Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

    ...Transcendence bombed. Imo, the closest that a film's come in recent years, to showcasing hard science was "Transcendence".

    HER was pretty - I say "pretty" because the AI was a bit of a stretch, and/or there was no believable base, progression that showed how Siri.. sorry, Samantha, might really evolve.

    However, HER crossed over well to general audience (read: not only geeks)

    So my questions are:

    - How much time do Screenwriters invest when writing such hard sci-fi? 6 months, a year? more? less? Or do they hire/consult with experts in the field.
    (i'm talking about indie screenwriters, who aren't contracted to producers, and thus don't have infinite budgets)

    - Do you think general audiences are ready for a Psychological Sci-fi film based on hard science that "shows" how tech will merge with humanity?

    For the record, I don't believe Transcendence failed due to stilted acting. It was a thought provoking film, so it must be audience tastes in wanting pop-corn sci-fi?

    Kind Regards.
    |The DIRROGATE:Website, and Escalator pitch

  • #2
    Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

    Of course there's an appetite. Gravity did pretty well. It was as 'hard' sci-fi as sci-fi can be. (Yes - there's mismatch of orbital calculations, but apart from that ...)


    Originally posted by cly3d View Post
    HER was pretty - I say "pretty" because the AI was a bit of a stretch, and/or there was no believable base, progression that showed how Siri.. sorry, Samantha, might really evolve.
    So what?

    It's a sci-fi with a plausible technology, but it still doesn't count as 'hard' sci-fi unless it gives a precise roadmap explaining the progression of technology? You want details as to how many GFLOPS are used in computational effort, versus how much is outsourced to Mechanical Turks living in Bangladesh?

    Movie audiences are smarter than that. They don't want a hand-holding explanation. They just want to experience the new world.

    Was the explanation of dino DNA in 'Jurassic Park' enough of of a believable base & progression to satisfy the need for the sci-fi to be 'hard'?

    Would it be 'hard' sci-fi .. except for research into the exact degradation rates of DNA? Or was the hand-waving "We filled in bits of the DNA from another source to cover the degradation" enough?

    ---

    You talk about 'hiring' experts in the field. As a screenwriter writing on spec .. don't do it. Most experts in their field love talking about their specialty.

    Buy someone a lunch and they'll geek out for ages on how their field is the perfect subject matter for a film.

    Do you think general audiences are ready for a Psychological Sci-fi film based on hard science that "shows" how tech will merge with humanity?
    I think general audiences would love a Psychological Sci-fi film based on hard science .. set in a world where tech has merged with humanity.

    But they'll love it because of the great story and characters ... not because the film 'showed' them how the tech merge happened.
    • Did people love 'Titanic' because it showed them the physics of ice / ship collisions?
    • Did people love 'Gone with the Wind' because it explained the backdrop of the 1870s so well?
    • Did people love 'Aliens' because it showed how well Sigourney in a robotic exoskeleton can kick alien butt?

    Well - 2/3 for story & character ain't bad!

    Good luck !

    Mac
    New blogposts:
    *Followup - Seeking Investors in all the wrong places
    *Preselling your film - Learning from the Experts
    *Getting your indie film onto iTunes
    *Case Study - Estimating Film profits

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

      Originally posted by Mac H. View Post
      You want details as to how many GFLOPS are used in computational effort, versus how much is outsourced to Mechanical Turks living in Bangladesh?
      Hmmm... slight hint of profiling there
      Yes, it would be nice to know how many GFlops are used to read the entire wikipedia in less than a second. - The more you give audiences - of course in a non preachy/expository way - the better for the authenticity of the premise.

      Originally posted by Mac H. View Post
      You talk about 'hiring' experts in the field. As a screenwriter writing on spec .. don't do it. Most experts in their field love talking about their specialty
      No, I was asking if any screenwriters done this? - But yes, you're right. Experts would be only too willing to help. Those passionate about their field.
      I've had some excellent discourse with many, approaching/befriending them on Facebook.

      Originally posted by Mac H. View Post
      Was the explanation of dino DNA in 'Jurassic Park' enough of of a believable base & progression to satisfy the need for the sci-fi to be 'hard'?
      Actually, I've recently heard the sci-fi in J-Park, might just be on the right track. - They're looking at resurrecting a Mammoth.
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...th-dna-cloning

      Originally posted by Mac H. View Post
      But they'll love it because of the great story and characters ... not because the film 'showed' them how the tech merge happened.
      I totally get this. It has to be the story and the playout. Otherwise, we have textbooks and videos.
      But - when a film manages to "show", thereby seeding ideas (Minority Report's Gestural interface) it's always a great way forward to accelerate our technological evolution.

      Originally posted by Mac H. View Post
      I think general audiences would love a Psychological Sci-fi film based on hard science .. set in a world where tech has merged with humanity.
      Thank you! working on just this!

      Kind Regards.
      Last edited by Done Deal Pro; 05-25-2014, 08:37 AM. Reason: Fixed quotes; added quote code.
      |The DIRROGATE:Website, and Escalator pitch

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

        There's always an appetite for good stories, well told. Hard science-fiction only means the science is very accurate. It doesn't really put any limit in the kind of stories that can be told beyond that accuracy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

          Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
          Hard science-fiction only means the science is very accurate. It doesn't really put any limit in the kind of stories that can be told beyond that accuracy.
          You're right of course!

          What I was trying to get wrap my head around was why Transcendence didn't get the audience recognition it deserved. It can't all be down to the acting.

          This is why i'm wondering if indeed, general audiences have a slant toward the pop-corn sci-fi based on comic book franchises. (I have nothing per se against Iron/super/spider man films)
          Last edited by Done Deal Pro; 05-25-2014, 08:39 AM. Reason: Added quote code.
          |The DIRROGATE:Website, and Escalator pitch

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

            My father is an experimental nuclear phycisist. He also co-wrote two sci-fi novels. A while ago, I was working on something with a sci-fi bent, worrying over justifying the science part of it, asked him about the physics that would make this imaginary thing possible. He looked at me and said: "It's a movie, isn't it?" "Yes," I said. "Well, make it up."

            In the end, movie audiences go to see human interaction, and care more about that than whether you make the science absolutely perfect. Not to say you can't incorporate good science, and use the medium to open minds. But...

            You have to serve the story and the characters first. I think the point is to intrigue and engage your audience enough to ask 'could that really happen?', just as historical movies sometimes fudge time, blend characters a bit --'did that really happen?" -- Let's face it, you only have an hour and a half or so. It's a movie. Not a lecture. It's more important to have believable, relatable human behavior than perfect science. The science is the medium to get your audience feeling and thinking.

            I just think you can get so caught up in making the details of the science perfect that you neglect the core of what makes movies great.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

              Originally posted by carcar View Post
              It's a movie. Not a lecture. It's more important to have believable, relatable human behavior than perfect science.
              therein lies the rub.
              What if the scifi movie is about the evolution of human behavior? Then perfect science is necessary. Too many times, the science is fudged at the expense of "it's only a movie - let's stretch the science as far as we can"

              I'm not saying everyone uses that as an excuse for lazy research.
              But i'm wondering, if sci-fi would benefit from the science being harder while of-course, not at the cost of acting and story.

              Originally posted by carcar View Post
              In the end, movie audiences go to see human interaction
              again, see, most sci-fi movies will be about human-machine / human-cyborg and going forward it will be about human-posthuman/AI interaction.

              We have to get the science right, right?

              To get back to some of my previous questions:

              Why did HER cross over so well with audiences and Transcendence didn't?
              My hypothesis, and again, just my opinion was the general audience might prefer their science a little ..err, sweetened?
              Last edited by Done Deal Pro; 05-25-2014, 08:41 AM. Reason: Added quote code.
              |The DIRROGATE:Website, and Escalator pitch

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

                "Audience members are only concerned about the story, the concept, the bells and whistles and the noise that a popular film starts to make even before it's popular. So audiences will not be drawn to the technology; they'll be drawn to the story. And I hope it always remains that way."
                Steven Spielberg

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

                  I don't think the creative and commercial problems with TRANSCENDENCE are rooted it its attempts to be hard SF. And I don't think that's what smart studio execs or reps are thinking either.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

                    expand on that?
                    |The DIRROGATE:Website, and Escalator pitch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

                      Originally posted by cly3d View Post

                      - How much time do Screenwriters invest when writing such hard sci-fi? 6 months, a year? more? less? Or do they hire/consult with experts in the field.
                      (i'm talking about indie screenwriters, who aren't contracted to producers, and thus don't have infinite budgets)
                      You invest as long as it takes to tell the story you feel compelled to tell with the level of accuracy and attention to detail that you feel that it needs.

                      When I've done projects which required a lot of research, I've spoken to experts, I've read articles, and so on. You do what you have to do.

                      - Do you think general audiences are ready for a Psychological Sci-fi film based on hard science that "shows" how tech will merge with humanity?
                      If it's a good film, sure.

                      I haven't seen Transcendence, so I can't comment on it.

                      The thing about the audience is that they don't know what they want until they get it. Or, rather, the decision-makers don't know what the audience wants until the audience tells them.

                      The audience might not be ready until you make the film that they love. Then they're ready.

                      In 1999, there was no genre more dead than Pirate movies. A couple of years later, a pirate movie launched a huge franchise.

                      Tell a great story.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

                        ^^ Thanks Ronaldinho
                        |The DIRROGATE:Website, and Escalator pitch

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

                          Point Zero: if you're writing what there's an "appetite for" then 0a) you're not writing what you want to write, so it will almost certainly not be your best work and 0b) there are ex hypothesi already hundreds or thousands of other people who have done it better.

                          Point One: Even in the print world, Hard is a minority of SF.

                          Point Two: I'm pretty sure that Gravity contains no technology not currently in actual use by actual humans, so I wouldn't classify it as SF any more than science-heavy CSI police procedurals are SF. And although I haven't seen Her, everything I've heard about it leads me to understand that scientifically accurate details of the computer science don't play a role in the narrative, so I'm not sure that counts as "hard".

                          Point Three: ...which got me thinking, I'm having a hard time thinking of any SF films I could confidently describe as "hard". (A cursory googling pulls up a lot of lists that include movies like Dune and Logan's Run, and while "hard" will always to some extent be in the eye of the beholder, some beholders' eyes appear to just be objectively wrong.) Probably Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park. Contact. Parts of 2001.

                          But it's a really short list. So I'd probably answer "no" to the OP. Which leads me to

                          Point Four: GOTO Point Zero.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

                            I'll counter the story of Transcendence with another story.

                            Remember later summer after Pacific Rim disappointed across the board? Writers and studios all had the same reaction: "Guess that's it for Kaiju movies".

                            Fast forward just one year and Godzilla smashes expectations, has a huge box office, sequels get green lit, and the director gets a dream job. Now suddenly Kaiju is cool again.

                            Point is it's all cyclical and if you are writing on spec you need to be writing what you are most passionate about, don't let any market blips sway you.

                            And on a personal note - SCI FI WILL NEVER DIE!
                            Write, rite, wright... until you get it RIGHT.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is there an appetite for "hard" sci-fi? after...

                              Hard sci-fi is often associated with a tone. For some people it must be serious, slow, and dour. I don't agree, but that's what some sci-fi enthusiasts expect.

                              Jurassic Park is an interesting case, because I suspect that even though the science fits under the hard sci-fi category, it probably wouldn't be counted as that.

                              I've not seen Transcendence, but I have seen the miserable face of Johnny Depp on the poster, which made me less keen to see it.

                              The first script I wrote was a fan fiction Rendezvous With Rama, which is always near the top of hard sci-fi lists. Even though the book keeps its science legitimate, it goes to a level thousands of years ahead of us. It has minimal character work, but doesn't shy away from action set-pieces. My experience with it was that you could stay faithful to the hard science of it while telling a fun story of a fantastical journey.

                              Being a little rigorous on the science for scripts is rewarded just as specificity is in other aspects of writing. But you don't have to let that squeeze the fun out of your story.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X