Firefly and the General State of Sci-Fi... can Joss save our genre? by MutantFriend

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Firefly and the General State of Sci-Fi... can Joss save our genre?

POSTED BY: MUTANTFRIEND
UPDATED: Monday, June 14, 2004 16:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5334
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, June 12, 2004 9:47 AM

Hey all. Been coming to the site for ages. New to the boards. Huge Firefly fan since the first episode aired and yes, I was CRUSHED when it was cancelled.

OK, so I went to go see The Chronicals of Riddick. Ummmm, how you say? La poo poo? I mean it was ok in parts, but the action was a mess. The editing and cinematography were total crapola. Combine that with overbaked fx and it was just plain "hard to watch". The movie itself was Flash Gordon meets Dune - which taken in the correct context, isn't all THAT bad (well, ok maybe it is - but I like Dune and FG).

Anyway, my point is this.. .what is up with Sci-Fi these days? There's been one movie after the next coming out since '99, and what, we've had ONE classic? The Matrix. That's it. All the Star Wars prequels are sad. Just sad. Pitch Black? No. T3 was alright, but not a classic. Solaris? Ummm, nope. The Matrix sequels, while great (IMO) in their own way - can not be called "classic" simply because popular opinion actually COUNTS when determining what becomes a permenant part of pop culture. And since most of the world HATED them - well you get my point. X-men isn't really Sci-fi (IMO). Spiderman - not really Sci-fi either. Hulk, more sci-fi than either Spidey or the X-men, but just plain lame in parts.

Look, what we really need in Sci-fi today is a Lord of the Rings. Hear me out... I'm NOT talking about an epic trilogy that has an immense backstory and all that... what I mean is a movie that is sooooo goram good it breaks through to everyone. Not just fanboys and geeks. But to gangbangers, grandmas, jocks, playas, chicks, women, girls, middleaged married men, the infirmed, who-the-frig-ever. A true Oscar contender. A movie that, regardless of the setting, is a good story. One that everytime you walk by a tv and it's on cable, you have to stop, watch for at least a few seconds. LOTR is like that. FOTR came on cable last night and I caught the opening, right up until Bilbos B-Day part. What a great movie.

This is what Joss should be aspiring to with Serenity. He has the talent to write a great script, and we all know the characters rock. All he has to do is balance the ensemble aspect of things, write the way he writes... and we could have a real winner. You know, if anyone reads this and has Joss' ear - tell him what I said... shoot for Best Picture. Fudge it. Tell everyone on the cast and crew that this is the goal. What could it hurt?

I can hear some of you saying to yourselves, "Oscar schmoshcer - I want a movie for the fans and I could care less about that crap." In a way... I sympathize with those of you who feel that way very much. It's just that there is a lot at stake for us Sci-fi fans here. Hollywood sucks. The studios are factories pumping out Big Mac style entertainment at breakneck speed. Rarely are we, the movie-going public, treated to anything more than complete garbage. And it's even worse for Sci-fi fans. Which is exactly why we NEED a massive Sci-Fi hit. One, for the fans (we deserve it) and two, so the studios might think twice about making a crap movie after the bar is set at its highest level. LOTR did it for fantasy. No studio wants to be the one to put out a crap Fantasy flick after we're all used to deep story and complete, compelling characterization. It wouldn't make a dime.

Sci-fi suffers from a LOW LOW LOW bar. No one at the studios gives a crap about plot holes and crappy characters and whatnot - cause we all be use to's it. We big dumb dumbs. Pay $10 for poo poo and like it... This is what they think of us. Only Joss can change that. Please Joss! Change it. Make a Sci-Fi flick for the ages. Not because it's good Sci-fi but because it's a GREAT MOVIE.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 10:05 AM

BLINKER

Quote:
Look, what we really need in Sci-fi today is a Lord of the Rings. Hear me out... I'm NOT talking about an epic trilogy that has an immense backstory and all that... what I mean is a movie that is sooooo goram good it breaks through to everyone.

I remember a few years ago when "Dungeons and Dragons" came out, and genre websites were pleading "go see D&D, repeatedly, EVEN THOUGH we realize it's total crap... because if this movie bombs, fantasy cinema is FINISHED. FOREVER."

Heh...

_________
Sliders: Gate Haven - http://slidersweb.net/blinker

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 10:37 AM

SWITCHY

I couldn't agree with you more!! If Joss allows himself to think big and be bold he has all the elements working with him to not only make the fun "firefly" movie we all know it will be but a classic contribution to the genre. That's for us to hope and not for him to think about though. Too much pressure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 10:48 AM

MAUGWAI

I disagree with you about Pitch Black. It was surprisingly deep. It used the monster movie as a backdrop for a story about what separates humans from monsters, and how bad guys aren't always so easy to define.

Chronicles, however, lost that. So you're definitely right about Hollywood mucking everything up. When the story was low-budget, it was brilliantly done with great character development and a good, strong theme. When Hollywood took over, it had great special effects and not much character develoment at all. I've been thinking about it all afternoon, and I still can't figure out what the point of the story was. And I was so hoping it would be as good as the first, but the depth was replaced by eye-candy.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous any my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:59 PM

MUTANTFRIEND

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
I disagree with you about Pitch Black. It was surprisingly deep. It used the monster movie as a backdrop for a story about what separates humans from monsters, and how bad guys aren't always so easy to define.

Good point. I'll admit Pitch Black was cool. The photography, Riddick, Johns - Riddick and Johns kicking the crap out of each other... BUT, it wasn't classic. In fact, it was a rip off of Alien smushed together with Escape from New York. Like I said, it's a good movie. It's just not best picture quality. Out of the last 5 years - the only Sci-fi film that even came close to that mark was the Matrix. It was, by far, the best picture of 1999. Which is why folks have never stopped talking about it. That's why my 60 year old mother has seen it. I want Serenity to be the Matrix's equal (at least)in terms of quality. Pitch Black - again - while a good movie, is nowhere near that plateau (IMO).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:02 PM

MUTANTFRIEND

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
Chronicles, however, lost that. So you're definitely right about Hollywood mucking everything up. When the story was low-budget, it was brilliantly done with great character development and a good, strong theme. When Hollywood took over, it had great special effects and not much character develoment at all. I've been thinking about it all afternoon, and I still can't figure out what the point of the story was. And I was so hoping it would be as good as the first, but the depth was replaced by eye-candy.

I couldn't agree with you more on your TCOR comments. I went in expecting SOME resemblance to PB... but no...

It was bad. Fun in places. But bad - very bad. I did like the crazy Jack / kyra girl. Her character was woefully defined, and her relationship with Riddick went nowhere... but boy, can she snarl and look purty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:31 PM

THRAWN

Yes, but you have to realize that it isn't just sci-fi. The almighty grand majority of movies simply suck, and the proportion of sci-fi movies to the rest of movies is fairly small. If you do the math, one classic sci-fi movie in the last few years isn't that hard to believe. What do we get, maybe 2 or 3 genuine science fiction movies a year? (I'm not counting stuff like The Day After Tomorrow and comic book spinoffs.) There are more movies in just about every other possible genre per year than that. This being the same movie industry that's existed for a while, you can't expect more than 1 in every 15 of those to be genuinely awesome, much less classic. However, I'd disagree with your count anyway - I thought Minority Report was brilliant, for instance.

And you can't measure how popular a movie is by how many oscars it gets. Oscars are given to (for the flying majority, anyway) Dramatic Performances of Sad People in Movies About Sad People. (I'm not insulting the genre of drama, I'm just saying, it's the spirit of the thing.) Oscars for movies that are mostly action or mostly comedy or even nicely balanced mixtures are rare.

The three Lord of the Rings movies are the only fantasy movies EVER to be as respected as they were, and given the source material and the cultural influence it had before becoming movies, that's unlikely to happen ever again.

We don't NEED a classic science fiction movie to sweep the oscars to revitalize science fiction's place in moviedom...it never had that place to begin with. The first Star Wars trilogy maybe, but that's about it, and even that is pushing it. Science fiction is by its very nature a cult genre. While it would be nice for everyone to like it, the simple fact is it'll never happen.

Be happy that Serenity is even being made. If you hope for more, that's fine, but you can't demand it. You'll just be dissappointed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:00 PM

MUTANTFRIEND

Quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn:
Yes, but you have to realize that it isn't just sci-fi. The almighty grand majority of movies simply suck, and the proportion of sci-fi movies to the rest of movies is fairly small. If you do the math, one classic sci-fi movie in the last few years isn't that hard to believe. What do we get, maybe 2 or 3 genuine science fiction movies a year? (I'm not counting stuff like The Day After Tomorrow and comic book spinoffs.) There are more movies in just about every other possible genre per year than that. This being the same movie industry that's existed for a while, you can't expect more than 1 in every 15 of those to be genuinely awesome, much less classic..

I thought I said that - sort of anyway. I talked about how it was WORSE for Sci-fi fans, but true of movies in general.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn:
However, I'd disagree with your count anyway - I thought Minority Report was brilliant, for instance..

Uh, Minority Report is a good movie, but impossible to classify as classic (IMO). How many times have you watched it? I've watched it 4 or 5 times. It gets worse each time. Not that ut's bad - but a classic never looses its luster. MR was servicable at best (IMO). It was what I would consider to be a mediocre film - but because it was Sci-Fi has been elevated to a higher status - hence my point - the bar is LOW for Sci-fi movies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn:
And you can't measure how popular a movie is by how many oscars it gets. Oscars are given to (for the flying majority, anyway) Dramatic Performances of Sad People in Movies About Sad People. (I'm not insulting the genre of drama, I'm just saying, it's the spirit of the thing.) Oscars for movies that are mostly action or mostly comedy or even nicely balanced mixtures are rare.

I guess you missed my point. I want Serenity to be SO good it crosses over. An oscar would not only be validation of said crossover, but it would legitimize a genre that gets shafted by crap writing and bad acting. Studios think FX are all that matter in a Sci-Fi film. Hence Riddick and every other crap movie they've fed us the last five years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn:
The three Lord of the Rings movies are the only fantasy movies EVER to be as respected as they were, and given the source material and the cultural influence it had before becoming movies, that's unlikely to happen ever again.

Chronicals of Narnia might get close to LOTR quality... But again, you miss the point. My point was that no studio is going to run out and make a Fantasy B-quality movie right now. LOTR set the bar too high. It wouldn't make a dime. That's why Narnia is being handled with such care right now. People now know what they want in a good fantasy flick and great FX aint it. It's story and pacing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn:
We don't NEED a classic science fiction movie to sweep the oscars to revitalize science fiction's place in moviedom...it never had that place to begin with. The first Star Wars trilogy maybe, but that's about it, and even that is pushing it. Science fiction is by its very nature a cult genre. While it would be nice for everyone to like it, the simple fact is it'll never happen..

It is this mindset that keeps Sci-fi dumbed down. Studios greenlight crap because of this exact thought pattern. Why is Sci-fi relagated to the wings as a genre? I hate to break this to you, but Sci-fi is the MOST popular genre that exists today. It rakes in the most cash. It rules the Box Office. It just rules it like a big dumb ape. Because Studios choose to make BAD Sci-fi films. Every single studio puts out at least one major Scifi flick a year. Men in Black. Minority Report. T3. Star Wars. Independence Day, the list goes on and on. The movies suck because the studios MAKE them suck. The scriptwrite by committee. They look at FX reels and decide a film's budget. It's crap.

Aagain. LOTR. Read what you wrote above one more time. Now replace Sci-fi with fantasy. You made my point for me. Fantasy was an even smaller niche market than Sci-fi before LOTR. The simple fact was that LOTR was kickass. It didn't matter if it was set in the Old West. On the moon. In my toilet. It was a great story that transcended its genre. This is exactly what we need as Sci-Fi fans. If we ever want better movies on a consistent basis.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn:
Be happy that Serenity is even being made. If you hope for more, that's fine, but you can't demand it. You'll just be dissappointed.

You're right, and I am happy. I didn't demand anything. In fact, I asked - then I begged.

It's just that you have to set goals in life. If you don't set goals - you end up with Riddick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:17 PM

MUTANTFRIEND

I guess what I want is a classic Sci-fi revival. Alien, Terminator, T2, Matrix, 2001, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, ET, Close Encounters. These movies all had a story that made one's heart pump. The eye candy wasn't what mattered. It was the friggen movie. The studios have decided that the vast majority of the people living outside LA county are retarded. They make movies aimed at us - the retards. We have to stop this from happening - and Joss is our only hope right now. Lucas? Bah - fudge him. He should be put into an insane asylum for what he did. Speilberg? Maybe, but not likely. Thowy? Hah! Riddick fixed that. The Wachowskis? They will probably never make another movie. Kubrick is dead. Sodderberg blew his wad with Solaris ripping off a 4 hour Russian movie (that I actually watched). McG? Paul Anderson (the AvP guy)? Don't make me puke. Ang Lee? Nope. John Woo? Payche... (I just vomited trying to type that).

I guess maybe the only real hope for us beyond Joss is Cameron with Battle Angel Alita (or whatever he's doing). But, who knows with that guy... I vote for Joss as our Savior. He's the only one I trust out there to help our cause at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 4:44 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

The only hope for SF being as good in films as it is in print is if the Hollywood money boys will let the writers tell the story and keep their f***ing hands off! And I'm talking about writers like Joss, who with Serenity has a very good chance of creating a classic. And lets not forget, Tim Minear is adapting Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which has enough plot elements to appeal to a wide range of movie-goers.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 5:32 PM

ARCBEATLE

Quote:
Originally posted by Blinker:
Quote:
Look, what we really need in Sci-fi today is a Lord of the Rings. Hear me out... I'm NOT talking about an epic trilogy that has an immense backstory and all that... what I mean is a movie that is sooooo goram good it breaks through to everyone.

I remember a few years ago when "Dungeons and Dragons" came out, and genre websites were pleading "go see D&D, repeatedly, EVEN THOUGH we realize it's total crap... because if this movie bombs, fantasy cinema is FINISHED. FOREVER."

Heh...

_________
Sliders: Gate Haven - http://slidersweb.net/blinker

I still dont get how people didnt like that movie. It was better then retern of hte king, I know Im going to get slammed for that, bbut seriously... how many endings did that movie have? The action was badly cut in between CGI and live action (just look at the scene where the roharim charge the Orcs at Pellenor Feilds, look at hte difference between the CGI and Live action, its so much different a five year old can tell how cut it is...) D&D get slandered for adding things like humor and creativity to itself, and thus sometimes (gasp!) varing formt he source material, oh no! the beholder is being controlled, the movie must suck! I had to rant.... I seriously hate it when people bash that movie.

If people only beleive wahts in a movie, their damn well sure beleiving Serenity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:10 PM

TIGERLILY

i also hate the lord of the rings series as movies. as literature, great. i feel it didn't translate to screen at all. and i'm not a crazy fanatic of the books. i read them, liked them, when i was 15. the movies were interminably boring to me. they also, were not movies. the first one was kind of a movie, emphasis on kind of. the second two were not movies.

however, the dungeons and dragons movie was a different kind of bad. it was a horrible, bad, bad naughty, bad bad script. by which i mean, there was nothing original about anything. not dialogue, not character development, no individual scene had any part of it which was new or fresh or remotely creative. it was completely predictable and cliched. it was every fantasy cliche rolled into one too long saturday morning cartoon. i swear to god, there is one point where thora birch looks off camera because she has forgotten her line. i'm not kidding. it was a bad story badly executed.

lord of the rings was a good story poorly executed. but then again that's just me. (i also hated the matrix, so clearly i'm just cantankerous)

and i do think joss can save the sci fi genre. i don't think anyone can save the fantasy genre. but we'll have to wait for the narnia movie to see if i'm right on that one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 13, 2004 3:54 AM

ARCBEATLE

Im personally waiting for the Last Unicorn Movie, the Naria one looks doomed by standard Disney interference with the directors creativity, but that movie seems to be progressing along well.

The funny thing is D&D was actually wriiten and filmed before movies that made most of the things people say are cliched about it, it simply spent two years in post production and then came out after a slew of movies that had done exactly what it had done, and all of them had actually been filmed after it. odd.

Serenity better Save Sci-Fi, if it doesnt I have a feeling well be doomed to multiple "The Adventures of Pluto Nash: The attack of the domes:" coming into theateres, and I just dont think most Sci-Fi fans will bother bothering.

If people only beleive wahts in a movie, their damn well sure beleiving Serenity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 13, 2004 4:48 AM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG

Personally I loved the LoTR films, fellowship was amazing, the others dropped the ball a bit but not by much, and while I respect your opinion, I don't think you can say RoTK was bad because of the effects. I think they were great, but you should be watching the films for the story, not judging it by the standard of the effects, especially when comparing it to the D&D movie!
I agree with you about the endings, but to do justice to the book all of them needed to be in there (but without that silly fade-to-black between them all) as they're all in the book. Though I still reckon it would have made more sense to include the Scouring...

check out my WIP firefly roleplay system at www.estador.co.uk/firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 13, 2004 5:19 AM

EST120

Quote:
Originally posted by MutantFriend:
OK, so I went to go see The Chronicals of Riddick. Ummmm, how you say? La poo poo? I mean it was ok in parts, but the action was a mess. The editing and cinematography were total crapola. Combine that with overbaked fx and it was just plain "hard to watch". The movie itself was Flash Gordon meets Dune - which taken in the correct context, isn't all THAT bad (well, ok maybe it is - but I like Dune and FG).

i would kind of agree. the movie was not TERRIBLE, it was watchable and worth the $5 i spent on a ticket, but they completely lost the characteristics that made pitch black so interesting and unique. i liked pitch black and the riddick character because he is such a self serving guy. he oozes confidence and for the most part can completely back it up. i felt this was very lost in the sequel where riddick gets too overshadowed by special effects and a bizzare story. i feel that you cannot make riddick into a hero.

my 2 cents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 13, 2004 8:37 AM

ZOID

Hello, MutantFriend, longtime lurker, firsttime(?) poster:

While I can appreciate your appeal for Oscar-worthy sci-fi, I'm going to have to disagree with your "go for Oscar" suggestion for Joss' first feature film as a director/producer. While this seems to be a self-contradiction, please bear with me...

If anything, I think Joss and Crew should focus on keeping things as they were on the TV series. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Firefly was the best sci-fi on television, ever. Star Trek? I watched it from behind my father's recliner because it was after my bedtime; I still know it so well that I can watch the first few seconds of an episode and give a complete synopsis, and I haven't watched a full episode of TOS in fifteen years. I know Star Trek. It wasn't good sci-fi; it was great space opera.

What separates Firefly from every other attempt to bring sci-fi (as opposed to space opera) to the screen (movies or television) are the characters and dialogue. Every time I watch an episode of Firefly -- even those eps I didn't think were particularly good -- I ask myself, "Would you have paid money to see that in a theater, especially compared to what you have been hoodwinked into paying for in the past?" For me the answer is a resounding, "Yes!"

Even the worst Fifefly episode is better than 99% of anything that has ever been on TV, better than 80% of all movies in the history of filmmaking, better than more than 90% of the dreck studios are currently spewing. Taken as a whole, Firefly is the greatest story serially told, by the greatest original storyteller to date. Where is the 'big picture' story arc and character evolution in Star Trek? There is none. Oh, sure, Sulu comes to grips with his homosexuality, Scotty with his alcoholism, and Chekov with his disjointed obsessions with his Uncle Vanya and cherry orchards; but the main characters, Kirk and Spock? Never. They are iconic and one-dimensional.

I don't want to start a 'zoid hates ST TOS' rumor, so I'll reiterate: ST TOS was revolutionary and made possible all the other sci-fi on TV, and is the template from which most movie sci-fi springs today. But it's dated, now, and never really good from the standpoint of characters. As a morality play it was great. We learned that differing races and religions could live and work (and even love) together. We learned that cooperation was a better recipe for success than blind, winner-take-all competition. We learned that a Real He-Man will sleep with any woman, regardless that she is green and has antennae (and probably without a condom, too). We learned -- most importantly -- to respect other cultures, and why it was important to do so (Prime Directive); this was in direct conflict with America's "Manifest Destiny" politics, and a courageous statement on behalf of the show's creators. There, zoid is not dissing Star Trek, m'kay?

But Firefly is true sci-fi, in a way that few if any other filmic depictions have ever been. It is character-driven. It is drama and comedy and action, just coincidentally set in the future. From a strictly 'characters' standpoint, it would work equally as well in a modern or Old West setting, although elements of dialogue would appear unrealistic and anachronistic, and cultural elements like legalized/religiously-sanctioned prostitution would seem likewise fantastic. Set in the 'anything's possible' future, Joss is able to take us places in the human heart that those other settings would not allow us to go. By freeing his characters from the strictures of a historical timeframe, JW takes his audience places we've never been, to see sides of our humanity we've never seen. But it's not just about morality, it's about every one of the characters' maturation and evolution, on a personal level. Nobody's done that in cinematic sci-fi.

Joss should go into filming with a 'steady as she goes, Mr. Whedon' mentality. His art is good enough. Arguably, the downfall of Star Wars was when Lucas started believing his own press, and shooting for Oscar, or at least 'great art'. Let's hope for all our sakes that Joss doesn't fall victim to the peculiarly 'Hollywood' virus that has claimed the Great God of the Ewoks (dude, GL doesn't even need prosthetics to pull off the look).

I'm praying Joss keeps a level head, remembers where he came from, the fights he's had to wage to keep his own vision pure, and the mistakes he's been party to (Alien Resurrection). I'm hoping Oscar is the last thing on his and/or his actors' minds. When he gives us Firefly: Serenity, if it is true to the 'verse and characters he's given us thus far, we'll all be exiting the theater joyously pounding our chests and pumping our fists, saying, "See? I told you it'd be great!"

(with the exception of zoid, who will spontaneously combust during the scene in which all the female cast members bathe naked in a jungle pool)

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

Only 312 days, 10 hours, 29 minutes, and 34 seconds left until The BDM!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 13, 2004 8:58 AM

PEACE

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
The only hope for SF being as good in films as it is in print is if the Hollywood money boys will let the writers tell the story and keep their f***ing hands off! And I'm talking about writers like Joss, who with Serenity has a very good chance of creating a classic. And lets not forget, Tim Minear is adapting Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which has enough plot elements to appeal to a wide range of movie-goers.

TIM MINEAR!!!! THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS!!!!! OMG! OMG! OMG!

This made my day! Now if we can just keep a studio hack from ruining the production....

Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 13, 2004 9:57 AM

PEACE

Mutantfriend, I must respectfully disagree with part of your original premise-- that a really great, Oscar-worthy sci-fi movie will make studio heads see the light and start making quality sci-fi movies. You give far too much credit to the non-creative pinheads who populate most of the executive positions in most movie and TV studios. When these jokers see a great film, by and large their reaction is not, “gee, let’s make something just like this”, it’s “how can we cash in on this in the cheapest and fast way possible?” This is historically verifiable: when Star Wars came out (a film which fundamentally redrew the landscape in Hollywood), there were a few creative geniuses like Spielberg and Ridley Scott who produced work like Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien. The vast majority of productions, however, were quickie dreck, like Battle Beyond the Stars, Ice Pirates, and Battlestar Galactica. This is because the people who by and large run Hollywood are money men and lawyers who haven’t a creative bone in their bodies. This fact affects every movie Hollywood produces, but it is especially acute with sci-fi, because the studio suits also just don’t understand science fiction. And except for individual mavericks like Joss, there is very little prospect of this changing.

We should also remember that LOTR itself was a pure anomaly. Even Peter Jackson himself has said that it made no rational sense for New Line to hand this project, with a $300 million budget and an unprecedented shooting schedule, to a comparatively unknown director. LOTR was one of those projects where all the factors lined up in a way that was once-in-a-century and produced something never seen before. But don’t think for a moment that there aren’t any number of execs sitting in their offices right now, saying, “How can we cash in on this?” That’s just the way Hollywood works these days.

We can all hope for something on the scale of LOTR to hit sci-fi moviedom, but, frankly, folks, I don’t recommend holding your breath. As much as I expect and hope Serenity will do well and kick butt as a movie and as a money-maker, I don’t expect it will have that level of impact.

Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2004 2:54 PM

MUTANTFRIEND

Quote:
Originally posted by Peace:
Mutantfriend, I must respectfully disagree with part of your original premise-- that a really great, Oscar-worthy sci-fi movie will make studio heads see the light and start making quality sci-fi movies. You give far too much credit to the non-creative pinheads who populate most of the executive positions in most movie and TV studios. When these jokers see a great film, by and large their reaction is not, “gee, let’s make something just like this”, it’s “how can we cash in on this in the cheapest and fast way possible?” This is historically verifiable: when Star Wars came out (a film which fundamentally redrew the landscape in Hollywood), there were a few creative geniuses like Spielberg and Ridley Scott who produced work like Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien. The vast majority of productions, however, were quickie dreck, like Battle Beyond the Stars, Ice Pirates, and Battlestar Galactica. This is because the people who by and large run Hollywood are money men and lawyers who haven’t a creative bone in their bodies. This fact affects every movie Hollywood produces, but it is especially acute with sci-fi, because the studio suits also just don’t understand science fiction. And except for individual mavericks like Joss, there is very little prospect of this changing.

We should also remember that LOTR itself was a pure anomaly. Even Peter Jackson himself has said that it made no rational sense for New Line to hand this project, with a $300 million budget and an unprecedented shooting schedule, to a comparatively unknown director. LOTR was one of those projects where all the factors lined up in a way that was once-in-a-century and produced something never seen before. But don’t think for a moment that there aren’t any number of execs sitting in their offices right now, saying, “How can we cash in on this?” That’s just the way Hollywood works these days.

We can all hope for something on the scale of LOTR to hit sci-fi moviedom, but, frankly, folks, I don’t recommend holding your breath. As much as I expect and hope Serenity will do well and kick butt as a movie and as a money-maker, I don’t expect it will have that level of impact.

I hear ya, Peace. You make a good point, but, I've gotta say, I really think that it is this exact thinking that gets us in trouble as Sci-Fi fans. Look, Sci-Fi used to be this little niche genre with teenage boys filling the fan ranks. Dude, I'm 31. Married for 9 years. I have three kids. I make a lot of money compared to the average Joe. Me and every other guy I know my socio-economic bracket - loves Sci-Fi. Sci-Fi is no longer the domain of kids and dorks. It is every blue-blooded male (and a bunch of females) born since 1960. WE are the fans. WE deserve much much better than The Phantom Menace, Riddick, etc etc etc...

As fans , we wait with nervous excitiment every time a new Sci-Fi movie comes out in hopes that it will somehow live up to our expectations AND intellect. Once. Once in the last five years - has anything even remotely come close to that mark. The Matrix.

What I want Joss to do is make a movie that a guy like me can enjoy, but at the same time - make such a good story that everyone (or at least a good portion of the movie-going public) can enjoy with me. A story like LOTR or Braveheart or Gladiator. A guy's movie that chicks dig too. A true oscar contender.

I feel that if this ever happened - we'd be treated to a lot more quality movies wrapped up in a Sci-Fi setting. Character dramas - built around a futuristic setting. Blade Runner, Aliens, Close Encounters... these are what we need. The Matrix Sequels could have saved us - but alas, that was not to be. We're still in the same boat as we were when this whole techo-fx revolution started. Sci-Fi sucks for the most part. The studios throw $200 million dollars at a crappy script and we all flock to have our "minds blown". Barf...

If Joss pulls this off like I think he can - he could change the way movie studios think about Sci-Fi and its fanbase. No pressure though...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2004 4:34 PM

THRAWN

Quote:
Originally posted by Peace:
We should also remember that LOTR itself was a pure anomaly. Even Peter Jackson himself has said that it made no rational sense for New Line to hand this project, with a $300 million budget and an unprecedented shooting schedule, to a comparatively unknown director. LOTR was one of those projects where all the factors lined up in a way that was once-in-a-century and produced something never seen before. But don’t think for a moment that there aren’t any number of execs sitting in their offices right now, saying, “How can we cash in on this?” That’s just the way Hollywood works these days.

Mutantfriend, my post above was kinda rambly, and I think we both missed what each other was trying to say - Peace here just said it much better. All I was trying to point out was that it's an unreasonable goal. Serenity won't be Lord of the Rings - that will never happen again. Period. It was a combination of about 80,000 coincidences and details, including the fact that the source material more or less defined the fantasy genre in the first place. Science fiction already had its LOTR, and that was Star Wars, almost 30 years ago. You'll notice that bad sci-fi was cropping up almost immediately after that...give fantasy 6 or 7 years, and it'll be back to the way it was pre-LOTR.

My other point was that movies, in general, suck, and so even if Serenity is as good as LOTR and as impressive, there's no way it will make all other sci-fi good. Movie studios won't start producing exclusively good sci-fi, they'll just start producing more. There will be more good ones, but also more bad ones. It won't Change The Way The Entire Hollywood Machine Views Sci-Fi except to perhaps move it further into the "more profitable" column (which, as you've pointed out, it's pretty far into anyway.) The effects from LOTR haven't spread enough to truly say that studios aren't making any more bad fantasy...all that seems to be true is that they are making a lot more, and it isn't out yet, so we can't tell.

And I resent you telling me that my mindset is the reason sci-fi sucks - I don't go see the bad movies, I only go see the good ones. I don't support the crap. I don't want them to make crap. I realize how annoying it is that they do. I just don't expect the situation to change - I've been dissappointed enough in the past not to start thinking "this could be it!". It won't be.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2004 4:58 PM

RKLENSETH

All I have to say is "Doing the impossible makes us mighty".

Just because "Star Wars" defined the Sci-Fi genre doesn't mean that "Serenity" will redefine the Sci-Fi genre or even the Western, Dramatic, War, etc... genre. Hell, can Firefly really even be put in a genre. It really does go beyond almost every known genre. The only reason why we define Firefly as Sci-Fi and a Western is because it is the look of the show. a friend of mine said that Firefly is really something new set in a future fontier.

But I think it would be awesome if "Serenity" did take home the Oscar for Best Picture. I mean when the show was cancelled, many said that Firefly would simply disappear. When it was rumored to be put out on DVD, many said it wouldn't happen. When it it was rumored that Universal wanted to make a movie, many said who would make a movie of a cancelled 'failed' tv show. I get these same responses when I say that "Serenity" could replace "Titantic" as number one box office hit of all time. Remember the long trek that Firefly has taken and look at its come back. Lets not give up hope because it seems impossible. Becaus,e as we have already proven, the impossible can happen.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE