Ridley Scott: sci fi is dead

[RCMerchant]

Your joking,right? I mean about the war in Iraq being the "most righteous and unambiguous " war we've ever fought-part?  

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, and one of the longer (and more articulate) ones is here.

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.

[Dennis]

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. 

[lester1/2jr]

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.

[RCMerchant]

 

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.

 

[penny lizardo]

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.

[CheezeFlixz]

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.

[Kester Pelagius]

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.

[Mr_Vindictive]

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.   



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!?

[lester1/2jr]

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

[Allhallowsday]

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

 
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.   

[CheezeFlixz]

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.   

Nor would I, you know many us live for the stream of consciousness.

[Inyarear]

So 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.

As 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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?)

[Raffine]

Nor 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?

[RCMerchant]

Nor 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?

  I like pecan!

  (Yer a weird one  Raffine!      )

[lester1/2jr]

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.