The future of SciFi

Its only because of their track record that they were given wiggle room with Prometheus. In the recent interviews Scott admitted that for the studios its all about the money and sales, which factored in to some degree what he would include in Prometheus. I haven't heard of anything in the works that is note worthy. I thought District 9 was good.

Solaris

I have to agree with midnighthorrors and rakshasa, District 9 was a great film, and I have always loved solaris. I have been a fan of EventHorrison as well!

Oh well, i think, the "audience" is splitted in maybe 2 main groups - according to "science fiction". 1. The guyz who simply want to be "entertained" with a dumb, explosive screen. Complicated characters and story are not wanted, the simpler the better. Explosions, very simple characters, mostly some guy in trouble who gets a "chance" but noone believes in him and he "shows them all what a cool and brave guy he is." Also obvious some good looking "chicken" with "breasts", mostly daughter of some kind of "authority" like general, admiral, who falls in love with the guy mentioned above. Less "ideas" about new technology, no "new" philosophy aspects at all. Big designs with "something moving, burning, exploding", mosly CGI cause its cheaper. 2. The guyz (often nerds?) who "think to much" about where we come from, where will this all end, love strange/wired but intelligent stories, independent cinema and kult movies. Love to see "da real science fiction" with real new ideas, love these moments when something "new" - unthought - comes into their eye, ear and mind so they have "spiritual food" to think and disguss about. Some examples - the scene in Matrix where Neo wakes up - the scene in blade runner where rutger hauer dies and shows mercy - the scene in alien where the crew enters the space jokey room - the scene in alien where Ash gets "major issues" and attacks ripley - the scene in alien2 where ripley meets the alien queen Well, there is no "good" or "bad" as these are also no "natural" things. In nature there is no "good" or "bad", things are as they are, and causality all around. Mostly question of taste, how someone wants to waste his life time... Oups... "wasted" is also not something "natural", nature wasted 99,9% of all ever existing lifeforms, they are gone and so will we, and some other "species" will take our place. Thats not good nor bad - it is what allways happend, blame it on causality.

... what i am waiting for is some kind of "remake" of SOYLENT GREEN. Love these classic sciencefiction movies with charlton heston very much. Unique and really cool. Though C.H. lost much of sympathy in his last years, according to his lobby for weapon industry..

I read somewhere a few years back that they were going to remake Soylent Green but I haven't heard anything since. I don't think sci-fi has to be divided between explosions and deep thought. A truely amazing sci-fi movie does both. Star Wars (admittedly more fantasy than sci-fi) was able to pull it off and so did The Matrix (first movie). I think Ridley Scott allready knows that just because it's a deep movie doesn't mean it can't be entertaining for those who don't understand the subtleties. Speaking of The Matrix; being a big fan myself i used to talk to everyone else who loved the movie apparently as much as I did untill I realised all they wanted to talk about was "how awesome the lobby scene was" I have a feeling prometheus will be the same.

i hate to say this, but it seems that the overall consciousness off the masses seems to have been dumbed down over the past decade in regards to what constitutes a great and interesting sci-fi film what "makes money" are A.D.H.D. type films like the "Transformers" franchise and the like. while films like "Solaris" and even "Sunshine" tend to bomb for what the corporate studio system deems to be a hit the last sci-fi film i saw in the theater that made a valid attempt to be more than a Michael Bay style shoot-em-up was "The X-Files: Fight the Future", but even that one didn't get the masses talking / thinking about its message also, the directors cut of "THX1138" is a great example of intelligent sci-fi with PROMETHEUS, it will most likely take word of mouth by movie goers rather than film critics to give it the attention and respect i feel it will merit. i also feel (sadly) that a decade like the 1970's and ALL the awesome sci-fi films that precious era yielded, will most likely not be repeated for a very long time the optimist in me suspects that PROMETHEUS will make a valid effort in it's attempt to usher in a new era of not only entertaining sci-fi films, but also truly intelligent and profound sci-fi time will tell.....

Without putting words in @shardy's mouth, I think I may come from his or her perspective. Speaking for myself: I wouldn't hold your breath. Not for one second. Hollywood of the late '60's - 1970's era - where the kind of movie-making you describe could flourish in the mainstream, for a great many reasons, is over: and it is gone, forever. The people who made that era were Indie film-makers, who were given money to make movies that were interesting and that hopefully made money - by people who made movies as their business: those people often didn't know [i]exactly[/i] what they were going to get. @shardy mentions a fine example of that. "Phase IV" might be another. Now, the money is provided by people who make cars, or tv's as their business - but who have bought Studios and whose God's are Accountants, not Creatives. These people are interested in movies that make money and not so much movies as an unpredictable experiment in human creativity that may, or may not, make a return: Movies are an investment. Now, before they sink cash into a project, those people are less interested in the artistic integrity or thematic interests of the Director - or "speaking" to us - and much more interested in knowing, as certainly as they can, exactly what they'll get and whether that thing matches up to the last thing that made a ton of money. Now, not only do they like to be as certain as they can that they'll get their money back, they'd like an idea of exactly [i]how much[/i]: and from [i]whom.[/i] That slight, but significant, change in perspective, made and continues to make all the difference and, I daresay, it now always will. You'll still find the films you describe, but they'll be made in the almost underground, independent way [i]all[/i] films used to be made, ["Monsters","Moon"?], but, as such, they won't be "scale". Just how I see it.

It also has to do with the material, like Scott said it's all been done before when it comes to sci-fi. The fiction aspect that made certain films classics is now becoming actual science. The ideas introduced back then were considered ridiculous and impossible. Now cars are a few years from driving themselves, we can already grow certain organs for transplants, and are on the verge of discovering particles that travel faster than light. I think it was last year that IBM revealed two CPU chips that actually function as a brain, only at the level of an animal, but a step forward in creating AI.

I agree with much of what's here, personally i found solaris to be interminable, it bored me to sleep, same with sunshine. To me the makers of those weren't trying to make anything intelligent and exciting, just intelligent. Personally i have books for that, but i love an exciting and intelligent movie. it doesn't have to be highbrow about the human condition, just be about something interesting. The better movies always combine both, alien, the matrix, even star wars, and certainly the xfiles and lost. Personally i'm going to be optimistic, and hope that studios see what a decent mindful film like Prometheus can make and maybe they'll realise next time someone pops up with a good screnplay.

no idea how i forgot to mention 2001 and (imho) the superior 2010

Personally speaking i think 2010 compliments 2001 perfectly well i dont see it as superior but a very worthy companion.

i only say superior because theres less of the beautiful kind of shots kubrick was going for and more time for the story to unfold. it's a shame they aren't amking the other films in that series of books.

i only say superior because theres less of the beautiful kind of shots kubrick was going for and more time for the story to unfold. it's a shame they aren't amking the other films in that series of books.

@windwood yes who knows one day they may get around to completing arthur c clarke's other book's into film.

Just an fyi for those that mentioned 70's sci-fi... As it turns out, TCM (Turner Classic Movies) is showing a bunch this evening starting at 8pm Eastern Time... - Close Encounters... - Rollerball - Logan's Run - Westworld - Soylent Green

@MidnightHorrors Not everything Ridley Scott says is the wisdom of Moses? I heard him say the same thing and I thought, then, what I think, now: that it's a surprisingly foolish statement to make and one that is both naive and arrogant at the same time. There seems practically no limit to human ingenuity. If there is no limit to Science, there can be no limit to Science Fiction. Because [i]Ridley Scott[/i] finds himself unable to think of a sufficient number of new ways to approach it does not mean, "everything has been done", or that Science Fiction has stagnated. Somebody in the late 19th Century, came to the public conclusion that, (due to prolific ingenuity of Mankind and the product of the Industrial Revolution), "everything that can be invented, has been invented" - or words to that effect. If that 19th Century man were to observe the nature of our present society, two centuries later, what kind of a tremendous, colossal fool would that man feel? The suggestion is ridiculous. Ridley Scott mis-spoke - or he was tired or bored, or all three: he's human, after all.

@alteredstate. Anyone know of any other cool books/movies i may have missed out on. Im up to date with the game of thrones show, but not seen much of else of quality since Lost finished.

Thank you for the Heads up, CanadaPhil. I just set to record Logans Run, WestWorld and Soylent Green.

No problem Necro! I have to admit that I luv TCM's new direction lately. I have always been a fan of TCM. Its my favourite channel (because I am a fan of all kinds of classic film). But up until recently, TCM was always pretty tame when it came down to showing more adult oriented flims... and ANY nudity seemed like a big no-no for TCM. But lately, I have noticed a big difference in their programming. They are showing more films that have some nudity and harsher violence. They have never done this before. Mind you, they will only show those movies much later in the evening during the weekends, so having a DVR is mandatory. Geez.. just last week they had the original GET CARTER from 1971 with Michael Caine. Wow!! That is definately not the kind of movie TCM would ever have played in the past. But the the other noticeable thing is that TCM has also been playing a lot more classic Sci-Fi !... Which is great because God knows, there is no such thing as classic Sci-Fi where the ummmm... SyFy?? Siffy Channel is concerned? Just off the top of my head, I can think of many others that TCM has shown fairly recently... - 2001 - Forbidden Planet - War of the Worlds - Them - The Day the Earth Stood Still - The Thing (1951) and tons of others from the 50's & 60's. But its nice to see them really starting to show a LOT of movies from the later 70's & 80's now (across all genres).