On modern sci-fi movies
Mar. 16th, 2005 07:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearInspired by a post on the fact that paramount's looking at a new Star Trek movie, taking place between Enterprise and TOS.
very much "pre" production, as in a script is written and they're director-shopping. that's about it. no cast, and of course it'll suffer from having no familiar characters at all (unless they drum up the millions it'll take to get brent spiner to reprise Data's creator, and given that his appearance on Enterprise didn't so much as budge the ratings, the value of that has shrunk considerably).
really, right now the value of the franchise is nil, the media saturated. If i were a stockholder, I would be selling my stock in Paramount right now 'cause this is a sure sign that they have no real imagination or marketting at all that they can't work with a creative writer to come up with a whole new franchise. Particularly with Star Wars finally ending this year, and it'll be years before The Hobbit (if at all), there's a gap for a new sci-fi movie franchise series.
and trying to name something "star trek" will really just set too high an expectation, one which *nothing* has been able to meet. Basically, Star Trek 2 simply set the bar too high and nobody has been able to figure out what made it that way.
better to create a world with no expectations, which has its own problems, but can still be successful if done well enough for word of mouth the make it work.
yes, in the sci-fi world its hard to get original enough for fandom to take seriously, but if you're going that way, that's what it takes. the "casual" star trek fan that kept the old series alive in syndication and TNG so highly rated is gone. Fantasy is "in" (LotR, Harry Potter), and if you go sci-fi, "in" today is sci-fi comedy (Hitchhikers, Red Dwarf, though both are riding on long-established fan bases, especially from the UK) following the success of Men In Black and Galaxy Quest. Even I,Robot (good as it was), suffered from popularizing the work by using Will Smith as the lead strictly for name-brand talent (and maybe "to attract some of the black audience", although the movie and Smiths performance were done in such a way as to show that he was human first, black second, as it should be. the script as written could have let a white guy in that place with few changes).
really, the expectations in sci-fi are simply too high. as each super movie dramatically raises the bar (and sets a standard for a million clones) it gets all that much harder to raise it again. Yet movies that come after that at least hold to that standard (or give moderate improvements) in effects AND STORY don't see the returns to match. By not dramatically raising the bar, they don't attract the audience and end up hollywood flops.
I Robot was well done, but it wasn't "enough" to get even moderate fan-boy ME to get out of the house to go see it in the theaters. Hell, neither Shrek 2 nor the Incredibles managed to get me to adjust my busy schedule for them. Then again, neither did ST-X.
Which all makes me realize -- movies in theaters have to now compete not just with each other, but with home video/dvd archives AND with television. in short, a good sci-fi movie has to be incredibly good to get people to come see it instead of the incredible works they already have that are still worth re-watching. Consider The Matrix and Lord of the Rings I. Aside from their sequels, did anything made since they came out come close?
Only Star Wars 1 and 2, both riding on a long-established fanbase, and both seriously disappointing that fanbase. But at least the fanbase came out to see the Star Wars films (and will again in 2 months). The same can't be said for Trek, if you look at ST-X's numbers. There simply are too many other things casual Trekkers can do than go see a Trek film, so the Trek film has be insanely good to get them to pay up. Berman is not going to do it.
very much "pre" production, as in a script is written and they're director-shopping. that's about it. no cast, and of course it'll suffer from having no familiar characters at all (unless they drum up the millions it'll take to get brent spiner to reprise Data's creator, and given that his appearance on Enterprise didn't so much as budge the ratings, the value of that has shrunk considerably).
really, right now the value of the franchise is nil, the media saturated. If i were a stockholder, I would be selling my stock in Paramount right now 'cause this is a sure sign that they have no real imagination or marketting at all that they can't work with a creative writer to come up with a whole new franchise. Particularly with Star Wars finally ending this year, and it'll be years before The Hobbit (if at all), there's a gap for a new sci-fi movie franchise series.
and trying to name something "star trek" will really just set too high an expectation, one which *nothing* has been able to meet. Basically, Star Trek 2 simply set the bar too high and nobody has been able to figure out what made it that way.
better to create a world with no expectations, which has its own problems, but can still be successful if done well enough for word of mouth the make it work.
yes, in the sci-fi world its hard to get original enough for fandom to take seriously, but if you're going that way, that's what it takes. the "casual" star trek fan that kept the old series alive in syndication and TNG so highly rated is gone. Fantasy is "in" (LotR, Harry Potter), and if you go sci-fi, "in" today is sci-fi comedy (Hitchhikers, Red Dwarf, though both are riding on long-established fan bases, especially from the UK) following the success of Men In Black and Galaxy Quest. Even I,Robot (good as it was), suffered from popularizing the work by using Will Smith as the lead strictly for name-brand talent (and maybe "to attract some of the black audience", although the movie and Smiths performance were done in such a way as to show that he was human first, black second, as it should be. the script as written could have let a white guy in that place with few changes).
really, the expectations in sci-fi are simply too high. as each super movie dramatically raises the bar (and sets a standard for a million clones) it gets all that much harder to raise it again. Yet movies that come after that at least hold to that standard (or give moderate improvements) in effects AND STORY don't see the returns to match. By not dramatically raising the bar, they don't attract the audience and end up hollywood flops.
I Robot was well done, but it wasn't "enough" to get even moderate fan-boy ME to get out of the house to go see it in the theaters. Hell, neither Shrek 2 nor the Incredibles managed to get me to adjust my busy schedule for them. Then again, neither did ST-X.
Which all makes me realize -- movies in theaters have to now compete not just with each other, but with home video/dvd archives AND with television. in short, a good sci-fi movie has to be incredibly good to get people to come see it instead of the incredible works they already have that are still worth re-watching. Consider The Matrix and Lord of the Rings I. Aside from their sequels, did anything made since they came out come close?
Only Star Wars 1 and 2, both riding on a long-established fanbase, and both seriously disappointing that fanbase. But at least the fanbase came out to see the Star Wars films (and will again in 2 months). The same can't be said for Trek, if you look at ST-X's numbers. There simply are too many other things casual Trekkers can do than go see a Trek film, so the Trek film has be insanely good to get them to pay up. Berman is not going to do it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 02:10 am (UTC)actually, its 'cause it didn't help the ratings...
Date: 2005-03-17 03:06 am (UTC)consider that DS9 took on lesbian issues at one point (the mirror-Kira) and Voyager had an openly gay couple mentioned in one or two episodes.
but it didn't change anything. its only controversial now if its in "normal" TV -- sci-fi is already expected to take on issues like racism, superiority, sexual identities, etc, because they can detach it from 20th century society by making it "alien" or "in the distant future". as such, it has already numbed fandom (who are collectively too intelligent to be disturbed by it in the first place), and isn't doing anything to attract new eyeballs.
Trust me, Law & Order (especially SVU) hardly qualifies for boring and "safe". The intelligent TV is out there (fewer and far-between), but outside of the new Galactica, its not sci-fi, because intelligent sci-fi with controversial topics didn't bring in any more viewers than the much-cheaper-to-write-for Angel and Buffy stuff.
Yeah, it would be nice if there was some other means of showing intelligence on TV besides crime-dramas, but that's the state of the nation today.
Maybe the new Dr. Who might be different. I'm not sure what's the big thing in Britain right now, as most shows we get are old, and the better ones like Ab Fab and Red Dwarf haven't had anything new in years, in the latter's case 'cause the movie's taking so much effort to make.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 03:38 am (UTC)I think cost is a huge factor also. A wand or some make-up for fantasy is a lot cheaper than the CGI that SF fans demand. It’s been my experience that SF fans really do demand quality storytelling. The farther you get from the everyday the more attention to detail the universe requires.
I loved The Invisible Man and Farscape but I think, for the number of viewers, they were too expensive. SF has always had a fringe audience so unless the show happens to be "hot" there just isn't the viewer-ship to support it. SG1 isn't that expensive because other than the gate, and the rare flight scene, it isn't any different than your standard military show.
Quality TV right now is still in the dramas, Lost or House plus, as you mentioned, the L&O franchise. And HBO, I would be lost without HBO.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 04:01 am (UTC)hence my note that the movies have raised the bar so high it takes too much to meet it, and just meeting it simply isn't enough anymore.
My personal fav of the "recent" sci-fi (flops) was NBC's Earth 2. Different, yet not stuck in a contrived dramatic situation like the war used in its contemporary, Space: Above and Beyond. E2 didn't require all that much in the way of effects so the storytelling had to be strong, and in my opinion, it was. Plus, it was true science-fiction of the old-school style in that the bureaucracy and the "hidden" element within the governing system itself were the true enemies. Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Wells, Ellison, Sagan all wrote stories of that nature, and E2 handled the genre very well (albiet leaving much unfinished because of the show's early demise).
None of HBO's recent series have impressed me. Sopranos, Oz, Carnivale, SitC. to me, dulls-ville or (in the dramas) so *intentionally* aggressive in trying to be cutting age that its pretentious. in a sense, its trying so hard to look authentic, so hard not to look like it babies the setting, that it exaggerates to a degree that i find unconvincing and artificial. as such, they don't hold my attention at all.
What I've Heard...
Date: 2005-03-17 05:44 am (UTC)(snipped)
There simply are too many other things casual Trekkers can do than go see a Trek film, so the Trek film has be insanely good to get them to pay up. Berman is not going to do it.
Well, your last sentence is truer than you know, from what I've heard. The folks at Paramount don't want Rick Berman involved with this. They've led people in the "business" to believe that they are going to let the Star Trek franchise rest for a couple of years due to over-saturation. Coincidentally, Rick Berman's contract is up about that same time. If they even start work on this project before then, contractually, Berman must be involved. So, it will be a while before we hear anything solid on this new Trek outing.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 02:19 pm (UTC)OOoo, I beg to differ. Fantasy right now has as high or higher CGI quotient than does sci-fi. Even on TV, they're resorting to it. The 'Earthsea' thing, 'Merlin', even as far back as 'Hercules' and 'Xena', they were using it (admittedly less often, but moreso due to budget constraints than to lack of interest on the part of the viewership).
With Fantasy fans, the *more* fantastical you can make it, the happier they will be.
The favorite scenes from the most recent Harry Potter film were Harrys flight with Buck Beak and the Dementors. Whereas, with Sci Fi, things seem to be taking more of a "Drama set in the future" tack. The new 'Battlestar' is one (and they admitted it on the interviews aired the night the new show premiered).
I think Joe's right...things come in shifts where it concerns what's popular. Take a look at the underlying message of 'Toy Story'. Woody is deposed from his place of prominence because the new big thing is a space ranger. Toys, like film, come in waves (sometimes the one is even impacted by the other).
:::wondering whether Westerns *will* be the next major film genre to (re)gain popularity:::
Re: What I've Heard...
Date: 2005-03-18 02:25 pm (UTC)I always thought that the Series finale of "ST:TNG" would have made a much better film than that Gawd-awful "Generations" flick. I'd love to see more writing like that for the big screen.