# The Death of the SF movie



## ravenus (Mar 24, 2007)

Interesting piece on how SF in the movies has now almost entirely come to be associated with FX heavy action blockbusters.

Click here for Warp Speed! 



> Director Stanley Kubrick went right to the source for his visionary classic, enlisting Arthur C. Clarke to write the screenplay with him and presenting perhaps the most serious, adult treatment of science-fiction themes to that date. Other literary adaptations followed. Kubrick did it again in 1971 with "A Clockwork Orange," while "Logan's Run," the remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," "Soylent Green" and the cult favorite, "A Boy and His Dog," all brought real science-fiction novels or novellas to the screen with varying degrees of success. Even nonliterary offerings such as "Silent Running" and Lucas' own "THX 1138" made sobering statements. But "Star Wars" effectively ended all that, substituting space battles, nonstop special effects and simple good-versus-evil archetypes for the more complex shadings and themes that marked science fiction to that point.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 24, 2007)

Bang -- on the nose, that one. And yes, this is something I've been saying for at least two decades: that sf in the movies has become associated with flashy special effects rather than good writing, and that the "visions" that Hollywood has been giving us (with some very notable exceptions) are visions of sf that haven't changed since the 1920s (or early 1930s, at least).

Don't get me wrong -- I love space opera; it's a very fun type of story. But even space opera can be used for more serious ends (a lot of Delaney was, by his own admission, using the themes and motifs of space opera in more mature and challenging ways to address adult concerns). So ... why is it that Hollywood refuses to let the genre grow up? Money. They spend these outrageous sums on films, meaning the original idea has to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.

Any hope for sf in the visual media of tv or film will have to come from the smaller filmmakers, the ones who truly love the literature and want to do it justice and who aren't interested in making a big "blow-'em-up" film, but something with some substance and genuinely good writing. This is also a problem, for instance, with Lovecraftian films -- the best in the business tend to come from smaller filmmakers working with limited budgets; even Stuart Gordon, who alters things considerably but still does some very good films, is far from being a recognized "name" in Hollywood. Most of the best Lovecraftian films are done on what could genuinely be called "shoe-string" budgets -- one of the best was done for about $80,000 dollars; compare that to the $50-130 million budets that Hollywood tends to spend on such things. And, of course, horror films in general suffer from the same thing. That description of them as "torture-porn" is, again, right on the nose. At least Romero, for all the comic-book elements of his films (which he quite honestly admits to) does go for some more serious aspects, using his films as vehicles for various types of metaphor without being too heavy-handed about it.

And, no, I don't see any hope for the future here; not as long as crap like *I, Robot*, or *Idiocracy* (which is a blatant -- and awful -- ripoff of C. M. Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons") continues to be put out there in the name of the genre. Good lord, at least the 1950s sf films didn't _claim_ anything high for themselves; they were popcorn films from the beginning... and _still_ some of them attained greater heights of genuine resonance than the nonsense that's put out there since at least the late 1970s in the genre.

As I was saying to a friend the other day -- with the views of robots that Hollywood has (either cutesy animated tin cans like R2D2 or homicidal Frankensteinian creations) that date back to the 1920s, why don't they just do a film version of *R.U.R.* and have done with it? Oh, wait... they did that already.... Well, there's another remake in the offing, isn't there..... (Besides, Čapek's play would be a bit too intellectual for the likes of the Hollywood producers who -- in Ellison's phrase -- "have the intellectual capacity of an artichoke".)


----------



## ravenus (Mar 24, 2007)

Blame it on the audiences as well...there was a time when *2001: A Space Odyssey* found both acclaim and audiences. Now an intelligent meditative SF film like *Solaris (2002)* dies a quiet and expensive death.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 24, 2007)

Oh, audiences bear a fair share of the responsibility here, yes. But studios tended to be more willing, in earlier days, to take risks when the budgets for such things weren't so (if you'll pardon the expression) astronomical. Then they'd risk losing something, but not such a tremendous lot. After all, *Planet of the Apes*, for all its faults, is an intelligent and thoughtful film, in many ways, and it was a risk the studio was reluctant to take on; but they did, nonetheless.

Yes, audiences do seem much more interested in absolutely brainless comedies and flash-bang explosion-style action films these days -- as well as endless retreads on the slasher motif rather than any film that genuinely gets down in there and unsettles the way a truly good piece of weird filmmaking will; remakes and sequels continue to get audiences watching, renting, or buying, whereas fresh and original ideas go a-begging.... And the movie-making business is just that: a business. They're there to make money, and don't care a fig about art. If something artistic comes out and garners both critical and popular appeal, they'll be more than happy with that... but if they have to choose... they're going to go for stupid but lucrative, every time. That hasn't really changed since the days of Mack Sennett....

But, as I was saying, there are some small filmmakers out there who are making quality films in these genres -- they just don't get much promotion, and therefore aren't seen by a lot of people. And, of course, some of the European and Asian filmmakers are making very good quality films in the genres, that still require some thought and openness to more delicate nuances than a pratfall or an axe in someone's head.... Support them, if we want to see a change. If Hollywood sees that that sort of film makes more money than does their bloated money projects, things will change -- though it takes time. Hollywood (as Phil Farmer said about Uncle Sam) is like a diplodocus that's been kicked in the ass -- it takes a year for the message to reach the brain....


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 25, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Bang -- on the nose, that one. And yes, this is something I've been saying for at least two decades: that sf in the movies has become associated with flashy special effects rather than good writing, and that the "visions" that Hollywood has been giving us (with some very notable exceptions) are visions of sf that haven't changed since the 1920s (or early 1930s, at least).


Ah.Mr Worthington,view my view on I,elsewhere on this forum.
I take it U've seen GATTACA,which is passably intelligent,as SF movies go.
My thesis: the mechanisms of the movie industry being what they are, I seriously doubt we will see a good SF movie in the near future.There'll be plenty of SciFi flicks though.No ruminations on mortality,ethics,theology,
slavery,drudgery,technology-human interactions in I,Rowboat.Darn,J.D.(if I may call U that),I'd rather watch Men in Black !!I can almost picture the pitch:
"....so we inject this serious note here.."
"Wait a moment,did you say serious note?No can do baby.However,we could have thousands of robots staging a revolt.Come to think of it,even though its not very logical,let make VIKI a 600 feet high pole,with a blue luminescent sphere in there somewhere.Folks,we could have a blockbuster ending here!!"
(Claps hands)"Now everybody git,I gotta get working on "Foundation."
(mutters offscreen)_"So you say this Hari Seldon guy is six foot two?My thought is: Nick Cage"
(another voice,also offscreen: Sir,Steven Seagal is NOT available for this one,says he 
has a gig playing a guy called Jommy Cross in something called "SLANG",I think._


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 25, 2007)

Oh, dear... there we go giving them ideas again.... 

Sadly, your estimation is likely to be too apt. I've understood they are working on *Foundation*, by the way, though it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. How the blazes would you adapt that one to the screen, anyway? Yes, there are some space battles, but they're largely off-screen ... and the entire story hinges on something that's an intangible..... Could be done, but it's going to take someone both intelligent, committed, and very creative. As noted, we've seen some of those, but they're rare.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 27, 2007)

Sadly, it's not just the SF genre that is suffering. Hollywood's quality (with the odd exception) has dropped markedly over the last couple of decades. All the more reason to look beyond Hollywood to the independent maker and foreign language fare. There are some cracking subtitle movies out there just waiting to be discovered by the film going masses.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 27, 2007)

Foxbat said:


> Sadly, it's not just the SF genre that is suffering. Hollywood's quality (with the odd exception) has dropped markedly over the last couple of decades. All the more reason to look beyond Hollywood to the independent maker and foreign language fare. There are some cracking subtitle movies out there just waiting to be discovered by the film going masses.


 
I'll agree with that. It's got to where I seldom bother with anything from a major studio anymore, unless I hear about it from someone whose opinion I've learned to respect. I'm seldom disappointed that way. On the other hand, I will take a chance on independents and amateur filmmakers, because some surprisingly good things come out of the most limited resources. They may not have great special effects, but they've often got much better writing and a genuine love of film (and of storytelling) that shines through even wonky acting and sometimes faulty lighting/directing/cinematography. I find I'm more often both entertained and challenged by them than I am by darned near anything coming out of the arid wasteland in the West..... And, yes, foreign, subtitled and re-releases of silent films will get a lot more of my attention, as well.

Now... if only we could get some really talented and intelligent filmmakers interested in doing some classic sf tales on film, and doing them up properly...

One of the things I was talking to my roommate about is simply not understanding why the devil they can't figure out the idea that fantasy can have genuinely dark elements without sliding into horror. For example: Conan. There are some pretty dark things in those stories by Howard, and one of the main ones is: Conan himself. He is often violence incarnate. He is a savage. Yes, he has a code of honor, but he can be viciously brutal, sinister, and frightening. And that's _okay_. It makes him an interesting character, because he is such a blending of things. My god, the character's been going for 75 years; you'd think they'd eventually begin to get the hint that Howard knew what he was doing when he created him! Recall the bit in "Rogues in the House" when, after managing to get out of the prison, he guts his ex-mistress' new paramour and "loomed above him for an instant, ghoul-like, his eyes burning in the gloom". Now, this is not Galahad we're talking here; but he _is_ a character that people have found fascinating for three-quarters of a century. But Hollywood has to make the heroes "nice guys" and clean 'em up... or make heroes out of charming sadists, take your pick. How about some sff that has those starker elements -- like the tragedy in "Mimsy Were the Borogoves", that ties into a very common human fear; things that actually resonate emotionally with people, so that they stick with them and become perennial favorites because they speak to the human heart in the same way that the great dramas do?

In other words... for gawd's sake, let sf in the visual media grow up! It's _looong_ overdue, and this has been a particularly ugly adolescence.....


----------



## gigantes (Mar 27, 2007)

holy crap, not even a mention of PKD stories turned into film?!

you know, PKD... only one of the greatest scifi authors ever, if not the best?

but yea, i agree with you, foxbat... hollywood is too much about making product , and the influential, maverick hollwood directers don't seem to have much interest in SF.

as was said, amazing that a very good film like gattaca was able to be made... but then again it prolly had a very modest budget, comparitively.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 27, 2007)

Problem is, gigantes, PKD has (usually) been dumbed down as well. While he certainly has his flaws as a writer (not a storyteller so much, but with the finer points of writing), PKD really is "caviar" compared to the gruel that is being fed film audiences, in most cases... and I think most producers and directors really don't think the audiences can handle anything more intellectually stimulating than that. All that mental mastication, think they, must surely result in a peasant's revolt. To which I reply a simple "Bushwa!" (or "Fie!", "fiddlesticks!", "poppycock!", "horsefeathers!", "balderdash!", or similar explosive sound of incredulity). Gawd knows what they'd think of Farmer's "Riders of the Purple Wage"..... And PKD's "Faith of Our  Fathers"... hoo, boy!


----------



## gigantes (Mar 27, 2007)

JD, i'm not arguing that PKD stories have been adapted into the bigscreen all that well, but that PKD at least deserved a mention in the article's summary of SF films.

there's no way you can mention those other guys without mentioning PKD, who is not only the SF master of masters, but had a number of hollywood films made out of his work.  that was my point.

nevertheless,  "bladerunner" is still a very nice SF film.  "total recall" is good solid fun, and "a scanner darkly" is parts hilarious and other parts deeply disturbing about the drug culture of the 70's set 2-3 decades later.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 27, 2007)

gigantes said:


> JD, i'm not arguing that PKD stories have been adapted into the bigscreen all that well, but that PKD at least deserved a mention in the article's summary of SF films.
> 
> there's no way you can mention those other guys without mentioning PKD, who is not only the SF master of masters, but had a number of hollywood films made out of his work. that was my point.


 
I wouldn't go quite that far (the SF master of masters), no... but in general I agree. And certainly, as far as films made, he deserves a mention. As for the ones you bring up... I've not yet seen "A Scanner Darkly", I must admit... I have a personal animus against that particular filmmaker for several reasons I'd rather not get into... But Bladerunner is a favorite of mine, and certainly one of Ridley Scott's best. Total Recall... I don't much care for that one these days. I enjoyed it as fluff when I first saw it, and for certain aspects, but I'm afraid it's not worn well with me.

However, that said, PKD should have been mentioned, as he is both a very important voice in the field, and someone who has had several adaptations of his work done.

But, you know, we've left out some of those who really did do some very good work in the film and television media: Rod Serling, Charles Beaumont, Richard Matheson, Ray Bradbury, Theodore Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, and Diane English (*The Lathe of Heaven*; 1980) among them. Perhaps it's that we just don't have anyone of that calibre willing to deal with sf subjects these days... or anyone with the sort of integrity to stick to their guns for their subject matter (assuming they have any say in it... it's always been something of a truism that "the writer is chattel" in Hollywood....)


----------



## gigantes (Mar 27, 2007)

hehe, i'm glad you don't agree with me that PKD was the master of SF masters, since variety is the spice of life.

and i can understand you having a hard time with richard linklater... a lot of people did.

"slacker" was very 'slice-of-lifeish' and stream-of-consciousness oriented, altho similar great films are on record, such as "go" and "memento".

"waking life" is a treat for the eyes, but prolly takes about 3-4 viewing times for the average viewer to get acclimated to the subject of running philosophical discourse.  i can only imagine about 1/1000 american viewers being able to put up with that, altho i'm guessing the europeans were on more familiar territory.

it certainly took me awhile.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 27, 2007)

I just find Linklater a bit too pretentious for my taste. I don't mind stream-of-consciousness... I quite like it, in fact ... nor do I like almost nit-picky slice of life. But Linklater's work just bores me, I'm afraid. Though that's not really fair when it comes to *Scanner*, as I've not seen it yet ... eventually I will, and then I'll make up my mind on that one; but otherwise, I find his work pretentious, tedious, and dull; and I'm one of the people who very much liked *My Dinner with Andre*.....


----------



## gigantes (Mar 27, 2007)

doh... my dinner with andre... so many great films i need to catch up on. >_<

thanks JD... added to list.


----------



## The Wanderer (Mar 27, 2007)

Foxbat said:


> Sadly, it's not just the SF genre that is suffering. Hollywood's quality (with the odd exception) has dropped markedly over the last couple of decades. All the more reason to look beyond Hollywood to the independent maker and foreign language fare. There are some cracking subtitle movies out there just waiting to be discovered by the film going masses.



yeap, Hollywood went though a second Golden age between Bonnie & Clyde (1967) and Taxi Driver (1976), it's been in steady decline ever since, but it's quickened lately


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 27, 2007)

Aytch here.
The movie industry,like the music industry is,well...an INDUSTRY.
Which means,basically,churning out,a lot of self-similar stuff* that everybody wants to consume.Going out on a limb is contrary to the instincts of the industry concerned.
I've I hadn't seen movies like ADAPTATION,about Schmitt,the Royal Tannenbaums,and suchlike,I'd think Hollywood incapable of producing anything sensible.
*think about all the prequels,sequels,Jaws 11,Alien 9,Predator 14.
_Case in point:European directors(Tom Tykwer comes to mind),when having been asked by Hollywood,go over there an instantly make the worst movie of their careers
_(grits teeth ,waiting to be hit by offal,then being dragged away to be tarred and feathered): personally,I thought the LOTR movies by Jackson were,well...,mediocre,to say the least

When was the last time you saw a Hollywood-made movie that actually had something to say?


----------



## Brys (Mar 29, 2007)

gigantes said:


> JD, i'm not arguing that PKD stories have been adapted into the bigscreen all that well, but that PKD at least deserved a mention in the article's summary of SF films.
> 
> there's no way you can mention those other guys without mentioning PKD, who is not only the SF master of masters, but had a number of hollywood films made out of his work. that was my point.
> 
> nevertheless, "bladerunner" is still a very nice SF film. "total recall" is good solid fun, and "a scanner darkly" is parts hilarious and other parts deeply disturbing about the drug culture of the 70's set 2-3 decades later.


 

Umm... I don't know what article you read, but the one linked to just there has many mentions of PKD and some of the films that have followed, making a similar point to what JD just said.



> The end of April will bring "Next," a Nicolas Cage vehicle based on a Philip K. Dick tale





> So much of Dick's work is mind-bending in the audacity and sweep of its ideas, but filmmakers have frequently been stumped when it comes to recreating that consciousness-expanding effect on-screen.





> They're considered classics now, but "Blade Runner" (from a Dick novel) and "The Thing" (less a remake of the 1951 original than a return to the original John W. Campbell Jr. story, "Who Goes There?") were box-office failures when first released





> The '90s saw an increased reliance on spectacle, bringing us the ultra violence of "Total Recall" (another attempt at Dick),


 
Bladerunner's a good film, I agree, but even though it's one of the most faithful PKD adaptations, it still differs a huge amount from the novel - the film is far more action based and less philosophical.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 29, 2007)

ravenus said:


> Interesting piece on how SF in the movies has now almost entirely come to be associated with FX heavy action blockbusters.
> 
> Click here for Warp Speed!



Make that simply: movies have become associated with FX heavy action blockbusters,and you're ready.
And so(folds paper airplane out of logical,intelligent moviescript):there U go,out of the window!
If only someone made a "MEMENTO or LA Confidential" each year,that would be the one time I would pay good bux to see a film.
AYTCH


----------



## The Wanderer (Apr 8, 2007)

> When was the last time you saw a Hollywood-made movie that actually had something to say?



Bonnie & Clyde - Arthur Penn - 1967

no, just kidding, but this is a case in point, alot of American films look like they are made by commitees that decide on what content will reach the broadest audience

films like Bonnie & Clyde rarely come out of the US now which depict America, the Language, its Idoim in a singular fashion, in this case by the writers Robert Benton and David Newman, perhaps one of the 2 or 3 best scripts ever written in the United States

Film used to set trends now following them seems to be where the producers think the money is, in the large part


----------



## The Wanderer (Apr 8, 2007)

> Bladerunner's a good film, I agree, but even though it's one of the most faithful PKD adaptations, it still differs a huge amount from the novel - the film is far more action based and less philosophical.



Blade Runner's success has alot to do with it's Production Design, which is one of the best in the history of film, it's still a marvellous film even though Scott doesn't have Kubrick's uncluttered guiding Intelligence


----------



## HardScienceFan (Apr 8, 2007)

The Wanderer said:


> Blade Runner's success has alot to do with it's Production Design, which is one of the best in the history of film, it's still a marvellous film even though Scott doesn't have Kubrick's uncluttered guiding Intelligence


Plus Vangelis soundtrack,not your run of the mill haphazard noise.
Glad to see U around ,Wan
Let's gab some while I down a beer


----------



## The Wanderer (Apr 8, 2007)

> Plus Vangelis soundtrack,not your run of the mill haphazard noise.



How can one forget it, it's wonderful and so was his score for Alexander


----------



## HardScienceFan (Apr 8, 2007)

Tell you what,this Forum keeps U away from reading,though.
I think Dick,Lafferty and Kornbluth are among the more literary talents in SF.
Mind U,I am no snob.Most New-Wave SF was interesting,but perhaps misguided. Sf has its own rules.If Kornbluth hadn't died early,he might have become bigtime.
Funny how these three have a very idiosyncratic style in common.


----------



## The Wanderer (Apr 8, 2007)

HardScienceFan said:


> Tell you what,this Forum keeps U away from reading,though.
> I think Dick,Lafferty and Kornbluth are among the more literary talents in SF.
> Mind U,I am no snob.Most New-Wave SF was interesting,but perhaps misguided. Sf has its own rules.If Kornbluth hadn't died early,he might have become bigtime.
> Funny how these three have a very idiosyncratic style in common.



I must confess not having read Lafferty yet, I must get round to reading, The Space Merchants though


----------



## HardScienceFan (Apr 8, 2007)

The Wanderer said:


> I must confess not having read Lafferty yet, I must get round to reading, The Space Merchants though


Truth is,I too,haven't read Space Merchants yet.It's a widely recognised classic
Have U read Wolfbane?\Pohl & Kornbluth
Dick should be forbidden territory from know on,'til someone who understands cinema AND Sf comes along.


----------



## The Wanderer (Apr 8, 2007)

> Have U read Wolfbane?\Pohl & Kornbluth



Nope, I've unfortunately only read 50 Science Fiction Novels and roughly 30 Fantasy, so far, I've spent too much much of my life on the Cinema


----------



## Connavar (Apr 9, 2007)

You know i was alittle sad at seeing the sci fi movies die such a painful dead. To see crap like I,Robot is hell.


Luckily there is one good thing.  Before i used to only watch sci fi, now i read them too. 

I have seen some good sci fi from Korea,Japan etc the last couple of years you just have to go outside to find the quality movies these days.

I dont even watch hollywood unless its a remake of comics or some interesting movie like The Prestige or Syriana etc Those rare good movies are the only ones i watch.


Sci fi died cause everything about hollywood is all time low on ideas and quality.  Before the movie that won oscars were great ones like Godfather or Schiendler's List but now its a remake of a 5 year old movie from Hong Kong. Im of course talking about The Departed.  

Leo is already set for another remake of a hong kong thriller they will just make another action flick.


----------



## Quokka (Apr 12, 2007)

I pretty much agree with whats been said, but in the 70's they were decrying the downfall of cinema and the golden age of SF in the 50's. There's always some good movies being made they just get swamped by mainstream SFX.

Hopefully at some point the decreasing revenue from the cinema's will lead more studios to shelve one big buget remake in favour of funding mutiple smaller SF projects, hoping to cash in on DVD sales from good reviews and word of mouth.

_Gattaca_ and_ Memento_ have been mentioned, forget the hype and the first _Matrix_ film came out of nowhere as a really good SF movie, _Donnie Darko_,_ 12_ _Monkeys_, _Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind_ (to date the only movie in which Jim Carey didnt annoy the hell out of my wife ), _Dark City_, _Cube_ (ok maybe not a great movie but atleast a different idea). And sometimes even the silly ones can be fun, like _The Fith Element_ and _Tremors._


----------



## HardScienceFan (Apr 12, 2007)

Quokka said:


> _Gattaca_ and_ Memento_ have been mentioned, forget the hype and the first _Matrix_ film came out of nowhere as a really good SF movie, _Donnie Darko_,_ 12_ _Monkeys_, _Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind_ (to date the only movie in which Jim Carey didnt annoy the hell out of my wife ), _Dark City_, _Cube_ (ok maybe not a great movie but atleast a different idea). And sometimes even the silly ones can be fun, like _The Fith Element_ and _Tremors._


Applaud your taste here,Dark City and Donnie D.,and "Eternal,etc".were
different,took risk,were visually stunning without largescal CGI,and all without the proverbial happy endings.What's more,they went down well with the critics,who always tend to knock SF movies,probably rightly so


----------



## Steve Jordan (May 27, 2007)

Throughout SF's history, the intelligent movies (_2001_) have always been outnumbered by the non-intelligent ones (_Them_), and it will probably always be that way.  But that doesn't mean SF movies are dead, or even dying.  They've been saying that for decades, but somehow, we still get _Gattica_, _Solaris_, _A Scanner Darkly_, and _Ghost In The Shell_.  

As some of the examples illustrate, it's non-Hollywood filmmakers that will keep SF alive... independents... mavericks... and other countries' cinema machines.  If Hollywood chose to abandon SF, the others would pick up the ball.

But don't forget that, even in Hollywood, there is a measure of pride in creating Good Works, something that sometimes transcends paychecks and fans.  Ask George Klooney why he did _Solaris_, and you won't hear discussions of paychecks and marketing.

Look at Hollywood's system closely, and you'll realize that very little has changed over the years.  We'll still get an occasional good movie, and a lot of crappy ones... that's the way the system has always worked.  If the wait is too long, start checking out the stuff being done elsewhere.  Hollywood isn't the only movie-producing city out there.

(But if they figure out that more of your money is going to other people's movies, maybe they'll get the drift.)


----------



## Gav (May 28, 2007)

First of all can I say that I've not read the thread entirely yet - so apologies if I mention something that has already been said.

My opinion is that the demise of the SF movie has been over stated.

The mainstream has always been populated by flashy (for their time) movies; and sometimes movies which are not strictly "SF" but really an outlet for that time period's neurosis.

A classic example would be the 50s war of the world.  Although it is an adaptation of Wells novel it doesn't really follow the book all that well. Instead it was (for its time) a flashy oscar winning effects movie.  The fact that it was also an outlet for the american anti-communist agenda is merely part of its charm.  For its time it was an SFX blockbuster.  

In any case I would agree that the mainstream has become saturated with big action blockbusters.  The reason for this stems from a small unknown film called Star Wars.  You need look no further.  Does this mean that ALL action blockbustes are poor SF films?  I'd say not.  Some have pretty deep ideas, some are just entertaining ideas.

What I find interesting is that we are, I think, starting to see more intelligent SF in the mainstream and on its periphery.  Examples that spring straight to mind are: Children of Men, Code 46...


----------



## Steve Jordan (May 28, 2007)

Actually, you can't blame _Star Wars_ for an "over-saturation" of SF movies... I'd hardly call the number of SF movies, compared to the number of other movies out there, an over-saturation.  We can, however, blame _Star Wars_ for convincing studios to actually spend money on SF, something they were loathe to do before that movie.  So we have had better-financed SF flicks thanks to _Star Wars_.

_SW_ also taught the studios about marketing and merchandising, a way to recoup your investment faster and better, which has surely prompted studios to finance SF films where they would not have otherwise.  So, in that way, _SW_ has encouraged SF film making.  

And finally, _SW_ almost single-handedly brought space-based SF back to television, paving the way for the revived _Star Trek_ franchise, as well as new programs like _Galactica_ and _Buck Rogers_.


----------



## Gav (May 28, 2007)

> Actually, you can't blame _Star Wars_ for an "over-saturation" of SF movies...


I was actually referring to the proliferation of blockbuster movies.  I am not the only commentator to notice this.  I apologise for not being clear on that point.

The fact is that there was no market for movies in the same way then as there is now.  The complaint is that SF has become _the_ vehicle for SFX laden blockbuster movies.  Star Wars is, as you acknowledge, responsible for this. The fact that I (I assume we) enjoy SW doesn't make this less-so.

_Sorry I deleted the rest of my comment until I have time to construct it better.  The abbreviated version is that I don't consider SW to be SF - it is space opera. Yes it is enjoyable...
_


----------



## Steve Jordan (May 28, 2007)

Though it wasn't the first movie to bring in huge crowds and multi-multi-viewings, _Star Wars_ did kick off the last 30 years of "summer SFX blockbuster" Hollywood marketing.  And as long as Hollywood sees this marketing scheme as the way to pay for the rest of the year, we'll probably continue to see this until a better money-making system comes along-- say, making modest-budget movies that are so compellingly good, the entire country not only sees it in the theatre, but buys a DVD for each member of the population...

At any rate, until such a new system comes along, we'll continue to get the occasional diamond of an SF movie in every potful of coal.  Just so long as they keep those pots coming, we'll be all right.

(And BTW: Oh yeah, I loved _Star Wars_... fifth in line at Washington's Uptown Theatre on opening day, nine more viewings that year _alone_.  Yoda poster in the bedroom.  X-wing model on the shelf.  Mmmmm..._Star Wars_...)


----------



## Urien (May 28, 2007)

"occasional diamond of an SF movie in every potful of coal." SJ

I think that's true of every movie genre. 

But I agree that more is usually less. Look at the big movies this summer, Shrek 3, Spidey 3, Pirates 3; each one has been criticised for pretty much the same reason, too many villains/characters, plots and special effects. X Men 3 was the same, and of course the latest Star Wars movies.


----------



## Steve Jordan (May 28, 2007)

That's pure Hollywood bean-counter thinking: If X number of villians/SFX/explosions is good, X-plus-three is better!  But hey, as long as people keep going to those movies, what _else_ will they think?


----------



## Ice fyre (May 28, 2007)

I to some degree have to agree. But sadly economics will always play a part in the cinema. The big studios will not finance "Minority" film's e.g the sort of films us sci-fi fans would want to see in the short term future.

Big studios are looking for a quick fix, the only cinema that will be made is either drivel or a sequel. At least for some time to come. Although I do have to live in hope. 

There are young film makers working on these sequels who will one day lead a renasance in SF, why do I think that, because it kind of happened with TV.
I point to the british example, Russel T Davis did his appernticeship in mainstream tv, then he was offered Doctor Who. 

I do hope I'm right, if not it's going to be a long century!


----------



## j d worthington (May 29, 2007)

Well, as noted previously in this and other threads, what tends to get Hollywood to noticing is when the money starts going elsewhere. They have a tendency to become complacent and even moribund, until even the most die-hard get bored with the films and start looking for the foreign and independent films instead of going to the big money product... then they start scratching their heads trying to figure out why when any of the genuinely talented writers out there could tell them. And, eventually, they start another cycle of being creative again before once more becoming calcified into a new pattern. We've seen this at least twice in my lifetime, and about 4-5 times (if not more) in the past century. Stop going to these, and they begin to get the message, eventually; though they do remind me of that line from Phil Farmer's "Riders of the Purple Wage": "Uncle Sam is like a diplodocus that's been kicked in the ass; it takes a year for the message to reach the brain."


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 29, 2007)

Just reiterating JD and Steve here,and I've made my viewpoint clear several
times also(it is similar to Ice's):every once in a while a GATTACA or 'Eternal Sunshine' (or even Ang Lee's _HULK_)comes along,we'll have to be content with that.
Having seen *Troy* recently,which is a bit of a historical fantasy,I suppose:
a lot of directors seem to think:
character development,phooey,
Plot,skip that.
_Appealing to a possibly intelligent audience_:no please,not our target group
They get European directors to come over,and promptly these directors 
loose their original flair and produce bovine fecal matter.


Petersen,Tykwa,some Spanish directors.
Industry and Art?


----------

