# Lacking an incredible hook, great sci fi is 95% aesthetic



## RX-79G (Jan 17, 2017)

I've really had Star Wars on the brain lately, and I've been remembering all the things people said about it in film school:
"Silly and basic dialogue."
"A basic adventure story lifted from _Hidden Fortress_ and other sources."
"A happy accident that the mess of a production came together."
"Poor acting."
"Leia is a McGuffin."
"Swords and the Force make it nothing more than fantasy."

All those things are true, to a degree. But who would argue that Star Wars is not one of the best sci fi films ever? Those who do try to abstract the script from the final product. But the final product is what counts.

A film that has a unique and thoughtful sci fi hook, like _The Man From Earth, Primer, Gattaca _or_ The Day the Earth Stood Still_ can be engrossing without amazing effects, music or cinematography. But the majority of sci films and TV do not qualify.

The majority of the really great sci fi films amaze us because of the way they look and sound. Set design, costumes, action sequences, props and vehicles are the only things that can thoroughly replace the detailed worldbuilding exposition in written science fiction. If those areas are weak, no matter how good the acting, dialogue and editing is, the sci fi element isn't there. It just becomes a drama or Western with funny costumes.

_Star Wars_ isn't great sci fi because of what it is about, *movies like it are great because they takes place in a convincingly immersive 'future' environment. *_2001 _barely has a story if you take away the visual impact, and the _Arrival_ could have been a story about a linguist and a monk that can tell the future.

The primary problem with shows like _DS9_ or _Firefly _is that they are not offering the viewer either a mindbending concept or an immersive world. There will always be people that love anything with the label sci fi attached to it including camp, but that is not what a mainstream film lover is going to go for.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 17, 2017)

It's totally true that the visual impact of Star Wars was immense - we'd never seen space portrayed so convincingly before.

However, it's hardly fair to compare the cinematic experience with a TV show - the budget for cinema is so much more extremely higher. For example, in the late 1990's:

The Phantom Menace - budget of $115 million for a 2 hour show 
Deep Space 9 - $1.6 million per episode
Babylon 5 - $800,000 per episode

In fact, it was only because Babylon 5 was able to do the special effects on the cheap that it was ever commissioned - Warner would have not approved the project otherwise.


----------



## Rodders (Jan 17, 2017)

I think a lot of what makes Star Wars so successful is the competition at the time. There wasn't any and Star Wars was a breath of fresh air to a possibly naive audiences of the time and the cinema industry in general.

If Star Wars were to be released as a new movie now, how successful would it really be? Would it be fair to say that we're a more critical audience now? 

Don't get me wrong, I love these movies and i'm a big fan of Star Wars and a collector.


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 17, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> However, it's hardly fair to compare the cinematic experience with a TV show - the budget for cinema is so much more extremely higher.



It really isn't a question of fairness. I'm pretty much saying why a TV show that doesn't have a really amazing concept can't possibly be "great" SF.



Rodders said:


> I think a lot of what makes Star Wars so successful is the competition at the time. There wasn't any and Star Wars was a breath of fresh air to a possibly naive audiences of the time and the cinema industry. If Star Wars were to be released as a new movie now, how successful would it really be?


Given every other non-Star Wars movie since 1977, it would be wildly successful. It would be lauded for its realistic effects, its pacing, excitement and grittiness. Why? Because nothing has really changed in visual storytelling, and what looked and felt good in 1977 still looks and feels good. As a whole, production values have mostly dropped since the '80s, and bringing a really complex SF story to the large or small screen is virtually impossible, so production value is really the only way.

As SF fans, we have been junkies who have accepted cut-rate product because we don't have many options. In so doing we have become connoisseurs of compromise, enjoying most offerings on a "that wasn't too bad" scale. The reality is that there have been so few fully realized SF films ever that there is little danger of the greats being overturned anytime soon. For that to happen, someone would either have to come up with a really engrossing SF storyline that can be told mostly visually, or someone has to hone in on a very consistent level of unchallenging storytelling that is at least wrapped up in the most beautiful SF veneer. And that really is not happening. Especially since so much of live action SF is engaged in winking at the audience - Hollywood does not take SF seriously, and really never has. Ewoks, ET and especially comics have subsumed a fairly short and spartan real-SF movement.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jan 17, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> As SF fans, we have been junkies who have accepted cut-rate product because we don't have many options. In so doing we have become connoisseurs of compromise, enjoying most offerings on a "that wasn't too bad" scale.



If so, I don't think this is because of SF as a genre or budgetary requirements. I think it is part of fandom and the "geek mentality" to attach oneself to a franchise and to apologise for its failings. That mentality didn't exist pre-internet, at least to nothing like the same degree. There is also the tendency to get over-attached to characters and their relationships rather than concepts or overall ideas - basically, taken far enough, everything becomes soap opera and a lot of people want it that way. This is quite an interesting article on the subject: The small world of modern thrillers

A while ago, I re-watched some of _Firefly_, which I remembered as consistently good. It isn't: sometimes it's quite clunky, sometimes it's very good indeed. This depends in large part as to which characters are on the screen at the time, and how Joss Whedonish it's allowed itself to get. River Tam, in particular, is a painfully irritating Mary Sue. However, several episodes are very good entertainment. Of course, it's probably a bit pointless watching them with the same expectations as a film, because they're in a TV show.

However, if you are writing for TV, once the audience tires of the high concepts and grand vistas (assuming that the budget allowed for them at all), what do you do? The answer, in terms of quality, is that you end the story and stop the show. But that's often not an option. So what do you do, if you are to keep the show recognisably set in the place where it started, and about the same things? You probably turn it in on itself, and just have characters deal with other characters in a soapy way. Besides, much as the "good SF is hard SF" people seem to dislike the idea, good fiction is always about good characters, even if they are being used to explore a setting or an idea.



RX-79G said:


> someone has to hone in on a very consistent level of unchallenging storytelling that is at least wrapped up in the most beautiful SF veneer



James Cameron tried that in _Avatar_, and given the hate it gets from a wide variety of sources, I'm not sure I'd like to risk it.


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 17, 2017)

Toby Frost said:


> If so, I don't think this is because of SF as a genre or budgetary requirements. I think it is part of fandom and the "geek mentality" to attach oneself to a franchise and to apologise for its failings. That mentality didn't exist pre-internet, at least to nothing like the same degree.


I agree that the geek thing is a major factor, but it is something that has to be given in to, rather than demanded. And I'm certain that it was happening by the time that _Return of the Jedi_, ST:NG and the _Star Trek_ movies: They were nostalgia festivals or running inside jokes. This was the seed, the geeks just fertilized it.


Toby Frost said:


> However, if you are writing for TV, once the audience tires of the high concepts and grand vistas (assuming that the budget allowed for them at all), what do you do? The answer, in terms of quality, is that you end the story and stop the show. But that's often not an option. So what do you do, if you are to keep the show recognisably set in the place where it started, and about the same things? You probably turn it in on itself, and just have characters deal with other characters in a soapy way.


Anime is produced this way, with a planned 20-80 episode run, and that's that. Then you do a sequal if people like it. And maybe that's a better model than the American "we'll keep writing until the shark" method. Open ended sci fi TV must either be episodic (_Star Trek, Dr. Who, Quantum Leap_), or _Falcon Crest_ (DS9, B5) - unless it can dedicate itself to either a very wide vista or heavy evolution to the cast and set.



Toby Frost said:


> Besides, much as the "good SF is hard SF" people seem to dislike the idea, good fiction is always about good characters, even if they are being used to explore a setting or an idea.


Good fiction can be about characters if you want it to be - so make it about characters rather than spaceships and people with stuff glued to their foreheads. The pretense of doing _Casablanca_ in a space station isn't sci fi in any real way. Might as well just put a new title sequence on _Seinfeld _so it looks like they live on a city in an orbital and stick an SF toothpick in it.



Toby Frost said:


> James Cameron tried that in _Avatar_, and given the hate it gets from a wide variety of sources, I'm not sure I'd like to risk it.


What James Cameron tried to do in _Avatar _was be inventive with half of what he was doing, while re-cycling the worst sci fi cliches for the nth time with the rest. It is one thing to be simple, another to be stupid. _Star Wars_ is a simple good against evil war story. _Avatar, Aliens, Abyss _and _T2_ are creaky evil corporation conspiracy theory movies - themes that are simply below his audience. Cameron was a unit director on _Escape From New York_, but he never escaped being the second coming of John Carpenter, just with a bigger budget. Avatar is just proof that you have to respect your audience at least a little bit.


It isn't like there haven't been some successes: _The Dark Knight_ takes itself entirely seriously, despite being comic stuff. It was as if Nolan read a description of the characters in a magazine and created his version of them. For all its comedy, the _Fifth Element_ also fully dedicates itself to the world it exists in. There are others, but those two nicely illustrate how simple SF concepts can be turned into something believably futuristic by applying a coherent and bounded aesthetic that stays inside of the SFX tech frontier.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jan 17, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> Anime is produced this way, with a planned 20-80 episode run, and that's that. Then you do a sequal if people like it.



That sounds like a really good idea. It won't result in the story just dragging on until it becomes unrecognisable or bad, and the sequel can take the story in new directions. What is _Falcon Crest_, by the way? 



RX-79G said:


> The pretense of doing _Casablanca_ in a space station isn't sci fi in any real way.



We'll have to disagree about that. To my mind, if it's got spaceships and aliens, it's SF. If it's got wizards and dragons, it's fantasy. To my mind, the trappings put it in the genre, even if the underlying story is a western, a mystery or something else (in which case, it might be in both genres at once).



RX-79G said:


> What James Cameron tried to do in _Avatar _was be inventive with half of what he was doing, while re-cycling the worst sci fi cliches for the nth time with the rest. It is one thing to be simple, another to be stupid. _Star Wars_ is a simple good against evil war story. _Avatar, Aliens, Abyss _and _T2_ are creaky evil corporation conspiracy theory movies - themes that are simply below his audience. Cameron was a unit director on _Escape From New York_, but he never escaped being the second coming of John Carpenter, just with a bigger budget. Avatar is just proof that you have to respect your audience at least a little bit.



I think that proves what I mean about _Avatar_ - it is simply hated, and its prettiness hasn't been able to save it from that.


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 17, 2017)

Toby Frost said:


> What is _Falcon Crest_, by the way?


Sorry, it is an '80s prime time soap opera, like _Dallas, Dynasty _and _Knots Landing_.



Toby Frost said:


> We'll have to disagree about that. To my mind, if it's got spaceships and aliens, it's SF. If it's got wizards and dragons, it's fantasy. To my mind, the trappings put it in the genre, even if the underlying story is a western, a mystery or something else (in which case, it might be in both genres at once).


I don't actually disagree with you. It is more a protest that a story that is driven entirely by personal interaction drama without need or reference to sci fi concepts is about the weakest form of sci fi. _Hamlet _in space suits is still more _Hamlet _than sci fi story if none of the actual drama is invested in those aliens or spaceships. If your "aliens" look and act mostly like people, then it is a very weak form of the genre.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jan 17, 2017)

Ah, I see what you mean about Falcon Crest. Yes, that would work as a way of keeping the story going, although as you say, it might not be much good.



RX-79G said:


> It is more a protest that a story that is driven entirely by personal interaction drama without need or reference to sci fi concepts is about the weakest form of sci fi.



Yes, I'd agree. It pains me to say it, because it's a great film, but something like _Alien_ probably isn't the best SF. It's likely that if you can say "It's such-and-such, but in space", it's not as SF-ish as if you have to say "It's about how space does this to these people". (Except not necessarily space, if you see what I mean). And hard SF would fall under the "very SF" heading. So also, I'd suggest, would be very intense visions of future societies, even when they're modelled on real world ones: books like _1984_ feel like intense social SF to me even if they don't contain much technology.


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 17, 2017)

Toby Frost said:


> Ah, I see what you mean about Falcon Crest. Yes, that would work as a way of keeping the story going, although as you say, it might not be much good.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd agree. It pains me to say it, because it's a great film, but something like _Alien_ probably isn't the best SF. It's likely that if you can say "It's such-and-such, but in space", it's not as SF-ish as if you have to say "It's about how space does this to these people". (Except not necessarily space, if you see what I mean). And hard SF would fall under the "very SF" heading. So also, I'd suggest, would be very intense visions of future societies, even when they're modelled on real world ones: books like _1984_ feel like intense social SF to me even if they don't contain much technology.


But with _Alien _the viewer is offered three thoroughly sci fi gems: An _alien_ creature, with lifecycle and a very non-human intelligence. The non-human intelligence and motivations of an android. Two completely immersive starship environments, complete with EVA, a realistic crew, touchdown on alien planets, the look of alien technology and even hints about future commerce/work.

_Alien _is actually a good example of the OP, because as a "horror story" it uses such a completely constructed sci fi mise en cine that it puts the audience in the future. What you could label simply "good sets" is a great visual model of worldbuilding - it would take hundreds of pages of exposition for a novel to create a similar understanding of the those places. And the horror itself is uniquely sci fi because it is both fantastic and grounded in a version of our reality.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 17, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> But with _Alien _the viewer is offered three thoroughly sci fi gems: An _alien_ creature, with lifecycle and a very non-human intelligence. The non-human intelligence and motivations of an android. Two completely immersive starship environments, complete with EVA, a realistic crew, touchdown on alien planets, the look of alien technology and even hints about future commerce/work.
> 
> _Alien _is actually a good example of the OP, because as a "horror story" it uses such a completely constructed sci fi mise en cine that it puts the audience in the future. What you could label simply "good sets" is a great visual model of worldbuilding - it would take hundreds of pages of exposition for a novel to create a similar understanding of the those places. And the horror itself is uniquely sci fi because it is both fantastic and grounded in a version of our reality.



What inspired Alien 

on The Literary side 

*The Vaults of Yoh-Vombus*  by Clark Ashton Smith 
The Black Destroyer Segment of  T*he Voyage of the Space Beagle   *by A E Van Vogt 

Cinema Inspirations 

*It The Terror From Beyond Space *1958  written by Jerome Bixby 

*Planet of the Vampires*    1965  a Mario Brava Film


----------

