Is science fiction better today?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I'm not getting into this argument here. I'll leave that in the Trek XI and TOS forums. I've already said my peace about it. I don't care what other movie goers may think I'm just stating my opinion.
Now, on the other hand I caught a couple of episodes of Star Wars: Clone Wars and I thought it much better than I expected and I liked it better than the recent SW trilogy.
Better as in story and visuals?
These are pretty strong science fiction films IMHO.
Contact (1997)
Gattaca (1997)
The Fly (1986)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Sphere (1997)
While I am not into action films that much these do it for me.
Sci-Fi action:
Armageddon (1998)
The Core (2003)
The Abyss (1989)
Aliens (1986)
Fantastic Four (2005) the first 20 minutes on the space station ONLY
Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)
as well as this from the Sci-Fi Horror genre
Event Horizon (1997)
stonester1 wrote
I've said before and agree with the others "Primer" (2004) is the best Science Fiction film of the past 10 years.
Even films that are "bad movies" like Supernova (2000), Mission to Mars (2000), Red Planet (2000), Space Cowboys (2000), Deja Vu (2006) look good but are still bad movies based on plot/acting/direction.
These are pretty strong science fiction films IMHO.
Contact (1997)
Gattaca (1997)
The Fly (1986)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Sphere (1997)
While I am not into action films that much these do it for me.
Sci-Fi action:
Armageddon (1998)
The Core (2003)
The Abyss (1989)
Aliens (1986)
Fantastic Four (2005) the first 20 minutes on the space station ONLY
Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)
as well as this from the Sci-Fi Horror genre
Event Horizon (1997)
stonester1 wrote
They are better realized onscreen nowadays with CG effects as a tool.
I've said before and agree with the others "Primer" (2004) is the best Science Fiction film of the past 10 years.
Even films that are "bad movies" like Supernova (2000), Mission to Mars (2000), Red Planet (2000), Space Cowboys (2000), Deja Vu (2006) look good but are still bad movies based on plot/acting/direction.
I voted that it's the same, because it always has been and always will be. While you had the giants of the field like Bradbury, Asimov, and Heinlein blowing the literary world away back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's, people were being wowed by Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and the like. Sci-fi that was short on real science but long on entertainment. Even today, while the new Sam Rockwell movie Moon will be a critical darling, it probably won't break even at the BO. People will more likely remember and quote Star Trek or Transformers this fall. It's not a bad thing to be entertained. Trek knew that. After the glacier that was The Motion Picture (AKA 2001 II), it bounced back with Wrath Of Khan which was infinitely more entertaining than TMP. So no. Nothing's changed. Take off the rose colored glasses.
I broke my rose-colored glasses while beating Mickey Mouse to death in an alley. And, sure, there are critical vs popular successes but too much of what is today leans on CGI/big explosions. The atrocity of Mr. Reeves and his Day the Earth Stood Still is a poor reflection of the thoughtful original.
Sci-Fi is much dumber than it was 10 years ago ... MUCH dumber. Just look at LOST, BSG and the crappy Jerry Bruckheimer movies pervading the airways and movie theaters.
I'd say it's about the same. We think the past is better because we mainly remember the good stuff. We forget all the mediocre stuff and remember a lot of the trash that came before. We do have a tendency to romaticize the past too much. I think the ratio of good to crap is probably about the same in any era were talking about. Sometimes it's more and other times it's less.
After just watching the film The Island (2005) again which is another scifi-action-thriller film from director Michael Bay I must admit the first 45 minutes are a great science fiction film that reminded me of THX 1138 (1971) in the location, costumes, production design.
The movie as a whole not great but anyone agree with me on the first 45 minutes of 'The Island' being pretty good science fiction in mainstream filmmaking?
I say no.
With regards to sci-fi cinema, if you compare some of those old George Pal films with sci-fi films today, the George Pal films were far superior in story, characters and scientific acuracy. Granted, the special effects were not as good, but the George Pal films were produced back in the 1950s, so you have to give some latitude on that.
Then there's films like Forbidden Planet, 2001 and Alien. These films are not only better than anything that's been released the past 10 years, they have also become industry standards. They're influence can be found in many films and tv shows released since.
Then there's E.T. A movie that proves you don't need mindless action and explosions to sell movie tickets. It was a simple story about a boy and an alien and it made more money than Star Wars.
Speaking of Star Wars, no science fiction movie today has generated the amount of excitement the original SW trilogy generated back in the day.
Now with regards to science fiction novels, I would say that is one area sci fi is better today. Not only do modern sci fi authors have better writing skills than writers of the past, they also have access to more acurate scientific information. They use that information to write stories that are believable.
Too bad sci-fi film makers aren't motivated to do the same thing.
With regards to sci-fi cinema, if you compare some of those old George Pal films with sci-fi films today, the George Pal films were far superior in story, characters and scientific acuracy. Granted, the special effects were not as good, but the George Pal films were produced back in the 1950s, so you have to give some latitude on that.
Then there's films like Forbidden Planet, 2001 and Alien. These films are not only better than anything that's been released the past 10 years, they have also become industry standards. They're influence can be found in many films and tv shows released since.
Then there's E.T. A movie that proves you don't need mindless action and explosions to sell movie tickets. It was a simple story about a boy and an alien and it made more money than Star Wars.
Speaking of Star Wars, no science fiction movie today has generated the amount of excitement the original SW trilogy generated back in the day.
Now with regards to science fiction novels, I would say that is one area sci fi is better today. Not only do modern sci fi authors have better writing skills than writers of the past, they also have access to more acurate scientific information. They use that information to write stories that are believable.
Too bad sci-fi film makers aren't motivated to do the same thing.
Meaningless question. SF in films and TV has always consisted of the occasional gem found in the garbage pile of mass appeal, exploitative entertainment. There's no "Golden Age" to be found.
Except when you compare it to entertainment in the Roman times. Then yes, science fiction is better today then it was then, seeing as it didn't really exist.
In honesty, I enjoyed The Island in general. The only problem is that I'd seen it already, on MST3K, when it was called Parts: The Clonus Horror. I wonder how that lawsuit's going.
You mean the era of utterly ridiculous B-Movie monster flicks? I think not. I say the 1970s through the 1990s.
Movies are not the be-all and end-all of scifi. In fact, they are a poor representation of the genre. In the written word you will find the truth.
Written science fiction was and is so far beyond films that what was being published in 1959(at its best) was decades beyond 1977's Star Wars. (as an example) Go read The Ballad of Lost C'Mell and then tell me anything in film rivals the complexity, depth and sheer artistry of that story. E.T.? In 1962 Piper published Little Fuzzy-E.T. was just derivative of that novel. Film will need years to catch up. With a few notable exceptions like 12 Monkeys or Children of Men there isn't a scifi movie out there that holds a candle to written scifi-and the Golden Era of the written form was the heyday of the late 50s and early 60s. An argument could be made for the Humanist shift of the late 60s and early 70s as well, but we're still talking about the written form. As for today, well, with all of the derivative, video game and movie-based books out there, combined with the overwhelming number of fantasy novels and vampire tales on the shelves of your local bookstore I think I'm safe in reiterating that modern written scifi faces bleak times.
Sci Fi still has a lot of great potential in it and some great films do come out. The problem is the static mentality of what makes a good sci fi film. Comparing something from the culture of say the 1950's and the paranoia of Communism, nuclear attack/power and the possiblity of alien life is not the same as the 1970's where it was more rebellious, daring and questioning. Modern sci fi is of course more about the action and effects but not all of it is.
There are still things like Contact which probably pushes the "modern" envelope for some but then you get things like Children of Men or even Wall-E. Wall-E is a child's fictional story to be sure but it's also a sci fi story. It's also a condemnation of modern conviences, and disrespect to the environment and other global issues we're facing. That's what sci fi is always about; questioning the modern day mindset with "how will this look in the future if we keep up?"
Sci Fi has been around since at least the 1800's and probably earlier, albeit more in the fantasy realm but it's not going anywhere and comparing them to different eras is not fair.
There are still things like Contact which probably pushes the "modern" envelope for some but then you get things like Children of Men or even Wall-E. Wall-E is a child's fictional story to be sure but it's also a sci fi story. It's also a condemnation of modern conviences, and disrespect to the environment and other global issues we're facing. That's what sci fi is always about; questioning the modern day mindset with "how will this look in the future if we keep up?"
Sci Fi has been around since at least the 1800's and probably earlier, albeit more in the fantasy realm but it's not going anywhere and comparing them to different eras is not fair.
SciFi ideas not the execution in film/TV
Contact, Children of Men, & Wall-E.
last year:
I agree and thanks for mentioning
Contact, Children of Men, & Wall-E.
It's about the ideas and concepts. The actual direction of TV & films and the screenplays turned into images can't always carry over those ideas and illustrate them the best.
I had posted in this thread Why is there no pure Sci-Fi on TV today?
last year:
It's an Wired Magazine article worth reading.
Overall--no--it isn't better. LOST is as good or better than stuff in the 90s but looking at the littered landscape of sci-fi over the past decade I have to say it sucks--Invasion, Surface, Stargate Atlantis, Stargate Universe, Caprica, V, Flash Forward, the Dr. Who relaunch, Life on Mars, post season one Heroes, The 4400, Bionic Woman remake, Eureka, the Flash Gordon remake, the Knight Rider remake, Andromeda etc. They might have better production values and CGI but the writing isn't that great.
I thought the 90s was pretty darn good--TNG, DS9, Nowhere Man, B5, The X-Files. So many of the shows now try so hard to be like these series yet never succeeds.
I thought the 90s was pretty darn good--TNG, DS9, Nowhere Man, B5, The X-Files. So many of the shows now try so hard to be like these series yet never succeeds.
Similar threads
