Sci-Fi and Action...together forever?

[Umbran]

The problem is that action, drama, and comedy are elements not genres (historical, fantasy, science fiction, modern, western, romance, etc.).

I'm not so sure of that. In terms of movies, "Action" is a genre these days. The "Romantic comedy" is also a genre all it's own, separate from any other comedy, even those that have romance in them as well.

 

[Mark]

The problem is that action, drama, and comedy are elements not genres (historical, fantasy, science fiction, modern, western, romance, etc.). It allows one to decide what type entertainment elements are in a movie of a certain genre (or at least the majority of the media show).

But even the genres itself tend to crossover or blended in a media show (western/victorian steampunk, science fiction fantasy, etc.).

All in all, they're just labels to inform the audience so they can decide what kind of entertainment they are in the mood for.

True. And since Total Recall I've primarily associated Sci-Fi with Action as opposed to Adventure as I did before. I'm wondering if others have had this same experince or something similar.

 

[Skade]

Re: Kinda hijacky...

And in related unrelated news; Its only a matter of time before a "serious dramatic film work" contains scenes of non-simulated sex between actors. I read a John Waters quote where he predicted it being less than a decade away.

if you belive certain rumors that's already happened at least once, just not officially. The movie Jade, though it was so bad it may not qualify as serious dramatic work. Additionally, wasn't there a Chinese movie that did this? I also thought there was an Italian film, but I cannot remember the name of either.

 

[s/LaSH]

And what's the divide between adventure and action? Less guns, or perhaps the hero runs away a little more often? I dunno.

I was puzzled when I heard that Star Trek movies were considered an action franchise, but it makes sense the way they make them. I'd do 'em differently, but then, I'm a sucker for memetic engineering and I'd like to see if I could make the untenable tenable like it was half a century ago. Just consider making a film with the personality of that era with the special effects of today...

Rant rant rant.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Kinda hijacky...

It really is fascinating to me; genre and context. What happend when you mix genre tropes inside a single film? And what's the relative effect of different genre elements. Can you mix "serious drama" with ghosts?

Sixth Sense, Ghost, Wuthering Heights...

What about with spaceships?

A little tougher, but one could say that both Babylon 5 and Deep Space 9 attempted this - as well as 2001 and the excellent Gattaca (well, OK, it was a rocket, not a 'space ship', but you get the idea).

J

 

[Ranger REG]

And what's the divide between adventure and action? Less guns, or perhaps the hero runs away a little more often? I dunno.

Less fights?

I was puzzled when I heard that Star Trek movies were considered an action franchise, but it makes sense the way they make them. I'd do 'em differently, but then, I'm a sucker for memetic engineering and I'd like to see if I could make the untenable tenable like it was half a century ago. Just consider making a film with the personality of that era with the special effects of today...

Well, I can understand adding the "action" element to Star Trek to appeal the mainstream, but sometimes I wonder if the most current Trek movies are moving away from their signature format that made me want to watch Trek in the first place (i.e., Star Trek: The Original Series).

It got to the silly point of trying to use the same cinematic style of Star Wars that it is beginning to lose its own identifiable mark.

 

[Mallus]

All in all, they're just labels to inform the audience so they can decide what kind of entertainment they are in the mood for.

I think genre is a lot more than that. Genre conventions are clues that inform us how to interpret a given film/book/insert-artform-here. Genre conventions are context clues; they influence the audiences expectations, establish entire frameworks for enjoying/understanding a given work.

Think about channel-surfing across a costume drama set in an English garden where refined people are speaking in British accents... instantly the mind assign the movie to the genre "Merchant/Ivory snorefest". An entire host of expectations is raised from a small number of clues; a context for viewing the movie is created. Now imagine a stately talking lion walking into the scene; that's pretty jarring, right? Until you adjust and re-assign the film to the genre "fantasy", specifically "allegorical Christian fantasy". See my point?

That's what makes the use of genre elements so interesting to me; they act as a form of artist shorthand.

 

[Mallus]

Well, I can understand adding the "action" element to Star Trek to appeal the mainstream, but sometimes I wonder if the most current Trek movies are moving away from their signature format that made me want to watch Trek in the first place (i.e., Star Trek: The Original Series).

Remember that they did make a ST movie that stayed true to the spirit of the original series, one that was pure science fiction and that embodied one of Roddenbery's favorite themes --Man outgrowing the need for God. It was called Star Trek: the Motion Picture, and it didn't do very well at the box office.

Not given up on the franchise, they followed with the much cheaper Wrath of Khan, which happened to be far more action-heavy. It also happened to be a damn good film, succeeding a lot of levels. I think the quality of Khan inadvertantly helped associate Trek films with the action genre.

 

[Ranger REG]

Remember that they did make a ST movie that stayed true to the spirit of the original series, one that was pure science fiction and that embodied one of Roddenbery's favorite themes --Man outgrowing the need for God. It was called Star Trek: the Motion Picture, and it didn't do very well at the box office.

Granted, the story used in that film was too cerebral (some were put off by the religious element), but personally catered to my interpretation of Star Trek.

Not given up on the franchise, they followed with the much cheaper Wrath of Khan, which happened to be far more action-heavy. It also happened to be a damn good film, succeeding a lot of levels. I think the quality of Khan inadvertantly helped associate Trek films with the action genre.

It is action-heavy, but it does come across as an intelligent story regarding aging, friendship, and of course, what Shakespeare used in some of his works, vengeance.

 

[Mark]

I have a friend who to this day whenever something confounds him, screws up his face and mutters, "...Botany Bay...?" in a Chekov voice...