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 2 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The point of the movie, F.
Which makes you wonder how we ever suffered through the stock footage and voice over original ending. No matter what the debate on science fiction, I believe we can all agree that studios do stupid things.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Are you trying to say that Alien and 2001 are just horror flicks?
Do you consider Philip K Dick a sci fi writer? then when his works are made into film, they are not SciFi? Do you consider Total Recall to be scifi? Terminator?
I'll go with Narnia, Compass, LOTR, Harry Potter, Conan (and most other comic-based), dragons (except Reighn Of Fire) being fantasy.
But how else do you divide between fantasy and fiction?
The best horror flick of the cinema are all based one one guy, one original story, Ed Gein. (psycho, Texas chainsaw massacre, hitcher, halloween, etc) I don't see those the same as Pitch Black, Alien, Terminator, Star Wars, Firefly, Star Trek..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We part ways here. I pray for your immortal soul.
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Which makes you wonder how we ever suffered through the stock footage and voice over original ending.
SushiChrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Which makes you wonder how we ever suffered through the stock footage and voice over original ending.
We part ways here. I pray for your immortal soul.
SushiChrisisall
Wait, you liked the original ending? With the footage from the beginning of The Shining and where everyone lives happily ever after? Actually, you're right, that might be a pretty good ending. I guess I'm old and cynical.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm with Fellowknee that what we call science fiction is generally not about about pure science as much as using impossible settings to speculate on other issues. Human issues, mostly social ones. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a great example!
Originally posted by chrisisall:
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?
Thing is, for science types like me (and I'm guessing like Chris) I lose suspension of disbelief is the writer uses science poorly. I mean, if you're gonna to use space travel to set up the multi-world society you need for your story, have some respect for it! Do a little research, and at least try to make it feasible. Few recent sci-fi shows take the time to do this.
As for why the written word lends itself better to hard sci-fi... maybe the dorks who understand hard physics and such can write books, but don't get spots directing movies real often.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As an example... I'm trying to remember a book... can't recall title or author, but someone else here might. It had some hard science and a fun take on politics that went something like this:
In a near-future alternate reality of our world, the superconducting super collider has been built in Texas, but somehow the smashing of super hot sub-particles calls the attention of horrible critters in some other universe, who tunnel in and eat the world.
So... our intrepid particle physicist manages to escape through another tunnel, to go back in time to our REAL reality with the express intent of getting Bush Sr and Dan Quayle in office so they'll kill the SCSC and save the world.
Brilliant. Make a movie out of that LOL!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall: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...
Actually, I'd challenge your definition.
The sort of sci-fi you envision, one that really explores the application of hard science (e.g. no FTL) to the world of fiction would be unimaginably dull. That's because, no offense, hard science is not all that interesting, from a narrative standpoint.
I've always maintained that truly great science fiction takes regular human drama and places it in fantastic settings such that it is fresh and different. Firefly is, of course, a great example of this. Trying to eek out a living...in space. The setting gives us a different perspective on what is, in the end, a very old story.
By the by, I've never really understood the insistence on slavishness about scientific accuracy. I always figured that if you wanted a good story, you'd read a story and overlook the not-technically-possible aspects of it, and if you wanted complete devotion to scientific accuracy, you'd read a physics textbook. If that's what you're interested in, more power to ya. But me, I like good stories.
Edited to add: I don't think it's that we're "too dull" to accept a story "ensconced in [ scientific ] minutiae." I think it's that the best stories, and the ones we like the best are about people, not about science. Sci-fi, on my view (and fantasy, too, probably), allows you to tell really interesting human stories that the "real" world otherwise wouldn't. It's not that we're too dull for minutiae. It's that we don't give a damn, because it (mostly) doesn't help tell an interesting story.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You SO don't understand what yer talking about here.
Originally posted by Fellowknee:
Wait, you liked the original ending? With the footage from the beginning of The Shining and where everyone lives happily ever after?
Time to die Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Y'know, I also have a problem with movies set way in the past where peeps have pearly white teeth..or movies where regular folk take punisment in stride that would KILL an Olympic athlete...colour me obsessed that way.
Originally posted by Causal:
By the by, I've never really understood the insistence on slavishness about scientific accuracy.
Detailed Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Y'know, I also have a problem with movies set way in the past where peeps have pearly white teeth..or movies where regular folk take punisment in stride that would KILL an Olympic athlete...colour me obsessed that way.
Originally posted by Causal:
By the by, I've never really understood the insistence on slavishness about scientific accuracy.
It must be a real drag going to the movies with you!
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME