Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott

[Dr Zaius]

It appears that director Ridley Scott agrees with my assessment that sci-fi is dying. Actually, he thinks it's already dead.

He was the director of two of the most critically acclaimed science fiction films, but now Sir Ridley Scott believes that the genre is so tired and unoriginal that it may be dead.

At the Venice Film Festival for a special screening of his seminal noir thriller Blade Runner, Sir Ridley said that science fiction films were going the way the Western once had. “There’s nothing original. We’ve seen it all before. Been there. Done it,” he said. Asked to pick out examples, he said: “All of them. Yes, all of them.”

The flashy effects of recent block-busters, such as The Matrix, Independence Day and The War of the Worlds, may sell tickets, but Sir Ridley believes that none can beat Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 sci-fi epic 2001: A Space Odyssey.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2351086.ece

 

[Aries]

"The Matrix, Independence Day and The War of the Worlds"

Well the Matrix was tainted by being lumped in with the other two, which while fun, were poorly thought out clumsy efforts at best.

Independence Day was a action movie, hardly rates being called scifi. Maybe he has a point when he considers examples like this.

War of the Worlds with Cruise, that utter crap was a travesty.

If the man wishes to judge the genre on it's worst, then yes, it looks dead.

But not all is bad. And sometimes original is good, but occasionally a plot just works. Serenity was a good film.
But, a lot of today's best, are not really films per se, but tv series.
I think Stargate was great, and BSG very fun too. Not overly "original", but if you want good scifi, you likely need to be in a bookstore, not a theater.

 

[Foggy]

It appears that director Ridley Scott agrees with my assessment that sci-fi is dying. Actually, he thinks it's already dead.



http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2351086.ece

I have to agree w/this nothing lately stands up to 2001 - love it or hate it -
best sci fi picture ever made:halo:

 

[Blackcloud6]

Hal! Open the Pod bay door!

 

[Aries]

Alas, scifi is just one of several genres, doomed by the glut of "action" delivered by "special" effects, that are created by machines, not actors.

The audience is increasingly lurred by no thinking required entertainment, and the moment anything remotely like thought is required in a film, it kills the "action" and makes the film at risk of being less successful.

Most "good" science fiction requires thought. Thus, most "good" science fiction put on the big screen, will likely seem dull.

2001 was a damn fine film, but, it required a lot of thought. There was content the observer had to ponder while viewing and after viewing.

And if you have read 2001, 2010, 2061 and finally 3001, you will of course know, that the author didn't hold the reader by the hand and explain every last detail. 3001 has a great ending, in that it ends, but, it doesn't really end completely. You the reader must supply the final absolute conclusion.

That would never work in film. The audience would wonder why the last 15 minutes of the film were missing.

Maybe the movie going public isn't truly stupid, but, they are increasingly being served films as if they were. If you're not actually stupid, you should at least be insulted.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Well Westerns are wedded to history. Plus the romance of that era has long gone. But SF is wide open. It will take creative writers and directors, with bold producers (all three are lacking in film making right now) to make it work, but I think SF will see a rebound.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Well Westerns are wedded to hidtory. Plus the romance of that era has long gone. But SF is wide open. It will take creative writers and directors, with bold producers (all three are lacking in film making right now) to make it work, but I think SF will see a rebound.

Josh Weedon of Serenity/Firefly comes to mind.

It's a shame that a man like Ridley Scott would put forth the view expressed here on Sci-Fi. Influence counts a lot in Hollywood and attitudes like his will have a chilling effect and the way things work, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, means that the word'll go round and that will be that for the money men. The prospect of Sci-Fi films will truly be dead at that point.:hush:

 

[Blackcloud6]

I thought Solaris was good SF film. And there's another one I liked but can't remember the name. It was of a guy who wants to go into space but isn't "perfect" so he uses the "fluids" of crippled guy to pass the tests and pose as one of the perfect persons. meanwhile there is murder plot in the company. Dang it, not enough coffee this morning....

I just looked over the Wikipedia list of SF movies in the last ten years and there sure has been a lot of them. far from dead I would say.

I also liked Minority Report, anything based on Philip K. Dick should be good.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I thought Solaris was good SF film.

Solaris was a debacle.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

I thought Solaris was good SF film. And there's another one I liked but can't remember the name. It was of a guy who wants to go into space but isn't "perfect" so he uses the "fluids" of crippled guy to pass the tests and pose as one of the perfect persons. meanwhile there is murder plot in the company. Dang it, not enough coffee this morning....

I just looked over the Wikipedia list of SF movies in the last ten years and there sure has been a lot of them. far from dead I would say.

I also liked Minority Report, anything based on Philip K. Dick should be good.

Solaris was a debacle.

Like Phillip K. Dick, 'Solaris' author Stanislaw Lem should have more of his novels made into movies. His material will be difficult to translate to film though: see 'Solaris'. It was a good try but didn't quite hit the mark which is where you guys differ I imagine.

It's been years since I read Lem but his stuff is great..

'Gattaca' is the film you are tying to remember Fred.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Well, I thought Solaris was clever, and subtle. But then again, The Thin Red Line is one of my all time favorite movies where most war film grogs hate it.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Well, I thought Solaris was clever, and subtle. But then again, The Thin Red Line is one of my all time favorite movies where most war film grogs hate it.

Interesting observation Fred.

Nick Nolte's character, sympathetic or not?

 

[Dr Zaius]

Well, I thought Solaris was clever, and subtle. But then again, The Thin Red Line is one of my all time favorite movies where most war film grogs hate it.

Reviews on this movie were very polarized. As one critic put it, "You'll either love this movie or hate it." Critics generally gave it pretty decent scores, but audiences didn't care for it. According to Yahoo, average score for critics was an A- while audiences gave it a C-. Big difference.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/11/27/DD24536.DTL&type=movies
http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/2a460f93626cd4678625624c007f2b46/2a2efd5f53eb590388256c7d00214b1a?OpenDocument
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9405E1DC1638F934A15752C1A9649C8B63

 

[Blackcloud6]

Nick Nolte's character, sympathetic or not?

Nick Nolte's character was great. And Mr. Nolte played it well. An old passed over LTC with his only chance to go further in the Army is to succeed at this one mission in the middle of nowhere. His motivation was immaterial to the Army that wanted the mission accomplished. In the end he was right, and his plan worked, which was al the army cared about. I used to use those scenes in my CGSC class I taught.

What I really liked about this movie was the cleaver combinations of music, sound, dialog, anf filming to create mood. Also the casting was great. travolta as a quickly promoted General evoked disdain in many of my friends which is exactly what the director wanted to do.

I watch The Thin Red Line over and over and see more of it's greatness each time I watch it.

Oh, and the scences of the MG fire coming out of the grass right at you, and then nothing is seen but gently blowing grass was brilliant filming.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Nick Nolte's character was great. And Mr. Nolte played it well. An old passed over LTC with his only chance to go further in the Army is to succeed at this one mission in the middle of nowhere. His motivation was immaterial to the Army that wanted the mission accomplished. In the end he was right, and his plan worked, which was al the army cared about. I used to use those scenes in my CGSC class I taught.

What I really liked about this movie was the cleaver combinations of music, sound, dialog, anf filming to create mood. Also the casting was great. travolta as a quickly promoted General evoked disdain in many of my friends which is exactly what the director wanted to do.

I watch The Thin Red Line over and over and see more of it's greatness each time I watch it.

Oh, and the scenes of the MG fire coming out of the grass right at you, and then nothing is seen but gently blowing grass was brilliant filming.

Yes. I think the audience comes away with the 'politically correct' feeling of sympathy for Elias Koteas as Stavros and antipathy for Nolte as Col Tall. When in reality it's the other way around. I had to stop and think about it on my third viewing of the film and put myself in Tall's shoes. I decided that I would be yelling down the phone line too 'Get up that godamn hill!'

The initial advance to contact, through the tall grass and the first battle scenes were excellent. Green troops in battle, you can practically taste the fear. I think Malick achieved what he set out to do and it will stand the test of time as an excellent war film.


Sorry Don for the attempted thread hijacking. Now back to our regularly scheduled programme.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Back on Topic,This just in from Ridley Scott.

Interesting article on the re-release of "Blade Runner".

The last paragraph is rather contradictory as regards this threads title.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20563259/

 

[Blackcloud6]

The last paragraph is rather contradictory as regards this threads title.

Yep, that comment is interesting.

Some years ago, when I was on Annual Taraining at wonderful Ft. Dix, I wanted something to watch and picked up a an inexpesnive copy of Blade Runnner in the PX. But I found it it was of the version of the film without the voice overs and i didn;t really like it. I thought the voice overs of the oriniganl gave the film a 'film noir" and old detective film feel to it.

I've laways liked Blade Runner and will like to see this "final cut' version.

 

[MajorH]

Some years ago, when I was on Annual Taraining at wonderful Ft. Dix, I wanted something to watch and picked up a an inexpesnive copy of Blade Runnner in the PX. But I found it it was of the version of the film without the voice overs and i didn;t really like it. I thought the voice overs of the oriniganl gave the film a 'film noir" and old detective film feel to it.

Same here. I want the version that was originally shown in theaters.

As was said in the linked news article, "The response at early sample screenings before the official release in June 1982 was so weak that the producers forced Scott to add voice-overs to the film and change the final scene to make it a more “happy ending.”

IMHO the screening audiences and execs were right in that case and Scott was wrong! Whenever I see the blurb "Director's cut" on a DVD that is a negative for me.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Same here. I want the version that was originally shown in theaters.

As was said in the linked news article, "The response at early sample screenings before the official release in June 1982 was so weak that the producers forced Scott to add voice-overs to the film and change the final scene to make it a more “happy ending.”

IMHO the screening audiences and execs were right in that case and Scott was wrong! Whenever I see the blurb "Director's cut" on a DVD that is a negative for me.

'Blade Runner' is an interesting example of studio vs director. Hollywood is full of battles like this. I buy director's cuts on occaision if there is a consensus of reviewers that mark it better than the theatrical release. A good example is 'Das Boot'. I want to see this latest version of BR because of all three versions I have seen, according to Ridley Scott none of them are what he wanted. OK then let's see your final word on this and the audience can then judge it on your vision of what it was 'supposed' to look like in the first place.

The problem is that there may be too much 'water under the bridge' for any of us to leave our past behind and watch it again with an open mind.

Still a great sci-fi flic tho

 

[Dr Zaius]

Yep, that comment is interesting.

Some years ago, when I was on Annual Taraining at wonderful Ft. Dix, I wanted something to watch and picked up a an inexpesnive copy of Blade Runnner in the PX. But I found it it was of the version of the film without the voice overs and i didn;t really like it. I thought the voice overs of the oriniganl gave the film a 'film noir" and old detective film feel to it.

I've laways liked Blade Runner and will like to see this "final cut' version.

That's interesting as I just watched the "new" version without the voice overs about two weeks ago. I personally found that I really did miss the extra commentary and it seems to fit in well with the whole moive. My son was watching it with me, and he had difficulty understanding what was happening and why at a few points, and these were the areas that had once had voice overs.

I particularly thought the last scene, when Rutger Hauer's character dies, really lost something important without the voice over. It just seemed a little stale.

I hate to say it, but I think this is one case where the studio had it right.