Am I the only person who loves sci-fi but hates Star Wars?

mellowsun

Agree with @axisus .Sci Fi movies for me include films such as Alien, Sunshine, The Martian, Moon, Ex Machina

Star Wars is fun, but it's more LoTR fantasy/mythology than SF

WezV

decided to rewatch revenge of the sith after the most recent rebels double bill.

the cgi is so bad it's hardly watchable on a HDTV. 

Anyway, I like sci fi and I like fantasy, so it's a pretty perfect middle ground for me.  

A lot of sci fi relies on "what if" scenarios more than it does scientific accuracy.

next you will be trying to tell me Asimov isn't sci fi.

PolarityMan

Sporky said:

PolarityMan said:

Given sci-fi was extensively shaped by early pulp work I think some people are trying to retcon the definition. Usually these people want to differentiate between hard sci fi and other sub genres.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want some science in sci-fi. Though I'll concede that my previous mention of Greg Egan is definitely at the hard end of the spectrum.

In the 50's 3 syllable words counted as science....or witchcraft probably

mixolyd

For me the novelist and screenwriter Michael Marshall Smith got to the heart of what makes sci fi in the foreword to a novel I read years ago.

He was talking about what made the novels of Philip K Dick so special and the most adapted modern novelist by Hollywood: ideas.  He explained that in an action film you need an explosive piece of action in x minutes to make the genre work, PKD did the same thing but he gave us ideas instead of explosions.  Every few pages there would be another cracking idea or perspective-flipping twist.  This is what makes his work so incredibly attractive to the big studios and his novels so stunningly readable.

So sci fi isn't necessarily about science: it's about ideas, and new ones at that.  Star Wars had a few nice ideas in its world building but they were mostly just transplants from Kurosawa and Campbell.  In the course of the story Star Wars movies rely on explosions and melodrama just like any other modern action film so at heart it's an action film in a fantasy setting - anyone watching Star Wars for intellectual stimulation is going to find it very dull.

As for movies that rely on ideas I'd suggest Primer, anything by Nolan except Batman, a lot of Miyazaki (and anime in general) and of course the many adaptions and unacknowledged rip offs of PKD.

monquixote

WezV said:

decided to rewatch revenge of the sith after the most recent rebels double bill.

the cgi is so bad it's hardly watchable on a HDTV. 

Anyway, I like sci fi and I like fantasy, so it's a pretty perfect middle ground for me.  

A lot of sci fi relies on "what if" scenarios more than it does scientific accuracy.

next you will be trying to tell me Asimov isn't sci fi.

Asimov is pretty much the textbook definition of Sci-Fi. He establishes a "what if?" and the stories are about the consequences. I suppose that's why some people prefer to call it"speculative fiction".

It's only "Hard sci-fi" that has any real scientific content and I usually find that deathly dull. 

ICBM

WezV said:

decided to rewatch revenge of the sith after the most recent rebels double bill.

the cgi is so bad it's hardly watchable on a HDTV. 

The strange thing is that the CGI seemed to get worse through the prequels, rather than better. I actually think TPM is the best (or least bad...) of the three, and ROTS the worst, even though it has the most plot relevance to the original trilogy.

WezV

It's the plot relevance with the current rebels episodes and rogue one that made me consider a rewatch.

WezV

monquixote said:

WezV said:

decided to rewatch revenge of the sith after the most recent rebels double bill.

the cgi is so bad it's hardly watchable on a HDTV. 

Anyway, I like sci fi and I like fantasy, so it's a pretty perfect middle ground for me.  

A lot of sci fi relies on "what if" scenarios more than it does scientific accuracy.

next you will be trying to tell me Asimov isn't sci fi.

Azimov is pretty much the textbook definition of Sci-Fi. He establishes a "what if?" and the stories are about the consequences. I suppose that's why some people prefer to call it"speculative fiction".

It's only "Hard sci-fi" that has any real scientific content and I usually find that deathly dull. 

I agree.  i gre up on trek, outer limits and lots of B-movies.  the what if concept is a lot more important than the science.  I suppose some would argue its a thought experiment, so there is your science.

I recently re-read all of Asimov in chronological order.   takes a while when reading time is limited to an hour a day. He wasn't the best writer, and the science is thin - but the ideas give good stories. I would love an Asimov anthology series rather than another attempt to make an Asimov film.  We might get to the stage where that is possible at some point. 

thomasross20

Outer limits was awesome! 

Fyi I prefer force awakens to the latest star wars.

PolarityMan

monquixote said:

PolarityMan said:

Given sci-fi was extensively shaped by early pulp work I think some people are trying to retcon the definition. Usually these people want to differentiate between hard sci fi and other sub genres.

The definition of sci fi containing science is at least 50 years old.

There are virtually no hard sci fi films. The only one that springs to mind is the Martian.

2001/2010?

PolarityMan

WezV said:

monquixote said:

WezV said:

decided to rewatch revenge of the sith after the most recent rebels double bill.

the cgi is so bad it's hardly watchable on a HDTV. 

Anyway, I like sci fi and I like fantasy, so it's a pretty perfect middle ground for me.  

A lot of sci fi relies on "what if" scenarios more than it does scientific accuracy.

next you will be trying to tell me Asimov isn't sci fi.

Azimov is pretty much the textbook definition of Sci-Fi. He establishes a "what if?" and the stories are about the consequences. I suppose that's why some people prefer to call it"speculative fiction".

It's only "Hard sci-fi" that has any real scientific content and I usually find that deathly dull. 

I agree.  i gre up on trek, outer limits and lots of B-movies.  the what if concept is a lot more important than the science.  I suppose some would argue its a thought experiment, so there is your science.

I recently re-read all of Asimov in chronological order.   takes a while when reading time is limited to an hour a day. He wasn't the best writer, and the science is thin - but the ideas give good stories. I would love an Asimov anthology series rather than another attempt to make an Asimov film.  We might get to the stage where that is possible at some point. 

I can forgive all his flaws for coming up with psycho-history in 1942!!

WezV

And then later realising he meant Sociology

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

axisus said:

But yeah, other than Star Wars I absolutely love Sci Fi

Totally agree. Was never convinced by the bear come rug called chewing tobacco or something or those tiny Ewok things - then I found out they were only put in the film for merchandising opportunities so that put me off .. and the fans .. they're worse than Remoaners.

Somewhere in a Brussels negotiation room far far away...

Blueingreen

ICBM said:

Blueingreen said:

I don't really love sci-fi or hate Star Wars, but I do love some sci-fi and generally find Star Wars a bit meh.  Some of the "myth-making" elements I really did like, but the plots are boringly conventional and the prolonged battle sequences insufferably dull.  For a series of films that had the impact it had, I also find the original leads (Hammill/Ford/Fisher) remarkably uncharismatic,

The most charismatic was the one whose face you never see, and in fact the most important part of his character was another actor's voice…

And I say that from the point of view of a fan - it's just a different type of film from one that need charismatic leads. (And I slightly disagree about Ford, anyway.)

If you think the long battle sequences are dull you really need to see Rogue One, if you still have any interest - it has the best battle in the entire series.

My problem with battle scenes is I pretty much don't like them.  I know it takes flair and skill to do it well, but it'll never be my thing.

I have seen Rogue One.  It has to be ranked among the better ones (not that I've seen them all by any means): it knew what it wanted to do and did it with more vim and focus than some of the others.  But lots of it seemed incredibly second-hand, all the familiar buttons duly pushed (fiesty babe, child whose parents were ruined by persecution and has a date with destiny, comically anthropomophic and/or cute robots, zoomorphic aliens in wild west bar scene, people who turns out to be ace space pilots just when you need one, interminable battle scene etc etc).  I was left with the sense of having seen the same formula given a sleek, shiny makeover,  when I'd have preferred to see a movie that took a few more risks.