Pajiba

I was hoping this was going to be a retrospective on written science fiction for the year. Interesting observations, but this was a pretty dismal year for sci-fi (and horror) in theaters.

I just watched "Aliens" with my kids. It was the first time they've seen it and they loved it. First off, the blu ray is absolutely stunning. I was blown away by how good that movie looks now. Second, the craft that went in to that movie to make you care when all hell breaks loose is really astounding. It's almost a cliche but I can't imagine Aliens getting made nowadays with the story, nuance, and slow-burn intact.

If National Geographic's "Fight Science" tells us that punching and kicking is scientific, and Tony Jaa doesn't make documentaries, then maybe we can add Ong-Bak 3 to this list on a technicality?

If not, then hopefully Donnie Yen is out there somewhere right now roundhousing a half robot half velociraptor in zero G, so we have something for next year's list.

Posted by: mrcreosote at December 29, 2010 3:42 PM

I just pictured Denzel Washington in a three wolf moon shirt at odds with Gary Oldman in a Team Jacob Burger King crown.

One reason I've always been passionate about science fiction, is the idea that there are more important stories to tell. It doesn't mean that you must forego the immediate human connection - love, betrayal, loyalty, ambition, greed, grace - but that they exist in contrast to the dystopia and sometimes work to establish the hope for a better world.

Science fiction takes us to the brink of what is endurable and shows us how we can, how we must, rise to the challenge. (Or, if you are Arthur C. Clarke, that you should give up and surrender to the inevitable.) Science fiction, as notably accomplished in the original series of Star Trek, can cast the political ills of our society in a way that strips a fallacy of culturally dictated logic.

The idea that we are heading toward the abyss is not new, that it is of our own doing, and that only a higher power can transcend our sins is one of the oldest. That is has shown itself so strongly during a recession and aftermath is no surprise.

Science fiction, at it's best, is a mirror.

The lack of sci-fi films this year isn't all that surprising when you think about how subjective and "unsafe" a genre it is. It's not like romantic-comedies where "boy + girl + complications - girl (+ girl) = love forever" equation guarantees a certain number of theatre-goers. Sci-fi is a risk.

The main problem being that sci-fi movies are supposed to be "imaginative and innovative," and some people like watching what they know and ONLY what they know. Because they are aware that blue cat-like aliens don't exist, they are unwilling to believe anything else in the film -- no matter how tired and common the story-line may be.

It's a similar dilemma for films that introduce "new" concepts -- cloning, dream-sharing, time-travelling, organ-harvesting, etc. All of these methods have to be explained and absorbed, and when a person is looking for as an escape, they may be hping to check their brain at the door, and are therefore unwilling to grasp the "absurdity" of these concepts.

Therefore, the film on the list above that would be easiest for most mainstream audiences to accept is The Book of Eli. However apocalyptic movies have been done and are tired now, so are therefore no longer viewed as being "innovative enough" for hardcore sci-fi fans. (Plus -- in all honesty -- Denzel Washington makes for a far less interesing survivor than Cillian Murphy, Clive Owen, Viggo Mortenson, or Will Smith.)

Personally, I would appreciate more entries into the sci-fi genre. Movies are supposed to be an escape -- a break from reality -- so it doesn't make sense for filmmakers to continuously trot out numerous "based-on-a-true-story" films and let any sense of imagination go to waste. Plus by now they're scraping the bottom of the barrel on biopics (seriously: the Runaways?) so hopefully the success of Inception will show filmmakers that imagination can pay off.

Just don't make shitty movies.

The idea that the future will be bleak and hopeless is something that has been burning through pop culture over the last decade. Just as we're able to look back on past generations and pinpoint their fears by veiwing their art (for example, the rampant fear of the Atom that dominated the 1960's) I think that later in life our generation and future generations will look back on this time in popular culture and see the thick, recuring fear that is so rampant these days; that the future holds nothing for us.

Video games reflect it (Fallout). Movies (as cited above). Part of the reason zombies are so beloved is that they represent a variety of different fears, the most prevalent of which is that the world is on it's last legs. Apocalypse art is on the rise.

Wow Steven, quite a few damn good posts in a matter of days, teaching Dustin how to count, you're having a really nice end of the year aren't you :D Planning on curing cancer next year? Rescuing kittens from trees and babies from burning buildings? Banning Taylor Lautner from Hollywood? Killing Justin Bierber before he turns 17 and writes another autobiography?

Science fiction takes us to the brink of what is endurable and shows us how we can, how we must, rise to the challenge. (Or, if you are Arthur C. Clarke, that you should give up and surrender to the inevitable.)

Or, if you're Ronald Moore, that you should give up, throw all your spaceships into the sun, and have sex with cavemen.

Not including Splice because it's too close to horror is just silly.

This post brought to mind a certain scene in Ed Wood, in which Ed explains that sci-fi and horror always make money. Somewhere between the glory days of 50s B-movies and now that has changed. What comprises the top box office these days? Weepy and whimsical kid flicks (not that anything's wrong with that), mindless summer tentpole trash, and pseudo-religioso vampire fan fiction that plays like it was scripted by a repressed goth poser 12 year old (SO MUCH wrong with that)? *sigh* I was born in the wrong time. Whatever happened to quality being popular?

What saves the day in these films, if it is saved at all, is not human ingenuity but in a retreat to spirituality. There’s nothing wrong with that as a specific solution...

I immedately copied this text with the intention of saying, "Yes, there is, it means these films aren't Science Fiction", but then I read the rest of your sentence - and article - and noticed that you went on to say something similar so my comment wasn't necessary.

I typed it anyway.

i love science fiction and it kills me that nearly everything that comes out is garbage, especially with the budgets some of these productions have.

i like some fantasy and hope game of thrones comes through

anyone here think that the culture novels of iain banks will ever get developed in some form. i really like those books! and would love to see john crowley's little, big or engine summer made into films as well but, no doubt, the adaptations would be horrible.

also--for what it's worth--i've always heard the difference between science fiction and fantasy is that the climax of the story (in which the outcome of the main conflict is revealed) in the former involves science and in the latter involves magic. sounds good to mes

I think that Hard Scifi, which most people on this post seem to be advocating for, is notoriously hard to adapt to the screen without alienating all but a few of the most die-hard fans of this permutation of the genre.

So many of the things that make Hard Scifi compelling is the lengthy and in depth theories and descriptions of future technologies and societies these technologies make possible. Imagine, for example, a movie of one of Vernor Vinge's novels. Without the background knowledge to understand the physics of, say, ramscoops, the story tends to dissolve into meaningless jargon to most people. The same goes for any interesting story on Artificial Intelligence, nanotech, deep space/ faster than light travel travel, and what effects all these technologies would have on the spirits of the people who are using them.

You'd have to do a lot of front loading of knowledge, is what I'm saying.

And while I love Scifi movies and shows, i have yet to see a show, past or present, that has really delved into the technological and scientific aspects of their settings. I think this is mainly because, like it or not, people are more interested in the spiritual/ emotional aspects of character's lives, because that is what most people deal with in their own daily lives. For instance, i dont think most people would understand completely how a car works, but they do understand the idea of going on a car trip far away for emotional reasons. Ripley could have been being stalked by a serial killer in a warehouse or a bear in the woods. what resonated with audiences, myself included, was the primal fear of being pursued.

That said, I and i'm sure many of you read Hard Scifi and enjoy it. So there is clearly a market for a more science heavy imagining of the future. i think a question to ask ourselves is what is it that is compelling to us about these descriptions of scientific possibilities? What about these sciences resonates with us emotionally? and then finally, how can these scientific theories be portrayed in a visual way that makes them as compelling to others who may not have been interested in them before?

There are many different sub-genres within Science fiction. There is hard science fiction that Asimov wrote, and Niven as well, that has a scientific back ground. Then there is speculative fiction like Heinlein wrote, well that's what he called it. Lastly there is fiction that uses the future to give us little morality plays. Examples are Bradbury and Le Guin.

Me, I like Heinlein, his characters get laid.

As for this years science fiction movies. There is Inception and everything else is below that.

yes, i get that hard sf might have to do a lot of frontloading of information which is really boring for people (makes me think of Inception) however....

i think it's possible to do good hard sf without frontloading too much if you focus on the characters. i love hard sf but, for me, there has to be some character stuff for it to really resonate. know what i mean?

did someone say leguin is not hard sf? really? i'm thinking of the left hand of darkness, the lathe of heaven, the dispossessed and all those wonderful ekumen stories.

as for atwood, i generally like her stuff but she strikes me as a snob because it's as if sf is beneath her. maybe that says more about me than it does about her. whatever.

btw, i just saw moon the other day. it was okay. was that from 2009? damn, it's getting harder and harder to keep up. what am i wasting all my time on?

oh, yeah. i remember now: pajiba!

There are a lot of different ways to define sci-fi, but I think it has to at least have the suggestion of unreal, advanced technology, which The Book of Eli didn't have (as far as I recall).

Wow - I'm really out of touch. I consider myself a science fiction lover, and yet when I think of scince fiction I'm not thinking about films at all - I'm think about the writings of Wells, Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Astounding magazine, Orson Scott Card.

I guess that on a site like Pajiba the phrase "2010 in Science Fiction" is implicitly assumed to be only in the context of "Science Fiction films".

I think 1939 was a great year for science fiction, and not because of any films released that year.

interesting point, lonjanis. you make me think of stuff like the book of the new sun by gene wolfe. and what's that quote about any sufficiently advanced technology seems like...magic. it's really hard to draw boundaries (though they do serve a purpose) at times.

god, i love sf!