Why no new movies made from science fiction novels? Options

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

That's a question posed by Kevin Drum on his blog at The Washington Monthly.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Some bits of replies:

-true sci-fi is though-provoking, even when it deals only with technology/way of life changes, not to speak on their political/philosophical implications. Doing a sci-fi movie alway more or less implies showing things which are not common, which may even shock some.

-There was recently several high budget sci-fi movies, which were really just... fiction, but not science. Of course such movies are deceptive for people with a science education, but they are also decei^ptive for everybody, as, past the false science, there are only the same standard plot and characters of the movie industry. So these movie did not so good than expected... and the movie industry becomes shy about new such movies.

I however think it don't cost more money to make a good movie than a bad one, but it requires more thinking by able people.

Good sci-fi movies would require:
-true science, the science of the scientists, not of the medias or nutters.
-showing what this science changes for the characters, into their everyday life, into their way of thinking, society, etc... This requires a reflection into technology, way of life, social, etc.
-not being a science paper, but a life story with emotions, human characters, human stakes...
-a different yet realistic/coherent environment, but still allowing understanding from the comparizon with our usual environment.
-A good music

[David]

Most movies made from novels, or other written media, are made within a few years of the novel's appearance -- obviously, to capitalize on the novel's popularity. Novels that have been on the shelf awhile are less likely candidates for movies, and if they are not made immediately, the rights can lie around on a movie company's shelf, or worse yet, get tangled up in the very complicated intellectual property disputes that constantly bedevil Hollywood. Until the past decade or so, technological difficulties made it difficult to make quality science-fiction movie without considerable lead time, and even now the amount of money and skills investment is quite large. Most science fiction is not something you can march out to location and shoot.

This leads to the next problem: where is the high-quality, filmable, and popular science fiction of recent date? What sf books have hit the best-seller lists in the past year or two, and is it the kind of thing that's worth filming or possible to film?

[dvandorn]

A few points:

1) You have to define what you mean by a "science fiction" movie. There have been any number of fantasies released in the past 5 years, many of them of the sf variety (but still solidly fantastical -- I include space opera, such as Star Wars, in this category). In terms of "true" science fiction, I think the last film made that qualifies for that title might be "Space Cowboys."

2) Of what is called by Hollywood "science fiction," more than 50% of the films in the last ten years have been based (loosely or otherwise) on works of Philip K. Dick. Now, Phil Dick was an extraordinary writer, I grant you -- but he did not write "hard" sf. He wrote sociological sf more than anything else, which merely uses scientific "gadgetry" to discuss, highlight and define elements of the human condition that are really independent of their technological trappings.

3) There has been quite a lot of "soft" sf in theaters and on TV in the past several years -- everything from the Sci-Fi Channel's big Speilberg project, "Taken," to Ashton Kutcher in "The Butterfly Effect," to an upcoming TV series based on Turtledove's Harry Dresden books (though they change Dresden's first name). There has even been some hard sf ("A.I.," "Mission to Mars," a few others), but I don't think the hard sf has been any smaller a percentage of sf/fantasy films than it ever was... there just hasn't been all that much hard sf, as a percentage of all sf/fantasy, at any time. It's not just today's films that suffers from this low percentage.

4) I think that, as with anything, the presence or absence of sf in the popular media is in the eye of the beholder. Heck, I find a lot of interesting science fiction in nearly every news broadcast I see these days...

-the other Doug

[dvandorn]

Just as an addendum, as to the specific paucity of films being made from sf novels -- those that are being made are being made from *old* novels and novellas. Like that Will Smith abortion of an excuse for an Asimov robot story ("I. Robot"), or even the Tom Cruise vehicle "Minority Report" (based on a Phil Dick novella from the '70s).

I think one reason why you don't see many films lately based on *recent* sf novels is due to changes in the printed product over the past several years. For example, let's say you want to film a novel of David Brin's. You have three choices -- you can film "Earth," you can film "The Postman" (which they did -- badly), or you can decide just where and how you want to try and bite film-sized chunks out of his Uplift saga. Do you make a single film out of it? Set up a series of films? Do a regular TV series? Or maybe a series of mini-series specials?

You have the same problem, in spades, if you want to try and film any of Lois McMaster Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan saga... way too much story for a single film.

I think that the publishing industry, in pushing book series (three, five, seven, eleven books long -- the longer the better, these days), are making it a lot harder for the format of the feature film to be able to glean much out of the printed genre...

-the other Doug

[volcanopele]

The only one I know of that's in pre-production is Rendezvous with Rama. Morgan Freeman, doing research for the movie (his production company is making it and supposedly he is staring in it as well), stopped by our lab last year when I got to meet him.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Just as an addendum, as to the specific paucity of films being made from sf novels -- those that are being made are being made from *old* novels and novellas....

I think that the publishing industry, in pushing book series (three, five, seven, eleven books long -- the longer the better, these days), are making it a lot harder for the format of the feature film to be able to glean much out of the printed genre...

I don't disagree with any of that, Doug. And I would only add that Hollywood producers don't seem to feel as if they need a good SF story (presumably from a proven SF author) to begin with. Minority Report is a notable exception but a lot of SF-class movies seem to be "CG-effects-initiated" rather than vice versa. SFX/cause rather than cause/effect, one might say.

[Guest_Myran_*]

Most films have been mentioned here I think, but I add one more:

My own favourite author Arthur C. Clark with the story "The Hammer of God" wich were loosely adopted for the film Deep Impact.

[dvandorn]

In re good old A.C. Clarke -- in some ways, the *only* true sf movie would have to be a faithful adaptation of a Clarke story.

If you apply that standard, only one real sf movie has ever been made -- 2010. That is the only example of faithfully filmed Clarke that has ever been attempted (and it does rather well, overall).

-the other Doug

[dvandorn]

Yes, Alex, I'll agree with you -- SFX seems to drive the stories, not serve them, in Hollywood these days. There are thousands upon thousands of decent, filmable sf stories out there that languish because they're not big, glittery SFX vehicles. And when someone does try to bring a good sf story to the screen, it ends up being chopped into mush by studios that want to add elements like wisecracking detectives and neat-o morphing robots to a classic tale such as "I, Robot."

No one ever had the guts to film Harlan Ellison's "I, Robot" script -- which was vastly superior to the Will Smith abortion that came out recently. It told the story with beauty and elegance, getting elements of many of Asimov's short stories into it and wrapping up a story of vast scope in a decent 2-hour feature film format. I'm not the world's biggest Harlan fan, but this was a fine script. It, not what eventually got produced, is what deserved to be made.

-the other Doug

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Yes, Alex, I'll agree with you -- SFX seems to drive the stories, not serve them, in Hollywood these days. There are thousands upon thousands of decent, filmable sf stories out there that languish because they're not big, glittery SFX vehicles. And when someone does try to bring a good sf story to the screen, it ends up being chopped into mush by studios that want to add elements like wisecracking detectives and neat-o morphing robots to a classic tale such as "I, Robot."

The fundamental problem is that SF is, for all practical purposes, a niche market. Hollywood produces movies for mass marketing purposes, so it's really no surprise that good SF stories are mangled or even ignored. Indeed, it makes economic sense for Hollywood to produce its own story lines by eliminating the SF author from the equation. I'm reminded of the quote (paraphrasing) from the Tim Robbins character in Robert Altman's satire The Player: "If only we could eliminate all these directors and actors too, then we'd have something."

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

The fundamental problem is that SF is, for all practical purposes, a niche market. Hollywood produces movies for mass marketing purposes, so it's really no surprise that good SF stories are mangled or even ignored. Indeed, it makes economic sense for Hollywood to produce its own story lines by eliminating the SF author from the equation. I'm reminded of the quote (paraphrasing) from the Tim Robbins character in Robert Altman's satire The Player: "If only we could eliminate all these directors and actors too, then we'd have something."

Err... It may be that you made the point, here. And SF is not the only victim of this "phenomenon".

But, I think, good movies, whatever they are SF, magic, society, etc... will attract all the public, not a niche market. Compare for instance "third kind encounters", a scientist's movie, with "ET", which was done for just the pleasure on the same theme, but with a much more moving story: ET did at least as well than the first. I think it attracted many people who were not already interested into SF or ET life. Also look at the success of "The Lord of the Rings" on also a very complicated and specialized theme.

I think it must be the same with scifi movies. A scifi movie, even with good science (not to speak of fancy science), but with only the rituellic Holywood stuff and characters (the honest heroe, the cynical with a great heart, the crying woman, the paranoïd army man, the Black to show we are not racist, etc) will attract only scifi lovers. But a great movie, with a realistic or moving story, everyday life characters and good music will attract everybody.

This is what happened with "starwars" (although there is no real science in) which attracted many people and still do it decades after, where movies like "armagedon" were just shooting stars.

So the good recipe for a scifi movie would be a compelling story like "Starwars" or "The Lord of the rings" but with real science in. (Or rather realistic extrapolations of real science).

The recipe to do a bad scifi movie and commercial flop is as follow: -take a new compelling or odd science theme, for instance black holes. -Carefully select persons completely ignorant in science to speak of it and make images -add to this a standard ready made Holywood story (the crying woman, the paranoid robot, etc) -Put money in it. That gives "black holes", which was a real commercial/artistic waste (likely you don't even remember) on a theme which however had the potential of really shaking viewers out of their seats.

Removing SF authors from the equation? It is like removing the locomotive of a train, because it is the only part which don't make profits. Because the authors are the people with the ideas, with the skill of writing compelling stories. In more, for a scifi writer, they must have a real science background.

It is costless to write, so that many people can do it, including gifted authors. But making a movie is very expensive, so that only money people can do it. And in general money and ideas don't go together in the same person. So money people, able to make movies, can work only with ideas people, able to write good stories. And money people must develop some humility, heed idea people's requirements, not impose their "adaptations to the market", because this market is interested by the ideas, not by the "adaptations". Only good movies made from good ideas can really interest the public and earn money. One good movie is much less expensive that ten bad ones, but it can earn much more money than these ten together.

If there is a movie maker reading this...

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

If there is a movie maker reading this...

I say this because I have ideas, hey hey

[Stephen]

Some bits of replies:

-true sci-fi is though-provoking, even when it deals only with technology/way of life changes, not to speak on their political/philosophical implications.

This is hardly unique to sci-fi. Historical fiction, for example, can also deal with "technology/way of life changes, not to speak on their political/philosophical implications".

As for the "though[t]-provoking" bit, a good satire can be that without necessarily being "sci-fi".

Good sci-fi movies would require:
-true science, the science of the scientists, not of the medias or nutters.

Define "true science" and "nutters".

Most if not all sci-fi involves some degree of extrapolation and speculation about future science, even if only to provide background to the novel or movie. The farther you go into the future (or the more advance the aliens etc the novel or movie has) the more speculative the science will inevitably become and the more tenuous the connection between the extrapolated science in the novel or movie and the actual scientific knowledge of the present day.

If you go far enough ahead you potentially run up against Arthur C Clarke's famous maxim: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

-showing what this science changes for the characters, into their everyday life, into their way of thinking, society, etc... This requires a reflection into technology, way of life, social, etc.
-not being a science paper, but a life story with emotions, human characters, human stakes...
-a different yet realistic/coherent environment, but still allowing understanding from the comparizon with our usual environment.
-A good music

How does this distinguish a good sci-fi movie from good movies in general?

======
Stephen

[ElkGroveDan]

That's a question posed by Kevin Drum on his blog at The Washington Monthly.

It wasn't a good adaptation, but Dune comes to mind.