ml241 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Being relatively young, I certainly don't know what the majority of science fiction was like in the days of The Twilight Zone. With that said, the earliest science-fiction film I'm familiar with is Flash Gordon, and it's most certainly not intellectual. It's not a new development that we have so much science fiction that's not out to make a point. That kind of SF has been there all along, alongside the more provocative material. There is certainly change in the methods in intellectual sci-fi, though. Whereas once writers would stand on a soapbox and say "This is what is right", modern TV writers prefer to strive for objectivity, so that the viewer can make up his own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypha01 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess you're about 16...17 tops and listen to NIN. Why, are you looking for more friends ? And to answer your questions, no and no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypha01 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I don't don't know how I feel about the bad guys getting their turn. The one thing I'm really sick off in the past 20 years in all fiction is the rise of the Anti hero. It makes me worry about society as a whole when characters such as Hannibal the Cannibal are celebrated as heros. Even in lighter films, The bad guy is becoming the hero or at least somebody to be admired - The Terminator, Darth Vader to name but 2. The only exception to this is when the good guy is such a smart ass that you really want to see him get pounded. Roadrunner being the obvious contender - Wile Cayote should have stuck an acme rocket up that bird's rear end and launched him to the moon. Oh Marvin The MArtian should have won too because he was cute. I see your points Pella, I dont really like characters like Cannibal or the Terminator really, I dont find them very interesting. I never really found "slasher" stars like Jason or Freddy to be that interesting either. For good guys, I think "The Outer Limits" did it extremely well as they obviously had weaknesses and didnt allways come out on top, sometimes even sacrificing their own lives for what they felt was right, knowing nobody will ever know of what they did. And IMO that is a much better idea of a "hero" than Captain Kirk or any marvel super heros, and more in tune with what I would prefer to see on screen. Oh and Wile Cayote is exactly why I find "the bad guys" more interesting and makes better entertainment, we love watching him plot and scheme then and its hillarious especially his facial reactions right ? afterall there is a reason why things like The Daleks are popular, I actually find them more interesting than The Doctor too. I dont really see them to be admired but I think bad guys being the stars make for more interesting entertainment personally. The good guys should never be infallible and should lose every now again, but only in the direst of circumstances. I think this is where we can compromise. I liked how shows like Blakes7 killed off people once in a while, even the main star. This makes it more unpredictable and makes for more emotional impact and storytelling in my eyes. I have no problem with the good guys winning, but they shouldnt win EVERY time, it is kind of lame when you see the hero of the day coming out of a ridiculous situation untouched too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xevallah Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Of course SF has changed during the last years' date=' because of one thing : money, money, money... What was considered for a long time as second hand literature (and movies) has became widely accepted (and appreciated ?). SF is now a label, not of quality, but of quantity. So everybody tries to get a piece of the cake. Thus, every publishing house, movie major or TV channel wants its own products in order to get its share. Of course, they adopt a minimal definition of SF (space/time/dimension travels, aliens... : lets say that it is mostly a question of scenery and make-up). The same phenomenon is happening with Fantasy : it generates money, so there is an increasing number of books or movies about the (stupid and repetitive) quest of some characters armed with swords and spells.[/quote'] Yes, it is so criminal for people looking to make money off their intellectual property. Just finished your first reading of Das Kapital there buddy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 I don't think Nanabozo is anti-money, but lamenting that commercialization of Sci-Fi has, in recent years, caused it to be changed for the worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xevallah Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 It's still a rot of an argument. Commercialism only increases output, it doesn't inherently degrade quality. There is still an audience for intelligable sci-fi, thus we have Battlestar Galactica, Solaris, etc, etc. And if you don't think sci-fi has been commercial since its inception you have no sense of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 I would say it's really somewhere in the middle. Sure, people don't write for free, and anywhere there is money being made, somebody is out to make more. But what has happened in the last few decades is people figuring out exactly what it is that makes people think "Sci-Fi", and then removing all that other nonsense, thus saving money. Like assembly line Sci-Fi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml241 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Well, I don't think that's true, but since you're only speaking in vague generalizations it would be hard to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 I could give specific examples, if I weren't so tired right now. How about this: 90% of everything shown on the Sci-Fi channel, versus 90% of stories printed in...oh, let's go with Weird Science, shall we? On the one hand, you have 10% of the shows being of any actual value beyond a cheap thrill, and on the other hand you have 10% of the stories being made just for the cheap thrill. I hope that was coherent enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanabozo Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Of course I'm not anti-money : everybody has to make his living!! As you said, the success of commercialization increased the output, which would seem to imply that it should also increase the amount of good quality productions (in books, movies or TV). Alas, I don't think this is the case. When I go to my bookshop or to cinema, I don't have the impression (but of course this is completely subjective) that I can read or see more interesting things that few years ago : there are still some very good quality stuff, but more and more products with absolutely no interest because editors and producers are just trying take advantage of the Sci-Fi general interest. I would add that quality is not a guaranty of success, and that the opposite proposition is even more true : a big commercial success is not a guaranty of quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jounin Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Over the years sci fi has become computerized. In some cases this has been beneficial, such as the changes that computer effects brought to star trek, but in others, too much focus has gone to special effects, to the detriment of the plot (coughstarwarsepisode1cough). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xevallah Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Right, so what about all these writers in the 50's and 60's who cashed on the Flying Saucer mania and printed out formulaic stories involving little green men or other cliché elements ham fisted for journals in under a few days? Brimming with creativity, no!? Nothing has changed in the last 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Science fiction has changed. Where did all those stories of the little blue alien go? You know "blue, da ba dee...". Science fiction has changed thanks to the posting of THE ULTIMATE SPAM POST!!! See now THE ULTIMATE SPAM THREAD!!!!!!!!, the successor and sequel to the ultimate spam post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USWhoFan Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Over the years sci fi has become computerized. In some cases this has been beneficial' date=' such as the changes that computer effects brought to star trek, but in others, too much focus has gone to special effects, to the detriment of the plot (coughstarwarsepisode1cough).[/quote'] So true and such a perfect example of Sci-Fi Special Effects gone wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Jarjar Binks - George Lucas's and a salamanders love child. As someone pointed out (Mr Cranky?) - the Star Wars prequels managed to make "special" effects anything but by including them in almost EVERY scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jounin Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Damn Jar Jar ruined everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Science fiction has changed because its moved with us into this digital "information age". Not surprising really because in its early forms there was that air of mystery/imagination/strangeness that was new and entertaining, alas all very common now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 In some ways I agree with you - the proliferation of computers has made sci-fi in some ways more mundane, even outdated (Star Trek only managed wireless in Nemesis). Of course, I think you're missing the point in that science fiction need not (and perhaps should not) become overly obsessed with technology. That's how later Trek lost focus. One need not be in awe of technology for sci-fi to inspire awe. Wait a second... "Threshold" Janeway and Paris mutate into salamanders and procreate... not long afterward JARJAR arrives. Coincedence? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now