What's Wrong with Sci-Fi: a short opinion piece by yours truly

[Reverend Joe]

I was just watching Blade Runner and musing over the issue of "good" science fiction movies, and I happened to remember the "District 9" thread here, and it inspired me to think about the staleness that I see as an inherent problem in Science Fiction movies. If this rambles a bit or becomes incoherent, I apologize; I'm writing it as I go.

What bothers me about 95% of Science Fiction franchises or movies/television series/etc. is that they are overly stuck in a single continuum: you always seem to get a combination of the grandiose Star Trek movies-style sci-fi, and the pure-hero-centric Star Wars style. As a reference, look to Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica (admittedly, the original series had a hint of originality to it, but not much) and every crappy 80's space movie, ever (yes, including "The Last Starfighter"; it might have been a revolution in CGI, but the actual plot still sucked big sweaty donkey balls.) There are very few examples of anything outside of this narrow field of writing that, itself, basically has sucked itself dry, and most of those examples also suck (like every cyberpunk movie, ever.) It all boils down to a single basic plot: a big, omnipotent bad guy is gonna destroy us all unless a lone dashing hero can stop him. It's like an Errol Flynn movie on crack.

I guess the crux of the problem is that the heyday of Scifi came after what was arguably the heyday of good movies, the 50's, 60's and 70's. This period was marked by more movies that focused on the individual and unique characters, who themselves drove the plot, as opposed to movies where the characters fit a stereotype who moves with the plot machine. In other words, you got people like "Cool Hand" Luke, the titular character of the (his) movie, or Harry Caul, the main character in "The Conversation." In Genre-driven movies, on the other hand, you end up with a stock character, who MUST do certain things, and MUST act in a certain form. Note, though, that I don't deny that both types of movies still exist; I would just argue that, at least in the 80's and 90's, there were less of the former and more of the latter. I will reserve the present decade for future judgment, as it is too recent to judge, especially by someone who's experience with movies is limited to a six-pack and a rental from Blockbuster. (BTW, thank god for Netflix... I haven't had a selection of movies this good since Blockbuster put my local crappy VHS rental place out of business. It may have smelled like old people, but at least it had a good selection.)

This, then, is the problem with SciFi movies; they emerged en masse in the 80's, after the best Studio-driven movies in the 50's and early 60's, and the director-centric movies of the late 60's and 70's. They saw their heyday in an era that was excessively driven by commercial appeal, and thus 95% of the movies were ripoffs of what had worked: Star Wars and, to a lesser extent, Star Trek. Nobody bothered to try to push the medium in any other direction for the most part.

It's not a problem unique to Scifi; it's endemic of basically every movie with a non-contemporary setting, and it's a problem that killed the historical genre: when every movie that takes place more than 200 years previous is a grandiose, Cecil B. Demille-style sweeping epic, it gets a little wearisome. Just as Punk killed Progressive Rock, so the over-saturation of non-contemporary movies with an over-the-top style has killed their appeal in the mass market. Nobody wants to see another giant fight between Greeks/Romans and barbarians, and similarly nobody wants to see another Star Wars, with a bunch of spunky rebels who, without any military experience or modern equipment, mysteriously manage to defeat a giant Evil Empire with the top-of-the-line equipment and well-trained personnel.

But, to get somewhere with all of this, that's why I like movies like "Blade Runner" and "Alien." Unlike most Scifi movies, the fact that they take place in the future is not an overwhelming fact, but rather a plot device, and just one of many. In "Blade Runner," it is used to predict a neo-Noir future; ; in "Alien: it transports truckers to the future and challenges them with this new setting -- in particular, with a mysterious alien. This, in my opinion, is the crux of good Scifi. It does not rely on "OMG FUTURE!" but instead uses the future as leverage, as a tool to transport the ordinary into the realm of the estraordinary; once there, we see things that are familiar, but juxtaposed against the unfamiliar, with fantastic results. No intrepid rednecks who can mysteriously defy the laws of physics, no stale, constricting Canon laws that force the plotline along an overly trodden path, just creative freedom taken to a whole new level.

As for "District 9": it looks interesting. It doesn't look to me like "Pure Win," as Lemur put it, but that's only because my favorite movies are noir movies, movies with antiheroes, movies like Spaghetti Westerns. Compared with the average Scifi movie, it does indeed look like "pure win": it takes a familiar story, that of the intrepid journalist, and places it into a Scifi setting that is, itself, quite creative. It does strike me as being a bit stuck in the times, what with the overbearing evil corporation, but otherwise it feels like a refreshing change in the sterile Scifi formula. But most importantly, to go back to an earlier point, I feel like this could be a real character-driven story, as opposed to the usual plot formula.

[Beirut]

I'll have what he's drinking.

[Marshal Murat]

The problem with the "one hero vs. superior evil empire" is that it, unfortunately, sells pretty well. If you package it up in a nice setup, then it's even better.

Matrix is a great example. You have the "Average Joe" fighting the "System (literally and figuratively)" and it sold extremely well. Many film companies are far more willing to bet something on the "David v. Goliath" story that might not sell (but could become a cult flick) versus breaking the mold and trying to sell Sci-Fi that isn't what everyone expects (that one about flying a satellite to the sun, Solaris?)

[seireikhaan]

I'll have what he's drinking.

HERE HERE

[Fragony]

Good post, especially since I agree. Alien is the perfect example, it's another time but not another place so to say, people are still people and complain about bonus-policy. The interior of the ship is pure class, it's how you imagine a space cargo-freighter would look.

[Lemur]

I'll just say that SF is extremely alive and well, especially if you're willing to, you know, read books. Charlie Stross is kicking out mind-bending good reads on a regular basis. Lois Bujold's best days may be behind her, but she still wrote some of the best space opera of all time. Vernor Vinge and Greg Bear are still writing, yes? And I would love to hear how you fit a freak like China Miéville into your rant ...

Even if you restrict yourself to film/TV, there are still outstanding examples that buck the formula you're railing against. Children of Men, for example, or Blindness (which was not a good film per se, but very much SF). And I don't understand how Battlestar Galactica fits into your argument, since it was chock-full of flawed, all-too-human characters.

In good SF the speculative element is not used to replace character. Rather, the world is meant to be part of the theme, an aspect of what's being discussed at the heart of the story. It's just a more explicit use of something that's supposed to be there in fiction anyway; the setting as metaphor.

I like The Conversation as much as the next film buff, but I think it's disingenuous to go on about how "They just don't make films like that anymore." The Conversation was not a commercial success, and if you look at articles from the time you'll see that it wasn't even well-reviewed. It was regarded as a flop, an embarrassment. Only decades later do we see it as a groundbreaking film.

It's laughably easy to go back a deacde or four and look at the classics which have emerged and declare, "That's when they knew how to do X." Heck, if you watch VH1 as much as Mrs. Lemur does, you would think that the '80s were nothing but The Cure and Los Lobos, when in fact most of the music on the radio on the '80s was pure junk.

Likewise, the top-grossing film of 1974, the year The Conversation came out, was The Towering Inferno. Other films that were more successful than The Conversation that year: Airport 1975, Herbie Rides Again, Superdad, Earthquake, and Godzilla Versus Mechagodzilla. How easy would it have been in 1974 to declare that the heyday of good movies was over?

Classics get selected over time, and the guano gets washed away. It's deceptively easy to look back at the high points and declare that those were the good years.

[Hooahguy]

has everyone seen the stargate SG-1 series? i stayed up until 3 in the morning last night to watch episodes. theyre quite good.

[caravel]

I think the problem is that in general Sci-fi is a tired genre. Films like Alien and Blade Runner were different to the usual run of the mill "good vs evil" routine - and that's what makes them "cult films". Taking Alien as an example - the first film was in a class of it's own, whereas the sequels were the typical heavily cliched gung ho action flicks based on a franchise - getting progressively bad until they pulled the plug - only to be ressurected once more as the even more appalling AvP series.

Imagine if the same had happened with Blade Runner? I can imagine the plot: Rick Deckard, his "blade running" days behind him, is contacted by an offical about some mysterious deaths at a mining colony and the recent loss of contact with said colony. After the usual refusal and then changing his mind (reasons for this are limitless - see umpteen other films with the same plot), Deckard heads out with the usual troop of "marines", including the joker, the coward, the quiet one, the redneck, the weapons nut etc. The whole lot drop into the colony and are mercilessly hunted down by the escaped replicants (90% of the movie), in the end (probably after discovering that the whole thing was in fact a suicide mission) only Deckard survives and after a showdown with the replicant boss, he is finally lifted out by the relief force - the end.

This happened to the Matrix. A compelling idea and plot, albeit marred by poor acting and overeliance on effects, yet it was a memorable and gripping film - but then the ill begotten sequels killed it too...

I think the Star Wars/Star Trek types are history, for now, though. They have been relegated to the domain of the seasonal TV series. I can't think of many Sci-fi films made in the last few years that fit the genre (unless you count SW Episodes I/II/III - though if anything has killed off this genre then it was probably those three).

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

What Lemur said.

[Jolt]

movies like Spaghetti Westerns.

This and this. 21th August. Also promises to be awesome-like.

[Reverend Joe]

I'll just say that SF is extremely alive and well, especially if you're willing to, you know, read books. Charlie Stross is kicking out mind-bending good reads on a regular basis. Lois Bujold's best days may be behind her, but she still wrote some of the best space opera of all time. Vernor Vinge and Greg Bear are still writing, yes? And I would love to hear how you fit a freak like China Miéville into your rant ...

Even if you restrict yourself to film/TV, there are still outstanding examples that buck the formula you're railing against. Children of Men, for example, or Blindness (which was not a good film per se, but very much SF). And I don't understand how Battlestar Galactica fits into your argument, since it was chock-full of flawed, all-too-human characters.

In good SF the speculative element is not used to replace character. Rather, the world is meant to be part of the theme, an aspect of what's being discussed at the heart of the story. It's just a more explicit use of something that's supposed to be there in fiction anyway; the setting as metaphor.

I like The Conversation as much as the next film buff, but I think it's disingenuous to go on about how "They just don't make films like that anymore." The Conversation was not a commercial success, and if you look at articles from the time you'll see that it wasn't even well-reviewed. It was regarded as a flop, an embarrassment. Only decades later do we see it as a groundbreaking film.

It's laughably easy to go back a deacde or four and look at the classics which have emerged and declare, "That's when they knew how to do X." Heck, if you watch VH1 as much as Mrs. Lemur does, you would think that the '80s were nothing but The Cure and Los Lobos, when in fact most of the music on the radio on the '80s was pure junk.

Likewise, the top-grossing film of 1974, the year The Conversation came out, was The Towering Inferno. Other films that were more successful than The Conversation that year: Airport 1975, Herbie Rides Again, Superdad, Earthquake, and Godzilla Versus Mechagodzilla. How easy would it have been in 1974 to declare that the heyday of good movies was over?

Classics get selected over time, and the guano gets washed away. It's deceptively easy to look back at the high points and declare that those were the good years.

Calm down, now, Lemur. You misunderstand what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about books at all; lord knows that Phillip K. Dick alone could vindicate the genre. I'm talking about movies.

Okay, so maybe "The Conversation" was a bad example. Look instead at "The French Connection," or the first "Lethal Weapon" or "First Blood." The latter two, especially, encompass all I am talking about. The original movies had strong characters and were not overwhelmed by their own genres; whereas the sequels, well, were. And look at my post again; I specifically stated that it's not as if everything good has already been done, and everything new is bad -- although I'm surprised you like the new Battlestar Galactica. It feels a bit like a weird soap opera in space to me. There have always been a lot of bad movies, it's just that it seems harder to find the good ones. The 80's music you brought up is a perfect example, actually, because it shows how far you have to dig to get to the good stuff in later decades, whereas you can more easily find popular classics in the earlier eras.

I know you despise this argument, but that doesn't make it completely untrue.

And what do you have against "Herbie Rides Again?"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seriously, though, I cannot fathom how anyone could come up with a movie like the "Herbie" series, with a magical Volkswagen whose name is a euphemism for weed, and not end up with a stoner movie on the level of Cheech and Chong. Herbie Versus Nixon: watch Herbie smuggle half a ton of coke across the border at the height of Operation Intercept! Fun for the whole commune!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well a lot of the problems with movie sci-fi comes from Hollywood, which causes problems for all sorts of genres. Probably worse, because I doubt any executives understand or like sci-fi, so they have their warped, idiot perspectives on it. Look at the latest I am Legend film, which had the whole meaning of the movie changed by changing the ending.

CR

[Fragony]

Since the words Sci-Fi and western came up in the same thread and I didn't see anyone mentioning it, did you watch the series Firefly? It's western, and sci-fi! And funny, at times moving, sometimes sad, you will miss the crew when it's all over.

[Reverend Joe]

Since the words Sci-Fi and western came up in the same thread and I didn't see anyone mentioning it, did you watch the series Firefly?

Been meaning to, actually.

[Samurai Waki]

Firefly was a good series, and because of this, Fox had to cancel it.

[Marshal Murat]

Firefly was so aptly named: a brilliant light in the dark but just as quickly gone.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You can view the whole of Firefly at Hulu.com. I'd recommend it.

CR

[caravel]

It feels a bit like a weird soap opera in space to me.

This is the big problem with modern Sci-fi "drama". Most if not all Scfi-fi series are like this nowadays - which is why I avoid them.

[Decker]

Also what is sci-fi? Is it the setting? Or is it placing people in situations that we can relate to, just they're dealing with it in a futuristic setting, ala Blade Runner and Alien? Obviously sci-fi is going to go strong via books as it is, but I think the biggest problems with sci-fi in the movies, is originality, producers (or who ever has most control over the movies), and budget.

I'll admit I watched Blade Runner in the wrong light so I'll watch that again. Firefly is a great series, and my guess is that Fox found that it didn't have enough Vampires in it so they killed it. Also what about 2001: A Space Odessy, I really haven't had the time to watch it but where does that stand?

And I would love to hear how you fit a freak like China Miéville into your rant ...

What did you think of his work? Perdido Street Station and The Scar were a heckuva lot of fun to read imho.(I have yet to read Iron Council but I readily look forward to it ) PM your answer so we don't get off-topic

[Lemur]

Also what is sci-fi? Is it the setting?

I would sum it up like this: SF is fiction in which one or more elements are fantastic but explicable. If the element(s) are fantastic but inexplicable (via magic, or gods, or devils, or sparkly vampire magic, etc.), it's fantasy.*

What did you think of [China Mielville's] work?

It's good, maybe great stuff. Not exactly pleasure reading, but the volume of his creativity and originality papers over a lot of storytelling defects.

*Note: Horror is a catch-all genre that can include SF elements, fantasy element, realism, romance, absurdism, whatever. It's much harder to codify, 'cause you can tell any genre of story and turn it into horror.

[Ramses II CP]

I would sum it up like this: SF is fiction in which one or more elements are fantastic but explicable. If the element(s) are fantastic but inexplicable (via magic, or gods, or devils, or sparkly vampire magic, etc.), it's fantasy.*


It's good, maybe great stuff. Not exactly pleasure reading, but the volume of his creativity and originality papers over a lot of storytelling defects.

*Note: Horror is a catch-all genre that can include SF elements, fantasy element, realism, romance, absurdism, whatever. It's much harder to codify, 'cause you can tell any genre of story and turn it into horror.

I personally think of Sci Fi as a story in which fundamental aspects of life have been altered or made alien by advances in science or technology. Fantasy with the addition of rules that at least approximate reality. This is why a film like Alien is, IMHO, more a survival horror movie than a Sci Fi movie. There's no exploration of how travel between the stars has changed humanity, and if you set this monster movie on earth, picking a random exotic location and putting the characters on a sea ship instead of a star ship it would work almost as well. Think of the similarities to Jaws, another great movie of roughly the same era.

I'm very fond of Alien, but I think it's a horror movie with a minimalist sci fi setting. Good Sci Fi is very, very hard to find in visual media because of the limited popular appeal and the high expense of producing it.

One of my favorite examples of Science Fiction is a little story I read once, set in the very near future, in which a simple one time treatment eliminated all the effects of menstruation in women. The very flavor of human existence was changed by technology, if you'll forgive the implied red wings joke, and exploring the nature of that change made for an excellent story. The best Sci Fi is, and likely always will be, found in writing.