There is no such thing as science fiction in movies and TV
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, December 31, 2007 16:00
VIEWED: 6518
PAGE 1 of 5
I pose the idea that true science fiction remains in the purview of the written word, and that that which we call SF in movies and TV is merely fantasy, or at best, 'speculative fiction'.
Any takers?
Finninspiredthistopicisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure I get your distinction...
what written stories would you call sci-fi,
and why do they lose that distinction when they are filmed?
Or am I really not getting your point at all?
Now this is probably not in keeping w/the topic you started...but there is a huge difference to me in Sci-fi that is set in our world (here on Earth, with the physical laws we accept as fact), and those set on other plants, in other universes where the writer can construct a different set of physical 'laws'....
which is a lot like fantasy worlds, naturally....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:SCIENCE fiction deals with how science is applied to fiction- that is, how realistic physical laws apply to the story...movies and TV seem to abandon the realism of events and processes to tell the story efficiently and succinctly therefore letting us down in the science dept. As Finn and Citizen noted, shortcuts are taken to tell the tales, are we too dull as a mass-entertainment audience to accept the nuances of inertia, time, gravity, power curves, etc., to accept a story ensconced in minutia that is scientifically relevant?
Originally posted by embers:
I'm not sure I get your distinction...
That's all I want to explore here...
Late night Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In responce to a post by someone in my other thread, I would say that movies like 2001, Solaris, Gattica, and Star Trek: TMP, qualify as 'real' science fiction...
If you cheer and jump, it's still just fantasy IMO.
Blue Danube Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
SCIENCE fiction deals with how science is applied to fiction- that is, how realistic physical laws apply to the story...movies and TV seem to abandon the realism of events and processes to tell the story efficiently and succinctly therefore letting us down in the science dept. As Finn and Citizen noted, shortcuts are taken to tell the tales, are we too dull as a mass-entertainment audience to accept the nuances of inertia, time, gravity, power curves, etc., to accept a story ensconced in minutia that is scientifically relevant?
That's all I want to explore here...
Sounds a lot like the novels of Robert Heinlein, who would stop the story and take a chunk, or a chapter, to expound on the theory of politics, or economics, or orbital mechanics, or how his FTL drive worked.
And that's fun.
But you can skip those chunks , and he still tells a good story. Some of 'em, he even tells you to skip. They're not for everybody, and if you made a GOOD movie out of one of his novels, you couldn't include the stuff without putting the audience to sleep, and you wouldn't sell tickets after opening day.
Not that I disagree with you about most supposedly SF movies or TV shows. They're often just futuristic action movies, or fantasy sword and sorcery flicks. ( Hell, one of 'em wasn't much more than a Western set in outer space. It got cancelled real quick , though.... :<) )
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for a relevant and oh-so-cool response NOBC!
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Not that I disagree with you about most supposedly SF movies or TV shows. They're often just futuristic action movies, or fantasy sword and sorcery flicks. ( Hell, one of 'em wasn't much more than a Western set in outer space. It got canceled real quick , though.... :<) )
Science-in-the-fiction Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Sounds a lot like the novels of Robert Heinlein, who would stop the story and take a chunk, or a chapter, to expound on the theory of politics, or economics, or orbital mechanics, or how his FTL drive worked.
:<) )
Hmmmm...seems to me like you fellows are making up a genre. From my halcyon days of youth I seem to remember that Science Fiction or Sci-Fi is the pejorative description. Most writers preferred speculative fiction, which seems like a better description as the focus (even in Asimov and Clark) isn't really on science which would make these novels into extended Scientific American articles, but in exploring humanity either in the future, following some current trend in human development, or in contact with something new and different, or as an allegory for some aspect of humanity. This speculation on human society makes them into stories.
Heinlein does stop and explain a lot of things. However, I don't believe that in say, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, he really wants us to think deeply about cannons that shoot re-entry vehicles into Earth's atmosphere. Instead, the focus is an anarchistic map to social change. When you take it out of the context of the time in which he lived and place it in the future, it allows him to examine his subjects more clearly, unclouded by our own prejudices about real commerce, oppression and rebellion. Science is the trapping. Speculation is the core.
Films have a distinct advantage in that they show the things working. They don't always have to explain, because presto, there it is. How does the spaceship work? Well, there's the engine, it lights up and the ship moves. See? Done.
That said, I believe that there are better and worse speculations on human nature in film. Ingmar Bergman's Shame is a great work of speculation. Twelve Monkeys is a fun look at our relationship to memory, these still moments in time which we see different aspects of as we move through our lives. Gattica, as mentioned, speculates well. 2001. Solaris (both the Russian and American versions for different reasons).
So, I guess I weigh in as believing that there are good movies and books that contain great ideas that make me think about things. Then there are both movies and books that make my brain shut off and let me escape mundane reality for a while. I'm not really concerned that either contains a certain quota of scientific information.
Although I wish there were more intelligent movies and television shows. Doesn't everyone?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow- I love this response!!!! Are you a Nexus 6???
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Although I wish there were more intelligent movies and television shows. Doesn't everyone?
Deckardisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
After watching the director's cut of Blade Runner, I don't think any of us can be sure that we're NOT a Nexus 6.
(And, just to be a pain, Blade Runner, to the best of my recollection never gives us a lengthy explanation about the Nexus series. Are they clones or a robots? Would the explanation make us think more or less about the movie? Hmmmm...)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The point of the movie, F.
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
After watching the director's cut of Blade Runner, I don't think any of us can be sure that we're NOT a Nexus 6.
NexusChrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME