Sci-fi done by outsiders, better or worse? by reginaroadie

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Sci-fi done by outsiders, better or worse?

POSTED BY: REGINAROADIE
UPDATED: Sunday, January 6, 2008 07:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2633
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, January 3, 2008 4:51 PM

Hey All

I was thinking about something recently, and I want to run it by you guys to see if I'm not alone in this.

I'm assuming that we're all hardcore sci-fi geeks in general, and that out love for this kind of stuff extends beyond Joss' work. And I'm sure that those who have seen a wide variety of sci-fi/fantasy movies and tv shows and read tons of sci-fi books can answer this question.

Are sci-fi movies/tv/books that are made by people who don't normally do genre work better than people who do genre work for a living? I think it's an interesting question, because while some of you guys can name off guys immersed in genre who do this stuff flawlessly (Joss, Ronald D. Moore, J.J. Abrams), I actually like it and sometimes prefer guys who normally don't do sci-fi/fantasy and give it a try, which sometimes leads to really great stuff. I can give you an example in each medium.

For movies, I like to look at Bryan Singer and his two X-MEN movies and SUPERMAN RETURNS. Now, before he did X-MEN, he said that he never read any of the comics. And his claim to fame before X-MEN was THE USUAL SUSPECTS. But he said that he was a sci-fi geek and a Trekker and that he realized the massive following the comics had, and that he should treat the X-Men just like he would want someone to treat any of his favorite sci-fi stories. And I think because he had a thriller background as well as being an outsider, both figuratively and literally, he was able to bring the depth and pathos that the two movies are famous for, and that the third one was seriously lacking.

For books, I point to Cormac McCarthy with THE ROAD. If you had read any of Cormac's books, you know that sci-fi is the last thing that this guy would even think about. He's a minimalist author who loves to write about the open range, and how savage and violent it can be. And when you hear the premise of THE ROAD, you wonder why you should read it. Anyone whose seen MAD MAX or THE ROAD WARRIOR has pretty much seen every "post apocalypse" movie. But anyone whose read the book knows that it is a fucking amazing book. It's insanely simple, but just the tone and atmosphere that's conveyed in the pages, and the drive of the characters to survive when there may be nothing out there to survive for. And it's stuff like that that makes the argument for more non-genre writers and directors to do this stuff, because no normal sci-fi author can come up with this stuff.

And as for TV, I have to go with the granddaddy of them all, Rod Serling. He basically created THE TWILIGHT ZONE because he was tired of the censors and networks forcing to take out some of the more socially risque bits out of his Playhouse 90 scripts. He figured by disguising it in sci-fi, he could get away with it. And by doing that, he completely re-invented sci-fi on tv.

Now, I have nothing against guys like Joss and Ronald D. Moore. They pretty much breathed sci-fi fantasy on tv and created FIREFLY and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA so that they could re-invent what to them was becoming a stagnant formula. And I guess because of that desire to re-invent the wheel, they ended up re-invigorating it.

But I still that some of the best stuff in the genre is done by people outside of the genre. Like one movie I'm itching to see this year is THE PINEAPPLE EXPRESS. It's another Judd Apatow movie with Seth Rogen and James Franco, and it's described as a sort of stoner version of BAD BOYS. But the guy directing it is David Gordon Green. And if you know who he is, you know that this REALLY is going to be something fresh and new. And as good as Joss was with the vampire myth in BUFFY and ANGEL, I can't wait to see Alan Ball's interpretation of the vampie with his new HBO show. THAT'S the one new show that's on hold due to the strike that I want to see, even more than DOLLHOUSE.

So what do you think? Are some of the best bits of sci-fi/fantasy done by outsiders?

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

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

Thursday, January 3, 2008 5:53 PM

STRANGEBIRD

Well I guess it depends. Most genre writers burn out eventually, somehow keeping their jobs and or core fan bases yet pumping out pointless crap that is difficult to watch or read. There are notable exceptions, Joss for example though as for major fan bases he's only been around for a little over a decade so we can't say for sure. I seriously doubt that man will ever run out of genius ideas.

I do agree that non-genre writers and directors sometimes bring in new concepts or lend their talent from making other genre work. But the same could be said of an unexperienced writer just starting out. It all has to do with fresh ideas and new angles.

I will argue that once they ENTER the genre they are in fact no longer outside of it.

Oh and I too think Pineapple Express looks interesting... but please explain what it has to do with SCIFI?

--------------------------------------------------
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein

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

Thursday, January 3, 2008 6:14 PM

REGINAROADIE

Yes, they may enter it, but it doesn't mean they're exclusive to it. Look at Cormac McCarthy. Even though THE ROAD is his latest book, I don't think he's going to win a Hugo or give Orson Scott Card a run for his money. The point is, I don't think he's going to be relegated to the sci-fi section at Chapters anytime soon. It's taken him this long to win a Pulitzer, and even then some people say that's it's not exactly his best work. Now, the only other book of his I've read is BLOOD MERIDIAN. I'm a fan, but I'm not altogether familiar with his work. Roger Ebert said that him winning a Pulitzer for THE ROAD is like Martin Scorsese winning for THE DEPARTED. It's a really good movie, but it pales in comparison to RAGING BULL or GOODFELLAS.

As for what PINEAPPLE EXPRESS has to do with sci-fi, I'm just bringing it up as an example of an outsider being brought in to do something completely different. David Gordon Green's movies include GEORGE WASHINGTON, ALL THE REAL GIRLS, UNDERTOW and the upcoming SNOW ANGELS. All of them are slow, meditative, heavily improvised, intimate dramas about normal people living normal lives. UNDERTOW was described as an episode of THE DUKES OF HAZZARD directed by Terrence Malick. He's the closest thing to a Terrence Malick disciple. So for him to do an action comedy with Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen is like Joss Whedon making a dirt cheap indie flick about the war in Iraq, or Jim Jarmusch being tapped to make the next Harry Potter movie. It's a complete left field move.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

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

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:13 AM

SINGATE

I'll throw Ridley Scott into the mix as someone who has dabbled in sci-fi but isn't exclusive to it. Based on Alien and Blade Runner the man should be enshrined in some sort of sci-fi movie geek hall of fame. He also did quite well with Legend, while not sci-fi it is certainly a departure from mainstream films.

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

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

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:39 AM

REGINAROADIE

I just thought of another example. Tim Kring with HEROES. His claim to fame before HEROES was CROSSING JORDAN. And with HEROES, he created it because he noticed the big boom in comic book movies and after getting into it, decided to do his own take on the superhero myth that got rid of the stuff he wasn't into (the codenames and costumes) and focus more on the characters and how they deal with these new powers. And that to me makes the whole superhero thing fresh and new. I like to describe HEROES as a neo-realist version of X-MEN.

Apparently, I'm not alone in this. Today, there's this article on EW.com about how sci-fi is becoming stagnant and that everything's just a remake of something else. While I agree that there should be more originality in sci-fi (I don't really need to see a remake of BIONIC WOMAN or KNIGHT RIDER), I think this guys forgetting about a few pretty revolutionary bits of sci-fi in the last few years, like FIREFLY/SERENITY, CHILDREN OF MEN, THE MATRIX, THE ROAD, etc.

Here's the link to it.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20169296,00.html

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

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

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:48 PM

RIVERFLAN

Quote:
Originally posted by StrangeBird:
Well I guess it depends. Most genre writers burn out eventually, somehow keeping their jobs and or core fan bases yet pumping out pointless crap that is difficult to watch or read. There are notable exceptions, Joss for example though as for major fan bases he's only been around for a little over a decade so we can't say for sure. I seriously doubt that man will ever run out of genius ideas.

I do agree that non-genre writers and directors sometimes bring in new concepts or lend their talent from making other genre work. But the same could be said of an unexperienced writer just starting out. It all has to do with fresh ideas and new angles.

I will argue that once they ENTER the genre they are in fact no longer outside of it.

I agree. Also, there are those prolific people who never seem to run out ideas. One example is Joss. Another that I'm going to bring up is Alan Dean Foster, who writes sci-fi books. I, personally, only like one of his series, but that's because I'm more fantastically inclined. He comes up with really good explanations for the tech involved in these stories, and he's a bestselling author.

I say it depends on the writer. New is nice when they can pull it off, but old can work too. Yes, there is a stagnating point, but up untill then the "insiders" can do a lot of neat stuff, and it's worth watching/reading. And sometimes a writer's stagnating point is very far into the future.

Swirligigs!
#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#

\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

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

Friday, January 4, 2008 3:35 PM

ECGORDON

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

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
...or Jim Jarmusch being tapped to make the next Harry Potter movie.

Now that I would watch, and I haven't seen a Potter film yet.

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

Friday, January 4, 2008 3:46 PM

STRANGEBIRD

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
...or Jim Jarmusch being tapped to make the next Harry Potter movie.

Now that I would watch, and I haven't seen a Potter film yet.

I have... unfortunately.

Anyway @REGINAROADIE I was thinking about Tim Kring right after I posted. Your right, he's a perfect example of someone who brought his talent for making one genre and lent it to making Scifi. Making it better in the process. I actually liked Crossing Jordan when I could catch it. I never got a chance to sit down and watch a whole season. I really should keep my eyes open for it.

Oh and also I can see how someone could overlook the Matrix, the sequels were so bad they nearly eclipse the originality and style of the first installment. I finally sat down and watched all the rest of the third one to see how bad it was. I barely made it through.

<------<<< ~~~~~~~~~~(*)~~~~~~~~~~ >>>------>
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein

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

Friday, January 4, 2008 4:19 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

I think the key is to be a good storyteller. I think that's it. The only reasons I can think of for a good storyteller from another genre to fail to be good at sci fi are things like falling into stereotypes and out-of-genre anxiety.

There is no skill used in creating sci fi that isn't used in another genre.

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

Saturday, January 5, 2008 3:19 AM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
There is no skill used in creating sci fi that isn't used in another genre.

That depends what sub-genre of sci fi you're talking about - most screen sci fi is fantasy or space opera, in which the science and tech is really just a backdrop. "Hard" SF - in which speculation about science and technology is central to the plot is another kettle of fish. I'm not sure if a non-genre author could do what (e.g.) Greg Egan, Stephen Baxter or Arther C Clarke do in their books. Of course - Hard SF is something a minority interest (you don't need a degree in Physics to read a Greg Egan book, but it helps).

However - I think this thread is drawing a false dichotomy. "Firefly", "BSG", "Heroes", "Dr Who" and, I suppose, even "Lost" have managed to broaden the appeal of TV SF by greatly increasing the emphasis on character and human drama, regardless of whether the producer is a geek or a mundane.

Also, we're just getting to the stage where the children of the 60s and 70s who cut their teeth on TV SciFi are starting to reach positions of influence in the industry - replacing the old guard for who SciFi was just something their kids watched. Watch any of the "making of" shows for Doctor Who, for instance, and you'll see producers, writers, cast and crew waxing lyrical about how (old) Doctor Who was a key inspiration for wanting to work in TV.

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

Saturday, January 5, 2008 8:08 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

I'm not sure that's true. There are, to my knowledge, two kinds of hard sci fi.

One is where the plot emerges from speculation about science or technology, while this does require that the author is capable of either speculating about, or understanding speculation about, science or technology the actual skill of creating a plot from speculation is something that is used in historical and contemporary fiction as well as fantasy.

The other is where the story essentially is speculation about science and technology. In that case the skill used isn't creating a plot from speculation, the skill is making speculation worth reading. That is a skill used in many other genres. The truth is it that it seems in every genre there is always someone who can craft pure speculation into a good story.

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

Sunday, January 6, 2008 7:15 AM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
In that case the skill used isn't creating a plot from speculation, the skill is making speculation worth reading. That is a skill used in many other genres. The truth is it that it seems in every genre there is always someone who can craft pure speculation into a good story.

Except that in other genres the "speculation" is usually about people, politics and events. A hard SF writer not only needs to know the science, but to understand it deeply enough to apply artistic license to it.

Case in point would be the later Star Treks vs. Babylon 5. Trek - because of the infleuntial nature of the original - has delusions of "hardness" and often tried to tech-centric SciFi by committee. B5 was a classical tragedy which happened to be set in space - in much the same way as Macbeth can be "done" in medieaval Scotland, ancient Japan, 1930s Germany or a modern 3-star London restaurant (I kid you not).

In Trek, an implacable enemy would be defeated primarily because Geordi/Torres/O'Brien "invented something" on the spot - and the problem of which particle of the week to re-route via which bit of hardware was left blank for the technical advisors in the geek enclosure to fill in.

In B5, inplacable enemies got defeated because, effectively, Sheridan led the injuns into the canyon and then dynamited the walls. The final battle was not won by some superweapon, but by tricking the two "puppet master" superpowers into a direct confrontation. The technobabble there, but always just stage dressing. Someone was smart enough to see that "hard" SF is hard to do on screen, and took care not to try.

For the sake of provocation I'd propose that the only credible (big) screen *hard* SciFi flick is "Apollo 13" - and then only because the Sci- was factual and the Fi- could concentrate on storytelling. Maybe "2001" (first attempt at non-Flash-Gordon space travel) but they removed most of the hard SF from the sequel "2010" (the book was mainly a celebration of the "Voyager" data and speculation about life on Europa ans Jupiter).

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE