Why no far future SF?

[Warped9]

I still don't think it's impossible, but merely challenging. When I can look at the Lord Of The Rings trilogy and Avatar and other big budget spectacles I can easily see how the same amount of money could depict a futuristic society or futuristic star travel.

LOTR is a good example because it's overflowing with visual f/x only they're used to depict something as equally fantastic and certainly less credible that visionary far future SF.

So the SF fan in me is saying, "Hey the sword and sorcery fans are getting their fill so how about us?" There are any number of SF novels that could be amazing to see realized on film.

I discount Avatar to an extent because it's not the kind of story I'd like to see. But it's a start particularly in terms of some of the alien life forms other than the Navi which I think are a joke.

 

[Kegg]

So the SF fan in me is saying, "Hey the sword and sorcery fans are getting their fill so how about us?" There are any number of SF that could be amazing to see realized on film.

Well they are. Avatar being the obvious example as you observed. You're not happy with it? Fair enough. But that doesn't discount it as a sci-fi epic at least comparable to Peter Jackson's trilogy. They're similar sorts of films, also: Epic dramas with large conflicts and so on. It's not with irony people have called the Na'vi 'elves', that's for sure.

I discount Avatar to an extent because it's not the kind of story I'd like to see. But it's a start particularly in terms of some of the alien life forms other than the Navi which I think are a joke.

They make about as much sense as Vulcans.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

SF today in general suffers from the lack of a Big Idea that the regular Janes and Joes out there can identify with. In the Golden Age of SF it was space travel - which was exciting and attached to the idea of a new frontier, something that was still very active in the American mythological imagination. It carried along with it traditional ideas of conquest, triumph, and riches as well as progressive ideas of diversity, exploring the unknown, and expanding knowledge.

Today, the biggest idea is probably cybernetics and/ or genetic manipulation - which most people experience as terrifying, even as we slowly incorporate it into our society. But in general people perceive the idea of merging with machines or mechanically manipulating our genes as representing loss of identity, loss of naturalness, and loss of control. These are not ideas that lend themselves to Hollywood which has built its profit on pandering to people's narcissism and desire for "feel good" entertainment.

On top of that, the real world idea of space travel has fizzled, leaving us facing a few millennia on an increasingly crowded rock in space, quibbling and killing each other over the same natural resources we've been killing each other over for 5000 years. So the biggest problem is - our popular culture conception of the future has radically altered from one of hope for expanding horizons to a far less dramatic one of having to be reasonable housemates to 9 billion other humans while hoping we haven't damaged our habitat to the point that we're all going to starve.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think because there's less creativity and less budgets. When you think about it, there isn't much high-concept Sci-Fi anymore, which goes hand in hand with the original question. Something in the far future requires a vision, and good ideas to go along with that vision. I'm thinking vision as not only the idea of the concept, but the look of things as well. If we want something to look like the far future, some thought will have to be made as to how the world will look to the viewer, which costs money, which is why most Sci-Fi you see today is set in modern urban environments. So, like I said, it comes down to budget.

Once in awhile you'll see very different visions, such as Back to the Future 2, Bladerunner and The Fifth Element and i-Robot.

But then there are movies that have a great concept but don't have the visual to express it with, so you'll see good ideas set in urban environments. I just watched Surrogates, and I was very impressed with it, as it felt like a high-concept idea, but it was set in an urban environment looking just like ours.

 

[Hober Mallow]

SF today in general suffers from the lack of a Big Idea that the regular Janes and Joes out there can identify with.

I think the problem is more basic than that. Filmed SF suffers from not being written by actual SF writers, but TV and film writers who only know TV and film. In the SF mags you get imaginative tales from the distant past to the far future. In film you get Avatar.

 

[Warped9]

SF today in general suffers from the lack of a Big Idea that the regular Janes and Joes out there can identify with.

I think the problem is more basic than that. Filmed SF suffers from not being written by actual SF writers, but TV and film writers who only know TV and film. In the SF mags you get imaginative tales from the distant past to the far future. In film you get Avatar.

This is a good point. In SF lit you've got writers who know what to do with a good and/or big idea. In sci-fi film and TV you can still get some decent ideas, but often they're buried in mediocre materiel to the point of being practically inconsequential.

It isn't that it can't be done, but more that many are convinced it can't be done or just don't have the imagination to see that it can be done. As a result very few if that ever really try.

It also isn't that fresh ideas aren't being tried--they are, but more small scale. The big pictures seem almost exclusively the province of the recycled and rehashed. Yes, I for one appreciate some of my favourite comic characters properly realized on the big screen, but engrossing spectacles and stories can certainly be more than just that of superheroes.

 

[T'Girl]

Thinking about the way the future could be depicted. I got to thinking about the James Bond movie Casino Royale. The latest movie rendition came out in 2006, but the book was published in 1953, a 53 year gap. If you were to show that "06 movie to an aveage audience in '53 they would know exactly what was going on. Why? Because Casino Royale was the Bond film re-boot, they took all the fanciful technology out and told a very Human story, The only piece of unusual technology in the eyes of the '53 audience would have been Bond's advanced cell phone, and they could have pretty much have figured what that was.

So to a modern day average audience you could show a 500 or 1000 year in the future tale, as long as it not about technology, don't get me wrong, have technology just don't make it the center piece of the story. George Lucas's THX 1138 worked (as well as it did), because it wasn't about far distant future technology, it was a people story.

Fahrenheit 451 is set in the fairly distant future, but it doesn't really matter when, because it not a story about the future in the first place. It's about freedom (of thought).

The first The Day The Earth Stood Still could easily be set in the year 2050, if you could get around the way the vehicles look, because the story isn't about how the vehicles look. It's about seizing to be aggressive.

If you see what I mean?

.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

SF today in general suffers from the lack of a Big Idea that the regular Janes and Joes out there can identify with.

I think the problem is more basic than that. Filmed SF suffers from not being written by actual SF writers, but TV and film writers who only know TV and film. In the SF mags you get imaginative tales from the distant past to the far future. In film you get Avatar.

I would have to disagree that the problem is the writers. The problem might be the writers that end up getting hired - but there are plenty of good SF writers out there pitching good SF material, which is then shot down as being too out there for a mass general audience by a producer or studio executive. And the execs are right - the general public is very unlikely to embrace a story about the far future for a big budget film, which it would have to be to realize the world visually. This is exactly why even written SF is a niche genre. It simply does not have broad appeal - never has and never will. Granted it's frustrating for us who see so many mediocre, not-real-SF films and tv series produced with millions of dollars when we're hungering to see really imaginative, innovative material make it to the screen. But it's not going to happen except in small bits and pieces. As many people noted, Moon was a decent piece of real SF made for the screen with a reasonable amount of money, and a good story with a great actor (two if you count Spacey) - and still no one went to see it but us. Big films and television simply are not innovative or imaginative and are generally third generation material, warmed over and mediocratized so that it will have the broadest possible appeal.

 

[FalTorPan]

I agree with Lapis Exilis. I suspect that the only way we will see many "far future" sci-fi films is for them to be made on the cheap by independent moviemakers -- and I'm okay with that. Perhaps such concepts are of interest to some makers of fan films. Perhaps not.

 

[Warped9]

As has been already remarked I think part of the problem is the "big opening weekend" mentality. The whole attitude towards many films seems to be geared toward making a big splash then being cycled out for the next big splash.

If you get a big splash and a big opening box office then that's all very fine and well, but it shouldn't be the only measure of success. A lot of films have impressed me over the years that haven't necessarily been huge opening weekend record breakers.

I suppose another difference is that a novel can be written by someone who gives a damn about what he/she is trying to say. Sure they want it to be a success, but they often also want something they can be proud of. Of course there are also writers who write just for the paycheque and/or strictly for a given market.

Thinking about the way the future could be depicted. I got to thinking about the James Bond movie Casino Royale. The latest movie rendition came out in 2006, but the book was published in 1953, a 53 year gap. If you were to show that "06 movie to an aveage audience in '53 they would know exactly what was going on. Why? Because Casino Royale was the Bond film re-boot, they took all the fanciful technology out and told a very Human story, The only piece of unusual technology in the eyes of the '53 audience would have been Bond's advanced cell phone, and they could have pretty much have figured what that was.

So to a modern day average audience you could show a 500 or 1000 year in the future tale, as long as it not about technology, don't get me wrong, have technology just don't make it the center piece of the story. George Lucas's THX 1138 worked (as well as it did), because it wasn't about far distant future technology, it was a people story.

Fahrenheit 451 is set in the fairly distant future, but it doesn't really matter when, because it not a story about the future in the first place. It's about freedom (of thought).

The first The Day The Earth Stood Still could easily be set in the year 2050, if you could get around the way the vehicles look, because the story isn't about how the vehicles look. It's about seizing to be aggressive.

If you see what I mean?

Yes, I do see what you mean. And I alluded to something like that earlier. You can dress up a story any number of ways and include interesting ideas as long as the story and the characters are accessible to the audience.

The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was an accessible story dressed up as sword and sorcery and I'm not sure it's really any deeper than the Star Wars trilogies though certainly better executed overall. So all things being equal the LOTR could have been told as a science fiction epic just as easily.

 

[Rii]

Fahrenheit 451 is set in the fairly distant future, but it doesn't really matter when, because it not a story about the future in the first place. It's about freedom (of thought).

Not really. If you recall, for the most part the firemen weren't necessary; they were merely for emergencies. Folks stopped thinking (and dreaming, caring) of their own accord.

 

[Hober Mallow]

SF today in general suffers from the lack of a Big Idea that the regular Janes and Joes out there can identify with.

I think the problem is more basic than that. Filmed SF suffers from not being written by actual SF writers, but TV and film writers who only know TV and film. In the SF mags you get imaginative tales from the distant past to the far future. In film you get Avatar.

I would have to disagree that the problem is the writers. The problem might be the writers that end up getting hired - but there are plenty of good SF writers out there pitching good SF material, which is then shot down as being too out there for a mass general audience by a producer or studio executive.

Um... aren't you making my point for me? Of course the problem is the writers getting hired. Like I said, TV writers are getting hired and SF writers aren't. It wouldn't be so bad if the TV and film writers being hired knew something about the genre they were ostensibly writing in.

And the execs are right - the general public is very unlikely to embrace a story about the far future for a big budget film, which it would have to be to realize the world visually.

Are you kidding? The studios love spending big bucks on kewl visuals.

But I'm not even talking about just far-future tales. There are gajillions of excellent and imaginative near-future and present-day stories in the pages of Analog, Asimov's, and F&SF.

The studios, however, don't like originality. They want stories which can be easily compared to other stories. "It's Lassie meets the Jetsons!" "It's like the X-Files, but one of the partners is an alien!" "It's Star Trek meets 'The Fugitive!'"

This is exactly why even written SF is a niche genre. It simply does not have broad appeal - never has and never will. Granted it's frustrating for us who see so many mediocre, not-real-SF films and tv series produced with millions of dollars when we're hungering to see really imaginative, innovative material make it to the screen. But it's not going to happen except in small bits and pieces. As many people noted, Moon was a decent piece of real SF made for the screen with a reasonable amount of money, and a good story with a great actor (two if you count Spacey) - and still no one went to see it but us.

On the other hand, 2001 was and is a huge hit. Nothing precludes a well-told tale in any genre from being embraced by the general audience.

 

[tau136]

The following quote from another thread got me thinking:

My peeve is I so much want to see a genuine and well thought out far future space adventure, the kind of thing we sometimes get in SF literature.

Don't hold your breath. They are a rare beast and always have been.

Although I can't remember details (like author, titles) there was something I read in an anthology of someone's SF writings once. He gave the same story as a story and redone as a film-script. It had to be simplified, de-conceptualised and reworked so much to make it audience-acceptable it was almost a new (lesser) creation.

 

[Deckerd]

Philip K Dick's works are returned to regularly to produce film scripts but they are always changed to make them more 'flimic' if you will. Whether they are 'lesser' creations or something based-on but rather different, is debatable.

 

[Kegg]

Um... aren't you making my point for me? Of course the problem is the writers getting hired. Like I said, TV writers are getting hired and SF writers aren't.

No, Lapis is right. The problem is the next stage along the food chain. I remember reading a story about what Croenenberg was going to adapt the Philip K. Dick story We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, and being told he was doing it wrong. He was telling the Philip K. Dick story. What they needed was Indiana Jones Goes to Mars (and the result was, of course, the action vehicle Total Recall.)

It doesn't matter a damn if you've got William Gibson if his mandate is simply to write a brainless action movie.

The studios, however, don't like originality. They want stories which can be easily compared to other stories. "It's Lassie meets the Jetsons!" "It's like the X-Files, but one of the partners is an alien!" "It's Star Trek meets 'The Fugitive!'"

Naturally. Can't blame them either. Familiar works and is safe. Get to risky and you might piss money down a drain. Metropolis is a masterpiece and it also bankrupted Ufa. Making a good movie isn't always the best investment strategy.

On the other hand, 2001 was and is a huge hit. Nothing precludes a well-told tale in any genre from being embraced by the general audience.

2001 is the sort of movie that happens when you have Stanley Kubrick. Not anybody would have walked away with that kind of money and that kind of blanket mandate.

 

[Mistral]

I think the biggest problem is source material. Sure, Asimov's Foundation takes place in the far future-but it is instantly relatable to today's societies. DUNE was a fair effort to capture a far future society but its a stand-alone in terms of movies on the subject because the source material is a.-relatively rare and b.-not the kind of thing that makes good movies. Do you really think Dancer at the End of Time would look good onscreen? That audience's could relate to Jherek Carnelian? Or take The Forever War-part of its wonder is the distancing of Humanity's motivations from that of the protagonist. And that's a war movie if they make it, relatively exciting visually for the most part. I don't see how The Ballad of Lost C'Mell would hold an audience. A brilliant far-future story on paper isn't necessarily the sort of thing to shine onscreen-the audience has to relate and if the story is done well there may not be anything to relate to.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Fahrenheit 451 is set in the fairly distant future, but it doesn't really matter when, because it not a story about the future in the first place. It's about freedom (of thought).

Not really. If you recall, for the most part the firemen weren't necessary; they were merely for emergencies. Folks stopped thinking (and dreaming, caring) of their own accord.

The point is that the firemen were officers who were enforcing policy, burning anything that threatened free thinking or presented new ideas.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

On the other hand, 2001 was and is a huge hit. Nothing precludes a well-told tale in any genre from being embraced by the general audience.

I'd have to say calling it a "huge hit" is a bit of an overstatement, though it did about $56 million at the box office - well over its final budget of just over $10 million and certailny respectable for the time. But critical reaction was very polarized with such notables as Pauline Kael calling it a remarkably unimaginative movie. Also, I seem to recall some discussion in a documnetary on the history of science fiction that pointed out how 2001 was initially floundering a bit at the box office until the youth crowd found it and discovered it was an excellent movie to see while stoned. The studio quickly repackaged its marketing to bill it as "the trip of the century", which drove numerous psychedelic influenced folks into the theaters.

I agree that there's nothing stopping a good movie from being embraced by a general audience - there are certainly plenty of examples of just that happening - not many of those good movies are SF because it is by nature a niche genre.

 

[jojolimited]

Historically, aside from technology, science and medicine, we have not evolved at all in the last 30 thousand years. No reason we will in the next 10K. Considering how other species evolved over millions of years, why would we be any different?

It would be great if someone could make a series of movies about Asimiovs' Foundation and Empire. At least in his, the first wave "Spacers" evolved somewhat more than earth bound humans, but with somewhat tragic results.

 

[Zaku]

I believe a part of the movie "The Fountain" is set in the very far future