The Final Frontier.... Passe?

Over the last couple of years, I've noticed falling trend in Sci-fi space movies. Are they going out of style? I personally love them. Growing up I was completely awestruck with movies like Alien, 2010, the Star Trek movies, The Black Hole, Flash Gordon, of course the Star Wars series, and yes even "The Last Starfighter". Are they going the way of the dinosaur? Are we all bored with "the final frontier"? Granted, I don't think too many people would be heartbroken if they stopped making Star Trek movies... especially with the lack of story in the last couple. But has everyone forgotten tag lines like "In space, no one can hear you scream"? It seems like they're dieing.

Does anyone else notice this happening?

- Josh

there's nothing wrong with being based on a video game if the ideas are sound. for example, i think that "final fantasy" is a great movie, and the first "mortal kombat" is not bad. however, most of these adaptations are more interested in action rather than ideas or characters, which is why they suck, suck, suck.

Justin,

Good point about things coming and going. I suppose nothing ever disappears completely. I wonder if we're all hurting ourselves by going to see the CGI "glitz" films that have little or no plot. After all, if these films use up most of their budget on CGI, and we go see them just because they're eye candy, aren't we supporting that kind of film? I'll be the first to admit I'm one of those people that does see most "pretty" looking CGI movies, even if they look somewhat lame.

Do you think that "slapstick" is beneath us all now? Is it too "stupid" of a humor type for people to enjoy anymore? Personally I had only seen one or two "Three Stooges" episodes when I was in my early teens, and then the ALL TIME GREAT Charlie Chaplin. Of course later on came Chevy Chase and John Candy, and of course Chris Farley. It seems the only place slapstick shows up now days is in little kids movies.

Tim,

You made a lot of good points on what may and may not be "Sci-fi", and in all actuality we should probably define sci-fi by "book" standards. However, I think the dawn of movies in the early to mid 1900's defined what most of us think of as sci-fi today. E.g. War Of The Worlds, Twilight Zone (albeit tv), any multitude of the dinosaur movies starring zoomed in spiders & ants, and dressed up lizards, or the many "space ships" hanging from VISIBLE strings with a "sparkler" hanging out the back. I think to be classified a "Sci-fi" the movie has to have a HEALTHY dose of Science in it. Weather that be because the movie is set in space, or dealing with aliens, or because of cloning dinosaurs, or using empaths to find murderous people before they comit the crime.

I am looking forward to the upcoming "AVP", as well as "The Chronicals Of Riddick". However, critics are already giving Chronicals Of Riddick a bad wrap. And I can't say I blame them, when they pointed out Vin Diesel's cheasy line "the things I do for my galaxy". Don't get me wrong, I loved "Pitch Black", and I like SOME of Vin's movies. I guess we won't know until the premier.

I too grew up (albeit on the tail end) of the original Star Trek series. I loved it as a kid, as well as Battlestar Galactica, and Buck Rogers. I suppose I'm not one that sides with the "Kirk" generation, or the "Picard" generation, as I liked both series for what they were/are. I don't think it's possible to bring back the Kirk era "with new actors" just because of how many spin-off's The Next Generation has sprouted. Personally, I think they've run out of storylines, or different directions to take the idea. I liked a lot of the Next Generation movies... it's just the last two I didn't think were that great.

Before I got off on a tangent here, I was speaking specifically of "space" genre sci-fi movies. Dealing with space ships, and maybe wars in space, or just plain exploration of the unknown. Another I forgot to mention, that may not have been the best of films (Eddie! ;)) but I still think it had redeeming qualities was "Event Horizon". Intrigueing, and had the scare factor. Even "Sphere" (Dustin Hofman & Sam Jackson) was VERY cool to me. I think we've all noticed a drastic drop in story quality since the wide spread use of CGI. Hopefully movie makers will take notice, and start WRITING again! "Contact" is a good example (in my opinion) of good writing/story telling in the face of (and very little use of) CGI. I think you're right... history will repeat itself, and we'll see Sci-fi's get popular again some time down the road. "ohhh... uh oh, you definately left your shorts on the road" :D

YCH,

I never got into Babylon 5, which I sort of regret, but my "beef" with it at the time is that (in comparison to Star Trek Next Gen.) it had a crappy budget for costume AND CGI. Considering where CGI has taken us today, I may have to invest in (or rent) the Babylon series and see what the "hubub" is all about. Personally, I'm a Stargate SG-1 fenatic now. Can't get enough of it!

John,

I tend to disagree with the "Fantasy" association with Sci-fi. As you said, it's controversial. But I think my opinion above to Tim, explains why. I would still consider any of the Terminator series Sci-fi. As I mentioned above... because of the movie industry in the very beginning, I think to be catagorized as a Sci-fi, it needs to have a healthy dose of Science in it.

Eddie,

I agree that for probably every 1 successful Sci-fi, there have probably been 5 - 10 or so failures. I think Wing Commander failed because it was based on a video game, and not a previously established storyline. "Mission To Mars" felt like they were in a hurry to tell the story and get it over with. Had they taken their time, I think it had potential to be a good movie, but as a result, was a flop. I agree... the original Star Trek is like hanging out with "old friends". I mean, who can beat Kirk's "Two handed" punch?! Or the fight scene between Kirk and Spock that Jim Carey made popular all over again in "The Cable Guy". I do miss those shows, however, when I've tried to go back and watch them, I find myself distracted by all of the LAME (by comparison today) sound effects, and $10 costume budget. The newer films like "Generations" and "Insurection", were good. "Nemesis", and one other that escapes me at the moment, were just "ok" for me.


- Josh 8)

Tim,

Me? I want an all-female crew for the next "Star Trek" show. (y)

Eddie

Well, Eddie, I'll agree with you on "Nemesis". I thought that one was pretty good, too. However, I truly miss the original cast. I find that Captin Kirk and crew are much more the "buddy" feeling than the new generation. To me that's the difference between the two casts. The old cast is much easier to relate with on a human level, where the new generation I find to be much more scientifically serious; almost to the point of where they are too wooden, all serious, and yes. . .boring. Oh well, I guess everyone has their favorites, no?

:)

Tim,

Actually, I don't follow the Sci-Fi channel, but I'm sure that it does pretty well since it's been on the air for a while now. :)

As for space sci-fi movies...they're notoriously hard to do. Josh, you remember movies that are considered "good" or even "great", but I bet you that for every "Alien", there were at least 10 that were bad made around the same time. Either the story or the characters have to be especially well-done in order to make audiences care about things set in outer space. (There's a reason why "Wing Commander" and "Mission to Mars" sucked big time despite decent visual effects.) "Star Trek" endures because people love the characters, so watching a "Star Trek" movie is like hanging out with good friends. However, as someone here noted, the stories have been pretty lame with the recent movies (though I did enjoy "Nemesis" a lot).

Eddie

Wow, John, I didn't know you were a fan of "Contact". I loved that movie! Some people found it too slow, but I thought it had great visuals along with a great story. ;)

Yes, as Tim says, science-fiction has merged with the more popular genre of fantasy lately, giving us "Terminator," "Matrix," even "Star Wars." But if we can define true sci-fi as that which has not happened (yet) but could possibly happen, we shouldn't forget Speilberg's "AI" and "Minority Report." Both were sci-fi, and both were popular (if controversial). I think "Contact" was the best sci-fi film of the past decade, but that, too, is a controversial opinion.

Stuff comes and goes, as Justin said. Musicals died until "Chicago" came along and won the Academy Award. Now, every studio has a musical in production. Even the Western makes a stab (or, for punster Sean, takes a shot) at coming back now and then.

John

"even if Eddie beats the crap out of me with actual profit and loss figures. Lol "

Boy's got too much time on his hands I'm telling you ;)

EDIT: Oh you guys forget, though Babylon 5 was a TV series, damn I loved that show. I've bought the DVD sets from Seasons 1 through 4.

I’m not sure if I could say it’s dying. However, you’d think with all the wonderful CGI available to studios these days there’d be a lot more Sci-Fi. On the other hand, there are a couple coming out this summer, “Aliens vs. Predator” and “The Chronicles of Riddick”. I don’t think of it so much as dying, but rather, there just hasn’t been a “stand out” effort in quite a long time when it comes to this genre. Let’s face it; the last two Star Wars films were mediocre, at best. I really don’t think Star Trek will ever be the same without the original crew behind the wheel (yes, I realize they’re old and can never come back. My point here is I grew up on Capt. Kirk, so I admire the characters of the original crew much more than the new generation. In fact, I’d go as far as to accept new actors to play the parts of the original characters. I know that’s blasphemy to a lot of trekie fans, but you know something . . . I don’t care! )

Sci-Fi itself does have a broad field when it comes to what we interpret as Sci-Fi. According to this discussion, I assume we only mean the kind of Sci-Fi that is of the “outer space” nature. However, let’s examine the genre as a whole before we jump to conclusions. Some people would also categorize “fantasy” as being a relative to Sci-Fi. Even the “disaster” genre can be considered another relative to Sci-Fi. And no, I don’t think the disaster genre is quite dead yet. With “The Day After Tomorrow” coming out this summer, I see no hopes of it dying soon. Then there’s the genre of Sci-Fi we got with “Jurassic Park”. How the hell do we categorize that? It’s not outer space, it’s not fantasy, yet it deals with a substantial amount of science to categorize it into the Sci-Fi genre, yes? Then there’s the even more bizarre style we got with “The Matrix”. Where do we place that in the Sci-Fi library? It’s not an outer space flick, but it sure as hell is a science fiction.

So, is the genre of Sci-Fi really dying? I’d have to say no. I mean, after all, Sci-Fi has its own cable channel, no? I know that doesn’t mean that it’s the most popular genre because it has its own channel. And I’m sure Eddie will come in here to tell me that the channel actually looses money. My point is Sci-Fi does have its own cable network regardless of what shortcomings the genre may be experiencing. It also tells me that there is still enough of an audience to make it a profitable market . . . even if Eddie beats the crap out of me with actual profit and loss figures. Lol :D

However, Josh, I think I know where you’re coming from on this topic. Sci-Fi, the kind you’re talking about, just needs a jump start with a decent, well accepted film. I think we’ve had some great story’s in the past (Star Wars trilogy, Star Trek’s, Alien(s), etc.), and we’ve all set our expectations very high. Now days we just get a lot of dazzling CGI, but the story’s lack in substance. The way I see it, someone will come along to revitalize everyone’s interest, and in turn, that will set off a plethora of “outer spaces” flicks for a few years. Maybe I’m just using the cliché of “history repeats itself”, but the fact is it really does. I really wouldn’t worry, and I don’t think it’s dying . . . maybe on a slow-down, but not dying. Yeah, definitely not dying, definitely not dying . . . Wopner’s on at three o’clock, definitely three, definitely three o’clock. :D