# When sci-fi was sci-fi



## unclejack (Jul 9, 2007)

Okay yall, this is just a theory and by no means can I prove it but I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Does anyone besides me think that science fiction has changed dramatically in the last fity years? I guess that could go for all media but specifically scifi: I'm a young man but a fan of classic scifi shows like lost in space, the outer limits, and the twilight zone amd movies like war of the worlds, Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes and many others. My point is this, it seems like people making modern science fiction, mostly films from my perspective, feel a need to merge science fiction with other genres like horror and action in order to keep it interesting. Personally I find the limitless boundries of science fiction to be interesting enough without the addition of other genres to add something to it. Here's some modern examples of merging other genres: (granted I do like these movies so I'm not knockin them) Minority report, the Alien series, the predator movies, and many others. I think that although total recal was an action movie, the sci fi element in it was high enough that they stayed true to classic scifi. 
 I'm a big fan of sci fi, and I like action too, but not so much of horror. I don't really think that a movie has to be terrifying in order to qualify as quality science fiction, it just has to challenge your imagination a little bit and take you somewhere exciting. Any thoughts.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 9, 2007)

I'd say that, given the history of sf in the visual media, with the rare exceptions such as *Metropolis* (1926) and *Things to Come* (1936) science fiction in film largely emerged from the horror field. Especially when you look at the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, it was largely the horror fans that gave sf films any sort of chance at all: *Tarantula*, *The Amazing Colossal Man*, *The Deadly Mantis*, *IT: The Terror from Beyond Space*, *Village of the Damned*, *The She-Creature*, *Atomic Submarine*, *The 4-D Man*, the Quatermass series... even _Lost in Space_, _Outer Limits_, and _Twilight Zone_ capitalized on the "monster" element; the first two relied on it to bring people in, in fact, though _Outer Limits_ was more a series of modern-day morality plays than anything else. There are exceptions, such as _The Prisoner_ television series, which is certainly at least borderline sf (I'd say right on the money in many ways). So no, I don't think it's the blending of the different genres (especially horror) that's new... it's the turning from having a broader range _in addition to_ a basic template that's been the change, largely the result of _Star Wars_ & Co....


----------



## unclejack (Jul 9, 2007)

I see your point, I can't really argue with that because I haven't seen alot of the movies you mentioned but what I will say is that I guess I kinda feel that way because the monster element as you put it has grown into something much more horrifying and it's easier nowdays to throw alot of scifi into the same category as horror. I guess I just look for shows and movies like lost in space that emphasize the scientific element in scifi and value the moral quality in alot of the characters. When the Robinsons encountered a problem such as an alien life form threatening their existence or something their reaction was always a very moral one and had less of an action/bravado element to it. 
 In general movies and television have both reached an extreme on what is expected and accepted so I guess a milder version of science fiction is rare and I kinda miss that.


----------



## Connavar (Jul 10, 2007)

I see your point and i usually dislike most later SF movies cause they are always trying to make SF more and more action  that sometimes you wonder why they even bother cause they seem to think having only SF oriented story wont sell.  They must make them an action movie or something else of it to sell.

I confess to before reading SF books i didnt even know that SF could be SF without bieng as the hollywood version you grew up.  I mean unlike J.D and other SF movie fans here i havent seen those old more Sci fi like SF movies.



If you havent watched Farscape you would like it, its about people living in a living ship can you get more SF than that


----------



## unclejack (Jul 10, 2007)

Yeah, that's my point exactly. I know that true sci fi does still exist, it's just that I don't think hollywood realy has a firm grip on what sci fi is and feels like they have to merge it with other genres to keep people interested. I think that's the norm in mainstream hollywood, but I've found that if you look into the independent and foregin film world you find more true scfi avaiable. 
   And I'm like you, many of the classic sci fi movies I have not seen but many I have. I'm goin back and watchin some of the old stuff and it is very good.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 10, 2007)

I think you hit on the head when you say that it's pretty much the way Hollywood works, period. And these days, if it's not a huge blockbuster, they're not interested. A lot of the best sf films of earlier days were actually rather low budget affairs that concentrated on good story and characters rather than splashy special effects. I'd say that's where the problem comes in -- people (including film execs) identify sf with special effects, when they are not at all the same thing.

For example: yes, there were some special effects used in the original tv version of *The Lathe of Heaven* (from Ursula Le Guin's novel),but what made that one work was the playing with ideas, and the relationship between the characters... and the fact that even Dr. Heber was by no means a villain. He really did want to "make the world right". It was just that his choice on how to do so was catastrophic, and he wasn't willing to accept that others had their own vision. While wonky, it's still a fascinating piece of work (I prefer to forget the remake, thank you).

Or a lot of the _Twilight Zone_ episodes, which dealt very little with special effects indeed. Or the film *The World, the Flesh, and the Devil*, about the only three survivors of an apocalypse (based on M. P. Shiel's novel, *The Purple Cloud*). There you don't even see what wipes the world out... you just see them and their lives after it's all over... and how they survive and interact. (While the film takes great liberties with the novel, it's nonetheless a very good film, as I recall...)

The World, the Flesh and the Devil (1959)

I'd think (speaking of horror and sf blends) that we need to start taking a bit more of a hint from the Japanese films of that nature, which are anything but concerned with special effects, but with telling good stories and creating a genuine atmosphere. In the end, sf (like any good literature) isn't about the "whizz-bang" special effects, but about people; in this case, put into unusual situations (for us), and how they interact with such.....


----------



## unclejack (Jul 10, 2007)

Yeah, my feeling is that in order to get good sci fi I need to stray away from mainstream hollywood. I haven't seen either of the titles you mentioned but the second one kinda reminds me of Soylent Green, which I just recently watched, where you don't really get any clear idea of what happened, you only see the aftermath of some catastrophe and what is left of society. I think when movies can do that without being agravating about it in omitting what viewers feel are vital parts of the plot then it's a great success. I think alot of times when characters in films or just the films themselves through some sort of naration go to great lengths to explain the state of the world that we see on the screen then it can come of as being a little less real and less interesting than it could be. I enjoy occasional mystery in a movie from time to time. I find it leaves more room for the imagination. Plus I just think it all seems more natural and believable when films don't expel alot of energy explaining what they show you but they just show you and let you feel the way you wanna feel about it. A good example of that is Children of Men. Although we know the general premise, women can't have children, we don't know why or even why they find one woman who can. I thought it was good because the movie wasn't all about finding all the answers, but it was more about allowing the viewer to be immersed in the world as they show it and the struggle that the main characters go through to deal with it. 
 Going back to Soylent Green, all we know in the film is that everybody is starvin to death and is reliant upon a govermental provision of food known as Soylent Green. We don't know why, except to know that all farms have been siezed by the government and life in the ocean is supposedly dying. Then the mystery of what Soylent Green is is brought to the forefront. My point being that the movie is interesting enough without all that detail and explanation and still remains good even with an inconclusive ending.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 11, 2007)

Well, the main thing with *Soylent Green* (and the original story, "Make Room! Make Room!") is the combination of overpopulation and the way we muck up the planet, cutting our own throats in the process. And the irony of an idealistic man coming up with such a solution is quite a nice vicious touch....


----------



## Interference (Jul 24, 2007)

I wonder if anyone writes sf anymore.

Gene Roddenberry had the good sense to recruit true sf writers on Star Trek, something the Next Gen et al producers might have considered once in a while.  In its day, TV gave us Twilight Zone and Outer Limits as well as Lost in Space and Land of the Giants.  Speculative fiction had a chance.

Now, Hollywood sees the popularity of sf - and it's largely the Star Trek Franchise that made them realise the market they'd been missing - and now every studio treats something that was once only for kiddies as mainstream adult fare.  But do you think there's a single one of them that would sack the writers they know in favour of a writer who knows the genre?  No.  "Type fast, use off-the-shelf plots, and put this season's favourite spin on it" is about as much of a brief as any of them is likely to get.

Nobody writes sf anymore - not in film or television, anyway.


----------



## Envera Comics (Dec 8, 2008)

how long ago would sci-fi be sci-fi???

when did it die?


the end of the first star treck?


----------



## kale (Dec 8, 2008)

*Heroes* and *Lost* come to mind when mentioning s/f. I don't know if any serious minded fan of the genre would consider this heresy or not but I don't think either fall too far from the tree.
I certainly don't feel it's as prevalent today as it once was. This could be purely down to the age we are living in and the technologies we are witnessing first hand. Perhaps the power to stun us with future developments is becoming old hat and, ironically, outdated.


----------

