|
|
Post by helioseclipsed on Oct 24, 2008 0:55:33 GMT -5
It's true that science wasn't important for Serenity, but I think they did treat it with above average respect. (The only silly thing was the ion cloud, which they needed for dramatic reasons. I can live with that. I'm not with you on the 'splosions.) I didn't just mean explosions. That's why I chopped off the 'e' and added the adorably charming apostrophe for effect. What I meant were fun, dramatic, and overall cool scenarios that weren't very sciency, but great entertainment (without making the science a joke either). I can not only live with that, but watch and marvel at it again and again. It's a great movie. I did not mean to suggest otherwise. So you're looking for hard SciFi, basically? Very interesting, yes. But... that's really tough. What qualifies, then? Ever? The Andromeda Strain (and that was good, but not great.) 2001. See, you have to go back quite a while... Strain was boring, yes. Intriguing, but entirely unengaging. 2001 had me interested the whole way. There are arguments for taste, and I can't really blame anyone for not getting into the Odyssey groove (the next big dance crazy among people who favor sitting and staring serenely at other sitting people), but the movie had a lot of ideas and presented them with a strange style that was compelling if you didn't "not get it" (that's not to mock anyone who might have been confused, but to defend the movie against people who just give up on it). But I just meant a movie like Gattaca, which wasn't science obsessed like Andromeda, but a compelling look at a very possible turn in human culture with a very compelling personal story driving us through it. And that wasn't that long ago. Though that might provide the answer to my original question. I believe that, while the movie is great, and critics adored it too, it did not attract an audience, and was overall a financial failure. Between that and the drollness of A.I., studios might well be afraid to make a serious, budgeted science fiction film at this point. You never know, maybe they have to go through Classic Movie Remake Valley and see a little success before they can get back to making new and compelling science fiction again. See, this all lead back to the original topic. I'm a tangent riding genius is what I am, and I just showed you all. Ta-da. |
|
DTH
Ghostbuster
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Posts: 582
|
Post by DTH on Oct 24, 2008 2:21:25 GMT -5
See, this all lead back to the original topic. I'm a tangent riding genius is what I am, and I just showed you all. Ta-da. |
|
dex
Ghostbuster
So what colour is the sky in your world?
Posts: 343
|
Post by dex on Oct 24, 2008 4:38:08 GMT -5
Joe, I agree and I like the optimistic ending.
Oh, and: you can dance on the inside. I know.
|
|
DTH
Ghostbuster
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Posts: 582
|
Post by DTH on Oct 24, 2008 5:51:22 GMT -5
But I just meant a movie like Gattaca, which wasn't science obsessed like Andromeda, but a compelling look at a very possible turn in human culture with a very compelling personal story driving us through it. And that wasn't that long ago. Ah, you speak of social commentary through the medium of sci-fi. It took Star Wars to throw off the "stigma" of social sci-fi. Prior to that, sci-fi was relegated to films with a message or a budget of £0.02p  Films like Soylent Green, Silent Running, The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Logan's Run, Day Of The Triffids and 2001: A Space Oddyssey are juxtaposed against films like IT Came From Another World, Attack of the 50ft Woman, The Fly, Them! and Empire of the Ants. What am I talking about? The former were great movies (irrespective of genre) that were ahead of their time with a very real relevancy even today, which is what a good sci-fi movie should be. The latter are schlocky B-Movies that have mostly been remade and just as forgettable. And you'll note that NONE of those movies have been remade. Until The Day The Earth Stood Still. So let me widen the question up: would a remake of any of those aforementioned films be unnecessary? |
|
dex
Ghostbuster
So what colour is the sky in your world?
Posts: 343
|
Post by dex on Oct 24, 2008 7:30:26 GMT -5
All right: Are remakes of great old SF movies unnecessary?
Yes, no and well, ...
Per se, yes. Of course they are: the original is there, it's good and anyone can watch it on DVD (and potentially in cinemas). If many people don't want to, it's because they find old movies icky. People tend to only like the familiar, and ancient footage just feels too strange to invest time or money in. So it's those people who may need the remake, it's not the original.
That is sad because it belittles the original -- or demonstrates today's ignorance, depending on your point of view. Still, a great idea had better be recycled into a more palatable form than forgotten. And there is Joe's point about industry dynamics (reestablishing trust in thoughtful SF movies.)
But what if you think you can improve on an old movie? By all means, go ahead and try, but then you should have the self-confidence to not be a copycat.
An afterthought and a side note: Old SF is important. SF is about (hypothetical) predictions; seeing if/how predictions change can cast a new light on our outlook. (DTH referred to this, in a way.) Finally, I will risk another tangent: an analogy for remakes are adaptations, aren't they? If you are fond of the original, you will oftentimes be skeptical about the derived opus. Personally, I find I am the happiest when I consume the one or the other, but not both.
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireKat on Oct 24, 2008 20:57:58 GMT -5
Minority report was great, as was I, Robot. Serenity was spectacular. Cloverfield was great for what it was. I'm gonna go ahead and count Wall-E as sci fi (it's about robots...duh). aaand I Am Legend.
|
|
|
|
Post by helioseclipsed on Oct 24, 2008 22:59:49 GMT -5
I was pretty silent there, huh Kat?  Minority Report was okay, though I remember there being a couple of plot holes that made it less impressive, and the action seemed to take over for a lot of the movie. I don't dislike it, but it's not on my favorites list. I Am Legend and Cloverfield were monster movies, not scifi (no, most of the movies on the SciFi channel don't count either). I like the remake of The Fly, but it's a monster movie too. I put it on a different shelf than 2001 or even the Terminator or Predator movies. I admit, there's a debatable double standard there, but at least the Predator was a different kind of antagonist that could only be done in a scifi setting. Cloverfield was Godzilla 2.0, and the idea of the monster was never the point. It's all about intent, I think. I can't quite bring myself to think of Wall-E as real science fiction either. I loved watching it, but I think of it as a charming comedy that happened to star animated robots. The consumerism angle makes a case for it, but it was never that developed. And to answer DTH, of course remakes aren't necessary. I for one would rather see wholly original content. And the current trend of movies based on old movies or properties is really getting old. Sadly, it's partly to blame on the success of the comic book movie boom, but it's also just easier for people to churn out franchise movies, and far more lucrative a draw for studios. But if the remake of Earth Stood Still becomes a success, it might spur some interest in the genre and we could see more of it pop up. That could only be a good thing. |
|
Rett Mikhal
Ghostbuster
Shorten your stream, I don't want my face burned off!
Posts: 377
|
Post by Rett Mikhal on Nov 9, 2008 0:42:55 GMT -5
I'd rather see a movie with some context get remade. At least Charlie and the Chocolate factory, blatantly unnecessary at it was, had the context of the current weight issue and over eating as a hidden sub... text.... oh, wait... no it didn't.
You know what remake I've been bitching about for years? Running Man. Sure, it suffers from 80s cliches and action movie melodrama. But back in the 80s there were few reality TV shows besides crooked game shows. Nowadays they're everywhere and they're getting more and more dangerous and more and more intrusive on our lives. I think a remake of the Running Man would be a nice wake-up call saying THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!! Or nice writers. Because reality TV can go horribly, horribly wrong very, very quickly. There's little doubt in my mind Running Man won't someday become a mistaken historical documentary when game shows DO go to that extreme length for ratings.
|
|
