CKDextHavn wrote:
Nonsense. Star Wars succeeded because it had LIGHT SABERS!! Bvvvvv, vvvvv, vvvv, vvvvvv, vvvvorp!
Billdo posted:
**
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:
**
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:
**
I haven’t yet seen Battlefield Earth, but I have read the MovieGeek review - you have got to read it.
You will wet yourself.
Here’s another less-than-flattering review of Battlefield Earth: http://mrcranky.com/movies/battlefieldearth.html.
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…
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.
<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.
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.
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.
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
How about ‘The Demolished Man’ by Alfred Bester, or ‘Lest Darkness Fall’ by L. Sprague de Camp?
Spiritus Mundi:
Yeah, I really was a bit surprised when I heard that the prof didn’t accept Star Wars as Sci Fi. Well, I agreed that maybe it wasn’t hardcore sci fi (true rational explanations for every damn thing that happens) but my friends claim that the first episode thing tried to rationalize the Force, etc. Personally, using the professor’s definitions I can only pick out a VERY limited amount of science fiction movies. I prefer to lump movies into simple categories rather than go into super detailed descriptions. But I suppose it really bugs my professor that Science Fiction and Fantasy share the same bookshelf at the new bookstore…heh.
Spiritus Mundi wrote:
There is a slight but important difference between the Star Wars movies and, say, E.E. “Doc” Smith’s Lensman saga. In “Doc” Smith’s works, he at least tries to put a little bit of real science into them to explain faster-than-light travel, battle screens, blasters, alien evolution, et al… Lucas made no such attempt in Star Wars.
I believe that even Lucas himself does not classify the Star Wars movies as Science Fiction. (He was the man who gave us THX-1138, after all, so he knows what real SF is.)
There is a difference between a movie and a novel, the latter allows for much more freedom in exposition. One of the reasons Star Wars succeeds as a movie is that it does not try to explain the minutiae of every technological device, it relies upon the standard props of space opers.
Lucas understood that he did not need to explain how blasters worked because the work of others had paved the way for audiences to accept blasters as “natural”. To disqualify Star Wars as science fiction because it dos not explicate all of its precursors is like saying the The Sixth Sense isn’t a ghost story because it does not explain how spirits achieve physical manifestations perceptible to some peole but not others.
I initially joined the boards because of that whole Enterprise/ISD thing, but this is much more of an interesting topic.
As far as Sci-Fi goes, Hollywood has done about as much as they’re going to do with the current technology and the fact that most movie executives are more interested in the bottom line then what we as Sci-Fi fans really want to see.
Good Sci-Fi movies:
SW Trilogy
Blade Runner
2001
The three-hour Japanese LD Allen Smithee cut of Dune
Dark City
The Matrix
Starship Troopers
Good Sci-Fi books that should be movies:
Neuromancer
The Forever War
Stranger in A Strange Land
Bug Jack Barron
Heavy Weather
And Battlefield Earth sucked, but not nearly as bad as the reviewers made it out to…
Hmm, some good points. Does anyone else have any ideas for books that should be made into good Sci Fi movies? This can also include books that WERE made into movies, but they were just BAD.
Also, I would wonder if certain Japanese anime movies would or could be classed as Science Fiction. In our final class, our teacher accepted Ghost in the Shell as science fiction (as well as a damn fine movie)
Can we include video games that should be made into movies? In that case, Quake II would make a very good movie (not nearly the best, no, but as long as they kept the simplicity of the game it should be fun, at the very least). Also, StarCraft had a very intriguing story, but they wouldn’t be able to pack everything into a single episode without condensing it.
Sorry for not mentioning any books, but none really come to mind at the moment… OOH!! How about “The Hammer of God”? THAT was GREAT (another of those “Asteroid’s about the hit Earth” stories, but it was VERY well done).
Here is my list of greats: SW trilogy +1, MIB, and Ghostbusters. Alien was a monster movie set in space, and Matrix had great special effects but the plot was SO DAMN STUPID!
But what do those “greats” have in common? They were NOT book adaptations. You see, we (mostly) suffer from the “curse” of being literate. We read a great SF book (Dune or ST), and we imagine it. When we see the movie, it is not how we imagined it, and “all the best parts were cut out”. Nobody can make an SF movie as good as the one that plays in our heads when we read the book.
If you pretend ST is not based on the Heinline book, it is pretty good. (same as the Conan movies, just keep saying, “the name is only a coincidence…”).
Based on this, I forsee bad reviews for “LotR”, and maybe for X-Men ( but that’s a comic book, so maybe…), or any other book adaptation (except perhaps a short story).
A few more SF movies:
It! THe Terror from Beyond Space
Day of the Triffids (BBC TV Version, not the Howard Keel film)
2010 (better than you think it is)
Panic in the year Zero (Ray Milland tries t save family after LA is nuked. almost no fx, and a very Heinlein feel)
Jerome Bixby (who wrote “It’s a GOOD Life”, which went on to become a Twilight Zone episode) had a largely forgotten carrer in Hollywood. Besides It! The Terror from Beyond Space, he wrote Atomic Missile (which I haven’t seen since I was a kid) and The Curse of the Faceless Man (the oddest mummy-type film I’ve seen), before going on to co-write Fantastic Voyage. His stuff is worth checking out. There’s no doubt in my mind that Alien was ripped off from It!, and not from Van Vogt’s “Black Destroyer”
Spiritus Mundi:
Ah, but then why do the small fighter spacecraft in Star Wars fly like airplanes, hmm huh hmm huh?
Ah, but then why do the small fighter spacecraft in Star Wars fly like airplanes, hmm huh hmm huh?
**
[/QUOTE]
Please… didn’t we already have this discussion on another thread?