I don't really understand this... sci-fi has never had a problem generating revenue for studio's going all the way back to 2001. Sci-fi on TV is another matter entirely.
Paramount wants the next Trek to be in 3D
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
I don't really understand this... sci-fi has never had a problem generating revenue for studio's going all the way back to 2001. Sci-fi on TV is another matter entirely.
Never heard of this film called Avatar then?
The biggest grossing film in any given year is usually a sci fi film, and had been for decades.
Star Wars, E.T. Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2, The Fifth Element, Jurassic Park, Transformers, Avatar, Stargate, Total Recall.... - the list is endless.
Now I'm not including "real" science fiction films here - those are as rare as rocking horse shit - but action films with sci fi trappings - they've been a license to print money since Star Wars opened in 1977.
There are exceptions - Star Wars and Avatar and the new Trek even are those exceptions. But they're all hardly sci-fi movies. They're action-adventures set in space. Which is fine - don't get me wrong - they're just not what is generally considered "sci-fi", as you stated.
Popular doesn't necessarily have to mean trendy or current. At least, that's not the context I was using it in.
According to this list, you'd be wrong. It seems like a lot of them are either fantasy, action, or a children's movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films
But I guess the point being made is sci-fi movies tend to do well at the box office.
Fantasy and science fiction are the same thing in media terms. SF is a subgenre of fantasy.
I just to reply to some older posts that claimed that every theater had 3D as well as 2D options.
That's not exactly true.
When I was subjected to 'The Green Hornet,' we were only given the option of seeing that 'film' in 3D. No 2D...i.e. lower price option, was available.
In regards to Trek: If they make it great, hey, I'll shell out the 3D money.
That's not exactly true.
When I was subjected to 'The Green Hornet,' we were only given the option of seeing that 'film' in 3D. No 2D...i.e. lower price option, was available.
In regards to Trek: If they make it great, hey, I'll shell out the 3D money.
Expo67
Captain
I think you will find the information in these two links to be the correct definition as to which form is the subgenre in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy
From your first link:
Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting.[1][2][3]
It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).
Largely possible, yet might still be pure imaginative speculation... yeah. That's not terribly useful.
I used to think that there was a real difference between sci-fi and fantasy, but when I analyze my favorite works in both, I find more similarities than differences. The best of each use the liberties and possibilities that 'alternate reality' settings allow to tell a good story. The worst of each tell crappy stories with sci-fi/fantasy window-dressing. Both 'Star Trek' and 'The Lord of the Rings' use extra-real settings and frameworks to tell exciting, interesting stories about morality, existentialism and the human condition.
And, besides, Star Trek has mind-melds, Katras, and the like, and by the fantasy definition you linked above, it falls under the 'supernatural' element which belongs to the 'fantasy' camp.
I guess it's a question of pretense. Both are completely made-up; but science fiction attempts to change reality for its premises while fantasy doesn't bother to regard reality at all.
On the subject...
I would really rather not have it be in 3D but if they feel they must I won't lose any sleep over it.
I would really rather not have it be in 3D but if they feel they must I won't lose any sleep over it.
I always regarded such things as potentially scientifically explainable, thus not "supernatural". I.e. Merely abilities that Vulcans have that humans apparently don't. Do you know of anything that suggests otherwise? (I'm trying to pretend the wormhole aliens don't exist of course!)
But JRR Tolkiein didn't want to include scientific explanations and was obviously going for fantasy. Compare that with Star Wars, where the Force is introduced from the start as something quasi-scientific, emanating from life forms as though it were something like gravity or electromagnetism.
That's the true dividing line - what does the author or director intend? Star Wars is intended to be sci fi, LOTR is intended to be fantasy. Both employ "magic" as a story element, but the intention is very different. There's no point in ignoring the obvious and quibbling over phantoms.
Well, Arthur C Clark aside, I'm afraid that Magic, by definition*, isn't potentially scientifically explainable. Some writers have proposed that it follows science-like rules, but not actual scientific rules. Anyway what I was asking is if anyone "in universe" regarded such abilities as supernatural and provided any reason to do so?
* Magic: The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural
I will if I have to!
But I'm not sure squirting information backwards and forwards between people is much different to ESP etc which scientists occasionally have a crack at. Of course if we're considering transferring whole minds, we're probably need at least USB 3!
Looks like Paramount wants to ruin Star Trek again Star Trek isn't about special effects. It's about a good story and a good plot. That's why Trek XI was successful, look at what happened to the TNG films. They were good in there own way, but just because they had more special effects didn't make them top-notch films. (First Contact was considered to be the best TNG film, and like it or not, I think it had the least special effects of all TNG Films) And to this note, I still haven't seen a movie in 3D. I don't see what the big hoo-la is all about. Come on Paramount, get a grip. Don't ruin something again with this 3D non-sense.
I was hoping for something a little more advanced to occur in the 21st Century, not a revamp of something old... (3D)
Star Trek isn't about special effects. It's about a good story and a good plot. That's why Trek XI was successful, look at what happened to the TNG films. They were good in there own way, but just because they had more special effects didn't make them top-notch films. (First Contact was considered to be the best TNG film, and like it or not, I think it had the least special effects of all TNG Films) And to this note, I still haven't seen a movie in 3D. I don't see what the big hoo-la is all about. Come on Paramount, get a grip. Don't ruin something again with this 3D non-sense.I was hoping for something a little more advanced to occur in the 21st Century, not a revamp of something old... (3D)
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Looks like Paramount wants to ruin Star Trek again
I was hoping for something a little more advanced to occur in the 21st Century, not a revamp of something old... (3D)
Why not? It works. It brings people in the cinemas.
Similar threads
