Sci-Fi clichés

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #16
    Re: Sci-Fi clichés

    I think when Science Fiction is turned up too much on the volume scale -- it can go very wrong. You want the sci-fi to be the gateway to a cool story -- but for the story to feel human and relatable.

    Star Trek as others have said -- feels like a western or a navy ship. People at work, but it's in space. It just feels very human to me. It's OUR future, but it's all talking about our present and past.

    But then you have Star Trek like shows that are 90% new worlds, new characters, hard to follow, maybe adpated from a book or comic, and my mind goes numb.

    I think our brains (or most of us) can only take so much sci-fi added to a story -- I say about 10-20% of the story. When it goes above that -- holy crap -- you can have movies that may look cool, but it's impossible for it to rise to that next level.

    This also applies to horror movies for me. Michael Myers is scary as **** because he's in the real world and he's real. Just a freak. It's a whole lot less scary to me when your cell phone is trying to kill you. It just turned the "do I believe this?" too far.

    Also funny all the movies you mention as great sci-fi all had tons of sequels. Because there was too much story to fit into one film. Too much world. And how many movie deserve to have multiple movies? The Matrix I think is amazing -- the sequels are not.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sci-Fi clichés

      -Dystopian cars that after years of sitting on a street will run on perfect preserved fuel, their tires magically stay inflated etc etc etc.

      -Museums that somehow have fully active (and loaded) weapons on display

      -The element "Unobtainium"

      -Super beings

      -Mankind triumphing over aliens after a speech from the Prez after having their asses kicked for the previous 80minutes

      -The ability to decipher alien text in three minutes and create a counter weapons and another three minutes


      -A flaw in the super weapon that a 3 year old could point out and say "uh-uh, bad, naughty aliens... Stoopid!"

      -vampire sci fi cross overs
      I heard the starting gun


      sigpic

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sci-Fi clichés

        Originally posted by Bono View Post
        I think when Science Fiction is turned up too much on the volume scale -- it can go very wrong. You want the sci-fi to be the gateway to a cool story -- but for the story to feel human and relatable.

        Star Trek as others have said -- feels like a western or a navy ship. People at work, but it's in space. It just feels very human to me. It's OUR future, but it's all talking about our present and past.

        But then you have Star Trek like shows that are 90% new worlds, new characters, hard to follow, maybe adpated from a book or comic, and my mind goes numb.

        I think our brains (or most of us) can only take so much sci-fi added to a story -- I say about 10-20% of the story. When it goes above that -- holy crap -- you can have movies that may look cool, but it's impossible for it to rise to that next level.

        This also applies to horror movies for me. Michael Myers is scary as **** because he's in the real world and he's real. Just a freak. It's a whole lot less scary to me when your cell phone is trying to kill you. It just turned the "do I believe this?" too far.

        Also funny all the movies you mention as great sci-fi all had tons of sequels. Because there was too much story to fit into one film. Too much world. And how many movie deserve to have multiple movies? The Matrix I think is amazing -- the sequels are not.
        I don't think many people would argue that SW, Matrix or Avatar *needed* sequels. Everything was told well in just one film.

        At the same time, Jurassic Park already has 4 sequels. Halloween has more.

        You can have an elaborate imaginary universe, if it has a focused story. I guess you *could* say that the more complex the world-building is, the simpler the story should be. This is not a necessity, but maybe good general advice.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sci-Fi clichés

          But it's impossible to think of Star Wars as only one film -- I think of them as 3 films as I grew up in the 80s. But most of what I think about is in Empire or Jedi. So I was just pointing out what another posted said about world building. To get the world fully out you need sequels.

          I did not think Matrix needed sequels. No one wants the 2 to 4 Avatar sequels that JC has been working on for what seems like 25 years now.

          Horror movie sequels or sequels in general is a another story.

          What I'm saying is -- give examples of Sci-Fi movies that do what you are saying that didn't also get expanded on in some way.

          i know it's the movie business so things get sequles -- but it's so hard to think about one sci-fi movie that setup the world and that's it. We did it. One and done!

          For example Planet of the Apes did all they needed to do in one film but it was successful so it had sequels. However, no one remembers 1 thing in them from original series.

          And since then it's been rebooted twice.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sci-Fi clichés

            Originally posted by Bono View Post
            But it's impossible to think of Star Wars as only one film -- I think of them as 3 films as I grew up in the 80s. But most of what I think about is in Empire or Jedi. So I was just pointing out what another posted said about world building. To get the world fully out you need sequels.

            I did not think Matrix needed sequels. No one wants the 2 to 4 Avatar sequels that JC has been working on for what seems like 25 years now.

            Horror movie sequels or sequels in general is a another story.

            What I'm saying is -- give examples of Sci-Fi movies that do what you are saying that didn't also get expanded on in some way.

            i know it's the movie business so things get sequles -- but it's so hard to think about one sci-fi movie that setup the world and that's it. We did it. One and done!

            For example Planet of the Apes did all they needed to do in one film but it was successful so it had sequels. However, no one remembers 1 thing in them from original series.

            And since then it's been rebooted twice.
            Films with fully established lore are of course ripe for sequels. The audience loves the world itself, to it's easy to write new story-lines in that beloved universe. SW is the prime example of this. For example Mandalorian was a huge hit, despite not having one single character from the films.

            But, your point is that Star Wars, Avatar and Matrix couldn't stand on their own, without sequels. I vehemently disagree - Those are great film on their own, and their success was outstanding right out of the gate, when nobody knew there were gonna be sequels. If those were films that failed, and needed sequels to fix that failure, I will gladly fail in the same way. As will most writers.
            Last edited by tuukka; 06-14-2020, 01:50 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sci-Fi clichés

              Originally posted by tuukka View Post
              Films with fully established lore are of course ripe for sequels. The audience loves the world itself, to it's easy to write new story-lines in that beloved universe. SW is the prime example of this. For example Mandalorian was a huge hit, despite not having one single character from the films.

              But, your point is that Star Wars, Avatar and Matrix couldn't stand on their own, without sequels. I vehemently disagree - Those are great film on their own, and their success was outstanding right out of the gate, when nobody knew there were gonna be sequels. If those were films that failed, and needed sequels to fix that failure, I will gladly fail in the same way. As will most writers.

              Um -- Mandalorian -- 2 stars are "new" characters but we all are thinking of Boba Fett and Yoda and the whole series is that way -- but sure.

              I never said those movie could not stand on their own. In fact, I said The Matrix was better as one movie only.

              Someone in this thread was talking about how they don't like how much setup new worlds take -- then you said but these movies show you how to do that and get it all in there -- and I was simply pointing out that all the movies you used as examples have sequels -- thus saying -- they couldn't get all their ideas out in one movie. That's different than being a good solo film or standing on it's own.

              I was agreeing that Sci-Fi films with a lot of story building often don't turn out as well as The Matrix or Star Wars. Simple as that. A lot of the time, those solo movies fail because too many damn ideas.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sci-Fi clichés

                I haven't talked with Elon since college, but even though he is slowly losing his accent, he still fits the cliche stereotype of rich, evil megalomaniac with supermodel wife.

                From the headlines:

                Elon Musk a year away from creating Six Million Dollar Man through implanted chips'

                Billionaire Elon Musk says the chips, which will be implanted in human brains, will allow paralyzed people to walk again, similar to 1970s cult TV show The Six Million Dollar Man, starring Lee Majors...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sci-Fi clichés

                  Originally posted by Bono View Post
                  you said but these movies show you how to do that and get it all in there -- and I was simply pointing out that all the movies you used as examples have sequels -- thus saying -- they couldn't get all their ideas out in one movie. That's different than being a good solo film or standing on it's own.
                  Those films were stand-alone movies that became insanely successful and AFTER that more movies were written and made. They delivered exactly what they needed to deliver, they didn't more sequels because they couldn't get their ideas out in one movie. They got sequels because audiences were desperate for more.

                  Which is ultimate proof for how well they delivered their ideas.

                  None of those three movies were originally written as franchises. They were written as stand-alone movies.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X