NationStates Jolt Archive

Is story driven, character based science fiction film dead?

Isaac Asimov once divided science fiction literature into four time periods:

• 1926-38--adventure dominant
• 1938-50--science dominant
• 1950-65--sociology dominant
• 1966-present--style dominant

The Golden Age of science fiction literature (the 1940s and1950s) provided most of the stories that have been borrowed, paid homage to, recycled, ripped off, and used as scripts for modern sci-fi film. In fact these story lines are now so tired and have been cannibalized so many times that many writers and directors of science fiction film seem to have done away with the story altogether in favor 90 minute video games passed off as movies (Riddick Chronicles, Star Wars prequels, Matrix 2 & 3, odd numbered Star Trek movies, etc.).

Has the present age of style over substance, and more specifically CGI special effects style, been the death knell of sci-fi film?

Is story driven, character based science fiction film dead?

Isaac Asimov once divided science fiction literature into four time periods:

• 1926-38--adventure dominant
• 1938-50--science dominant
• 1950-65--sociology dominant
• 1966-present--style dominant

The Golden Age of science fiction literature (the 1940s and1950s) provided most of the stories that have been borrowed, paid homage to, recycled, ripped off, and used as scripts for modern sci-fi film. In fact these story lines are now so tired and have been cannibalized so many times that many writers and directors of science fiction film seem to have done away with the story altogether in favor 90 minute video games passed off as movies (Riddick Chronicles, Star Wars prequels, Matrix 2 & 3, odd numbered Star Trek movies, etc.).

Has the present age of style over substance, and more specifically CGI special effects style, been the death knell of sci-fi film?

I haven't genuinely enjoyed any of the recent sci-fi films I've seen lately...
I'm more of a book person anyway, though, so I'm a bit biased against film.

Well, not in literature, but in film it would appear so.

In literature we still have some beacons of hope, not all that bright, but they're still there.

In film, unless it's indie, then there's nothing out there but a barren wasteland.

Fantasy, on the other hand, might be nearing it's highpoint in film now, but in literature it's dead as could be, as all the modern authors just knock off of Tolkien.

Using Sci-Fi as a vehicle to demonstrate the spectical of film is as old as film itself. It is nothing new.

Using Sci-Fi as a vehicle to demonstrate the spectical of film is as old as film itself. It is nothing new.


...uh, okay. And that means...?

...uh, okay. And that means...?

Georges Méliès was one of the very first film makers, and his work was mainly concerned with exploiting the tricks of the new medium so as to present an entirely new spectacle: thus he used double-exposures to create ghosts, stops and starts to have people transported from one palce to another, and other tricks which are now common place. His finest achievement is probably his science fiction film Voyage dans la Lune from 1902. What he was essentially doing was using the new 'magic' of cinema, but framing it within technological narratives (ie. science fiction films).

...uh, okay. And that means...?
I got a call in the middle of the post, so I truncated it.

You are using Asimov's assement of written sci-fi and then looking at modern science fiction films as a sign of some sort of decline. That is not a honest comparison. Sense Journey to the Moon, film has utilized science fiction to elaborate on the spectacle. Film is at it's core spectacle. So movies that ride on advances in special effects have that feel to them. In that respect Journey to the Moon isn't tangably different than The Matrix. It's not a change.

Rare is the sci-fi film that has something outside the spectacle to say because they are more expensive and from the studio point of view the only reason you go is the spectical. Occasionally something lines up, like 2001, Star Wars. etc...

Georges Méliès was one of the very first film makers, and his work was mainly concerned with exploiting the tricks of the new medium so as to present an entirely new spectacle: thus he used double-exposures to create ghosts, stops and starts to have people transported from one palce to another, and other tricks which are now common place. His finest achievement is probably his science fiction film Voyage dans la Lune from 1902. What he was essentially doing was using the new 'magic' of cinema, but framing it within technological narratives (ie. science fiction films).

Yes, but the question was, have the tricks eclipsed the story? A video game is not a movie, but modern science fiction film seems to have given up altogether on the concept of story telling.

Film has always been about illusion, but it sometimes strives to tell a story. I don't see that so much in sci-fi film these days.

Science Fiction is not dead it's just dormant. It will probaly become popular again someday.

Rare is the sci-fi film that has something outside the spectacle to say because they are more expensive and from the studio point of view the only reason you go is the spectical. Occasionally something lines up, like 2001, Star Wars. etc...

What exactly does Star Wars have to say aside from the spectacle? Other than retelling the Parzifal story, taking bleeding chunks of Hidden Fortress and sending out a message that it is better to trust mystical claptrap than rationality and reason?

Yes, but the question was, have the tricks eclipsed the story? A video game is not a movie, but modern science fiction film seems to have given up altogether on the concept of story telling.

Film has always been about illusion, but it sometimes strives to tell a story. I don't see that so much in sci-fi film these days.

Well, I'm certainly not going to spring to the defense of current sf film making, becuase I find that my favourite science-fiction films are either from the 60s/70s or are oddball excursions like Cube (yeah, I know it had its flaws, and the twist was obvious as soon as they worked out that maths would be the key, but I still like it).

What exactly does Star Wars have to say aside from the spectacle? Other than retelling the Parzifal story, taking bleeding chunks of Hidden Fortress and sending out a message that it is better to trust mystical claptrap than rationality and reason?

Star Wars (the original story) brought to film Joseph Campbell's hero myth and tapped into some ancient themes and stories.

Is story driven, character based science fiction film dead?

Isaac Asimov once divided science fiction literature into four time periods:

• 1926-38--adventure dominant
• 1938-50--science dominant
• 1950-65--sociology dominant
• 1966-present--style dominant

The Golden Age of science fiction literature (the 1940s and1950s) provided most of the stories that have been borrowed, paid homage to, recycled, ripped off, and used as scripts for modern sci-fi film. In fact these story lines are now so tired and have been cannibalized so many times that many writers and directors of science fiction film seem to have done away with the story altogether in favor 90 minute video games passed off as movies (Riddick Chronicles, Star Wars prequels, Matrix 2 & 3, odd numbered Star Trek movies, etc.).

Has the present age of style over substance, and more specifically CGI special effects style, been the death knell of sci-fi film?
During the last two years, I seem to have detected another theme becoming more prominent: relationship. Some of the better ScFi movies seem to be emphasizing relationships among the characters a bit more. Or am I off base here?

Has the present age of style over substance, and more specifically CGI special effects style, been the death knell of sci-fi film?

I think in answer to this we should turn to Sturgeon's Law : as I'm sure you know, Theodore Sturgeon answered the accusation that 90% of all written science-fiction was bunk with the statement that 90% of anything is bunk.

Looking at the current sf film scene we see not only the occasional good films, but also the tide of dross that comes with them. We have the benefit of imperfect hindsight which allows us to perceive illusory golden ages of sf film-making because thoe that we remember are the quality films. Take the 60s - for every Stalker or Fahrenheit 451 produced there were hundreds of Monster-A-Go-Gos or other forgotten pieces of rubbish.

Fantasy, on the other hand, might be nearing it's highpoint in film now, but in literature it's dead as could be, as all the modern authors just knock off of Tolkien.

How about Stevern R. Donaldson? No doubt Tolkien is an influence... but there's no way you can call Thomas Covenant a knock-off.

Star Wars (the original story) brought to film Joseph Campbell's hero myth and tapped into some ancient themes and stories.

Note that I mentioned it was a retelling of the Parzifal story (the pure of heart defeating evil and overcoming adversary), which pretty much covers the hero myth, aside from that, the problem with Joseph Campbells skeleton is that it is so vague it is applicable to just about any western narrative.

How about Stevern R. Donaldson? No doubt Tolkien is an influence... but there's no way you can call Thomas Covenant a knock-off.
Absolutely true. His character is unique - an antiheroic, victim/leader, constantly at war with himself. Few fantasies have provided better characterizations, and the prose is rich in imagery.

What exactly does Star Wars have to say aside from the spectacle? Other than retelling the Parzifal story, taking bleeding chunks of Hidden Fortress and sending out a message that it is better to trust mystical claptrap than rationality and reason?
I'm so tired of seeing this criticism of Star Wars as it demonstrates such a limited understanding of narrative development. It comes from the same people or types of people who delight in pointing that Shakespeare borrowed his stories from other sources or contemporaries.

So what?

The Greek playwrights borrowed from myth for thier plays. Goes aaaalllllllll the way back and is in no way a detraction that someone borrowed from a source in their material. Unless Hidden Fortress had a Death Star and Light Sabers and a bigfoot named Chewbacca, I just don't want to hear it.

It is those very sources that makes Star Wars signifigant and why Cambell (who, to be fair, was only brought along after the first movie was made) fits so well. It is creation of fable and myth using the mythical and fabled elements of film that already existed, specificly westerns and samuari movies. To 'be about something' it doesn't have to have a set of instructions for your life in the narrative.

His character is unique - an antiheroic, victim/leader, constantly at war with himself.

~cough~

Elric.

~cough~

Note that I mentioned it was a retelling of the Parzifal story (the pure of heart defeating evil and overcoming adversary), which pretty much covers the hero myth, aside from that, the problem with Joseph Campbells skeleton is that it is so vague it is applicable to just about any western narrative.
But the Parsifal story itself is a knockoff of the story of Sir Galahad, the knight who was the only one worthy of finding the Holy Grail. Which is itself, I believe, a universal theme of good defeating evil, so I don't think I would call something a knockoff just because it talks about the a pure-hearted hero overcoming evil. Actually, the 20th century has, in large part, turned away from that particular theme, instead preferring more "realistic" characters with real human flaws, such as Thomas Covenant (an extreme example of that trend).

~cough~

Elric.

~cough~
Pardon my ignorance??

Star Wars doesn't really qualify as science fiction, anyway. It comes right out and sets itself up as a sort of fantasy opera that happens to be set in space.

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."

It makes little if any attempt to present its material -- its science or "the Force" -- as believable in the way required by science fiction. While most science fiction requires some suspension of disbelief, it nevertheless characteristically makes an attempt at consistency and a realistic portrayal of natural law. (Whether it is alternative history, a galactic society as in Foundation, or otherwise.)

Star Wars just doesn't care. So if it is going to be judged, it must be on another criteria than its quality as science fiction.

(I happen to like Star Wars... and I love science fiction. But for entirely different reasons.)

~cough~

Elric.

~cough~


Hehe. Indeed.

My parents named me after the Dragon Prince. ;)

I'm so tired of seeing this criticism of Star Wars as it demonstrates such a limited understanding of narrative development. It comes from the same people or types of people who delight in pointing that Shakespeare borrowed his stories from other sources or contemporaries.

...

It is creation of fable and myth using the mythical and fabled elements of film that already existed, specificly westerns and samuari movies. To 'be about something' it doesn't have to have a set of instructions for your life in the narrative.

My problem isn't that Star Wars draws heavily on it sources - we all know that the original rough cut used footage of WWII planes dogfighting in palce of TIE fighters and X-wings - instead it is the fact that it continues to be viewed as not only an important piece of film marketting (the invention of the summer blockbuster) or a breakthrough in special effects, but instead as if it had a content which rose above the level of a pantomime. As a 'big dumb film' it works fantastically well, there is no denying that, but as a piece of interesting ideas it jsut falls flat for me.

Hehe. Indeed.

My parents named me after the Dragon Prince. ;)

Are you actually called 'Elric'?

Selgin, here you go:

http://www.stormbringer.net/elric.html

His character is certainly an anti-hero, and conflicted in ways you cannot possibly imagine...

But Moorcock (the author) takes up a much more gothic imagery than Donaldson. Personally, I love them both... but even though I was named for Elric, I still prefer Thomas Covenant.

(By the way... are you reading Donaldson's most recent work, The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? So far only the first is out: The Runes of the Earth. Fantastic work... even better than the first six books.)

Pardon my ignorance??

A character created by Michael Moorcock in the early 1960s. He was a reaction to those mighty threwed barbarians or noble princes, instead he is a sickly albino who inherits the throne of his kingdom but renounces it and destroys his country, he then goes on to be driven to murder all those he truly loves and despite seeming to be the central character throughout his tales is eventually shown just to be a puppet of darker forces. He is pretty much the archetypal fantasy anti-hero.

Are you actually called 'Elric'?

I am. My middle name is Michael, after Michael Moorcock.

I am. My middle name is Michael, after Micheal Moorcock.

I, by chance, have 'Dacre' as a middle-name, so perhaps we will meet somewhere sailing on the seas of fate...

Selgin, here you go:

http://www.stormbringer.net/elric.html

His character is certainly an anti-hero, and conflicted in ways you cannot possibly imagine...

But Moorcock (the author) takes up a much more gothic imagery than Donaldson. Personally, I love them both... but even though I was named for Elric, I still prefer Thomas Covenant.

(By the way... are you reading Donaldson's most recent work, The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? So far only the first is out: The Runes of the Earth. Fantastic work... even better than the first six books.)
I saw it in the bookstore, but I did not pick it up. With three kids and three jobs, I don't have much time to read. To be better than the first six, it must be good. I will take your recommendation under advisement. I might just look into Moorcock's work as well - I've seen his works around, but never got around to reading them.

Science Fiction began with Swift's Gulliver's Travels. In the book Swift uses Alien races to examine the politics of his day when actualy writing about it could get you imprissoned, exiled, or dead for treason. Clever old dick Swift.

The best Science fiction has allways been a mixture of Asminov's list. I think the list has more to do with American pulp Scifi than the whole community at large.

Selgin, here you go:

http://www.stormbringer.net/elric.html

His character is certainly an anti-hero, and conflicted in ways you cannot possibly imagine...

But Moorcock (the author) takes up a much more gothic imagery than Donaldson. Personally, I love them both... but even though I was named for Elric, I still prefer Thomas Covenant.

(By the way... are you reading Donaldson's most recent work, The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? So far only the first is out: The Runes of the Earth. Fantastic work... even better than the first six books.)
Impressive web site, by the way. Yours?

Science Fiction began with Swift's Gulliver's Travels. In the book Swift uses Alien races to examine the politics of his day when actualy writing about it could get you imprissoned, exiled, or dead for treason. Clever old dick Swift.

The best Science fiction has allways been a mixture of Asminov's list. I think the list has more to do with American pulp Scifi than the whole community at large.
Actually, science fiction as a genre began to be more of a vehicle for liberal views in the late 50's and 60's. Star Trek, with a black woman officer, and numerous civil rights themes, caused quite a stir, but not so much if those issues had been addressed more directly. Rod Serling was intensely liberal, and managed to slip several of his liberal themes into Twilight Zone episodes without the "censors" even realizing it. That may be one of the reasons it was looked down on so much, until Star Wars opened up the floodgates in the 70's.

Science Fiction began with Swift's Gulliver's Travels. In the book Swift uses Alien races to examine the politics of his day when actualy writing about it could get you imprissoned, exiled, or dead for treason. Clever old dick Swift.

Much as I appreciate the Dean's work, I don't think it really qualifies as science fiction because there is no real scientific/technological thread running through it or behind it, unlike say Frankenstein, which I (following from Aldiss) would call the first sf novel.

If we allow Swift's work to be seen as the birth of the genre, then why not accept the tales of Lucian and their narrative of Ulysses's ship being carried off to the moon where society was ordered in a different way, or other similar tales dating back to ancient times?

Science Fiction began with Swift's Gulliver's Travels.

Try Lucian (125 A.D.) and his description of a voyage to the moon to meet the Lunar inhabitants.

Or at least Cyrano de Bergerac with a similar story, some 40 years before Swift.

Impressive web site, by the way. Yours?

Nah. :)

If you want to see an odd website, check out www.elric.com. Someone else whose real name is Elric and beat me to it... He's got music, so turn the sound on. :D

Actually, science fiction as a genre began to be more of a vehicle for liberal views in the late 50's and 60's.

True, but it is not as if earlier science-fictional writers weren't expressing 'liberal' views prior to this - just look at the big three dystopian novels - Zamyatyin's We, Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four, all of which predate the 50s, and these are just high profile examples.

Try Lucian (125 A.D.) and his description of a voyage to the moon to meet the Lunar inhabitants.

Ha! Beat you by a minute.

True, but it is not as if earlier science-fictional writers weren't expressing 'liberal' views prior to this - just look at the big three dystopian novels - Zamyatyin's We, Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four, all of which predate the 50s, and these are just high profile examples.
I was actually referring more to TV/movies than literature, but you make a good point. Not familiar with Zamyatyin's "We", though.

Ha! Beat you by a minute.

That you did!

I am willing to count Lucian, by the way, because as I recall his story seems to make its best attempt at inventing a method of travel that seemed plausible given his knowledge of nature. (Of course, it's been a long time since I read this one, so I could be wrong... but he does use wings, right? It's not like he just gets there by "magic.")

I do remember it being an interesting read... especially those artifical... umm, organs, that the Lunar people wear. ;)

I was actually referring more to TV/movies than literature, but you make a good point. Not familiar with Zamyatyin's "We", though.

I can never remember the correct spelling of the man's name - Yevgeny Zamiatin - published in 1924 and it is basically the Ur-text* from which all following science-ficiton dystopias take their basic form structure and ideas. Even those produced by such rightists as Ayn Rand (Anthem) can't seem to escape it. Both Huxley and Orwell admitted that it was a massive influence on them, and watching or reading other sf dystopias will continue to remind you of it once you have read it - for example even something like Gilliam's Brazil is basically another retelling of Zamiatin's novel. Definitely worth checking out.




* well, if you want to go really far back, then the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis is the basis of all science-fiction dystopias.

That you did!

I am willing to count Lucian, by the way, because as I recall his story seems to make its best attempt at inventing a method of travel that seemed plausible given his knowledge of nature. (Of course, it's been a long time since I read this one, so I could be wrong... but he does use wings, right? It's not like he just gets there by "magic.")


Carried aloft by a waterspout IIRC. Possibly you are confusing it with Godwin's Man In The Moon wherein the protagonist is shipwrecked and then manages to be carried aloft to the moon by two dozen geese?

I can never remember the correct spelling of the man's name - Yevgeny Zamiatin - published in 1924 and it is basically the Ur-text* from which all following science-ficiton dystopias take their basic form structure and ideas. Even those produced by such rightists as Ayn Rand (Anthem) can't seem to escape it. Both Huxley and Orwell admitted that it was a massive influence on them, and watching or reading other sf dystopias will continue to remind you of it once you have read it - for example even something like Gilliam's Brazil is basically another retelling of Zamiatin's novel. Definitely worth checking out.




* well, if you want to go really far back, then the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis is the basis of all science-fiction dystopias.
Thanks for the recommendation.

Damn you literate people blowing my thesis away. :p

Carried aloft by a waterspout IIRC. Possibly you are confusing it with Godwin's Man In The Moon wherein the protagonist is shipwrecked and then manages to be carried aloft to the moon by two dozen geese?

Actually, it turns out we are both right!!

I just checked my notes, and it turns out Lucian wrote two stories about going to the Moon!

In the first -- apparently the one you read -- a boat is carried aloft by a waterspout.

I only had to read the second one, which involves a man attaching wings to his arms and flapping his way there.

I just checked my notes, and it turns out Lucian wrote two stories about going to the Moon!

I hope the second one was subtitled: This time its personal.

Well, not in literature, but in film it would appear so.

In literature we still have some beacons of hope, not all that bright, but they're still there.

In film, unless it's indie, then there's nothing out there but a barren wasteland.

Fantasy, on the other hand, might be nearing it's highpoint in film now, but in literature it's dead as could be, as all the modern authors just knock off of Tolkien.

More fantasy that doesn't just knock off Papa:

Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos and The Khaavren Romances (http://www.mojoworld.net/sil/ref/books.html) - especially the romances, which are notably influanced by Alexandre Dumas.

Just about everything by Glen Cook, especially the Black Company (http://www.shout.net/~bburgner/blackco.html),

Lawrence Watt-Evans' Dragon Weather and Ethshar. (http://www.sff.net/people/lwe/main.htp)

Robin Hobb's (http://www.robinhobb.com/) books

M.A.R. Barker's Tékumel Novels (http://www.gamebooks.org/show_person.php?id=153) - about as far from Papa as you can get.

I hope the second one was subtitled: This time its personal.


That's genius. Pure genius.

Eh... Sci-fi film isn't dead, I don't think. It's just fairly meh at the moment, but it can resurge! Someone just needs to make a thirty hour long version of The Nights Dawn trilogy and it'll be back on its feet pronto.

I hope the second one was subtitled: This time its personal.

Funny... that was the sub-title of my final paper in American politics last year!

[This was when Arnold was running for Governor of California. The mid-term assignment was to write (assuming he'd won) advice on how he should prepare to run for President. -- We were allowed to discount the Constitution if we wished; it was an exercise. -- Then the final was, assuming he was the new President, how should he go about achieving certain policy goals (specified by the professor.]

True, but it is not as if earlier science-fictional writers weren't expressing 'liberal' views prior to this - just look at the big three dystopian novels - Zamyatyin's We, Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four, all of which predate the 50s, and these are just high profile examples.

Well, to go to your example of a contender for the first SF book. Frankenstein was very liberal too.

Btw, is it Lucian's Wonderland you are talking about?

Roman guy, gets around, finds the isle of the dead heros (amoung other things)

Btw, is it Lucian's Wonderland you are talking about?

Roman guy, gets around, finds the isle of the dead heros (amoung other things)

In the one I read, its a Roman guy who rips the wings off an eagle and uses them to flap his way to the Moon... where he meets people who walk around with dildos attached to themselves all the time.

In the one I read, its a Roman guy who rips the wings off an eagle and uses them to flap his way to the Moon... where he meets people who walk around with dildos attached to themselves all the time.
Right.....


That's definetaly not the one I've read. He did go to the moon though iirc

oh boy i just read matrix one and two as bad and gah...ok i had talked to people oh it sucks they said, neo dies they said this that the next thing its bad...i watched it...see it isnt Sci Fi thats dead its peoples attitudes, see peopel who dont like that and the odd numbered star trek movies well i mean little to know attention span, comprehension of events or well i wont say but anyways...guys WATCH THE FRIGGING MOVIES...dont stare blankly see good movies make you THINK not stand there and give everything to you >.< now i dont care about anything else but for the last time the third matrix was the best one and chronicles of riddick was good and screw you search for spock ruled guys lol.
anyways but yeah its not the movies that are dead its the audiences

Is story driven, character based science fiction film dead?

Isaac Asimov once divided science fiction literature into four time periods:

• 1926-38--adventure dominant
• 1938-50--science dominant
• 1950-65--sociology dominant
• 1966-present--style dominant

The Golden Age of science fiction literature (the 1940s and1950s) provided most of the stories that have been borrowed, paid homage to, recycled, ripped off, and used as scripts for modern sci-fi film. In fact these story lines are now so tired and have been cannibalized so many times that many writers and directors of science fiction film seem to have done away with the story altogether in favor 90 minute video games passed off as movies (Riddick Chronicles, Star Wars prequels, Matrix 2 & 3, odd numbered Star Trek movies, etc.).

Has the present age of style over substance, and more specifically CGI special effects style, been the death knell of sci-fi film?
You could apply the same reasoning to almost any genre though. Fact is, Hollywood is (for the most part) peddling recycled trash thesedays. Sequels, prequels, remakes, foreign language adaptations, comic book adaptations, novel adaptations, video game adaptations...

Tinseltown is in dire need of some TALENTED scriptwriters, and studios with enough balls to fund movie that aren't just clones of everything else coming out.

First, on the notion of fantasy being dead, given the fact that the biggest film series of recent years have both been fantasy based (though some will no doubt want to kill me for saying that Harry Potter is fantasy) should help ensure a revival.

As for sci-fi, well, there's been some dross but as others have said there has always been some dross. There have been upsides, though. Minority Report and AI both had their moments but were somewhat let down by Spielberg, well, being Spielberg. Ditto The Matrix series, huge potential but completely failed to live up to it. Vanilla Sky is also one film that deeply dissapointed me (I love Cameron Crowe but, seriously, give your audience some credit, you don't have to do a plot-by-numbers sequence at the end). If just one of those had managed to click, though, things would be much rosier, IMHO.

There have, however, been two absolutely brilliant sci-fi films in recent years, though they do not stand out as sci-fi: Donnie Darko and The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Maybe what we're starting to see, and what these 2 films presage, is the sci-fi element being increasingly relegated to the background and used more as a device to develop characters. Maybe we're entering the "character dominant" period. Maybe.


Hopefully.