too much sometimes IS enough

[adelaidesean]

Two 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.

Comments

[gumnut.livejournal.com]

Logic. That wonderful little scientific law that makes so many clocks tick and computers compute is so often absent in the land of movie making.

It's when the movie becomes something other than the story. When it becomes a special effect ::lets blow up the White House:: or a computer game ::insert Star Wars one thru three here:: or merchandise ::Jar-Jar must die:: or a target audience ::young Anakin Skywalker with the doofy haircut please step up to the podium:: is when the movie drifts and plotholes are allowed and logic goes out the window.

I'm sorry Lucas is getting chewed on here, but he lines up so nicely to be shot down in this category.

I can see the discussion now...studio execs on one side writers on the other, one saying that the explosion would be just cool, the other screaming that liquid nitrogen doesn't react that way.

Who is going to get the vote? Unfortunately the movie business works just like any other, on dollar signs.

And now I've just trashed Star Wars (only the first three :D) after having babbled about sci-fantasy, but then scientific laws or no, you can't disguise bad writing.

And I am so babbling all over your journal. Apologies. You picked on something that really bugs me about television and movie writing in general. I have been known to yell at the TV.

Hmm, I think I'll shut up now and go and find some dinner. ::wanders off::

Nutty
(who was glad to finally see you in three-dimensions at the meeting tonight. You are definitely an entertaining speaker, young man ::grin::)

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

Hey, thanks! I was really just directing traffic. :-) Sorry we didn't get to chat. Next time, I'll leave my Chair's hat at home.