Morgano, your arguments about R.S. and special effects may not hold too much water. Scott was discussing the heavy use of CGI in today's films, to the point where huge proportions of a film have to be post-processed in order for the final vision to be onscreen. In the days of Blade Runner, Alien and so on, shots were in-camera - you had to use tricks like foleys and scale models in order to get the same visuals. And I would argue that those films look bettter and will stand the test of time longer because of it.

Now whilst the new version of Blade Runner may have new SFX added to its running time, it is not an FX movie, in the same way that many of the current crop of SF are. And what SFX are added are likely to be flavour fx, rather than plot-drivers (think the rebuild of Mos Eisley in the special edition of New Hope, rather than the multiple-Smith vs. Neo fightin Matrix Reloaded). 

Now, as to the larger can of worms regardingthe state of SF in fil these days... I don't think it's dead at all. There ARE intelligent, well-written and directed SF pieces coming out, with a variety of dependencies on special effectx. But let's face it, 'true' SF was never a big genre to begin with - a handful of movies brought out every now and then. Recently we've seen Solaris (the original, not the Steve Soderbergh remake, although I liked both), and reports on Sunshine are mostly positivr. The problem is that most cinema audiences don't go to the cinema for the reasons that SF lovers read the literature - they go to be entertained for a while, not to come out with their mind expanded and their vision of the potential future widened. So instead you get popcorn movies, space opera, and the like.

Where SF seems to fare better is on the small screen, where deeper relationships between the characters and the audience can be striven for, allowing a much stronger storytelling. Recent examples include BSG, of course, and I would include Firefly in the mix as well - even though it was as much a western as SF, it was looking at the role of humanity in a future environment, which is (to me) SF's key criteria.

As to Scott's own inputs into the genre - Alien isn't SF, it's a horror movie in outer space. Blade Runner could be considered more pure SF, but even then it's more noir than a true pedigree. And that's where we come to another of my feelings onthe genre (which ties in neatly to Firefly, as well) - SF [i]isn't[/i] a genre - it's a setting. And then, within that setting, you can tell any number of tales, in any number of styles. It doesn't work as a genre when you compare it to other styles such as romance, horror, comedy, or whatever. In those other genres, the genre dictates the story framework (with some room to wriggle, admittedly), the style, and a number of other criteria. The only thing that isn't setin stone with most genres is the setting - a romance couldbe set anywhere, as can a horror or fantasy. But SF dictates a specific type of setting, but the story and writing styles used within that setting are whatever the author chooses to use. You may notice that in this line of argument, I am disagreeing with the Pohl argument: this is just my opinion, not stated fact.

And finally (phew! this is longer than I thought it would be!), the irector of a film or TV series is as much the creator as the writer. Yes, those Doctor Who episodes mentioned are classics (a number of them written by the hugely talented Stephen Moffat, incidentally), but do you really think that all of that creative energy came from the script itself? That all the director does is sit there with the list of instructions, point the camera where the script tels him to, and records what happens? Because it just isn't so. Creating a film - or a tv series, or a theatrical production - is a collabortive process, and a series of interpretations of the script. The director interprets it a given way, and employs others to help create his vision. The set designers, props people, wardrobe and so on interpret his instructions, and add their own stylistic flair to it. The director casts actors who look and perform well according to his vision, but then they, too, interpret his instructions and the lines of the script to deliver their own version of the story. You could give the same script to 3 different directors, and I guarantee you would get three different films at the end. So to say that Scott has no business talking about creativity in films and in SF specifically, is actually very insulting to the work that directors do.

OK, and now I AM going to stop. Got a little huffy there, cos the role of the director is a bit close to home fo rme. Sorry if'n I came on a little strong.

JonTheCelt