[X] My Assistant

[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

[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

[dvandorn]

...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.

This is what David Brin calls, very eloquently, "energetic arm-waving." You reach a point in extrapolating science that all you really end up doing is waving your arms energetically through the air... You can make it sound like real science, but it's not based on anything that can even be remotely extrapolated from current theory. (I will say that Brin does this quite well in his novels.)

-the other Doug