|
>"no idea is original" thing
>
>but i mean HIGHLY derivative.
And it's probably only fair to talk about "genre films." But name a genre whose films are not all very similar to one another? I think the problem is that the elements of Sci-Fi are so obvious: whether it is space ships, aliens, ray guns or even the themes such as "We are destroying our planet" or "We are too reliant on technology". You can't hide those elements in a movie in the same way you can disguise the standard elements of a serial killer movie. Really, the only thing that distinguishes SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and the Morgan Freeman-Ashley Judd movies is the quality of the writing. A good romantic comedy (say, MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, I guess) and a bad one (I don't know, HITCH, maybe) will be almost identical save for its ability to make you care about the main characters. People say the RomCom is dead primarily because the all suffer from a fatal defect in the genre, namely, that you go in knowing how it will end and so there is virtually zero suspense.
But name a genre that hasn't been declared dead? And they are usually considered dead because people feel all the stories have been told and everything is derivative.
Westerns are supposedly dead, as noted. They were dead before UNFORGIVEN came out. Maybe they are dead again, but 3:10 FROM YUMA is coming out and getting good reviews.
Horror was dead, then it wasn't, now it is again. Unless it isn't.
You rarely hear that Crime or Police Procedurals are dead, but they are some of the most derivative movies ever. "Future worlds" all look alike because of lazy writers or filmmakers. Police procedurals look alike because they have to. Eventually, someone will create a new vision of the future, but the next cop movie will always look a lot like the last cop movie.
Romantic Comedy is the only one everyone can agree *should* be buried, yet there's a new batch of them every year.
Any of these genres can and will be considered revived as soon as someone comes up with a really original-seeming take on a story.
But the one thing that prevents Sci-Fi from being truly dead is the one thing that is inherent in Sci-Fi and not in the other genres (though it could certainly be present in other genres), and that is the social commentary element. As long as someone with talent is willing to use the future, space, technology or some combination of these, and there is still something in the world to comment on, then Sci-Fi has a better than average chance of new great entry into the genre.
You like Children of Men, the Waterworld premise, and I do too. And there really isn't anything preventing something as original as those coming out next year. That's why I say it's silly for Scott to say the genre is dead. All it takes is one new vision.
RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com
PS - I agree with the other post about the mainstream's limited vocabulary. There is no reason why Eternal Sunshine can't be considered science fiction.
PPS - I agree with the stuff below about sci-fi people being too restrictive with their terminology. The mainstream audience doesn't give a shit about distinctions such as "space western" or "speculative fiction" or even fantasy to a certain degree.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
