Hollywood ‘sci-fi’ is a completely different genre than written sci-fi.
Ok, go ahead and have your spacecraft make whooshing noises through the soundless space, and have knights with fancy swords fight wizards with magic spells to rescue the princess. Hollywood still doesn’t even know what sci-fi is.
But you can’t teach them, so may as well just let them pretend. For real sci-fi, you pretty much have to go to indie films.
what the
It’s really frustrating. Sometimes they can manage–Gattaca and Arrival come to mind–but for the most part, Hollywood doesn’t get it.
I overstated the case. Perhaps “didn’t make me throw up?”
Here’s an interesting link (that didn’t box for some reason): https://movieweb.com/sci-fi-movies-scientifically-accurate
Interesting. I really enjoyed that one, though probably more for the eye candy and visual effects than the actual story. And I know it’s popular to hate on Spielberg, but I really don’t. He makes movies that sell big, and he’s very good at that. I would have changed the ending, but oh well, I am not a billionaire filmmaker.
Scifi books are a completely different thing than scifi movies, and I’m okay with that. In a way, I’m glad that none of Clarke’s Rama books have been tried as movies; I doubt that the complex issues he always presented would translate well to the big screen. Especially given the quality of screenwriting that modern movies demand, where everything has to be a “blockbuster” in order to be successful. Certainly that’s true of the 2xxx group-- all the sequels were incredibly bad. Similarly, I want to see the Avatar sequel(s) too, but on the other hand, I’m kind of dreading where they’ll go.
One thing that I felt that AI did well was point out the dichotomy between corporate science and how people will feel about the product. Corporate AI is an evil thing, and will be designed to manipulate our emotions to get us to use and spend money on it. In my career, I’ve known far too many corporate scientists, and if there’s a group that exemplifies Ian Malcolm’s maxim of “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” it’s corporate scientists.
It is possible to make a good scifi movie, though, whether based on a novel or not. I suppose converting any novel to a movie has a problem of length, which is where I think a mini-series might be one answer.
I’ve often thought the Vorkosigan saga by Bujold would make an excellent set of miniseries if the characters, background, and plots were followed faithfully, i.e. one mini-series per novel, say.
Interesting. I guess I’ve been fortunate to mostly deal with corporate scientists and engineers from the medical device industry. Most of those I met were genuinely interested in helping patients, as far as I could tell. One big exception was the physician who owned Shelhigh Implantables.
I think I’m getting off the subject of this thread!
Schindler’s List
And that made me think of Amistad.
Andrew Niccol’s other sci-fi movie In Time is like a lost J. G. Ballard story that never made it into print
(… that is, “one of his other sci-fi movies”—it looks like most of his work is science fiction actually)
I really tried to be moved by that film. I wanted Spielberg to succeed. Instead it became the last Spielberg movie I ever watched.
I have finally seen the original Mad Max. The movie that firmly fixed the idea in American’s minds that Australia is a barren wasteland sparsely populated by oddballs.
I’ve seen some very impressive portions of the movie before on television, but seeing it from beginning to end made certain flaws stand out.
Most of the problems with Mad Max are caused by uneven pacing.
Some parts are very precisely edited, and then there are odd cross-fades that don’t fit in. It is as if the producers handed the completed movie off to another less-talented editor to make changes for either time or content considerations.
Another aspect of the odd pacing is caused by the script. We see too much of Max’s private life. These scenes slow the movie down without contributing anything. I don’t care about his father’s shiny brown shoes, his Halloween mask in the kitchen, or his reliance of peanut butter. I suppose George Miller wanted to make a well-rounded movie with fully-developed characters. That’s a noble intention, but in retrospect it shows he really didn’t know what movie he was making.
On the other hand, the cross-country van trip was well-written and should have been kept unchanged — we get to know his private life and it contributes to the story. It’s interesting to note that Max’s wife, Jessie, had to deal with Toecutter face-to-face twice. Max never did.
We should have seen more of Toecutter. Both the actor and character are not given enough to do. We needed to spend more time with this manipulative, psychopath. The third act should have been a long cat-and-mouse game between Max and the trio of Toecutter, Bubba and Johnny the Boy. Toecutter should have been the last and most devious prey. His death at the end is far too quick, simple and unsatisfying. Why does Johnny the Boy get the long final scene with a monologue and an improvised time bomb, but Toecutter simply crashes into a truck?
But other than that it was great. But what’s with that opening scene? The Nightrider? Please. That guy doesn’t look anything like David Hasselhoff. Try again, Australia.
Two bits of trivia that were new to me at least:
Like 2001, I’ve never made it through Mad Max awake.
Well close the pod-bay doors, HAL!
That’s usually about the time I wake up.
You might find this one interesting, @Franko . I think it was made near where you live.
This is either a profound work of art or a total waste of time. I don’t know. It’s something you have to think about.
This is not some hack job like “Manos the Hands of Fate” or “Birdemic.” The actors can act, the cinematographer could shoot, and the director had a vision he put on film. You might even recognize some faces.
The character Barnstable has an interesting last line, which is applicable to the Republican Party:
“You haven’t restored the past up here, Silverdale, you’ve destroyed the present.”
oooh! i’ve never heard of this. Indian Flats! that really is nearby. I’ll have to see this out and let you know. Thanks for the heads up!
So there is an Indian Flats? It’s not on any of the charts.
there is! at least, that’s what i have heard people call it. maybe the official name is different, or they changed it at some point and old-timer locals still call it that? i am not sure.
I’ve found references to Indian Flat:
I found that one, but that’s in California.