too much sometimes IS enough
May. 10th, 2007 02:42 pmTwo reviews of Danny Boyle's new movie "Sunshine" (by Grant Watson and Marcus Chown) and Lucius Shepard's recent rant have convinced me to commit to something I've been inching up on for a while now.
From this moment henceforth, I refuse to see a serious science fiction movie (i.e. one we're supposed to take seriously, rather than, say, Fantastic Four) in which scientific knowledge and the people employed in the pursuit thereof are needlessly treated badly.
In other words, I'm boycotting science fiction movies that contain overtly crap science unless there's some kind of pay-off for putting up with it.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Is it so wrong to want movie-physics (say) to bear at least a passing resemblance to the physics surrounding us in our everyday lives? Or to wish that scientists were rounded characters, with the same depth of being that other characters in the movie enjoy? Failing both of these, could we at least have something else in exchange? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind explored powerful and thought-provoking themes through extraordinary direction and performances. Armageddon (like so many others in its league) did not.
I'm amazed that we settle for anything else. No one would watch a thriller that wasn't thrilling or a romantic comedy with unlikeable leads. A movie set in post-war Italy wouldn't include the Grand Canyon and icebergs just because the director felt like it. Why should the relationship between science and science fiction be any different? There's enough sense-of-wonder to be had out there without getting things so terribly, terribly wrong--and good special effects are the standard now, not the major drawcard they used to be.
Movies that let me down this way drive me mad. Since I don't want to be mad, I'm going to stop supporting the Big Dumb SF Blockbuster industry. No one in Hollywood will notice, I'm sure, but I'll feel better for it.
From this moment henceforth, I refuse to see a serious science fiction movie (i.e. one we're supposed to take seriously, rather than, say, Fantastic Four) in which scientific knowledge and the people employed in the pursuit thereof are needlessly treated badly.
In other words, I'm boycotting science fiction movies that contain overtly crap science unless there's some kind of pay-off for putting up with it.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Is it so wrong to want movie-physics (say) to bear at least a passing resemblance to the physics surrounding us in our everyday lives? Or to wish that scientists were rounded characters, with the same depth of being that other characters in the movie enjoy? Failing both of these, could we at least have something else in exchange? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind explored powerful and thought-provoking themes through extraordinary direction and performances. Armageddon (like so many others in its league) did not.
I'm amazed that we settle for anything else. No one would watch a thriller that wasn't thrilling or a romantic comedy with unlikeable leads. A movie set in post-war Italy wouldn't include the Grand Canyon and icebergs just because the director felt like it. Why should the relationship between science and science fiction be any different? There's enough sense-of-wonder to be had out there without getting things so terribly, terribly wrong--and good special effects are the standard now, not the major drawcard they used to be.
Movies that let me down this way drive me mad. Since I don't want to be mad, I'm going to stop supporting the Big Dumb SF Blockbuster industry. No one in Hollywood will notice, I'm sure, but I'll feel better for it.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 06:22 am (UTC)When I think of how much good TV they could make with the money they spend on dumb blockbusters, I want to weep. Which is why I'm so cranky about them at the moment. More Cube's and Primers, please, and less War of the Worlds (unless it's the musical version, of course!).
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 06:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 06:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 06:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 06:46 am (UTC)Viva la difference, anyway. I love that we can disagree and still be buddies. That's partly because you haven't wasted $30 million on a giant turd and forced me to pay you to see it (it might be different, otherwise) but mainly because all those arguments we have are just bitchin' fun. Life would be really dull if everyone agreed.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 06:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 07:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 11:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 02:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 11:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 11:00 am (UTC)The intarweb will certainly give you a fair idea of crapness, with forums and rotten tomatoes etc., not just one given source's person.
and speaking of not paying attention to movies (or much of the media at all), what is Sunshine?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 10:56 pm (UTC)I will wear my buttattoo with pride!
no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 07:36 am (UTC)I haven't seen Intacto, but am curious now. Thanks for the tip. I haven't seen Open Your Eyes either. Maybe I should, um, open mine.