Sci-Fi and Action...together forever?
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
I think there would be room on a Saturday morning for a youngster-targetted Starfleet Academy series. Maybe set in the same time frame as Enterprise with some crossover stuff when they have the chance. A little less shoot-em-up and a little more lesson-oriented, I think. They could help build an audience for one another and start rebuilding the franchise...
Ranger REG
Explorer
Somebody suggested they do that animated series (or was it live-action?) long ago, but with younger versions of Kirk, McCoy, and if possible Mr. Spock.
John Crichton
First Post
Chun-tzu said:
No thank you. Okay, well it could be done and I would give it a shot but I would rather see the Starfleet Academy show or something set about 50 years after the Next Generation/Deep Space 9.
John Crichton
First Post
As for the original thread topic -
I think I stole this from Harlan Ellison but I've been referring to Sci-Fi as the typical Hollywood summer movie. Science Fiction is a movie like Dark City where the genre is actually represented.
As others have mentioned, everyone is trying to make the next Star Wars in terms of sales & franchising. Some have had marginal success while most are a one hit wonder and are usually crap.
The films that try to do science fiction without action/fights like Contact (which was a GREAT film) end up getting slammed because people don't expect to see that kind of thing. Contact came out at a bad time (ID-4 was out the summer before) and I don't think was marketed properly.
So, in short, I don't associate action and science fiction or even action and sci-fi together please see above for explaination). Especially now with comic book movies getting all kinds of attention and other genres are being tapped like pirates, swords and magic fantasy, the buddy-cop film and updates of old classics (ugh!) the sci-fi/action stigma may have a chance to be shed if we can get a few good classic science fiction movies out there. M. Night would be a perfect person to do one. I know Steven Soderbergh did Solaris (which I haven't seen yet and I know it is a remake) and that didn't exactly do great but it is a step in the right direction.
I think I stole this from Harlan Ellison but I've been referring to Sci-Fi as the typical Hollywood summer movie. Science Fiction is a movie like Dark City where the genre is actually represented.
True science fiction teaches the viewer about an aspect of humanity or explores it using the supernatural as a catalyst/anatagonist/protagonist. The movie that stands out to me the most in recent memory as having a legit chance at this was AI. The concept was so good and was excuted so poorly. There were moments of true brilliance in that film (when the young boy comes alive for the first time). But it just turned into a confusing mixed-message PC mess.
As others have mentioned, everyone is trying to make the next Star Wars in terms of sales & franchising. Some have had marginal success while most are a one hit wonder and are usually crap.
The films that try to do science fiction without action/fights like Contact (which was a GREAT film) end up getting slammed because people don't expect to see that kind of thing. Contact came out at a bad time (ID-4 was out the summer before) and I don't think was marketed properly.
So, in short, I don't associate action and science fiction or even action and sci-fi together please see above for explaination). Especially now with comic book movies getting all kinds of attention and other genres are being tapped like pirates, swords and magic fantasy, the buddy-cop film and updates of old classics (ugh!) the sci-fi/action stigma may have a chance to be shed if we can get a few good classic science fiction movies out there. M. Night would be a perfect person to do one. I know Steven Soderbergh did Solaris (which I haven't seen yet and I know it is a remake) and that didn't exactly do great but it is a step in the right direction.
NoOneofConsequence
First Post
Re: As for the original thread topic -
I think this hits it right on the head. John Brosnan (sf historian) called Star Wars a breath of fresh air and the kiss of death for sf film. It simultaneously proved that there was a market (a huge one) and "consigned sf to the nursery, where it has remained ever since".
Some other bits to think about. Most sf movies are not made by sf fans. The producers and directors who end up in charge often have no connection to the genre (to say nothing of the actors) and so they try to make the movie "look" sf rather than be sf.
Also, it's a Hollywood maxim that sf films are expensive to make and invariably look cheap. I don't know how true that is these days, but it's a comment that touches on some realities, I think. After spending the kind of money that sf films cost to make, people want the broadest audience possible - complex intellectual stuff doesn't bust the box office the way mindless violence does.
John Crichton said:
I think this hits it right on the head. John Brosnan (sf historian) called Star Wars a breath of fresh air and the kiss of death for sf film. It simultaneously proved that there was a market (a huge one) and "consigned sf to the nursery, where it has remained ever since".
Some other bits to think about. Most sf movies are not made by sf fans. The producers and directors who end up in charge often have no connection to the genre (to say nothing of the actors) and so they try to make the movie "look" sf rather than be sf.
Also, it's a Hollywood maxim that sf films are expensive to make and invariably look cheap. I don't know how true that is these days, but it's a comment that touches on some realities, I think. After spending the kind of money that sf films cost to make, people want the broadest audience possible - complex intellectual stuff doesn't bust the box office the way mindless violence does.
Similar Threads
