The downgrading of sciences and mathematics in schools, and indeed in society as a whole, has done more to damage science fiction than any individual story or series. In the post Moon Race years, science has received more condemnation than support, and has been blamed for siphoning funding away from more "important"programs. Most of the more "important" programs are those with tangible short term returns. Science and mathematics tend to produce results that are much less predictable, and more long-term in their impact. The more soft and magical science fiction is a reflection of the population's intellectual trends, not a cause.
I like how the author of the article states the most original Sci-fi movie to come out in the past 25 years is the Matrix...
Star Wars was inspired by, and meant to be like, a 'Saturday afternoon serial.' He wanted to make Flash Gordon. So who the fuck cares? It was hardly the first or last. It was just one of the more entertaining.
What would you have said? The Matrix came out in 1999 15 years ago, so we'd be looking for another movie after 1989, that had a totally original premise, and wasn't a sequel. The Abyss came out in 89, but that's fairly soft on premise, and lofty in moral. Jurassic Park could be a contender, maybe. Or Dark City, 12 Monkeys, or (my personal favorite) The Fifth Element. Deep Impact could go on, but it's less science fiction as the people just decide that Earth is gonna take an asteroid on the chin. And with all of the media at the time crowing about the danger of asteroids I wouldn't call it an original premise. There's Donnie Darko in there, as well as Pitch Black. Men in Black gets an honorable mention because is was a comic book first. Oh, but then we'd have to get rid of Jurassic Park and Abyss. Then as we get closer to today there's Wall-E, Avatar and District 9. It's a very short list, and I'd say someone could be forgiven for choosing The Matrix, if only because the founding philosophy was so radically different then anything that had been seen on the screen until then. EDIT: Forgot Inception, which would be high on my list as most original, but it would be next to The Matrix.
The Fountain, Moon, and The Fifth Element I would think were the most original. Then again, is The Fountain really sci-fi.
I was pointing out how similar it was to Ghost in the Shell, and how the creators of the movies themselves talk about how it directly inspired iconic scenes and philosophies in it. Ghost in the Shell comics came out in 1989, the movie in 1995. The Matrix used many scenes as direct inspiration, the most iconic being the green falling numbers and the fruit stand fight scene. I just thought it funny the author cited it as what was original in his opinion, which everyone is entitled to. District 9 is a recent original sci-fi that did well, even though it was an ode to Kafka.
Despite everything that was wonderfull about The Fifth Element is was still just a Heavy Metal plot. That is literally what it is, the art and design were all done by Moebious (Jean Girad) and Jean-Claude Mézières who founded Metal Hurlant (Heavy Metal when it came to the US)
The idea that Star Wars killed good SF movies is, frankly, absurd. Prior to, Star Wars, there was as many 'Heinlein' defined movies as there are now. Do we forget that pre-Star Wars, SF movies were obsessed with alien invaders with ray-guns or mutants with abnormal powers, fantasy if ever there was, and the staple of the 50's? And in the sixties we had miniaturisation, more alien invaders and so on. The only 60's SF movies that weren't so called fantasy were films like Fahrenheit 451, a dystopia, but there was no science in that, it was just a film based on how future society might look. 2001 was different, that took Heinlein's view entirely, but there were few films that did. Westworld is hardly plausible. Andromeda Strain has fantasy elements (a laser defence system to annihilate escaping germs?). The rest of 70's SF films are nihilistic future-fare or nature gone bad such as No Blade of Grass, or Phase IV, or Soylent Green. After Star Wars we have had Moon, Monsters, Solaris (though not as good as the original), The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Minority Report, Gravity etc etc. There is just as much good stuff out there post as pre ... Successful good stuff I'll add. But then I don't need to argue the value of Star Wars, it's the same argument that writers have against those bestsellers they think are crippling the genres such as Twilight, Dan Brown's stuff or the Harry Potter series, mega-selling books that writers and some readers say have killed horror, fantasy and conspiracy theory thrillers. (And for the record I only have a soft-spot for HP, the rest I think are trash, personally, but that's just my opinion). 'Trashy' bestsellers bring the money in so writers like you and I get a shot at being published; unknown writers. That's the bottom line. If these writers had never been published, publishing today would be in a bloody awful mess. That's the unofficial line from publishing and those in the business too (I've had this conversation with an editor at one of the Big Six, and they admit it. So we have to deal with that.) Now the same applies to movies. Without the blockbuster which Star Wars helped spawn, the SF movie business would probably be in a hole. Arguably SF movies would have gone the way of the western because the output pre-Star Wars didn't capture the imagination of movie goers. Planet of the Apes (fantasy, if you go by people's 'tight' definitions) was dying on its ass and was the last of the successful SF movies, along with Alien (horror in space) and perhaps Close Encounters. Because of Star Wars, we had the Matrix. Because of Star Wars we had Inception. Because of Star Wars we have a reasonably healthy SF movie industry, because there are many film makers out there who were inspired by that film, to make SF films themselves. Without it, I reckon the SF film landscape would be bleaker than Soylent Green. Like so many of these arguments, it's started by someone with an agenda. Lewis Beale wants to squeeze the facts into their opinion or neglect certain truths because it suits him. It's the kind of sloppy journalism I've come expect from CNN.
In the end the argument is simply sensationalism to get attention. Here's something that most people love, and now I'm going to attack it and put it down. That's a good way of getting attention.
I think I chose the sheep image from recently watching a small flock of them at work. Or rather at nearly getting themselves killed. The 'leader' headed out into a busy road, and all the others followed. Then the 'leader' realised the mistake and went back to the side of the road. All the others followed. By that time, cars had stopped, so the 'leader' decided to head into the middle of the road again. All the others followed. And by that time a couple of the cars had started moving again, so the 'leader' headed across the road at a fast clip, and all the others followed. And stone me, once the cars had stopped AGAIN, the 'leader' decided re-cross the road, back to where they'd started. And all the others followed. I guess that little interlude stuck in my head.
Well The Matrix is based on a 2300 year old parable called The Analogy of the Cave. 6 is one, half dozen the other.
Ever notice that sci fi as a genre comes under the harshest criticism? People don't really enjoy it just to enjoy it, they either love it, hate it or pick it apart. The story can be rather absurd but if it's not technically sound the writer better watch out.
It does come under harsh criticism, and I think that's because a large portion of the readership consists of scientists, engineers, and other well-informed people who take glee in spotting impossibilities and inaccuracies in the technical information in the stories. Does the same thing happen in historical fiction? I think it does, though I rarely read it. I do, however, keep seeing comments from historians and history buffs about these novels, saying things like, "This writer totally misunderstands the position of the Palestinians after World War 1!" or "The battle of Thermopylae was nothing like that!"
Lol! Definitely. I suppose if I was an expert in a field it would bean me off if someone got it wrong.
Not necessarily. Even experts are still regular people who can use suspension of disbelief to enjoy a work of fiction. Most scientists are skiffy fans, after all.
Light bulb! What about a theme park, where a company, like Disney's Imagineering, teams up with cognitive scientists to build super advanced AIs housed in animatronic robots that perform to park visitors as ... silly, neo-Nordic world of elves and dwarfs and dragons? (And just to compound things, the park is built in New Zealand)... ... would that still bother you? - Dave Olden
... dude, that's a comment from god knows how long ago. It really ruffled your feathers enough for you to bother comment?
My post, that you're reacting to, here, offers an idea. (That's why I chose to start with "light bulb"). A playful little Sci-Fi & Fantasy mashup. The idea came (as ideas often do) as sudden surprise, made me laugh, so I shared it. (It's an idea outside my chosen genre, so I thought it best to toss it in the free bin). No ruffled feathers here.
