Sunday, February 24, 2013
(Insert more creative tittle than "evaluating Sci-fi" here)
I don't see why we have to evaluate science fiction any differently than we evaluate all movies. After all, even though sci fi is considered a different genre, it is still a movie. There are many other movies that make (or attempt to make) predictions about the future, deep metaphors/questions about life/whatever it is we decided sci fi was trying to get at when we answered the last question. Technology in all movies eventually becomes outdated- the cameras when film was first getting started compared to the cameras now can barely be considered on the same playing field (did I get that analogy right? Also, was that the correct use of analogy? But anyways...) Just because the movie is considered science fiction does not mean that we should treat the special effects any differently than the special effects of a movie in a different genre. However, that being said, I do believe that we have to take the time into some consideration. Like "those special effects were great... for that time" or "______ movie came out at the same time as _________ but the special effects were so much better." I think that science fiction shouldn't be evaluated any differently from any other (narrative) movie that we see/evaluate, however it is that we do that. I feel like I'm contradicting myself. Whatever. Opinion of the moment stated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand your point about needing to take the time to consider the technology used to actually make different science fiction films-I agree that the technology used is an important aspect of the film and therefore must be addressed by the evaluation. But do you really believe that there is nothing else that we can evaluate science fiction films on. Today in class we discussed technology's role in sci fi films and the fact that most of these films either prescribe to the idea that advanced technology is for the better or the idea that it is for the worse. Isn't the treatment of technology in a science fiction film something we can evaluate?
ReplyDeleteHow DO you suggest we evaluate films in general, then? Who is qualified to make such evaluation? What makes a "good" film good? I think it's impossible to define a way to decide this, because any system that could apply to all films would have to be so broad and vague that it would really just be useless. Sure, a sci-fi film is still a film, but it is identified as such because it has certain qualities that separate it from films of other genres. Therefore, it should be treated differently than, say, a rom-com, or a horror film. Each needs its own system of evaluation.
ReplyDeleteYour post seems to be a little flip, all the way down to the title. Don't just throw stuff out there and not give it a second thought. You say, "There are many other movies that make (or attempt to make) predictions about the future, deep metaphors/questions about life/whatever..." Do you mean there are non-science fiction films out there doing this? Name a few.
ReplyDeleteOf course you can evaluate sci fi based on its cinematic elements and use of cinematic language, just like any other film. But don't we evaluate other films on "originality" and "independent thought" as well? In the case of sci fi, the originality comes into play through the predictions about the future, right?
We cant evaluate all movies the same, we cant really compare a Sci-Fi film to a comedy. As Mr. B said we can evaluate any film based on its cinematic language just like any other film, but we don't evaluate every film the way we evaluate Sci-Fi films. We look at these films and see their predictions of the future and that is how we usually compare them.
ReplyDeleteI think we have to evaluate Sci-Fi differently because of the different aspects that are involved like the futuristic machinery and the changing societly. These factors are highly different from what you would see in a comedy, so it wouldn't make sense to judge both as the same genre.
ReplyDelete