What is happening to Science Fiction?

[HorseradishTree]

It appears to me that the genres of Science Fiction and Action are melding into one. What a despicable crime against humanity. While I don't mind the occasional violent futuristic robot films (Terminator is my favorite Sci-Fi, by the way), I honestly wish they were still making dramas and interesting suspense. Don't you wish we could experience new goodness containing the likes of The Andromeda Strain, 2001: A Space Oddessey (oh god, that spelling is horrific), and Gattaca?

[tabuno]

Already released:

Equilibrium
Solaris

To be released:

Timeline (November 26, 2003)

Thru the Moebius Strip (TBA 2003)

The Butterfly Effect (February 6, 2004)

The Day After Tomorrow (May 28, 2004)

I, Robot (July 16, 2004)

His Dark Materials (Fall 2004)

War of the Worlds (TBA 2004)

Fahrenheit 451 (2005)

Rendezvous with Rama (2006)

[HorseradishTree]

Alright, but do you actually consider Solaris and Equilibrium to be good pieces of film? I hope War of the Worlds doesn't turn into some action extravaganza, though I'm sure it'll do at least something similar. It probably won't be as well done as both the original film AND the novel. How is I, Robot going to be a movie? Will they make it like the Twilight Zone movie and have six little stories or something? I just hope it's not as bad as Bicentennial Man.

[tabuno]

Solaris the remake is more of a drama with a strong sci fi flavor using the concept of cloning as the basis for philosophical discussion. Equilibrium takes from Gattacta and Fehrenheit 451 and 1984, a highly polished, slightly martial arts version of the future. (can't spell tonight sorry).

[Ilker81x]

I think sci-fi and action have always had a love/hate relationship. Sci-fi from the beginning was about exploring new frontiers, very much in the same spirit as our pioneer forefathers who set out to expand their borders across the west. Look at anything by Jules Verne? They had a fair share of action, but they were all about the exploration of new and different worlds, some of them within our very own (i.e. "Journey to the Center of the Earth" or "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"). I think because of this, action and adventure has always been part of the sci-fi paradigm, because it always has been a part of exploration. Think about the pilgrims or the cowboys, always fighting off aggressive indians...it's the same thing with sci-fi...the idea that in exploring new and different worlds or ways of looking at our world will come that sense of aggression. "Star Trek" was like that. Sure there was a message of peace and prosperity and friendship, but there were always aggressors and violent aliens to be dealt with.

By the same token, sci-fi is like any other genre in that there are many ways to approach it. It's possible to have a good cop movie without a lot of shoot-'em-up action. It can be a comedy or a drama or an action film or a romance...and usually it's all in one these days, just look at "The Fifth Element." Sure Jules Verne and Isaac Asimov raised some interesting points of philosophical discussion in their works, and while George Orwell's "1984" was devoid of action in the sense of an action film, the principle was still the same...in any new view, there will be antagonism and aggression.

Sci-fi movies are inherently like westerns...it is just part of the same mentality of being a stranger in a strange land. "Star Wars" was a combination of the western, a samurai movie, and a medieval knight story...all have elements of action and going into the unknown. Knights go off on crusades into foreign lands, Samurai conquer spiritual as well as physical enemies, and westerns always have the stranger with no name coming into a town he doesn't know. And they all ultimately lead to one thing...fighting. John Carpenter once said that all of his movies are inevitably westerns..."Escape From New York" is a western, just in the future, and part of that future is the philosophical question of what can happen when an entire city is so overrun with crime that it turns into a prison, literally as opposed to figuratively. "Star Trek" is like a western...the group of people exploring the prairie heading west seeking new lands. "Star Wars" even had the typical western bar scene, inevitably ending with someone getting killed because he started trouble.

I personally think sci-fi is best when it is a combination of both the dramatic/philosophical and action/adventure. "Blade Runner" had a good amount of action, but it also raised a lot of questions about the possibilities of our future. "Escape From New York" is a blatant action movie, but with an intriguing concept that might seem inconceivable but is still worth thinking about (especially with the state of oppressive world governments progressively getting worse...but that's a matter of opinion). "Minority Report" (which I have only read, but never seen) has a share of action, but it also has a good concept of what can happen to the justice system if we put too much faith in technology.

Action in sci-fi is inescapable. There is such a thing as overkill, and I will agree that these days too many sci-fi films focus on being action-oriented. Just look at "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines"...that was an action-fest, no real moment to breathe. But I enjoyed it. It's all about what will sell and what will make the most money at the box office. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth.

[tabuno]

Science Fiction does not have to be inherently action-oriented. The use of science in a fictional context can focus on serious drama and emotive, evocative or comic themes that don't focus on the traditonal shoot-em up, action Western:

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Truman Show, The (1998)

Altered States (1980)
Back to the Future (1985)
Brainstorm (1983)
Charly (1968)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Cocoon (1985)
Contact (1997)
Demon Seed (1977)
Dragonfly (2002)
Electric Dreams (1984)
Frequency (2000)
Gattaca (1997)
Ghostbusters (1985)
Honey, I Blew Up the Kid (1992)
Iceman (1984)
Illustrated Man, The (1969)
Innerspace (1987)
Liquid Dreams (1992)
Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
Looker (1981)
Man Who Fell to Earth, The (1976)
Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963)
My Stepmother Is an Alien (1988)
Naked Lunch (1991)
Nutty Professor, The (1996)
Slaughterhouse-Five (1972)
Solaris (2002)
Solyaris (1972)
Stay Tuned (1992)
THX 1138 (1971)
Time After Time (1979)
Twelve Monkeys (1995)
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Wavelength (1983)
Weird Science (1985)

[Ilker81x]

Action is a subjective term. My definition of action in a movie is a confrontation between a protagonist and an antagonist that is ultimately presented in a way involving physical action. If we're talking about shoot-'em-up westerns, then yes there doesn't HAVE to be that in sci-fi. But there is some level of action in sci-fi that is ALWAYS there. While I wouldn't necessarily put "Honey, I Blew Up the Kid" as a sci-fi movie per se (a family comedy with sci-fi elements) it had a fair share of action. They had to chase the kid through Las Vegas, they had to shoot the kid with the shrink gun, etc...that counts as action. "Innerspace" had action, like all the chase scenes or when Dennis Quiad and Vernon Wells were fighting inside Martin Short's body. That's action. It's not shoot-'em-up, but it is action. "Ghostbusters"...you're not going to tell me there was no action in that. They chased after ghosts, shot them with their proton packs, and trapped them in the containment unit. That's action, and it's a different type of shoot-'em-up. Those proton packs were very shoot-'em-up and a lot more interesting than...say...eletronic nets or some other way to catch stray ghosts.
There is also the case that while when we think of westerns as being full of gunplay, there are westerns that do not focus on this and actually do concern themselves more with story. "Conagher" from Louis L'Amour's book...it wasn't a shoot-'em-up cowboy vs. indians western (although it had one scene of that and a coupla fistfights). It was a romance story with enough action to keep it from being boring. The principle is still the same. Westerns dealt with the frontier spirit of that time period, when we were advancing westward into new territories and expanding our borders. In doing so, there is some adventure, which inherently means some level of action. Sometimes it's a lot, and sometimes it's a little. Sci-fi is the same. Even in "2001: A Space Odyssey" the scenes where Bowman confronts Hal-9000 can be considered action in a sense. Hal attacked Frank Poole, killed him, Bowman went to retrieve him, and then had to outwit Hal to shut him off. Maybe it's not spectacular action, but it's action, a more intellectual type of action. The book had more of a talkative confrontation between the two, more like a logical debate, but I doubt it would work in the movie because from the moviemaker standpoint, it would not be interesting enough. Granted "2001" was a movie intended for intellectuals and thinkers and talkers, but even in that audience there is a level to which they can get bored.
As I said, there is such a thing as overkill, and I think when a sci-fi movie does go overboard with guns and explosions, it does tend to take away from the intellectualism of sci-fi. The only time it works is if it's inherent in the story. But if the action is kept to an acceptable state to where it can provide a necessary amount of entertainment and allow the story to flow (maybe even contributing to the story), then it's okay. It works in "The Terminator" because the whole purpose of the Terminator is to kill. It is programmed to kill an assigned target, and it will do so by any means. This opens up the floodgates for action spectacle because there's no way to reason with it...it is one-sided and so there is no way to outwit it logically...you HAVE to resort to physical violence. Sure you can outwit it and trick the Terminator into stepping into a hydraulic press, but that's not the same thing as talking to it and making it see that its programming is flawed. But it works in "The Terminator" because the violence is a necessary part of the story...it's a story about a killing machine. There WILL be action and violence, but it does not hurt the philosophical aspects of the story.
I understand your point tabuno, but my point was that no matter what there will ALWAYS be action in sci-fi. No, it will not always be shoot-'em-up, but shoot-'em-up action sells, that's why it's the type of action most commonly used in sci-fi these days. Even in the most intellectual and dramatic of sci-fi films there IS action, and that will never change because it is inherent in the explorative spirit of sci-fi. For some, the action HAS to be violent, and for others it can be more intellectual. Take your pick, watch those movies, enjoy it.

[BritishSteel]

To a certain extent I agree with Mr Tree.

I think that the last true science fiction movie I saw was Minority Report, I don't consider Terminator 2 a sci-fi movie (I've not seen Terminator 3 yet).

2001 and 2010 are both true sci-fi movies as is Blade Runner.

The definition of a movie come from, IMHO, what drives the story along.

Saying Terminator 2 is sci-fi is, IMHO, like mistaking a porn movie for a movie about romance between people with extraordinary physical proportions - Naive.

The first Terminator movie was sci-fi. The concept was what if an unstoppable cyborg from the future was sent into the past to prevent a decendant from even being born - There was a lot in the film, but that was what drove the story.
Terminator 2 was more an action movie. The concept was what if "The Terminator" had a sequel? How could we make that sequel bigger and more flashy than the original? O.K., seriously though Terminator 2 was not driven by the science fiction.

I really would like to see "I, Robot", the book is great and I think the movie could be amazing sci-fi.
I would love to see Iain M. Banks' "Excession" made as a movie - I think it would be a four hour movie, but it would also be a great true sci-fi.


Regards,

Charles.

[HorseradishTree]

I finally managed to rent Equilibrium, and all I can say is that I was blown away. It was truly a lot of fun. The action was amazing, the acting was fantastic, and the lighting and visuals were just stunning. With my narrow mind to spend money, I think I'm gonna have to purchase this baby.

By the way, how come I never heard of this? Was it a minimal theatrical release or what? Jubis usually knows this stuff for some reason.

[oscar jubis]

Equilibrium opened on 12/8/02 and ran for 2 weeks at 301 screens. It grossed $800,000, which is not good. Proof that Mr. Bale is no box office draw and Mr. Ebert's thumb is not that influential.

[tabuno]

"Equilibrium" was only released in the United States and limited to the top twenty or twenty-five markets (which apparently didn't include the state of Utah - which for some of you is two states east of California - you go through Nevada). Even then I knew I'd love this movie, but apparently the distributors didn't.

[fuzzy_nolan]

John Taylor once remarked that science fiction is merely "the art of making a scientific 'if' interesting".

Making the sci-fi narrative interesting by dressing it up in the trappings of an action movie doesn't change its essential concept, although it might affect the emphases.

Anyway, how can T2 not be categorised as science fiction when the original Terminator is? They both had the same concept at core - as BritishSteel puts it "what if an unstoppable cyborg from the future was sent into the past to prevent a decendant from even being born". Does the lack of originality or the box-office success invalidate its status as science fiction?

[Ilker81x]

I agree. "Terminator 2" is still VERY MUCH science fiction. It just happens to be an excellent combination of intelligent science fiction and action. The first "Terminator" was the same, but it also added a little bit of a horror element. It was much more frightening, and at that time much more original. Even "Terminator 2" is not completely original, but the idea of the T-1000 was. The concept of a cybernetic organism being made of liquid metal so it can mold itself to look like anybody...the perfect infiltrator. It's an intelligent idea that while not really based in fact (or it could be, I've never bothered to research the possiblity of such a thing) is certainly worthy of the term science fiction. The "Terminator" movies, for all their blatant scenes of non-stop action, are still science fiction. There are many films that try to combine action with intelligent sci-fi, and they almost always come up short...some don't even try to be intelligent, they just put the action in a sci-fi context, making it more action than sci-fi. But I see no reason why they should not be able to coexist. I think the intelligent drama as a sci-fi works as well and we don't have enough of it. I'd like to see more of William Gibson made into a movie, but not like "Johnny Mnemonic" which I didn't think was all that bad, though not great either. I'd like to see Alexander Besher's "Rim" series as a movie. I'd like to see more of Asimov...but alas, action sells, and as long as Hollywood is in the business of making movies to sell to the audience, action will almost always win out with them.

[tabuno]

What is "Action"? What is "Drama"? I don't necessarily see why Science Fiction must contain "Action" instead of "Drama." I would think that Science Fiction = Science + Fiction + Action is adding something that isn't by definition included in science fiction. The original Russian version of Solaris was praised by critics but overlooked by the mass audience. You may be confusing mass audience, popular sci fi movies that require action that have equated with box office receipts with those more cerebral sci fi movies without so called action and are not so called popular among the masses. Charly was more of a sci fi drama and where Cliff Robertson won an Oscar for best actor.

[Ilker81x]

That's the point though. The original version of "Solaris" is a beautifully filmed artistic adaptation, it's a great film of high drama mixed with science fiction, it's an intelligent movie. "Blade Runner," even with the small amount of action that it had, was a film-noir set in the future, a good combination of high drama, intelligent storytelling, some action, and science fiction. It's one of the most influential movies ever, and yet both movies were not well-received by the mass audiences. "Charly" wasn't what I would call science fiction though. Sure it has a little bit of a sci-fi idea, but it was not revelling in sci-fi the way "Solaris," "Blade Runner," or even "2001" do. "Charly" was a definite drama, not a sci-fi movie. And a great book I might add as well. It's not confusing at all. The sci-fi movies that relied heavily on intelligent story telling with less emphasis on action like "2001," "Blade Runner," "Brainstorm," "Until the End of the World," etc...those movies generally did not do as well at the box office as Hollywood would like to see. Unfortunately, the figures speak for themselves. Yes in a few years, all those movies became monuments of sci-fi (not sure about "Brainstorm"'s stature though), but did they make the instant buck? No. Let's face it...movies should be made to enlighten and entertain simultaneously...but these days, we're lucky to get anything remotely enlightening. Sure there are flukes occasionally, but I've yet to see a really cerebral, intelligent, thought-provoking sci-fi movie that is completely devoid of action, relying only on drama do massively well at the box office during its time in theaters. The problem is that not everybody possesses the same level of intelligence, and not everybody has the same attention span. I showed "Until the End of the World" to a few friends, and about half of them thought it the most boring and uninteresting film ever. The other half were impressed at the lack of violence (in an action film sense of going overboard with massive shootouts and the like) and the emphasis on a good story. If the majority of the mass public were like that half of my friends that liked what they saw in "Until the End of the World," we might have a better idea about sci-fi and we might have more sophisticated sci-fi movies coming out (not to say that action fans are unsophisticated...I'm an action fan, but I like non-action drama as well). But alas, that's not how most people think. That's certainly not how Hollywood thinks. "Blade Runner"'s original script (or at least a couple versions of them) all had more action, more shootouts...the end was supposed to be a gunfight showdown at one point, and then they landed on a Bruce Lee type fight...Rutger Hauer knowing he couldn't ever be Bruce Lee suggested the "game of life" idea, and that turned into the operatic chase at the end with Hauer chasing Harrison Ford through this big decrepit building. It's a far less violent ending in terms of physical violence, but it's more violent in the thoughts and emotions it provokes because it doesn't stoop to the level of the common caveman. Did it work in the movie? Yes...was the movie successful? Not until years later. Sure it provoked audiences, but not necessarily in a good way. Artistic and dramatic sci-fi movies are like wine, they get better with age...unfortunately Hollywood does not think about how much money the movie will make in ten years...they want the money now. That's the problem...it's a business, and business is about money, and the money has to be now. So...deliver some instantly likable action movies, call it sci-fi, and make the buck. Maybe in the midst there will be an exception, a movie that is both action-oriented but also cerebral and intelligent, like "The Terminator." Then what? Copy it up the wazoo and try to make more quick bucks. That's the way it is...all we can do is hope for better movies to come out and hope that they'll be appreciated later if not immediately.

[tabuno]

What is sci fi? Science + Fiction. Charley = Science (biomedical) + Fiction (inceasing brain power dramatically by science). What makes for a memorable sci fi movie? Action? Or drama?

Brainstorm is memorable for a number of reasons - adventure (not action). The last movie of Natalie Wood. A fantastic Disney-esque movie ride through virtual reality (sci fi). The moral, ethical insight into afterlife (occult). Relational life and death, man and woman theme (people and love).

[tabuno]

A saw Gattaca again on television last night and it made to appreciate drama and science fiction without the obvious action as the primary driving force behind the movie. I believe that Gattaca is a good excellent of science fiction without action as its motivating force. The problem with science fiction has been that profitable science fiction has required to a great extent in most cases that action be a significant component of any science fiction movie, however, it is not a necessary requirement for a good science fiction movie based on its quality, at least to pure science fiction fans.

Gattaca is based on a not-too distant future where genetic-engineering can create almost "perfect" people (a growing ethical issues today) and about an "in-valid" desire to go into space which is threatened with a murder where he works. This sci-fi, murder-mystery, drama is a great example of solid script writing and acting, an off-colored cinematography to create a well-balanced, hopeful expression of individuality and over-coming one's physical handicaps as well as sacrifice and humanity.

[tabuno]

Just by accident, I rented "Stranded" (2002) from Blockbuster and found it to be a sci fi drama without the action-thriller motif. This movie is a great example of non-thrills science fiction that is more about survival than eerie, strange monsters and over the top special effects and explosive and gore. This independent feel, Blair Witch Project, documentary style, cerebral effort with a literary voice over is smart, intelligent sci fi at its best.

[Ilker81x]

So by that rationale, would you say that "At First Sight" is a science fiction movie? They use science to help a blind man see with a radical new operation, but it's fictional because last time I checked we can't really do that just yet. So would you call that a sci-fi movie? No. Yes, they have a sci-fi concept, but the stories are NOT sci-fi. A drama with a sci-fi spin is not necessarily a dramatic sci-fi. Or how about "WarGames?" Long before we had the internet, before we'd ever heard of cyberspace, this boy hacks into a military computer, actually TALKS to it, and makes us think we're at war. Would you call that a sci-fi movie? No. It has a sci-fi concept that is very much a reality today, but back then we couldn't really conceive of that. Most of us were still playing with Commodore 64's at the time, if we were even alive.
Same with "Charly," which was a great book too ("Flowers for Algernon" is one of three books I make it a point to read once a year), but it was not a sci-fi. It had sci-fi concepts, but overall it was a contemporary drama.
Sure we may differ in opinion on this, but bottom line is "Charly" will most likely not be in the sci-fi section but in the drama section at the video rental, and I think that's where it belongs.
Incidentally tabuno, good choices on "Gattaca" and "Stranded." I am not disputing that it is possible to have a good dramatic non-action sci-fi, and they are often the movies that are remembered more. But chances are it will not sell as quickly or as much as Hollywood would want, thus they go with what they know will get them some quick bucks...action.