Movies Have Become Garbage

[Solver]

HP and LOTR are not sci-fi by any stretch. Spiderman or X-Men can be borderline sci-fi, but certainly not the sci-fi I want - I want thoughtful sci-fi, something intelligent, not glorified action hero movies.

[Jon Miller]

I actually often use science fiction and speculative fiction (Which include Fantasy) interchangably.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Where exactly are these numerous thoughful, intelligent sci-fi pictures of the past? You'd have to cherry pick to find them, really.

Recently we've had Minority Report (though, to be fair, the short story was far, far, far better), A Scanner Darkly, Children of Man. The Island was attempting to be intelligent. Thoughtful sci-fi is given far more of a chance these days than they have in the past.

Now if you want to strip out all action from these films then you are just not in touch with the monetary reality. If no one wants to see thoughtful non-sci-fi movies with no action, why would they want to see thoughtful sci-fi movies with no action (of course I'm not including comedies in there, witch don't usually have action, but people like)?

[Jon Miller]

Science Fiction has always had a lot of action/hero stories.

Nothing wrong with them.

JM

[Tingkai]

dude, Harold and Kumar go to White Castle (2004) is a ****ing classic. A groundbreaking movie, the first time a South Korean-Amer or an Indian-Amer. was the lead in a hollywood flik. It's the Animal House/Fast time at ridgemont high/Grosse Pointe Blanke of the 2000s

[Pekka]

Dude, Harold and Kumface was the worst movie in a LOOOOOOONG time. Almost as bad as Dude where's my car.

[Spec]

Nacho Libre sucked ass big time.

Spec.

[Solver]

Well, older sci-fi was a bit closer to the sci-fi books - that is, thoughtful and intelligent, which is why sci-fi books are good. I'm getting the feeling that modern sci-fi movies get too caught up in amazing CGI and such...

[Pekka]

Solver, well, you have to also see the fact that sci-fi has also changed during the years, in books that is. From utopia to dystopia. A different tone has been set at least from the 80s forward, maybe even 70s.

[Solver]

But at least it does remain, well, steadily thoughtful. Come to think of it, I haven't read too much recent sci-fi - a couple of novels by Harry Harrison, written around 2000, must be the most recent I've read.

[Pekka]

That's because you don't read in general. You just hog all the fast food entertainment, like a pig eating metal, wrong, but still consuming it. Processing things that wasn't meant for you to process, forgetting about the things you were supposed to process. A mindset of an alcoholic.

[Jon Miller]

There was tons of action/hero SF among the older stuff. In fact, it was more heavily of that type then SF is now. I mean, even Heinlen wrote hat type.

Only Baen is heavily focused on action/hero SF currently.

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
Dude, Harold and Kumface was the worst movie in a LOOOOOOONG time. Almost as bad as Dude where's my car.

Racist

Harold and Kumar is a classic .

[q=Solver]Well, older sci-fi was a bit closer to the sci-fi books - that is, thoughtful and intelligent, which is why sci-fi books are good. I'm getting the feeling that modern sci-fi movies get too caught up in amazing CGI and such...[/q]

Like what? Which movies? And did they actually do well at all at the box office?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Pekka
Dude, Harold and Kumface was the worst movie in a LOOOOOOONG time. Almost as bad as Dude where's my car.

man, you finns have no sense of humor

[Solver]

Well, Blade Runner would be a classic example. It was like a good book. Back to the Future had depth, being from 1985. Or The Thing.