Potentially Great Sci-fi Films Still Due In 2011 342
brumgrunt writes "With Source Code already attracting strong reviews, the signs are good that 2011 will be a solid year for sci-fi. Den Of Geek has tracked down 10 upcoming sci-fi movies worth keeping an eye on" The nice thing about this write up is that it's not about the summer blockbuster brand of sci-fi, but mostly about the (somewhat) more traditional stuff. Here's hoping there's a few gems worth getting a babysitter for.
Lets face it (Score:5, Interesting)
most of these will be unbelievably terrible, just like the Transformers movies or the recent Battle of LA movie. Or that Number 4 movie.
Sci-fi is very, very difficult to translate to the screen. Hollywood has shown no interest in doing it right except in spite of itself when an unusually talented director with loyal producers and deep pockets reigns control of the project (Alien, Bladerunner, etc). A typical Hollywood sci-fi production simply takes the place of a summer action blockbuster. There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.
I'm pretty happy with sci-fi literature and comics. These forms work well both economically (small production not indebted too deeply to publishers) and artistically (no CGI, no egotistical actors). Dunno, but everytime I see "upcoming scifi movie" I cringe at how terrible its going to be and I'm almost always right.
One missing! (Score:4, Interesting)
The one I'm most waiting is not in the list. Iron Sky.
http://www.ironsky.net/ [ironsky.net]
Re:Lets face it (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing I don't get is that it should be easy for Hollywood to put pulp sci-fi on the big screen. There's a whole subgenre that used to be one of the most popular parts of science fiction which is essentially exactly the big budget, over the top action that they crave for a summer blockbuster. Instead of using that source material, they insist on taking the mostly highly cherished, highest quality, most in-depth and artistic sci-fi they can find and massacre it to fit the summer blockbuster formula.
Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that when they do take that into account, you get shit like "Warehouse 13", which is a SyFy series that has nothing even remotely to do with science and is all about hunting down magical objects as a plot tool to get an attractive red head and an attractive dark haired guy together into romantic psueodo-Moonlighting situations to attract female viewers.
And then films like MOON are regarded as "so fucking boring - turned it off" by mouth breathers.
Re:Ringworld... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ringworld, on the other hand, is a special-effects masterpiece waiting to happen. The storyline is simple, the beauty of the story is visualizing the engineering involved
Yet the dialog, as with a lot of Sci-Fi, is absolutely awful. Truly terrible.
The ring itself would make for good imagery, although I expect that any director that has played Halo would bring certain visual clues along with them...
Re:Ringworld... (Score:5, Interesting)
When the hell is someone worth a fuck going to make a Ringworld movie?
There's so much great SF that no one will touch; Heinlein got raped with Starship Troopers, but The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a much better story.
Or maybe Lazarus Long...
James P. Hogan's Giant's series would make a great set of movies; it seems like all hollywood wants to do is regurgitate crap.
How could you translate the Ringworld stuff to the screen? You'd need like 5 hours of setup just to get into the main plot line. That is really the crux of the problem with Scifi and movies. There's so much supporting material that needs to be in place to make good Scifi that you just can't do it on the screen in any reasonable amount of movie time. I would love to see those you listed translated to the screen, but even The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would need to be 4 to 5 hours long to be done properly. The others... much longer. Think LotR at best.
The same goes for Enders Game ... I just can't see how you can translate that to the screen in under 10 hours and still have a coherent, interesting story that is true to the original. I fear the movie is going to suck something fierce.
Re:So let me get this straight. (Score:5, Interesting)
Any geek with actual cred would know that the movie was an adaptation of the John Campbell Jr. story "Who Goes There" and that Carpenter's version was much more faithful an adaptation than the original, actually using the original premise of a shapeshifting monster and even keeping the blood test. If it was a ripoff of the 1951 version, why did it put back all the things that weren't in the 1951 version?
Re:You are not a target market. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the current distribution and marketing methods are beginning to see competition... which means a golden age might just be ahead of us. Iron Sky may or may not represent the dawn of that age (not released yet), but the mechanisms are falling into place.
I look forward to the day that the current distribution and marketing methods are the ones who are OVER. We'll get much better quality on everything, all the way around, thereafter.