Can Hollywood Make a Good SF Film?

[Groundskeeper Willie]

I suppose Great Debates is the best location for this post.

Those of you who have been reading SF for more than a few decades, and/or have read SF from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, are surely aware of the improvement in literary quality of the best stories over the last 70 years. Note that I am referring to the best stories; there is still a lot of crap being sold today. Sturgeon's Law still holds: 90% of SF is crap… as well as 90% of everything else. Still, the ideas and characterization of the SF of 2000 have improved over that of 1930.

So why hasn't the SF in Hollywood movies advanced over the last half-century? Sure, the visual effects are better, but the plots are the same tired old 1930's stories. We still are shown bug-eyed monsters attacking humans, humans attacking bug-eyed monsters, scientists going where man was not meant to go, etc.

There have been a few intelligent SF movies, for example 'Charlie' or 'Solaris', but they seem either to be non-Hollywood movies, or else made in the 1960's or 1970's on a low budget. As for '2001' or 'Contact', yes, they are not bad, but they certainly are not as good as the best SF.

Is it simply that Hollywood has decided that there are too few intelligent SF-reading movie-goers to make a profitable film, or do they honestly think that 'Event Horizen' and 'Supernova' are the whole of SF?

Bill

[Ptahlis]

Well GW, it depends on what you think qualifies as "good." If you mean that it has to deal with big issues be pretty cerebral, or be "arty", then I doubt you will find too many good sci-fi movies out there. "Blade Runner" maybe. But if the aim of a movie is merely to entertain well without being glaringly stupid, then there are films that are credible. "Jurassic Park" was one, as well as "The Andromeda Strain".

[Gilligan]

Well, they did make a movie version of Asimov's "Nightfall"; I haven't seen it but heard it wasn't good. "Gattaca" received good reviews from both SF fans and movie critics, haven't seen that one either. I think I might be contributing to the problem. I like good SF reading, then I go spend my money on "Armageddon."

[tracer]

Gilligan wrote:

Well, they did make a movie version of Asimov's "Nightfall"; I haven't seen it but heard it wasn't good.

"Wasn't good" doesn't go nearly far enough in describing that abyssmal piece of New Age bullcrap. The Nightfall movie sucked. It sucked royally. It sucked on toast. It had as little to do with the actual Isaac Asimov short story "Nightfall" that it was allegedly based on, as the Reagan-era "Star Wars" Space Defense Initiative had to do with the Star Wars movies. Did I mention that it sucked?


As far as good SF films go, I have four words: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Well, they did make a movie version of Asimov's "Nightfall"; I haven't seen it but heard it wasn't good.

Has anyone else heard that Harlan Ellison wrote a script for 'I, Robot'? I flipped through it at the book store... looked quite good. Way better than 'Bicentennial Man', which, while not a good movie, stayed fairly close to the short story. Actually, considering the box office for that movie, I think that we have an answer to the OP. The audience will not sit for something that doesn't have an exploding car or nude scene every 15 minutes.

Bill

[My Sister]

[hijack]
My favorite SF film is one I've never seen completely.

It gets discussed at film societies, but usually after running 10-15 minutes of it.

It was a German B&W, silent era, which had a statue of a stout burgher from a clock tower come to life.
He was still stone-colored however, but 10 foot tall.

Anyone know the name? Or the character name? I could look it up from that, I think.
[/hijack]
...Sorry... you were saying..?

[Groundskeeper Willie]

It was a German B&W, silent era, which had a statue of a stout burgher from a clock tower come to life. He was still stone-colored however, but 10 foot tall.

'The Golem' rings a bell... checking... directed by Paul Wegener in 1920.

Bill

[Groundskeeper Willie]

The pun was unintentional.

Bill

[Billdo]

Great question, Groundskeeper. We went a few rounds on this topic in the Heinlein Books and Movies. That thread started as a disussion about whether there could be a good film made from Robert A. Heinlein's works, but later expanded out to the question of good SF films. Note that in the message board software conversion, the order and coding of the posts got a bit screwed up.

My general opinion on the matter is that SF is really about ideas -- questions of what will happen to human socal interactions in a society with different technological attributes. Film, and particularly Hollywood film, is just not a really good medium to explore ideas in this manner.

Rather than go on at length, I'll refer you to my posts (and the posts of others) in the Heinlein thread.

[My Sister]

[re-hijack]
Thanks, Groundskeeper Willie, I can't find the one you said, but I have two others that it might be which are available to rent from Reel.com.

Der Golem (1915)
Der Golem und die Tänzerin (1917)

I like videotape better than film for silents anyway, since you can pause to check the caption translations.
[/re-hijack]

[Max Torque]

In case the point wasn't driven home enough, here's a review of Nightfall.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

MaxTorque wrote:

In case the point wasn't driven home enough, here's a review of Nightfall.

Hey, warn us before letting us use that link! I had to wipe the vomit off my keyboard and monitor! Speaking of Asimov's fiction, though, how about the original Foundation series? Seeing that 'The Lord of the Ring' is being made into a movie trilogy, could it be that some studio... nah, forget it. Although it would easily better 'Battlefield Earth', for what it's worth.

Bill

[CalMeacham]

I'm generally pretty much put off by Hollywood science fiction movies, too, but there have been several good ones in the past(2001, Forbidden Planet, Day the Earth Stood Still, etc.). You seem to be looking for newer movies, however I agree that most science fiction films have been awful -- Sturgeon's Law in action -- but there have been a few very good movies in the past few years. They've often taken me by surprise, because my expectations were so low.


The Terminator
Robocop (which owed a lot to the Frederick Pohl/C.M. Kornbluth books)
The Hidden (which owes a debt to Hal Clement's "Needle")
The Matrix
Gattaca
Aliens
2010 (I'll argue this case -- especially if you take out the voice-overs)
Star Trek IV (I'm allowed to like a light touch now and then)
Creator


There are also movis I've liked aspects of, even if the entire experience was a disappointment. Dune, The Abyss, even Starship Troopers.

There's no fundamental reason that Hollywood can't make a good SF movie. It's even possible to make one with broad audience appeal. I'd love to see Harlan Ellson's screenplay for Asimov's "I, Robot" filmed. Or a faithful adaptation (for once) of Fredric Brown's "Arena". Unfortunately, it's very eas fo a project to go off the rails, and there's no shortage of horror stories about this. Read Heilein's account of the making of Destnation Moon. Or read the screenwriter's account of making The Puppet Masters, and you'll see how much worse it could have been. Or Harry Harrison writing about "Soylent Green". Or Ellison on "City on the Edge of Forever", or "Starlost", or just about anything else of his.

[bantmof]

"Good sci-fi" means different things to different people.

I think 2001 was one of the better films coming out of Hollywood. I won't argue it's as good as written sci-fi, but it was (IMHO) a great film, especially given when it was made. Not only does it require actual thought and viewer interpretation (something Hollywood generally seems terrified of), but it remains one of the only films to even attempt to approximate realistic space flight.

I also think the Matrix was a good movie, and Stargate at least wasn't bad. There have been others.

It's probably hard to make sci-fi movies be as good as written sci-fi, so if your idea of good sci-fi comes from the best literature, I think you'll be hard pressed to find films to match.

Hollywood also tends to make what sells. Star Wars may not be more than a so-so film glorified with special effects and explosions, but everybody and his uncle has seen it 47 times and bought the video. The Spice Girls' also outsells Beethoven. I've long since given up trying to understand popular tastes. Times change; today's audiences demand continuous instant gratification and spoon-fed plots. Given those constraints, I think movies like The Matrix have done as good a job as could be expected.

[The Raven]

I'm just finishing up a class over here in college land called 'Classics of Science Fiction". Just recently, we were asked to rate all the movies that we've seen in class, explaining why we did or did not like them, and then recommending one to be dropped and a replacement for it. The movies we've seen were:

The Matrix
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
2001
Gattaca (I was out sick when we were supposed to see this)
Blade Runner
and also saw the episode of the X-files called "Home", but that wasn't an official 'film'.
And despite the fact that we are mostly typical slackers, we mostly chose the Matrix to be dumped, but no one could decide on a replacement. Any ideas?

(I think Gattaca and Blade Runner are mostly up there because we were reading their equivalents, Beggars in Spain and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?)

[Groundskeeper Willie]

The Raven Wrote:

And despite the fact that we are mostly typical slackers, we mostly chose the Matrix to be dumped, but no one could decide on a replacement. Any ideas?

I would recomment 'Charly', based on 'Flowers for Algernon' by Daniel Keye (is that right? - brain lock). It's the story of Charlie, a mentally retarded young man who is given an experimental treatment to increase his IQ... I won't say any more, but this is one of the best true SF movies that I've seen. So they CAN be made.

Bill

[tracer]

MaxTorque wrote:

In case the point wasn't driven home enough, here's a review of Nightfall.

Hey hey hey! Whadaya know! Another fan of Bad Movie Night!

[tracer]

And speaking of SF films based on books that tried to be true to their original, the 1984 production of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was pretty darned faithful, too.

[SPOOFE]

Why can't Hollywood make a good Sci-fi movie? 'Cuz they're too Hollywood, and there are things that NEED to be included to make a good movie (their thinking, not mine).

Case in point: Starship Troopers. Even though that was quite unlike the original premise, it would have been all right if not for one thing... the first half of it. Had they removed all that "Beverly Hills 90210" crap, the movie might not have flopped so royally.

I think the last great Sci-fi was "Terminator 2". I loved the effects, I loved the explosions... but I also loved the story, and the presentation.

"Aliens" also comes high on the my list (although "Alien3" bit and "Alien: Resurrection" was a total pooch-screw). "Gattaca" was amazing, but very intellectualized, which may explain why it never caught on big. "Stargate" had a very nice premise, and actually was made into an entertaining TV show.

"Virus" sucked. "Wing Commander" sucked (though the games, which came out first, kicked major ass).

FINALLY... answering the original question... yes, Hollywood CAN make a good sci-fi, but usually don't. A lot of modern sci-fi movies rely on graphics as the backbone of the movie, rather than having a great story and then throwing in some amazing graphics to help the story along. The special effects in "Virus" were amazing... but the story was complete bunk.

In my opinion, there are too many gimmicks that Hollywood uses... there's always gotta be a romantic side-plot, the hero always gets hurt really bad and almost dies once or twice, the bad guy always has to be so much stronger and faster, forcing the good guys to rely on brains, one of the non-important good guys has to bite the dust... (Tracer, feel free to add your pet-peeve Hollywood gimmick to my list)...

[GuanoLad]

I must have very unusual tastes indeed. Whenever people talk about Science Fiction movies, I'd have to say 99% of them list 2001: A Space Oddysey as one of the best ever.

Yet I think it was boring, weirdo, pointless, showy crap. (standard Kubrick, in other words) It dragged on, it didn't move me at all, I really didn't care what happened. It had no excitement, no real sense of tension. Not to me, anyway.

I like several of the other movies most people cite, and they aren't always action packed blockbuster Star Wars James Cameron Paul Verhoeven movies. Gattaca was quite good for instance, and I liked The Day The Earth Stood Still.

I guess I have very particular expectations from SF (like entertainment) and Kubrick rarely delivers.

[xenophon41]

Remember when Spielberg had that "Amazing Stories" TV show going, and he had a budget of (roughly) thirty dumptrucks full of money for each episode? Remember what he did with the stories? Did he hire real SF writers, or use any of the wonderful existing short stories and novellas that would translate easily into teleplays? No, of course he didn't do that. Instead, he wrote many of the episodes himself, or recycled schlock plot lines into "gee-whiz" stories and made the whole thing look like a 10th grader's first comic ("Look guys, I did this myself!").

And I think that's a perfect illustration of why Hollywood doesn't make many good SF movies. Every successful producer ---and the more successful they are the truer this is--- believes that nobody knows the audience better than they do. So the thinking becomes "Sure, the writer's good, but I know what the fans really wanna see!" Not to mention the fact that good SF generally explores concepts and ideas that are a little radical for Hollywood moguls.

Having said that, I think we can at least be optimistic enough to apply the Corrollary to Sturgeon's Law: 10% of SF (and everything else) rises above the muck and sometimes even rocks!

[Ukulele Ike]

Der Golem (1915)
Der Golem und die Tänzerin (1917)

Sis: Sorry to hijack again, but you don't want either of the above. You want THE GOLEM: HOW HE CAME INTO THE WORLD (1920). The 1915 film was just a dry run for this one(it's set in the contemporary world, and the Golem falls off a tower and gets smashed up), and the 1917 film was a spoof. The 1920 version is period piece, depicting the creation of the Golem by Rabbi Loew, and a classic.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0011237

[tracer]

SPOOFE Bo Diddley wrote:

In my opinion, there are too many gimmicks that Hollywood uses... there's always gotta be a romantic side-plot, the hero always gets hurt really bad and almost dies once or twice, the bad guy always has to be so much stronger and faster, forcing the good guys to rely on brains, one of the non-important good guys has to bite the dust... (Tracer, feel free to add your pet-peeve Hollywood gimmick to my list)...

All right:

Every evil alien species has to have dreadlocks for hair. The alien in Predator sported dreadlocks. The aliens in the Alien movies has these tentacles hanging down with them that were highly reminiscent of dreadlocks. The aliens in Independence Day had dreaedlocks and tentacles. And the evil John Travolta aliens in the newly-released Battlefield Earth have dreadlocks.

Maybe Hollywood is trying to draw on some ancient, primal fear of Jamaicans.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Tracer:

Every evil alien species has to have dreadlocks for hair. The alien in Predator sported dreadlocks. The aliens in the Alien movies has these tentacles hanging down with them that were highly reminiscent of dreadlocks. The aliens in Independence Day had dreaedlocks and tentacles. And the evil John Travolta aliens in the newly-released Battlefield Earth have dreadlocks.

Maybe Hollywood is trying to draw on some ancient, primal fear of Jamaicans.

How could you forget Jar Jar Binks?

I don't know if it can be classified SF but what about Brazil?

As far as 'best' movie goes I tend to separate between best 'rollercoaster' movie (i.e. put brain in neutral and enjoy the ride) and best 'brain food' movie (i.e get lots of sleep or smoke something before watching) and 'terrible but liked anyway' (i.e. probably had been smoking something to enjoy them).

Rollercoaster:
Star Wars
Independence Day
Terminator/Terminator 2
Aliens (forget III and IV)
Starship Troopers (when it wasn't downright stupid)
5th Element
Armageddon
The Matrix
Robocop
Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn

Brain Food:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Brazil
Contact
Metropolis
Gattaca
The Day the Earth Stood Still


Terrible but Enjoyed Anyway:
Dark City (maybe not so bad but unsure wherelse to put it)
Darkstar (truly cheesy)
Dune (grows on you some but read the book instead)

[Sake Samurai]

tracer, you forgot the scariest film rasta of all: Jar-Jar.

Heebie-jeebies!

Whether or not you think 2001 is great sci-fi (I do), you can not call it Hollywood. Kubrick produced the film himself.

He was no friend of Hollywood and his few run-ins with L.A. producers and studios never went smoothly (e.g., Spartacus) due to his fiercly independent, controlling nature.

[Little Nemo]

How about 12 Monkeys? A great movie and great SF.

But I'd certainly agree that most SF movies suck big time. Even the handful of good "SF" movies are usually some other genre disguised with robots and space ships rather then genuine SF (Alien was a horror film, The Matrix was a fantasy, Outland was a western, etc). As Billdo wrote, real SF is about ideas and few movies get made about ideas.

I think the problem is too many movie producers who don't know their own level of stupidity. They mistakedly assume they're smarter than the people who watch their movies. So when they are confronted with ideas that they find difficult, they assume the the movie viewers will find these ideas impossible. The result is the moviemakers dumb down their product to the level they feel their audience can understand.

[Billdo]

I'm just finishing up a class over here in college land called 'Classics of Science Fiction".

The Raven, that sounds like an interesting course. I'd be interested to know what college professors these days think are the 'Classics of Science Fiction'. Any possibility of posting (or e-mailing) the reading list from the class?

Thanks.

[Loki]

Tracer: Aliens don't have dreadlocks! Where have you seen this? They've got 4 (sometimes 5) spikey protuberances on their backs, but no dredds that I've seen, and I've seen probably 98% of all available Aliens material (looks lovingly at 1/12th scale Queen model, reads another 4 Aliens comic books, and hisses).
</aliens geekery>

My votes go with T2: Judgement Day, Aliens, and 12 Monkeys, though T2 and Aliens are more action/horror flicks than sci fi, IMO. Blade Runner was good from what I remember, but I haven't seen it in years. I really don't class Star Wars as Sci Fi at all, as there are practically no science elements at all - all scientific facts and concerns go out of the window in the name of a decent story (not that this is a bad thing). I always thought that Harlan Ellison (i think) story about the company that offers prehistoric Dinosaur safaris and screws the timeline would make a decent movie, or at least, the first 20 minutes of a decent movie.

[tracer]

Sake Samurai wrote:

tracer, you forgot the scariest film rasta of all: Jar-Jar.

That's because Jar Jar wasn't an evil alien.

Well, okay, he was evil, but that wasn't Lucas's intent.

[Smeghead]

I always thought that Harlan Ellison (i think) story about the company that offers prehistoric Dinosaur safaris and screws the timeline would make a decent movie, or at least, the first 20 minutes of a decent movie.

It did make a good segment on a Simpson's Halloween special one year.

[avalongod]

I tried to think of some good recent (last 20 years) SF movies and came up with (in no particular order)

Blade Runner
12 Monkeys
Gattica
Contact

Hmmm...I am having trouble thinking of more, but I might just be having a blond moment.

[Kamino Neko]

Groundskeeper Willie:

Has anyone else heard that Harlan Ellison wrote a script for 'I, Robot'? I flipped through it at the book store... looked quite good.

I've got a copy. Illustrated. Quite good. Took a few of the key stories from the collection, and tied them together well.

Quoting Smeghead quoting someone (can't find the original message...is it from another thread?

That is probably not Ellison, but rather Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder. It was adapted for the Ray Bradbury Theater TV series - quite well, despite the Early-80s effects.

On a side point, Bradbury leaves Ellison in the dust, IMO. And many of his stories adapt very well.

[CalMeacham]

About Dinosaur Safaris movies:

Jim Danforth (who animated When Dinosaurs Rule he Earth, Jack the Giant Killer, and sundry other moves) tried to get a project going about a dinosaur safari company. I forget the name of it, but the roduction sketches looked pretty good. The hunters were to be carried in a spider-legged hing that looked like some of the items in the last Star Wars movie. It was an original story, not an adaptation. Unfortunately, the money never came through.

L. Sprague de Camp's "A Gun for Dinosaur" is another dino-safari story. I believe he wrote it as a response to Bradbury's "Sound of Thunder". It, too, would make a good flick. It's already been adapted as a radio drama and a comic book. (And de Camp has since written a series of sequels to his much-anthologized short story. A collction is entitled "Rivers of Time".)

Then there's always the Richard Boone TV film "The Last Dinosaur"....

[The Raven]

No problem Bildo, we've been going thru plenty of reading material so far, and its all almost over! I guess I'm lucky that this course actually counts as an english elective instead of just general BS...
Well, let me see here. We've read three novels:
Farenheight 451 (not what I initially thought of as science fiction, no alien space rays and so on...but made sense later)
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Naturally this was listed as 'Blade Runner', but I like the original title much more. I liked the initial images it suggested)
Beggars in Spain (I'd never heard of this before I took the class. Its not too bad, but I still felt certain that some other book would be more 'classic'. Couldn't think of one though, maybe Starship Troopers...)
And then we read several short stories from a collection, um, The Norton Book of Science Fiction by Ursula LeGuin and Brian Attebery. I'll do a run down of the ones we've read:
The House the Blakeneys Built: All I'll say about this is how much a horror story it is, though its the reason we watched that X files episode...I didn't mind too much.
Day Million: Hey, a science fiction story about futuristic sex...um. Well, it is a lot more, but I think that's ok for a quick note.
Good News from the Vatican: A story about a robot pope, rather dull compared to some others.
The Women Men don't See: Bizarre feminist type story. My teacher is a wee bit too much into that, but she's getting better at least.
Strange Wine: Harlan Ellison, do I have to say anything more? Good story.
Out of all them Bright Stars: A good story about prejudice and aliens.
Speech Sounds: What would happen if suddenly we all lost the ability to communicate? Here's one idea.
Midnight News: Another feminist thing, really not sci fi at all. Not a real good example of anything.
Invaders: My favorite in the book, had to be read to appreciate it. Cocaine snorting aliens and all.
And also we've read The Pedestrian by Ray Bradbury (a forerunner to Farenheight I think) and Frozen Journey by Philip Dick (My teacher likes his work).
There's more, but I have to go finish my final for that class, so I'll check in later...

[Loki]

I think it may have been Ray Bradbury on Dino Safari, actually, although I'm not positive. I remember the guy in question steps on a butterfly, comes back, and the spelling on the company's window is different, and no-one is too pleased with him. Years since I read it though, I must have been <10 when I did. Great yarn. Actually, the L. Sprague De Camp suggestion may be correct, as I was reading a lot of his stuff back then, lots of dodgy Conan novels and so forth. Hopefully the bits I remembered will help someone pin it down.

I thought Blade Runner kicked DADOES's arse as a title, but only because it sounds cooler. DADOES doesn't really roll off the tongue either.

I thought Starship Troopers sucked as SF, but rocked as a monster movie/over the top action flick with plenty of funny bits. Or at least, bits that make me piss myself.

"Welcome to the Roughnecks!".
"RICO'S ROUGHNECKS!! UHH!"

and

"We're going back - to P", but that's only because I have a childish sense of humour. I bet they meant it to sound funny though, in a Beavis and Butthead sort of manner.

How about HHGTTG as SciFi? The TV series didn't cover it all, but if you ripped out all the funny bits, the half page that remained would be pretty SFish.

And I still reckon Aliens don't have dredds.

[SPOOFE]

Aliens don't have dreadlocks!

But Aliens (the xenomorphs, that is) have all that really thick drool that dangles down and wobbles around, and fulfil the obligations for dreadlocks.

Okay, okay, that's a stupid explanation, but Tracer's comments were s'posed to be humorous, okay?!? Laugh, consarnit, laugh!

Homer: "I still don't get it."
Lisa: "It's only a joke."
Homer: "Oh, I get it! Hee, heh... I get jokes."

Hehe... anyway, the Best Sci-Fi movie of all time was undoubtedly Spaceballs. "What'sa matter, Colonel Sanders... CHICKEN?!?"

[C K Dexter Haven]

::: Trying to get this into debate rather than list of favorites :::

I suggest that the reason it is difficult for Hollywood to turn out great science fiction is that they put all the thought and effort into special effects, and very little into the human interaction. What makes some science fiction great is NOT the special effects or idea, but the characters... and this hasn't sunk in yet.

I'd put FAHRENHEIT 451 (the movie by Truffaut) in the list of great science fiction movies, but there were almost NO special effects in that movie. The emphasis was on the human beings. I'd also put THE BIRDS in that category. And the original THE THING (1950s version).

Ground-breaking special effects are hot for a while -- thus JURASSIC PARK, for instance. But a film like STAR WARS succeeds because the special effects (ground-breaking and fantastic though they were) are background to the characters and story, not the be-all and end-all of the film.

I'd argue that the same is true of science fiction books. A book about a man who becomes invisible is not interesting; a book about the psychological effects on him and on those around him, that's interesting.

STARSHIP TROOPERS is a good example of a feeble attempt to make the characters interesting, but they were inherently uninteresting to begin with. And once they went off into special-effects land, the characters became irrelevant.

OK, Raven, what does your prof say to that?

[kiffa]

The Day the Earth Stood Still is great, but I haven't seen any mention of Zardoz and Men in Black [not only a SF favorite but also a great comedy].

[Spiritus Mundi]

12 Monkeys
Aliens
Men in Black
2001 A Space Odyssey
Alien
Ghostbusters
Planet of the Apes (despite what came after)
Silent Running
Star Wars
Slaughterhouse 5
Buckaroo Bonzai (Hey! Back off.)
The Thing
The Fly (Cronenberg's)
T2
Waterworld (just seeing if you're paying attention)
Charlie
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Blade Runner


My point is: I do not believe that Hoolywood is any more inept at making Science fiction movies than they are at making any other type of movie. Yes, there is considerably more chaff than wheat in the mill, but the same is true for any other genre you care to name.

[Spiritus Mundi]

DOH!

Forgot Zardoz. Thanks for the reminder. Add The Sleeper too. I also wondered why people seemed to be avoiding mention of Science Fiction comedies.

[tracer]

CKDextHavn wrote:

a film like STAR WARS succeeds because the special effects (ground-breaking and fantastic though they were) are background to the characters and story, not the be-all and end-all of the film.

Nonsense. Star Wars succeeded because it had LIGHT SABERS!! Bvvvvv, vvvvv, vvvv, vvvvvv, vvvvorp!

[sdimbert]

Billdo posted:

Great question, Groundskeeper. We went a few rounds on this topic in the Heinlein Books and Movies. That thread started as a disussion about whether there could be a good film made from Robert A. Heinlein's works, but later expanded out to the question of good SF films. Note that in the message board software conversion, the order and coding of the posts got a bit screwed up.

Hey - I'm glad you brought that up... That was a good thread that covered a lot of good ground (Heinlein's Timelines! )

More importantly, that thread put me in touch with Cervaise, an intelligent poster who happens to know just about everything about movies. In that thread, he posted:

Now, a shameless plug: For information on upcoming movies, such as Stranger in a Strange Land, a new version of The Martian Chronicles, and Mel Gibson's long-stalled remake of Fahrenheit 451, among others, check out my website, Movie Geek Central.

I know, I know - I am plugging someone else's shameless plug. But, trust me here, the site is good and the reviews are excellent. Check it out.

More on-topic here, Cervaise also posted:

Most sci-fi (or, strictly speaking, SF) movies suck pretty hard, it's true; Mission to Mars wasn't worth a teaspoon of monkey spit. But there's a movie coming out that'll make M2M look like Kubrick's 2001 -- the adaptation of Battlefield Earth, starring John Travolta as an evil Psychlo. He was on Leno last week pimping the film, and brought along a clip. This thing won't just be bad -- it'll be bad with raisins in it, a knee-slapping must-see bomb of epic proportions. I can't wait...

I haven't yet seen Battlefield Earth, but I have read the MovieGeek review - you have got to read it.

You will wet yourself.

[tracer]

Here's another less-than-flattering review of Battlefield Earth: http://mrcranky.com/movies/battlefieldearth.html.

[Loki]

Spoofe Bo Diddley: Fair enough, just the pedantic geek in me nitpicking. I won't start "Great Debates: Do Aliens have dreadlocks?", promise

I agree with CKDextHavn - Sci Fi sucks because generally, Hollywood movies suck. Remember Godzilla? That could have been a kickarse Sci Fi monster flick, like the originals. But the Pod People controlled the minds of the creators and turned out an insipid, pathetic romance story with occasional sightings of a sodding great lizard. Ferris Bueller or no Ferris Bueller, Matthew Broderick needs to be punished for that steaming pile. The same has happened with all big budget Sci Fi movies in recent times. Independance Day... movies just aren't aimed at the cognoscenti anymore.

Has anyone seen B:E and liked it??? I've heard nothing but the most damning reviews. Does it even have the occasional good bit?

And I'm shocked and appalled that noone's mentioned the classic movie adaptation of the DC comic 'Swamp Thing' yet...

[tracer]

Funny you should mention Godzilla and Independence Day in the same paragraph, because they were both written and produced by the same two guys, Devlin and Emmerich.

[The Raven]

<to CKDextHavn>
I think my professor was startled to hear one of her students was actually debating this stuff outside of class. But that's cool, since I think I'll give her the address for this thread and see if she can give some input over the summer.
And yeah, I definately agree about most movies having to watch it as far as the effects go. Some movies are perfectly ok with effects, they just have to make sure they don't fall prey to the typical 'ok, and now we shall have an EXPLOSION!' type plot scenes. But then again I rarely go out to see movies, since I am very cheap and can't afford to see movies when they first come out anymore. So maybe they'll change. But given their record...
And we've also had problems defining which movies are strictly science fiction. One guy got an earful for choosing to do his final on (of all things) Star Wars. Not that its a bad choice or a bad movie, its just NOT true science fiction. We defined it as 'science fantasy', basically a story that just happens to take place in the future. We also debated where Alien sits on that list (sort of a science horror, and we limited the debate to the first one. Some of us seem to generally dislike sequels), and we didn't touch on the humor...though I really liked Spaceballs and the Hitchhiker's Guide series of books. And the whole Space Quest PC games too (are they EVER going to make another one?). The prof was of the opinion that you could do a course soley on the humor type sci fi (long list that).
And I just happen to think that the novel's title was more well, fitting. The term Blade Runner wasn't used as far as I can recall in the book, and it was mostly incidental in the movie...but it does have the advantage of sounding nice. It just sounded to me as a Hollywood type phrase. I mean, how many people will see a movie with a long complicated title that MAY even <gasp!> cause them to THINK? Even if it IS longer, I still like the novel's original title better.

[SPOOFE]

I'm a lot looser with my definition of "Science Fiction"... if it's got machine's 'n stuff, and it's fiction. However, I do recognize that in some circles, there's a considered difference between "Science Fiction" and "Sci-Fi"... however, I tuned-out my friend that informed me of this difference when she began telling me what this difference was (not that I didn't want to know, but we were on a "hunt" of sorts at the time).

ANYWAY...

Science Fiction and Fantasy movies are invariably going to have more special effects than other types of movies (how many CG dinosaurs did "As Good As It Gets" need?), so those are the types of movies that stand out the most at first glance (which reminds me... we haven't really had a good fantasy movie lately, have we?). So when a sci-fi movie bombs, it makes bigger news since it's "flashier".

So it's not that Hollywood has more talent at screwing up sci-fi movies as it is we notice the sci-fi screwups more. I mean, how many times have we heard "It has great special effects, but the story/acting/camera work/lighting/whatever sucked" with regards to a sci-fi?

Starship Troopers sucked because it had this hour long teen soap opera going on at the beginning of the movie, which was phased completely into the background in favor of the bugs. Star Wars won big because it had a really good story, and happened to have them kickass Star Destroyers and such for us to look at... extra scenery.

"Flash without Substance" (10 SPOOFE points to whoever can recognize the reference for that quote... hint: it's a movie, but not sci-fi) is a big part of Hollywood. If there's too much flash and not enough substance, people end up thinking "this is stupid". If you get too much substance and not enough flash, people end up thinking "this is boring". There's got to be a balance, and Hollywood types are too concerned with special effects to try to reach this balance.

2001, in my opinion, had too much substance and not enough flash... or, rather, the wrong kind of flash. It was artsy-fartsy rubbish, but mostly because I found most of it redundant. The book, however, works much better.

[Spiritus Mundi]

And we've also had problems defining which movies are strictly science fiction. One guy got an earful for choosing to do his final on (of all things) Star Wars. Not that its a bad choice or a bad movie, its just NOT true science fiction. We defined it as 'science fantasy'

The more histroically relevant term is "space-opera". You cannot exclude it from teh science fiction canon without likewise banishing much of the work of E.E. Smith, Jack Williamson, etc.

Sounds to me like your class had a bunch of self-important "purists" who knew little of the genre they were purportedly defining.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

One novel that I would love to see made into a film is 'Ringworld' by Larry Niven. It may not be full of Deep Thoughts but it would be a visual spectacle, with several unfamiliar concepts, especially the Ringworld itself, and interesting aliens (puppeteers!). We are just entering the stage where almost any visual concept can be expressed in a life-like manner on the big screen.

Does anyone have a favorite novel or shorter work that they would like to see as a movie?

Bill

[xenophon41]

Does anyone have a favorite novel or shorter work that they would like to see as a movie?

How about 'The Demolished Man' by Alfred Bester, or 'Lest Darkness Fall' by L. Sprague de Camp?