Attached Link: Is Sci Fi dead? Ridley Scott thinks so.

Oh, here we go...
 
Ridley Scott saying SF movies are dead is as redundant as Quentin Tarantino saying gangster movies are dead, and for pretty much the same reasons.  Both ot 'em took a tired, vapid, shallow genre and gave it an extra depth - although I'd argue Tarantino did a better job - then bemoan the fact that other directors/actors/scrpitwriters didn't follow their lead.

I have always had a deep abiding love for SF (or Skiffy, as we call it here on planet Earth) because it presupposes a certain amount of intelligence on the part of the reader.  Note I said "reader", not "audience" and there is your big clue.  Skiffy in its written form is one of the most ingelligent, imaginative and well written forms of fiction you'll find in the English language.  Skiffy movies are by and large, total and utter arse biscuits.  Star Wars has a lot to answer for and IMO, is the most significant movie that happened to Skiffy in that it set the genre back by at least 20 years.  All the promise and vision that Kubrick brought to 2001 (admittedly, a lot of it was pretentious bollocks) was fucked up in an instant by the movie otherwise known as Bonanza in Space, AKA Star Wars.

Movie makers have never done a good deed by Skiffy.  Almost without exception, they have pandered to the Sun reader audience, where written Skiffy plays more to the Independent/Times/Grauniad crowd.  There are thousands of amazing, intelligent, thought provoking, visual, visceral, thrilling, funny, sexy, amazing Skiffy novels out there but until the movie and tv companies get their heads out of their arses, all we will ever see are pale imitations of great art.

So yeah, SF movies are dead.  They never were alive.

"Dead" would imply that they aren't being made. Which is not the case. So no, I don't think they are "dead."

Now if that article was questioning how good the newer Sci Fi movies are, that would be different.

I like the older Sci Fi movies for some reason. Maybe it's because my brain can't wrap itself around all of the high tech talk and stuff going into the newer movies. It took me years and many attempts to finally watch "The Matrix" and TBH the only thing I enjoyed about it was Hugo Weaving. I didn't understand a blasted thing about what the movie was about, LOL

At least the older Sci Fi movies I could mostly understand which made them enjoyable to watch and in my opinion "good" movies, or at least "better" than the ones today.

Great, so Sir Ridley is complaining about the proliferation of special effects in recent films (yes, that alien that splatted John Hurt was absolutely authentic and you have to salute Hurt's dedication to his profession).

And then...

*" Blade Runner has now been restored and remastered with the inclusion of new and extended scenes and improved special effects on a special five-disc DVD set that Warner Brothers will release this autumn."

*Of course, brave Sir Ridley will devote his entire take of the profits from this artistically inspired venture to the Home for Distressed Former Special Effects Creators.  

If you want to impress at the preternaturally pretentious European film festivals, you really have only two choices:  speak in Esperanto at press conferences, or express an undying love for anything by Kubrick.   Brave Sir Ridley, brave Sir Ridley praises "2001" for lighting, special effects and atmosphere.   Not much there about plot, since "2001" doesn't have one, or about the screenplay, since that for "2001" was concocted by an "I-speak-your-weight" machine, which clearly broke down at around the two-thirds stage.

I don't disagree with the idea that special effects have been allowed to take centre stage in too many films, at the expense of other production values, but R.S. is no saint in that regard and his supposed adoration of the sainted Stanley is just cinematic incense-burning.

Acadia, the more you think about "The Matrix", the less it makes any kind of sense, so you didn't miss anything.

Well I think Ridley Scott was right about people copying Kubricks 2001. There a number of shots for example in "Alien" alone, that are clearly inspired by Kubricks work. Allso in Star Wars. Sunshine was allso making tributes to Kubrick. Mission To Mars etc etc.. As much as I loved 2001, I hope filmmakers would get over it.

SamTherapy is right about Star Wars. That's the movie that turned serious sci-fi into a bad rollercoaster ride where the effects dominate. And I do like Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back. But they did harm the genre as well. Studios and Hollywood moguls probably think it's safer to mimick Star Wars, than to come up with "serious" sci-fi.

Thing is though; Stories don't have to be new to be good (Like Ridley Scott suggests). The same fairytales are being re-written all the time and there's nothing new in them. Most important is how you tell the story. Not  if it's new or terribly original. I've seen a lot of Studio Ghiblis animation lately and the stories are nothing terribly new. You have your witches, spirits and forgotten worlds. The stories are well written. That's what counts.

Allso there is Ghost In The Shell. It's good Sci-fi and quite serious as well. I don't think the genre is dead.

Besides I don't think western genre is dead either. Didn't I just watch a brilliant western called "The Proposition"?. It was made in 2006 and it was very good indeed. Along with Unforgiven, I'd say the genre isn't dead, it has matured.

Frederik Pohl

Quote -
    Does the story tell me something worth knowing, that I had not known before, about the relationship between man and technology? Does it enlighten me on some area of science where I had been in the dark? Does it open a new horizon for my thinking? Does it lead me to think new kinds of thoughts, that I would not otherwise perhaps have thought at all? Does it suggest possibilities about the alternative possible future courses my world can take? Does it illumunate events and trends of today, by showing me where they may lead tomorrow? Does it give me a fresh and objective point of view on my own world and culture, perhaps by letting me see it through the eyes of a different kind of creature entirely, from a planet light-years away?

    These qualities are not only among those which make science fiction good, they are what make it unique. Be it never so beautifully written, a story is not a good science fiction story unless it rates high in these aspects. The content of the story is as valid a criterion as the style.
    Introduction--SF:Contemporary Mythologies (New York, 1978)

From this, I would say 1) such a style of storytelling could never die and 2) Very little of what is labeled science fiction (or skiffy) actually qualifies.

Star Wars was labeled by quite a few (correctly, IMO) as a Space Opera. With far more in common with Westerns than SciFi.

well apart from the fact Scott did'nt write Alien.. he directed it. it was written by Dan O'Bannon... and Bladerunner? again. he only directed it... sorry.. I'll listen to the ppl writing the Stories. like the guy that wrote 'The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances' and 'Human Nature / The Family of Blood' and 'Blink' for Doctor Who.... who prove that Science Fiction is not 'dead'....

Well, that's Mr. Pohl's position, which, to be honest, does seem to have been designed to cut the ground from under his competitors.    It never makes much sense to allow a practitioner to lay down the ground rules of practice.   Pohl stands in the same line of charlatans as Alban Berg, Picasso, Schoenberg and, well, Kubrick and QT    Schoenberg tried to dictate how music should be written;  Pohl wanted to set parameters for SF.  

Quote - well apart from the fact Scott did'nt write Alien.. he directed it. it was written by Dan O'Bannon... and Bladerunner? again. he only directed it... sorry.. I'll listen to the ppl writing the Stories. like the guy that wrote 'The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances' and 'Human Nature / The Family of Blood' and 'Blink' for Doctor Who.... who prove that Science Fiction is not 'dead'....

I was hoping you'd contribute to the discussion, Khai.  Good points well made, buddy.

I deliberately ignored TV Skiffy in me rant because Doctor Who has proved (to me, at least) that intelligent Skiffy is alive and well in vision if not specifically in movies.  The last three seasons have revived my interest in the visual side of the genre and given it a much needed kick up the arse.  Unfortunately, for every Doctor Who there are Two Star Treks but there you go.

Good call with "Blink", btw, that's one of the best takes on the superhero stereotype I have ever seen.

I can forsee a couple of decades where Hollywood struggles to catch up with the Who franchise's innovations.

Unfortunately i think Ridley Scott is right. Just google "100 top sci-fi films" and most of the lists results have very few movies made since the year 2000. Minority Report, and the remake of War of the Worlds being a very few examples. Personally i think sci-fi was reborn in literature at least, in 1984 with the publishing of William Gibson's Neuromancer novel, thus igniting the Cyberpunk movement from which we have Ghost in the Shell (anime) and the Matrix (1st movie).

Quote - Unfortunately i think Ridley Scott is right. Just google "100 top sci-fi films" and most of the lists results have very few movies made since the year 2000. Minority Report, and the remake of War of the Worlds being a very few examples. Personally i think sci-fi was reborn in literature at least, in 1984 with the publishing of William Gibson's Neuromancer novel, thus igniting the Cyberpunk movement from which we have Ghost in the Shell (anime) and the Matrix (1st movie).

Skiffy has always been alive and well in literature; people just got sidetracked by flashing lights, exploding things and the usual shite that goes with Hollywood.  

Gibson is magnificent but IMO not a patch on Ian M Banks, Michael Marshall Smith or Jeff Noon.  Check 'em out; you won't be disappointed.

Perhaps SciFi is on the low at the moment, but genres don't die, they recycle, and tend to revive when an extraordinary talent takes it up.
Dead, no. Lost a lot of momentum, perhaps.
As for the article, controversy makes news.

Quote - Well, that's Mr. Pohl's position, which, to be honest, does seem to have been designed to cut the ground from under his competitors.    It never makes much sense to allow a practitioner to lay down the ground rules of practice.   Pohl stands in the same line of charlatans as Alban Berg, Picasso, Schoenberg and, well, Kubrick and QT    Schoenberg tried to dictate how music should be written;  Pohl wanted to set parameters for SF.  

I wouldn't call Picasso a charlatan.  Opinionated, obnoxious, controversial beyond a doubt but not a charlatan.  He could talk the talk and walk the walk

Kubrick was too clever for his own good and not as clever as he thought he was.  In plain terms, he was a pretentious middle class twat.   Did some good stuff, though.  Not as much as he thought he did but nevertheless, some good stuff.

Don't have much of an opinion about Pohl. Read a couple of his novels which were ok but hardly earth shattering.   And... that's about it.

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

johthecelt - good post, which I enjoyed reading.  I still say the written form is ultimately where it's at, artistically but you make some good points.

BTW, LBT - great thread but what's your take?

Quote - Well, that's Mr. Pohl's position, which, to be honest, does seem to have been designed to cut the ground from under his competitors.    It never makes much sense to allow a practitioner to lay down the ground rules of practice.   Pohl stands in the same line of charlatans as Alban Berg, Picasso, Schoenberg and, well, Kubrick and QT    Schoenberg tried to dictate how music should be written;  Pohl wanted to set parameters for SF.  

Yeah... That's why I always look to my baker to lay down the procedures of the triple-bypass I need. The grocer defines my root canal... What, you mean your butcher didn't determine how that diamond was to cut? tsk.. tsk... tsk...

Citing Frederik Pohl is not endorsing his body of work-- he's never been my cup of tea, I quoted him because I agree with that quote (that must be cheating or something).

My point, most of which has been covered by jonthecelt, is that the genre is not dead in film, because so much of what is called science fiction in film is not science fiction. Far too much is just an excuse to use FX. And perhaps as that gets played out we'll have more films that are story-driven instead of FX driven.

SF filmmaking dead? Horse hockey!  Contrary to the complaining about special effects, I believe the new advances in specials effects will one day bring about a re-birth of SF films in a very powerful way.   One of the reasons SF films of the past were so schlocky is that the special effects never kept up with the vision of the original material. The new, improved effects are going to allow SF stories to be filmed that were never filmed before.  The best fruits of SF from the last twenty years or more are finally going to have their day on the theater screens.  Asimov's "I Robot"   - basterdized through it was - is a perfect example of this. And lets not forget the recent attempts at Phillip K. Dick's work, which even Sir Ridley has had a go at.   Once this process really gets underway, we'll start seeing SF that truly originates as film.   

The worst remake was War of the Worlds as far as I'm concerned. I did like "Independence day", although it was semi-funny in parts. It had good special effects.

The ongoing rash of superhero films can only be categorized as “science fiction," though of the worst sort, in my opinion. Science fiction literature is an embarrassment of riches. So many great ideas have never found their way to film. Someday, somehow, something truly wonderful will make it through the shields of Hollywood's stupidity and greed.

I wouldn't say Sci Fi is totally dead. I'd say that special effects alone don't make the movies. The stories often try to do and show too much too fast with too many main characters surrounding a story with an empty plot with no human emotions, feelings or mystery. You can't bond with one character before they switch to another or kill the other one off. By the end of the movie the viewer saw many amazing things but is left with no feelings whatsoever. As if nothing was accomplished at all.  Nice space ship!

I'm slightly surprised that no one has mentioned the remake of Battlestar Galactica yet, for better or worse. (I'm on the fence, personally, and just stick it under the heading 'hmm... interesting'.) As a general fan of stories that focus on characters in general, it's been different, since a good part of the focus is there rather than on the flashy-shiny. In that way, I like it. I also tend to think they get a little too soap-opera with it from time to time, but better that than some of the alternatives in my book. I tend to make a distinction between "sci-fi" and "blowin' stuff up" movies, though. I can enjoy both, but I tend to be disappointed when I am hoping for the first and end up with the second, which is not uncommon.

I could have sworn I mentioned Battlastar in my (somewhat lengthy) post earlier... one sec rummages Ah yes, here we are...

Quote - ...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...

;)

Another point that occured to me last night. Scott seems to bve saying that all SF since 2001 has been rehash, copy, and unoriginal, corect? But weren't his own stabs at the genre, Alien and Blade Runner, filmed after 2001? So theoretically, he's saying that even his own stuff is blatant rubbish.

Just one other point to consider - and this is me being far too much of a Private Eye reader. Which film company distributed Blade Runner, Alien and 2001? I know Alien was Fox... any ideas on the other two? goes off to check imdb Ok, they were both released by Warner - bang goes that conspiracy theory (Fox owns the Times, which was where the articel was published - thought they were using it as a fluff piece to promote their own films).

JonTheCelt

Erp, missed that. I blame the cough medicine. wink I have to agree, though. To really get into the meat of something with brains that spans a longer period of time than a few hours, it's almost necessary to go with the television (or at least miniseries or trilogy/etc.) approach. Many things are just glossed over, otherwise, and often elements of the story that are not only essential to "the point" but are also genuinely interesting get lost along the way. Any complex concept tends to need the time to develop, but time is something the short attention span of the audience Hollywood is designing for most often won't often tolerate -- at least without the "shiny things" thrown in to keep their interest.

Just to make a comment, as someone who knows several writers, editors, prominent fans and others in the field...hardly anyone calls it "skiffy" and if you used the term out loud most would have to stop a second to figure out what it was.  And these aren't, by and large, people who take them selves totally seriously and go on about art or whatnot.  "SF" (pronounced that way) or "sci-fi" (pronounced the usual way as seye-feye).  The only time I've ever heard it pronounced "skiffy" is to make fun of the people who pronounce it "skiffy".

“There’s nothing original. We’ve seen it all before. Been there. Done it,”

Sir Ridley is full of it. There is only about five basic plot lines or stories that every kind of movie and story is a derivative of. Sci-Fi is dead only if he and others CHOSE to make it so but the demand has never gone away. (Far Scape, Dr Who,Star Gate Atantis, Star Trek...)

I still wait for my flying car and robot promised to be here in the year 2000 since the 1950's.

Quote - Just to make a comment, as someone who knows several writers, editors, prominent fans and others in the field...hardly anyone calls it "skiffy" and if you used the term out loud most would have to stop a second to figure out what it was.  And these aren't, by and large, people who take them selves totally seriously and go on about art or whatnot.  "SF" (pronounced that way) or "sci-fi" (pronounced the usual way as seye-feye).  The only time I've ever heard it pronounced "skiffy" is to make fun of the people who pronounce it "skiffy".

Tell that to Iain M Banks, then. :)

Quote - “There is only about five basic plot lines or stories that every kind of movie and story is a derivative of.

Actually, I think Shakespeare claimed there were seven. And if you're a devotee of Joseph Campbell, then you would know there's really only one story, which all the others are simply echoes of. :)

JonTheCelt

Skiffy? Been reading it since the mid-60s, and maybe I'm showing my age, but we pronounced it sigh-fie..;) niether here nor there.

Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap..;)

funny tho.. I thought Skiffy was that music played with washboards...

The announcement that the novel/the western/science fiction/the tango/polytonal music is dead generally is made by old farts who don't like the young farts hogging the spotlight. John Fowles wrote most of his novels, and Margaret Atwood many of hers, after the novel died, and Dances with Wolves, Silverado, Lonesome Dove, and Unforgiven were all made after the death of the western. Scifi is alive and well, I suspect. It's Mr. Ridley's imagination that has died.

I don't understand what about the Pohl quote is getting the purists' thongs tucked. I agree with it completely, myself, and I've probably read 10,000 scifi novels (maybe it's skiffy in the UK; in the US it's sigh fie), including a few published this year, a slog of the historical, and piles in between. On the other hand, trying to define a genre (or even a setting; is 1984 futuristic in 2007?) that encompasses such varied treats as Hunter of Worlds, War of Worlds, Gulliver's Travels, Shadow of the Torturer, Neuromancer, Always Coming Home, and Mission of Gravity is pretty hopeless. And then try to shoehorn the Conan books into the box, along with  Mists of Avalon (but not The Passion of Mary Magdalene... uh, right). Oh and anything else I like....

Pohl's is as good a definition as any. What he has to say applies to all lasting fiction, except for the one line that points out there ought to be some... you know... science? in the pot. Ultimately, if you go to movies to watch shiny objects spin, I don't see what difference it makes what you call the genre. And when CGI is used transparently to tell the story, this is no different than using linguistic skill to tell the story.

There's some truht to what you say, mickmca... I have nothing against the use of effects, CGI or otherwise, in film (though I tend to prefer in-camera shots since they almost always end up looking more real to me) . However, there are definitely those films which are guilty of style over substance - where the philosophy seems to be "if we put enough flashy visuals in this, then the audience won't have the time to stop and realise that there's no plot, characterisation, or anything approaching a proper story here." Whilst SF/scifi/skiffy films are far from dead as a genre, I think it's safe to say that Sturgeon's Law certainly applies.

JonTheCelt

You people really need to READ the article. WOW!  People here taking out of context based on the title of the article.

He said the genre is tired and maybe dead, based on the recent movies released and related it to the western movies and how that field is dried up.

Ridley is on a press junket to promote the new Blade Runner anneversary DVD release.  A film that he was forced to edit, overdub, reshoot etc.

Most of the article is about his dealings with Blade Runner and the pressure of putting that movie out.

That's what he's talking about, movies to the masses, effects for effects sake.

Ridley was recently asked would he do another Alien movie for the franchise and his responce was WHY?  Unless there is something really relevant and new to do with that franchise there is no point.

Don't take that article which had few quotes BY ridley as what he's about.  Ridley is really about character and story when he directs or works on a movie, he's never waivered at all in his career on that point.

Everybody thinks because he directed Alien and Blade Runner that he is only a sci fi movie director.  He's mostly a movie producer now which from a movie producer point of view scifi would be seen as dead.  It's expensive, the return aint all that great for the most part.

Doesn't matter what one movie person says, many will do more and different things.

Me I'm awaiting I Am Legend with Will Smith in December.

if you read the original post, Ridley Scott does not say Sci-Fi is dead, he says Sci-Fi films are dead. So i think we can all agree along with Mr Scott that Sci-Fi, or Skiffy if you like, in literature anyway is alive and well. So whats the last modern Sci-Fi film that you thought was Exceptional? Personally my most recent fav is Ghost in the Shell, which was released in '95. I havent seen anything since that I even remotely liked more.

yup..just like westerns were dead, or romantic movies (series ones) etc. Hollywood is basically a 'me too' town, and sadly, not just SF, but all genres 'play it safe'...which isn't that exciting. So we look across the oceans to France, England, Iran (Iran!?), etc., for good ideas to steal..sad fact is, with all the money involved, no one can literally afford to take chances.

latest example- Life on Mars (UK version) was great, now they're going to do a US version with Colm Meaney (sp? Cheif O' Brian on various Star Treks) as the chief.  

Maybe someday they'll try something new. Someday.

How do you define Science Fiction nowadays?

A lot of purists I used to know would have classed Dr Who as fantasy...

I don't really give a toss about labels, but Steven Moffat's episodes on Who have been winners every one. Blink nearly regressed me to hiding behind the sofa!

Modern sci-fi films suffer from the same failings that plague all genres of movies these days: attempting to replace imaginative, rich story telling with special FX, violent shock scenes and sex.
Almost every big budget Hollywood film I've seen in the last ten years is just a collage of car chases and the obligatory shot of the protagonist running down a tunnel to escape an explosive fireball. All other plot elements are strictly incidental.
Tiresome.
"One thing's sure: Inspector Clay's dead, murdered, and somebody's responsible!"

Simple translation: Due to the pinheads in the studios, good writing, directing, and effects work gets quashed to conform to the bean counters 'lowest common denominator is the safest financial course' brainfart. And the sex isn't bad, per se. Just in the wrong contexts. Now for a good usage, I have to point others to the shower scene in the extended Starship Troopers. Excellent, in that none of the characters were making any deal out of it (note that this is not an endorsement of the flick and for damned sure not associating it with the book by the same name or any other of Hielein's work. Gaaaah). The sci fi film genre is suffering from what other genres suffer. Too much and not enough care to create something unique. But the actual science fiction genre can and does engulf just about anything if done properly (who would have thought you could take a story about dragons and make sci fi out of it? Ann McCaffrey's Pern series, and specifically the book Dragonsdawn where she stood her fantasy on its head. Successfully, IMHO). This is where the independant creator can shine. Look at what is being done with 'Star Trek: Aurora'. Yes it would be classified as fanfic, as it takes place in someone else's universe, but it underlines the basic concept that innovation comes from those who break the rules or uses tools in a creative way, not by following what has been done before. Scott himself did just that with 'Alien'.....science fiction horror, and one of first of the rebirth of the genre from the cheesy horror of the 50's & 60's budget flicks. All you have to do is get the DVD's of MST3K and watch what everyone called 'science fiction' back then ('Eeegah', anyone?). Strazyncky did the same with 'Babylon 5'. The big studios may be dropping the genre due to too much homogenization. But maybe a small, creative studio will get the rights to the Pern series, and make a proper R rated treatment of 'Dragonflight' (between the eating habits of dragons and certain attitudes and behaviors caused by said dragons, it would have to be R). It's shame we can't get a bunch of people together and pool the talent. After the needed deaths and defenestrations to weed out the genepool, we could probably create something with substance to it......

hmmmm...I'm not into all the big words and stuff, but I think we're just on the cusp of great sci-fi movies with the advancements in CGI...man, think of all the possibilities that are opening up!!!

I'm sure all you affectionados have seen The Day the Earth Stood Still...considered a great one...maybe in 1951....but now think about what is being done today with CGI ...

BTW .. check this out: 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/trailers-screenplay-E29594-10-2

edited to add...I think I watch movies for their entertainment value and sometimes miss the "meaning", if any....so a lot of CGI, if done well, is great for me. I thought War of the Worlds was a great flik...it had a lot of action, suspense, and all that....but perhaps fluffed up a bit to sell tickets. I just watched the Handmaiden's Tale...based on the Atwood book of course. This movie wasn't all that great in the acting , or even in its overall effect, but it was damn interesting nonetheless, imo

Ya maybe Ridley Scott did not see WoftheW remake. Im a big fan of the original, but i have to admit the new version is pretty good. the Tim Robbins scene was alittle out there, but the movie over all was scary. and D Fanning sure can scream!

Attached Link: http://movies.lionhead.com/movie/22422

Speaking of originals, I'll take this fortuitous opportunity to presnt my latest cinematic Sci-Fi/Horror opus for your discerning perusal. Be advised that it is so shocking that the authorities have ordered me to issue a $100,000,000.00 life insurance policy to all patrons to cover accidental death by fright.*

*I lied.

Scott helped kill sci-fi films with his very expensive B-movies.

Philip K. Dick was the Zane Grey of Sci-Fi books back in the day which everyone now buys rights of to make movies from.

George Lucas has the monopoly on science-fantasy drek. 

Rod Serling is dead, that event pretty much put sci-fi on life-support.

Most sci-fi now is just remakes of older movies.

Horror movies have now taken over and blurred the line with what sci-fi was.

Everyone has communicators now (see cell phones).

Quote - Me I'm awaiting I Am Legend with Will Smith in December.

I was too until you mentioned Will Smith.  Another person killing the genre.

http://movies.lionhead.com/movie/22422

Just came back from seeing the new Halloween by Rob Zombie.  Almost exactly like the above clip! 

Will Smith? That's another thing that killing the movies lately.  The so-called "stars" are turning every movie they are in into their own personal vehicles.   Will Smith turned I-Robot into a Will Smith movie.  Tom Cruise turned the Mission Impossible franchise into a series of Tom Cruise movies (the last one of which bombed because of Cruise's nut act on Oprah.)  And Richard Gere has been doing this for years.  Actors serve the material.  "Stars" make the material serve them.  Big difference!

Wild Wild West had some sci-fi (more like steam punk) in it.  But Will Smith murdered that thing for all generations.

Nobodies killing anything. They may not have done it well, but they didn't kill it. Sci-fi was stagnate and almost forgotten until the first Star Wars came out and broke the mold. It was different. Until somebody comes along with a new story and a vision of how to present it to the audience like they've never seen it before, everyones going to have to live old ideas.

I personally am not satisfied with the space scenes in moving starships. Planets and suns and asteriods never get large and go by. Everything is just little white lights going by or like in Star Wars when they jump to hyper space that smear of lights in the window. Maybe it's time they try some different ideas of the concept of what it might look like instead of carbon copying old versions. Try some new sounds to go with the lazers. Everybody is copying old ideas. It gets old! 

Also, a captian standing by a window in a star ship might have bright lights and different colors from the suns and planets he passes instead of the constant average light of the room he stands in. Star Wars story was completed and there is no reason to keep future space travel simular so that it matches the old version. It could be much improved. Nobody has to leave the technology the same either. No need for monitors at all or buttons and levers to push. The bridge of a star ship could be modernized considerably and brought up to a future date. Even the buttons in the Star Wars movies are old news compared to what we already have today. Couple all that into a story with substance with a good director and unknown actors that could take boxes and sticks and make you imagine your on the bridge of a ship and you might have a winner.

Kalon said:  *"Yeah... That's why I always look to my baker to lay down the procedures of the triple-bypass I need. The grocer defines my root canal... What, you mean your butcher didn't determine how that diamond was to cut? tsk.. tsk... tsk..."

*You're missing the point by a couple of light years.   It's generally a good idea for dentists to know about dentistry, butchers about dealing with meat, musicians about music.   I have no objection to dentists who play the violin, or butchers who like the flute, for that matter.

The point is that it is dangerous to let certain practitioners of a speciality dictate the bounds of that speciality, which is what Pohl was arrogantly trying to do, in the footsteps of Le Corbusier, Picasso, Schoenberg and, for that matter, Erich Ludendorff.   Pohl was entitled to his opinion, but he was deliberately seeking to re-define his chosen field to fit his own efforts.   As with the others named above, people have often been daft enough to take them at their own self-evaluation, although few people enjoy living in a Le Corbusier concrete monstrosity and Picasso is not really a popular painter and only an idiot wants to sit and listen to Schoenberg's "music".

Mickmca:  to fit the strict definition, science fiction probably could do with including some science, although that is such a broad term, in its true meaning, that I don't think that that helps you in propping up your Pohl.   After all, "Haghia Sophia" could be translated as "Sacred Science", but I can't imagine what Justinian would have made of Kubrick (perhaps there is a movie in there, all the same...).    Science fiction doesn't need to be futuristic, as you imply, although your examples seem to acknowledge that, in fact.    Where you get the idea that "Gulliver's Travels" qualifies as science fiction, though, I can't imagine.   By your own definition, or Pohl's, it is a fish out of water.   It's a satire, with situations set up for their satirical value, which usually means that Swift describes contexts which are consciously contrary to science.   You have lands entirely populated by tiny people and another that is a home to giants.   You have a land ruled by horses and one where people can live forever.   Then there is the airborne island.   Not a lot of science there.   It is intentionally the opposite.   "The War of the Worlds" is usually regarded as a science fiction classic, too, but it's really a political allegory.   You won't find a whole heap of science in there, either.   Not a bad book, but not a patch on "Gulliver's Travels".

Morgano:

Quote - You're missing the point by a couple of light years.

No, actually I don't think so. I see that where I erred was attributing the quote. That allowed you to attack the author and not focus on the content. I should have attributed the quote to a published science fiction author...

Morgano: > Quote - The point is that it is dangerous to let certain practitioners of a speciality dictate the bounds of that speciality, which is what Pohl was arrogantly trying to do, in the footsteps of Le Corbusier, Picasso, Schoenberg and, for that matter, Erich Ludendorff.   Pohl was entitled to his opinion, but he was deliberately seeking to re-define his chosen field to fit his own efforts.

(snip)

Ah, so now the practioner can define the practice, well certain practioners -- who, I wonder, gets to endorse them as worthy of defining their practice?

That type of thinking is so very dangerous. It implies that words from the mouth of someone you like and approve of are naturally truthful, but if you disapprove of the speaker, it must be a lie.

As for War of the Worlds, it is scifi, but that doesn't mean it can't be political allegory as well. And no, science fiction does not have to be futuristic. Probably the best example of this would be Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Morgano:
First off, he's not my Pohl. I hardly know the man. I recall one wonderful short story worthy of Theodore Sturgeon. I also read about science fiction, however, and I know that Pohl is considered one of the important figures of one decade of the genre's history. He's a bit of an authority on what came before and during.

Secondly, I'm puzzled by your angry tone when you refer to the quote. There's nothing authoritarian about it. It sounds like Pohl was asked to define science fiction and he tried to. You might read it again, since you seem to think he left out "science." What about: "relationship between man and technology? Does it enlighten me on some area of science." Given that "science" embraces everything from talking dogs (Was Monster Dogs science fiction? No.) to telepathy (Are the Darkover books science fiction? Yes, but Mists of Avalon is not.)

I don't know where you got the implication that science fiction needs to be futuristic, but I expect you will find a slew of scifi writers and readers who disagree with you. Technically, science fiction set in the past is considered fantasy, I think. Not that I care. These categories are not some sort of gauntlet a book must pass through to immortality. They are helpful in the library. They determine -- at the whim of the reader, not generally some authoritarian ruler -- what books are eligible for prizes. They make a context for discussing authors, a way of looking at them.

The books on the history of science fiction, by the way, will answer your question as to why Swift (and Cyrano de Bergerac) are considered early writers of "science fiction." Personally, it's not a question that interests me. And whether someone is or is not "a science fiction writer" is even a sillier question than whether something is or is not "science fiction." Ursula Le Guin put that silliness to bed years ago, but it keeps climbing out again.

Finally, there is a huge difference between trying to define science fiction as one of many respected and knowledgable practioners and "dictating" what people should do in some restrictive, totalitarian sense. Pohl's tone is tentative and deferential, but more important, he is not in the position of a Picasso. Or a Goebbels. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with a Picasso defining good modern art. Sturgeon's 95% will consist of people turning out trash trying to be Picasso and people turning out trash trying to NOT NEVER EVER be like Picasso because he's a ---- Whatever. The painters with vision and a story to tell will paint, and fate will follow. Likewise with writers. Meanwhile, certain books will reach the mainstream by a combination of luck, hard work, and appeal (Lonesome Dove, The Andromeda Strain) while others equally "good" (whatever that means) simply become classics of the genre (Riders of Judgment, Well of Shiuan). That's life.

NB: I see the source for "futuristic." In the context, I should have said "speculative."

Children of Men was the last good sci-fi movie I saw in a very long time.  And there was nearly no sci-fi in it.

Stargate SG-1 (10 years of it) has added so many nails to sci-fi's coffin.