Hollywood can't do Science Fiction

[Vladd67]

Originally Posted by pyan

Metropolis?

Not Hollywood though

[pyan]

True - but I was responding to the quote:

"Look. There are are only two truly great science fiction movies....You may disagree with this statement. You would be wrong. Let's move on."

rather than the somewhat extrapolated thread title...

[sloweye]

... and then there are the 'even' numbered Star Trek movies

[Perpetual Man]

And I'd consider the original Alien too

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Man

And I'd consider the original Alien too

So would I - but to make their point, the 'experts' will say "Alien? Oh no, no, that's not SF - that's horror that happens to be set in space!" Then there's Firefly: "Oh no, no, that's not SF - that's cowboys and Indians that happens to be set in space!" Or take Star Wars: "Oh no, no, that's not SF - that's an adventure movie that happens to be set in space!"

Pah! If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

[chrispenycate]

Hollywood is structured, financially and socially, for the giant, blockbuster, please the absolute largest percentage of potential clientele movie. With all the lowest common intellectual denominator and highest advertising budget this implies.

Occasionally a film which actually forces thought (or at least reflection) does surface, but pseudophilosophy and fashionable opinions are the general result.

Science fiction, to be classed as 'good', must force you to think, to imagine and preferably to reconsider your position; and this is a minority market. What part of your world picture did Star Wars force you to reconsider? (personally I class Star Wars under fantasy with gadgets; Star Trek at its origins had a panel of scientists and several successful SF authors collaborating, but SW was cowboys and indians with bigger horses.)

But the so-called SF films coming out are so rich in special effects and generally all the ways to spend lots of money that only Hollywood can afford them. Except that all the electronic gubbins are getting cheaper all the time, with higher specs, so the equivalent of the spaghetti western is just over the horizon. Cheaper actors, virtual sets, accept a smaller total audience and concentrate on the ideas, off Hollywood, in Europe or Asia somewhere, BluRay, gaming and satellite TV making up an appreciable percentage of the total income…

The stories are out there, the directors are out there, and there are still more actors (even good ones) 'resting' than working. You only need one of these to make a few million, and there will be investors for plenty more.

[J Riff]

There was an episode of The Outer Limits.. in the 60s, that was, for all intents and porpoises - Terminator.

[williamjm]

I disagree about his "only two great Science Fiction films", I can think of a few others such as Brazil, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the original Planet of the Apes, Children of Men would be some examples. Although I think he's exaggerating that point a bit, it is true that it is rare for Hollywood to produce a Science Fiction that actually adds something to the genre.

So would I - but to make their point, the 'experts' will say "Alien? Oh no, no, that's not SF - that's horror that happens to be set in space!" Then there's Firefly: "Oh no, no, that's not SF - that's cowboys and Indians that happens to be set in space!" Or take Star Wars: "Oh no, no, that's not SF - that's an adventure movie that happens to be set in space!"

Pah! If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I tend to agree, someone could argue that even his example of Blade Runner was a Film Noir Mystery which happened to have robots in it. I don't think that would be any more sensible an argument than arguing that Alien or Firefly were not SF - although Star Wars doesn't seem to have any actual science in it which might disqualify it.

Originally Posted by J Riff

There was an episode of The Outer Limits.. in the 60s, that was, for all intents and porpoises - Terminator.

Did it feature someone being sent back from the future to stop Earth being taken over by robotic dolphins?

[Culhwch]

How can you leave Avatar out of the equation? Oh, that's right, easily.

I'd second Alien (and even Aliens) and The Terminator. Blade Runner I never liked. Recently Inception took an SF concept and created a very unique, successful and accomplished movie.

[j. d. worthington]

Not to be too nit-picky, but... shouldn't we define our terms? What is meant here by "great"? That's a word that's thrown around one heck of a lot, and has little meaning without some sort of parameters put on it. And "science fiction", of course, can mean darned near anything, depending on who is making the claim... even the experts have pretty much said the same thing, whether they be Damon Knight, Brian Aldiss, Robert A. Heinlein, Harlan Ellison, Joanna Russ, Christopher Isherwood, Michael Moorcock, Ursula K. LeGuin, Kate Wilhelm, or Colin Greenland... or any of a hundred others who have written on the subject.

In any case, I'd say that the original statement is balderdash, as, out of the countless films which can be or have been classified as science fiction, singling out only two is showing a personal bias rather than any sort of critical acumen....

I will, however, say that the amount of dreck as opposed to quality material -- especially as made by Hollywood -- is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% compared to 10%... but given the sheer numbers, that still leaves you with one hell of a lot of films......

[C Of K]

Perhaps Star Wars applies as science fiction more for world leaders, who share the responsibility of deciding whether or not it would be good to blow up the world this year or not.

The original trilogy had the Death Star, but the prequels stressed why, politically anyway, a super weapon might be preferable to using democratic rulings to uphold peace and order.

I don't have any nuclear launch codes, or anything, but deep down, I still consider Star Wars science fiction.

[biodroid]

I think (besides the gems mentioned before) most good SF is taken from SF authors but the mediocre SF is written by screenwriters who are getting an ok story out just to make a buck. The Matrix is good because it was original but Impostor was mediocre because it has been done before (thats how I felt when I saw it).

[J Riff]

I think JDs percentage is close - ten percent work as SCIENCE FICTION... the rest fill in as action or western replacements, and can be great in that regard- like Avatar, say, which is a blast to watch once but thumbs it's nose at trad SciFi in a few ways.
What's the saying?- 're-invent the wheel' syndrome - everytime some screenhack decides to do SciFi or Fantasy it happens.

[Dave]

Personally, I like the way Science Fiction has become mainstream. I'd class 'Inception' as a great" film. It is 'Hollywood'. It is seen as more of an action, 'heist' film, and yet the central premise is certainly science fiction. And I think it was done well. That is my personal favourite of 2010.

But agree, for every 'Inception' there are 9 other 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen' and 'Battlefield Earth' released.

[ravenus]

I'd consider Star Wars part of the reason why there's little interest in good SF films. SW showed that empty-headed movies with pretty lasers, whoosh sounds and pap storylines make more money and are more easily translated into offshoot merchandise - I suspect you'd find a Solaris themed Happy Meal a hard sell.