The Future of Sci-Fi

by **Blade Runner** on Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:12 pm

I have been pondering for years now, where Sci-fi will go next, as the recent enthusiasm for it has been somewhat waining *SP. I think dealing with characters like our own more realistic selves is the way forward. Which is why the cancellation of Firefly annoyed me so much, its new, raw and driven by flawed characters we can relate to in varying ways. I think intially Farscape took us down this path and Firefly continued but the good ole fashioned execs at the top saw it as a bad move and probably now realise their mistake to cancel them both.

I see BSG as a midway between the old and the new age of Sci-fi, actually dealing with the characters flaws instead of their strengths which I see as being more tangible. Take for example Baltar, his intentions were great but his deep rooted desires (love, sex and a beautiful woman) betrayed him and the rest of humanity.

Addressing the psychological needs in our lifestyles within the genre of Sci-fi is something more people will be able to connect with as opposed to fanciful unrealistic heroes saving humanity yet again.

by **dinky** on Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:13 pm

by **Blade Runner** on Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:57 am

Bring Some Goulash, or do I have to spell it out for you :wink:

by **Bassline** on Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:20 am

A is for Apple
B is for Battle
S is for Star
G is for f*&^ sake surely you know it now :mrgreen:

looking forward to the new show (not got sky here) so waiting for a nice rip

by **spudthedestroyer** on Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:35 am

I can only see hollywood doing to scifi eventually what they did to horror unfortunately.

Whilst the films released make massive profits in the short term, I'm beginning to suspect in the long term they won't make nearly as much as the classic still do. Once the visuals are out of date... Its the same thing with the music industry, such rubbish gets in the charts, fine they sell singles, but album sales are plummeting because they don't try anything new or even good.

by **Jynks** on Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:55 am

no way spud.... yes hollywood will make "pulp top 40 music style" movies all flash and crap like Lost in Space say, but I really think that with the tech coming out today there will be a huge resurgence of underground cinima....

by **spudthedestroyer** on Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:26 pm

u mean exactly like hollywood has done to horror?

They've ruined it by playing to the sfx and 'safe' zones, and as a result the only good films come from the independant and foreign markets.

by **dinky** on Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:03 pm

well I'm certainly not the horror guru you are spud dawg, but I don't think they did anything of significance to any genre. the fact that we can expect 1-3 new studio releases per week is far more significant, imo. I thought it was you, but at any rate, someone said something to that effect on FH. and it's true. the 'industry' is saturated. so of course that means more shit to filter out.

back to sci-fi, of which I pretty much watch anything whatever (although I never took to...erm...BSG), I'd have to say that there's still a strong Star Trek (the TV series) approach, which is to say, psychologically driven, boring, independent. there's also a lot of action & sfx heavy, fairly brainless mainstream fodder. and of course, the borders aren't black and white. I'd say there's just more of it all. for every matrix, there's also an equilibrium, existenz, 13th floor, etc.

on the other hand, as you were saying about the sfx, there are a lot of big budgeted, mindless productions with terrible sfx. but then, they also have terrible plot, terrible scripts, incompetent direction, etc. so the bad are really bad and there's more of it.

and as I'm fond of reminding everyone I meet, Troy was one of the best looking piece of shit movies I've ever seen.

by **John_Doe** on Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:22 am

The mainstream audience likes to see what they are used to, and expect. Since the development the last 10 years have been to make everything more stereotypical, shallow, overdone, spoon-fed and Ã¼ber-politically correct, the only ones who even remember the 'old' style way to make movies are buffs like us. I'm predecting that this development will continue its downward spiral, untill all will be as lame and flat that sci-fi has become a genre for kids only. When it hits rock bottom, there will be a savior however, who dares to make a really brutal, deep, provocative extreemity that is so completley different, it will be a HUGE success! This will again get the industry to remember how much money there is in this 'old style' filmmaking, and the whole trend will backlash.

by **spudthedestroyer** on Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:47 pm

well I'm certainly not the horror guru you are spud dawg, but I don't think they did anything of significance to any genre. the fact that we can expect 1-3 new studio releases per week is far more significant, imo. I thought it was you, but at any rate, someone said something to that effect on FH. and it's true. the 'industry' is saturated. so of course that means more shit to filter out.

Take a look at the type of titles before and after Scream for the final nail in the coffin, whilst Scream itself was okay (I don't like it at all, but the same is true for nearly all Craven's), whats happened because of it caused the total crash of the genre. Then look at the resultant backlash and rise in prominance of Asain horror, where originality (and at the same time classic cinema themes) remain prominent. I thought it was pretty much established amongst movie fans the horror genre 'crashed' in the late 90s? Whilst the other genre still managed to fight the tide against populism over quality.

Independant and foreign markets are the only ones with a clue on what people need (note the absense of want, mainstream audiences want crap if what the mpaa is churning out is true) in the horror genre.

On the comment about fantasy, I completely forgot... yes, LOTR and harry potter has meant that we are going to be in for a lot of this stuff, unless the studios have abandoned the hundreds of generic clones that were announced.

Unless some real talent comes along, we are going to see more and more crap in this genre I'm afraid., interspersed with the odd title of significance.

It may sound odd, but I think technical limitations are often a very, very good thing for directors.
1) even in a universe where you can do lots of things, you can't do everything. This is realism, the fact that there are limitations and because of these limitations you have a stronger piece.
2) There is an underrated asset that hollywood seem to have fogotten, that being that the audience do actually have some kind of imagination (barring townies of course). Sometimes leaving it to the user is better than showing them _everything_ in a very poor and technoligically primitive way.
3) Director's show the ultimately poor 'visions' they have. It is the ultimate compliment, when a director shows something brilliant, you rate that director. Take star wars for example, the original trilogy was held back and not perfect, but since they couldn't do everything, a lot of it was left to the audience. But when George adds his little bits and bobs, you realise how crappy his 'vision' actually is. It just degrades the work. I mean, the Matrix sequels did nothing but this.
4) Physical is always better than painted ontop with a crap-mac-pack. The Thing. 'nuff said.

CGI is a tool for post-op, and should be limited to that until directors emerge who show it some respect and acknowledge its limitations (and their own).

by **Jynks** on Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:08 am

a result the only good films come from the independant and foreign markets

THAT is my point... sure there will be the every now and then good hollywood flick, but the rest will be watchable..... then coming from the sidlines from independant/underground places will truly great cinima again be reborn.... you wait.

I think a return of "mind based" or "human nature" scifi may be the next big run of flicks. As dinky said thre is a tendency at the mo for scifi to be basicaly a fantasy action, due in my opinion to "gadgets" It is all about the tech and the "world"

This I thik is why we may see more head fuck scifi. In the 50's and that whole "pure" begining.. it was all "WOW there is this place called SPACE and you know, hey we vcan explore it or mabey somthing even LIVES there already.. can you dig that daddy-o?"

Then apart from a brief bit in the 70's it quickly moved onto material based things like technolagy and how we use it. Wat is the most impressive visualy in tech... usally weapons or transportation.

Movies like Open your Eyes, Bladerunner, AI.. hang on I am trying to think of a non computer related one

could be the future.... casue we have SEEN space ships, planets blowing up I mean after 30 year of trek even alien make up effects are loosing the impact.... only stories about human nature seam to last the test of time. In ANY gener.... evenb horror spud... once they start thinking of a cool FREAKY story rather than "lets figure out 6 cool ways of killing a bunch of people.. the movies will get better.

by **Bassline** on Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:46 am

AI ?.....man that movie sucked :mrgreen:

by **dinky** on Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:07 pm

Bassline wrote:AI ?.....man that movie sucked

I second that.

It's not like spud doesn't have a point, especially regarding the cgi. but I think cgi has kind of become a scapegoat. Troy was one example. Chronicles of Riddick is another. Now hey, I enjoyed it. I'm not going to nominate it for movie of the year or anything. but it was entertaining. in anycase, the sfx were largely high tech and, imo, well done. I'm told the same applies to the sfx in Day After Tomorrow (will NEVER watch it to verify). It's not like modern movie makers aren't capable of integrating/saturating a movie with cgi that works and works well. Granted, it's rare to have good storytelling AND good cgi, but I hardly think that's the fault of cgi.

on the other hand, the absolute best evidence I find for doing things 'in camera' is Aliens. Watch the movie. Watch the documentaries. James Cameron is easily one of the best directors of the modern era. And whether you liked Titanic or not (I certainly didn't) or liked T2 (I loved it), I think you'll have to agree that he can integrate the latest and greatest cgi with expertise.

so yeah, you need people who don't just think "cgi it" (like Lucas) and then move onto the next problem. then we end up with Jar Jar and Catwoman. but honestly, is that any different from saying we need someone who can write decent dialogue, plot a smart story, find the optimum film angle, or edit his own movie/narcissism, etc.? that's always been a rare combination as far as I know. sure, there's plenty of shit out there, but reports of Sci-Fi's demise are seriously overstated.

as for the 90s being the death of horror, there's certainly a lot of scream shite (although I really enjoyed the first one on many levels), are you trying to say the 80s was great? cuz I seem to remember that decade being dominated by quite a few jasons, freddies, and michael myers also. there's always one bandwaggon or another studios are jumping on and saturating the market with. currently, I'm not sure what you thought of Cabin Fever, and I had no interest whatsoever. But I was led to believe it was a lot like the first Evil Dead, which is to say a lot of in camera blood and gore. Saw and The Grude are coming out this week or so. They don't strike me as particularly postmodern/self-reflexive shtick. The Gift was stock gothic horror. iunno. I don't think scream killed the genre. it changed the way hollywood deals with it until they can't milk the idea anymore and move on to the next great horror thing to leech (The Ring looks like it's going to claim that spot). but isn't this always the case?

by **d0c** on Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:41 pm

John_Doe wrote:The mainstream audience likes to see what they are used to, and expect. Since the development the last 10 years have been to make everything more stereotypical, shallow, overdone, spoon-fed and Ã¼ber-politically correct, the only ones who even remember the 'old' style way to make movies are buffs like us. I'm predecting that this development will continue its downward spiral, untill all will be as lame and flat that sci-fi has become a genre for kids only. When it hits rock bottom, there will be a savior however, who dares to make a really brutal, deep, provocative extreemity that is so completley different, it will be a HUGE success! This will again get the industry to remember how much money there is in this 'old style' filmmaking, and the whole trend will backlash.

i totally agree with you here john doe, the new sci-fi movies are more like a fart with no stench, i guess there will be a long wait for a new planet of the apes movie with its strong under tones of politics unjustice....

by **dinky** on Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:19 pm

erm...overtones.

by **maxpayne2409** on Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:15 am

it changed the way hollywood deals with it until they can't milk the idea anymore and move on to the next great horror thing to leech (The Ring looks like it's going to claim that spot)

what worrys me is that the day may come when retarded hollyowod execs remake battle royale, they would surely ruin a great movie

by **John_Doe** on Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:17 am

Hollywood is basically exploitation capital, hidden in a nice wrapping. ABRE LOS OYOS! Stop eating soma. Bigbrother feeds you poison. You're much better off doing your own cooking.

by **dinky** on Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:46 am

yeah...well...I won't argue that studio flicks are largely derivitive of something else, but for all my bitching and moaning about Troy and Day After Tomorrow, I really liked Gladiator, loved Shrek AND Shrek 2, both Spider-man movies hit the spot (not high art, but certainly good movies that did everything I wanted them to do) - I never in a million years would have watched a subbed version of the Ring, so Americanizing it did do something new and original, even if it wasn't anymore original than the Lion King, which, btw, was a fine film. And I don't care what people say about pirate movies, Pirates of the Carribean was a fantastic movie, and I'm shocked that it was a Jerry Bruckheimer production, since he's really only capable of producing Beverly Hill Cop clones with any degree of competence. And hell, I, Robot was a good movie. good movie. not everything has to be new and inventive and reinvent something or other. of course that's going to come fron left field. that's why they call it left field.

by **maxpayne2409** on Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:08 am

lol dont get me wrong dinkster me old mucker, im not a huge fan of asian cinema but the battle royale films are just in a class of theyre own

i enjoyed I, Robot and shrek 1 and 2 aswell and i agree things dont have to be new and groundbreakingly different to make u enjoy them, but also with your logic there dinky u have no reason to ahte day after tomorrow until you see it

by **spudthedestroyer** on Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:19 pm

It's not like spud doesn't have a point, especially regarding the cgi. but I think cgi has kind of become a scapegoat. Troy was one example. Chronicles of Riddick is another. Now hey, I enjoyed it. I'm not going to nominate it for movie of the year or anything. but it was entertaining. in anycase, the sfx were largely high tech and, imo, well done. I'm told the same applies to the sfx in Day After Tomorrow (will NEVER watch it to verify). It's not like modern movie makers aren't capable of integrating/saturating a movie with cgi that works and works well. Granted, it's rare to have good storytelling AND good cgi, but I hardly think that's the fault of cgi.

Its not bad, in fact CGI does great stuff if used in post op to fix things (hell even League of Gentlemen (series not abomination) uses CGI, and damn well since you don't know they did). The problem is, CGI allows far too much for directors, and thats where this crap comes from.

It's like well we can't think of anything scarey so lets get some people to draw the possessed lass in Exorcist 4. I mean George Lucas, the pinnacle of sfx over matter, stated 'when i saw Jurassic Park i knew it was time to do the first 3 movies". WTF? He doesn't even write the story, but is picking the colour of the race pods. With the original trilogy, he wrote the damn things first. It wasn't all about sfx and then story later, sure he invented sfx to tell the story (almost entirely arguably), but nowadays people write the stories around the sfx and what they can show.

I don't think its a scapegoat at all. I'm not blaming CGIs existance, its a very very valid tool; it is a tool thats being misused for all the wrong reasons, and allowing hollywood to churn this out at olympic speed. When there were restrictions on what people could show cost/feasbility, it was a risk to make the films, and if they didn't have the basis of a good movie, they didn't have the basis for a film. Now they have the weight and the money to show a series of fights/flights/'frights'. But it gets the dumb ass audience hook, line and sinker right?

What's that little ditty? Guns don't kill people, rappers do!

I just lent someone AvP....
"I thaught it was a good film"
"WTF? Why... why... why would you say that?"
"the fighting between the alien and predator was cool"
*sigh*

I've seen Day after and ID4, both were the same kind of movie. ID4 was a more or less remake of War of the Worlds (the screwed up (but still enjoyable) film not the book). And the Day After was a remake of ID4 more or less, sfx and very little else.

News...	News...	Shares...
10.11.24 RIP Candyman - Tony Tod... 20.09.22 Let the Right One In ge... 04.09.22 Server Migration comple... 04.09.22 Server Migration 20.02.18 Fangoria returns! 21.07.13 Nightbreed: The Cabal C...	16.02.13 Fist of Jesus (2013) 15.09.12 Videodrome remake 08.09.12 phpBB upgrade and serve... 05.08.12 Site updates and patche... 09.06.12 Mad God on Kickstarter 23.05.12 Carmageddon on Kickstar...	18.11.24 Solomon Kane (2009) 16.11.24 Azrael (2024) 13.11.24 Dead Before Dawn (2012) 10.11.24 Dead Space: Aftermath (... 09.11.24 Subservience (2024) 04.11.24 Dead Space: Downfall (2...

The Future of Sci-Fi

The Future of Sci-Fi

Who is online