Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott

galactus

An Interesting Read.

Mind you I haven't trusted a word Scott has had to say on s/f since he did a u-turn on Dekkard being a replicant.

Also its not film but is as near as dammit: Battlestar Galactica is about as good as it gets!

BenjAii

I think he's got it wrong.

Perhaps mainstream Hollywood SF has become very formulaic, but that's true of other genres too. At the end of the day one of the most striking features of the time we live in is technology and technological change, so it's not as if these issues won't be dealt with in some context. There is certainly still a healthy appetite for these films.

He said SF would go the way of Westerns and musicals. Well worldwide musicals have never gone away, just look at Bollywood. As for Westerns, there's still an audience for them if some were being made, they're all my Father seems to be interested in !

Pigman II

He's right tho. I don't think I've seen a truly captivating sci-fi movie since Gattaca and that was 10 years ago.

But that's just the way it goes tho. Westerns were basically the sci-fi movies & television of their day (the filled the same corner of the market). I'm sure if sci-fi movies die out then something new and probably more interesting will come to fill their place. I for one look forward to it.

mike65

Bit lazy, what about flicks like Children of Men or Sunshine which to varying degrees of success try to do something new or something old in a new way.

He could try to make another BR (only completely differently of course) if he's so concerned

Mike.

Mr. Presentable

Yeah, but westerns aren't dead, they're just sleeping. I always thought sci-fi films were mostly westerns with shiny bits anyway.

Petey2006

Serenity, Children of Men, The Fountain, Sunshine, Avatar, War Of The Worlds, Interstellar, even Battlestar Galactica are major films and TV series released in the last few years or upcoming. Sci-Fi ain't dead.

Karl Hungus

While I'd say that Sci-Fi isn't dead, there is without doubt a lack of originality to be had, and in that sense I agree with Scott. There's a lot of great films and TV series' out there, but do any of them really bring anything fresh and original to the genre?

Gattaca was probably the last one, as Pigman points out.

~Rebel~

Karl Hungus wrote:

While I'd say that Sci-Fi isn't dead, there is without doubt a lack of originality to be had, and in that sense I agree with Scott.

Thats the beauty of Sci Fi though, with westerns we'll say theres only so much you can do, and when its done thats kind of it, but with Sci Fi theres pretty much endless possibilities and scope for anything anyone can imagine. The lack of originality stems more from lazy film companies giving their big budgets to the same formulaic rubbish rather then taking a chance on some of the more original ideas out there. Having said that, there are still plenty of original ideas popping up on the big stage, like Children of Men. The future can be anything we can imagine so would be very depressing if people couldnt come up with something new!

galactus

Children of Men alone disproves Scott. That said its easier to pitch (and make) a teen comedy (say) than an s/f movie.

The Book Is Always Better is nearly always a rule and loads of my favourite s/f books haven't been made into movies (eg Asimov's Foundation) and I think that's great!

Mind you, I am looking forward to the movie of Altered Carbon

BopNiblets

They're making Rendevous With Rama into a movie.

And.... um, Starship Troopers 3...

mike65

Exellent about RwR, more Clarke novels should be filmed. A Fall of Moondust would be perfect a Bruce Willis disaster movie!

Mike.

TerrorFirmer

I thought Children of Men was overrated crap and personally, I can't WAIT to see SST3....

Xios

HavoK wrote:

I thought Children of Men was overrated crap and personally, I can't WAIT to see SST3....

I kind of agree, but it had it's moments, it was well directed imo, well at least it's ten times better than serenity anyway. That was just pure fanboy bulls**t.

Karl Hungus

Xios wrote:

I kind of agree, but it had it's moments, it was well directed imo, well at least it's ten times better than serenity anyway. That was just pure fanboy bulls**t.

Serenity was brilliant! How dare you suggest otherwise!?

qwertplaywert

Ban!Ban!Ban!

All the sci fi movies/shows have kinda been same-y over the last few years ,with a few expections, mainly being Firefly/Serenity[The ''Western Buffy in space'' feel was very unique imo] Children Of Men[An arthouse movie masking as a distorian] and Battlestar Galactica[The way its almost made as sci fi for people who dont like sci fi is not orginal, but certainly the best exicution of this idea].

Galvasean

Xios wrote:

I kind of agree, but it had it's moments, it was well directed imo, well at least it's ten times better than serenity anyway. That was just pure fanboy bulls**t.

I liked Serenity but i don't get why its touted as a modern classic. Sure its stylish, fun and witty but so are loads of movies.

Vokes

Petey2006 wrote:

Serenity, Children of Men, The Fountain, Sunshine, Avatar, War Of The Worlds, Interstellar, even Battlestar Galactica are major films and TV series released in the last few years or upcoming. Sci-Fi ain't dead.

Avatar?


Also, anyone care to mention any interesting upcoming scifi flicks that should be on our radars? I think since last October (and correct me if im wrong) we've only had the 3 (CoM, The Fountain, Sunshine)

DerekP11

I think the validity of what R Scott has said in relation to Sci-Fi depends on your age.

In relation to the horror genre, even Hollywood producers are doubting the continued route. One particular producer reckons its time we re-evaluate what scares us. I would agree with that.

User45701

Pigman II wrote:

He's right tho. I don't think I've seen a truly captivating sci-fi movie since Gattaca and that was 10 years ago.

But that's just the way it goes tho. Westerns were basically the sci-fi movies & television of their day (the filled the same corner of the market). I'm sure if sci-fi movies die out then something new and probably more interesting will come to fill their place. I for one look forward to it.

I thought Serenity was a very good scifi movie

Xios wrote:

I kind of agree, but it had it's moments, it was well directed imo, well at least it's ten times better than serenity anyway. That was just pure fanboy bulls**t.

fanboy? like those irish people who like english football clubs and wear the jerseys and jump up and down singing and all that?

Galvasean wrote:

I liked Serenity but i don't get why its touted as a modern classic. Sure its stylish, fun and witty but so are loads of movies.

In the same way that BSG raised the bar, serenity raised the bar just as much as well

I dont think sci-fi is dead, its resting for a while but hopefully it will be back soon, i mean hopefully some cancelled shows like Firefly will be brought back in some form or another

Maximilian

I love Ridley Scott, I think the guy is a genius & my fav director after Kubrick but he sure does talk crap sometimes. Sci-fi being dead is not the first stupid opinionated load of balls that he has come out with. Probably won't be the last either.

By the way, I would agree with the films mentioned above. I would also add Solaris to that list too. I actually preferred it to the original and its quite similar in style to Scott come to think of it.

Pigman II

Haven't seen the US remake but I have to say I thought the original Solaris was one of the most disappointing "must see classics" that I've come across so far. I was really looking forward to seeing it but I came away feeling like I'd seen a movie based on a merely average idea, poorly executed and delivered with TV production values rather than cinematic ones.

The answer to 2001:ASO it ain't.

qwertplaywert

SofaKing wrote:

Also, anyone care to mention any interesting upcoming scifi flicks that should be on our radars? I think since last October (and correct me if im wrong) we've only had the 3 (CoM, The Fountain, Sunshine)

The film adapation of Ender's Game looks very promising, should be out by the end of next year, also Day Zero[end this year/start next year]

Maximilian

Pigman II wrote:

Haven't seen the US remake but I have to say I thought the original Solaris was one of the most disappointing "must see classics" that I've come across so far. I was really looking forward to seeing it but I came away feeling like I'd seen a movie based on a merely average idea, poorly executed and delivered with TV production values rather than cinematic ones.

The answer to 2001:ASO it ain't.

The re-make is one of those movies that probably has more style than substance but for me, style goes a long way. Its visually stunning in parts.

Galvasean

User45701 wrote:

In the same way that BSG raised the bar, serenity raised the bar just as much as well
r

Er.. how did Serenity raise the bar? I mean what did it do that Star Wars didn't?



Question: could the Prestige be considered a scif-fi movie?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it had a mentally retarded chick kicking the crap out of bad guys, that's just out the door progressive!

po0k

Avalon
Stalker (old)
Sunshine wasn't bad at all

What we need is a Klingon movie, and a few seasons of Mechwarrior/BattleTech.
And then plunder WH40K universe.

newestUser

Karl Hungus wrote:

Serenity was brilliant! How dare you suggest otherwise!?

I thought Serenity was awful. I agree with the poster who said it was fanboy bullsh*t, it's a film that it's mandatory to like in certain circles.

Slightly controversial: I think people who say Serenity is good only hold this opinion because they want to fit in with a certain crowd. It's a *very* ordinary film, and doesn't merit the praise it gets.

What about Minority Report? I thought that was great. And War of the Worlds wasn't bad either (although yes that is a remake!)

Galvasean

The War of The World remake was IMO excellent until the last 5 minutes when it

spiralled into sentimental bull

And I second the motion to plunder the Warhammer 40k universe. Theres so much stuff in there worth committing to film.

pwd

There have been some good westerns recently too.
The Proposition was one of the best films I saw last year for example, and i think that qualifies as a western, even if it was set in Australia rather than America

Bubs101

Does he not realise that that Alian vs. Predator Reqium is coming out this year. If AVP got a sequel despite terrible reviews (personally I loved it) then surely it's not dead. Heroes is sci fi FFS.

MisterAnarchy

Transformers,Fantastic Four 2,Pirates of the Caribbean,Spiderman 3 .
These are all science fiction films.
Hardly dead I think.

pwd

there's even a new sci fi sub-genre in films - steampunk

Fysh

pwd wrote:

there's even a new sci fi sub-genre in films - steampunk

I loves me some good steampunk, but I'm not sure how new it is. Mind you, there's only 50-odd films tagged as steampunk on IMDB, but that's partly because, to my understanding of it, steampunk is basically a sci-fi type story with a historical setting, usually Victorian times....

But yeah, I don't think sci-fi is dead when TV shows like The 4400, Battlestar Galactica, & Heroes are all doing well. It may have changed from what Scott considers to be good sci-fi but that's a whole different argument. And, well, if he things contemporary sci-fi is so awful, it's not like he doesn't have an army of fans who'd mess their pants on hearing that he had a new sci-fi project in the works. Sounds to me like he's decrying the genre because he doesn't have anything to add to it in its present form...

User45701

newestUser wrote:

I thought Serenity was awful. I agree with the poster who said it was fanboy bullsh*t, it's a film that it's mandatory to like in certain circles.

Slightly controversial: I think people who say Serenity is good only hold this opinion because they want to fit in with a certain crowd. It's a *very* ordinary film, and doesn't merit the praise it gets.

What about Minority Report? I thought that was great. And War of the Worlds wasn't bad either (although yes that is a remake!)

No, i stronley disagree, *Warning* Spoilers for serenity/firefly
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52600014&postcount=39



Short version, i never even watched firefly when i watched serenity, im not part of any group of friends who love the show as you suggest, i simply fell in love with the show/film its up there on par with BSG even tho they are so different shows.

They are both amazing but serenity is what im talking about, bascelly i had it over hyped going in and i was amazed i really enjoyed it and later that day i bought firefly DVD and fell in love with the show.

Most of the people i went to see it with thought it was alright or good or "ok"

Galvasean

User45701 wrote:

Short version, i never even watched firefly when i watched serenity, im not part of any group of friends who love the show as you suggest, i simply fell in love with the show/film its up there on par with BSG even tho they are so different shows.

I'm gonna ask again, exactly how did Serenity or Battlestar Gallactica raise the sci-fi bar? I mean the original Star Wars was out before both of them and I fail to see what they raised above it.

For the record; I enjoyed Serenity but don't think its in any way brilliant. I havent seen Firefly. I dislike BSG in all its forms.

Aaron M

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Transformers,Fantastic Four 2,Pirates of the Caribbean,Spiderman 3 .
These are all science fiction films.
Hardly dead I think.

The thing is though, they're all rubbish films, and Pirates of the Carribbean a science-fiction film - WTF!?

Serenity was an enjoyable film (and it got me into Firefly, incidentally) but I do feel that it gets overrated by many fans - it certainly didn't raise the bar in any event.

Fysh

Galvasean wrote:

I'm gonna ask again, exactly how did Serenity or Battlestar Gallactica raise the sci-fi bar? I mean the original Star Wars was out before both of them and I fail to see what they raised above it.

I'm no fan of the new BSG series but in terms of "raising the bar" for sci-fi, it can be argued that it brought to serialised sci-fi what Alien brought to film sci-fi - a character-focused approach showing the stresses, strains and downsides involved in long-term space travel, built around the framework of a longform story. The approach to the Cylons as enemies, the development and presentation of their psychology & physiology is also worthy of comment.

Personally I feel that with season 3 the show lost its way, but that doesn't mean it hasnt had some very good episodes and ideas throughout. Babylon 5 kicks its ass right out of the playground though

I can't speak for Serenity (having not seen it ) but Firefly also had an interesting stylistic approach for sci-fi that, if nothing else, hasn't been seen before. Harking back to the days of Original Star Trek, it approached sci-fi by taking a decidedly character-based approach again but the character and visual themes are mostly Western-styled with touches of sci-fi, rather than mostly sci-fi with touches of Westerns. It was, if nothing else, a very well-executed reminder that the currently fashionable sci-fi aesthetic is not the only aesthetic that sci-fi can adopt.

User45701

Galvasean wrote:

I'm gonna ask again, exactly how did Serenity or Battlestar Gallactica raise the sci-fi bar? I mean the original Star Wars was out before both of them and I fail to see what they raised above it.

For the record; I enjoyed Serenity but don't think its in any way brilliant. I havent seen Firefly. I dislike BSG in all its forms.

Well the characters in BSG are allot better than those in star wars while vader does have his charm it is a very childish thing to watch, as a kid i was not much into it, i was more star trek i guess i thought it was more intellictual or something, anyway firefly is amazing, no weapons on the ship no bang bang just great charactors and story.

meglome

There is a credibility problem with Sci-Fi in general I’d say. I know people, mostly women, who will not watch sci-fi no matter what. So shows like Battlestar Gallactica or Firefly or Heroes get ignored. It seems strange to me the amount of women who will watch hours of mindless soap operas but won't entertain any science fiction, no matter how near reality it is or isn't. It's like women and westerns, how many women do you know that would watch a western. I have introduced my girlfriend to sci-fi, initially with Firefly which she loved. We're watching Star Trek: DS9 right now which she also likes. Then we’ll move on to Battlestar Gallactica. BTW don’t mean to single out women here but that is my experience.

On the subject of Firefly I think it's one of the best sci-fi shows ever made. I just saw it cheap on DVD and decided to buy it. What a shame it's gone.

CerebralCortex

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Transformers,Fantastic Four 2,Pirates of the Caribbean,Spiderman 3 .
These are all science fiction films.
Hardly dead I think.

Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy, oh did I forget to mention they're all fantasy.
Star Wars isn't sci-fi its the Lord of The Rings with space travel.

CerebralCortex

Galvasean wrote:

I'm gonna ask again, exactly how did Serenity or Battlestar Gallactica raise the sci-fi bar? I mean the original Star Wars was out before both of them and I fail to see what they raised above it.

For the record; I enjoyed Serenity but don't think its in any way brilliant. I havent seen Firefly. I dislike BSG in all its forms.

Star Wars isn't really sci-fi its space opera same with Firefly/Serenity. A little science fiction mind you but alot of fun especially BSG.

weemcd

CerebralCortex wrote:

Star Wars isn't really sci-fi its space opera same with Firefly/Serenity. A little science fiction mind you but alot of fun especially BSG.

is it lotr with space travel or a space opera?

no, your wrong on both counts, its sci-fi

Fysh

weemcd wrote:

is it lotr with space travel or a space opera?

no, your wrong on both counts, its sci-fi

Star Wars is not fantasy, it's space opera - ie fantasy wearing the trappings of sci-fi.

The distinction is a bugger to actually make, but I've always thought it was down to the themes involved and the focus of the story - so if characters or plotlines in a given story lead to examination of certain types of question like "what is consciousness?" "what is reality?" "does artificial life have a different worth than organic life?", then it's sci-fi. If it doesn't, then it may or may not be.

Space opera, on the other hand, is loosely speaking epic fantasy in sci-fi drag, for want of a better phrase. I don't mean to suggest that it's any worse a genre, since that'd just be a stupid comment, just that it has a different focus.

galactus

Some good debate here. Interesting to see what people regard as sci-fi. I have a friend who loves sci-fi but refuses to watch anything Star Trek-related. His reason is that "its just Coronation Street in Outer Space". Mind you he does love Star Wars (apart from the Ewoks but that's probably a universal rule).

There are many sub-genres of sci-fi and there are authors who have worked in both sci-fi and fantasy: here's the Wikipedia entry.

Its all good (to me anyway) but the sci/fi genre I keep returning to is "hard sci/fi" where the science is explained to some degree (eg Greg Egan). On screen, some of the Star Trek episodes are very good in this regard but very little "hard sci/fi" makes it to the big screen and when it does its usually pretty tepid (eg the recent Solaris remake).

It used to be said that in sci-fi that The Idea is the hero. And not just Physics: taking Star Trek as an example, the TNG episode "Darmok" was partially a study in lingusitics and was no less thought-provoking for it. Or take the Original Star Trek which had the famous episode where Kirk and Uhuru shared the first inter-racial kiss on TV. Big and Important topics are meat and drink to sci/fi but there's always room for a bit of fun.

As for Fantasy, I don't read a lot of it but I do notice that instead of The Idea there's usually A Big Dragon and if anything unexplained happens then it was magic.

Or as someone once said: "Science Fiction is what I mean when I point at it!".

qwertplaywert

meglome wrote:

There is a credibility problem with Sci-Fi in general I’d say. I know people, mostly women, who will not watch sci-fi no matter what. So shows like Battlestar Gallactica or Firefly or Heroes get ignored. It seems strange to me the amount of women who will watch hours of mindless soap operas but won't entertain any science fiction, no matter how near reality it is or isn't. It's like women and westerns, how many women do you know that would watch a western. I have introduced my girlfriend to sci-fi, initially with Firefly which she loved. We're watching Star Trek: DS9 right now which she also likes. Then we’ll move on to Battlestar Gallactica. BTW don’t mean to single out women here but that is my experience.

I agree.I only know 1 person irl that would even consider watching sci fi,the rest,including my friends, regard it ,along with stuff like comics as 'geeky' and 'childish', and is 'all the same so whats the point'.But if you point out orginally they will just counter-argue with 'sci-fi is for nerds'/

User45701

It is true tho that there has not been a great new scifi show since BSG, i love heroes and well i dont know is it sci-fi? ive always thought of sci-fi as being based in the future more speculation about science as yet unknown to us which i find facinating

Tchocky

I think Sunshine knocks Ridley's argument on it's arse.

Fysh

User45701 wrote:

It is true tho that there has not been a great new scifi show since BSG, i love heroes and well i dont know is it sci-fi? ive always thought of sci-fi as being based in the future more speculation about science as yet unknown to us which i find facinating

It's certainly not hard sci-fi but then most TV sci-fi isn't really hard sci-fi. I'd say that the recent Masters Of Science Fiction miniseries shows that there is an audience for sci-fi in its classic form.

The thing is that TV sci-fi more so than film has always been a bastardised form, because a hard sci-fi tv show adhering to the prose scifi rule of "the idea is the hero" is going to alienate far more viewers than it'll endear. So if you accept a looser version of sci-fi for TV shows you've got the likes of The 4400, Eureka, Kyle XY, Enterprise, Doctor Who, Torchwood, Jekyll, Journeyman, and Life On Mars all doing pretty well in terms of ratings. (I'm not saying that all of the above are good, but that's not really the point).

It gets a bit harder to say the same with cinematic sci-fi, but I certainly don't think the genre's dead in the water like Ridley seems to think. As I said before, I suspect it's more a case of him feeling like he has nothing to bring to the table of mainstream cinematic sci-fi as it stands now than mainstream sci-fi being a dead genre.

newestUser

User45701 wrote:

Short version, i never even watched firefly when i watched serenity, im not part of any group of friends who love the show as you suggest, i simply fell in love with the show/film its up there on par with BSG even tho they are so different shows.

They are both amazing but serenity is what im talking about, bascelly i had it over hyped going in and i was amazed i really enjoyed it and later that day i bought firefly DVD and fell in love with the show.

Most of the people i went to see it with thought it was alright or good or "ok"

To each their own. I couldn't even watch it all the way through, I turned off the DVD midway. And I still think it's a 'cult' film that lots of people (though not necessarily you) profess to like because they want to fit in with the fanboy crowd. I get the impression that the kind of people who like Serenity are usually what my flatmate sneeringly describes as 'the Matrix boys', guys who are into computers/science in some way (eg gaming, programming), wear black leather trenchcoats, think Bill Hicks is God, have long hair, like metal music, yadda yadda yadda.

I've nothing against these people, and I'm not saying you're one of them, but it gets my goat when people say something is great just to go with the crowd.

User45701

newestUser wrote:

To each their own. I couldn't even watch it all the way through, I turned off the DVD midway. And I still think it's a 'cult' film that lots of people (though not necessarily you) profess to like because they want to fit in with the fanboy crowd. I get the impression that the kind of people who like Serenity are usually what my flatmate sneeringly describes as 'the Matrix boys', guys who are into computers/science in some way (eg gaming, programming), wear black leather trenchcoats, think Bill Hicks is God, have long hair, like metal music, yadda yadda yadda.

I've nothing against these people, and I'm not saying you're one of them, but it gets my goat when people say something is great just to go with the crowd.

your not the only one from my random reants aroudn boards you must have seen one of them bitching about people who only do/like stuff to fit in, then ofcoarse you get those stupid ****s who respond by calling you a goth and a non conformest ect ect. Load of bollox everyone should simply do what they want and not what its kool to do.

anyway off topic, actually very funny, i do like matrix, and i do wear black, but im not into music although i do like bill hicks but i dont have long hair or like metal or wear a trenchcoat.... bill hicks is funny to, not god but funny.

Anyway if you did like serenity i would suggest going to the next serenity day because its not goths and metal heads its normel people from all different ages and walks of life.

madrab

in terms of what i would like to see in sc-fi in the future, i would love to see
some 40k stuff (the current horus heracy novels would be very interesting)
Asimov's Foundation series
the Gap series by Steven Donaldson (very dark)
Iain M Banks culture novels consider phleabas, use of weapons (hell yeah!) & really confuse people with excession (imagine an entire movie about ship dialogue )