link (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2351086.ece)
short article in which Sir Ridley Scott says essentially we've seen it all before. It's easy to be cynical I suppose, but is he right? I mean, sci fi is a pretty narrow genre. If we don't fix our attitude towards the envirnoment or war or something we are going to be like these people in this dystopian world were everyones boss is...a robot or something.
and aren't most sci fi films action movies?
I liked that Wernor Herzog one that just came out, but that is not exactly mainstream or sci fi fanboy. maybe that's the point
"Whatever happened to the guy walkin' down the street with his hands in his pockets, whistlin' a tune? Science Fiction & Nostalgia have become the same thing." - T Bone Burnette, The Wild Truth
I'll still love sci-fi even if ideas are running a bit dry. I don't really see it as a dead genre. There's great potential in the upcoming adaptation of The Stars My Destination. That could be a stunning film if there's some passion and skill put into it.
Sci-fi (TV and movies), has always been several decades behind science fiction (literature). They haven't even based a SINGLE movie on anything by Poul Anderson yet, and Scott's pronouncing the genre dead?
They should have made "The Stars My Destination" with Humphrey Bogart, like in "Jeffty Was Five".
Let's see the title of the story is Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott
Hmm let's see the western is DEAD? And Sci-Fi is dying?
Do the guys the made 3:10 to Yuma that comes out next week, a western know this? There are 1000's a sci-fi books that haven't even been touched yet as the prior poster noted.
Sorry Ridley you're wrong.
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on August 31, 2007, 07:49:04 PM
Let's see the title of the story is Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott
Hmm let's see the western is DEAD? And Sci-Fi is dying?
Do the guys the made 3:10 to Yuma that comes out next week, a western know this? There are 1000's a sci-fi books that haven't even been touched yet as the prior poster noted.
Sorry Ridley you're wrong.
How many times have the genres been combined? Granted, some of them were really bad, but there were some good ones in there too. I kinda like them myself
Most GOOD sci-fi litature is way too intellegent for Hollywood. Heinlen is almost impossible to transfer to the big screen ,at least by "dummy- down'' type directers. (IMO)
The travesty that was Starship Troopers is testimony to that.
Methinks the ol' director doth protest too much. Back in the 1970s, a lot of people had the very same attitude about the world and the movie industry both being in decline. The movie Logan's Run, in particular--which was not actually too bad a film, though it does show its age rather badly these days--bombed, and a lot of people thought the genre was finished.
Then a certain young director by the name of George Lucas came out with a fun little science fiction movie. A lot of people were skeptical that anyone would care to see a science fiction movie that wasn't bemoaning how we were all going to end up in some horribly polluted dystopian future, but it sold amazingly well. The movie in question, which finally got everyone in Hollywood to stop calling the merchandising clauses in the contracts the "junk" clauses, was of course Star Wars, today known as Episode IV. The film and its resulting sequels and prequels and spin-offs are all Hollywood's meat now, but it's worth remembering that it revolutionized the entire industry in its time.
There's currently a dearth of originality in Hollywood, but it's not as if no one has any new ideas, even in science fiction; given some new blood and fresh talent, I think we can expect to see a film any day now that'll leave all the current hacks wondering why they didn't think of making it themselves. As for war and the environment... well, first, Gore & Co. have blown the whole "climate change" problem all out of proportion; we do have some responsibility to take out the garbage, conserve energy, and generally avoid destroying too much land and life, but demanding that we all accept the radical greens' highly political and absurdly exaggerated apocalyptic scenario just because it would make a great movie if it were true is the very opposite of being responsible. In any case, we're not all going to die of any ballyhooed environmental apocalypse any time soon, and we movie-goers won't keep turning out in huge numbers for any more of The Day After Tomorrow's kind of nonsense.
As for war, Hollywood's hypocritical hatred and contempt for our country and our military is what's keeping it from making any truly good war movies; instead, it prefers to posture about its politically correct drawings of moral equivalence between troops and terrorists, and cops and criminals, as if this were a laudable, rather than utterly contemptible and morally bankrupt view of the world. This is Hollywood's greatest blind spot, in fact: that it is incapable of seeing how our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are actually some of the most righteous and morally unambiguous wars we've ever fought, and that the Islamofascists we're facing overseas are such living caricatures of evil (see "Islamic Rage Boy" for an example) that they might as well have been born the orcs of Mordor.
We do need a new kind of propaganda blitz to win this new kind of war our enemies are waging on us, however; unlike the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union (which was remarkably similar to the one in the original Star Wars movies, in fact, especially when one adds in the deleted footage), this terrorist network of loosely affiliated organizations is not confined to any single easily identified bloc of nations. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas and all the rest have no Coruscant and no Death Star. What we are facing is more like a horde of James Bond wannabes, if James Bond were working for evil instead of for good. (Such a scenario is not that difficult to imagine, actually: we wouldn't want agents from other countries employing the same tactics against us that James Bond employs against his enemies.) Al Qaeda, unlike the Evil Empire, also has the World Wide Web. Just imagine how different Star Wars would be if the characters in that story's universe had ever had such a thing!
In fact, I suspect this is the kind of film that will ultimately revolutionize science fiction movies in Hollywood the way Star Wars did: a film that takes everything Star Wars ever taught us about war and turns it on its head. In such a story, Death Stars would be obsolete, with the real threats to life and limb coming from ideology and infiltration. The main danger would be the ease with which an enemy suicidally committed to your destruction (spiritual as well as physical) could inflict massive damage on your whole population with one well-placed bomb and/or hijacked transport. The hero of this story would be an utterly shameless corporate shill who comes up with a completely tacky and tasteless advertising campaign combined with a massive and heavily-armed smuggling operation that, perhaps with the help of some secret support from sympathetic government officials, successfully undermines the terrorists' ideology and turns the public against them.
This would be a sci-fi comedy, needless to say.
Your joking,right? I mean about the war in Iraq being the "most righteous and unambiguous " war we've ever fought-part? :question:
I think "self rightous ", on George Bush's part. As for morals...I seriously don't believe that "fighting the good fight" was on W's mind when we got into this thing in Iraq. His intents are far more political...and I have a hard time equating Bush's politics as anything remotly connected with morality.
I was going to go on a long tirade of why I think Bush is the WORST President in US History...but I thought better of it.
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on August 31, 2007, 07:49:04 PM
Let's see the title of the story is Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott
Hmm let's see the western is DEAD? And Sci-Fi is dying?
Do the guys the made 3:10 to Yuma that comes out next week, a western know this? There are 1000's a sci-fi books that haven't even been touched yet as the prior poster noted.
Sorry Ridley you're wrong.
Not to mention that...
MTV said the same thing about rock and stopped showing so many rock videos, but then when it became "vogue" again, they started playing them like nothing happened.
Toho has said the same about daikaiju films, and yet
D-War,
The Host, and
"Cloverfield" have come out or are still looming on the horizon.
Does anyone also remember the time before
Scream came out that a horror/thriller film being theatrically released was virtually unheard of? Now, we see a new one every month or so, not to mention hordes of them on DVD, and tons of reissues.
It's all a swinging pendulum. Sci Fi is not popular at the moment, but it doesn't mean that no one will ever revolutionize it or bring it back into popularity. If you look at the history of just about any facet of humanity, you'll see this is true. Just look at religion. How many times in history have we had religious peaks, but then troughs? And what follows a trough but a revival. I think Sci Fi is on the down swing, but give it a bit longer and people will be looking at it more favorably.
I would say it's more like fashion, everything come back into style at some point.
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 31, 2007, 10:31:03 PMYour joking,right? I mean about the war in Iraq being the "most righteous and unambiguous " war we've ever fought-part? :question:
I think "self rightous ", on George Bush's part. As for morals...I seriously don't believe that "fighting the good fight" was on W's mind when we got into this thing in Iraq. His intents are far more political...and I have a hard time equating Bush's politics as anything remotly connected with morality.
I was going to go on a long tirade of why I think Bush is the WORST President in US History...but I thought better of it.
Joking I am not, young paduan. Fight the good fight, Bush does. This refrain I hear from Bush haters too often; political and immoral his foes' attacks on him are...
All right, enough with the Yoda talk already!
However, I should point out that I do already know what kinds of things your tirade would include, as I've heard way too much of this kind of talk aready... and I thank you for skipping it, just as I'm going to skip my tirade about what I think of people with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Quite frankly and honestly, though, I do believe that most of Bush's ostensible reasons for fighting this war have been right, and that he does have good moral moral intentions for fighting this war in Iraq AND Afghanistan. (Of course, I have no way of knowing Bush's motives for certain, but no one else can read Bush's mind either; one should never trust anyone who pretends otherwise.) The short explanation for why I believe these things is here (http://www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html), and one of the longer (and more articulate) ones is here (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-06-03-1.html).
And yes, I do think a science fiction movie for our times would reverse almost every lesson we learned from the original Star Wars; it was a science fiction movie for its time, too, which was the Cold War era. As is all too common, our mistakes in this war have mostly come from acting as if we were fighting the previous war.
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 31, 2007, 10:31:03 PM
I was going to go on a long tirade of why I think Bush is the WORST President in US History...but I thought better of it.
Two Words .... Jimmy Carter.
I disagree. Sci-fi is far from dead, with the advent of CGI and its continued growth I think we could start seeing Sci-fi movies on a scale not seen previously before. The new StarWars movies, while I think they sucked plot wise, are a perfect example of how CGI can create even larger and more complex worlds. Perhaps the only reason we haven't seen many new sci-fi movies is one lack of imagination on either the film makers parts or on the movie company's, and two money. Big budget sci-fi movie are notoriously expensive.
Now if this quote was about horror movies I would agree. While we are seeing a recent boom in horror movies as of late they are mostly remakes or new takes on old ideas, vampires, werewolves, zombies etc. Horror movies are far more limiting in there originality
Quote from: Inyarear on September 01, 2007, 12:00:27 AM
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 31, 2007, 10:31:03 PMYour joking,right? I mean about the war in Iraq being the "most righteous and unambiguous " war we've ever fought-part? :question:
I think "self rightous ", on George Bush's part. As for morals...I seriously don't believe that "fighting the good fight" was on W's mind when we got into this thing in Iraq. His intents are far more political...and I have a hard time equating Bush's politics as anything remotly connected with morality.
I was going to go on a long tirade of why I think Bush is the WORST President in US History...but I thought better of it.
Joking I am not, young paduan. Fight the good fight, Bush does. This refrain I hear from Bush haters too often; political and immoral his foes' attacks on him are...
All right, enough with the Yoda talk already!
However, I should point out that I do already know what kinds of things your tirade would include, as I've heard way too much of this kind of talk aready... and I thank you for skipping it, just as I'm going to skip my tirade about what I think of people with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Quite frankly and honestly, though, I do believe that most of Bush's ostensible reasons for fighting this war have been right, and that he does have good moral moral intentions for fighting this war in Iraq AND Afghanistan. (Of course, I have no way of knowing Bush's motives for certain, but no one else can read Bush's mind either; one should never trust anyone who pretends otherwise.) The short explanation for why I believe these things is here (http://www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html), and one of the longer (and more articulate) ones is here (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-06-03-1.html).
And yes, I do think a science fiction movie for our times would reverse almost every lesson we learned from the original Star Wars; it was a science fiction movie for its time, too, which was the Cold War era. As is all too common, our mistakes in this war have mostly come from acting as if we were fighting the previous war.
Bush Derangement Syndrome ? If I wanted to go on a tirade, I'm sure it would make no sense to you any way,being I am not interested in changing your mind,or political beliefs...you can lead a horse to water,but you can't make them drink.
Belief systmes,be it political,religious,social, what have you, will never be changed by me, war, killing at each other. Not very realistic,I know. That's the world. But I will NEVER condon it as'moral' or 'rightous'. THAT was the line that set me back. War means killing people. Tell a child wailing over her dead mother about morality or rightousness. Dead is dead.
So howsabout we just agree to disagree...and leave it at that?
As for Star Wars...Reagan adopted the term "Evil Empire'' from Star Wars...not the other way around. And Star Wars,to me,was more of a blown-up serial, ala Flash Gordon, a Black Hats vs. White Hats tyope of thing. Simplistic. Unlike the ways of the real wheeling and dealing and smoky back room politics that shape the world we live in.
I don't think sci-fi is dead. My faith in Hollywood product is pretty nil, but perhaps some forgeign filmaker will break out with some thing innovating.
There is a vast, and untapped body of science fiction short stories and novels out in the literary world, all that is needed is for movie makers to start using it. They would have to be a little more concerned with the quality of the film than the cost, but with CGI effects the cost needn't be extreme. There is enough variety to appeal to just about every one.
The Ballad of Lost C'Mell by Cordwainer Smith
Storm Over Warlock by Andre Norton
Have Spacesuit Will Travel, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, & Glory Road, all by Robert Heinlein
Trader to the Stars by Poul Anderson
Any of the Bolo or Retief stories by Keith Laumer (and Eric Flint on the Retief series)
I could go on for a long time, 45 years of reading Sci-fi covers a lot of short stories and novels, in the short list above you have adventure, aliens, artificial intelligence, dragons, espionage, monsters, revolution, romance, sex, & war. Science fiction is not dead, to make it on the big screen it's just going to take better film makers than the ones we have now.
rcmerchant- I'm no fan of Carter's but Bush is way worse than he or Nixon or LBJ. Carter had some bad economic ideas, but the country was back on it's way to prosperity after a few years of Reagan. the fallout from the massive amount of money bush has spent and pledged, the iraq war, the medicare drug bill, will be with us for a long long time.
Quote from: lester1/2jr on September 01, 2007, 12:50:30 PM
rcmerchant- I'm no fan of Carter's but Bush is way worse than he or Nixon or LBJ. Carter had some bad economic ideas, but the country was back on it's way to prosperity after a few years of Reagan. the fallout from the massive amount of money bush has spent and pledged, the iraq war, the medicare drug bill, will be with us for a long long time.
I agree. Actually,Jimmy Carter was a breath of freash air after the sneaky conniving Nixon years....who,in comparison to Geo.W.,seems like a saint. The sad part is,Bush is such a puppet,I believe he does'nt give a rat's ass what happens in the world,as long as he and his cronies (Halliburton being a major player) benifit. I'm all for capitalism,but playing political games for profit,using human lives as pawns, is more than immoral. It's coldblooded.
And I don't see a Nobel in Bush's future.
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on August 31, 2007, 07:49:04 PM
Let's see the title of the story is Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott
Hmm let's see the western is DEAD? And Sci-Fi is dying?
Do the guys the made 3:10 to Yuma that comes out next week, a western know this? There are 1000's a sci-fi books that haven't even been touched yet as the prior poster noted.
Sorry Ridley you're wrong.
While i agree sci fi ain't dead (sunlight, the new battlestar G, donnie darko, ESSPM, for the new scifi) Westerns are dead circa 92' with the release of Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood personally giving the dead horse a decent burial. The large bulk of westerns now are remakes (which 3:10 is) or tributes, using the west setting and story style as a novel form of period piece.
Quote from: penny lizardo on September 01, 2007, 03:08:53 PM
While i agree sci fi ain't dead (sunlight, the new battlestar G, donnie darko, ESSPM, for the new scifi) Westerns are dead circa 92' with the release of Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood personally giving the dead horse a decent burial. The large bulk of westerns now are remakes (which 3:10 is) or tributes, using the west setting and story style as a novel form of period piece.
Except for ...
Tombstone (1993)
Dead Man (1995)
Lone Star (1996)
Deadwood (2004-2006)
The Proposition (2005) Aussy Outback Western
Open Range (2003)
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005) Modern Western
Ghost Town: The Movie (2007)
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007)
And a few more I can't think of right now. Granted it's not as popular as it once were, but it's not dead either. To say dead would mean that another one will never ever be made and I find that a little hard to believe.
Are you sure the man didn't really say the executives responsible for greenlighting sci-fi projects are brain dead and his comments were taken out of context?
Case in point: The 'Sci-Fi' channel.
Specifically: Flush Boredom. (Credit to the original wit who thought that up.)
Just saying.
One of my favorite things about this board is how a discussion about the future of SF film turns into a political discussion and a discussion about westerns.
I wouldn't have it any other way. :smile:
As for SF being dead....I don't quite agree with Ridley. I believe that the problem is that the studios don't want to pump money into a SF film only to have it be the next Battlefield Earth. They would rather pump some cash into a PG-13 horror film and watch the money roll in from the teen market.
Us SF fans are starting to get a bit of notice though, especially on TV. Heroes, Eureka, Battlestar, etc all prove that there is a huge market for SF and that the fans are out there. If people are not going to SF films then it's the studios fault for putting out crap in the genre rather than putting out something engrossing that the fans will enjoy. Next and Deja Vu (directed by Tony Scott, Ridley should slap him) are the type of films that turn us fans off of the genre.
The best SF that I've seen in the past decade has all been independent. Hell, take a look at Primer. I can honestly say that Primer is the best SF film in 10 years or so. It's intelligent, doesn't rely on special effects and makes the viewer think. Isn't that what SF has always been about, whether in literature or film - to get people to think!?
quick note: "Wild Blue Yonder" was the film I was referring to in the first post. werner herzog's latest sci fi art thing. I couldn't remember the name before
continue discussing george bush's balls or whatever it was
Quote from: lester1/2jr on September 01, 2007, 05:54:42 PM
quick note: "Wild Blue Yonder" was the film I was referring to in the first post. werner herzog's latest sci fi art thing. I couldn't remember the name before
continue discussing george bush's balls or whatever it was
:bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :thumbup:
Jimmy Carter didn't have a chance; I expect he naively thought his convictions and honesty, willingness to compromise, and firm stance on a real honest-to-goodness belief system would serve him as an efficient and galvanizing president. Fool ! Instead, he was faced with partisan politics, back room glad-handed deals, and hawks eager to eviscerate a country mouse. Jimmy Carter didn't have a chance because he was an honest man.
I agree with RCMERCHANT (Bela) about STAR WARS, which I love. It's a fantasy rather than true science fiction...though long pegged as such.
I certainly agree with INYAREAR that the film changed Hollywood and had an enormous impact on popular culture. We all could lighten up, though. :smile:
Quote from: Skaboi on September 01, 2007, 05:08:18 PM
One of my favorite things about this board is how a discussion about the future of SF film turns into a political discussion and a discussion about westerns.
I wouldn't have it any other way. :smile:
Nor would I, you know many us live for the stream of consciousness.
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 01, 2007, 09:45:55 AMSo howsabout we just agree to disagree...and leave it at that?
Fine by me. As Trotsky is alleged to have said, though, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. To that I'd add, war changes people's beliefs all the time. It's kind of like the question about whether your boss is able to control what you think: if he fires you, you'll think you're unhappy, right? The hypothetical girl in your example would probably be adjusting her beliefs to include a vow of vengeance against
somebody.
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 01, 2007, 09:45:55 AMAs for Star Wars...Reagan adopted the term "Evil Empire'' from Star Wars...not the other way around.
That's the idea: life imitates art and art imitates life. Reagan wasn't even the first one to think of the Soviet Union that way. He just attached a handy name to the concept; a name he had handy largely thanks to George Lucas & Co.
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 01, 2007, 09:45:55 AMAnd Star Wars,to me,was more of a blown-up serial, ala Flash Gordon, a Black Hats vs. White Hats tyope of thing. Simplistic. Unlike the ways of the real wheeling and dealing and smoky back room politics that shape the world we live in.
Actually, though very little of it shows up on the screen in the original trilogy, the Star Wars stories did include some questionable dealings in the service of the Rebel Alliance's righteous cause, such as their attempts to strike a bargain with the thoroughly sociopathic crime lord Jabba for Han Solo. As one very amusing article (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html) also points out, their necessary destruction of the second Death Star must also have brought a terrible environmental catastrophe on their ewok friends on the planet Endor.
(Mon Mothma and all her cronies in the Rebel Alliance are therefore war criminals for sacrificing so many of their own soldiers and civilian lives in her illegal, self-serving, politically motivated Endor War, right? And Mon Mothma is the WORST leader in all the galaxy's history, even worse than Emperor Palpatine ever was, right? Palpatine naively thought his convictions and honesty, willingness to compromise, and firm stance on a real honest-to-goodness belief system would serve him as an efficient and galvanizing Chancellor. The fool! Instead, he was faced with partisan politics, back room glad-handed deals, and Mace Windu's Jedi hawks eager to eviscerate a wet-behind-the-ears upstart from the pleasant backwaters of suburban Naboo.)
(Is the satire light-hearted enough for you, AllHallowsDay?)
The more recent trilogy, of course, was full of backstabbing and hints at shady deals in smoke-filled rooms; but the franchise was already pretty well played out by then too.
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 01, 2007, 09:45:55 AMI don't think sci-fi is dead. My faith in Hollywood product is pretty nil, but perhaps some forgeign filmaker will break out with some thing innovating.
There are also domestic studios outside of Hollywood that sometimes get an offbeat feature screened in the mainstream theaters. Mel Gibson did that with The Passion. Drew Barrymore also had a less successful cult hit with her Donnie Darko.
(Maybe what we need is an actor-turned-director to do a film. Anybody got Bruce Willis on speed dial?)
QuoteNor would I, you know many us live for the stream of consciousness.
You know, this drought has really dried up most of the streams around here.
I hope the fish and the crawdads are OK.
So, who likes pie?
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/atom_ant.jpg)
Quote from: Raffine on September 02, 2007, 12:31:37 AM
QuoteNor would I, you know many us live for the stream of consciousness.
You know, this drought has really dried up most of the streams around here.
I hope the fish and the crawdads are OK.
So, who likes pie?
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/atom_ant.jpg)
I like pecan!
(Yer a weird one Raffine! :bouncegiggle: :thumbup: )
inyarear- trotsky got an icepick in the brain for saying stuff like that. wars in the 20th century were largely the product of his type of big government ideological ends justify the means crusade. which is very much alive in the neoconservative think tanks, much to the civilized worlds disadvantage.
Quote from: Inyarear on September 02, 2007, 12:01:00 AM
(Mon Mothma and all her cronies in the Rebel Alliance are therefore war criminals for sacrificing so many of their own soldiers and civilian lives in her illegal, self-serving, politically motivated Endor War, right? And Mon Mothma is the WORST leader in all the galaxy's history, even worse than Emperor Palpatine ever was, right? Palpatine naively thought his convictions and honesty, willingness to compromise, and firm stance on a real honest-to-goodness belief system would serve him as an efficient and galvanizing Chancellor. The fool! Instead, he was faced with partisan politics, back room glad-handed deals, and Mace Windu's Jedi hawks eager to eviscerate a wet-behind-the-ears upstart from the pleasant backwaters of suburban Naboo.)
(Is the satire light-hearted enough for you, AllHallowsDay?)
:lookingup: That's neither satire nor light-hearted. That's a shot. My suggestion was simply to keep it light.
Quote from: lester1/2jr on September 02, 2007, 09:21:31 AMinyarear- trotsky got an icepick in the brain for saying stuff like that. wars in the 20th century were largely the product of his type of big government ideological ends justify the means crusade. which is very much alive in the neoconservative think tanks, much to the civilized worlds disadvantage.
I'm sure he did. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. The appeasement-mongering left-wing spin machines are the forces undermining civilization, not the serious academics of the right.
Quote from: Inyarear on September 02, 2007, 07:01:44 PM
Quote from: lester1/2jr on September 02, 2007, 09:21:31 AMinyarear- trotsky got an icepick in the brain for saying stuff like that. wars in the 20th century were largely the product of his type of big government ideological ends justify the means crusade. which is very much alive in the neoconservative think tanks, much to the civilized worlds disadvantage.
I'm sure he did. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. The appeasement-mongering left-wing spin machines are the forces undermining civilization, not the serious academics of the right.
Some would say it's both. It's completely and foolishly close-minded to believe that only one side of politics is in the wrong. I consider myself to be a staunch liberal but I can say that the democrats are in the wrong just as much as the republicans.
Awright .I gotta say it...if I don't I'll burst. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. In fact, I really don't give a rat's ass about politics at all. But the fact of the matter is-George Bush is a f$cking babbling idiot. There. I feel better now.
Of course,so am I. but I am not the leader(?) of this country.
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 02, 2007, 08:13:52 PM
Awright .I gotta say it...if I don't I'll burst. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. In fact, I really don't give a rat's ass about politics at all. But the fact of the matter is-George Bush is a f$cking babbling idiot. There. I feel better now.
Of course,so am I. but I am not the leader(?) of this country.
:bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :thumbup:
Quote from: Skaboi on September 02, 2007, 07:13:17 PM
Some would say it's both. It's completely and foolishly close-minded to believe that only one side of politics is in the wrong. I consider myself to be a staunch liberal but I can say that the democrats are in the wrong just as much as the republicans.
Could not agree more; I've voted both ways and am a staunchly registered independent! :smile:
Quote from: Inyarear on September 02, 2007, 07:01:44 PM
The appeasement-mongering left-wing spin machines are the forces undermining civilization, not the serious academics of the right.
So... are you suggesting that writers and thinkers left of center are spin doctors, and only those on the right true academics? :question:
All this poliical mumbo jumbo has gotton us waay off track of the REAL subject: Is sci-fi dead? Well...I think this short film is an answer to the future of sci-fi...
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRuC1AliLso
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 02, 2007, 09:45:19 PM
All this poliical mumbo jumbo has gotton us waay off track of the REAL subject: Is sci-fi dead? Well...I think this short film is an answer to the future of sci-fi...
That was too stupid for words, so, of course, I loved it. I don't know that I agree with your segue, Babe, I mean Bela. "All this political mumbo jumbo...?" You were the one who had the outburst. :teddyr:
Yes...I did. But I meant mumbo jumbo in a dumbo way. In other words...I'm an idiot! :teddyr:
I get carried away at times...but mentioning the far right and serious academics in the same sentence kinda turned my brain into jello.
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 02, 2007, 10:00:51 PM
Yes...I did. But I meant mumbo jumbo in a dumbo way. In other words...I'm an idiot! :teddyr:
I get carried away at times...but mentioning the far right and serious academics in the same sentence kinda turned my brain into jello.
Thanks. :teddyr: You're not an "idiot." I applauded your comment, and am abandoned in the process. BTW, I didn't write "far right." Don't care, it's a board and I waded into a political discussion--mistake! I was hoping INYAREAR would've responded, but instead now we do have "jello."
My addition to the discussion: The coronation scene in the original Star Wars was taken from the infamous Nazi propaganda movie Triumph of the Will. What does that mean? Who cares?
As far as sci-fi being dead? Stupid.
It's a blowhard statement by a director, and where did it come from? An off-the-cuff interview?
The problem with sci-fi is that for most people it's only a type of movie, usually involving space and aliens. Science fiction, for a quick and dirty definition involves the future or the near future. That will never die, and it will change as often as some new person decides to take a look at it. Harry Turtledove's alternate timeline books are "science fiction." That's not the future, but still sci-fi?
So I think that Ridley Scott was pretty much thinking all sci-fi meant his sci-fi. It's a dumb thought. Just because you're out of ideas doesn't mean everybody else is too.
But then again, why would you all of a sudden claim Deckard was a replicant? Does it help the movie?
inyarear- the serious thinkers on the right are pat Buchanan and Ron paul, not the neo cons. the toads at townhall and the weekly standard are israeli propaganda specialists who have little actual knowledge of the middle east and /or war and have seen little to none of either. war is their answer for everything., when that fails, more war, when that fails MORE war. we'd still be in vietnam, somalia, the 90% tax rate, prohibition and every other stupid government intervention into our lives if they had their way.
at any rate, the cold war is over, our presence in the middle east is, in fact ,obsolete.
I LIKE TATER TOTS!!!!
Sorry. I try never to get involved in heavy political conversations like the one that this thread has become, and frankly, it's become rather boring.
I know. I have the option of not looking in on the thread, but it's kinda like a car wreck.
That being said...I STILL LIKE TATER TOTS!!!!
Sci-Fi is far from dead. It may not be as popular right now as it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s but it's only a matter of time before its popularity returns. The dumbing down of concepts and CGI (which quite frankly doesn't impress more often than not if not combined with old FX techniques) I feel are both doing damage to Sci-Fi.
Quote from: lester1/2jr on September 03, 2007, 08:12:15 AMinyarear- the serious thinkers on the right are pat Buchanan and Ron paul, not the neo cons. the toads at townhall and the weekly standard are israeli propaganda specialists who have little actual knowledge of the middle east and /or war and have seen little to none of either. war is their answer for everything., when that fails, more war, when that fails MORE war. we'd still be in vietnam, somalia, the 90% tax rate, prohibition and every other stupid government intervention into our lives if they had their way.
Oh, puh-lease! Next thing you'll be telling me is that 9/11 was an inside job and the Holocaust never really happened. "Serious thinkers" like that who go around preaching their bloody Jew hatred, Bush hatred, and America hatred are the very "spin doctors" I have in mind here. Now that you bring them up, though, I will add that conspiracy theorists like Ron Paul and xenophobic blowhards like Pat Buchanan are real nutjobs too. I wouldn't vote for either of those David Duke wannabes: I'm not THAT far to the right!
Quote from: Allhallowsday on September 02, 2007, 08:58:39 PMSo... are you suggesting that writers and thinkers left of center are spin doctors, and only those on the right true academics? :question:
Well, the ones I've met are, anyway. (Take Lester here, for instance...) For college, I went to the "think tank" of Hillsdale in Michigan, where there were no speech codes, no smoking prohibitions, and essentially no political correctness whatsoever; this in contrast to other colleges, which were and are full of this crap, and the "mainstream" media, which was and still is something like 90% Democrat. (I continue to read about their spin and out-and-out lies every day at www.newsbusters.org.) The stark contrast between the two sides only seems to get starker with time.
Quote from: Mofo Rising on September 03, 2007, 03:56:25 AMMy addition to the discussion: The coronation scene in the original Star Wars was taken from the infamous Nazi propaganda movie Triumph of the Will. What does that mean? Who cares?
Well, as a rule, when plagiarizing your work from history, steal from the best! The Nazis used all the best pageantry they could find in support of their despicable cause. Perhaps George Lucas was simply offering a subtle hint that the age of self-flagellation was over and it was all right for people to start holding spiffy parades and coronation ceremonies again. As you say, though, who cares?
Quote from: Mofo Rising on September 03, 2007, 03:56:25 AMAs far as sci-fi being dead? Stupid.
It's a blowhard statement by a director, and where did it come from? An off-the-cuff interview?
The problem with sci-fi is that for most people it's only a type of movie, usually involving space and aliens. Science fiction, for a quick and dirty definition involves the future or the near future. That will never die, and it will change as often as some new person decides to take a look at it. Harry Turtledove's alternate timeline books are "science fiction." That's not the future, but still sci-fi?
So I think that Ridley Scott was pretty much thinking all sci-fi meant his sci-fi. It's a dumb thought. Just because you're out of ideas doesn't mean everybody else is too.
Exactly. To this, I would add that AI: Artificial Intelligence is sci-fi. Deep Impact is sci-fi. Even Back To The Future is sci-fi (albeit a rather cheesy kind). Science fiction has plenty of technological possibilities and impossibilities left to explore, and it always will.
Quote from: Inyarear on September 03, 2007, 01:55:57 PM
Well, the ones I've met are, anyway. (Take Lester here, for instance...)
That's another one of your not-so-thinly-veiled shots... but, you don't fool me. :wink:
Quote from: Inyarear on September 03, 2007, 01:55:57 PM
For college, I went to the "think tank" of Hillsdale in Michigan, where there were no speech codes, no smoking prohibitions, and essentially no political correctness whatsoever; this in contrast to other colleges, which were and are full of this crap, and the "mainstream" media, which was and still is something like 90% Democrat. (I continue to read about their spin and out-and-out lies every day at www.newsbusters.org.) The stark contrast between the two sides only seems to get starker with time.
Uhm... did it occur to you that Republicans spin their version of the truth, too? Newsbusters.org is like citing the New York Post as a news source, and I would suggest that it's biased. You think "mainstream" media is 90% Democrat, that's quite a lofty percentage, but interesting considering how Bill Clinton was barbecued by the largely Democratic media... I think the "biased" media angle is an excuse for the significantly bad press the Republicans have gotten these last several years, not to mention thru much of the 20th century! But it works both ways and is ultimately relevant to what or whom is newsworthy. Anybody remember DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN? Nothing's changed as far as human nature. Selling is even more important to America than partisan politics.
Quote from: Inyarear on September 03, 2007, 01:55:57 PM
Well, as a rule, when plagiarizing your work from history, steal from the best! The Nazis used all the best pageantry they could find in support of their despicable cause. Perhaps George Lucas was simply offering a subtle hint that the age of self-flagellation was over and it was all right for people to start holding spiffy parades and coronation ceremonies again. As you say, though, who cares?
Some 'tis true, but I think largely baloney. LENI RIEFENSTAHL made a remarkable film (TRIUMPH DES WILLENS) but in the service of murderers.
"conspiracy theorists like Ron Paul and xenophobic blowhards like Pat Buchanan "
right , so a guy who worked in the reagan white house and a guy with the most conservative voting record IN HISTORY are wackos, but joe lieberman and john mcain are normal. now i've seen everything. open borders, high taxes, late trimester abortion and wars of choice are mainstream conservatism. we are really in bizarro world.
"Next thing you'll be telling me is that 9/11 was an inside job and the Holocaust never really happened. "
next you'll be telling me the WMD are in Syria and that saddam and al queda were buddies.
and I'm not a leftist. I 'm a libertarian and very very conservative.
Quote from: Allhallowsday on September 03, 2007, 07:14:43 PMUhm... did it occur to you that Republicans spin their version of the truth, too? Newsbusters.org is like citing the New York Post as a news source, and I would suggest that it's biased. You think "mainstream" media is 90% Democrat, that's quite a lofty percentage, but interesting considering how Bill Clinton was barbecued by the largely Democratic media... I think the "biased" media angle is an excuse for the significantly bad press the Republicans have gotten these last several years, not to mention thru much of the 20th century! But it works both ways and is ultimately relevant to what or whom is newsworthy. Anybody remember DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN? Nothing's changed as far as human nature. Selling is even more important to America than partisan politics.
Well, I dare say it's biased! The very idea that a news source could be otherwise strikes me as a rather quaintly silly notion. Still, I never saw Clinton "barbecued" as you claim, except in the sense that the entertainers of the time did make a lot of bad jokes about him. Remember how people went around claiming the Oklahoma City Bombing was an "inside job" intended to boost Clinton's approval ratings? Remember how they called him a "war criminal" for his "illegal" war in Kosovo and harped on what a genocidal dictator he was with all his war-mongering, akin to Hitler? Remember how Ken "The Christmas Starr" was praised and lauded all over the press for months for his endless investigations into Clinton skulduggery? Me neither. Actually, I continue to hear flimsy rationalizations for all his nonsense to this day.
I might also point out the the New York Post IS a news source, just as the New York Times is a news source. The former has far more credibility with me than the latter, of course, just as Michelle Malkin has far more credibility with me than, for example, Connie Chung, Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, or Keith Olbermann.
Quote from: lester1/2jr on September 03, 2007, 07:28:15 PMnext you'll be telling me the WMD are in Syria and that saddam and al queda were buddies.
There's evidence that they are and there's documented proof that they were, respectively; but as I'm sure you know already, those satellite photos and translated Iraqi documents must all have been forged by those of us who are part of the great Zionist world bankers' conspiracy. We sure can't put anything past you, can we?
A director who hasn't directed a sci-fi movie in almost 25 years doesn't really have much say on the state of current sci-fi films...
Last week, I somehow ended up on the IMDB page for Sunshine.
After following a few links, I figured it must be about an astronaut who goes nuts & starts killing off the rest of the crew.
I thought to myself, "How many times have I seen this before?"
Off the top of my head, Event Horizon, Supernova, The Dark Side of The Moon, Life Pod, & Murder in Space.
Alien certainly stands out as a great movie, but it's not exactly the first movie about an alien parasite terrorizing the crew of a spaceship.
ALIEN was almost a remake of IT! The TERROR from BEYOND SPACE! wayyy back in the 50's!
There was also MUYINY in OUTER SPACE,the GREEN SLIME ,PLANET of the VAMPIRES,etc...
Quote from: inyarearThere's evidence that they are and there's documented proof that they were
:bouncegiggle: