 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well sort of...
I'm kind of having the opposite problem to Duncan. I don't want to copy
anything! I'm heavily influenced by a lot of sci-fi (much of which is probably
considered classic), but what I want to do is take inspiration from that and
create something original.
But this poses a major problem: If I create an original idea, will it be off
topic?
How exactly do we define something as being on topic for this round?
e.g. would you count the film "Galaxy Quest" as classic sci-fi? I think not!
Anyway, feedback would be much appreciated. If anyone has a suggestion on how I
can make an animation that's on topic without comprimising my creativity, please
tell me!
Thanks
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> I'm kind of having the opposite problem to Duncan. I don't want to copy
> anything! I'm heavily influenced by a lot of sci-fi (much of which is probably
> considered classic), but what I want to do is take inspiration from that and
> create something original.
I see that this could be a problem with something called "Classic
Sci-Fi". My first mental images were Flash Gordon serials and
spaceships with little fireworks for an engine... :-)
> But this poses a major problem: If I create an original idea, will it be off
> topic?
Maybe... wouldn't it be much easier if the topic were "Classic
> How exactly do we define something as being on topic for this round?
Dunno... but in my opinion, it's hard to be off-topic with this
topic anyway - just do something that has been done before ;-)
> e.g. would you count the film "Galaxy Quest" as classic sci-fi? I think not!
In a way. It shows all the elements of "classic sci-fi": Advanced
technology, space travel, time travel, aliens, peril, good vs.
evil, cheap thrills... of course it does twist it all into a
parody, but it's nevertheless "classic" sci-fi material. (i don't
say that these elements are "good" or "valuable" by themselves...)
Not really able to provide an answer:
-Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One characteristic SciFi is the reliance on special effects and sets to
create an otherwise unexperienceable experience. The characteristic of
classic scifi is that these effects will be unconvincing, even naive.
Yet we treat them with affection. The original intention can be to
create an otherworldly even disturbing experience. Bladerunner did this
effectively the first time I saw it with effective use of the
soundtrack. Sometimes the soundstage set can be exploited. The cozy
spacestation becomes a trap with a alien onboard. Another intention or
inevitable result is to create a safe, often intimate, platform from
which to speculate about otherworldly experiences. Those early Startrek
planet surfaces. They worked because the designers never violated the
limits of a soundstage. This sence of intimate scale enlisted to
express something alien you almost get for free with raytracing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote in message
news:4025027a$1@news.povray.org...
> The characteristic of
> classic scifi is that these effects will be unconvincing, even naive.
I think I have to disagree with you there. Some of my favourite sci-fi which I'd
consider classic which doesn't have wobbly sets and unconvincing effects. Most
notably 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Which again confounds any attempt I make to put my ideas into the category of
"classic" sci fi :(
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in news:40254817$1@news.povray.org:
>
> I think I have to disagree with you there. Some of my favourite sci-fi
> which I'd consider classic which doesn't have wobbly sets and
> unconvincing effects. Most notably 2001: A Space Odyssey.
>
I consider that movie as the dividing line. Before then SciFi was found
in mostly B movies and after it was in some of the best films, and
blockbusters with monster budgets.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Star Wars
Alien
BladeRunner
Terminator
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Galvin" <tom### [at] imporg> wrote in message
news:Xns94889F351F913tomatimporg@203.29.75.35...
> > Most notably 2001: A Space Odyssey.
>
> I consider that movie as the dividing line. Before then SciFi was found
> in mostly B movies and after it was in some of the best films, and
> blockbusters with monster budgets.
I totally agree it's a dividing line, where mainstream sci-fi films became
commonplace, but are you suggesting it's not on topic for this round?
i.e. does "classic sci-fi" necessarily mean Ed Wood or are we allowed to do
something, dare I say it, *Good*? :)
Bear in mind I was born in the mid-seventies so I really don't have a lot of
affection for badly made sci-fi. In fact about the only thing like that which I
genuinely enjoy is Barbarella. Which I am considering doing for this round,
since it is bang on topic, but I'd rather do something that doesn't rely on
character animation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> I think I have to disagree with you there. Some of my favourite sci-fi which I'd
> consider classic which doesn't have wobbly sets and unconvincing effects. Most
> notably 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Hmmm I guess you got me there. The effects don't have to be wobbly just
dated to be a bit unconvincing. I find the final sesquence a bit that
way. Nevertheless "2001" has remarkable staying power. Wouldn't expect
anything less from Kubrick. Did I mention he's my all time top movie man?
>
> Which again confounds any attempt I make to put my ideas into the category of
> "classic" sci fi
I still think the use of sets, costumes, and effects is distinctive
within the genre. Certain plots and themes also recur.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in news:4025509e$1@news.povray.org:
>
> i.e. does "classic sci-fi" necessarily mean Ed Wood or are we allowed
> to do something, dare I say it, *Good*? :)
>
>
I am such a Luddite :D
I consider Classic SciFi to be books from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, by authors
like Asimov, Heinlien, Piper...
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Galvin" <tom### [at] imporg> wrote in message
news:Xns9488E8078C5F0tomatimporg@203.29.75.35...
> I consider Classic SciFi to be books from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, by authors
> like Asimov, Heinlien, Piper...
I'm ashamed to admit that I read very little. I've read a lot of comics and
terry pratchett, but the only "classic" thing I've read is... 2001! ;)
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, I've got an idea which I think qualifies. Something like a Battlestar
Galactica / Star Wars large scale space battle, with lots of automated AI
spaceships.
I reckon that counts as classic sci-fi. :)
Although now I want to design the ships to look nothing like SW! Must resist
urge to be creative...
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
