Tell me how Hollywood is supposed to market a positive feel good movie about the future?

It's hard to create tension in a positive story. Like how do you market a hard Sci-fi movie about the colonization of say Mars? It would only work as a TV series but it would take an amazing creative behind it to make it work.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You can have negative story elements without it being apocalyptic. Moon, 2001, Alien, jeez even Star Wars.

But yeah, I would like to see more hard scifi about humanity's future, instead of its lack of one. That's the kind of SF book I read - *not* Cormac McCarthy's The Road.

>> ^Farhad2000:

Tell me how Hollywood is supposed to market a positive feel good movie about the future?
It's hard to create tension in a positive story. Like how do you market a hard Sci-fi movie about the colonization of say Mars? It would only work as a TV series but it would take an amazing creative behind it to make it work.

Wait 2001 was based around the Cold War no? I might be confusing it with book here... Alien was a world run by Multinational corporations exploiting people/aliens. The Moon was a corporation essentially cloning people. I think a bunch of these are debatable.

The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, they were negative, even dystopian. But they weren't about the extinction of the human race. As a sub-genre of SF I realise that end-of-the-world stories have been around forever, they just seem to be much more frequent of late. And yeah, it would be nice to get an uplifting, positive SciFi epic. I'm trying to think of any I've seen in the last few years.

>> ^Farhad2000:

Wait 2001 was based around the Cold War no? I might be confusing it with book here... Alien was a world run by Multinational corporations exploiting people/aliens. The Moon was a corporation essentially cloning people. I think a bunch of these are debatable.
The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

Two that came to my mind, even though they are more like hard sci-fi set in modern times:

Primer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)

The Man From Earth - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/

Occam's Razor tells me that we're seeing a lot of apocalypse stories because, years ago, someone made one that was very successful and a lot of people are still on that bandwagon. I blame Independence Day; it's practically a sub-genre now.

I also think 9/11 attuned Americans to widespread destruction. We were used to watching it happen on TV but that was the first time most of us saw it "at home". When the Pentagon was hit I can remember thinking there might be dozens of attacks in progress; that other targets would continue to be hit throughout the day. Deep down, there was a small, sick part of me that was really excited about that.

I dug Rise of the Planet of the Apes too. Part of the reason Ceasar seemed so human was that Andy 'Gollum' Serkis did the motion capture.

I do love me some dystopian apocalyptic fiction, and had no problem cheering on the apes, but I certainly don't have a societal death wish. Quite the contrary. I think these films are more of a warning of what may happen if we don't get our collective shit together as a planet. I think these films are an exaggeration of the problems of the present - greed, selfishness, conformity, commercialization, corporatism, the devaluation of humanity, disconnectedness, environmental destruction, weapons of mass destruction, cosmetic surgery, prescription drugs, a return to base human violence, loveless sexuality, prejudice, etc. The post apocalypse is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

No, no, no - movie trends must be an expression of the collective unconscious. It's much more interesting. Damn you Occam. Damn you all to hell.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Occam's Razor tells me that we're seeing a lot of apocalypse stories because, years ago, someone made one that was very successful and a lot of people are still on that bandwagon. I blame Independence Day; it's practically a sub-genre now.
I also think 9/11 attuned Americans to widespread destruction. We were used to watching it happen on TV but that was the first time most of us saw it "at home". When the Pentagon was hit I can remember thinking there might be dozens of attacks in progress; that other targets would continue to be hit throughout the day. Deep down, there was a small, sick part of me that was really excited about that.

>> ^Farhad2000:

The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.


Star Trek is sorta the gold standard of positive futures for humanity. It's really the only sci-fi universe in which humanity really seems to have advanced as a culture.

Most other stories assume we'll be essentially the same as we are now, or worse.

Also, a Mars colonization story wouldn't be that hard. Just adapt Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy.

Considering how conservative Hollywood is these days, you'd think they'd have started to do adaptations of some Hugo Award-winning sci-fi novels that're newer than, say, 1970 or so.

Even sticking to apocalyptic themes, there are some really good ones that haven't been tapped yet. It's almost a crime that they haven't made a movie out of Larry Niven's Footfall, for example.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Totally with you here. I would love to see some more classic SF made. Rendezvous with Rama is coming! >> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Farhad2000:
The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

Star Trek is sorta the gold standard of positive futures for humanity. It's really the only sci-fi universe in which humanity really seems to have advanced as a culture.
Most other stories assume we'll be essentially the same as we are now, or worse.
Also, a Mars colonization story wouldn't be that hard. Just adapt Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy.
Considering how conservative Hollywood is these days, you'd think they'd have started to do adaptations of some Hugo Award-winning sci-fi novels that're newer than, say, 1970 or so.
Even sticking to apocalyptic themes, there are some really good ones that haven't been tapped yet. It's almost a crime that they haven't made a movie out of Larry Niven's Footfall, for example.

@dag supposedly Ender's Game is too, but it's been a few years away for about a decade now.

I'm sorta iffy on how they can make a movie based on Rendezvous interesting. I think they almost have to transplant the events & characters of Rama 2 into Rama's first visit to make it a decent film.

Even then, to make it true to the series, they'll have to instill a deep interest in solving the mystery of who the Ramans are, why they sent the ship, why there's so much weird stuff in the ship, and then pointedly provide zero answers, and zero hints.

Then after 4 books give you a completely stupid answer to all those questions that almost makes you sorry you read the books in the first place.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

For Rama, I'd stick with the original. I'm not a fan of the sequels, especially after Gentry Lee got involved in Clarke's dotage.

Speaking of SF remakes, I'd love John Varley's Titan series to be done on the big screen. I think CGI would now make it more than possible.


>> ^NetRunner:

@dag supposedly Ender's Game is too, but it's been a few years away for about a decade now.
I'm sorta iffy on how they can make a movie based on Rendezvous interesting. I think they almost have to transplant the events & characters of Rama 2 into Rama's first visit to make it a decent film.
Even then, to make it true to the series, they'll have to instill a deep interest in solving the mystery of who the Ramans are, why they sent the ship, why there's so much weird stuff in the ship, and then pointedly provide zero answers, and zero hints.
Then after 4 books give you a completely stupid answer to all those questions that almost makes you sorry you read the books in the first place.

Great discussion, be looking into some of these books you all mention! *quality

>> ^dag:

For Rama, I'd stick with the original. I'm not a fan of the sequels, especially after Gentry Lee got involved in Clarke's dotage.
Speaking of SF remakes, I'd love John Varley's Titan series to be done on the big screen. I think CGI would now make it more than possible.

Maybe it's just me, but I honestly can't remember any events of significance happening in the original book. It's like almost all Clarke books, it's got a great idea as a set piece, but the characters are flat as pancakes, and the plot doesn't really go anywhere either.

I tended to like Clarke's collaborative books better, because they usually had better characters and plot, but were still wrapped around an awesome Clarke idea.

I haven't read the Titan series, but again, that's a Hugo-award winning sci fi novel post-1970. It's also annoying because if you go and check, some major movie house already owns the movie rights on all these novels. Clearly someone has the foresight to go and acquire it, but it never percolates up to the bigwigs to green light an actual film.

Can't help butting in on this conversation.

The best SF has absolutely flat, generic characters. Because they're not the point of the story. Why does everything have to be a soap opera?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.

>> ^gorillaman:

Can't help butting in on this conversation.
The best SF has absolutely flat, generic characters. Because they're not the point of the story. Why does everything have to be a soap opera?

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.

Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.

It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.

Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.

It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

But to care about SF, it has to be about how it relates to human beings. In some sense we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are experiencing the wonder. Otherwise it's dry and boring.

When I think about SF movies without good character, I think of Transformers. Style over substance.

Contact on the other hand had a great central character that let you feel the wonder of what she was experiencing through her eyes. That's vital.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.
Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.
It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.
Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.
It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

>> ^dag:
But to care about SF, it has to be about how it relates to human beings. In some sense we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are experiencing the wonder. Otherwise it's dry and boring.
When I think about SF movies without good character, I think of Transformers. Style over substance.
Contact on the other hand had a great central character that let you feel the wonder of what she was experiencing through her eyes. That's vital.Well there's my point. We have theory of mind, plus mirror neurons firing away - if children can see through the eyes of a doll, we ought to be able to put ourselves into even the most simply drawn character. That doesn't have to mean badly drawn, like Transformers.

Just saw Rise ten minutes ago. It's surprisingly good stuff; a fantastic successor to the original PotA. I have a particular weakness for this story because I deeply wish we could make smart animals. I want to hear their perspective. I'd love to have a conversation with someone as intelligent as me but who didn't share my exact evolutionary heritage and inbuilt biases. Imagine living on earth with a separate race of equals. I really think it'd be enlightening - and, okay, potentially problematic.

Jim Carrey plus penguins = apocalypse

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

No argument there, though Carrey has been in a couple of decent Sci-fi-ish flicks. I'm thinking of course of The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Yes, I left out The Mask on purpose.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Jim Carrey plus penguins = apocalypse