Getting the U.S./Yanks out of our sci-fi
- Thread starter Blue Ghost
- Start date
It was Polish. Stanislav Lem.
Oops, I meant "Solaris", not "Starship Troopers".
Oops, I meant "Solaris", not "Starship Troopers".
Last edited:
Yes, I was wrong - Polish. And I even have a first printing in English of it from way back 
Planet of the Apes was French. Maybe I was confusing the two.
Regardless, I do agree that too much has been made of "military sci-fi", which itself is a fairly recent term, AFAIK. I certainly do not recall that being used in the early 70's.
But there are current authors who do not deal in it at least not exclusively - Lois McMaster Bujold, James P Hogan, S. M. Stirling, and there are others.
Planet of the Apes was French. Maybe I was confusing the two.
Regardless, I do agree that too much has been made of "military sci-fi", which itself is a fairly recent term, AFAIK. I certainly do not recall that being used in the early 70's.
But there are current authors who do not deal in it at least not exclusively - Lois McMaster Bujold, James P Hogan, S. M. Stirling, and there are others.
shadowcat20
SOC-12
First of all not all american Sci Fi is american based.
Both Webers Honorverse and Drakes Lt. Leary are based off of 19th century British Navy era. Great reads also.
Then there was the crew of the Enterprise, and tell me Space 1999 was American. Animae is also big in this country but is mostly Japanese or based in Japan. Even the new steampunk movement is trending towards Edwardian England.
As for vidio games Kids today are into Marines and shoot em ups. Your games tend to follow that theme and with cheap mega graphics and low attenion spans (Try to explane how to do something to teens, when they find out they can not master it in 30 minutes they lose interest).
Back in the 80's when your comp was a C-64/128 or 386/486 machine graphics were slow and blocky so content was more important. Now it is easier to throw graphics out there then to properly plot out a game. And shooters will not lose interest.
One of my favorite C-64 games was a space trade game called Elite with very basic stick outlines for ships. Kids today would walk away bored because nothing blew up big or you could not go down and land on planets and explore.
I guess that is why online games are popular, there is a neverending universe always expanding for them.
Thus ends another rambling rant,
Both Webers Honorverse and Drakes Lt. Leary are based off of 19th century British Navy era. Great reads also.
Then there was the crew of the Enterprise, and tell me Space 1999 was American. Animae is also big in this country but is mostly Japanese or based in Japan. Even the new steampunk movement is trending towards Edwardian England.
As for vidio games Kids today are into Marines and shoot em ups. Your games tend to follow that theme and with cheap mega graphics and low attenion spans (Try to explane how to do something to teens, when they find out they can not master it in 30 minutes they lose interest).
Back in the 80's when your comp was a C-64/128 or 386/486 machine graphics were slow and blocky so content was more important. Now it is easier to throw graphics out there then to properly plot out a game. And shooters will not lose interest.
One of my favorite C-64 games was a space trade game called Elite with very basic stick outlines for ships. Kids today would walk away bored because nothing blew up big or you could not go down and land on planets and explore.
I guess that is why online games are popular, there is a neverending universe always expanding for them.
Thus ends another rambling rant,
Trek was templated from the US navy. Space 1999 was just, well, awful. As for anime, one of the biggest franchises is Macross, and it ostensibly borrows heavily from the US Navy, and specifically carrier ops.
It could be I've just been too exposed to the stuff to know any better, but a lot of the commercially successful sci fi games and other media have a military component to them.
Planet of the Apes was French, and dealt with nativist fears.
It could be I've just been too exposed to the stuff to know any better, but a lot of the commercially successful sci fi games and other media have a military component to them.
Planet of the Apes was French, and dealt with nativist fears.
Rooster Cogburn
SOC-9
I think you are missing the point of some of the comments Blue Ghost. I'm not personally offended by the original post, however, I do perceive it as an attack on Americans. I have no problem with you having your opinion, nor would it lessen my ability to game with you if we happened to have the chance. Given the rampant anti-Americanism I have seen on these forums over the years, and seeing people (usually the American) get banned because of it, I am sensitive to the fact that your comment can be made with impunity and this thread will just devolve into one slight after another towards Americans.
Perhaps a pro-American slight is called for ...
Of course Sci-Fi is based on the American Military, if it was based on any European Military then it would not be Sci-Fi ... it would be either Fantasy or Comedy.
[This was just a joke. Please take it as such.]
Of course Sci-Fi is based on the American Military, if it was based on any European Military then it would not be Sci-Fi ... it would be either Fantasy or Comedy.
[This was just a joke. Please take it as such.]
Last edited:
I'm a little confused; is it Americans or the military that you have a problem with?
If it is Americans I suggest you write your own sci-fi and stop depending on others to produce it for you. BTW, Mark Miller lives in, and I assume is a citizen of, the United States of America.
If you have a problem with the militarization of sci-fi I again suggest you write your own. Alien invasion/Interstellar war are popular in sci-fi movies right now. This is a cyclical thing. If you don't like it you can contribute to changing the trend by not patronizing it. Again, BTW, Traveller careers dwell a lot on military types and the Imperium itself is, well, imperial with all that is implied in that word.
If it is Americans I suggest you write your own sci-fi and stop depending on others to produce it for you. BTW, Mark Miller lives in, and I assume is a citizen of, the United States of America.
If you have a problem with the militarization of sci-fi I again suggest you write your own. Alien invasion/Interstellar war are popular in sci-fi movies right now. This is a cyclical thing. If you don't like it you can contribute to changing the trend by not patronizing it. Again, BTW, Traveller careers dwell a lot on military types and the Imperium itself is, well, imperial with all that is implied in that word.
:rofl:Perhaps a pro-American slight is called for ...
Of course Sci-Fi is based on the American Military, if it was based on any European Military then it would not be Sci-Fi ... it would be either Fantasy or Comedy.
[This was just a joke. Please take it as such.]
Epee and Rooster, I am an American whose family has a military tradition going back to the founding of this nation, so just to make the point that I'm not being anti-American so much as I'm wondering about non-military sci-fi themes.
Normally this would not be a topic I would broach were it not for the slew of sci-fi shooters and a few big budget films that have hit the market in recent years. When this topic was tacitly brought up as subtopics in other threads, my usual reaction was to dismiss the notion. But the Halo film/games, regardless if it's being produced in New Zealand, "Battleship" the movie, the old venerable Alien franchise, "Avatar" which is ostensibly anti-military for no reason, and the plethora of FPS games with evil aliens as a theme (from DOOM to the present), just has me thinking a little about the topic.
On the other side of the coin, one of the games I hate the most is "Half Life 2", largely because the original Half Life took place within some unnamed American research facility in the fictitious Black Mesa in the middle of the mid-west. And then when the sequel rolls around we're dumped into some all embracing cultural game that takes place in some unnamed quasi-East European locale. I don't mind the shift in setting as long as it was explained, but it's like the origin of the game, when-where-and-why, was completely dismissed. The point here being that I still like stuff with the American stamp on it, but some of the material out there still has me wondering a bit.
But, like I say, it could be a matter of perception on my part. Still, "Avatar", for me, is ostensibly anti-U.S. military in theme and story, even though the U.S. is never specifically referenced. The mercenaries, who seemed to be deployed for no reason, are essentially U.S. military, or an homage to them (or even a comment on private military security). The natives are hostile. Why? I can't remember which came first, the mercs or the natives' grudge. But the mercs are there to deal with the natives.
"Battleship" deals with a US BB that fights an alien that's been submerged for a long time. It doesn't deal with that same BB trying to fight pirates in the Carribean or off the horn of Africa. It doesn't deal with that BB trying to fight North Korea, nor even red China. It can't because the film is slated for international audiences, and not just domestic consumption. Therefore REAL bad guys, like the North Koreans, the Russian military, the PLA Navy, pirates in whatever waters you imagine, or even the Gaza strip, are pushed away. Space aliens become the bad guys of choice. To which I reply, why even make the movie in the first place?
I've got tons of other examples. The truth is the media market is predominantly a global market for big name product, and I'm pretty sure that's intentional. But, if that's the case, then why not make more stuff in the vein of classic sci-fi instead of trying to take weak pot-shots at the US and its military?
Time to find another job
BBL
Normally this would not be a topic I would broach were it not for the slew of sci-fi shooters and a few big budget films that have hit the market in recent years. When this topic was tacitly brought up as subtopics in other threads, my usual reaction was to dismiss the notion. But the Halo film/games, regardless if it's being produced in New Zealand, "Battleship" the movie, the old venerable Alien franchise, "Avatar" which is ostensibly anti-military for no reason, and the plethora of FPS games with evil aliens as a theme (from DOOM to the present), just has me thinking a little about the topic.
On the other side of the coin, one of the games I hate the most is "Half Life 2", largely because the original Half Life took place within some unnamed American research facility in the fictitious Black Mesa in the middle of the mid-west. And then when the sequel rolls around we're dumped into some all embracing cultural game that takes place in some unnamed quasi-East European locale. I don't mind the shift in setting as long as it was explained, but it's like the origin of the game, when-where-and-why, was completely dismissed. The point here being that I still like stuff with the American stamp on it, but some of the material out there still has me wondering a bit.
But, like I say, it could be a matter of perception on my part. Still, "Avatar", for me, is ostensibly anti-U.S. military in theme and story, even though the U.S. is never specifically referenced. The mercenaries, who seemed to be deployed for no reason, are essentially U.S. military, or an homage to them (or even a comment on private military security). The natives are hostile. Why? I can't remember which came first, the mercs or the natives' grudge. But the mercs are there to deal with the natives.
"Battleship" deals with a US BB that fights an alien that's been submerged for a long time. It doesn't deal with that same BB trying to fight pirates in the Carribean or off the horn of Africa. It doesn't deal with that BB trying to fight North Korea, nor even red China. It can't because the film is slated for international audiences, and not just domestic consumption. Therefore REAL bad guys, like the North Koreans, the Russian military, the PLA Navy, pirates in whatever waters you imagine, or even the Gaza strip, are pushed away. Space aliens become the bad guys of choice. To which I reply, why even make the movie in the first place?
I've got tons of other examples. The truth is the media market is predominantly a global market for big name product, and I'm pretty sure that's intentional. But, if that's the case, then why not make more stuff in the vein of classic sci-fi instead of trying to take weak pot-shots at the US and its military?
Time to find another job
BBL
Rooster Cogburn
SOC-9
Okay, I get where you are coming from. Again, I didn't take it personally, but the way I was reading it I was looking at was totally flipped. As my leadership coach would say, 'my hot button was pushed'.
Thanks for clarifying.
I also come from a family with a military tradition (hopefully someone will pick up the tradition and I'm not the last) and I hate how Hollywood depicts the US & the US military. I generally would love to see more martial themes in sci-fi, but from a more understanding and realistic angle. I wonder if Jerry Pournelle would be willing to write a screenplay based on some of his books. I'd be surprised that anyone in Hollywood would be willing to produce it.
Thanks for clarifying.
I also come from a family with a military tradition (hopefully someone will pick up the tradition and I'm not the last) and I hate how Hollywood depicts the US & the US military. I generally would love to see more martial themes in sci-fi, but from a more understanding and realistic angle. I wonder if Jerry Pournelle would be willing to write a screenplay based on some of his books. I'd be surprised that anyone in Hollywood would be willing to produce it.
Ridley Scott picked up the rights to The Forever War a couple years or so ago and planned to begin work on it after Prometheus was finished. He claimed after the release of the latter that he was all excited about working on science fiction again and wanted to make two more films that take place in the Blade Runner/Prometheus-type universe which may or may not mean The Forever War is on hold. He is pretty spotty on details these days, and had claimed to be working on Replicant Nights (KW Jeter) for more Blade Runner before sidetracking to Prometheus so who knows.
I just hope The Forever War doesn't end up either locked in a vault forever or that Verhoeven gets a hold of it. It would be a shame for that work to be turned into another crappy film so that no one ever wants to redo it later.
I just hope The Forever War doesn't end up either locked in a vault forever or that Verhoeven gets a hold of it. It would be a shame for that work to be turned into another crappy film so that no one ever wants to redo it later.
Epee and Rooster, I am an American whose family has a military tradition going back to the founding of this nation, so just to make the point that I'm not being anti-American so much as I'm wondering about non-military sci-fi themes.
Normally this would not be a topic I would broach were it not for the slew of sci-fi shooters and a few big budget films that have hit the market in recent years. When this topic was tacitly brought up as subtopics in other threads, my usual reaction was to dismiss the notion. But the Halo film/games, regardless if it's being produced in New Zealand, "Battleship" the movie, the old venerable Alien franchise, "Avatar" which is ostensibly anti-military for no reason, and the plethora of FPS games with evil aliens as a theme (from DOOM to the present), just has me thinking a little about the topic.
On the other side of the coin, one of the games I hate the most is "Half Life 2", largely because the original Half Life took place within some unnamed American research facility in the fictitious Black Mesa in the middle of the mid-west. And then when the sequel rolls around we're dumped into some all embracing cultural game that takes place in some unnamed quasi-East European locale. I don't mind the shift in setting as long as it was explained, but it's like the origin of the game, when-where-and-why, was completely dismissed. The point here being that I still like stuff with the American stamp on it, but some of the material out there still has me wondering a bit.
But, like I say, it could be a matter of perception on my part. Still, "Avatar", for me, is ostensibly anti-U.S. military in theme and story, even though the U.S. is never specifically referenced. The mercenaries, who seemed to be deployed for no reason, are essentially U.S. military, or an homage to them (or even a comment on private military security). The natives are hostile. Why? I can't remember which came first, the mercs or the natives' grudge. But the mercs are there to deal with the natives.
"Battleship" deals with a US BB that fights an alien that's been submerged for a long time. It doesn't deal with that same BB trying to fight pirates in the Carribean or off the horn of Africa. It doesn't deal with that BB trying to fight North Korea, nor even red China. It can't because the film is slated for international audiences, and not just domestic consumption. Therefore REAL bad guys, like the North Koreans, the Russian military, the PLA Navy, pirates in whatever waters you imagine, or even the Gaza strip, are pushed away. Space aliens become the bad guys of choice. To which I reply, why even make the movie in the first place?
I've got tons of other examples. The truth is the media market is predominantly a global market for big name product, and I'm pretty sure that's intentional. But, if that's the case, then why not make more stuff in the vein of classic sci-fi instead of trying to take weak pot-shots at the US and its military?
Time to find another job
BBL
You missed some. The various Transformers movies come to mind - and highlight a point. It's not about bashing the American military (and most don't - I wouldn't have called "Battleship" a bash movie). It's not about pushing American might. It's about giving the masses what they want - and with the U.S. currently being the largest economy, a fair chunk of those paying masses are U.S. (Seems to be changing lately. I wonder if Hollywood can adapt.)
When Hollywood wants to wet its feet in the sci-fi pool, it more typically throws in very simple conventions that the mass audience can easily hook into, then throws a lot of special effects and pyrotechnics into the work, and it makes money. Usually doesn't win awards, but it makes money, and that's what its mostly about. There are a handful of producers that Hollywood trusts to push the envelope, but as a rule Hollywood prefers to stay in its comfort zone.
As much as I love sci fi, it's generally been a niche product. There've been some great exceptions to the rule - 2001, for example - but unless they've bought into the Hollywood recipes, they've been exceptions, not the rule.
Same rule applies to television, though to a lesser extent, and it isn't just about American stuff. They're willing to take a few more risks, but if it doesn't take off, then they chuck in a nice cheap reality show instead. Dr. Who is frankly absurd but reasonably; it persists for decades on a fairly straightforward and predictable, though entertaining, recipe of having Doc and his buddies defeat the weird baddie of the week. But ... they cancel Firefly. That kinda hurt.
shadowcat20
SOC-12
Firefly,Terranova, Hopefully the idiots will not go the same way with Revolution.
Funny thing is Revolution is very close to some S.M. Sterling stuff with the exception of the lockets and working gunpowder.
I tend to like military sci fi for my reading pleasure but still remember some good non military Sci fi. Outland is the first that comes to mind, fantastic voyage, or even total recall and the Terminator series. Lots of shooting and blowing things up but not really military based.
Now a lot of the recent stuff out (Battle for LA, Battleship, Expendibles 1 and 2, and Avitar) all seem to cater to the blow em up for whatever reason crowd. Even the Horror stuff now (Resident evil, walking dead, blade, and assorted others) have gone away from scary to just massive firepower and killing things.
But on the flip side some of the classic good stuff is also military based. (Star wars, BSG old and new, B5, even Firefly had a military background)
Short attention spans require lots of explosions to keep them interested I guess.
And for the record I like em too....
Funny thing is Revolution is very close to some S.M. Sterling stuff with the exception of the lockets and working gunpowder.
I tend to like military sci fi for my reading pleasure but still remember some good non military Sci fi. Outland is the first that comes to mind, fantastic voyage, or even total recall and the Terminator series. Lots of shooting and blowing things up but not really military based.
Now a lot of the recent stuff out (Battle for LA, Battleship, Expendibles 1 and 2, and Avitar) all seem to cater to the blow em up for whatever reason crowd. Even the Horror stuff now (Resident evil, walking dead, blade, and assorted others) have gone away from scary to just massive firepower and killing things.
But on the flip side some of the classic good stuff is also military based. (Star wars, BSG old and new, B5, even Firefly had a military background)
Short attention spans require lots of explosions to keep them interested I guess.
And for the record I like em too....
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Good science fiction film has always been rare.
SF is just a label for, "technical doubletalk equals magic," or "it's the future, so anything can happen," in most films. Whether it's electricity, atomic radiation, the internet, space rays, space warps...it's just an excuse for setting up the questionable plot.
SF film is Sturgeon's Law to five decimals.
Yet...occasionally...a Gattaca or 2001 or Lathe of Heaven slips out. Something that is a decent "think piece" that uses the genre well (though LoH wanders into fantasy to some degree, it's OK because the "What is Reality?" question is the SFnal thrust.)
Right now it's hokey military against non-real-world-ethnically-identifiable aliens. Those aliens (once they've demonstrated that they're unsympathetic baby-eaters with no ethnic overtones), zombies, and Nazis are the bad guys the mainstream is comfortable with. And overbearing, foulmouthed Americans.
Or cold, calculating Englishmen, but that's more common outside SF, which loves the English accent more than the mainstream blockbuster.
This will run it course, just as radioactive mutations and people getting sucked into computer networks did (though neither is completely dead.) Superhero fantasy is the prevailing form of "SF" in the market segment, now, I believe. At least in terms of film budgets and box office. I've enjoyed some of the superhero films, but it galls me to think someone pitching, say, The Demon Princes might get turned away because the studio's SF film quota has been filled with:
Two remakes with a weaker script but CGI effects,
Two sequels with changes that ruin the franchise's premise,
Three superhero movies, and,
One "pet project" that's poorly written, shot, directed, and edited but it's being made to demonstrate that actress X can perform a "serious role" because she appears as a moderately plain looking, not overtly sexy woman in a film with a tangled unreadable plot that involves technology or phone lines or post-modern alienation or something.
Our only chance is that the pet project accidentally turns out to be something good. It's like waiting for "Springtime for Hitler" to happen in real life.
SF is just a label for, "technical doubletalk equals magic," or "it's the future, so anything can happen," in most films. Whether it's electricity, atomic radiation, the internet, space rays, space warps...it's just an excuse for setting up the questionable plot.
SF film is Sturgeon's Law to five decimals.
Yet...occasionally...a Gattaca or 2001 or Lathe of Heaven slips out. Something that is a decent "think piece" that uses the genre well (though LoH wanders into fantasy to some degree, it's OK because the "What is Reality?" question is the SFnal thrust.)
Right now it's hokey military against non-real-world-ethnically-identifiable aliens. Those aliens (once they've demonstrated that they're unsympathetic baby-eaters with no ethnic overtones), zombies, and Nazis are the bad guys the mainstream is comfortable with. And overbearing, foulmouthed Americans.
Or cold, calculating Englishmen, but that's more common outside SF, which loves the English accent more than the mainstream blockbuster.
This will run it course, just as radioactive mutations and people getting sucked into computer networks did (though neither is completely dead.) Superhero fantasy is the prevailing form of "SF" in the market segment, now, I believe. At least in terms of film budgets and box office. I've enjoyed some of the superhero films, but it galls me to think someone pitching, say, The Demon Princes might get turned away because the studio's SF film quota has been filled with:
Two remakes with a weaker script but CGI effects,
Two sequels with changes that ruin the franchise's premise,
Three superhero movies, and,
One "pet project" that's poorly written, shot, directed, and edited but it's being made to demonstrate that actress X can perform a "serious role" because she appears as a moderately plain looking, not overtly sexy woman in a film with a tangled unreadable plot that involves technology or phone lines or post-modern alienation or something.
Our only chance is that the pet project accidentally turns out to be something good. It's like waiting for "Springtime for Hitler" to happen in real life.
I would qualify this in that I am talking about Traveller only here. As far as sci-fi goes, I'm thankfull for whatever is there; the great movies like Forbidden Planet, Blade Runner, etc. are real jems to be savored for sure, but I'm not really critical of the bad stuff; bad sci-fi is better than no sci-fi. Some stuff can't be American, Dr Who not British? That's absurd. Reading stuff like Perry Rhodan, it was odd that he was American, but whatever.
One of my favorite sci-fi films is "Tron", the original back in 1982. A lot of people dismissed it as a simple computer adventure story where some people roam around and play video games. If that's all you take away from it, then that's okay. The audience doesn't have to be a group of deep thinkers, but I think the material in that film is incredibly deep and layered with meaning. And, in spite of the cyber tanks stalking the virtual world, it is a traditional non-military sci-fi film.
I bring up TRON because it it's one of those mythological films that the more you watch it, the more you take away something that's worth contemplating. Or, like Leonard Nimoy said about Star Trek when he played Spock, you can watch that show as a simple adventure show/story in space, but when you mature a little you see it with different eyes, and realize "a-ha! there was an idea there!"
And I guess that's kind of my real beef with a lot of military or even superhero sci-fi today. It strikes me more as teenage fodder for the blow-em-up crowd, than anything that has anything relevant to say. With TRON you have a man who's transported to an unfamiliar world, and once his identity is revealed, the people ("programs") inhabiting the computer world think of him as something divine. He even has "divine" power of sorts because of who he is, but even though he's there to help set things right, he too is mortal. I mean, there's stuff operating there that really should make you think if you watch it with a critical eye more than twice. But with stuff like the Transformer movies, or Green Lantern, or the Avengers, it's really so dumbed down several shades that I have a hard time stomaching them.
The messages in today's sci-fi are kind of in your face and preachy on a 3rd grade level. Again, "Avatar" comes to mind with its "don't repeat Vietnam with county-X" theme working in it, and "date more, fight less, and date people outside your social sphere....etc." That verse, oh, say a story arc of Dr. Who. The Doctor always had some wisdom to impart to characters and audience.
I bring up TRON because it it's one of those mythological films that the more you watch it, the more you take away something that's worth contemplating. Or, like Leonard Nimoy said about Star Trek when he played Spock, you can watch that show as a simple adventure show/story in space, but when you mature a little you see it with different eyes, and realize "a-ha! there was an idea there!"
And I guess that's kind of my real beef with a lot of military or even superhero sci-fi today. It strikes me more as teenage fodder for the blow-em-up crowd, than anything that has anything relevant to say. With TRON you have a man who's transported to an unfamiliar world, and once his identity is revealed, the people ("programs") inhabiting the computer world think of him as something divine. He even has "divine" power of sorts because of who he is, but even though he's there to help set things right, he too is mortal. I mean, there's stuff operating there that really should make you think if you watch it with a critical eye more than twice. But with stuff like the Transformer movies, or Green Lantern, or the Avengers, it's really so dumbed down several shades that I have a hard time stomaching them.
The messages in today's sci-fi are kind of in your face and preachy on a 3rd grade level. Again, "Avatar" comes to mind with its "don't repeat Vietnam with county-X" theme working in it, and "date more, fight less, and date people outside your social sphere....etc." That verse, oh, say a story arc of Dr. Who. The Doctor always had some wisdom to impart to characters and audience.
You know, I think sci-fi is going to go through a major and very painful shift soon. I think the genre's reached critical mass, and people are just tired of it for now. That's just my gut feeling--I don't know for certain either way.
Naw, people love, "what if", stories; sci-fi will endure and, if anything, the genre is branching out. No longer is sci-fi a niche in itself, rather it contains niches; shoot-em-up action, comedy, adventure, drama, etc. Of course the entertainment industry being what it is, for every "Citizen Kane" you get a thousand "Big Daddy"s. Likewise some "thinking-man's" sci-fi slips under the radar, marketed as romance or comedy, even though it contains a critical plot device that is pure sci-fi; "Eternal Sunshine on the Spotless Mind" is one such.
Personally, I enjoy a good alien invasion story. I consider it one of my sinful pleasures in that the rest of my household, except my son (God bless him), are rather "less-than-thrilled" about most of the genre. I deeply enjoy more cerebral sci-fi also but alien invasion is my movie "junk-food".
My son and I recently watched "Battleship" and, after the scathing reviews, I was pleasantly suprised. Not that I'm holding out that "Battleship" is some hidden gem, but it was fun and I appreciated that the aliens behaved, not like unreasoning monsters, but like soldiers; hauling gear and supplies, building things, and even not especially bloodthirsty when confronted by what they considered a non-threat. Of course that could have been included in a far better written plot but I look for the good among the bad and vice versa.
Personally, I enjoy a good alien invasion story. I consider it one of my sinful pleasures in that the rest of my household, except my son (God bless him), are rather "less-than-thrilled" about most of the genre. I deeply enjoy more cerebral sci-fi also but alien invasion is my movie "junk-food".
My son and I recently watched "Battleship" and, after the scathing reviews, I was pleasantly suprised. Not that I'm holding out that "Battleship" is some hidden gem, but it was fun and I appreciated that the aliens behaved, not like unreasoning monsters, but like soldiers; hauling gear and supplies, building things, and even not especially bloodthirsty when confronted by what they considered a non-threat. Of course that could have been included in a far better written plot but I look for the good among the bad and vice versa.
Last edited:
I don't think so. The public loves flash and glitz, and sci-fi themes offer boundless opportunities for flash and glitz. They always have. Even back in the day, the big draw of sci fi films for the masses wasn't cerebral plotlines. It was bizarre hideous monsters, people turned into skeletons by alien blasters, the Blob oozing through ventilation ducts to devour the occupants of a movie theater. It's been going on since Flash Gordon hit the theaters in 1936.
When Star Wars ads first hit the TV, my first thought was, "Oh my god! Flash Gordon sci fi! What have we come to?" And that's exactly what it was: blasters, light sabers, bizarre aliens, making the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs. Some farm boy heads off into space to oppose an evil personified in a black-armored magus who goes around throttling people with his mind, and our unlikely hero's able to destroy the magus' moon-sized mobile doomsday fortress by pumping a single torpedo through a tiny vent - one of the most dunderheaded engineering design failures in real OR fictional history. (One wonders if some low-level engineer on the design team wasn't in fact a Rebel sympathizer.)
But ... it was an immensely popular hit. It legitimized the science fantasy genre. Generated no less than 5 sequels/prequels, may just generate more, revived interest in sci fi, possibly responsible for persuading the studios to take a chance with Alien, a movie version of Star Trek, and other noteworthy projects - and also responsible for such lamentable copycats as Battle Beyond the Stars. (All I can say is, Robert Vaugh must have been pretty desperate for a role.)
Horror runs much the same way. There's Nosferatu, Alfred Hitchcock's multiple works, and other classics - and then there's Revolt of the Zombies and Abbot and Costello Meet (fill-in-the-blank). Cowboy movies, same. War movies, same. Sports movies, same. It's just a fact of movie-theater life: for every producer/director willing to put some quality into their work, there are ten looking for a quick buck and an audience willing to give that to them.
