SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
News
>
Sigourney Weaver slams the Oscars: Sci-fi films don't get enough respect
date
newest »
newest »
Yet another reason to love Sigourney Weaver.
Tannera wrote: "More folks need to speak out. Box office profits for sci-fi films don't translate into nominations. I'm unsure why. Perhaps Hollywood fuddy-duddys are old school and prefer art and literature to en..."Yeah, sheer number of sales tend to be lower on the list of criteria(not sure what the whole list is, really) when considering nominations.
Sci-Fi TV shows don't get any respect from the Emmy's either. The actress who plays on Orphan Black should have won an Emmy Award. John Noble should have won an Emmy for his work on Fringe, the list goes on. Sci-Fi has never gotten the respect it deserves whether it's books, film or TV.
Gravity is a spectacular and brilliant movie no matter how you slice it, and it deserved all of its Oscar nominations, including Best Picture.Sarah Snook's performance in Predestination is the equal to anything you will ever see, regardless of genre.
Her and Contagion are both incredibly relevant today and aimed at adults who appreciate movies where things don't explode every ten minutes.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes, despite its B-movie source material, is an old-school film in that it takes its time to build both the characters and the story. It's a classic slow boil until the third act and all the build-up pays off.
I'm not happy with most movies called "science fiction", but there are exceptions to the rule, which everyone conveniently ignores.Just because you dislike something doesn't mean they aren't well-made, of high quality, take a fresh look at technology or are in other ways not good. It just means you don't like them.
Vlad wrote: "Normally, regardless of how different their other views, it's something fans of the genre feel requires a lot of improvement. "
This basically every time I get really excited for a sci-fi movie I'm disappointed.
Edge of Tomorrow - It's like the Starship Troopers movie it's still pretty good but it's almost like a parody of the book.
Pacific Rim - Guys, hey guys Evangelion was a deconstruction of the Super Robot genre which was part of the reason the terrible dry protagonist worked. Why didn't you just make a traditional Super Robot Hero, and just checked off the tropes one after another. Plus while the monsters looked cool they were terribly uncreative. Like you had one that flew...great now the others? It's like you guys remembered Kaiju movies from your childhood then watched Evangelion and didn't watch any of the actual super robot shows and just kind of didn't know what you were doing.
Gravity - Can you stop violating physics every 5 minutes so I can enjoy this supposedly hard sci-fi film. Me and my dad burst out laughing in the theater when the two leads were getting more and more pulled apart from each other slower and slower when there was no discernible force pulling them apart.
I found the new Godzilla movie to be perfect and amazing, so maybe sci-fi is doing something right.
I wish they would consult Engineers more.Mathematicians write up the numbers and make the theories that eventually get used in a new science theory.
Scientists are the ones that come up with the science theory on how something could work and incorporate above math into their theories along with experimentation.
Engineers are the ones that take it to production phase by making it feasible and economical.
Good example is flying cars, these totally work at the science stage right now but completely fail at the engineering level because of economic/logistic/safety problems.
I don't feel we should confuse technology with a good story line. Yes some of the movies mentioned had great tech stuff, graphics were brilliant . But the story line is not great sci fi. Alien, the first one , was sci fi. The day the earth stood still (the original) was sci fi.
I was disappointed in Avatar, a great kids movie, but not really sci fi. Ender's game : aaaahhhhhh
Aaron wrote: "Gravity - Can you stop violating physics every 5 minutes so I can enjoy this supposedly hard sci-fi film. Me and my dad burst out laughing in the theater when the two leads were getting more and more pulled apart from each other slower and slower when there was no discernible force pulling them apart."Weird how actual physicists and astronauts have the opposite reaction. Newton, I guess.
Tannera wrote: "I haven't viewed Interstellar. The creative team consulted a real scientist and included reality in the script."Heh. Boy are you in for an unpleasant shock.
Interstellar is almost unbelievable idiotic on every level.
Kateb wrote: "I was disappointed in Avatar, a great kids movie, but not really sci fi."What wasn't SF about it? The cloning technology? Cryosleep? Mecha? Neural networks?
It was as sci-fi as anything from Star Trek or any of the other entries from Space Opera or Planetary Romance.
Trike wrote: "Weird how actual physicists and astronauts have the opposite reaction. Newton, I guess. "They got a lot right in that movie way more then most I mean this isn't Armageddon or anything. But after hearing the 100% science accurate over and over again that's where you put my expectations. So when you have scenes that play out way more dramatically at the sheer violation of physics that scene with them flying apart being the most obvious violation. I mean overall the changes were probably mostly good and were mostly used in order to increase drama so I doubt the ones in Gravity were actual ignorance but more of a choice.
Aaron wrote: "Trike wrote: "Weird how actual physicists and astronauts have the opposite reaction. Newton, I guess. "They got a lot right in that movie way more then most I mean this isn't Armageddon or anythi..."
Yeah, that scene was 100% scientifically accurate. Sorry. There is a scene which isn't, but you missed it. I'm serious. You didn't even notice it.
Are you talking about the fact that the Hubble and ISS and probably the Tiangong are orbiting at different angles which would pretty much make any kind of transfer using just suits laughably impossible due to the speeds involved?Or the fact the debris field managed to hit both the hubble and ISS despite the different angle as mentioned above...space is big.
Or that the dead people on the ISS (I believe...I can't remember) were frozen in space already when due to the fact that it's a vacuum there is nothing to transfer your energy too so it takes a long ass time.
The scene I was talking about where they are getting pulled away on the ropes they had come to a stop for dramatic tension then slowly sped up and slipped off with no external force I could discern.
I agree that sci fi (and fantasy) don't get enough respect. Of course...often Hollywood's version of sci fi and fantasy doesn't deserve the respect the books do.
Melinda wrote: "I agree that sci fi (and fantasy) don't get enough respect. Of course...often Hollywood's version of sci fi and fantasy doesn't deserve the respect the books do."I fully agree. I am not into arguing my point but just because a few science ideas are thrown in, often out of context with other things, doesn't make it a good sc fi film. we are talking good films not just how many sci fi are made, aren't we?
The Heavy Burden of Writing ScifiThe creation of scifi is too complex for the typical mind, whether it belongs to a writer/producer/director, or an actor.
Ms. Weaver touches on the fundamental problems, and the inability of small minds to understand.
How long does it take to write scifi? Here’s an example. In order to get it absolutely right, I just spent AN HOUR AND 5 MINUTES to write the following passage:
The Centro per il Calcolo Avanzato, also known as CCA, was a seven story, perfectly square bunker, with a ground floor at street level, and three floors above and below it. There were no windows. Above ground, the otherwise-featureless three floors were encircled by continuous panels of one-meter-high frieze work. The artistry depicted the history of computational science, from its birth with the invention of the abacus in 2700 BCE, to the latest [known] Sib, the history repository, preservation, evaluation, prediction, and alert machine, Sib Seldon. Sib Seldon was named for the psychohistorian in the timeless, distinguished science fiction series, Foundation, which had been written by Isaac Asimov, 112 years earlier.
Much of the third floor frieze work of the CCA was unfinished, to accommodate advances from the current year onward. By and large, a 1-meter by 1-meter panel was allocated to each year, though any year might have more than one panel, if it were a particularly productive and historic year for computational science development.
At night, the frieze work was illuminated from behind by cleverly-positioned, holographic projectors. To the passerby looking at the building, the entire chronicle of computational history appeared in 3D in the air before them, with the oldest, first-floor frieze work at knee-level, the next floor at chest level, and the third floor at eye level.
Three circuits around the building would display the entire history.
I had to look up time, dates, read articles with various opinions, translate English into Italian, look up authors and works I’ve actually read to get names, characters, titles, and timing right, spell-check, picture a visitor looking at my scene, and conclude the event – WHICH WAS THERE TO CREATE COLOR, BACKGROUND, AND DEPTH TO THE STORY!
What you see in bold is 231 words.
I once asked a friend, who wrote romance novels, how long it took her to write 5000 words in that genre.
She said that when she was most productive, she could write 5500 words in 8 hours, or 688 words/hour.
I am not a slow writer but I pay attention to details, because that’s what scifi readers expect. Like my friend, I also work 8 hours per day when I’m productive. In the time she or I could write 5500 words of a brainless genre like romance, I can write 1700 words of scifi.
For every 3.25, full-length, romance novels you write, you might be able to create only 1 scifi novel. They sell for about the same per word.
Those of us who write science fiction, do it because we love the genre, not to make money.
Otherwise, we'd write romance, or other fluff.
That said, we could make more money writing dystopian future crap like 90% of the movie scripts out there.
You could make a great movie out of my novel, Soul Searching, but it would end with a hopeful future, not the world in ruins.
I guess no one cares about that. What's the interest in a glowing future when you could be living in a disaster?
Keith , love your comment. yes I understand how hard writing can be for sci fi. I also note that you think most of the films today called sci fi are crap. I would love to see a film that ended with a glowing future, I must therefore be one of the few. sorry about that.
Kateb wrote: "Keith , love your comment. yes I understand how hard writing can be for sci fi. I also note that you think most of the films today called sci fi are crap. I would love to see a film that ended wit..."Good for you, Kateb. Makes me feel better, at least.
Keith wrote: "...Those of us who write science fiction, do it because we love the genre, not to make money..."That sentence alone is worthy of an award.
You can put lots of research into anything. You also forget that whatever happens around that might not require constant research, or it might reuse research. Coming from someone who isn't a big fan of Romance; fuck you for saying Romance is a brainless genre. I love SF/F and I take a good bit of shit for it. Please don't give Romance fans shit, it can be a thoughtful genre too.
Aaron wrote: "You can put lots of research into anything. You also forget that whatever happens around that might not require constant research, or it might reuse research. Coming from someone who isn't a big..."
This is true - it's hard to write romance well. I remember reading an article with Stephen King who said that very thing, how hard it was to be convincing with the romance angle in a Dark Tower book with Roland's flashbacks, and how hard he found writing romance to be.
It's a generic formula for the most part (well, harlequin types, etc.), but still difficult to write well and shouldn't be put down as brainless in any way.
This feels like a tangent to me.World building and character creation are separate from writing. If you're discovery-writing your way through a sci-fi world that you intend to be multilayered, complex and scientifically accurate, you are on a fool's errand and need to reevaluate your process.
Discovering your outline, sure. The first draft? That's wackadoddle. (Techincal term.)
I think I owe everyone an apology here, not only for my poor choice of words, but because my viewpoint wasn't right either. What I said, and the way I said it ("brainless" in particular) was unacceptable, and untrue, and I deserved to be called out on it.I apologize for what I said, and how I said it.
Keith wrote: "I think I owe everyone an apology here, not only for my poor choice of words, but because my viewpoint wasn't right either. What I said, and the way I said it ("brainless" in particular) was unacce..."Thank you - I'm sure we're all guilty of this from time to time, especially on the internet.
I read almost nothing but SF. Yet it's hard for me to think of more than a small handful of truly great SF movies.2001 changed my life. Blew me away. It's still the highest achievement in the genre as far as I'm concerned.
Tarkovsky's Solaris is a close second. Very powerful and emotional film.
I don't consider A Clockwork Orange as SF really, but some do. Awesome film, though. I'll give you that one. Same really goes for Slaughterhouse Five (good adaptation of a book, which is rare).
After those, I think we take a big step down to things like Blade Runner (the theatrical release was full of cringe-worthy studio meddling, the much later Final Cut is brilliant); Forbidden Planet (campy but still very dear to my heart because of the music and artwork); The Day the Earth Stood Still (a classic for its time).
And then we move on to a lot of fun, entertaining things including some low budget films. These include what most people call great SF films like Star Wars, Alien(s), Terminator...But to me most of these don't really warrant great honors. They're a pale comparison to the places SF literature goes.
I don't really care about the Oscars much. But I don't think many SF movies have earned a place next to what the awards should be: the greatest films of all time. So I'd put the fault on Hollywood for not living up to what SF really is, rather than on the awards not recognizing SF movie's achievements.
Then again...I think the same thing about most movies that do end up getting nominated! I'm an equal opportunity naysayer.
Micah, I couldn't have said it any better. thank you
Micah, like you I can only think of a handful of great sci-fi movies, but I think you're being a bit hard on the industry. I can only think of a handful of great movies in any genre. And that's probably how it should be. In what sense is something "great" if it isn't "better than most of the rest"? It's easier to think of more great books than films but more books are written than are films. Also, movies are a very shallow art form in general. There is only so much you can say with some moody close-ups and and a tasteful bedroom scene. I find that short stories work best as movies. Carrying the weight of an entire novel - especially a good one - is not something a movie does well - but the material in a short is about right for what 2hrs of film can portray.
As to Ms Weaver's original point, there probably is discrimination against sci-fi movies at the awards. There's a lot of prejudice against sci-fi by the literati - some of it ignorant, some of it justified. You get the same thing with the major book awards too. I've seen some awful "literary fiction" winning awards while excellent sci-fi novels were most likely not even considered by the judges. As a sci-fi fan and a sci-fi novelist, it's disheartening, but that's the way the world works.
And, Keith, I can sympathise with your comments on the heavy burden of writing sci-fi. When you work really, really hard to make your world-building as coherent and plausible as possible, only to find some nonsensical vampire romance is outselling you thousands to one, it breaks your heart. However, other authors in other genres work just as hard I'm sure (crime, historical fiction, thrillers, and so on), and probably suffer the same feelings of injustice when the reading public fail to appreciate their efforts.
Graham wrote: "Also, movies are a very shallow art form in general. There is only so much you can say with some moody close-ups and and a tasteful bedroom scene."Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you here.
If a film isn't communicating all the time, it's because the filmmaker doesn't know what he's doing. If you're raised on a staple of the typical TV shows, which are nothing more than illustrated radio, then the point has merit.
However, I would challenge you to watch some of the better movies where the writer and director are making full use of the medium.
For instance, there is a 5-second shot of a matchbook on a bar in Tequila Sunrise that says more about trust than any five pages of dialogue ever could.
In Aliens there is an entire sequence where Ripley and the Queen communicate completely non-verbally and you are never once wondering what is going on. (The movie also uses sound brilliantly. When people claim Interstellar's sound isn't a steaming pile of dogshit, I point them at Aliens. That moment when Hicks lifts up the ceiling panel is still being mimicked to this day.)
In The Road Warrior, the entire opening sequence is essentially a silent movie. There isn't a single line of dialogue or voice over, nor do you need one.
Gravity is as brilliantly-made a film as any, trusting that its audience is both smart and paying attention, and its use of light and sound is genius.
Citizen Kane is widely -- and rightly -- regarded as one of the greatest films of all time, perhaps the best American movie ever made, and that's because Welles was using every frame to tell the story. Many people today don't watch it because they have the erroneous opinion that anything great must be stuffy, when the opposite is the case. Kane is funny as hell and it is chockablock with special effects. Like most great FX, though, they don't call attention to themselves, because they exist solely to tell the story.
Even Star Wars, largely considered the best popcorn movie of all time, boasts the greatest opening shot in cinema. If you've never seen it in the theatre on the big screen, then you can't really appreciate the impact of seeing the blockade runner being chased down by the star destroyer. It's not just epically cool, it's designed to communicate the relative positions of power each of these sides occupies: the tiny fleeing ship against the massive, seemingly unending might of the empire. David versus Goliath, told in one epic shot.
I don't know how anyone can look at those sorts of things and think they're shallow and not communicating things to you.
Trike wrote: "Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you here."Yeah. Without wanting to get into a books-good-movies-bad argument, I'm going to have to disagree right back, Trike.
It really doesn't matter how subtle and clever the movie-maker is, some ideas are too hard, too nuanced, and too complicated to put in a movie. Yes, if you set it all up, you can portray an emotion or two with a five second shot of a horse on a hill (or whatever) but when it happens, it's usually so laboured and contrived it makes you want to groan out loud. Frankly, if you want to say something really interesting, my advice is, "Say it with words." Relationships don't break down because couples don't look tragically at one another enough, they break down because they don't talk.
And as for the choices of movie you made to illustrate your point, some of them I detest utterly (like The Road Warrior, for example - what does that film say?) Gravity would make a pretty thin short story, if you ask me, there was so little content that wasn't just activity.
Of course, not all films are shallow. Some rise above the rest. They're only shallow in comparison to books. Let's face it, how often is the film of a book better than the book that inspired it?
Micah wrote: "Tarkovsky's Solaris is a close second..."A great movie Micah!
Graham wrote: "Let's face it, how often is the film of a book better than the book that inspired it? "Not often, but I have a list. I see movies as an art form so shallow? No. There are downfalls like not being able to get into the heads of characters the same...but perks like some epic scores that enrich it. When movies are made from original material and not having to live up to an expectation of an existing novel, it probably works better.
I think the visual-plus-sound format works better for emotional impact, but the verbal format works better for complexity. I don't go so far as to say that the emotional scenes of movies are usually contrived, but you have to share a lot of contextual knowledge with the characters for the scenes to work. That's a problem for sf and fantasy, since a lot of our real-world assumptions don't hold true for them. It's also a problem when what you're watching isn't all about humans - I remember reading somewhere that District 9 prawns are four-limbed bipeds solely to make them more anthropomorphic and therefore empathizable, and e.g. Orson Scott Card's buggers aren't subject to that pressure.
Graham wrote: "TOf course, not all films are shallow. Some rise above the rest. They're only shallow in comparison to books. Let's face it, how often is the film of a book better than the book that inspired it? "Often enough that there are dozens of examples. Jaws and The Godfather are the canonical examples. Read The Short-Timers and watch Full Metal Jacket and you'll see the difference between an amateur and an artist.
Regardless of whether you enjoyed the examples I gave, I'd like to hear counterexamples from books that have complex ideas which couldn't be conveyed in a film.
There's a reason why we disparage the infodump, because it's clunky and amateurish. As Larry Niven once said, explain a complex idea with as few words as possible. If you have nothing to say, take all the time you want.
As in Tequila Sunrise, a picture is worth a thousand words, but you have to let it do the work.
Silvio wrote: "I think the visual-plus-sound format works better for emotional impact, but the verbal format works better for complexity. I don't go so far as to say that the emotional scenes of movies are usually contrived, but you have to share a lot of contextual knowledge with the characters for the scenes to work. That's a problem for sf and fantasy, since a lot of our real-world assumptions don't hold true for them."You can convey a lot of information with just visuals, though. Going back to Aliens, in that scene between Ripley and the Queen, you learn all sorts of things about the xenomorphs, yet there isn't a single line of exposition. You get it all from what you see.
In Looper we are given a lot of exposition about how time travel works and how the Rainmaker came about, but what we see in the movie proves that all of that exposition is inaccurate. The ending is unrelentingly bleak because it turns out that Joe is wrong. I'm not even sure you could successfully convey that in words.
In Raiders of the Lost Ark you get some of the most efficient backstory revelations ever committed to film. There's only a single infodump near the beginning, which serves multiple purposes, not the least of which being a perfect moment for the audience to catch its breath. Not only does it convey the information you need to understand the stakes, but it sets up multiple payoffs and callbacks later in the movie, such as the nature of Indy's "falling out" with Ravenwood, the height of the staff, etc. But Spielberg and Kasdan are also using the visuals to tell the story, including the specific choices the actors make.
Sigourney Weaver: Sci-fi films don't get enough respect