Prometheus trailer

M O O N, that spells George.

Science fiction isn't just about speculative science. The best science fiction is often focused on how the science affects people. The classic themes, like Man versus Nature, or Man versus Himself. Moon definitely deals with both the science and the human impact, but I didn't enjoy it much. I didn't like either clone all that much, and since that was just about the entire cast, it was an endurance test to watch the whole movie.

Prometheus tried to connect the science to the human element, but the human element was poorly-implemented. In both Alien and Aliens, viewers liked the characters. Sometimes because they respected the characters for doing smart things, and sometimes they just liked them for the witty one-liners that eased the intensity of the situation for a moment. In Prometheus, the characters weren't smart and they weren't funny. They didn't even make understandable mistakes that viewers could forgive, like guessing wrong about the interpretation of a motion detector blip. My sense of wonder during the first half of Prometheus was so strong. Wow, what will happen next? That eventually gave way to Wow, I wonder why that character did such a stupid thing. That dumbshit scientist took off his helmet? The guys using the fancy mapping tech got lost? The compassionate and religious scientist blows up an alien skull simply due to insane recklessness? Really? Wow.

Speaking of absurd mistakes, what the hell was Ridley Scott thinking when he recruited the lead writer of Lost for this movie? Only the most fanatical of Lost fans claimed that they liked the way that show ended, while everybody else was perplexed and even angry.

I think a restriction of what makes "science fiction" is largely a stylistic one. While Aliens did not break new ground, it's a fine example of an action film (good tension, good pace, a couple genuine characters) that is also an SF film because, yes, they're in outer space and have aliens. You generally won't find anyone willing to categorize it in any other way unless you have a rather narrow perspective on what SF should be.

Harlan Ellison trashed Star Wars. He hated it. He said it was the equivalent of a Western in space and objected to the fact that it basically didn't say anything. It was cheap entertainment. Harlan's idea of SF is something that carries an idea and his work on the original Star Trek series and most of his writing is of that order. But I have a hard time looking at Star Wars, as shallow as the plot is and as miserable as the script is, and seeing anything but SF. Yes, it doesn't advance a new idea, but if you're going to categorize SF movies with another genre (Westerns, for example), how many Westerns can you look back at and see examples of basic legends or war films or political movies? It's as easy to say that A Fistful of Dollars is a samurai movie with "Western trappings" as it is that Aliens is a Western with "sci-fi trappings", not least because that's exactly what A Fistful of Dollars was (basically, a ripoff of Yojimbo; if you really want your head to start spinning, you have to think about how Kurosawa's samurai films were inspired by John Ford Westerns...)

I think what makes a good SF film is little different from what makes a good film of any other type: if the story is interesting, is well-directed, the characters not only seem real but are presented as so by the actors, and if it's thoughtful. Aliens, by and large, fits all but the last. That, to me, makes it a good SF film. Believe me, I wish more films could be as inspirational or as thoughtful as Blade Runner and The Matrix. But Star Wars basically didn't fit any of those categories and I'd still give it a vote as not only an SF film, but a good one, because of how inspirational it was to generations of filmmakers and how it made the genre something appealing to the masses (in the same way that Game of Thrones is currently "validating" the fantasy genre.)

Jackwraith, I'm surprised that you would mention both Star Wars and Kurosawa without mentioning A Hidden Fortress. I understand Ellison's point. Science fiction should aspire to more than just gadgets and other special effects. Too much of Star Wars was either mysticism or technology that basically amounted to mysticism. The lack of really deep ideas or themes was acceptable for a single, fun action movie, but led nowhere, as was evident from the crappiness of most of the other Star Wars movies, especially the prequels.

Black Barney wrote: Hatch, how did you like the scene where he calls his girl back on Earth? I was a TOTAL MESS after that scene. Probably the 3rd most I've ever cried in a movie. It's so tragic his situation.

I was totally overcome with sadness...



Films with those kind of moments are much more than films for me. I feel like I'm looking at my guts on the screen.

Shellhead wrote: Jackwraith, I'm surprised that you would mention both Star Wars and Kurosawa without mentioning A Hidden Fortress.

Meant to, but sometimes I have too many things running in my head and end up hitting Submit too soon (Never give up! Never surrender!) I meant to mention how I wasn't very impressed by Moon, too.

This thread has become more interesting to me.

I like what Jackwraith is saying, I really do. But I have to wonder when or where you draw the line in that case.

You could re-shoot When Harry Me Sally in space with Aliens... does the central idea of the film change? The long car drive could be across a galaxy... but it doesn't change anything for me. It's still a romance... that is the central idea. The fact that it happens mostly in New York isn't that important. The details could change.

Frankenstein is an early Sci-Fi story not because it happens in the 19th century without space or aliens, but because it takes a scientific idea of the time and applies it to a moral idea previously not considered.

Space and Aliens are distracting to the theme of a film and are usually just a setting.

Star Wars always struck me as a magical film in a magical world. There is very little science in them to me. I love them don't get me wrong.. well 2.5 of them anyway, but I really don't think there is anything scientific about them. In fact when they tried to add some science (midichlorians) the fans cried foul immediately. Rightfully so. The fiction part it's got down though.

I'd even go so far as to say that the recent CGI star wars kids series does more Sci FI then the movies ever did. They really explore the relationship that clones have in some of those episodes arguably as well as Moon does.

Shellhead wrote:
Speaking of absurd mistakes, what the hell was Ridley Scott thinking when he recruited the lead writer of Lost for this movie? Only the most fanatical of Lost fans claimed that they liked the way that show ended, while everybody else was perplexed and even angry.

He should have ended it the way his inspiration for it ended. The Third Policeman is a much better version of that story.

2001 might "real" sci-fi, but 20 minutes of fucking apes jumping around makes me a dull boy.

Fundamentally good science fiction has to be good fiction first and good science second. But the reason I whined about Aliens not being a five-star science fiction title was that I look at five stars as very rare air. You need good science to be in the mix to reach that high. I'd argue Aliens didn't have much of any.

Cameron is a disciple of the H.L. Mencken school of film. String together a bunch of action shots and be sure to kill all the people that aren't sympathetic to the audience, because they have it coming to them. Fifteen minutes into the film you pretty much already already know the ending.

S.