![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Stephen
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 16:04:35
Message: <4c23ba53@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 24/06/2010 8:42 PM, Warp wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that there are*no* good sci-fi movies in existence.
>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Stephen
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 16:05:34
Message: <4c23ba8e$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 24/06/2010 8:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Alien? (I never really heard any defensible complaints about it.)
How about I fell asleep before it finished?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 16:18:56
Message: <4c23bdb0$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Well, that assumes that the book itself can be considered good sci-fi
> in the first place... :P
Well, sure. Obviously, there are some books that *are* considered good
sci-fi, at least by a large number of readers. There are even books that I'd
consider good sci-fi but which I personally didn't enjoy.
But many of the complaints I hear about "hard" science fiction, like
complaints about Blade Runner for example, are along the lines of "that
wasn't the same story as the book." Not that there was anything
particularly wrong with the story as told, but only that it didn't meet the
expectations set by the book.
Of course, some complaints are completely valid. Like "why didn't the
department of pre-corrections turn off the eyeball access granted to the
fugitive murderer that used to be allowed in?" in Minority Report. A movie
which, I'll grant, was nothing at all like the book, and indeed completely
missed the entire point of the actual book story.
Didn't they make a Farenheit 451 movie? Was that any good? Or an Illustrated
Man movie?
There are huge numbers of "good" science fiction books that could be made
into decently good movies nowadays. Even some decent sci-fi I've read that
you could make suspenseful and all that good stuff without a huge budget.
What I want to know is why virtually every monster movie is zombies,
vampires, or werewolves? With maybe an occasional killer robot or black
lagoon creature thrown in. Can't a horror writer come up with a decent
original monster?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 16:43:00
Message: <4c23c354$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:05:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/06/2010 8:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Alien? (I never really heard any defensible complaints about it.)
>
> How about I fell asleep before it finished?
I thought the second was better than the first, but I think the first
could be counted as better Sci Fi.
Falling asleep doesn't mean it's bad Sci Fi, though - I fell asleep
during Amadeus the first time I watched it, but it was still a good
film. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 16:46:51
Message: <4c23c43b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I thought the second was better than the first, but I think the first
> could be counted as better Sci Fi.
I don't know why people really thought that. There are few movies where the
sequel is as good as the original, and I'll grant Aliens held its own. But I
didn't like it as much as Alien. Perhaps it was just because I was at the
right age for Alien and too cynical by the time Aliens came out or something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Kevin Wampler
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 16:48:33
Message: <4c23c4a1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
somebody wrote:
> I just watched Moon. 80% on IMDB, 89% on RottenTomatoes. People compare it
> to 2001 and Solaris. Those people should be shot.
While the comparison to 2001 and Solyaris is clearly insane, I did
rather like Moon, but I tend to not be bothered by inconsistencies in a
movie. I also think that there have been some pretty good sci-fi films
recently. Although not on par with, say, the mid-80s, it seems like
there are about as many "good" sci-fi films as is average. For
instance, in the past 5-6 years I've greatly enjoyed all of the films:
Children of Men
District 9
The Fountain
Primer
WALL-E
Also, even though they're not movies, I think there's been some very
good science fiction television shows recently. Firefly and the remake
of Battlestar Galatica come to mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Gilles Tran
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 17:07:48
Message: <4c23c924$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rr com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : 4c23b627$1@news.povray.org...
> I'm trying to think of a (hard-ish) sci-fi movie that was as good an
> adaption of the book as (say) Harry Potter was.
A boy and his dog? Harlan Ellison himself was rather pleased with the
adaptation, and the guy isn't exactly easy to please.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 17:12:07
Message: <4c23ca27@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Every time a sci-fi movie comes out, somebody will complain and point
> out how ludicrous some detail about it is,
Well, actually, thinking on this, I think part of it is that sci-fi has a
relatively unique place in art.
For example, if there's some ludicrous event in a romantic comedy, like the
same couple running into each other in the airport every time they go on a
trip, that's just "part of the story." Sure, it's ludicrously unlikely, but
that's part of the story. In a magic story, if the sorcerer can't get five
fireballs off in a row and there's no explanation for why he's limited to
four, people just accept that. But if someone has a blaster and it only
shoots four times and then needs to be dipped in water, people will say
"that's stupid - why would anyone build a gun that only fires four times?"
People make fun of westerns where the cowboys fire dozens of times from one
revolver without reloading, but it doesn't really spoil the movie, because
the focus of a western isn't the wonders of the gunplay per se. (At least,
not usually.)
But I think in a SF movie, people are going to examine every tiny aspect of
the science and find something that they'd let pass in any other genre.
Nobody complains that Clouseau outrageous accent, so strong that *nobody* he
lives near can understand him, wouldn't disappear and normalize in a few
weeks. But everybody complains when aliens speak english, and then complain
more when they have an accent (or don't use contractions, or don't
understand slang, or whatever).
Another place this nit-picking happens is mysteries, especially murder
mysteries. You wouldn't accept a murder mystery where the murderer set up
some long convoluted rube goldberg series of events to kill someone, unless
the point of the mystery is how awesomely intelligent the murderer is.
The whole point of Ocean's Eleven (at least, the new version) was how
awesome everyone was to be able to pull off something like that, not that it
was a normal and expected heist. So the fact that the victims responded in
exactly the predicted way needed to make it all come together doesn't ruin
the film.
You don't give the potential murderer an alibi, but then in the last chapter
point out how, while he was at the restaurant with friends all evening, he
was actually in the restroom at the restaurant for over an hour and nobody
noticed. (Unless it's a French murder mystery, I guess.)
Most genres people will go with the flow for the sake of the story. Nobody
really cares if a slapstick comedy's participants would really be seriously
injured by falling off a roof. Nobody cares if a ghost in a ghost movie can
sometimes move things and sometimes can't.
A handful of genres (like, comic book remakes) will expect the movie to
match the book closely, because that's how the fans are. (Cue complaints of
movie-Spiderman not needing technological web shooters.)
Another handful of genres (SF, mystery, to name the two I can think of
offhand) tell stories where the accuracy and believability of every detail
is important to the enjoyment of the story itself. It's a matter of "how
clever was the author" and not just "tell me an entertaining story."
So maybe that's what I'm actually interested in in my more intellectual
reading: something clever and detailed, beyond just the flow of the story.
Not necessarily technology, but something that falls apart if the author has
to ham-hand the story to make it turn out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 18:02:29
Message: <4c23d5f5@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:46:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> I don't know why people really thought that. There are few movies where
> the sequel is as good as the original, and I'll grant Aliens held its
> own. But I didn't like it as much as Alien. Perhaps it was just because
> I was at the right age for Alien and too cynical by the time Aliens came
> out or something.
For my wife particularly it was Ripley's maternal instincts with regards
to Newt - they resonated really well with her - as in "mommy's going to
protect you at all costs".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 18:52:21
Message: <4c23e1a5$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson wrote:
> For my wife particularly it was Ripley's maternal instincts with regards
> to Newt - they resonated really well with her - as in "mommy's going to
> protect you at all costs".
Better character development. OK, I can see that, sure.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |