What happened to awesome space movies?

[LordFerret]

13 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Problem with Hard Sci Fi, is that the fan base is somewhat limited.  The general population wants drama and action, like what we saw with Gravity, Interstellar and Armageddon.    They sacrificed quite a lot of realism for these aspects.  The HSF wants realism first, and drama and action a close second.  It's very difficult to appease the HSF fanboys without a faction going off on a tangent about how that's not how *insert technical stuff* works!

To a large degree, I'll agree with this. I also think it has a lot to do with 'who reads and what'. Too much of today doesn't read, at least not books.

Hollywood lost it's magic, or rather 'class', long ago. There are no more worthy writers / creators. These days it's pretty much nothing more than an endless series of remakes of remakes of remakes on themes the general public is familiar with and hold popular.

I find that both funny and sad... make that pathetic... as there are tons of old, original, fantastic science fiction stories from an earlier era that would make outstanding movies - if done right. I'm sure all of you could throw a handful of names of authors and titles into the hat on this subject, those 'old' Sci Fi books or novelettes you've read.

[kerbiloid]

A realistic sci-fi would for 90% consist of teeth cleaning, vacuum cleaning, and exercise bike spinning.

Sometimes they read books with instructions and do something unclear.

[adsii1970]

The problem is there's not a lot of stomach for pure "science fiction" and the Star Trek franchise has shown us this. The Motion Picture was Gene Roddenberry's attempt to relaunch a new Star Trek series based on the "ongoing mission' of the Enterprise and her crew. In the Star Log magazine, I remember reading an article around 1980 or so that one of the collaborators for the "new" Star Trek series (and an uncredited contributor to The Motion Picture) was none other than Carl Sagan.

The Foundation Series (Issac Asimov) and the Rhama series (Arthur C. Clarke) are both in my own science fiction library and I love them. In fact, I am re-reading the foundation series now. But the probem is the global consumer of sci fi movies want flash, bang, and pow - no matter how unrealistic it is. They do not care about real science and the possibility of what we MIGHT see in the future.

Edited November 14, 2018 by adsii1970

[KSK]

1 hour ago, LordFerret said:

To a large degree, I'll agree with this. I also think it has a lot to do with 'who reads and what'. Too much of today doesn't read, at least not books.

Hollywood lost it's magic, or rather 'class', long ago. There are no more worthy writers / creators. These days it's pretty much nothing more than an endless series of remakes of remakes of remakes on themes the general public is familiar with and hold popular.

I find that both funny and sad... make that pathetic... as there are tons of old, original, fantastic science fiction stories from an earlier era that would make outstanding movies - if done right. I'm sure all of you could throw a handful of names of authors and titles into the hat on this subject, those 'old' Sci Fi books or novelettes you've read.

I think that second point is slightly unfair.  The three films that the OP referenced were hardly remakes of remakes. Sure, calling two of them hard sci-fi might be a bit of a stretch but they were all a bit different and, speaking personally, I enjoyed them all. Similarly,  Arrival was very different and, again in my opinion, very well done. Good enough that I bought the book after seeing the film in fact. Even some of the endless stream of superhero films (and there, I do agree that that's become a seriously overused genre lately) were pretty good films, with decent characters and character interaction even if the stories were (necessarily) far-fetched.

The third point - well you've got the big weasel words right there: if done right. Some stories just don't translate well to the big screen, or at least not intact. I thought Arrival was quite a good example of that. The central conceit of the story was fascinating but it was - wisely in my opinion - somewhat skipped over in the film. Trying to convey that conceit on screen without breaking the flow of the film with excess exposition would have been extremely hard and probably not worth the effort (artistically or financially), given that the film was already somewhat off the beaten track.

And that, I think, is one of the fundamental problems with hard sci-fi films. If you're basing the story primarily around the science then, unless you can fit in a lot of seamless exposition (and remember that exposition takes time, which is a valuable commodity in a film), you're basing it on something that most of your audience won't get, or care about. That still applies even if you can assume that most of your audiences are at least somewhat scientifically literate. How many cell biologists (for example) are going to know, or care about the finer details of orbital mechanics.

Story comes first. If you can tell the story without taking too many liberties with the science then great but mostly that's a bonus. Because science for science's sake makes for lots of exposition and a  dull story. The consequences of that science, the social changes that that science enables, how the story characters react to those consequences and changes - now there you've got some serious scope for storytelling. Whether or not the science is presented absolutely correctly, isn't so important, especially on the big screen.

Jurassic Park is a prime example here. Even in the book the 'science' is pretty laughable and, even if you don't know the first thing about genetics, its not hard to see some serious logical flaws in it. That doesn't stop Jurassic Park from being a great read - in fact I'd say that throwing in just enough plausible technobabble to tell the story, was one of Crichton's strengths. 

Regarding hard sci-fi films about space - they also suffer from a couple of other problems. Pacing is one, spaceflight being generally about short periods of high drama and/or complicated maths, interspersed with lots of journey time. Tension is another. I've found this in my own writing - it's surprisingly hard to have something go wrong with a near-to-current-technology spacecraft, that the crew can plausibly recover from. It's even harder if you're not re-writing Apollo 13.   Out of fuel - astronauts are dead. Booster explodes on launch - astronauts are dead. Major system malfunction that can't be repaired - astronauts are dead. Wrong shape of CO₂ scrubbers that can't be rejigged with a checklist cover, duck tape and an old sock - astronauts are dead. Makes it kind of hard to inject suspense into the story.

Edited November 14, 2018 by KSK

[TheSaint]

Welcome to Hollywood. Space was big. Everyone had to make a space film. There were tons of space films, some were good, some were awful. And then, space fell out of fashion. Now, apparently, Robin Hood is big, everyone has to make a Robin Hood film. It's the nature of the beast.

1 hour ago, LordFerret said:

To a large degree, I'll agree with this. I also think it has a lot to do with 'who reads and what'. Too much of today doesn't read, at least not books.

Hollywood lost it's magic, or rather 'class', long ago. There are no more worthy writers / creators. These days it's pretty much nothing more than an endless series of remakes of remakes of remakes on themes the general public is familiar with and hold popular.

I find that both funny and sad... make that pathetic... as there are tons of old, original, fantastic science fiction stories from an earlier era that would make outstanding movies - if done right. I'm sure all of you could throw a handful of names of authors and titles into the hat on this subject, those 'old' Sci Fi books or novelettes you've read.

The real problem is the enormous cost of making films these days, especially science fiction films. Nobody wants to front $100-200 million to make a movie if they aren't sure they're going to make money on it. And, despite what they may want to tell the public, their shareholders, or their immediate supervisors, studio executives do not have any surefire way of knowing what will or will not make a movie successful. This is why we have movie franchises, and A-list actors, and boutique directors, and, basically, the entire Hollywood machine as it is today. Because once something has made money once Hollywood is much more willing to bet on it making money again.

You can find very creative people making films these days, but they are mostly making low-budget independent films. That's where you find people willing to take risks. But it's kind of difficult to make a sweeping sci-fi epic with a $100,000 budget.

[p1t1o]

They didnt go anywhere, we just happen to get 3 good ones close together. 3 good space movies in 3 years is huge for the genre.

[tater]

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

The Foundation Series (Issac Asimov) and the Rhama series (Arthur C. Clarke) are both in my own science fiction library and I love them. In fact, I am re-reading the foundation series now. But the probem is the global consumer of sci fi movies want flash, bang, and pow - no matter how unrealistic it is. They do not care about real science and the possibility of what we MIGHT see in the future.

Foundation is being done as an Amazon series right now, apparently. I think a reboot will do it good (the tech and the Mad Men in space doesn't fly any more).

[StrandedonEarth]

Agreed, it’s hard to do interesting, realistic space movies or tv. The best one can hope for is good drama that happens to be set in space.

 But I still think Larry Niven’s “Known Universe” of fiction has plenty of great ideas to put on one screen or another, from Rimgworld to the Man-Kzin wars. I have to wonder why it hasn’t happened yet. Did he refuse to sell the rights?

[0111narwhalz]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Consider Phlebas

Phlebas… That word sounds familiar.

Phlebotinium?

[TheSaint]

48 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Agreed, it’s hard to do interesting, realistic space movies or tv. The best one can hope for is good drama that happens to be set in space.

 But I still think Larry Niven’s “Known Universe” of fiction has plenty of great ideas to put on one screen or another, from Rimgworld to the Man-Kzin wars. I have to wonder why it hasn’t happened yet. Did he refuse to sell the rights?

I think you could make a movie out of the saga of trying to make a movie out of Ringworld. It's been in Development Hell for decades. Last I heard (stop me if you've heard this one before) it has been bought by Amazon. I hope that they give it the treatment it deserves.

Man-Kzin Wars could be adapted into a great serial, something similar to the new Battlestar Galactica in scope, especially if they pull in some of the hidden stuff that was only revealed later in the story line. (No spoilers for the uninitiated, but those of you who know will know.)

I think they could also pull off The Tales of Beowulf Shaeffer, Gentleman Adventurer! There are plenty of stories they could adapt, and the concept has a lot of room for growth. Give it a bit of a pulpy, over-the-top, Indiana Jones-ish vibe, but still keep the gritty hard sci-fi aspects.

[tater]

1 hour ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Phlebas… That word sounds familiar.

Phlebotinium?

 

From The Waste Land, by T.S. Elliot:

Quote

 

Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,

Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell

And the profit and loss.

                                   A current under sea

Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell

He passed the stages of his age and youth

Entering the whirlpool.

                                   Gentile or Jew

O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,

Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

 

 

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Agreed, it’s hard to do interesting, realistic space movies or tv. The best one can hope for is good drama that happens to be set in space.

 

I don't really think this is the case. Good stories are good stories. You can make a movie of a play that never leaves an apartment, and it can be good. Gravity was crappy for people who grok orbital mechanics, etc, but the underlying story---the woman dealing with the death of her child---was not really a bad one, it was just the "one thing after another" overdone train wreck that was bothersome.

The Martian, was widely liked, and it's fairly "hard" in the sense of near future, not much magical tech, etc. On that note, the film rights to Artemis were bought outright before the book was on shelves, so we can expect a high-budget treatment of that at some point.

I really don't think the problem is making "hard" settings interesting, I think it's more a lack of imagination. Space opera is actually easier to do, particularly with modern effects. No need to think about what it should look like, just film it!

Even broad space opera can be relatively hard. Break physics for some sort of FTL drive (ideally something like a "jump" or stargate sort of thing), and have everything else as hard as you like.

[LordFerret]

On 11/14/2018 at 11:15 AM, KSK said:

Crichton

An interesting mention, one of my more favorite authors. Two things of Crichton's I'd like someone to remake; The Andromeda Strain, and The Terminal Man.

Another thing I think having major potential is When HARLIE Was One (David Gerrold). Especially today, I would think it very relevant and a story of interest to many (if done right).

Edited November 16, 2018 by LordFerret
Because I can't spell or type or both. :/

[adsii1970]

1 minute ago, LordFerret said:

An interesting mention, one of my more favorite authors. Two things of Crichton's I'd like someone to remake; The Andromeda Strain, and The Terminal Man.

Another thing I think having major potential is When HARLIE Was One (David Gerrold). Especially today, it would think it very relevant and a story of interest to many (if done right).

Sphere was also good... Made a mediocre movie, though...

[Nuke]

23 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Agreed. Every episode before Scorpion part 1 is boring, only when Jeri Ryan comes in do the episodes actually become good. Lots of explosions

i can name a couple areas where the show improved from that point on.

[Nuke]

23 hours ago, tater said:

I tried to get into it, but just couldn't. Then I decided to give it a second try, and I picked the episode where there is a ridiculous slingshot maneuver around Jupiter, and it was so stupid I changed channels.

at least they are trying. name another show where they lay their ships out properly in respect to the thrust vector. the only other show i remember even remotely trying to incorporate hard scifi elements was babylon 5. they did some stuff right and a lot of stuff wrong but it was still a great show.

tv and movies are never going to be a good format for hard scifi.

[Chel]

57 minutes ago, Nuke said:

i can name a couple areas where the show improved from that point on.

Please, name them

Also one of my favourite episodes is when the Doctor teaches Seven of Nine to sing "You are my sunshine". 

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

i can name a couple areas where the show improved from that point on.

You joke but on a rewatch of all of Trek (took 3 years and it was great viewing in general) I was shocked at how much better the show was with her on it. She could have looked like Neelix and that wouldn't have changed my opinion. I'm not even 100% sure it was her but she was one of the best actors on the show. At the very least, Robert Picardo didn't have to carry the entire show all by himself anymore.

[Nuke]

32 minutes ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Please, name them

Also one of my favourite episodes is when the Doctor teaches Seven of Nine to sing "You are my sunshine". 

do i have to spell it out for you </londo>

[StrandedonEarth]

37 minutes ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Seven of Nine

As a tangent, I know a guy whose dog was born seventh in a litter of nine.... Do I have to tell you what he named her?

 

[Chel]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

As a tangent, I know a guy whose dog was born seventh in a litter of nine.... Do I have to tell you what he named her?

 

Jeri?

[p1t1o]

14 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Phlebas… That word sounds familiar.

Phlebotinium?

Phlebotomist? (a person who draws blood, like when donating)

[Lisias]

Had anyone saw Pioneer One? Not exactly "in space", but yet, a good history.

http://vodo.net/joshbernhard/pioneerone/

[purpleivan]

On 11/15/2018 at 2:44 AM, StrandedonEarth said:

As a tangent, I know a guy whose dog was born seventh in a litter of nine.... Do I have to tell you what he named her?

 

Fido?

On 11/15/2018 at 12:20 PM, Lisias said:

Had anyone saw Pioneer One? Not exactly "in space", but yet, a good history.

http://vodo.net/joshbernhard/pioneerone/

I did... actually I put a few dollars into the crowd funding for it.

It was ok given it's miniscule budget, and had a good premise, but really needed a bit more money to make it work.

[Cydonian Monk]

Good space movies didn't leave Earth, they just left Hollywood.

"Время первых" (2017), aka "The Spacewalk", aka "The Age of Pioneers" is a very good space film. And unlike "Salyut 7", the version of it available in the US has good English subtitles, so I won't hesitate to recommend it. Well worth checking out. 

Edited November 17, 2018 by Cydonian Monk
Edit: This forum software is terrible.

[Piatzin]

Wait, so am I the only one who really enjoyed LIfe (2017)?