kilmer and the guy from 'Fargo' was called.)

'Solarium' (Or whatever the one was called with George Clooney.)

'Alien3' and 'Alien4' (Don't know what the sam-phaser the producers and directors were thinking on those two, as I don't think those made any measurable money even in the video stores or on the tube.)

'Men in Black I and II (Give me a break. Not sure though if these two actually even qualify as Sci-Fi.)

'All the Star Trek Next Generation Movies, as well as at least 1/3 of the Original Star Trek Movies' ( I really think they got carried away because of "Star Wars". Way too many sentient aliens in the 'Star Trek Universe' in my opinion. Last I checked, the exlpored radius in Captain Kirk's Universe was about 2,000 lightyears, omnidirectional from the Sol System.) They forgot Sci-Fi, and went with so-called ScienceFantasy. But it should be called SpaceFantasy, in my infuriating opinion.

And, I know you're going to disagree with this Jason, but all three of the latest "Star Wars" editions. But, again, "Star Wars" isn't really Science Fiction, as there is very little science in the entire "Star Wars" franchise. It's Space Fantasy.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Why is it that most Science-Fiction sucks?


I invite you all (y'all) to discussion...

Well, let's see where you are coming from. What do you consider "good" Science-fiction?

As far as film?

'2001: A Space Odyssey'
'Alien'
'Logan's Run'
'The Andromeda Strain' (The original. The remake was a joke.)
'Planet of the Apes' (Not the remake, although, the premise of the original was pretty silly too, but it was still a good film. Obviously, with the Moon and the Constellations--after only two thousand years-- Taylor and the rest of the astronauts could easily have concluded that they were on Earth, not to mention just taking a look at the biology. But hey, it is fiction.
'THX 1138' Not bad for a student and/or recent graduate film student. (The scene in the 'mental ward' was a bit drawn out though.)
"The First Three Star Trek Movies" (More or less, fairly good films. Could've been better! )

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Well, unfortunately we don't know what Zen's intent was since hasn't been back since his first post. Somehow, not too suprising. :roll: He probably forgot he started it.

Yeah. I'm gone a whopping 72 hours. (I did forget that I started it, though. :lol: ) I wouldn't have remembered had Yev not left a post.

So we can make the subject be whatever we want within the topic title.


MW

Glad to hear that I'm still drumming up interesting topics.

Just like to say that I agree with Silylene, Mac, Bwoody, Yev, Alp, and others, in that the problems with Sci-Fi in film are hacks, accountants, the "bottom line" mentality, over-emphasis on special effects at the expense of story and character development, etc.

IMO, good Sci-Fi incorporates plausible future technology combined with our truly fragile human nature interacting in a usually predictable but sometimes unpredictable and often times hostile Universe, compounded with the human reaction to phenomenon, whether in the natural physical Universe, or a reaction to our own technology and creations (like robots or computers, e.g.). "Dammit Spock! You can't argue with a computer!"

Furthermore, good Sci-Fi must include the reality that "things go wrong". 10,000 years from now, if we survive and flourish as a species, few of us can imagine what our technology and capabilities will be. But no matter what we will be able to do, people will still be flawed, and so too will our machines and computers. Things can and very often do, go very wrong.

Those are some things Sci-Fi writers should remember. Without sytems breaking down, there's no opportunity of the hero, for the good guys, for the smart guys. When everything is figured out already and assured, that sounds like a secure future world, but it makes for a boring story.

 

[Valcan]

I have a request for scifi authors and directors. If there is military ANYTHING in your books accually look at something more educational about military matters, customs and such beyond the last vietnam movie you saw.

(Now there is something to cripe about...every vietnam movie is pretty much the same)

Military customs traditions practices and standards have changed over the centuries and cultures.

Not every powerful military is a evil empire, not every weak force is fighting for good.

I fear if you dont get away from this all movies will have the same plots as japanese anime.

And most of all....

YOU DO NOT FIGHT RIFLES FROM THE HIP!. Or shotguns or even eldar shurukin (whatever) :geek:

Startrek is horrible in that respect. Excuse me while i stand in the middle of the halway and fire 30 times at a guy 5 yars away..... :roll:

 

[JasonChapman]

I think there’s a stark difference between the writers of science fiction books and the makers of science fiction films and TV. When you write a book, you are given more of a chance to create a world which will conjure up all kinds of images to any scifi fan who reads it. How many people on this forum have read a scifi novel and then had high expectations for the film, only to be let down badly, I know I have, the examples being ‘Sphere’ superb book, utterly dismal film. I have heard the same thing about ‘Battlefield Earth’

There is a mass amount of films that have been and have not been mentioned in this post. Many years ago I saw Star Wars in novel format. I was tempted to buy but didn’t bother. I do remember it being a very thin novel, no more than 250 pages I think. I wonder if George Lucas would have written the Book before the film came out, would it have been as successful?

Anyway the problem is, and it has been mentioned, people working in the film industry don’t have a clue about scifi or are actual scifi fans. To many working within the film TV industry, it’s just a job. So when they get a job working on a scifi film then they just do what they’re told.
Take for example Russell T Davies who was tasked with writing the Dr Who revival series. He’s a good drama writer, but he has little clue how to write good scifi stories, something which I pointed out to one of the old Doctors, Colin Baker at a scifi memorabilia show a few years back, boy did he get annoyed with me. :lol:

That said, scifi fans are also the hardest to please, especially when it comes to film, its probably because their imagination stretchers further than the film director And yes film is too reliant on CGI effects rather than storytelling. The Phantom Menace being a prime example.

 

[LadyNikkitron]

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 agree that Fantasy and SciFi are two different genres and shouldn't be put in the same category. Fantasy doesn't necessarily need an explanation for why or how things are happening in there like in Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and any other movie that deals with Magic or the supernatural, which aren't explained scientifically - while Science Fiction tries to explain the whys and hows whether it's real or not, possible or impossible... but i know some Fantasy attempt to have some scientific explanation to how something works or why it's happening (Children of Dune), so that's Scifi-fantasy, maybe Avatar can be put in that same category of Scifi-fantasy. Some scifi overlaps with fantasy... and back to the original subject "Why is it most Sci-fi bites?" I wonder the same... probably because too many untalented people with the money are trying to tell the talented ones what to do...

 

[believer_since_1956]

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 agree that Fantasy and SciFi are two different genres and shouldn't be put in the same category. Fantasy doesn't necessarily need an explanation for why or how things are happening in there like in Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and any other movie that deals with Magic or the supernatural, which aren't explained scientifically - while Science Fiction tries to explain the whys and hows whether it's real or not, possible or impossible... but i know some Fantasy attempt to have some scientific explanation to how something works or why it's happening (Children of Dune), so that's Scifi-fantasy, maybe Avatar can be put in that same category of Scifi-fantasy. Some scifi overlaps with fantasy... and back to the original subject "Why is it most Sci-fi bites?" I wonder the same... probably because too many untalented people with the money are trying to tell the talented ones what to do...

Never really thought of the Dune series as SciFi-fantasy but I see your point. However the Dickison's "Childe Cycle" (Dorsai series) is something like that. To bad he never finished it before he died, the last few books kind of wondered off somewhere........(personal opinion)

 

[believer_since_1956]

I have a request for scifi authors and directors. If there is military ANYTHING in your books accually look at something more educational about military matters, customs and such beyond the last vietnam movie you saw.

(Now there is something to cripe about...every vietnam movie is pretty much the same)

Military customs traditions practices and standards have changed over the centuries and cultures.

Not every powerful military is a evil empire, not every weak force is fighting for good.

I fear if you dont get away from this all movies will have the same plots as japanese anime.

And most of all....

YOU DO NOT FIGHT RIFLES FROM THE HIP!. Or shotguns or even eldar shurukin (whatever) :geek:

Startrek is horrible in that respect. Excuse me while i stand in the middle of the halway and fire 30 times at a guy 5 yars away..... :roll:

At least they are showing two handed stance for pistol firing now, I suspect that is because it looks cool, not because that is the way we were trained for better accuracy. Actually the basic responsibilities of an Infantry Man have changed much since the days of Nimrod, the weapons are better, the tactics are more refined.

 

[JonClarke]

And, I know you're going to disagree with this Jason, but all three of the latest "Star Wars" editions. But, again, "Star Wars" isn't really Science Fiction, as there is very little science in the entire "Star Wars" franchise. It's Space Fantasy.

There isn't much science in Star Trek for that matter, either.

Any SF in any medium that involves faster than light travel, time travel, artificial sentience, teleportation, telepathy, conciousness uploading, certain types of nanotech, and a whole range of other technolgies indistinguishable from magic is fantasy.

This does not make them any less enjoyable stories. Some are great stories. But let's not kid ourselves they are any more scientific than Harry Potter.

 

[JonClarke]

I think there’s a stark difference between the writers of science fiction books and the makers of science fiction films and TV. When you write a book, you are given more of a chance to create a world which will conjure up all kinds of images to any scifi fan who reads it. How many people on this forum have read a scifi novel and then had high expectations for the film, only to be let down badly, I know I have, the examples being ‘Sphere’ superb book, utterly dismal film. I have heard the same thing about ‘Battlefield Earth’

Soime would dispute they they were good novels....

There is a mass amount of films that have been and have not been mentioned in this post. Many years ago I saw Star Wars in novel format. I was tempted to buy but didn’t bother. I do remember it being a very thin novel, no more than 250 pages I think. I wonder if George Lucas would have written the Book before the film came out, would it have been as successful?

Most movies would be very thin novels if turned into books. Which is why it is very difficult to turn even an average length novel into a good film. A lot has to be cut. Add to that the vanity of the movie industry which thinks it can improve on a novel by adding extraneous material (having cut a lot out) and that the action leveled must always be increased and you have the result that very few written stories have made good movies.

Anyway the problem is, and it has been mentioned, people working in the film industry don’t have a clue about scifi or are actual scifi fans. To many working within the film TV industry, it’s just a job. So when they get a job working on a scifi film then they just do what they’re told.

This is probably the case. However the essentials of telling or retelling a good story don't really change.

Take for example Russell T Davies who was tasked with writing the Dr Who revival series. He’s a good drama writer, but he has little clue how to write good scifi stories....

Except he has written some very good ones, The Hugo-nominated Midnight to name one, the Hugo-winning Waters of Mars to name another. And of course he proved to be an excellent director, while he was at the helm the series won an unprecedented four Hugos, three consecutively.

That said, scifi fans are also the hardest to please, especially when it comes to film, its probably because their imagination stretchers further than the film director And yes film is too reliant on CGI effects rather than storytelling. The Phantom Menace being a prime example. [/quote]