If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   How 'Star Wars' ruined sci-fi   (cnn.com) divider line 176
    More: Obvious, Star Wars, MacArthur Foundation, Forever War, Francois Truffaut, Episode VII, The Big Book of  
•       •       •

6019 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 May 2014 at 2:07 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-03 09:36:12 AM
ruined sci-fi literature too, most new "hard" sci-fi has lots of battles and one on one fights, drawn out to blow by blow tedium.  It feels like they are writing screenplays for the marching morons, not novels.  I'm looking at you, James Corey.
 
2014-05-03 09:47:17 AM
Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it
 
2014-05-03 09:56:05 AM
Is there a term for hipster nerds?
 
2014-05-03 10:18:46 AM
No one likes a bitter nerd
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-03 11:23:25 AM
I think there was space opera before Star Wars.  There is more hard SF now than in the 70's, I think.
 
2014-05-03 11:48:16 AM

vpb: I think there was space opera before Star Wars.  There is more hard SF now than in the 70's, I think.


He appears to be mad that some movies which are difficult to translate into movies haven't been translated into movies.
 
2014-05-03 11:56:03 AM

Relatively Obscure: vpb: I think there was space opera before Star Wars.  There is more hard SF now than in the 70's, I think.

He appears to be mad that some movies which are difficult to translate into movies haven't been translated into movies.


I don't think that's it.
 
2014-05-03 11:57:12 AM
About goddamn time somebody said it. Lucas is a crap writer, crap director.  He's basically a special effects wizard who somehow got a director's chair.  Call me elitist if you want, but I don't consider star wars to be sci-fi at all, and i have little respect for fans of the novels who think they are.  And i say that even though I am a huge fan if space opera generally
 
2014-05-03 12:00:17 PM

Magorn: About goddamn time somebody said it. Lucas is a crap writer, crap director.  He's basically a special effects wizard who somehow got a director's chair.  Call me elitist if you want, but I don't consider star wars to be sci-fi at all, and i have little respect for fans of the novels who think they are.  And i say that even though I am a huge fan if space opera generally


Repeat to yourself it's just a show; you should really just relax.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-03 12:40:45 PM

Relatively Obscure: vpb: I think there was space opera before Star Wars.  There is more hard SF now than in the 70's, I think.

He appears to be mad that some movies which are difficult to translate into movies haven't been translated into movies.


I wonder if he ever saw Plan 9 from Outer Space?
 
2014-05-03 12:56:14 PM
I dunno. I liked Star Wars.
 
2014-05-03 12:56:42 PM

Relatively Obscure: Magorn: About goddamn time somebody said it. Lucas is a crap writer, crap director.  He's basically a special effects wizard who somehow got a director's chair.  Call me elitist if you want, but I don't consider star wars to be sci-fi at all, and i have little respect for fans of the novels who think they are.  And i say that even though I am a huge fan if space opera generally

Repeat to yourself it's just a show; you should really just relax.


Hehe.
 
2014-05-03 01:04:38 PM
Star Wars gave us Carrie Fisher in that golden bikini.  It can ruin whatever it wants.
 
2014-05-03 01:18:04 PM
Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.
 
2014-05-03 01:23:13 PM
FTFA: Instead, I'll queue up "The Matrix," and enjoy the most original sci-fi movie of the past 25 years.

Okay, this guy is just trolling ...
 
2014-05-03 01:25:55 PM

Relatively Obscure: Is there a term for hipster nerds?


I call em nerdsters
 
2014-05-03 02:06:26 PM
Alan Steele, Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, Richard K Morgan, Steven Barnes, and Neal Stephenson aren't enough about ideas?

There isn't a great market for science fiction in film for more cerebral exercises, but Lucas WAS going for that serial pulp feel, and he delivered it. You might as well blame Fkash Gordon and radio serials while you're at it.
 
2014-05-03 02:12:00 PM
If Star Wars actually were science fiction it would be a lot worse.
 
2014-05-03 02:13:04 PM
This thread could have been a lot more fun if it was on the main page ...
 
2014-05-03 02:16:34 PM

2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.


Babylon 5 managed to pull of the prophecy thing well, by having a main chapter travel back in time to become Valen, the one who wrote the prophecies.
 
2014-05-03 02:18:05 PM

Mad_Radhu: 2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Babylon 5 managed to pull of the prophecy thing well, by having a main chapter travel back in time to become Valen, the one who wrote the prophecies.


Also, in Foundation, psychohistory was a sort of a hand of fate that moved the story forward. Especially when it was subverted by the Mule.
 
2014-05-03 02:18:58 PM
Stupid premise is stupid. Star Wars is not "sci" anything.
 
2014-05-03 02:21:03 PM
Meh, whatever.  SW didn't ruin SF.  Might have made it harder to produce good (however you define good) SF films in Hollywood, but hard SF has more to do with ideas than action and has never been easy to translate into a two hour movie. Heck, most literary fiction doesn't distill neatly into film without losing something in the process.
 
2014-05-03 02:22:57 PM
Star Wars is crappy SF, it's really more of a fantasy, and I'm a huge SW fan.... but leaving that aside,  the article's headline premise; that it "ruined" SF (movies), is wrong.

Pre-1977, was a very dry, desolate time for SF movies.  Apart from occasional b-movies, the studios were not spending huge bucks on it, and SF on the television was also fairly dead after Star Trek TOS folded up shop and went into re-runs.

The huge financial success of Star Wars jump-stared a bandwagon effect at the big Hollywood studios, and money follows money.  A shiat-ton of bad SF followed in movies and TV, but   in that rising tide, we also got better movies and shows made, programming that otherwise wouldn't have been developed in the first place.

That expanded market for more SF even bled into the book market, creating new opportunities for new authors.

So, I think the author's premise is 180 degrees from reality.  Like it or not,  Star Wars was like a big cow turd dropped in an empty prarie: it fertilized the soil for the the space operas and imitators that sprouted up after it, creating a pool of consumers you could commoditize and build a new SF market around.
 
2014-05-03 02:24:52 PM
Star Wars is awesome.  It's the prequels that ruined sci-fi.
 
2014-05-03 02:24:59 PM
I'm a huge Asimov fan, but Foundation is not a great choice to make a movie from.  It lends itself much better to episodic TV format.  The down side of committing to Foundation as a TV series is getting a guarantee that they make the entire plot arc before cancellation.
 
2014-05-03 02:30:54 PM
I agree with everything this man said. Star Wars is a lot of fun, but ultimately it's just a big expensive comic book with nice visual effects. It's not very intellectually stimulating.
 
2014-05-03 02:32:12 PM
I'd like to see them make a movie from Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye".
 
2014-05-03 02:37:46 PM

Mike_1962: I'd like to see them make a movie from Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye".


Agreed.
 
2014-05-03 02:38:28 PM
Star Wars was more of a Western than Sci-Fi.
 
2014-05-03 02:39:47 PM

Mike_1962: I'd like to see them make a movie from Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye".


I'd like them to do any of Niven's books, except (for unknown reasons) the Ringworld novels.
 
2014-05-03 02:46:24 PM

K3rmy: Star Wars gave us Carrie Fisher in that golden bikini.  It can ruin whatever it wants.


Five minutes of 34-year-old midget cheesecake does not great SF make. Star Wars is a deriative cartoon that consciously aped 1930s adventure serials, as did the Indiana Jones films, actually set in the 1930s...

And John Williams owes a certain dead musical proto-Nazi a virtual sack of Afterlife Bitcoins.
 
2014-05-03 02:51:56 PM
There's definitely something to what Beale's saying.

I've been discussing it with a few different people these past couple of weeks, but in general, I'd argue that the safety-blanket approach to sf in general has been more harmful than anything else, and both Star Wars and "Star Trek" are standard-bearers for that. It's been forty years and we're still discussing this universe, with its color-coded morality, magic science, and simplistic approach to technology and culture. It's inhibiting the entire science-fiction genre because so many fans and would-be writers won't move past it.

I wouldn't argue in good faith that you're a bad person for liking Star Wars and its spin-off media, or anything similarly hyperbolic, but I do think that we owe it to ourselves to start moving onward and start supporting new things, instead of shelling out for the same plots and ideas in shiny wrappers: Star Wars, endless reboots and remakes, etc.
 
2014-05-03 02:52:04 PM

K3rmy: Star Wars gave us Carrie Fisher in that golden bikini.  It can ruin whatever it wants.


It was a hot chick in some skimpy outfit, not the cure for polio. You must think Heavy Metal magazine is the greatest literary accomplishment humanity has ever produced. I mean, I've got nothing against Star Wars or T&A, but I find it odd that some people are willing to sit through hours of footage (in the case of TV shows) for a couple dozen frames of a pretty girl.
 
2014-05-03 02:52:15 PM
"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" is akin to "once upon a time in a land far, far away"

In other words it's a fairy take with space features.
 
2014-05-03 02:54:17 PM
Sci fi used to be rocket ships, space babes, and cardboard aliens. piss on anything this guy might say or think.
 
2014-05-03 02:57:01 PM
*Reads thread*

thenonsensecafe.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-05-03 03:06:02 PM
Subby misspelled "Trek"
 
2014-05-03 03:06:33 PM
One thing ruined science fiction.

Science.
 
2014-05-03 03:06:48 PM

Valiente: K3rmy: Star Wars gave us Carrie Fisher in that golden bikini.  It can ruin whatever it wants.

Five minutes of 34-year-old midget cheesecake does not great SF make. Star Wars is a deriative cartoon that consciously aped 1930s adventure serials, as did the Indiana Jones films, actually set in the 1930s...

And John Williams owes a certain dead musical proto-Nazi a virtual sack of Afterlife Bitcoins.


it'sa baseless canard that Williams ripped off Wagner.  Now Mahler on the other hand?  Should have filed a police report.
 
2014-05-03 03:07:56 PM
Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.

I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.
 
2014-05-03 03:15:03 PM
Don't care. Sci-fi movies still have to pander to the lowest common denominator of anti-intellectual audiences to be commercially successful, so it makes it hard to bring an intellectual genre to the big screen.

Star Wars is WIZARDS IN SPACE, and always has been. Star Trek - especially the new JJ Abrams incarnation - has always been MAKE shiat UP WITH TECHNOBABBLE. The farking Matrix was "let's throw in a bunch of smart sounding philosophy but let the studios dumb down the foundational premises of the movie so the dumb audiences can understand it to the point where very little actually makes sense." And that recent James Cameron atrocity - not even touching the problems with that one with a 10 foot pole.

What I'm saying is that the main body of sci-fi films has always been disappointing if you judge against the strict standards of "hard" sci-fi literature and not "its sci-fi because spaceships and blasters (but really just fantasy)."

There have been some standout exceptions in recent years that I can think of - the first couple of Aliens movies, District 9, Event Horizon, hell even the Last Starfighter - but honestly, this is what movie adaptations usually are: dumbed down versions that pander to the lowest common denominator with pretty explosions and other eye cady.

The short of it: if you want smart, cerebral scifi, read a damn book. If you want to get baked out of your gourd on your substance of choice and enjoy pretty pictures in front of your eyeballs, go see a movie.

It's the exact same way across every genre of literary-film adaptations, excluding indy films.
 
2014-05-03 03:16:33 PM
People can dog on Star Wars because it has been deconstructed and commercialized. Guess what, Niven's Moties would fair just about the same. Instead of deep about trade agreements to rage over people would whine about planned social life cycles. Anything successful gets beaten like a dead horse.
 
2014-05-03 03:18:51 PM

Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.

I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.


Two things here:
Lucifer' hammer would make a GREAT film, if they kept all of the smart science stuff in there.

Niven himself ruined ringworld. Seriously, did you read the third book? It was "Louis Wu farks a lot of aliens and then the book ends."
 
2014-05-03 03:25:52 PM

Mad_Radhu: Mad_Radhu: 2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Babylon 5 managed to pull of the prophecy thing well, by having a main chapter travel back in time to become Valen, the one who wrote the prophecies.

Also, in Foundation, psychohistory was a sort of a hand of fate that moved the story forward. Especially when it was subverted by the Mule.


Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.

Elegy: Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.

I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.

Two things here:
Lucifer' hammer would make a GREAT film, if they kept all of the smart science stuff in there.

Niven himself ruined ringworld. Seriously, did you read the third book? It was "Louis Wu farks a lot of aliens and then the book ends."


I didn't even get through book 1, personally. I got to the actual landing. I generally enjoy my stories to be about plot, not empty rambling and socio-political plottings and 400 pages of 'they explored very carefully'.  Oddly enough I had a similar problem with 'Girl with the dragon tattoo'. If the novel had cut out some of the pointless navel gazing and introspection, and gotten on with the actual mystery/exploration it would have been more interesting.
 
2014-05-03 03:30:52 PM

jaytkay: *Reads thread*

[thenonsensecafe.files.wordpress.com image 450x397]


*reads article*

l.wigflip.com
 
2014-05-03 03:36:47 PM

kroonermanblack: Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.


Set of novels by Isaac Assimov. A very, very long set of novels that everyone hypes as one of the greatest series in sci-fi, but that I personally found trite and rather boring in aggregate.

There were interesting parts, but I felt like I had to wade through too much dross to get to them.

I didn't even get through book 1, personally. I got to the actual landing. I generally enjoy my stories to be about plot, not empty rambling and socio-political plottings and 400 pages of 'they explored very carefully'.  Oddly enough I had a similar problem with 'Girl with the dragon tattoo'. If the novel had cut out some of the pointless navel gazing and introspection, and gotten on with the actual mystery/exploration it would have been more interesting.

I also found them lacking based on the hype, but the fascination of Ringworld was always about exploring the physical idea of the ringworld itself and the engineering and physics surrounding it, not about the characters or the known-space universe. The puppeteers had some cool stuff going on as well. That stuff was utterly fascinating and worth the read.

Most of the characters and character plots were mildly interesting (in the first) to moderately uninteresting (in the second) to "for farks sake Niven stop farking writing about farking the farking aliens already and move this along" in the third.
 
2014-05-03 03:40:58 PM
And in terms of movie adaptations:
FFS HOLLYWOOD CAN WE PLEASE GET A MOVIE ADAPTATION OF BUJOLD'S VOR SAGA WITH PETER DINKLAGE CAST AS MILES?
 
2014-05-03 03:41:24 PM

kroonermanblack: Mad_Radhu: Mad_Radhu: 2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Babylon 5 managed to pull of the prophecy thing well, by having a main chapter travel back in time to become Valen, the one who wrote the prophecies.

Also, in Foundation, psychohistory was a sort of a hand of fate that moved the story forward. Especially when it was subverted by the Mule.

Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.



The Asimov Foundation novel series. It's based around a Seldon Plan that acts as a sort of hand of fate in the series because it predicts how the future of the galaxy will unfold after the collapse of the Galactic Empire based on a science of psychohistory which predicts how large groups of people will react to events. Of course it all falls apart when a mutant with powerful mental powers throws off the plan because psychohistory can't predict what a single person will do, only masses of people,
 
2014-05-03 03:44:27 PM
What a whiny biatch. If you want better sci-fi, then either write it yourself, or enjoy what's already out there that you think is better, but don't complain about how one particular series is more popular and influential than others. The existence of Star Wars should in no way hinder your enjoyment of better sci-fi, and complaining about it makes you sound like a childish prick. In which case, STFU and spare us the diatribe.
 
2014-05-03 04:02:15 PM
Screw it, let's re-make Willow and cast Peter Dinklage. Or make the trilogy of books written after the movie with Peter Dinklage.

Although, the books kinda sucked ...
 
2014-05-03 04:03:40 PM

Mad_Radhu: 2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Babylon 5 managed to pull of the prophecy thing well, by having a main chapter travel back in time to become Valen, the one who wrote the prophecies.


Zathras does all the work. Zathras never gets the credit.
Zathras used to it now.
 
2014-05-03 04:05:32 PM

HawgWild: Screw it, let's re-make Willow and cast Peter Dinklage. Or make the trilogy of books written after the movie with Peter Dinklage.



I doubt he'd do them. He stays away from anything typecast as a midget/dwarf.

/Tyrion may look like a dwarf, but he's not.
 
2014-05-03 04:17:01 PM
SciFi Serials?
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-03 04:17:50 PM
Translation: sci-fi was better before it was popular.

BTW: you're kidding yourself if half of the examples you listed are hard, or cerebral. There is very hard (even excepting things like aliens and ai) sci-fi around, mostly because no one reads it anymore.

And Hollywood won't make it because most hollywood (and most mainstream authors, for that matter) are pretty stupid when it comes to science.
 
2014-05-03 04:18:26 PM
Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.
 
2014-05-03 04:19:09 PM
Thank god for Cory Doctorow. He'll save us from this living hell.
 
2014-05-03 04:20:54 PM

almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.


Just a guess, but it sounds like a Ursula Le Guin sort of thing.
 
2014-05-03 04:22:18 PM

gunther_bumpass: Thank god for Cory Doctorow. He'll save us from this living hell.


Cory Doctrow will save us from Hipster Fandom?

BoingBoing is the epicenter of SciFi Posers everywhere.... if you want to suck up to Cory...you're in the wrong forums
 
2014-05-03 04:24:40 PM

Stratohead: gunther_bumpass: Thank god for Cory Doctorow. He'll save us from this living hell.

Cory Doctrow will save us from Hipster Fandom?

BoingBoing is the epicenter of SciFi Posers everywhere.... if you want to suck up to Cory...you're in the wrong forums


He's the best thing to happen to literature since the first vaguely-mammalian family's slowest offspring spread its own feces on the wall of the home cave.
 
2014-05-03 04:27:23 PM
Jesus

Star Wars isnt scifi at all and the genre it is in was popular for decades before it.

Some of the finest scifi movies ever made have been made after Star Wars, and it has in no way impacted on them.

Many popular and successful scifi works long before starwars were 'action romps', Star Wars is hardly to blame for that.

The example he obsesses over is pomo race-social literature wrapped in the thinnest of scifi skins, and noone who actually likes scifi would go watch it. In fact noone would. Would clean up at sundance though.
 
2014-05-03 04:27:37 PM

gunther_bumpass: Thank god for Cory Doctorow. He'll save us from this living hell.


i tried to read 'for the win.' It was one of a handful of books i have put down halfway through and never returned to. one of the worst things i have ever read.
 
2014-05-03 04:34:17 PM
I don't read anything on a recommendation any more, since the awful horror of the China Melville incident and the even worse 3 days of my life wasted watching Patrick Rothfuss masturbate onto a page. TWO of that farkers books I read. TWO. I still see it at night.
 
2014-05-03 04:36:59 PM
I was with him, right up until he said that J. J. Abrams had talent.

That's where he lost me.
 
2014-05-03 04:45:20 PM

tlchwi02: gunther_bumpass: Thank god for Cory Doctorow. He'll save us from this living hell.

i tried to read 'for the win.' It was one of a handful of books i have put down halfway through and never returned to. one of the worst things i have ever read.


The worst I have read from him so far is Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town. That was just a big bag of "WTF did I just read?". I downloaded it for free and still feel like I overpaid. Half the story was just him masturbating his hard on about Wi-Fi mesh networks.

/That said, I really did kind of like Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
 
2014-05-03 04:49:13 PM

Any Pie Left: Pre-1977, was a very dry, desolate time for SF movies.  Apart from occasional b-movies, the studios were not spending huge bucks on it, and SF on the television was also fairly dead after Star Trek TOS folded up shop and went into re-runs.


Partial credit, since you are overlooking 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is now "nearly universally recognized by critics, film-makers, and audiences as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made." 2001 was the highest grossing film of 1968, and without it showing that sci-fi could make metric ass-tons of cash, SW might not have been filmed.

Having started watching sci-fi movies in the late 50's, I do agree that prior to 2001 sci-fi movies had too many stop-action monsters made from paper mache; too many actors in latex monster suits, ray guns, black and white film, etcetera.
 
2014-05-03 04:50:51 PM

gunther_bumpass: Stratohead: gunther_bumpass: Thank god for Cory Doctorow. He'll save us from this living hell.

Cory Doctrow will save us from Hipster Fandom?

BoingBoing is the epicenter of SciFi Posers everywhere.... if you want to suck up to Cory...you're in the wrong forums

He's the best thing to happen to literature since the first vaguely-mammalian family's slowest offspring spread its own feces on the wall of the home cave.


You don't have to try and impress us. But now I have a decent picture of how you spend your weekend evenings. I can see now why you enjoy Doctrow so much.

besides, you are probably thinking of Jonathan Lethem...that or you are smoking crack.
 
2014-05-03 04:51:14 PM

Stone Meadow: Partial credit, since you are overlooking 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is now "nearly universally recognized by critics, film-makers, and audiences as one of the greatest and most influential boring films ever made."


FTFY
 
2014-05-03 04:51:40 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert Philip K. Dick died.

There i said it


There...ftfy.
 
2014-05-03 04:52:01 PM

aiiee: ruined sci-fi literature too, most new "hard" sci-fi has lots of battles and one on one fights, drawn out to blow by blow tedium.  It feels like they are writing screenplays for the marching morons, not novels.  I'm looking at you, James Corey.


Same for Fantasy.  Plus unnecessarily graphic sex scenes.  I'm looking at you, George R. R. Martin.

/Never watched the show
//The books made me want to nuke the whole place from orbit.
 
2014-05-03 04:54:13 PM

simplicimus: almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.

Just a guess, but it sounds like a Ursula Le Guin sort of thing.



Pretty sure that's not it....that name doesn't ring a bell

It's been 30 years since i read it though, i could be wrong
 
2014-05-03 04:56:16 PM
I completely disagree. Star Wars is the gateway drug. It's safe enough for your kids to use and get addicted to while they are young. Then they will spend the rest of their lives delving the depths of the harder stuff.
 
2014-05-03 04:58:15 PM
A Voyage to Arctures is the novel I was thinking about
 
2014-05-03 05:01:58 PM

Stone Meadow: Any Pie Left: Pre-1977, was a very dry, desolate time for SF movies.  Apart from occasional b-movies, the studios were not spending huge bucks on it, and SF on the television was also fairly dead after Star Trek TOS folded up shop and went into re-runs.

Partial credit, since you are overlooking 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is now "nearly universally recognized by critics, film-makers, and audiences as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made." 2001 was the highest grossing film of 1968, and without it showing that sci-fi could make metric ass-tons of cash, SW might not have been filmed.

Having started watching sci-fi movies in the late 50's, I do agree that prior to 2001 sci-fi movies had too many stop-action monsters made from paper mache; too many actors in latex monster suits, ray guns, black and white film, etcetera.


There were about 5-10 sci fi movies per year from the 50's onward. while many were B Pictures, many were not.

Few films could tackle things with the level of budget as 2001... but Fantastic Voyage...Solaris, Dark Star, Silent Running to name a few. Hell Logans Run one an Oscar for best effects the year before StarWars was released. Omega Man. Soylent Green, Andromeda Strain , Westworld and Futureworld, RollerBall to name a few.
Then there was the massive hit franchise PLanet of the Apes, which from 68-73 consisted of 5 films a live action TV Series, and an aminated Cartoon.
between Star Trek and Star Wars were many scifi series as well... some were spin offs like Logans Run and Apes... but there was also Space 1999. UFO, Project Bluebook, the Bionic Man and Woman series...fark man...there really are to many for me to recall.
Despite only a few series reaching the recognition of StarTrek/Wars.... SciFi has never really been off the air in decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_television_prog ra ms
 
2014-05-03 05:03:35 PM

Stone Meadow: There...ftfy.


I never got into him.  Too batshiat insane
 
2014-05-03 05:05:41 PM

Relatively Obscure: Is there a term for hipster nerds?


Just hipster is sufficient. "Hipster Nerds" would be a redundancy, like "ATM machine", or "unexpected surprise".

Actually, ATM machine might not be a redundancy if you are referring to a certain type of pornographic performer who delivers the goods frequently and without fail.
 
2014-05-03 05:10:43 PM

Jekylman: If Star Wars actually were science fiction it would be a lot worse.


Wasn't more space opera, then devolved into political thriller.
 
2014-05-03 05:10:55 PM

Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.

I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.


There was a story? I mean, aside from "We're at this ring. We're flying... There's a thing... We're flying... There's another thing... We're flying... Point that tasp somewhere else, buddy... We're flying..."
 
2014-05-03 05:23:50 PM

Johnny_Canuck: Mike_1962: I'd like to see them make a movie from Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye".

Agreed.


Hear, hear.  Though it would have to be a mini-series or trilogy at best.
 
2014-05-03 05:26:17 PM

bloobeary: I was with him, right up until he said that J. J. Abrams had talent.

That's where he lost me.


He has a great talent for taking well known characters, stripping them of what makes them interesting, and putting them in an action movie.
 
2014-05-03 05:29:16 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Stone Meadow: There...ftfy.

I never got into him.  Too batshiat insane


Granted, but Dick was asking deep questions while Herbert was writing space westerns... ;^)
 
2014-05-03 05:30:02 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-03 05:32:24 PM
Stratohead:
You don't have to try and impress us. But now I have a decent picture of how you spend your weekend evenings. I can see now why you enjoy Doctrow so much.

Perhaps I should rephrase that in layman's terms.

"Continuing a tradition dating back thousands of years, Cory Doctorow is the modern master of smearing his own shiat on a wall."
 
2014-05-03 05:32:59 PM

Stone Meadow: Doktor_Zhivago: Stone Meadow: There...ftfy.

I never got into him.  Too batshiat insane

Granted, but Dick was asking deep questions while Herbert was writing space westerns... ;^)


God emperor of dune is a western?

The jesus incident?

Really?
 
2014-05-03 05:33:06 PM
It took me until the last paragraph to realize he was trolling.
 
2014-05-03 05:35:23 PM
Firefly ain't sci-fi either, just a western with reskinned wagons and injun's, and a Confederate soldier as the hero.

Farscape manages it, with its muppets and Alice in Wonderland themes. Hell, maybe even Lexx.


/Damn, now I've a hankering for Dark Crystal.
 
2014-05-03 05:42:48 PM
I loved the original star wars as a kid and will still watch them if I run across them on TV.

That said, Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction. The dead giveaway is right there at the beginning of the first movie.
 
2014-05-03 05:46:41 PM
If this is the thread for voting for the next movie adaptation I'm casting my vote for Hyperion and/or Diamond Age
 
2014-05-03 05:48:30 PM

aiiee: ruined sci-fi literature too, most new "hard" sci-fi has lots of battles and one on one fights, drawn out to blow by blow tedium.  It feels like they are writing screenplays for the marching morons, not novels.  I'm looking at you, James Corey.


Piss off-  Expanse series is farking great.
 
2014-05-03 05:52:05 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Stone Meadow: Doktor_Zhivago: Stone Meadow: There...ftfy.

I never got into him.  Too batshiat insane

Granted, but Dick was asking deep questions while Herbert was writing space westerns... ;^)

God emperor of dune is a western?

The jesus incident?

Really?


Oh sure...SERIAL!!!
 
2014-05-03 06:01:33 PM
Has anyone explained how Star Wars isn't actually science fiction and is really just space fantasy?
 
2014-05-03 06:11:40 PM

Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.

I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.


Protector would be a far better choice than Ringworld, IMO. Better yet- make it a short series on HBO or something similar.


I'd love to see a series made from The Hercules Text by Jack McDevitt.

 
2014-05-03 06:15:12 PM
i.walmartimages.com

Show us on the Darth Vader doll exactly where George touched you.
 
2014-05-03 06:17:46 PM
I guess he didn't see Moon, Donnie Darko, Paprika, Wall-E or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?
 
2014-05-03 06:21:02 PM
 Partial credit, since you are overlooking 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is now "nearly universally recognized by critics, film-makers, and audiences

2001 was never a huge commercial success, or even a moderate one. The other, pre-1977 films were all just middling profit-makers, though Planet Of The Apes pointed the way forward in terms of exploiting the post-film marketing for crap like toys and lunch boxes, etc.

To the Hollywood studio heads, sci-fi pre-Star Wars  was considered kiddy fare, incapable of really serious story-telling and  it wasn't considered very "bankable", compared to wider genre's, so they didn't develop as many scripts for SF movies, and didn't budget them a lot of money.  I maintain that after Star Wars, a lot of studio heads started asking their staff to dig up some SF properties and rush them into development, prming the pump for a wave of production that's been building on itself ever since.

Let me look at what's playing in my local movie theatre this week: (pauses) five out of thirteen films playing this weekend here are some form of sci-fi.  And I can tell you from watching "Transcendence" last week, EVERY trailer before that film was for another sci-fi film coming out.

Good, bad, mediocre; regardless of how tasteful you may think the products are, the overall genre' is doing better than ever today - indeed, it's starting to crowd out  comedies and romances, while co-opting a lot of action movies by adding SF elements.
 
2014-05-03 06:30:20 PM

Elegy: kroonermanblack: Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.

Set of novels by Isaac Assimov. A very, very long set of novels that everyone hypes as one of the greatest series in sci-fi, but that I personally found trite and rather boring in aggregate.

There were interesting parts, but I felt like I had to wade through too much dross to get to them.


I remember each book being pretty short. And self contained so you don't have to read them all in row. But it's been a while, so I may be wrong.
 
2014-05-03 06:35:52 PM
Write something better, subby.
 
2014-05-03 06:43:34 PM
Lighten up Francis.
 
2014-05-03 07:06:36 PM
Star Wars gave us:

Rockets that are quiet enough you can stand right next to them as they are leaving.
Spacecraft making coordinated turns in space, at what appear to be about fifty G rates.
Lasers you can see in the vacuum of space.
Smoke and fire that blow backwards off moving spacecraft.
Conning towers on large spacecraft.
Spacecraft that have their engines running at all times even when landing.
Faster than light travel and faster than light data transmission.
Death star the size of a small moon, with no engines yet can keep up with the Millenium Falcon.
Same death star with a power reactor so unstable a single-seat fighter can destroy it.
"Thermal exhaust port" location on death star unintentionally (?) in the butt crack, har har.
Same port could have been defended by a steel grate of some kind.
Leia knows they're being followed and leads them right to her base anyway.
Artificial gravity in even the smallest vehicles.
Soldier armor with the weak points highlighted and helmets impossible to see out of.

And an empire too cheap to expend a single shot on a fleeing escape pod.
 
2014-05-03 07:29:38 PM

Cymbal: I completely disagree. Star Wars is the gateway drug. It's safe enough for your kids to use and get addicted to while they are young. Then they will spend the rest of their lives delving the depths of the harder stuff.


I wish I could agree with that, but I've known too many people for whom the only sf they read or watch is Star Wars: endless, shaky amounts of Star Wars, novels and TV shows and increasingly awful video games, on and on forever.
 
2014-05-03 07:35:24 PM

kroonermanblack: Mad_Radhu: Mad_Radhu: 2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Babylon 5 managed to pull of the prophecy thing well, by having a main chapter travel back in time to become Valen, the one who wrote the prophecies.

Also, in Foundation, psychohistory was a sort of a hand of fate that moved the story forward. Especially when it was subverted by the Mule.

Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.


Seriously? If you don't know this, you should get out of this thread. "Classic science fiction" for you is probably some TOS fanfic.
 
2014-05-03 07:44:40 PM

006andahalf: aiiee: ruined sci-fi literature too, most new "hard" sci-fi has lots of battles and one on one fights, drawn out to blow by blow tedium.  It feels like they are writing screenplays for the marching morons, not novels.  I'm looking at you, James Corey.

Same for Fantasy.  Plus unnecessarily graphic sex scenes.  I'm looking at you, George R. R. Martin.

/Never watched the show
//The books made me want to nuke the whole place from orbit.


George Lucas and George RR Martin have very similar creative arcs. They both had a very successful trilogy then proceeded to ruin it by not understanding what made their original works popular.

Lucas thought people like Star Wars for the special effects and the visuals where as really people were into it because it was an interesting, if simplistic, plot with a space battles and memorable characters. The prequels are about rich people who don't want to pay Space Taxes with the Jedi being IRS enforcers. The Emperor is the leader of the TEA Party.

Martin wrote a medieval political thriller with dragons and ice zombies sprinkled on the side for 3 books. He decided for the next two he would write travel diaries, introduce a whole bunch of new zany characters and instead of focusing on how the story progressed he mangled his writing with more and more authentic medieval words like nuncle and sarjeant.

Both sold out to big media companies Disney and HBO respectively who might be able to fix their magnum opuses.
 
2014-05-03 07:50:10 PM

Any Pie Left: 2001 was never a huge commercial success, or even a moderate one.


LOL...wut? Did you even glance at the link I provided? No? Well then let me set the record straight. From TFA: "...it eventually became the highest grossing picture from 1968 in North America."

Also from TFA: it cost $10.5 million to make and pulled in $190 million. In 2013 dollars that's $1.275 Billion.

Questions?
 
2014-05-03 07:54:44 PM

I May Be Crazy But...: Elegy: kroonermanblack: Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.

Set of novels by Isaac Assimov. A very, very long set of novels that everyone hypes as one of the greatest series in sci-fi, but that I personally found trite and rather boring in aggregate.

There were interesting parts, but I felt like I had to wade through too much dross to get to them.

I remember each book being pretty short. And self contained so you don't have to read them all in row. But it's been a while, so I may be wrong.


Good description of the first trilogy.  A few points where it hasn't age well, but pretty good still.  Have not read the stuff after the first 3, so can't tell you what to expect there.
 
2014-05-03 07:54:44 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it


Larry Niven still lives.

/ But he's getting a bit repetitive.
 
2014-05-03 07:57:03 PM

Elegy: And in terms of movie adaptations:
FFS HOLLYWOOD CAN WE PLEASE GET A MOVIE ADAPTATION OF BUJOLD'S VOR SAGA WITH PETER DINKLAGE CAST AS MILES?


I so want Hollywood to stay the Hell away from Miles.
 
2014-05-03 07:58:42 PM

studebaker hoch: Faster than light travel and faster than light data transmission.



that's not exactly a star wars exclusive.
 
2014-05-03 08:03:57 PM

Mike_1962: I'd like to see them make a movie from Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye".


Yes. Ditto "Footfall" - I want to see an Orion take off - even if it's only CGI.

"Ringworld" and its sequels could do with a franchise - lots of rishathra!
 
2014-05-03 08:06:17 PM
As for Philip K.Dick, his characters always struck me as cartoonish stereotypes, and saying his stories weren't subtle is an understatement. Having said that, obviously he's had an immense influence on SF. So, taste is subjective.
 
2014-05-03 08:13:40 PM

Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.

I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.


Well first they'd have to do a shiatload of movies & miniseries to get the audience familiar with The Known Universe. Including the Man-Kzin wars. Then bring on Ringworld.
 
2014-05-03 08:15:43 PM

Fano: Sci fi used to be rocket ships, space babes, and cardboard aliens. piss on anything this guy might say or think.


This.  Picking apart what space adventure with ships and lasers and alien races.... is and isn't sci-fi goes beyond the scope of usefulness.  I know of 2 other schools that do this, techno music and philosophy.

People taking it to that analytical extreme should really just keep it in their own circles of interest.  Ever know a guy with the most boring hobby that drones on and on about it until you want to stab him in the neck?  Yeah, you people are doing that here. Go be an anal retentive elitist elsewhere.
 
2014-05-03 08:16:17 PM

Wenchmaster: Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.
Protector would be a far better choice than Ringworld, IMO. Better yet- make it a short series on HBO or something similar.
I'd love to see a series made from The Hercules Text by Jack McDevitt.


You're probably right - the rishathra would become the main theme. Pity these things are so expensive to make - someone dedicated enough to remain true to the story wouldn't even approach the level of $$$ needed to make it.

BTW - no love for Blade Runner? There's not much visible science in it - the Voight-Kampff machine is the most obvious piece - but the concept of human-like replicants really made me think. It's a slow film until the chase at the end, but it gives you time to reflect on what the characters say and do.

Films made from Dick's stories aren't generally the blockbuster types - Total Recall being the obvious exception - but they're usually interesting and entertaining.
 
2014-05-03 08:17:58 PM

almejita: simplicimus: almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.

Just a guess, but it sounds like a Ursula Le Guin sort of thing.


Pretty sure that's not it....that name doesn't ring a bell

It's been 30 years since i read it though, i could be wrong


Storm Constantine?

Always hated her.
 
2014-05-03 08:23:21 PM

mainsail: As for Philip K.Dick, his characters always struck me as cartoonish stereotypes, and saying his stories weren't subtle is an understatement. Having said that, obviously he's had an immense influence on SF. So, taste is subjective.


I was never big on his seemingly drug addled ramblings that some call books, but I did like that.  It's very common in sci-fi actually, to take archetypes and place them in futuristic settings.  Detectives, cops, rugged men, etc.  It gave a lot of them the feel that they were a dying breed, which was actually the subject of The Forever War.

As much as technology changed, mankind's mentality often didn't in those books.  Same wars, same prejudices, same motivations (power, money, sex) etc etc.

Don't do that and you end up going with some Stranger in a Strange land, where it really is about a queer alien that a lot of readers don't identify with.
/*queer, as in strange, ie no homo(phobe)
//If Richard Dawkins can use the term in a lecture, I can too damnit
 
2014-05-03 08:46:43 PM
Stone Meadow:
 2001 was never a huge commercial success, or even a moderate one.

LOL...wut? Did you even glance at the link I provided? No? Well then let me set the record straight. From TFA: "...it eventually became the highest grossing picture from 1968 in North America."

Also from TFA: it cost $10.5 million to make and pulled in $190 million.good.


Yes, I have a few. Look at this

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=2001.htm

Then look at this:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars4.htm


And tell me, where are all the millions of 2001 A Space Odyssey toys, happy meals, lunch-boxes, cartoons, spin-offs, etc. ?

If I tell a HAL 900 joke today, or drop a quote from 2001, in general public, the result is likely "huh? (crickets).  But every sentient on the planet for the last 20 years, except in some remote tribes of the Amazon, and the worse corners of North Korea maybe, knows who the fark Darth Vader is... they know him even more so than Mickey Mouse.

    2001 was an outlier; a stand-out in an otherwise moribund market segment full of mostly middling commercial and few critical successes.  SF was considered by hollywood and the critical public to be a lower tier niche genre' between the 50's to the 70's, where the biggest hits were rubber suit monster flicks and b-movie alien invasions.

It was the financial success of Star Wars that got Paramount scrambling to cash in on the SF interest and thus re-start the Star Trek franchise. You can confirm that in a couple of Trek-related history books. It got Disney to bankroll The Black Hole, and to think about Tron.  Between the two of them, the big franchises created the modern SF market, which all the production companies have tried to tap into since.  In fact, it was the success of Star Wars that generated enough interest in SF that MGM producers were able to get a sequel to 2001 made, based on Clark's book sequel, 2010, back in the early 80's. 2010 wasn't great, and it only made about 40 million, but it was entertaining.

Anyway, my only point, and I think it still stands, is that we have as much SF, good, bad, or in-between, as we have today, only because SW and a revived trek franchise created the market, and hollywood doesn't know good from bad, they are a business and they go for what they think  will make the most money at the time.
 
2014-05-03 08:52:07 PM
There's an element of truth in the author's com[plaint, but there's nothing wrong with good, mindless space opera either. Disney's big mistake in marketing "John Carter of Mars" was not using Burrough's actual title, "A Princess of Mars," a novel to which it was thematically and visually reasonably faithful.

I'm still waiting for Jack Vance's "Planet of Adventure" trilogy, the greatest space opera ever written, to get the cinematic treatment; just as I'm waiting for Disney to do Janacek's opera, "The Cunning Little Vixen," and for Lucas pr Spielberg to do justice to the "Ring of the Nibelung."
 
2014-05-03 08:52:15 PM
Star Wars is a crappy science fiction movie in the same way M.A.S.H. is a crappy war movie.
 
2014-05-03 09:21:09 PM
 But here's the thing: George Lucas' creation, basically a blown-up Flash Gordon adventure with better special effects

So, really, Flash Gordon ruined Sci-fi.
 
2014-05-03 09:22:37 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it


Frank Herbert wrote some really interesting ideas in the most boring-ass way possible.

There, I said it.
 
2014-05-03 09:24:55 PM

sendtodave: But here's the thing: George Lucas' creation, basically a blown-up Flash Gordon adventure with better special effects

So, really, Flash Gordon ruined Sci-fi.


No, Georges Méliès ruined it in 1902 with his gratuitous special effects.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-05-03 09:32:39 PM

wandero: Cymbal: I completely disagree. Star Wars is the gateway drug. It's safe enough for your kids to use and get addicted to while they are young. Then they will spend the rest of their lives delving the depths of the harder stuff.

I wish I could agree with that, but I've known too many people for whom the only sf they read or watch is Star Wars: endless, shaky amounts of Star Wars, novels and TV shows and increasingly awful video games, on and on forever.


Ah, but at that point the question is whether in the absence of Star Wars whether they would be reading or watching anything even remotely considered science fiction at all. My vote is for no.
 
2014-05-03 09:41:06 PM
ITT:

t2.gstatic.com
 
2014-05-03 09:43:30 PM
The good point that he makes is this: the first two Star Wars films, even when they appropriated past stories and styles, were original and inventive in themselves. Both visually, but even narratively- even if the story was tropey, those tropes had never been combined that way before.

The problem is that they started repeating themselves. Tatooine was never that interesting a setting- it's a desert planet, and as we're told in the first film- a  boring one. ROTJ attempts to backtrack on that, the plot gets messy and loses focus, and then we return to having to deal with a gigantic battle station because if you're building one, you might as well build two, because fark that's lazy writing.

The new trilogy falls into the category of "not even wrong". Nothing that happens, nothing that any of the characters do, makes any sense. There are so many scenes of people just walking and talking and talking and walking and sitting and talking that it's obviously a first draft that never got punched up- it's clear that Lucas at some point decided that trying to have some character development in an action sequence was too difficult, and that character moments must obviously be boring, so we get nothing  but boring character-focused segments which are just talking head scenes where nothing happens, as filler to eat up running time until we get to the next action sequence where lots of big flashy stuff happens, but tells us nothing about the characters. You  can expand on the characters in action sequences- in fact, it's the best time to do so! The extreme moments, those are the parts that tell us what characters are really made of.

Which, as a note, this is basically what Michael Bay does.

And like Michael Bay, they made money. And now the property is owned by a company that is really good at making money. Companies that like to make money don't invent, they don't vary, they just repeat. And repeat. So any new Star Wars films are going to be nothing but rehashes of the previous films.
 
2014-05-03 09:51:14 PM
George Lucas is a hack and stole starwars from EE doc smith's lensman.

After Lucas ran out of source material, he tried cobbling the prequels together. I still can't forgive him for jar-jar. Or a young Anakin Skywalker who should have been a teenager like Luke.

CSB

I was almost named LUKE SKY (last name walker) by my mom. Thankfully my dad had enough sense to not allow it.

/CSB
 
2014-05-03 10:21:02 PM

Plant Rights Activist: If this is the thread for voting for the next movie adaptation I'm casting my vote for Hyperion and/or Diamond Age


Ditto on Hyperion, I'd love to see it done right. Not sure how realistic an expectation that is.
 
2014-05-03 10:22:30 PM
This nice timeline in a wikipedia article more or less backs my claim that Star Wars helped sci-fi more than it hurt sciu-fi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction_films
 
2014-05-03 10:27:55 PM

Anonymous Bosch: Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it

Frank Herbert wrote some really interesting ideas in the most boring-ass way possible.

There, I said it.


I really, really wanted to like the Dune series. But, fak me sideways it was so dull and boring. Nineteen farking pages just to tell us how fat the Baron was. That man needed an editor.
 
2014-05-03 10:29:53 PM

Anonymous Bosch: wandero: Cymbal: I completely disagree. Star Wars is the gateway drug. It's safe enough for your kids to use and get addicted to while they are young. Then they will spend the rest of their lives delving the depths of the harder stuff.

I wish I could agree with that, but I've known too many people for whom the only sf they read or watch is Star Wars: endless, shaky amounts of Star Wars, novels and TV shows and increasingly awful video games, on and on forever.

Ah, but at that point the question is whether in the absence of Star Wars whether they would be reading or watching anything even remotely considered science fiction at all. My vote is for no.


Alien would have been a low-budget John Corman movie and the next Big Thing would have been The Black Hole and we'd be back in the 60's crap sci-fi movie doldrums.
 
2014-05-03 10:32:19 PM

t3knomanser: Nothing that happens, nothing that any of the characters do, makes any sense. There are so many scenes of people just walking and talking and talking and walking and sitting and talking that it's obviously a first draft that never got punched up


www.oddballdaily.com

Stop stealing my lines!
 
2014-05-03 10:35:31 PM

Ed Grubermann: Anonymous Bosch: Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it

Frank Herbert wrote some really interesting ideas in the most boring-ass way possible.

There, I said it.

I really, really wanted to like the Dune series. But, fak me sideways it was so dull and boring. Nineteen farking pages just to tell us how fat the Baron was. That man needed an editor.


I liked the first book. The rest, meh. They got way too weird way too fast.
 
2014-05-03 10:45:11 PM

gunther_bumpass: Stratohead: gunther_bumpass: Thank god for Cory Doctorow. He'll save us from this living hell.

Cory Doctrow will save us from Hipster Fandom?

BoingBoing is the epicenter of SciFi Posers everywhere.... if you want to suck up to Cory...you're in the wrong forums

He's the best thing to happen to literature since the first vaguely-mammalian family's slowest offspring spread its own feces on the wall of the home cave.


Cory Doctorow is a pedantic, petulant manchild whose "novels" test the limits of tolerability. His male protagonists are unlikeable entitled douchebags, and his female characters are so flimsy and sub-heinlein in their composition that it makes you wonder if he's ever had a conversation with a woman in his life. The "plots" of his "novels" are scarcely concealed vehicles for his promotion of a cyber-libertarian adolescent utopia, and read like the breathless, hyperbolic blog posts he's so famous for. He's the worst thing to happen to SF in decades. William Gibson has chunks of Cory Doctorow in his stools.
 
2014-05-03 10:45:44 PM
Evil Twin Skippy

Star Wars is a crappy science fiction movie in the same way M.A.S.H. is a crappy war movie.

Star Wars was space fantasy, not science fiction.

There is zero scientific content in Star Wars.
 
2014-05-03 10:49:56 PM
Gattaca? Primer? Hell even Looper as well as the already mentioned District 9 and how about Inception? This idea that there's no good sci-fi anymore is the genre movie equivalent of people saying no good music has been made since "I" was in college during X year. Whatever. There's silk and there's swine no matter what decade or generation it is.
 
2014-05-03 11:01:05 PM

Anonymous Bosch: Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it

Frank Herbert wrote some really interesting ideas in the most boring-ass way possible.

There, I said it.


I believe you are confusing Frank Herbert  with Stephen R. Donaldson
 
2014-05-03 11:08:50 PM
Well Mr Nerdy author, if you don't like shootouts and battles don't watch movies where one the two words in the title is "wars."

I'm sure it would have equally good written as Star Knitting.
 
2014-05-03 11:18:08 PM

t3knomanser: The good point that he makes is this: the first two Star Wars films, even when they appropriated past stories and styles, were original and inventive in themselves. Both visually, but even narratively- even if the story was tropey, those tropes had never been combined that way before.

The problem is that they started repeating themselves. Tatooine was never that interesting a setting- it's a desert planet, and as we're told in the first film- a  boring one. ROTJ attempts to backtrack on that, the plot gets messy and loses focus, and then we return to having to deal with a gigantic battle station because if you're building one, you might as well build two, because fark that's lazy writing..


To be fair, "A New Hope" was supposed to be the first of three movies in the Star Wars series, with the third ending with the destruction of the death star. But since Lucas didn't know whether he would be able to do any more he had to condense the entire story down to one film just called "Star Wars". So he didn't really re-use the Death Star so much as he added an extra one out of uncertainty.

Similarly, Tatooine was intended to come back around from the start because of good writing, not bad. Han's situation with Jabba the Hutt was intended to constantly add tension, and allow the introduction of additional challenges at any moment throughout the series (in the form of bounty hunters) until it is resolved in the final movie shortly before moving on to resolve the bigger issue, Darth Vader and the Death Star. So ROTJ is not backtracking on Tatooine, it is resolving Han's sub-plot, Tatooine is just the setting for doing so, and given how little time was spent on Tatooine in ROTJ, you really can't complain too much about its reuse in that movie.
 
2014-05-03 11:41:07 PM

Elegy: Don't care. Sci-fi movies still have to pander to the lowest common denominator of anti-intellectual audiences to be commercially successful, so it makes it hard to bring an intellectual genre to the big screen.

Star Wars is WIZARDS IN SPACE, and always has been. Star Trek - especially the new JJ Abrams incarnation - has always been MAKE shiat UP WITH TECHNOBABBLE. The farking Matrix was "let's throw in a bunch of smart sounding philosophy but let the studios dumb down the foundational premises of the movie so the dumb audiences can understand it to the point where very little actually makes sense." And that recent James Cameron atrocity - not even touching the problems with that one with a 10 foot pole.

What I'm saying is that the main body of sci-fi films has always been disappointing if you judge against the strict standards of "hard" sci-fi literature and not "its sci-fi because spaceships and blasters (but really just fantasy)."

There have been some standout exceptions in recent years that I can think of - the first couple of Aliens movies, District 9, Event Horizon, hell even the Last Starfighter - but honestly, this is what movie adaptations usually are: dumbed down versions that pander to the lowest common denominator with pretty explosions and other eye cady.

The short of it: if you want smart, cerebral scifi, read a damn book. If you want to get baked out of your gourd on your substance of choice and enjoy pretty pictures in front of your eyeballs, go see a movie.

It's the exact same way across every genre of literary-film adaptations, excluding indy films.


Agreed. Although Star Wars, Star Trek, B5, Stargate, The Last Starfighter, etc. was a big inspiring for me growing up to get into STEM. I've read Clarke, Herbert, Heinlein, etc., and that just fine-tuned the interest. It is science-fiction for a reason, and the breadth and scope is defined only be the reader.

I love the various concepts, and tend to smooth over the inconsistencies (looking at you, Trek), in my own brain, although I will take apart a movie for being internally inconsistent. Because it's fun. Unless said movie is more fantasy that science, in which case, SLAY THAT DRAGON!

Bring on the new Star Trek! The new Star Wars! Someone make a Foundation mini-series! A Halo one! Mass effect (please!) I pay nothing for the attempt, I am inconvenienced in exactly 0 ways by the existence of such media. If I don't like it, I'm living in the golden age of special effects, reboots, and popular culture - they'll surely make another!

tl;dr - that article was the definition of 1st world problems
 
2014-05-03 11:46:42 PM

ThreadSinger: Someone make a Foundation mini-series!


I would think it is statistically likely to happen in the next 7 years.
 
2014-05-04 12:02:14 AM
If I had to choose a modern Sci Fi that is great but also quite creative I gotta choose The Abyss I know it's 25 years old but quite a great original story, a good balance between special effects and characters.
 
2014-05-04 12:15:17 AM
Star Wars is fantasy set in space. It was never science fiction.
 
2014-05-04 12:29:37 AM

Surool: Star Wars is toy commercial fantasy set in space. It was never science fiction.

FTFY

 
2014-05-04 12:38:41 AM
Well, let's see. We can remove Star Wars like it never happened...

Hrm. Sci-fi ends up remaining a terribly small "niche" element nobody takes seriously. As a result, there's also no fantasy or comic book explosion in the media...

In case you forgot, "Star Wars" is the single event that exploded into the American conscious that pretty much made (probably) everything you like in media today possible. Before that you had a whole bunch of shiatty B movies and Star Trek, which by the point Star Wars was created was just another long dead, cancelled and forgotten TV show.

You're farking welcome.
 
2014-05-04 01:10:19 AM

almejita: simplicimus: almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.


I have a vague memory of such a novel.  It alternated between two story arcs that eventually intersected, and the arc about the gelatinous race had the third sex.  Sorry I can't be of more help.
 
2014-05-04 01:12:34 AM

Terrible Old Man: Well, let's see. We can remove Star Wars like it never happened...

Hrm. Sci-fi ends up remaining a terribly small "niche" element nobody takes seriously. As a result, there's also no fantasy or comic book explosion in the media...

In case you forgot, "Star Wars" is the single event that exploded into the American conscious that pretty much made (probably) everything you like in media today possible. Before that you had a whole bunch of shiatty B movies and Star Trek, which by the point Star Wars was created was just another long dead, cancelled and forgotten TV show.

You're farking welcome.


Forbidden Planet was pretty good, as was The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Time Machine (the originals). And whatever you want to call the Quartermass and the Pit film. Anyone of these are better than Star Wars.
 
2014-05-04 01:31:29 AM

Magorn: About goddamn time somebody said it. Lucas is a crap writer, crap director.  He's basically a special effects wizard who somehow got a director's chair.  Call me elitist if you want, but I don't consider star wars to be sci-fi at all, and i have little respect for fans of the novels who think they are.  And i say that even though I am a huge fan if space opera generally


I think it is fantasy translated to outer space. Always thought it was.
 
2014-05-04 01:31:40 AM
I think that Ben Bova's "The Dueling Machine" could be a decent action flick with modern CG.  But I don't know if it even qualifies as Sci-fi, since all the science is assumed rather than explored.  Maybe Card's Darwin series is sci-fi, but good luck getting anything of his adapted in the next 20 years.
 
2014-05-04 01:31:44 AM

Bslim: Stupid premise is stupid. Star Wars is not "sci" anything.


I came here for this. Thank you.
 
2014-05-04 01:52:23 AM

I May Be Crazy But...: I remember each book being pretty short. And self contained so you don't have to read them all in row. But it's been a while, so I may be wrong.


He tied a bunch of his other books to it with fillers. All told it covers around 13 books.

/read the them all and enjoyed them
//Asimov fan here
 
2014-05-04 01:58:38 AM

Harry_Seldon: ThreadSinger: Someone make a Foundation mini-series!

I would think it is statistically likely to happen in the next 7 years.


Unless that damn Mule shows up. He was always a party pooper.
 
2014-05-04 02:18:51 AM

clambam: There's an element of truth in the author's com[plaint, but there's nothing wrong with good, mindless space opera either. Disney's big mistake in marketing "John Carter of Mars" was not using Burrough's actual title, "A Princess of Mars," a novel to which it was thematically and visually reasonably faithful.

I'm still waiting for Jack Vance's "Planet of Adventure" trilogy, the greatest space opera ever written, to get the cinematic treatment; just as I'm waiting for Disney to do Janacek's opera, "The Cunning Little Vixen," and for Lucas pr Spielberg to do justice to the "Ring of the Nibelung."


I would give an appendage for a really well done version of Vance's "Lyonesse" books. Of course that is pure fantasy. For scifi, Planet of Adventure would indeed rock. Araminta Station would too, though the sequels were a bit flat. The trouble with filming anything by Vance is getting the subtlety, nuance, and serious oddities to come through, His stuff would be harder to do right than even "Dune" I think.

I second (or third, or fiftieth) the idea of "A Mote in god's Eye". But for a stand-alone Niven book, how about "World of Ptaavs"?

/Still wishes someone would do a REAL version of "Starship Troopers".
//Verhoeven should rot in hell
 
2014-05-04 03:24:35 AM

Mad_Radhu: kroonermanblack: Mad_Radhu: Mad_Radhu: 2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Babylon 5 managed to pull of the prophecy thing well, by having a main chapter travel back in time to become Valen, the one who wrote the prophecies.

Also, in Foundation, psychohistory was a sort of a hand of fate that moved the story forward. Especially when it was subverted by the Mule.

Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.


The Asimov Foundation novel series. It's based around a Seldon Plan that acts as a sort of hand of fate in the series because it predicts how the future of the galaxy will unfold after the collapse of the Galactic Empire based on a science of psychohistory which predicts how large groups of people will react to events. Of course it all falls apart when a mutant with powerful mental powers throws off the plan because psychohistory can't predict what a single person will do, only masses of people,


He wasn't a mutant, he was part of the Second Foundation and went rogue. A kind of... Anakin Skywalker.

/runs away
 
2014-05-04 03:53:01 AM
OK, Besides the fact that Star Wars is a space opera and not science fiction, and instead is based on Flash Gordon serials, collected myths, legends, borrowings from religion, and above all serves as a fairy tale for generations growing up without one...

Star Wars' space opera homage challenged science fiction to adopt a soul, and for the most part films of that genre have learned that lesson.  Blade Runner is not a favorite of mine, in fact, I dislike it immensely, but its sets look believable based on the "futuristic, but used" look Lucas pioneered in film making.

Still, too many film makers haven't learned those lessons because they're trying to win over the audience's trust by impressing them with plausible pseudo-science instead of winning them over with slick plausibility.

People think Han made a mistake boasting the Falcon can make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, when nothing further could have been from the truth.  He was testing Ben and Luke. That's the technical/story dividing line between Star Wars and Star Trek if I ever saw one. If Ben had said "Ha! A parsec is a unit of space, not time, later jackass." it would have been quirky sci-fi, not a sprawling space opera-western-ymth.  Ben knew the important truth behinds Solo's boast designed to mark the rubes(that this guy's ride was speedy) and ignored his sly test with a wry grin and a raised eyebrow.


tl;dr, Star Wars is the cool older brother that is space opera that gave the too chatty younger brother science fiction some pointers and a chance to be relevant again, thusly making countess ungrateful people miss the point entirely, like the article's author.
 
2014-05-04 03:54:16 AM

HawgWild: Stone Meadow: Partial credit, since you are overlooking 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is now "nearly universally recognized by critics, film-makers, and audiences as one of the greatest and most influential boring films ever made."

FTFY


Not all of us have ADD
 
2014-05-04 04:35:10 AM

viscountalpha: George Lucas is a hack and stole starwars from EE doc smith's lensman.

After Lucas ran out of source material, he tried cobbling the prequels together. I still can't forgive him for jar-jar. Or a young Anakin Skywalker who should have been a teenager like Luke.

CSB

I was almost named LUKE SKY (last name walker) by my mom. Thankfully my dad had enough sense to not allow it.

/CSB


I don't think it's fair to call him a hack when the material he did borrow was presented in such a relevant, fresh and engaging way.  He pulled together many different themes and gelled them into one epic story of his own, with a look and feel all its own.   For all the work he poured into his vision, I'd say it's going a bit far to say he stole or is a hack.   Just as Paul Verhoeven's Robocop is not the work of a hack because it's a Christ allegory (with heavy servings of dark post-modern comedy centering on the fall of western civilization via fascism).


I agree with you on the prequels. Making Anakin anything less than around 20 was a mistake; he should have made him older to jibe with Red Leader's meeting of his father(cut from the "restored" scene with Biggs) in Star Wars.


/your dad saved you much pain
//really lucas borrowed but stole it is too strong
 
2014-05-04 05:45:21 AM

acohn: almejita: simplicimus: almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.

I have a vague memory of such a novel.  It alternated between two story arcs that eventually intersected, and the arc about the gelatinous race had the third sex.  Sorry I can't be of more help.


Asimov's "The Gods Themselves" may be what you're thinking of.
 
2014-05-04 05:53:16 AM

HawgWild: FTFA: Instead, I'll queue up "The Matrix," and enjoy the most original sci-fi movie of the past 25 years.

Okay, this guy is just trolling ...


Wait. Are you saying you didn't enjoy the first and only Matrix movie?
 
2014-05-04 06:51:49 AM
Yeah the only matrix movie is legitimately brilliant. Some idiots made some shiat they tried to push off as sequels but who watched THOSE?
 
2014-05-04 08:44:43 AM

simplicimus: almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.

Just a guess, but it sounds like a Ursula Le Guin sort of thing.


It's a favourite of mine.
The Gods Themselves, by Isaac Asimov.

/Against Stupidity
/Contend in Vain
 
2014-05-04 09:59:38 AM

Choestoe: clambam: There's an element of truth in the author's com[plaint, but there's nothing wrong with good, mindless space opera either. Disney's big mistake in marketing "John Carter of Mars" was not using Burrough's actual title, "A Princess of Mars," a novel to which it was thematically and visually reasonably faithful.

I'm still waiting for Jack Vance's "Planet of Adventure" trilogy, the greatest space opera ever written, to get the cinematic treatment; just as I'm waiting for Disney to do Janacek's opera, "The Cunning Little Vixen," and for Lucas pr Spielberg to do justice to the "Ring of the Nibelung."

I would give an appendage for a really well done version of Vance's "Lyonesse" books. Of course that is pure fantasy. For scifi, Planet of Adventure would indeed rock. Araminta Station would too, though the sequels were a bit flat. The trouble with filming anything by Vance is getting the subtlety, nuance, and serious oddities to come through, His stuff would be harder to do right than even "Dune" I think.

I second (or third, or fiftieth) the idea of "A Mote in god's Eye". But for a stand-alone Niven book, how about "World of Ptaavs"?

/Still wishes someone would do a REAL version of "Starship Troopers".
//Verhoeven should rot in hell


Supposedly one is in development, but it may well be Development Hell.
 
2014-05-04 10:01:54 AM
 I disagree with TFA. The kind of sci-fi he's talking about would make a lousy, boring movie that very few people would be willing to pay money to see.
 
2014-05-04 11:04:29 AM

GoSlash27: I disagree with TFA. The kind of sci-fi he's talking about would make a lousy, boring movie that very few people would be willing to pay money to see.


Pretty much. He might as well talk about how successful romantic movies ruined all complicated, nuanced love trysts by Ishiguro, or how fantasy movies were ruined by LOTR.

FURTHERMORE: Sci-fi is a writer's ghetto. If you have literary pretentions, suddenly you write "speculative fiction" or reviewer don't acknowledge you're a sci-fi writer. Some of Vonnegut's work falls into this camp.
 
2014-05-04 11:15:56 AM

Magorn: About goddamn time somebody said it. Lucas is a crap writer, crap director.  He's basically a special effects wizard who somehow got a director's chair.  Call me elitist if you want, but I don't consider star wars to be sci-fi at all, and i have little respect for fans of the novels who think they are.  And i say that even though I am a huge fan if space opera generally


I'll agree that anyone who thinks Star Wars is science fiction has no clue what science fiction is, but it doesn't mean that early Star Wars/some of the EU and Lucasfilm-produced media isn't entertaining space fantasy/opera/occasional drama.

Stop hating just because no one's done a version of Dune "true enough" to the original Herbert for you (the Lynch version was trippy but suffered from studio interference; the Syfy version was a bit too plodding for my tastes and honestly I felt suffered from not having as awesome a cast as Lynch's).

Too bad Jodorowski never got to make his version :(
 
2014-05-04 11:17:49 AM

2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.


Even if it involved clairvoyance and the effects it would have on the clairvoyant? Time travel? etc
 
2014-05-04 11:28:22 AM

Valiente: K3rmy: Star Wars gave us Carrie Fisher in that golden bikini.  It can ruin whatever it wants.

Five minutes of 34-year-old midget cheesecake does not great SF make. Star Wars is a deriative cartoon that consciously aped 1930s adventure serials, as did the Indiana Jones films, actually set in the 1930s...

And John Williams owes a certain dead musical proto-Nazi a virtual sack of Afterlife Bitcoins.


Wouldn't he want to give Wagner something worth something, like bars of gold pressed Latinum? Or at least useless currency that at least has a steady value like the Quatloo?
 
2014-05-04 12:31:59 PM
i.imgur.com

Any Demu trilogy fans in here?
 
2014-05-04 12:35:43 PM

acohn: almejita: simplicimus: almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.

I have a vague memory of such a novel.  It alternated between two story arcs that eventually intersected, and the arc about the gelatinous race had the third sex.  Sorry I can't be of more help.


Xenogenesis, by Octavia Butler?
 
2014-05-04 12:49:13 PM

Fano: GoSlash27: I disagree with TFA. The kind of sci-fi he's talking about would make a lousy, boring movie that very few people would be willing to pay money to see.

Pretty much. He might as well talk about how successful romantic movies ruined all complicated, nuanced love trysts by Ishiguro, or how fantasy movies were ruined by LOTR.

FURTHERMORE: Sci-fi is a writer's ghetto. If you have literary pretentions, suddenly you write "speculative fiction" or reviewer don't acknowledge you're a sci-fi writer. Some of Vonnegut's work falls into this camp.


"Pretentions" being the operative word here. Fiction is merely another form of entertainment. There are plenty of engaging storytellers in the sci-fi genre. I wouldn't classify my favorite sci-fi as "literature" by any stretch, but I do enjoy reading it. Shouldn't that be the point?
 
2014-05-04 01:26:29 PM

clambam: There's an element of truth in the author's com[plaint, but there's nothing wrong with good, mindless space opera either. Disney's big mistake in marketing "John Carter of Mars" was not using Burrough's actual title, "A Princess of Mars," a novel to which it was thematically and visually reasonably faithful.


I came to John Carter a few years after release and I honestly didn't understand the hate. It reminded me of older styles of filmmaking, like 1960s films about romans or greek myths, but with modern CGI and I thought it was pretty good. It's no masterpiece, but critics rate Crystal Skull higher, which is a farking disaster.
 
2014-05-04 03:39:46 PM

doofusgumby: Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.

I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.

Well first they'd have to do a shiatload of movies & miniseries to get the audience familiar with The Known Universe. Including the Man-Kzin wars. Then bring on Ringworld.


That would be awesome.  A show called Known Space, with each season being a diff book or whatnot.  First season is all the colonization stuff (2 eps for each book like Crashlander, World of Ptaavs, etc), season two is individual episodes set in the Kzinti Wars, season three has the very cool new Puppeteer stuff and such leading up to the Ringworld movie in 3D Imax.  Don't gimme any crapola about the story, seeing a legitimate attempt to capture the Ringworld's infinite horizons in 3D Imax is well worth the ticket price regardless, imho.
 
2014-05-04 06:14:08 PM

Mike_1962: The Gods Themselves"


Bless you!  Truly, nothing is obscure on Fark!
 
2014-05-04 09:34:11 PM
Fred Pohl's "Gateway" should be a movie.

"King David's Spaceship" should be a movie.

I think Patton Oswalt was born to star in an update of "Bug Jack Barron".

I think Greg Bear's original "Blood Music" would make a great techno-horror movie, and "Mutant 59: the Plastic Eaters" would make a great disaster film.

And I think a comedy film version of "The StarCrossed" would be hilarious.

The California Voodoo Game" might make a good sci-fi-network series.

I was going to suggest  a movie made of the book "Little Heroes", but the Al Pacino movie "S1mone" was too close to the same material.

A movie I would like Jim Cameron or Cuaron or Blomkamp to take a serious crack at would be Haldeman's  "The Forever War". IF they stay true to Haldeman's essential ideas.  Saw the stage play version in Chicago and it was farking amazing then and would still kick ass today.

A Great book series for  Tv serialization would be the Stainless Steel Rat books. Sci-fi spy stuff, with a side of outrageous humor.

I want Pixar to option Phoglio's "Girl Genius" comics and design the characters in Phil's style.
 
2014-05-04 11:11:33 PM

Harry_Seldon: Surool: Star Wars is toy commercial fantasy set in space. It was never science fiction.

FTFY

Not so

with the first Star Wars. Not even George had any idea the toy market would take off like that. Even RotJ lacked the "it was only in there to sell the toy" mentality of the prequels.
 
2014-05-04 11:47:56 PM

Any Pie Left: A movie I would like Jim Cameron or Cuaron or Blomkamp to take a serious crack at would be Haldeman's  "The Forever War". IF they stay true to Haldeman's essential ideas.  Saw the stage play version in Chicago and it was farking amazing then and would still kick ass today.


Supposedly Ridley Scott is developing it right now, and late last year gave Fox a script that he really liked.
 
2014-05-05 12:50:14 AM
The "Lensman" series was written to be the Space Police story which would stop the endless Space Police stories.
Imagine a space opera series which is so over the top that it stops space opera stories.
 
2014-05-05 01:17:16 AM
"Supposedly Ridley Scott is developing it right now, (The Forever War) and late last year gave Fox a script that he really liked. "

I'm getting a bad feeling about this. Especially if Lindeloff is anywhere near it.
 
2014-05-05 01:22:00 AM
The "Lensman" series was written to be the Space Police story which would stop the endless Space Police stories.
Imagine a space opera series which is so over the top that it stops space opera stories.


See, Lensman is corny, but it's all in the art direction and the ability of the performers to pull it off, you could get something quite fun and bankable out of it, with a director and producer that had the right attitude about it. Not necessarily like the Flash Gordon movie, not that campy, but playing it square, yet  with a  wink tot he audience now and again.  The dialog of the original is creaky and bad as any Tom Swift book, but the situations and ideas are fun.

Ever see the anime' version of Lensman? It was done at the very dawn of CGI, with a little 3dCGI mixed with 2-d cel animation.  it has moments of true brilliance here and there, and mostly sticks tot he original material in a not too bad way.   Could ,ake a good modern comic book or animated series.
 
Displayed 176 of 176 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report