CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › The "28 Days Later" problem in Sci-Fi scenarios

The "28 Days Later" problem in Sci-Fi scenarios

Started by granitepilot2 · · 👁 4 views · 4 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants granitepilot2Jessica Nguyen85Jack Bailey80coastalpanther43
granitepilot2 granitepilot2 MemberOP
36 messages
joined Apr 2012
#1 ·
So, I caught 28 Days Later by Danny Boyle yesterday—the camerawork and direction were killer, acting was alright, but the script? Absolute garbage.

It feels like it’s been ages since we’ve seen a Sci-Fi flick with an actual, decent plot (well, except for Solaris, but I haven't seen it—I just know the story). Compared to the massive amount of brilliant Sci-Fi literature out there—stuff that's actually interesting, consistent, logical, and believable—today's movies are just mindless, banal junk focused on flashy visuals rather than substance. Why does this happen? Why is there such a massive gap between top-tier Sci-Fi books and these bottom-of-the-barrel movies?
Jessica Nguyen85 Jessica Nguyen85 Active Member
162 messages
joined Jul 2003
#2 ·
Why is there such a massive gap between high-quality Sci-Fi literature and those total dud movies?

In my view, the heart of Sci-Fi lies in the core idea and the specific atmosphere built around it—something that feels fresh and original. Also, there aren't actually that many Sci-Fi novels that stick to a classic 'setup-conflict-resolution' structure. One of the best at balancing a wild concept with an actual compelling plot is Philip K. Dick. Personally, I think it’s incredibly difficult to translate a 'pure' Sci-Fi concept into the language of cinema. Honestly, > isn't even the pinnacle of Sci-Fi writing—not within the genre, and maybe not even for Philip K. Dick himself—but it works beautifully on screen when you have a talented director behind it. It’s rare for a great Sci-Fi premise to align perfectly with its cinematic presentation, but when it happens, you get a masterpiece like >. So, the divide really comes down to the sheer effort and the level of talent a director needs to sync up the elements of two different media: the novel and the film.

Regarding >—personally, I don't think Soderbergh even came close (it might be better if he just stayed away from Sci-Fi altogether). And while Tarkovsky definitely captured the essence of the idea, he made a film that's basically unwatchable for a general audience. Then you have someone like Spielberg, who overdid it with formalism and, frankly, went overboard with the sentimentality in both > and >. As for >, that's just a kid's movie.

The only genre mashup that really makes Sci-Fi work for me is horror-action-Sci-Fi, which grabs the best parts of both worlds—think > or >. That horror/action edge provides the necessary thrill, preventing the story from becoming just a long, drawn-out meditation on "what if" scenarios.
There's also this other subgenre I’d call 'weird' Sci-Fi. It isn't really about technology; it's more about mind games, consciousness, drugs, and things like that... similar to >, >, or mostly just > type stories.

> and one more thing—> is >, not Sci-Fi. 😉
Jack Bailey80 Jack Bailey80 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Jun 2003
#3 ·
Oh, you’re way off base there, my friend;
Star Wars is pure space opera—just a little sister to the Science Fiction genre...
By the way, whatever happened to that rumor about someone finally filming Hyperion?
Is it actual news or just more hype?
Jessica Nguyen85 Jessica Nguyen85 Active Member
162 messages
joined Jul 2003
#4 ·
Star Wars is a space opera

Oh... now I get why I can't quite wrap my head around Star Wars. People say it's an opera, and apparently, you either love it or hate it—there's no middle ground.😉
Since we're drawing parallels to music, I’d honestly just call Star Wars a 'boy band.' Opera is way too subtle. Or so they tell me.
coastalpanther43 coastalpanther43 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Jun 2003
#5 ·
Sure, space opera technically falls under the sci-fi umbrella, but it’s basically the black sheep of the genre—the kind of thing hardcore sci-fi purists pretend to hate while secretly devouring 😁 behind closed doors.

Look, Star Wars is just some lighthearted nonsense for kids, though Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace is just pure, obnoxious nonsense for kids.
Still, I guess they're the only tolerable roles Harrison Ford has ever played (maybe excluding Indiana Jones, if you're feeling generous)... so there you go.

Real sci-fi: but what about those total B-movies from the 50s and 60s? Don't forget Predator (even the sequel!) or some absolute trash like John Carpenter's Dark Star. Heck, throw in Red Dwarf, even if it's a series—those two together would basically define the whole comedic sci-fi subgenre.😎

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads