The state of sci-fi

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
Stewball
Posts: 3009
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

The state of sci-fi

Post by Stewball »

OK, I just saw the newest Star Trek, and I'm really beginning to wonder if the poor quality of the story, like other recent sci-fi is intentionally dumbed down or the just put all the money into the SFX. This was not only uninspired, it was melodramatic, had weak humor, too busy getting all the characters into its plot full of holes, was superficial and otherwise painfully contrived as well.

But to the point, I can't remember the last good big budget sci-fi story, except for Inception, which I think narrowly qualifies for the category anyway. The only other examples in my tier 8 and up are The Matrix, The Truman Show, Vanilla Sky, Watchmen and 2001. (Holy Mackerel, I didn't realize it was that bad, and there's only a couple more if you loosen the definition, Limitless and In Time) With all the money they throw at it, you'd think there'd be more, a lot more. I thought for a while they're just having a hard time living up to 2001, but no, overall it's been getting worse, and I think it started with Alien.

edkrak
Posts: 704
132 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:49 am

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by edkrak »

Stewball wrote:I thought for a while they're just having a hard time living up to 2001, but no, overall it's been getting worse, and I think it started with Alien.


Wasn't state of SF in film always bad? People often mention 1968th year like it's the golden era of Sci-Fi, but if you look at 5 years before or after "2001" premiere, not that much really happened. Most of the other great SF from that time were made outside of Hollywood anyway (Solaris, Fantastic Planet). And some worthwhile pictures still get made today (Moon, Gadkie Lebedi). Intelligent SF were always rare and I don't think it's getting worse.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by ShogunRua »

edkrak wrote:
Stewball wrote:I thought for a while they're just having a hard time living up to 2001, but no, overall it's been getting worse, and I think it started with Alien.


Wasn't state of SF in film always bad? People often mention 1968th year like it's the golden era of Sci-Fi, but if you look at 5 years before or after "2001" premiere, not that much really happened. Most of the other great SF from that time were made outside of Hollywood anyway (Solaris, Fantastic Planet). And some worthwhile pictures still get made today (Moon, Gadkie Lebedi). Intelligent SF were always rare and I don't think it's getting worse.


Agreed. Also, the Star Trek flick from 2009 was complete trash, so why would one expect the sequel to be any better?

Stewball
Posts: 3009
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by Stewball »

edkrak wrote:
Stewball wrote:I thought for a while they're just having a hard time living up to 2001, but no, overall it's been getting worse, and I think it started with Alien.

Wasn't state of SF in film always bad?


Yeah, sort of my point, with a spike for 2001.

People often mention 1968th year like it's the golden era of Sci-Fi, but if you look at 5 years before or after "2001" premiere, not that much really happened. Most of the other great SF from that time were made outside of Hollywood anyway (Solaris, Fantastic Planet). And some worthwhile pictures still get made today (Moon, Gadkie Lebedi). Intelligent SF were always rare and I don't think it's getting worse.


Some worthwhile pictures, yeah, but very few. For me, Solaris was so slow and boring I fell asleep trying to watch it, on 2 separate occasions; and I thought Moon had similar pacing and energy level, ranking it the same as Star Trek (09)--ever how you care to interpret that. Those other two I haven't seen.

Shogun, if you see the Star Trek out now, you might have to come up with varying degrees of trash. For instance, Avatar is trash, but beautiful trash.

paulofilmo
Posts: 2586
5 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by paulofilmo »


martryn
Posts: 228
148 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by martryn »

Gotta please the audience. A studio gives you $200 million you best put sexy aliens, explosions, and special effects laden action sequences in the bitch, with some throw away humor so you don't confuse anyone about what is funny. Movie has to make money or else we'll have another John Carter of Mars fiasco.

I'll reserve judgment until after Ender's Game.

CMonster
Posts: 689
229 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:22 am

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by CMonster »

I would recommend watching Primer (2004). It was an amateur film made for $7000 so it has some problems, but they are pretty minor all things considered. Ended up being T8 for me.

td888
Posts: 836
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:44 am

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by td888 »

CMonster wrote:I would recommend watching Primer (2004). It was an amateur film made for $7000 so it has some problems, but they are pretty minor all things considered. Ended up being T8 for me.


It's a great movie, but I needed to watch it twice to fully appreciate it.

The primer Wiki helped me a lot (I suggest to read it before you watch it a second time).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_%28film%29

And this picture as well:
Image

Stewball
Posts: 3009
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by Stewball »

paulofilmo wrote:Terry Gilliam


Christianity and other "revealed" religions are fair game for satire, but how can you do sci-fi using humor to ridicule science for asking such a question (which science doesn't ask), without ridiculing asking the question at all. They could make the distinction, but it'd undermine the humor, ergo, ram-dump. It'll be Monte Python and the Meaning of Life--The Sequel.

TheDenizen
Posts: 1638
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: The state of sci-fi

Post by TheDenizen »

Stewball wrote:
paulofilmo wrote:Terry Gilliam


Christianity and other "revealed" religions are fair game for satire, but how can you do sci-fi using humor to ridicule science for asking such a question (which science doesn't ask), without ridiculing asking the question at all. They could make the distinction, but it'd undermine the humor, ergo, ram-dump. It'll be Monte Python and the Meaning of Life--The Sequel.

I think that's a bit of a harsh judgement, Gilliam has demonstrated an ability to do more serious-themed work without it turning into sketch comedy. Looking at the plot summary and cast list for The Zero Theorem makes me think there won't be a lot of jokes.

Post Reply