# Hollywood can't do Science Fiction



## Kyndylan (Dec 12, 2010)

In my general browsing, I've just come across this article, and thought I'd see what other people thought. As a sneak preview:

_"Look. There are are only two truly great science fiction movies. The first is Stanley Kubrick's 2001, written in collaboration with Arthur C Clarke. The second is Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott and adapted from Philip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. You may disagree with this statement. You would be wrong. Let's move on."_

I think on the whole, I agree, with the caveat that some science fiction films that aren't "great" are still highly enjoyable.

In any case, it's an interesting read, and makes me wish that some of the genre's greats could be given a worthwhile treatment!


----------



## Anakha6 (Dec 12, 2010)

Kyndylan said:


> _"Look. There are are only two truly great science fiction movies. The first is Stanley Kubrick's 2001, written in collaboration with Arthur C Clarke. The second is Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott and adapted from Philip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. You may disagree with this statement. You would be wrong. Let's move on."_



Star Wars. That is all.


----------



## Kyndylan (Dec 12, 2010)

Anakha6 said:


> Star Wars. That is all.



I think if you narrow that to *The Empire Strikes Back* then you may have a point...I'm not sure if any of the other five are quite worthy of "great".

Now I'll cower in a corner and wait for the RotJ brigade to take umbrage...


----------



## Anakha6 (Dec 12, 2010)

Kyndylan said:


> I think if you narrow that to *The Empire Strikes Back* then you may have a point...I'm not sure if any of the other five are quite worthy of "great".
> 
> Now I'll cower in a corner and wait for the RotJ brigade to take umbrage...



I prefer New Hope to be honest. Although I was referring to the original trilogy, can't stand the prequels.


----------



## sloweye (Dec 12, 2010)

Was 'Terminator' not a Hollywood?


----------



## Kyndylan (Dec 12, 2010)

Totally agree regarding the prequels - has anyone ever met someone who thinks otherwise? And yes, I think New Hope is the only other contender for "best Star Wars film".

Going off on a slight tangent, I guess it's also possible that you can separate the setting of a film and the genre - in which case Star Wars becomes an action adventure film set in space, rather than a science fiction film proper. When you look at Star Wars in relation to Blade Runner and 2001, I think you can see what I mean...


----------



## Kyndylan (Dec 12, 2010)

Hehe, now I feel I'm defending someone else's opinions! The paragraph I posted was obviously semi tongue-in-cheek, but I do think he has a point.


----------



## Anakha6 (Dec 12, 2010)

sloweye said:


> Was 'Terminator' not a Hollywood?



Was the plot of terminator really that much a piece of genius writing though to be fair? I remember it being quite simple and flawed in many respects.


----------



## Anakha6 (Dec 12, 2010)

Kyndylan said:


> Totally agree regarding the prequels - has anyone ever met someone who thinks otherwise? And yes, I think New Hope is the only other contender for "best Star Wars film".
> 
> Going off on a slight tangent, I guess it's also possible that you can separate the setting of a film and the genre - in which case Star Wars becomes an action adventure film set in space, rather than a science fiction film proper. When you look at Star Wars in relation to Blade Runner and 2001, I think you can see what I mean...



In a way, but I still think that the weaponry, mystic powers etc qualify it as a science fiction.

Also, Children of Men.


----------



## sloweye (Dec 12, 2010)

Anakha6 said:


> Was the plot of terminator really that much a piece of genius writing though to be fair? I remember it being quite simple and flawed in many respects.



Many people thought so. it was uncomplicated yes, but poor? no, after all it spawned 3 more box office hits.


----------



## Anakha6 (Dec 12, 2010)

sloweye said:


> Many people thought so. it was uncomplicated yes, but poor? no, after all it spawned 3 more box office hits.



Popular opinion isn't always the best measure of how good something is though.


----------



## sloweye (Dec 12, 2010)

True, but then i know a fair few people who are not fans of starwars (myself included)
The films were good, but IMO not great.
And what of Matrix?


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 12, 2010)

Anakha6 said:


> Was the plot of terminator really that much a piece of genius writing though to be fair? I remember it being quite simple and flawed in many respects.



Well in 2008, The Terminator was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry, so it must have something going for it.


----------



## sloweye (Dec 12, 2010)

Vladd67 said:


> Well in 2008, The Terminator was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry, so it must have something going for it.



Well it has my vote. With the other films of its day it stood out.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 12, 2010)

_Metropolis?_


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 12, 2010)

pyan said:


> _Metropolis?_



Not Hollywood though


----------



## Pyan (Dec 12, 2010)

True - but I was responding to the quote:


> "Look. There are are only two truly great science fiction movies....You may disagree with this statement. You would be wrong. Let's move on."



rather than the somewhat extrapolated thread title...


----------



## sloweye (Dec 12, 2010)

... and then there are the 'even' numbered Star Trek movies


----------



## Perpetual Man (Dec 12, 2010)

And I'd consider the original Alien too


----------



## Pyan (Dec 12, 2010)

Perpetual Man said:


> And I'd consider the original Alien too



So would I - but to make their point, the 'experts' will say "Alien? Oh no, no, _that's_ not SF - that's horror that happens to be set in space!" Then there's Firefly: "Oh no, no, _that's_ not SF - that's cowboys and Indians that happens to be set in space!" Or take Star Wars: "Oh no, no, _that's_ not SF - that's an adventure movie that happens to be set in space!" 

Pah! If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 12, 2010)

Hollywood is structured, financially and socially, for the giant, blockbuster, please the absolute largest percentage of potential clientele movie. With all the lowest common intellectual denominator and highest advertising budget this implies.

Occasionally a film which actually forces thought (or at least reflection) does surface, but pseudophilosophy and fashionable opinions are the general result.

Science fiction, to be classed as 'good', must force you to think, to imagine and preferably to reconsider your position; and this is a minority market. What part of your world picture did Star Wars force you to reconsider? (personally I class Star Wars under fantasy with gadgets; Star Trek at its origins had a panel of scientists and several successful SF authors collaborating, but SW was cowboys and indians with bigger horses.) 

But the so-called SF films coming out are so rich in special effects and generally all the ways to spend lots of money that only Hollywood can afford them. Except that all the electronic gubbins are getting cheaper all the time, with higher specs, so the equivalent of the spaghetti western is just over the horizon. Cheaper actors, virtual sets, accept a smaller total audience and concentrate on the ideas, off Hollywood, in Europe or Asia somewhere, BluRay, gaming and satellite TV making up an appreciable percentage of the total income…

The stories are out there, the directors are out there, and there are still more actors (even good ones) 'resting' than working. You only need one of these to make a few million, and there will be investors for plenty more.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 13, 2010)

There was an episode of _The Outer Limits_.. in the 60s, that was, for all intents and porpoises - _Terminator. _


----------



## williamjm (Dec 13, 2010)

I disagree about his "only two great Science Fiction films", I can think of a few others such as Brazil, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the original Planet of the Apes, Children of Men would be some examples. Although I think he's exaggerating that point a bit, it is true that it is rare for Hollywood to produce a Science Fiction that actually adds something to the genre. 



> So would I - but to make their point, the 'experts' will say "Alien? Oh no, no, _that's_ not SF - that's horror that happens to be set in space!" Then there's Firefly: "Oh no, no, _that's_ not SF - that's cowboys and Indians that happens to be set in space!" Or take Star Wars: "Oh no, no, _that's_ not SF - that's an adventure movie that happens to be set in space!"
> 
> Pah! If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.



I tend to agree, someone could argue that even his example of Blade Runner was a Film Noir Mystery which happened to have robots in it. I don't think that would be any more sensible an argument than arguing that Alien or Firefly were not SF - although Star Wars doesn't seem to have any actual science in it which might disqualify it. 



J Riff said:


> There was an episode of _The Outer Limits_.. in the 60s, that was, for all intents and *porpoises* - _Terminator. _



Did it feature someone being sent back from the future to stop Earth being taken over by robotic dolphins?


----------



## Culhwch (Dec 13, 2010)

How can you leave _Avatar _out of the equation? Oh, that's right, easily.

I'd second _Alien_ (and even _Aliens_) and _The Terminator_. _Blade Runner_ I never liked. Recently _Inception_ took an SF concept and created a very unique, successful and accomplished movie.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 13, 2010)

Not to be too nit-picky, but... shouldn't we define our terms? What is meant here by "great"? That's a word that's thrown around one heck of a lot, and has little meaning without some sort of parameters put on it. And "science fiction", of course, can mean darned near anything, depending on who is making the claim... even the experts have pretty much said the same thing, whether they be Damon Knight, Brian Aldiss, Robert A. Heinlein, Harlan Ellison, Joanna Russ, Christopher Isherwood, Michael Moorcock, Ursula K. LeGuin, Kate Wilhelm, or Colin Greenland... or any of a hundred others who have written on the subject.

In any case, I'd say that the original statement is balderdash, as, out of the countless films which can be or have been classified as science fiction, singling out only two is showing a personal bias rather than any sort of critical acumen....

I will, however, say that the amount of dreck as opposed to quality material -- especially as made by Hollywood -- is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% compared to 10%... but given the sheer numbers, that still leaves you with one hell of a lot of films......


----------



## C Of K (Dec 13, 2010)

Perhaps _Star Wars_ applies as science fiction more for world leaders, who share the responsibility of deciding whether or not it would be good to blow up the world this year or not. 

The original trilogy had the Death Star, but the prequels stressed why, politically anyway, a super weapon might be preferable to using democratic rulings to uphold peace and order. 

I don't have any nuclear launch codes, or anything, but deep down, I still consider _Star Wars_ science fiction.


----------



## biodroid (Dec 13, 2010)

I think (besides the gems mentioned before) most good SF is taken from SF authors but the mediocre SF is written by screenwriters who are getting an ok story out just to make a buck. The Matrix is good because it was original but Impostor was mediocre because it has been done before (thats how I felt when I saw it).


----------



## J Riff (Dec 22, 2010)

I think JDs percentage is close - ten percent work as SCIENCE FICTION... the rest fill in as action or western replacements, and can be great in that regard- like Avatar, say, which is a blast to watch once but thumbs it's nose at trad SciFi in a few ways.
  What's the saying?- 're-invent the wheel' syndrome - everytime some screenhack decides to do SciFi or Fantasy it happens.


----------



## Dave (Dec 22, 2010)

Personally, I like the way Science Fiction has become mainstream. I'd class 'Inception' as a great" film. It is 'Hollywood'. It is seen as more of an action, 'heist' film, and yet the central premise is certainly science fiction. And I think it was done well. That is my personal favourite of 2010.

But agree, for every 'Inception' there are 9 other 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen' and 'Battlefield Earth' released.


----------



## ravenus (Dec 22, 2010)

I'd consider Star Wars part of the reason why there's little interest in good SF films. SW showed that empty-headed movies with pretty lasers, whoosh sounds and pap storylines make more money and are more easily translated into offshoot merchandise - I suspect you'd find a Solaris themed Happy Meal a hard sell.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 22, 2010)

j. d. worthington said:


> I will, however, say that the amount of dreck as opposed to quality material -- especially as made by Hollywood -- is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% compared to 10%.




Theodore Sturgeon was right...

Sturgeon's Law...


----------



## No One (Dec 22, 2010)

ravenus said:


> I'd consider Star Wars part of the reason why there's little interest in good SF films. SW showed that empty-headed movies with pretty lasers, whoosh sounds and pap storylines make more money and are more easily translated into offshoot merchandise - I suspect you'd find a Solaris themed Happy Meal a hard sell.



Music to my ears 

And I think the good sirs Worthington, Pyan and Sturgeon are on the money.

As to genuinely great sci-fi films (albeit not Hollywood), I'd have to class Darren Aronovsky's *Pi* in that category. It's not conventional sci-fi by any means and many people might disagree, but by Jove is it a _great _film (though some would no doubt disagree with that as well).


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 23, 2010)

Interesting; I was thinking about that film just the other day, and how it makes me think of Clarke's "The Nine Billion Names of God", though whatever similarities they have are extremely vague and general.....

While I am very fond of both the original *Star Wars* and *The Empire Strikes Back* (albeit I have a much more jaded view when it comes to *Jedi*, and consider the "prequels" pretty much an obscene waste of time), I have to agree with the assessment above. These are not science fiction; they are, at best, primitive space opera. Visually they are wonderful, but the sort of story they tell had been done in the '20s, '30s, and '40s in Hollywood, and at least as far back as the '20s in the magazines.

On *Solaris*... give me the original Tarkovsky film any day of the week....


----------



## ravenus (Dec 23, 2010)

Oh I actually prefer Soderbergh's version. It's less meandering and tells a story with a great emotional punch. And I don't agree at all with Tem's grouses because even in the book I found the emotional aspects a lot more gripping than his "character reads a series of books to understand the mysterious planet" plot device.


----------



## steve12553 (Dec 24, 2010)

j. d. worthington said:


> ...While I am very fond of both the original *Star Wars* and *The Empire Strikes Back* (albeit I have a much more jaded view when it comes to *Jedi*, and consider the "prequels" pretty much an obscene waste of time), I have to agree with the assessment above. These are not science fiction; they are, at best, primitive space opera....


 Consider the way "The Force" was portrayed in the original trilogy. There was no attempt to explain it through science. That makes the films Fantasies in my book. When they decided to attribute "The Force" to minichoridans (sp?) in the backstory trilogy the new films became Science Fiction (albeit poor).   Also, when I first saw *Star Wars *in the summer of 1977, although I was not a child, I was young and the universe was fresh and new.


----------



## Rodders (Dec 24, 2010)

I've no problem with Hollwood. It's success with SF Movies is statistally no less than it's success with ther Genres. I have enjoyed many, many SF movies from the states. Some because they are very good and other purely because they're entertaining.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 24, 2010)

No problem w/ Hollywood... well just go hang out there a while and talk to them, then you will have a problem. 
 Bloody&^!^!^% .
 Nevermind. Personally, part of my response to H-wood is to give them ZERO money. In fact, watch all their stuff free and if I can find a way- cost them money! But that's me, maybe they never gouged the hell out of you personally, yet. 

  How about all the movies that are, supposedly, biographical - that may as well be SciFi.... Howard Hughes, Betty Page and the Zodiac Killer are 3 recent ones which bear no resemblence to reality, s'far as I can tell.

 Otherwise... it's probably time for a new Giant Ant movie..there hasn't been one for a while. Gotta love Giant Ant movies.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 25, 2010)

I agree with the name of the topic because its true.  I dont agree with fanboy like attitude that only Bladerunner and co have been good.

Also whats the big deal with Star Wars really ?  There are tons of SF books like it.  Dune and co.  Space Opera with Science fantasy elements is still SF.  SF isnt only hard SF....

My problem with SF movies of the last 30 years is that they are mostly only action movies from hollywood. Decent stuff, not challenging as a good SF can be.  Alien,Aliens is the best modern SF imo.  Horror elements or not they were done very well.


----------



## ravenus (Dec 25, 2010)

Connavar said:


> Also whats the big deal with Star Wars really ?  There are tons of SF books like it.  Dune and co.  Space Opera with Science fantasy elements is still SF.  SF isnt only hard SF....


Dune is tremendously more complex than Star Wars is. But that's not the issue. Star Wars could well be another acceptable form of SF entertainment. But the franchise's success, and it's ability to cash in on all manner of offshoot merchandise, totally changed the market for SF on film to the blockbuster-oriented, where simplistic good v/s evil ideas (which is totally not what Dune is about), primitive characters that easily translated into dolls and collectibles, and pyrotechnic displays over challenging ideas came to define the projects for which Hollywood would open their purses.
Star Wars is to be blamed not for its content but it may be certainly said that it's success closed up  interest for more idea-oriented SF/Fantasy in film.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 25, 2010)

You are very correct and thats why i dont respect the series,Lucas outside the first few films.  Its Lucas and Spielberg that killed SF films in hollywood. They are the ones that make adventure,action films in the shallow outfit of a SF.  I respect old movies like *Forbidden Planet* much more.

But i meant genre wise Star Wars is nothing new,there are many books that are as much SF as fantasy.


----------



## ravenus (Dec 25, 2010)

True. I recall reading somewhere Lucas wrote the Star Wars script after he realized he could not do a Flash Gordon film because of the copyright issues. SW does carry a lot of that flavor.

It's really not film-makers like Lucas and Spielberg that killed SF (especially them, they made films they were enthusiastic about, and not decided by a committee of studio execs who couldn't care less about aesthetics), it's the audiences that prefer loud spectacle to a more thoughtful sort of film. Steven Soderbergh and James Cameron used their clout to get *Solaris* made, but that movie tanked miserably because most people today just do not have the attention span it requires. The fast pace and multiple distractions of recent times make it much more difficult for ambitious idea-focused films to gel with the public. The other aspect is that the CGI films of today are too perfection oriented, which really drives up the cost. Films can be made much cheaper if you go for less polished SF that still allows people to get the idea. The Korean film *The Host* is a great example of this.

There are still some good efforts in SF, but they will come from more independent productions or on TV where the costs can be kept low enough to allow for smaller audiences. *Moon* is a good example - it's not a great film but it has far superior ideas to the "let's blow **** up" sort of SF film that dominates today's horizon.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 25, 2010)

Still specially Spielberg is behind many shallow blockbusters SF that he doesnt have to make like that.  The guy did Schindler's List after all.  Its not only the audience, hollywood listen to director with big BO records.

SF on tv ?   Syfy canceled Stargate Universe to get Wrestling on its day.  Caprica canceled, BSG is over.  Fantasy,paranormal hype has killed SF on tv.

SF movies are popular they make billions on BO.  They can be Moon,District 9 like but those are not the hollywood type.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Dec 30, 2010)

It seems to me that 'Great Science Fiction films have a steeper hill to climb in that they have to be both great films _and_ great science fiction.
_Star Wars_ may be a great film - I have my doubts  - but it's crappy SF.
_Moon_ may be good, thought-provoking SF but it's not a _great _film. (Don't get me wrong I think it's really well made and I liked it a lot but it's not going to make any 100 best films ever made list.)

My candidates for Great SF Filmdom would have to include Andrey Tarkovskiy's _Solyaris, _


----------



## Forve (Jan 17, 2011)

Basically science fiction for Holywood is just a way to put as much visual effects in movie as possible, thus satisfying as much of a general audience as they can, thus making what its all about, money ( yes I know that I am acting here as Captain Obvious) 

But the thing they forget about is that stuff like flying on other planets, having super abilities and etc... even though have certain beauty about them, but what make you read next page is the story and not how the awesome monster from bla bla bla looks like (though I do admit I enjoy that part too), good science fictions have too complex stories for Holywood (and not only) and thus technique of dumbing down story comes into force, so that everyone can follow it and there can be more room for explosions. So until there will be such a big fanbase of sci fi fans that investing 150 000 000 into movie wouldn't be risky than we should expect more lameness titled as sci fi from movie industry.

though I am not that pessimistic about this, after all last couple of years we had District 9, Moon, Watchmen....


----------



## J Riff (Jan 17, 2011)

Mayhap when viewing a SciFi movie one should assume that it's a horror movie, and prepare to be sickened.
 And horror.... I AM LEGEND, the recent one-  the most shocking part was when Will Smith started making with plugs for Shrek and Bob Marley. I nearly choked on my yoo-hoo.
 Demographics decide a lot of this stuff, and keep potentially decent films like oh maybe District 9, Cloverfield, Skyline...junk like that which could have been good, simply by shifting ten bloody minutes of the story around - but it isn't done because a large segment of the movie-goers wouldn't quite get it, or like it, or it would require too much thought. 
 AND they are too cheap to pay real writers who would pay attention to details, preferring to interpret it themselves, resulting in serious stories dabbled with, then told and shown to us by the spoiled children of airhead Hollywood money-monkeys. pft.
 Then again, SciFi is largely action/adventure, having absorbed the Western shoot-em-up market long ago. Bring on The Battle of LA or whatever it's called and put the popcorn on, I'd still rather watch SciFi than most anything else.


----------



## Droflet (Jan 17, 2011)

Hey Riff, not quite sure what you are getting at. Stop being so subtle. Ha, ha! And on the subject of mindless blah blah, let's not forget the overblown mess that was The Chronicles of Riddick. After Pitch Black, what a bitter disappointment. See Riff, that's how it's done. T.


----------



## J Riff (Jan 17, 2011)

Heh. Riddick...was an overblown mess.. It was just on TV- He's on the fire planet..there's Necromongers everywhere.. he beats up on everyone, he swings through the fire and saves everyone... he ends up ruling the galaxy-spanning Necro-galaxy... awful rubbish, I've only seen it four times..


----------



## J Riff (Jan 17, 2011)

Oh No! Pitch Black is on _right now_ and because of your comment _I have to watch it!..._ bloody omniscient Aussies... don't you have a flood to clean up after Telford, or did it miss you?


----------



## Droflet (Jan 17, 2011)

Hey Riff, what is an old fellar like you doing up at this time? I'm on the other side of the country so no floods here. Just a few major bushfires. Enjoy Pitch Black.


----------



## J Riff (Jan 17, 2011)

It's 11:20 here in Canuckada west coast. I am a night-monster so late strats at 4 a.m.
 I've seen it..it's near the end where the flying things attack...phooie. What else is on? Murderball,Psychic Investigators, MASH,BBC world News, Must love dogs,Hero at large...I girl 5 gays!?
.... Crusoe, Frasier,Supernanny,Prank Patrol,House, Cracking antiques,Out There, no wonder I read books.


----------



## Dave (Jan 17, 2011)

Forve said:


> ...though I am not that pessimistic about this, after all last couple of years we had District 9, Moon, Watchmen....



District 9 - Johannesburg, South Africa & New Zealand
Moon - Shepperton, England
Watchmen -Vancouver, Canada
Thankfully, Hollywood didn't have a lot to do with these.


----------



## Forve (Jan 19, 2011)

Dave said:


> District 9 - Johannesburg, South Africa & New Zealand
> Moon - Shepperton, England
> Watchmen -Vancouver, Canada
> Thankfully, Hollywood didn't have a lot to do with these.



not really
District 9
Country: USA | New Zealand | Canada | South Africa
Watchmen
Country: USA

probably only moon can be put aside as non-Holywood movie (due to the financial constrains), but than again, Kevin Spacey, Sam Rockwell and etc..

Watchmen and District 9 are 100% Holywood movies. Places u have written there are just shooting locations. U r not suggesting that holywood movie means movie shot in holywood?


----------



## J Riff (Jan 19, 2011)

H-Wood goes wherever the best tax breaks are.
Last time I was there, the boulevard was torn up, for _Hancock_.
Will Smith ran through and every went oohOahh. Then the movie came out and they went yechEch! That one could have been good, I thought.
 Incidentally, the Hollywood sign is now protected by motion-detectors and surveillance cams, there were too many people wanting to bring it down so they fortified it.
 Bring on the Battle of LA!


----------



## Dave (Jan 19, 2011)

Well, it was a flippant remark, and the money did come from Hollywood, but I think that the fact the location filming was outside of LA also gives them a little more leeway to experiment, and not kow tow down to studio executives. They used non-Hollywood-based actors and foreign crews. Sharlto Copley may have been in _The A-Team_ but he is a British based South African. You mention, Kevin Spacey, even he seems to spend most of his time in London running the Old Vic theatre rather than his native California. The reason for filming in Ireland, Prague and elsewhere, is that they are/were cheaper, obviously, but it does make those films different from the usual Hollywood packaged product.


----------



## Forve (Jan 19, 2011)

Dave said:


> The reason for filming in Ireland, Prague and elsewhere, is that they are/were cheaper, obviously, but it does make those films different from the usual Hollywood packaged product.



Agreed.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jan 19, 2011)

Dave said:
			
		

> _  The reason for filming in Ireland, Prague and elsewhere, is that they  are/were cheaper, obviously, but it does make those films different from  the usual Hollywood packaged product._



It's still a resentment where I live (Scotland) that the _Braveheart _production company suddenly decamped to Ireland to shoot the battle sequences when the Irish undercut the locals.

But then, most things become a festering resentment in Scotland, hate the English? around here most of the locals are still holding a grudge against the Vikings.


----------



## alchemist (Jan 19, 2011)

JunkMonkey said:


> It's still a resentment where I live (Scotland) that the _Braveheart _production company suddenly decamped to Ireland to shoot the battle sequences when the Irish undercut the locals.


 
And it's still a resentment where I live (Ireland) that Scotland still got the credit for the scenery.


----------



## Forve (Jan 20, 2011)

alchemist said:


> And it's still a resentment where I live (Ireland) that Scotland still got the credit for the scenery.



Been in Scotland twice, no advert can make a justice to its beauty


----------



## Connavar (Jan 20, 2011)

I saw Avatar recently and sighed that is hollywood idea of SF.  Blue indians and epic SF story that you can see in a 1000 books dumped down to be so melodramatic.   Sure it looked good but it was as SF as tv soap opera.

I dig James Cameron but for once i wish for a SF written,directed like a calm science fictional novel.  Science babble,hard sf or cyberpunk without martial arts,matrix wire fu etc


----------



## Moonbat (Jan 21, 2011)

There is *Cowboys and Aliens* coming, which is, I think, Cyberpunk. Although how decent it'll be is another matter. It does have Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig in, so it might be rubbish.

I thought *Moon* was ok, but it wasn't THAT good. It was very predictable story line and I think people really liked it because it reminded them of old school Sci-fi.
*Watchmen* isn't really Sci-fi in my opinion, its more of a fantasy as it has people with super skills, and the whole idea of the Dr Manhatten is nice, but not really that impressive, and certainly not much science to the idea.
*District 9* on the other hand I thought was great, I enjoyed the film style, I'm not sure how strong the sci-fi was but it was good to see a strong story that wasn't Hero saves the day type generic hollywood dross.

Although it isn't true Hollywood grand style, *Primer* is one of my favorite Sci-fi films of recent years, but there are also, *Pandorum* and *Cargo* that weren't too bad.


----------



## Connavar (Jan 21, 2011)

*District 9* i feel gets too harsh criticism.  People overplay the action parts and overlook how it tried to tell a good enough story of humans,aliens first contact story.  

*Pandorum* was one of few SF i rented as DVD and was happy with. It was new good enough Alien type sf.

Really i dont expect *Cowboys and Aliens* names film to be the kind of SF i want to see.  I expect it to be fun action,adventure and i look forward to it just because Harrison Ford even at his current age is the ideal action,adventure hero and Daniel Craig is hardcore often my kind of Bond.


----------



## Magnus85 (Feb 13, 2011)

Danny Boyle's *Sunshine*.

That is a movie every scifi fans should watch. Were it not for its horror elements, this would be one of the best scifi films in my opinion. The Mercury scene is one of those that stick to the back of your mind and lingers.

I think games have a much stronger presence when it comes to good scifi storytelling than movies have. Scifi movies are usually hard on the budget, so that is one reason Hollywood mainly sticks to the safe ones like Avatar and Star Wars clones.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Feb 13, 2011)

Magnus85 said:


> Danny Boyle's *Sunshine*.
> 
> That is a movie every scifi fans should watch.



And then ask themselves, what was all that "running out of air" b***s*** when the inside of the ship was size of an aircraft hanger factory?

"Oh crap! we're running out of air in the living quarters."
"Okay, I'll just turn off the heating in the ginormous space over there, sweep up the atmosphere when it freezes, and bring a couple of buckets in to defrost."

Not my idea.  Fritz Leiber did it in 1951. 

A Pail of Air - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Yog-Sothoth (Mar 5, 2011)

Dark City? Great Scifi movie!


----------



## clovis-man (Mar 5, 2011)

Yog-Sothoth said:


> Dark City? Great Scifi movie!


 
It was quite good, but Kiefer Sutherland's character was a little too quirky for me.


----------



## CBellenis (Mar 28, 2011)

Am I alone in thinking _Dark Star_ was one of the best films ever? I saw it as the 'B-movie' to _2001 A Space Odyssey_ (Another 'best film ever, surely?)  in probably the best cinematic experience of my life.


----------



## Starbeast (Mar 28, 2011)

CBellenis said:


> Am I alone in thinking _Dark Star_ was one of the best films ever? I saw it as the 'B-movie' to _2001 A Space Odyssey_ (Another 'best film ever, surely?) in probably the best cinematic experience of my life.


 
I think it was very well done for a micro-budget film, but I thought by now a second installment would have been made by John Carpenter or Dan O'Bannon. Perhaps someone else might create Dark Star 2. Leslie Nielson would have been a great crew memeber if the film was made in the 1980's or 1990's along with Jim Carrey.


----------



## clovis-man (Mar 28, 2011)

Starbeast said:


> I think it was very well done for a micro-budget film, but I thought by now a second installment would have been made by John Carpenter or Dan O'Bannon. Perhaps someone else might create Dark Star 2. Leslie Nielson would have been a great crew memeber if the film was made in the 1980's or 1990's along with Jim Carrey.


 
This didn't strike me as a "made for a sequel" film. Dan O'Bannon was the real creative force here and his Sgt. Pinback paranoia, tussle with the alien and the failed attempt to reason with the bomb resonate as stand-alone classics of dark humor.


----------



## Interference (Mar 28, 2011)

Anakha6 said:


> Was the plot of terminator really that much a piece of genius writing though to be fair? I remember it being quite simple and flawed in many respects.



No one has yet done a convincing Time-Travel-based film or TV series.  Loop-holes are gaping and signal lazy (or dramatically acceptable) writing, I think.

I can't speak for novels or stories - I haven't read anywhere near enough - but the usual plot that Hollywood settles for is "how would X change history if they could and how does Y stop, or try to stop, them succeeding.

Yawn, in most cases.

But good Science Fiction in film (and I would tend to include things like CE3K, This Island Earth and, arguably, Forbidden Planet) are only as great as the thoughts and inspirations they provoke.  I think that's what the genre, Science Fiction, is for: Showing you the box outside of which you may like to think.

Most other Science Fiction films available (even such classics as Alien, Star Wars and Blade Runner) could as easily have been westerns, had that particular genre/seam not been played out.




Starbeast said:


> ....Leslie Nielson would have been a great crew memeber if the film was made in the 1980's or 1990's along with Jim Carrey.



Nothing with Jim Carrey in it could ever be "great".


----------



## Starbeast (Mar 28, 2011)

clovis-man said:


> This didn't strike me as a "made for a sequel" film. Dan O'Bannon was the real creative force here and his Sgt. Pinback paranoia, tussle with the alien and the failed attempt to reason with the bomb resonate as stand-alone classics of dark humor.


 
I suppose you're right, but for me wanting more of the movie shows that the creators of the film did a great job.


----------

