News Feeds-
Entries
Commments
- Search
News Feeds
Entries
Commments
Share:
| Posted by John on Saturday January 05, 2008 - 12:15 AM
| Category: Tidbits
| © 2008 SF Signal
"Is Sci-Fi Out of Ideas?"
This is a silly question but to be fair it's taken from the point of view of TV/movies. I'm no expert but it seems to me science fiction isn't just about spaceships and ray guns or even about the future or bug-eyed aliens. Science fiction is about people. Always has been. Before he died L. Ron Hubbard was telling us this for years and many more SF writers long after him have been saying pretty well much the same thing: SF is about people. The hardware shouldn't be the whole story but some of the story. In my opinion SF on the screen is eye candy for the masses. Real science fiction is in print because it challenges the imagination. Sorry but watching SF on the screen does little to suspend my disbelief when I know most of what I'm seeing is CGI and green screen acrobatics. Don't get me wrong, I like SF/F on the screen it's fun escapism. But SF on the screen doesn't give my imagination a workout like a book can. Maybe SF has run out of ideas on the screen but it will never run out of ideas in print.
Posted by Jim Shannon on Saturday January 05, 2008 at 8:33 AM
"I wish a great writer or director with no particular affection for the genre would let his imagination loose and see what it yields. It happened 40 years ago, when Stanley Kubrick, following his own ice-cold muse..."
What baloney it is to say Kubrick had no particular affection for the genre. He had just completed one of the classic science fiction black comedies (Dr. Strangelove). After 2001, he created yet another masterpiece of the near future (Clockwork Orange). When he died he was working on a fourth science fiction film (A.I.). He also turned in a classic reinvention of a closely related genre, horror fantasy (The Shining).
Oh, and in addition to his "own ice-cold muse," Kubrick had a co-writer on 2001 -- a fellow named Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps you've heard of him? He has a bit of notoriety in science fiction circles.
Sorry, Entertainment Weekly, a "great writer or director with no particular affection for the genre" is exactly what we don't need. Clueless writers and directors, who treat the genre as the most shallow of comic book window dressings, have given us cascading avalanches of visual sludge that don't even rise to the intellectual level of a lug nut.
What we need are more writers with a greater knowledge and mastery of the classics, who can reinvent timeless themes to touch contemporary audiences profoundly. Or writers who can make us laugh without retarded slapstick and potty jokes. The writing talent is out there, but the corporate overlords have to open their minds to it!
Why is science fiction supposedly out of ideas because it's recycling shows from 40 years ago, but musicals are healthy and vital when they're recycling shows from 160 years ago (Sweeney Todd) or 26 years ago (Dreamgirls) or 20 years ago (Hairspray)? The point is, novelty doesn't equal quality. Fresh ideas are good, but the best ones spring from a vital tradition.
Posted by Matte Lozenge on Saturday January 05, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I don't think Flash Gordon is a cheesefest. It's just boring and bad. At least cheese implies some sense of style, which Flash doesn't have.
And why am I not surprised IO9 is running NSFW entries?
Posted by jp on Sunday January 06, 2008 at 8:23 AM