| Author |
Topic:
Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Vortigern99
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
6/28 12:54am
Subject:
Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Whether you grew up in the 70s, 80s or 90s, you know that for years we SF/F fans have received very little in the way of good, solid sci-fi and fantasy pictures. Historically, since the dawn of cinema, most SFF pictures have been low-budget, low-concept failures. Apart from a brief flash of genre goodness in the early 80s, for decades we've seen only sporadic quality (and quantity) of genre movies at best. Until now.
Now, with the advent of CGI and the trial-and-error period of the late 90s/early 2000s, most SFF movies are successful, both artistically and commercially. Just look at this year's fine offering of genre fare so far:
Cloverfield * 10,000 BC * Spiderwick * Iron Man * The Incredible Hulk * Forbidden Kingdom * Jumper * Prince Caspian * Indiana Jones
Even if you dislike some or all of these, the sheer quantity is staggering compared to the number of big-budget SFF movies released in, say, 1993 (Demolition Man, Robocop 3) -- or even 1983, a peak year for genre. But further, if you compare apples to apples -- solid, convincing, entertaining SFF scenes, concepts, characters and films -- even the least successful of the above list, Jumper, is technically and artistically superior to 95% of the SF/action movies released in previous decades. Sure, we had a few rare gems even back then -- Blade Runner, Star Wars, Conan the Barbarian, etc. -- but by and large genre movies, in a word, sucked. We had to take what we could get.
These days it seems as though studios are producing new classics and masterpieces with astonishing regularity. Consider the list of upcoming SFF movies, each of which contains the potential to become another enduring genre classic or even a masterpiece:
Hancock * Dark Knight * Hellboy II * Harry Potter 6 * Star Wars: Clone Wars * City of Ember * Quantum of Solace * Punisher 2 * Twilight * The Spirit
Good heavens! Even if two of those are anywhere near greatness, added to the 2008 tally so far, this year will have yielded more and better SFF films than 1986, 1987 and 1988 combined. This is why I can get excited about recently announced projects like Rodriguez' Red Sonja, or the Conan re-boot, or GI Joe: Hollywood is finally doing SFF/F films right.
This is a thread to discuss upcoming SFF/F projects, and to extoll the virtues of recent (2000-up) sci-fi and fantasy films.
-----signature-----
"I knew from the beginning I was not doing science fiction.
I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece,
a fairy tale."--George Lucas
My "Vader's Origins" thread:
http://boards.theforce.net/Classic_Trilogy/b10002/8708417/p1
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RX_Sith
Registered:
Mar '06
|
Date Posted:
6/28 6:59am
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Well they may be starting to do them right, but still it is a niche type of film. Besides the Star Wars films, none of the others including Star Trek, have really pulled in your "everyday" kind of audience.
Perhaps, it is because most people are still having problems with accepting it as a "real" movie. There is almost too much CGI featured in some movies making them seem very unbelievable. Each time it seems, the movie or show is trying almost too hard to up the ante of monsters or villians that the good person(s) have to defeat.
I would even throw in the glut of superhero themed movies in with SF/F since this is the primary type of SF movie being made right now. It seems that SF has a better chance as a TV series than as a movie (maybe Lucas' thoughts as to now doing his TV shows rather than more movies).
The Stargate, BSG, Heroes TV shows are probably the top tier SF related ones on TV at the moment. But, they are never top 10 even in the ratings. SF has its own particular audience and until someone comes out with one that reaches the mainstream audience then each show or movie will just have its' own fantasy groups.
I wouldn't call any of the movies you posted as successful. Each garnered its' particular audience. None of them were really that awe-inspiring. Yes, sequels will still be made, but almost none will do better than the original.
But, still tons of them are going to be made and each will garner its' share of the box office. But only for a few weeks. Nothing is going to keep making money for months on end these days. To me, Hollywood is a copycat organization, throwing one hero movie after another at us with hardly any real substance.
I still enjoy most of these movies, but can hardly re-watch most of them more than once. That is the difference. Until something comes along that grabs like Star Wars did each movie will just get more and more common.
-----signature-----
Chief of Staff - The SWC Rebel Scum
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NYCitygurl
Title: Railroad Baroness of SFFBC, C&G, and NSWFF
Registered:
Jul '02
|
Date Posted:
6/28 7:19am
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
I haven't seen any of those movies (please don't take away my nerd membership) but I don't think that nothing but Star Wars has drawn in crowds. I think Narnia did (at least the first one) because most people, fantasy fans or not, read the books as kids; my sister even had to read LWW in school. Lord of the Rings did as well; tons of people went to see them.
I agree that it does seem like too much, and that many will only attract SFF fans, but I also think (sometimes based only off adds) that they're really, really well produced.
There has also, I've noticed, been a trend in producing SFF movies based off of books. Harry Potter, LOTR, His Dark Materials, Spiderwick Chronicles, Narnia, etc.
-----signature-----
"We Earth Men have a talent for ruining big, beautiful things." ~ Master of padawanlost, Ultima_1 and Jedimaster_JainaSolo 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mastadge
Title:
Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '99
|
Date Posted:
6/28 7:39am
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
- Date Edited:
6/28 8:14am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mastadge
|
So what you seem to be saying, Vortigern, is that quantity trumps quality, and that technical excellence (i.e., special effects and production values) trumps intelligence and heart. You say that by and large genre films of old sucked, but your list of "this year's fine offering" by and large sucks, too -- the exceptions being not original films but those based on children's novels and comic books. You say that "studios are producing new classics and masterpieces with astonishing regularity," whereas it seems to me that Hollywood is defecating weekly on good taste and high standards. You look forward to two of the forthcoming spate of blockbusters being "near greatness," whereas I haven't seen any signs of greatness in SF cinema yet this year at all -- the closest we've come, sadly, is Iron Man. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and the year will offer one great genre film, one Children of Men, one sf film I can watch without switching the brain to "off" (I've actually got high hopes for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) (don't get me wrong -- I do enjoy a good brainless spectacular -- but most recent spectaculars have been so awful that even looking at them as just a brainless action flick there's nothing there to enjoy). I'd even settle for something ambitious yet very flawed (i.e., Southland Tales), rather than more of the same.
I will readily admit that we have finally gotten to a point where SFF spectacle actually looks almost convincing on the big screen. But aside from the special effects, these films are increasingly insulting to the viewer's intelligence. Bigger budgets and bigger explosions do not make these any better than the bad sf films that have come before. Hell, for all its hundreds of millions of dollars, the settings, characters and creature effects in 10,000 BC were less convincing to me than the rubber worms from Tremors. Perhaps the year's highest-concept sf thriller, Babylon A.D., seems to stand a large chance of having been reinvented as an idiotized Vin Diesel actioner. The sf film that seems to stand the best chance of being remembered as great is another children's film, this time without even any dialogue: WALL·E, although, as I mentioned I'm optimistic about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
What does it say about the adult moviegoing population that, while sf movies aimed at children seem more often than not at least to have some substance, and those adapted from all-ages material offer at least some relatively inoffensive spectacle, most original sf movies geared toward adults or adapted from more adult subject matter are idiotic beyond belief?
Maybe there's just a disconnect in expectations here. Looking over your list of the year's sf, and more importantly what's left off it, it seems that what you're looking for in a good sff film is not high concepts, or substance, or wonder, but, for the most part, spectacular adolescent power fantasies -- superheroes, superspies, Jedi Knights.
There is a very high ratio of sffinal films coming out. Most of them are just as awful as any of the awful sf from previous decades. The only difference is that now they've got better special effects and have made the mainstream, so can afford, more often than not, name stars. But putting A-list production values on a lousy movie doesn't make it any less lousy, and coating a lack of thoughtfulness or substance with fine special effects and a manipulative score doesn't make a movie better sf.
On one level I'm glad you get so much enjoyment out of what's coming out of Hollywood these days. On another, I really, really wish you didn't, because maybe if the hundreds of millions of moviegoers in the world would stop spending the GDP of small countries in ticket sales for crapfests, Hollywood would make less idiot spectacle and perhaps a few more decent movies.
-----signature-----
"This will be our reply to violence:
To make music more intensely,
More beautifully,
More devotedly than ever before."
- Leonard Bernstein
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Chancellor_Ewok
Registered:
Nov '04
|
Date Posted:
6/28 10:19am
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
- Date Edited:
6/28 10:23am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Chancellor_Ewok
|
RX_Sith posted:
Well they may be starting to do them right, but still it is a niche type of film. Besides the Star Wars films, none of the others including Star Trek, have really pulled in your "everyday" kind of audience.
I think they are moving beyond being niche market films, though. Lord of the Rings was the first fantasy film since Star Wars to recieve serious Oscar recognition and 30 Oscar nominations and 17 wins is pretty serious Academy attention.The buzz surrounding The Dark Knight says that not only is it great comic book movie, but a brilliant crime drama. Heath Ledger's Joker has recieved nothing but the most glowing praise and there has been some suggestion that he may be a strong contender for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar.
-----signature-----
For more information about the crack spider's bitch contact the Canadian Wildlife Service in Ottawa.
I robbed the second largest bank in France using only a ballpoint pen
I killed a man with this thumb.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RX_Sith
Registered:
Mar '06
|
Date Posted:
6/28 10:48am
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Well, to me the main problem with these movies is the over-marketing of them. It's all about getting the most merchandise that you possibly can market. And this market is mainly to kids. I'm not saying that a bad thing; it's a brilliant thing for them to get as much money from there particular film or show as they can.
Walk into your local Wal Mart or Toys 'R' Us and you'll see what I am talking about. There are dedicated rows to these films. Batman, Indy, Narnia, Star Wars, etc. Then when the next big movie comes out, more toys are brought out now even with something that is shown for a brief moment in the movie or show.
Figures upon figures from the prominent hero to the insignificant villain are displayed for kids to ooze over. It's amazing the amount of stuff that is out nowadays. If you are a collector to it, expect to pay a significant amount of money if you want to own every single thing from a particular movie or show.
Of course, you want to get your kids these toys, because when you where younger, you either wished you could have them or you actually did have some and now want to relive your youth through your kids.
Moviemakers only make movies these days to sell their unlimited amounts of toys and clothes to your kids. They also have some that you can purchase as well. How convenient. It's all about how much money they can make. It if becomes a hit, then that's even more money they can use to make even more toys and stuff.
Plus, then they can make numerous sequels that have even more toys and stuff for you to buy. It's an endless cycle. Some toys will sit on the shelves for months. Then once the Christmas season is over, you see the next batch come out.
This is today's Hollywood. Marketing rules. Plain and simple.
-----signature-----
Chief of Staff - The SWC Rebel Scum
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The2ndQuest
Title: :
-Games
-LACWAC
-Lit Mod of Death
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
6/28 3:02pm
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
|
I think social interest in the genre is another factor. In the late 70's/early 80's, sci-fi/fantasy had a more wider appeal, it was more in-style. That sort of faded away in recent decades (likely due to wider variety of content and media outlets people can get entertainment from).
-----signature-----
K'Kruhk, 140 ABY: "Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker?
Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..."
Is your Death Magnetic?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Chancellor_Ewok
Registered:
Nov '04
|
Date Posted:
6/28 3:20pm
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
The2ndQuest posted:
I think social interest in the genre is another factor. In the late 70's/early 80's, sci-fi/fantasy had a more wider appeal, it was more in-style. That sort of faded away in recent decades (likely due to wider variety of content and media outlets people can get entertainment from).
If anything, I think interest in sciece fiction, fantasy and comic books has gone up. Star Wars was shopped around to all the studios several times before it was picked up by Fox, and that's in addition the fact that Star Wars and Close Encounters were only high profile science fiction films to be released in 1977. Today is the polar opposite. A look at the summer film schedule reveals a summer of nothing BUT sci-fi and comic book movies.
-----signature-----
For more information about the crack spider's bitch contact the Canadian Wildlife Service in Ottawa.
I robbed the second largest bank in France using only a ballpoint pen
I killed a man with this thumb.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
-polymath-
Title: SFF:F/TV Trivia Host
Registered:
Jun '07
|
Date Posted:
6/28 5:42pm
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
|
I also think that the credit for this shift in quality of sci/fi films should be given to three people: Bryan Singer, Peter Jackson, and John Knoll (of ILM fame). Those three men all took the genre out of where it had been for so long as campy, shlocky, and obtuse with both story and special effects.
-----signature-----
SFF Films & TV Trivia Contest: Subject is "Serenity/Firefly"
**Question Seven Posted**
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NYCitygurl
Title: Railroad Baroness of SFFBC, C&G, and NSWFF
Registered:
Jul '02
|
Date Posted:
6/28 6:25pm
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
|
I wasn't alive back when SW was first released, but there are a bunch of old sf-y movies. Then being an SFF fan became uncool (or maybe just more uncool). LOTR changed that, at least for movies. Pirates did as well - POTC is fantasy, even though I think many don't see it that way.
-----signature-----
"We Earth Men have a talent for ruining big, beautiful things." ~ Master of padawanlost, Ultima_1 and Jedimaster_JainaSolo
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The2ndQuest
Title: :
-Games
-LACWAC
-Lit Mod of Death
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
6/28 7:44pm
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Chancellor_Ewok posted:
If anything, I think interest in sciece fiction, fantasy and comic books has gone up. Star Wars was shopped around to all the studios several times before it was picked up by Fox, and that's in addition the fact that Star Wars and Close Encounters were only high profile science fiction films to be released in 1977. Today is the polar opposite. A look at the summer film schedule reveals a summer of nothing BUT sci-fi and comic book movies.
SW definitely was the start of a turning point in the social perceptions of sci-fi. Following SW's mass cross-appeal, you had things like the original BSG which was one of (if not the) most expensive pilot/miniseries in Tv to that point, and it did huge numbers.
In the decade following, things like TNG could be seen as psuedo-mainstream entertainment on TV that you simply don't get these days with the genre. It had a brief resurgence in the late 90's I think, following ID4 and flowing through with the SE's and First contact and up to the Matrix and prequels, but I think the prequel backlash (as well as the subsequent collapse of the Trek franchise with Insurrection) negatively affected the whole genre in public perception- afterall, if SW couldn't be cool, what sci-fi/fantasy could be?
However, it's a genre, with the newer FX tools available, that managed to re-enforce the niche audience and exploit the market successively, with occasional titles that had a broader appeal- LOTR tapping historical epics, Spider-Man tapping into a need for heroes during a darker social era, etc. They basically re-exploit the same base for all these summer movies you're speaking of- they rarely expand beyond into a mainstream appeal or acceptance, though. the last few years we're starting to see that happen as a greater degree of realism is injected and the crossover to typical movie production values and approaches grabs wider recognition, acclaim, and social standing (and, in most cases recently), success.
-----signature-----
K'Kruhk, 140 ABY: "Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker?
Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..."
Is your Death Magnetic?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vortigern99
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
6/29 6:44pm
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
- Date Edited:
6/29 6:48pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Vortigern99
|
The perception that SFF movies are "niche" films which do not connect with mass audiences is entirey undone by the enormous ticket sales of Cloverfield, Iron Man and Indiana Jones, just to name three staggeringly successful SFF movies from this year so far. In recent years, the LOTR films, the POTC series, the Spider-Man movies, and the SW prequels show beyond a shadow of a doubt that movie-goers from all walks of life -- and not just comic-book reading, message-board posting sci-fi nerds -- adore genre films, and will gladly deposit hundreds of millions of dollars into the bank accounts of studios and filmmakers willing and able to produce quality SFF entertainment.
Mastadge posted:
So what you seem to be saying, Vortigern, is that quantity trumps quality, and that technical excellence (i.e., special effects and production values) trumps intelligence and heart.
Good heavens, I'm not saying that at all. Both the quantity AND quality of genre films has increased exponentially since the 90s, 80s, 70s and prior. Movies such as Iron Man, Casino Royale and Spider-Man 2 are a thousand times more intelligent, more heartfelt and better crafted than such tripe as Superman III (1983), A View to a Kill (1985), or the execrable Captain America (1989). Prince Caspian is a masterpiece of cinematography, pacing, characterization and performance compared to the fun-yet-flawed likes of Krull (1983) or the forgettablly awful Conan the Destroyer (1984).
Mastadge posted:
You say that by and large genre films of old sucked, but your list of "this year's fine offering" by and large sucks, too -- the exceptions being not original films but those based on children's novels and comic books. You say that "studios are producing new classics and masterpieces with astonishing regularity," whereas it seems to me that Hollywood is defecating weekly on good taste and high standards. You look forward to two of the forthcoming spate of blockbusters being "near greatness," whereas I haven't seen any signs of greatness in SF cinema yet this year at all -- the closest we've come, sadly, is Iron Man.
Well, obviously there's a degree of subjective aesthetic response involved here. One man's trash is another man's treasure, after all. Personally I think Cloverfield, IM, IJ, Hulk and Prince Caspian are all brilliant, topnotch films -- true and enduring classics -- while Spiderwick and Jumper are extremely well-made films, but perhaps slightly shy of classic status. 10,000 BC and Forbidden Kingdom are the only real stinkers so far. Compare that list to any year prior to 1999, and you realize we've got a bonanza of awesome SFF films to choose from.
I think your standards might be impossibly high, Mastadge, and that you're comparing every new SFF film against some 5-star ideal represented by, say, the original Star Wars or maybe FOTR. Whatever your icon of cinematic SF excellence, I would ask you to consider that not every movie can achieve the heights of those rare, flawless gems of yesteryear. We might say that the new Incredible Hulk is not as good as, for example, the original Superman (1978) -- but when we consider that every other superhero movie ever made until Spider-Man was an almost complete waste of celluloid, it becomes clear that maybe Hulk ain't so bad after all. It's certainly better than all the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies put together, better than the dumb Hulk CBS-TV series, better than Superman III & IV, better even than the recent Fantastic Four movies. I'm talking about a matter of degrees here. Today's SFF films are better made, with closer attention to characterization and dramatic power, and certainly superior filmmaking techniques, to 95% of what came before.
Mastadge posted:
...as I mentioned I'm optimistic about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Me too! The full trailer blew me away, intrigued the beejeezus out of me, made me a fan of the film well before its release. I hope my high expectations are borne out.
Mastadge posted:
What does it say about the adult moviegoing population that, while sf movies aimed at children seem more often than not at least to have some substance, and those adapted from all-ages material offer at least some relatively inoffensive spectacle, most original sf movies geared toward adults or adapted from more adult subject matter are idiotic beyond belief?
Maybe there's just a disconnect in expectations here. Looking over your list of the year's sf, and more importantly what's left off it, it seems that what you're looking for in a good sff film is not high concepts, or substance, or wonder, but, for the most part, spectacular adolescent power fantasies -- superheroes, superspies, Jedi Knights.
I just don't agree with any of that. For one thing, I don't find anything inherently childish about superhero movies or tales of Jedi Knights. Superhero tales, and STAR WARS, constitute the mythology of the modern age, as Jack Kirby and George Lucas have been wont to point out. The themes and conflicts at play in this genre are apt metaphors for our inner struggles as human beings, and the battles we face on a daily basis for survival, advancement, moral victory. There is nothing laughable or foolish about that material unless the authors/filmmakers fail to properly address it. In the past, most filmmakers failed to fully comprehend the mythic/msymbolic status of superheroes, or else ignored or neglected superheroes' grounding in the real world. This is no longer the case, as the new Marvel films, and Batman Begins, have shown us. You may dismiss them as children's films, but I take them quite seriously and give them credit where I believe it's due.
-----signature-----
"I knew from the beginning I was not doing science fiction.
I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece,
a fairy tale."--George Lucas
My "Vader's Origins" thread:
http://boards.theforce.net/Classic_Trilogy/b10002/8708417/p1
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Chancellor_Ewok
Registered:
Nov '04
|
Date Posted:
6/29 7:02pm
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Vortigern99 posted:
Mastadge posted:
...as I mentioned I'm optimistic about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Me too! The full trailer blew me away, intrigued the beejeezus out of me, made me a fan of the film well before its release. I hope my high expectations are borne out.
Me three. I saw the trailer for that when I went to see Indy. That movie looks quite intriguing. 
-----signature-----
For more information about the crack spider's bitch contact the Canadian Wildlife Service in Ottawa.
I robbed the second largest bank in France using only a ballpoint pen
I killed a man with this thumb.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mastadge
Title:
Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '99
|
Date Posted:
6/30 5:51am
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Vortigern99 posted:
Good heavens, I'm not saying that at all. Both the quantity AND quality of genre films has increased exponentially since the 90s, 80s, 70s and prior. Movies such as Iron Man, Casino Royale and Spider-Man 2 are a thousand times more intelligent, more heartfelt and better crafted than such tripe as Superman III (1983), A View to a Kill (1985), or the execrable Captain America (1989). Prince Caspian is a masterpiece of cinematography, pacing, characterization and performance compared to the fun-yet-flawed likes of Krull (1983) or the forgettablly awful Conan the Destroyer (1984).
Yet you persist in comparing only new good movies with old poor ones. Casino Royale is certainly far better than any other recent Bond, but it's not particularly better than the Bond of the 60s -- From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, etc. (And when did the spy thriller come to be considered sff anyway? Why is that movie even in this discussion?) Sure, Iron Man and Spider-Man 2 were solid pieces of entertainment, but then, so were Superman (70s) and Batman (80s), and your bad comics movie examples are no worse than those being made today, i.e. the awful Ghost Rider, Elektra, Rise of the Silver Surfer, X-Men: The Last Stand, all of which fit into the "execrable" category -- or even Spider-Man III, which, while not bleeding-eyeball bad, was far from good. Sure, Krull was flawed, and the Fleischer fantasies were terrible. But the Milius Conan was wonderful. And while we're going back to the 70s and 80s, the Star Wars films from then were far better than those made more recently. You're being incredibly selective in looking both forward and back. I'm not saying the past didn't have crap. I'm saying that the crap now is at least as bad as the old crap, and the shiny new goodness isn't, mostly, particularly better than the old goodness, except in the technical departments (and not always even then -- the creature effects in some of those 80s movies are more convincing then most of today's CGI work. Sure, there was plenty of crap in the 70s and 80s, but when's the last time you saw a personal sci-fi thriller as good as, say, The Terminator? A sci-fi shoot-em-up actioner as much fun as RoboCop? Are recent space operas any better than Star Trek II? Need I mention Aliens? Predator? Going back to the 60s, just to name the most popular examples, we have 2001 and Planet of the Apes.
Vortigern99 posted:
I think your standards might be impossibly high, Mastadge, and that you're comparing every new SFF film against some 5-star ideal represented by, say, the original Star Wars or maybe FOTR. Whatever your icon of cinematic SF excellence, I would ask you to consider that not every movie can achieve the heights of those rare, flawless gems of yesteryear. We might say that the new Incredible Hulk is not as good as, for example, the original Superman (1978) -- but when we consider that every other superhero movie ever made until Spider-Man was an almost complete waste of celluloid, it becomes clear that maybe Hulk ain't so bad after all. It's certainly better than all the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies put together, better than the dumb Hulk CBS-TV series, better than Superman III & IV, better even than the recent Fantastic Four movies. I'm talking about a matter of degrees here. Today's SFF films are better made, with closer attention to characterization and dramatic power, and certainly superior filmmaking techniques, to 95% of what came before.
I don't have some single-movie bar that I expect every other movie to reach. I love movies, and I have certain standards, and certainly they are not impossibly high seeing as they are sometimes met. There's no shortage of movies I very much enjoy, even within the genre. I don't think there are many if any "flawless gems of yesteryear," but I also don't think that being better than godawful crap necessarily qualifies something as great. Just because something is less bad than something that came before doesn't mean it's being done right. I've already in other threads and possibly this one produced my pleasure with Marvel's in-house movies. Iron Man and, to a slightly lesser extent, The Incredible Hulk are certainly very enjoyable, solidly-crafted, well-produced entertainments that I'm more than happy to spend my time and money on. Are either of them great? Not to me. But they're both fine escapism. Sure, the critical and commercial success of X-Men and Spider-Man ushered in a new era of comic book superhero films, generally more successful and boasting higher production values than those of yesteryear. Some have been very good. Some have been very bad. But to say that today's SFF pays "closer attention to characterization and dramatic power" is, as I said earlier, to be very selective indeed. Yes, we have true characterization and drama sometimes, but more often than not we have instead melodrama and spectacle -- moreso than ever before, because the technology makes it easier than ever to cover up lack of substance with pretty pictures.
Vortigern99 posted:
I just don't agree with any of that. For one thing, I don't find anything inherently childish about superhero movies or tales of Jedi Knights. Superhero tales, and STAR WARS, constitute the mythology of the modern age, as Jack Kirby and George Lucas have been wont to point out. The themes and conflicts at play in this genre are apt metaphors for our inner struggles as human beings, and the battles we face on a daily basis for survival, advancement, moral victory. There is nothing laughable or foolish about that material unless the authors/filmmakers fail to properly address it. In the past, most filmmakers failed to fully comprehend the mythic/msymbolic status of superheroes, or else ignored or neglected superheroes' grounding in the real world. This is no longer the case, as the new Marvel films, and Batman Begins, have shown us. You may dismiss them as children's films, but I take them quite seriously and give them credit where I believe it's due.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't dismissing comic book films as children's films. By children's films I was referring to Spiderwick, Terabithia, etc.
I'm not going to get into an argument here about whether or not superheroes constitute a modern mythology -- that's much too big to get into here. I will, however, point out that your two sources for that assertion are both people for whom it makes huge financial sense for the general population to consider the genre not puerile wish-fulfillment fantasy but rather modern mythology. I will also not get into a discussion of the moral concerns of superhero comics. I will say that I am a comics reader who's read probably 10,000 comics, of both the literary and superhero variety (and, yes, there is overlap) who loves the form and loves the genre even in its frequent silliness. The fact that I love and cherish comics and, particularly, superhero comics, does not blind me to the genre's flaws and conceits, and if in fact it does constitute a modern mythology -- well, just as you rightly point out that a film should not be dismissed based on its genre, I say that it shouldn't be blindly embraced for the same.
I'm glad you enjoy so many modern movies. I frequently wish I could. But I thought Cloverfield was garbage; both Jumper and 10,000 BC were garbage; the majority of the recent SW trilogy was garbage; the new Indiana Jones was slightly less stinky garbage. I haven't seen Caspian yet, though I expect to enjoy it even though I guess I will not deem it a masterpiece as you do. I enjoyed both of this summer's Marvel offerings, but while I found them both to be good, one of them perhaps even great, entertainments, I think neither of them is a great film. Of the rest of the summer, I have high hopes for The Dark Knight; Guillermo del Toro's visual sensibility is, to me, nonpareil in modern filmmaking and I have no doubt that Hellboy II will be beautiful -- whether it has substance to back that up remains to be seen but I'm looking forward to that, too. I'm looking forward to Hancock despite poor word of mouth. Later this year, Miller's The Spirit looks awful, but then, Miller's one of those comics legends I don't enjoy, one of the most overrated writers in the history of comics, so the fact that this looks idiotic doesn't surprise me.
I love movies. I do have standards. Impossibly high? I don't think so. But whether they are or not, that's not the question here. The question is whether Hollywood is finally doing right by these genres, and my answer to that is: no moreso than it ever was. I'm saying that there are good and bad sff movies today, just as there have been since the birth of the form, and that the good are not particularly better, and that the bad are just as bad.
-----signature-----
"This will be our reply to violence:
To make music more intensely,
More beautifully,
More devotedly than ever before."
- Leonard Bernstein
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vortigern99
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
6/30 7:50am
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Mastadge, again it just comes down to subjective aesthetic tastes. It appears I'm more easily impressed than you are, or more forgiving, or more open to being moved and finding value in small moments of characterization, drama or verissimilitude amidst the special-effect-y spectacle. Certainly there have been stinkers in recent years -- 10,000 BC, Van Helsing, League of Extradordinary Gentlemen, Elektra, Ghost Rider, the AVP movies, Eragon. The difference is that in the old days (70s - 90s), 95% of the genre movies were as awful as those! Now the bad movies IMO are the exception to the rule. Superman is a damn fine film, but it was a single oasis amidst a barren desert, whose charm, power and level of craftsmanship would not be matched until Spider-Man 2. Batman (1989) and its sequel (1992) are decent films, but again they're points of brightness on a dark, dark horizon. It's easy to look back from this point and pick out the gems, but what you seem to be missing is that the good genre films only came along once every few years, rather than (IMO) several per year as we're now getting. 1981 and 1982 were banner years for fantasy (Conan the B, Clash of the Titans, Dragonslayer, etc.), but apart from those two years, historically fantasy films have tanked both commercially and artistically. Now, every Potter film that comes out is a brilliant tour-de-force (again IMO), and we've got Spiderwick which is also excellent, and Caspian which is a masterpiece. Dismiss them as you like, but apples to apples -- that is, comparing the new batch of SFF movies side-by-side, sub-genre to sub-genre -- today's movies are at least as good as the classics of old, and there are lots more of them.
You ask: "When's the last time you saw a personal sci-fi thriller as good as, say, The Terminator?" and I answer "Batman Begins"; you ask: "A sci-fi shoot-em-up actioner as much fun as RoboCop?" and I answer "Iron Man" (RoboCop is the superior film, but IM is pretty damn good and an instant classic). You mention Trek II, Aliens, and Predator, but those three films span a five-year period from 1982 - 1987, and just in the last three we've had Serenity (a brilliant film that did poorly at the B.O.), Cloverfield (which I know you hate, but many people love it and it did huge business), and King Kong (which is overlong and you probably hate it, too, but it's still a damn fine monster movie with a rare emotional power).
Mastadge posted:
I will, however, point out that your two sources for that assertion are both people for whom it makes huge financial sense for the general population to consider the genre not puerile wish-fulfillment fantasy but rather modern mythology.
Well, Kirby has been dead for several years, and his estate has reaped no benefit from the phenomenal success of the movies based on his creations. Stan Lee has appropriated all credit for creating Spidey, Hulk, Iron Man, etc. -- but that is another topic. So, no, it made no financial sense for Kirby to claim that comics = mythology. It was merely his very heartfelt and legitimate opinion. As to Lucas, that he may have a financial stake in claiming SW to be modern mythology (and I disagree that he does) would not render invalid the assertion itself. The statement is either true or it isn't, and in my perception it certainly is. Having studied Joe Campbell and world mythology for the last 10 years, I can say without a shadow of doubt that SW conforms to the archetypes and broad strokes of world myth, and that it deals symbolically with the energies at conflict in our day-to-day lives. That's all I was trying to convey.
I too am a comics reader and have been for 30+ years. There is plenty of crap out there, but also alot of good. I certainly do not blindly embrace a work as excellent -- be it film, book or comic -- simply because of its genre. That has not been my assertion here.
Yes, there are good and bad SFF films these days, just as there have always been since the dawn of the form, but IMO both their quantity and quality has increased in recent years. I understand you disagree, but I hold to my observations and my assessments of what I consider high quality genre movies.
-----signature-----
"I knew from the beginning I was not doing science fiction.
I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece,
a fairy tale."--George Lucas
My "Vader's Origins" thread:
http://boards.theforce.net/Classic_Trilogy/b10002/8708417/p1
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The2ndQuest
Title: :
-Games
-LACWAC
-Lit Mod of Death
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
6/30 10:20am
Subject:
RE: Hollywood is Finally Doing Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films Right
|
Vortigern99 posted:
The perception that SFF movies are "niche" films which do not connect with mass audiences is entirey undone by the enormous ticket sales of Cloverfield, Iron Man and Indiana Jones, just to name three staggeringly successful SFF movies from this year so far. In recent years, the LOTR films, the POTC series, the Spider-Man movies, and the SW prequels show beyond a shadow of a doubt that movie-goers from all walks of life -- and not just comic-book reading, message-board posting sci-fi nerds -- adore genre films, and will gladly deposit hundreds of millions of dollars into the bank accounts of studios and filmmakers willing and able to produce quality SFF entertainment.
I agree that in recent years we've seen a broader appeal to the genre. Though, just because people plunked down money for something, doesn't necessarily mean they respect it's genre or even the particular movie.
-----signature-----
K'Kruhk, 140 ABY: "Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker?
Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..."
Is your Death Magnetic?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
 |
|
