Cora Spondence wrote yesterday about the lack of critical acclaim for science fiction, and I commented that it’s because sci-fi starts with, imagine. The Twilight Zone literally started with it. The Academy doesn’t want any part of it. They want simple archetypes. Every single year the Best Actress Oscar goes to a hot chick playing an ugly chick that overcomes hardship: Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, Halle Berry, Hillary Swank (twice). The Best Actor Oscar goes to a big star playing someone with a disability: Tom Hanks (twice), Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Russell Crowe. I will give credit to the Academy for giving the Best Picture award to some decent films recently: The Departed, The Lord of the Rings, Chicago, Gladiator. None of them are sci-fi and none of them are particularly imaginative. LOTR, the story, was imaginative when Tolkien wrote it seventy-five years ago. The Departed, which I really liked, is a remake of a Hong Kong action flick called Infernal Affairs from 2002. I thought that was plagiarism, but Matt Damon and Jack Nicholson were in it so it must have been the best.
Sci-fi has to be the exact opposite of other genres. It always has to be original. I think the best example is M. Night Shyamalan. The Sixth Sense isn’t better than Unbreakable or Signs, it just came first, and then he got stuck playing the same riff. Jim Carrey, on the other hand, can play the exact same note over and over again and not lose a thing. We want that from him. The reason Battlestar Galactica works is because the writers took a Star Wars rip-off with a great premise that they loved as kids and turned it on its ear. They recast a bunch of male characters as females, ratcheted up the intensity, scraped away the cheez, and constantly ask, “What would happen if…” Sci-fi has to make the audience think and a lot of times it forces us to think about things we’d rather not, which is why it has trouble with critics. Most good sci-fi isn’t optimistic about the future of humanity. Most good sci-fi follows the theme of Planet of the Apes; we’re all chimps and it’s just a matter of time before we burn everything to the ground. No one, not even you Cora, left Blade Runner humming the soundtrack.
Sci-fi also has to overcome working without a net. There is no emotional context available before the show. When Shakespeare movies are made the period is often moved, whether it’s Hamlet moved from the 14th century to the 19th or Romeo & Juliet moved to the 1990’s. Both were adored by critics. Titus, which is Titus Andronicus moved into the future, didn’t seem to work because the audience had to struggle to make references. The masses think Terminator 2 is better than the original because there are already emotional connections to the characters. WARNING LJ IS ABOUT TO FLUNK A GEEK TEST AND PROCEED INTO TEMPORAL PHYSICS : The Terminator was a great sci-fi movie and went into great detail explaining why T2 or any subsequent sequel couldn’t happen. First, the reason Arnold is covered in flesh is because only organic material can travel through time. Second, the machines sent Arnold back; the humans sent Reese back and smashed the time machine or at least were in control of it. The machines couldn’t send back Robert Patrick or Kristanna Loken because they never could have been developed, and if they could have been developed the machines just would have sent back three Kristanna Loken models to the three different time periods since she was, by far, the most advanced. But neither Robert Patrick nor Kristanna Loken could have come back through time because they were both liquid metal and not organic as it was explained in the first movie. So it's absolutely impossible for The Terminator sequels to be better than the original since they couldn't happen. Dick Sargent is not Dick York.
Wow! That got out of hand quickly. Maybe critics just don’t like dealing with people like me, which I completely understand.
4 comments:
For a lover of opera and musical theater, I don't really need everything explained. IMAGINE works just fine for me. If a 300 pound soprano who is supposedly dying of starvation and consumption can muster up the strength to sing a 20 minute aria, you don't need to explain the transportation of organic matter through time travel.
Honey, you didn't flunk the Geek Test, you've become their king. Don't even get me started about the Terminator sequels. When you talk about disrupting the time line, which they obviously did in the first one, there should have been a completely different scenario for T2 and T3. Although I am a Robert Patrick fan, and I was glad he was able to get work.
I love that you get that great sci-fi is often dark and deadly. After the multi-colored optimism of Close Encounters came the mother of all dark sci-fi flicks, the original Alien. "In Space, no one can hear you scream." Not even a young and buff Yaphet Kotto could make it out alive.
Yep, we're going to need our own support group.
You guys have very high sci-fi standards. I love T1 and T2. They're both "the willing suspension of disbelief" (remember that one, Cora?)
"Dick Sargent is not Dick York" - that could be a whole 'nother post. Dick Cheney is not...Dick Van Dyke? I don't know, I have to work on that.
The middle paragraph of this post was crystal clear and really deep. It made me see why you like sci-fi so much. I was also reminded how dark it is in there--in your mind. I'm glad you have an outlet that lets you imagine and I hope sometimes the outcome is a good one.
Post a Comment