Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2014 - 8:42 AM   
 By:   Thomas   (Member)

I was never that much into sci-fi to begin with really. When I was younger living at home, my brother was into it all but it never seemed to do much for me. Never really cared for 'Star Wars', 'Star Trek', Superhero/Monster films and whatever else. The only sci-fi that ever interested me was the original POTA films and the subsequent TV series, which I still enjoy now. And the odd film, like 'E.T' or 'Back to the Future'.

 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2014 - 8:50 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

It has been 8 years since my last post to this thread.

I'm not exactly "off" sci-fi...just "off" what passes for sci-fi nowadays. Too much CGI gets in the way of character and plot development. People are mere pawns for CGI gimmicks.

The makers of sci-fi cannot get over CGI, for some reason...at least, not enough to produce a decent show.

Oddly, shows not totally reliant upon CGI are hit-and-miss with story elements. I have very much enjoyed "Haven" on SyFy Channel...but the last season had a convoluted story arc that did the show no good, IMO.

"Dominion" has some really neat effects, but is relying too much upon old-and-worn-out plot gimmicks and bad-guy vs. good-guy cliches. It could be special instead of dull.

I still find the older sci-fi stuff fascinating. Maybe it's just me, however. I may be resisting too much.

As they say, resistance (may be) is futile.

 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2014 - 8:52 AM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Sci-fi as written is not the same thing as something put onto a screen.

I've always been selective of sci-fi books. I have a few shelves of them I picked up years ago and they remain unread. While that's true of many different types of book I can pick off the shelf, I think there is a high proportion of sci-fi because that genre was perceived to offer more at a younger age. While at school I used to read Edmund Cooper. My favorite of his is definitely The Cloud Walker. I think of it fondly.

Sci-fi is just a branch of the literary tree. Take your pick.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2014 - 9:36 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I am more critical of production quality now. I cannot really tolerate the cardboard set stuff that Lost in Space was doing, I tolerate it in original Star Trek because it was a first love. I have problems with some of the Stargate and other stuff that looks like it is shot on lower grade film-stock or tape or something, it just never looks right to me. Otherwise, if it is well written and with high production standards, I am still interested.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2014 - 9:55 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Nope.

In fact, the interest is greater than ever.

But as others have alluded to above, it's somewhat different kinds of sci fi that attract me these days.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2014 - 10:43 AM   
 By:   CinemaScope   (Member)

I still love it. It's a classic case of arrested development, I still love most of the stuff I loved in my teens & twenties (60's & 70's), but most sci-fi films are bad (just like back then). I don't read sci-fi like I used to, but I still have most of the books I read, just in case I want to read them again. I have The Martian by Andy Wear on order, sounds good & I understand they're making a movie of it next year.

 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2014 - 3:29 PM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

It's Hitchcock's Maguffins again.

The genre is useful in that it's flexible, you don't need 'research', it can be used as allegory, for political, spiritual, psychological, you name it, metaphors.

I mean, look at something like 'The Enemy Within' from ST TOS and you know the screenwriter was fresh from reading Carl Jung's theory of the shadow/ego. But if the audience just wants Klingons and phasers, then they ignore what it's really about. That can happen in any genre though.

The space stuff is only maguffins to enable the story to be told, the ideas to have a root. You can do the same with Westerns. The audience knows the formulae you start from.

The disadvantage is that the genre has limitations in terms of expectations. If people think it's all Daleks and robots, then they'll ignore the dystopias and the symbolism, where they might not in, say, an existential novel.

 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2014 - 4:35 PM   
 By:   Gary S.   (Member)

Outgrow sci-fi (and fantasy fiction)....I'm 60, it ain't gonna happen. There will probably be a book by Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, EE Smith, Laumer, Burroughs, Sanderson, Tolkien, Jordan, Kurtz, McCaffrey, Bradley, or any of dozens of others on my read stack by bed whenever I die, which won't be anytime soon..

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 14, 2014 - 7:07 AM   
 By:   Kev McGann   (Member)

I still like Farley's Rusks!

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 14, 2014 - 7:30 AM   
 By:   CinemaScope   (Member)

Yes, a lot of science fiction isn't science fiction at all. Star Trek (which I love) has really nothing to do with science. Hundreds of planets, all within a short journey time, nearly all with a breathable atmosphere & gravity the same as Earth...& everyone speaking English! The hard fact about space travel is that it's very boring...& probably will never happen. In the past year there's been two programs about a possible voyage to Mars, & you know, it's not going to happen. There's a crew in a vessel about the size of the average living room for six months with nothing to do but absorb radiation & get cancer & watch their bones go to dust, & no one's figured out a way to take off from Mars...& it's so expensive, no one country can afford it. I think the favourite science fiction these days is everything going to crap, a virus, the Earth getting hit by a lump of rock, all the bees dying, something.

This has got me in the mood to start re-reading my favourite 70's science fantasy trilogy:

The Quest Of The DNA Cowboys/Synaptic Manhunt/The Neural Atrocity, by the late great Mick Farren.

 
 Posted:   Aug 14, 2014 - 9:08 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

@ CinemaScope - No human colonization of Mars? Well your a kill joy! Oh, your forgot the degradation of muscle and bone tissue in weightlessness.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 14, 2014 - 9:12 AM   
 By:   CinemaScope   (Member)

@ CinemaScope - No human colonization of Mars? Well your a kill joy! Oh, your forgot the degradation of muscle and bone tissue in weightlessness.

Oh well, there's always the seabed. And there's bound to be a monster or two down there smile

 
 Posted:   Nov 14, 2014 - 5:43 AM   
 By:   Jim Phelps   (Member)

A random, though hopefully somewhat-related thought on this topic:

I wonder if the super-hero movie craze of the last twelve years has taken the place of sci-fi films in terms of their popularity and prominence in cinema, like what Star Wars was for those of us in our 40s. As much as I love comic books, these films don't have the sci-fi concepts that were so brilliantly created by Jack Kirby in all those 1960s Fantastic Four comics. I don't think any of these films, despite their epic budgets and CGI effects, have ever approached the vision that King Kirby put to paper fifty years ago.

 
 Posted:   Nov 14, 2014 - 9:21 PM   
 By:   gone   (Member)

I love great sci-fi. Unfortunately there is precious little of it. Most sci-fi is presented as space soap operas.

 
 Posted:   Nov 14, 2014 - 10:54 PM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

I love great sci-fi. Unfortunately there is precious little of it. Most sci-fi is presented as space soap operas.

Yup. I love a good sci-fi novel but finding them that is the hard part. I thought I had found a good trilogy to go through until I got tired early on book 2 of whatever I was reading. In the end, the only difference between a sci-fi and a fantasy novel is that instead of cities on the same planet, you deal with different planets spread throughout the galaxy. The human element is all the same. Though I am enjoying the Vorkorsigan books quite a bit with the hope that Book 2 will get somewhere soon.

 
 Posted:   Nov 15, 2014 - 12:36 AM   
 By:   BillCarson   (Member)

does anyone think that once you get older, you go past the date that many futuristic concepts were expected or suggested, and it makes you a little more realistic, maybe cynical - whereas when you are young the future holds more excitement, more imagination and possibilities and you are more open to flying cars and such like? Dunno. just chucking the idea out there.

 
 
 Posted:   Nov 15, 2014 - 1:21 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

does anyone think that once you get older, you go past the date that many futuristic concepts were expected or suggested, and it makes you a little more realistic, maybe cynical - whereas when you are young the future holds more excitement, more imagination and possibilities and you are more open to flying cars and such like? Dunno. just chucking the idea out there.

Sure, I can go with that.

In my teens and early twenties, I was more into what I -- somewhat derogatorily -- call 'pointy ear sci fi'. These days, I'm not so much, and the only things in my past that I still hold on to and like somewhat (in this genre) are BABYLON 5 and STAR WARS.

STAR TREK, FARSCAPE, STARGATE: ATLANTIS etc. -- no, my adult cynical self has grown away from that. These days, I prefer more realistic stuff, sci fi that is very grounded in what exists today and just extends carefully from that. I'm a very serious person with absolutely no sense of humour, and prefer my films to take themselves equally seriously.

 
 Posted:   Nov 15, 2014 - 1:26 AM   
 By:   Jim Phelps   (Member)

does anyone think that once you get older, you go past the date that many futuristic concepts were expected or suggested, and it makes you a little more realistic, maybe cynical - whereas when you are young the future holds more excitement, more imagination and possibilities and you are more open to flying cars and such like? Dunno. just chucking the idea out there.

I find myself tuning out of sci-fi when it apes Shakespearean and Biblical Epic-style dialogue and unintentional humor via its oh-so serious delivery of same ("The Draxian Empire will never acquiesce to the Needleswain Hegemony's insidious demands!") or all that idiotic technobabble ("Quick, use the Filtrain Randoblaster to pulsicrate the Shandorian Handolever before the Grok Hordes breach the energy field!")

Deathly dull.

 
 Posted:   Nov 15, 2014 - 3:50 AM   
 By:   First Breath   (Member)

I would rather say I reach an age where I go off straight action movies. I have reached that age now.

And most comedies too really.

 
 Posted:   Nov 15, 2014 - 6:10 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

does anyone think that once you get older, you go past the date that many futuristic concepts were expected or suggested, and it makes you a little more realistic, maybe cynical - whereas when you are young the future holds more excitement, more imagination and possibilities and you are more open to flying cars and such like? Dunno. just chucking the idea out there.

I find myself tuning out of sci-fi when it apes Shakespearean and Biblical Epic-style dialogue and unintentional humor via its oh-so serious delivery of same ("The Draxian Empire will never acquiesce to the Needleswain Hegemony's insidious demands!") or all that idiotic technobabble ("Quick, use the Filtrain Randoblaster to pulsicrate the Shandorian Handolever before the Grok Hordes breach the energy field!")

Deathly dull.


How about aliens that act like distinguished upper class gentlemen? LOL Really most humanoid aliens are of two types, the proper speaking upper class or savages.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2018 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.