Is science fiction cool now ?

opinion guy

So some of the biggest films of the past year were Terminator: Salvation, Star Trek and Avatar, one of the most popular and critically acclaimed recent tv shows was BattleStar Galactica, and quite possibly V being the next big tv show. People who claimed to hate star trek before now claiming to have loved the latest film (even girls!!!)

I put it to you that science fiction is now cool.
Atari jaguar included - I have no idea what its all about but it seems to be the done thing around here...

Silverfish

It was ALWAYS cool.

Overheal

opinion guy wrote: »

So some of the biggest films of the past year were Terminator: Salvation, Star Trek and Avatar, one of the most popular and critically acclaimed recent tv shows was BattleStar Galactica, and quite possibly V being the next big tv show. People who claimed to hate star trek before now claiming to have loved the latest film (even girls!!!)

I put it to you that science fiction is now cool.
Atari jaguar included - I have no idea what its all about but it seems to be the done thing around here...

Terminator Flopped though what an awful film. It would have been a commercial failure if it wasnt for that Christian Bale audio rant.

mikom

opinion guy wrote: »

People who claimed to hate star trek before now claiming to have loved the latest film (even girls!!!)
I put it to you that science fiction is now cool.

Shove some Philip K. Dick under their nose and see how they like it.....

minidazzler

I concur with SS Sci-Fi always rocked. Except the Star Trek series, fcuk that!

Kiera

Nope it was never cool. Nerds!

TheZohanS

Moved to Films.

mike65

We're all nerds now!

Not sure how many titles deserve the description Science Fiction, most are Fantasy. Little real science or brain expanding philosophy.

Hank_Jones

Silverfish wrote: »

It was ALWAYS cool.

+1

Terminator Salvation certainly is not though.

It's not that science fiction is cool, it's just that science fiction has a dedicated following.
The studios see this as an easy way to make money, which is always their goal.
This results in them making a lot more science fiction films.

beans

Perhaps it's just marketable right now, like Vampires or whatever?

Studios in 2008: "Let's market the hell out of lots of sci-fi this year and sell it to the punters!"

They'll move onto bio-pics of famous Sports stars or adaptations of the Famous 5 stories for 2012, and the cycle of cr@p will go on and on

</cynical>

Capt'n Midnight

There is a lot of tripe too that is science fantasy

Life on Mars is SciFi , Lost isn't

Dr Who has three spinoff series

Fast Forward, True Blood - there are lots of effects driven series

It might be the recesion or political climate and people wanting escapism like King Kong during the great depression. But think it's a lot to do with you being able to sit back and watch the scenery or you can use your brain or do both. With a lot of other stuff on TV namely soaps and reality TV you can't really do either

Galvasean

2009 was agreat year for science fiction. Moon, Star Trek and District 9 performed great both ctitically and commercially. Then you have Transformers 2 and Avatar which also raked in the dough. Sci-fi is big bucks and it is definately becoming more mainstream.

Agricola

Yeah Sci-fi was always cool. Star Wars, The Matrix, Alien, Terminator. Good films will always attract an audience no matter what genre is flavour of the month.

Fysh

Galvasean wrote: »

2009 was agreat year for science fiction. Moon, Star Trek and District 9 performed great both ctitically and commercially.

TBH it pains me to read the question "is sci-fi cool?" in the context of Terminator: Salvation and Avatar, two films with woeful plots & scripting. They were sci-fi in the way that Star Wars was sci-fi ie. they had shiny "magic" technology.

Moon and District 9 are much better examples of sci-fi in terms of ideas and themes, and Star Trek is a much better example of pop sci-fi (though it's pretty much in the same camp as Terminator and Avatar in terms of internal consistency).

opinion guy

Fysh wrote: »

TBH it pains me to read the question "is sci-fi cool?" in the context of Terminator: Salvation and Avatar, two films with woeful plots & scripting. They were sci-fi in the way that Star Wars was sci-fi ie. they had shiny "magic" technology.

I'll take it you went with the PhD option then :rolleyes: I liked both films

Moon and District 9 are much better examples of sci-fi in terms of ideas and themes, and Star Trek is a much better example of pop sci-fi (though it's pretty much in the same camp as Terminator and Avatar in terms of internal consistency).

Argh I forgot District 9 in my post which I meant to include!!

Perhaps it's just marketable right now, like Vampires or whatever?

But see that was kind of my point. Before now it was always geeky or nerdy and very much a niche market. 2009 - its mainstream. Personally I thought Battlestar Galactica marked the transition of sci-fi from niche to mainstream.

MikeC101

opinion guy wrote: »

But see that was kind of my point. Before now it was always geeky or nerdy and very much a niche market. 2009 - its mainstream. Personally I thought Battlestar Galactica marked the transition of sci-fi from niche to mainstream.

I don't think so - it's always been a very popular genre in film and written form, for a long time. Just that there might have been a higher than usual amount of bigger budget science fiction films in 2009, a lot of which were well received either critically or commerically (and some both). I think as well that, as special effects technology improves, it gives a big boost to the production quality of science fiction in particular - think the "rubber forehead" aliens of old Star Trek compared to the prawns in District 9 for example - and makes it an even more attractive prospect for directors.

But if you look at a year like 2003 it had it's share of big budget science fiction too: The Core, Paycheck, two Matrix movies, Timeline, Terminator 3. Same for most years in the last decade. Science fiction films have always been a big success at the box office - I don't think it would be correct to call the genre a niche one in that respect.

I think it's just that TV has been dominated by stuff like Star Trek, Dr Who and the associated fandom, which really cast science fiction in a bad light, and that's why Battlestar Galactica stood out so much.

Edit: Added to all of the above, it's also an attractive genre for the reason that a lot of the time studios are aware if they "wow" people with something that's visually impressive enough, they can get away with weak plots, lazy writing etc - the recent Terminator and Transformers spring to mind - and make huge money. That's less true for say, a drama or a rom-com.

Fysh

opinion guy wrote: »

I'll take it you went with the PhD option then :rolleyes: I liked both films

Nope, I didn't vote because I thought the discussion is worth commenting on but the poll doesn't offer me a choice I can agree with. ("Cool" is an excessively subjective metric to have any kind of useful discussion with, and I've been keen on science-fiction for a good while now, whether or not it's been in vogue in mainstream entertainment).

I thought both films were visually impressive but very poor on character development and storyline, favouring shiny expensive effects over everything else that might make a film good.

And no, my idea of good sci-fi doesn't require any significant scientific knowledge - it does, however, require a strong script informed with ideas explored in an internally consistent way that address something interesting about people and how we live today or might live tomorrow. Whether all of that can be explained well in a film is a measure of the script/screenplay writer's ability.

opinion guy wrote: »

But see that was kind of my point. Before now it was always geeky or nerdy and very much a niche market. 2009 - its mainstream. Personally I thought Battlestar Galactica marked the transition of sci-fi from niche to mainstream.

Yeah, it's as if nobody made television shows like Babylon 5 and The 4400 and Life On Mars, or films The Matrix and Dark City and Twelve Monkeys and Gattaca and Pi.

(And that's just trying to name a few examples of each from the 90s that I thought were good, there are plenty more examples if you ratchet down the quality bar or expand the focus to include pop-sci-fi/science-fantasy).

Seriously, it's been a genre with a strong following for decades. The fact that there's this weird geek-chic thing going on now doesn't mean that sci-fi wasn't popular before.

opinion guy

ok as regards poll options is houdl point out that i originally posted this in after hours cause i was bored and didn't put too much thought into it. I wasn't expecting a serious discussion

Babylon 5 was fantastic (funnily enough been watching season one of battlestar galactica and detected a real B5 feel in some scenes). I also liked Space Above and Beyond for the feel of that show (and again see some influence in BG). Farscape was great. Yeah there was loads of scifi. It was always a big genre. But not the way it has been in the last year. With any of those other shows and some of the films you mention - if you brought them up in discussion inevitably someone would roll eyes to heaven and say ugh scifi is ****. That doens't happen now (well not in the same way). I think Battlestar changed that - for fundamentally whilst Battlestar was a scfi show - it was actually moreso a political drama. I do think that show crossed some kind of threshold. People might say the Babylon 5 was a good sci-fi show for example - but not sci-fi fans would never watch that show (even thou it was also a poltical drama - that was very much secondary to the sci-fi aspect - ya gotta love the prewritten arc story thou - genius). But with Battlestar people would say it was good tv or good drama - it just happened to be set in space. In many episodes the sci-fi aspect wasn't really that relevant and people who would normally turn off sci-fi would end up watching battlestar.

caroline010

hey up just joined Im a massive science fiction fan..have to get used to "how to post things properly before I jump in) hope this works

Mickeroo

I suppose sci-fi is more popular now alright. THe main reason people who didn't like Star Trek before like the JJ Abrams version is because the new one, brilliant as it was, was made to be a big dumb entertaining summer blockbuster unlike the other Star Trek films.

opinion guy

Wow I had forgotten I started this thread.

Ironic considering just two days ago I was pondering is science fiction dead now. SG:Universe has been cancelled, Caprica has been cancelled, V has been cancelled.

The golden age is over I'm afraid (with Battlestar Galactica being the obvious pinnacle)

Mickeroo

OH balls, I didn't even cop this was a zombie thread.

opinion guy

Mickeroo wrote: »

OH balls, I didn't even cop this was a zombie thread.

Thats ok, zombies come under the general heading of science fiction I think

Mickeroo

opinion guy wrote: »

Thats ok, zombies come under the general heading of science fiction I think

If this was a real zombie situation I would have been dinner by now, at least it will remind me to always be vigilant in the future :pac:

jaykhunter

Sci-Fi/Nerdiness is in fashion now. We're just ahead of the curve!

indough

it was always cool

and like it or not science fantasy is just an extremely soft form of science fiction, a level of sci-fi. some of the greatest sf writers of all time wrote stories that had hardly any scientific basis at all - philip k dick being the primary example

Skerries

it is a shame that a lot of good shows have ended with nothing really coming down the line
so has sci-fi taken a back seat to other genres such as vampires and zombies now?

Fysh

Skerries wrote: »

it is a shame that a lot of good shows have ended with nothing really coming down the line
so has sci-fi taken a back seat to other genres such as vampires and zombies now?

I think that sci-fi was seen as the new thing because some shows did it well (eg BSG, the 4400) but as those shows wound down, the new replacements didn't have the same sensibilities (eg Stargate Universe tried to mimic BSG but failed, Caprica took too long to go anywhere interesting, Flashforward was just a dull and not-particularly-well-executed show) and people got bored. At the same time, vampires became the next "wider cultural phenomenon" so vampire/monster shows became bigger.

Linguo

I've always loved sci-fi but if it being fashionable means there'll be more movies on offer in that genre I'm more than happy:)

opinion guy

Skerries wrote: »

it is a shame that a lot of good shows have ended with nothing really coming down the line
so has sci-fi taken a back seat to other genres such as vampires and zombies now?

I think things of all gone retro now - the edgy shows people are talkign about are things like Spartacus and Game of Thrones

Goldstein

Thankfully, science fiction still has its base first and foremost in literature, as has been the case for the last 60+ years. Real science fiction is so rare on the big screen that it's largely irrelevant to the future of the genre - put simply it doesn't care if it's cool or not, it is what it is. We're truly delighted when the rare gems make it through such as Sunshine, District 9, Children of Men etc. but they're incredibly rare.

The low attention span fans they gain these days from Hollywood shiney blockbuster sci-fi (T4, Battle L.A., Star Trek 2009, etc) are of little worth in the long term to cerebral speculative fiction.

Of more concern is the effective extinction of science fiction from the small screen now that Star Trek and Stargate are no more. BSG was a worthy flagship in the 00s, as was V in the 80s, Star Trek The Next Gen & SG-1 in the 90s and Firefly also in the 00s. Since the "SyFy" network in the U.S. has fallen under the control of those who don't understand the first thing about the genre, there is little hope for any genuine original output from them. All they're concerned with these days is Nielson ratings via wrestling, cooking programming, ghosthunters and virtual (read:cheap) sets - better the network go under and something of worth fill the void than that jokeshop of an operation continue to sully the genre so many have worked to build.

Science fiction is about two things: Pioneering original thought regarding the future and the experiences and moral dilemmas of those who will live through those times. Every time the literature, tv shows or movies spur and inspire people to look up at the night sky and be in awe of what they are perceiving and wonder as to its future, science fiction gets stonger.

Capt'n Midnight

Goldstein wrote: »

Thankfully, science fiction still has its base first and foremost in literature, as has been the case for the last 60+ years.

Just to be pedantic Frankenstein was 1818.

I like hard science fiction, as in history ahead of time. To me there is a lot of space opera / science fantasy and while it may be good to watch it's not real science fiction. And when science fantasy is bad , it is awful as it's usually plot by numbers using second hand costures with cheapo special effects.

Real science fiction is so rare on the big screen that it's largely irrelevant to the future of the genre - put simply it doesn't care if it's cool or not, it is what it is. We're truly delighted when the rare gems make it through such as Sunshine, District 9, Children of Men etc. but they're incredibly rare.

It the tradition of B-Movies some of the best SciFi is independent / low budget. Sunshine was dire, taking into account the science of the day and audience it was more of a horror novel with less science than Frankenstein.

Of more concern is the effective extinction of science fiction from the small screen now that Star Trek and Stargate are no more. BSG was a worthy flagship in the 00s, as was V in the 80s, Star Trek The Next Gen & SG-1 in the 90s and Firefly also in the 00s.

You have to add stuff like Red Dwarf and Hitchhickers guide to the the list, with arguably more science then some of the US space opera shows. At least Firefly didn't pretend , "Cowboys in Space" and easy on the eye

Science fiction is about two things: Pioneering original thought regarding the future and the experiences and moral dilemmas of those who will live through those times. Every time the literature, tv shows or movies spur and inspire people to look up at the night sky and be in awe of what they are perceiving and wonder as to its future, science fiction gets stonger.

One big aspect of SciFi is to put people (using the word loosely) in very different environments , where you can propose alternative moral codes, the are few rules apart from the author not using "magic" to fix plots (at that stage you are into fantasy , treat the technobabble of the last 5 minutes of every Voyager episode as being a magic spell and you'll see what I mean)


Oddly enough Discworld contains more SciFi than most SciFi if you treat it everything as opposite. Therein rules of magic are followed more closely than much SciFi movies/shows follow the rules of physics.

Goldstein

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just to be pedantic Frankenstein was 1818.

I didn't say science fiction originated 60 years ago, though as you bring it up I'd view Verne as the true Godfather of science fiction, certainly moreso than Shelley.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It the tradition of B-Movies some of the best SciFi is independent / low budget. Sunshine was dire, taking into account the science of the day and audience it was more of a horror novel with less science than Frankenstein.

I'd agree that low budget/independent science fiction films can be very successful - Los cronocrímenes, Primer, Triangle for example. As I said though they are exceptionally rare.

Regarding Sunshine, I was speaking about Danny Boyle's Sunshine, written by Alex Garland, and not this Sunshine novel you refer to, of which I am unaware. If you did mean the movie, I wouldn't define what falls squarely in the domain of speculative fiction as horror due solely to a, some would say, out of place plot twist in the last 20 minutes. Sunshine was outstanding apart from that little blip and does the genre proud.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You have to add stuff like Red Dwarf and Hitchhickers guide to the the list, with arguably more science then some of the US space opera shows. At least Firefly didn't pretend , "Cowboys in Space" and easy on the eye

My intent wasn't to make a comprehensive list, merely to single out a couple of sci-fi's major baton holders on tv in the last couple of decades - something we don't have anymore and the lack thereof combined with the rise of fantasy/vampires and the like could damage the expansion of the fanbase among younger people in the medium/long term - something which could impact all other mediums science fiction. No tv based intelligent, well made space opera is a big chink in the genre's armour.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

One big aspect of SciFi is to put people (using the word loosely) in very different environments , where you can propose alternative moral codes, the are few rules apart from the author not using "magic" to fix plots (at that stage you are into fantasy , treat the technobabble of the last 5 minutes of every Voyager episode as being a magic spell and you'll see what I mean)

Totally concur with that. The reset button was in the nature of episodic science fiction tv shows and that lazy miracle-tech option was employed too often by some shows. It wasn't just Voyager that came up with miracle techno solutions in the last minute either - I'm looking at you Mr. La Forge Voyager was behind the times in following DS9 out of the reset button philosophy but still featured about 12-15% of the most outstanding episodes of Star Trek from a writing standpoint. Such as: Blink of an Eye, Latent Image, Timeless, Sorpion, Message in a Bottle, Nemesis, Coda, Waking Moments, Relativity, Endgame etc. Below average quantity-wise certainly given the company but also misunderstood I feel by many.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oddly enough Discworld contains more SciFi than most SciFi if you treat it everything as opposite. Therein rules of magic are followed more closely than much SciFi movies/shows follow the rules of physics.

Than most bad science fiction yes I'd agree, of which we have no shortage in cinemas these days. Get the science or continutity badly wrong within the established physical confines of your universe and no amount of explosions or CGI are gonna make up for it - it's crossed into fantasy / science fantasy. (Star Trek 2009)

S.M.B.

Well it looks like the last 4 posts have single handedly made the genre uncool again.